What of when spouses want to sexually express themselves to each other but aren't particularly excited by what may have aroused them before? Are they doomed to an unexciting sex life that bores them? Not at all! Whether by natural inclination or because of an eventual boredom, some spouses will want or come to want sexual variety.
After all, 1) sexual tastes can wildly vary from individual to individual (sexual morality is objective but sexual desires are entirely subjective to each person), and 2) people may grow weary of their usual sex habits and come to want more creative sexual expression. One person may be sexually excited at the thought of BDSM-style sex, another person may be repulsed. One may find the thought of having sex in public view of others thrilling and another person may be very frightened by this prospect. These feelings and perceptions are purely subjective. Some people may find themselves developing a desire to try something like BDSM or public sex [1], the desire not existing earlier in their lives.
Adventurous spouses could try different positions, locations, and techniques as they sexually engage each other. They can also experiment with different styles of foreplay. Foreplay is an act or series of acts intended to sexually arouse the mind, body, or both the mind and body of a partner before sexual intercourse--or as its own self-contained sexualized activity that does not lead to actual sex. Oral sex, fondling, and various forms of masturbation, whether one or both spouses masturbate in each other's presences, represent just three of many examples of this. They could play games. They could get more physically aggressive if they so wish (aggressive sex and nonconsensual sex are different and do not have to overlap at all). There are many combinations or approaches they could use, if they feel like it! Mixing various foreplay techniques and sexual behaviors and locations up regularly can create or recreate an atmosphere of excitement.
People still have to handle the more creative or alternative desires correctly, though. If a spouse wants to engage in more aggressive sex or some kind of BDSM or any other "nonconventional" sex act, then he or she must remember the Biblical requirement of "mutual consent" [2]--no sexual desire morally justifies pressuring a spouse into doing what he or she does not want to. Nonconsensual sex is never permissible. Manipulating or pressuring a spouse into performing a sexual act is never permissible (Deuteronomy 22:25-27, 1 Corinthians 7:3-5). Mutual consent is an omnipresent moral demand of sexual behaviors!
Since humans are not telepathic beings, spouses will have to communicate any desire for sexual variety that they have directly to each other. Don't expect a being that cannot see into the minds of others to just know when a desire for variety comes about. Just like in other areas of marriage, and in all other relationships, including friendships, communication is indispensably important here! Spouses need not gratuitously feel ashamed of making their more adventurous desires known. If they do not want to do something that contradicts Scripture there is no sin in their desire or in translating that desire into action. There is no sin where there is no moral law (1 John 3:4)--and there is no moral law that has not been revealed in some way in Scripture (Deuteronomy 4:2). No one will find any legalism or sexual prudery on this blog.
People are free to express their sexualities in any way that does not violate revealed sexual morality! For some, this realization may be the cause of great relief, joy, and liberation.
[1]. As long as it is purely consensual (and it doesn't violate other moral obligations--committing adultery because your spouse consented to it is still wrong), husbands and wives can express their sexualities in more unconventional ways. As long as there is definite consent and no injury, there is nothing wrong with BDSM. Public sex is not itself wrong (Deuteronomy 4:2) and neither is watching and taking pleasure from observing sexual acts, though many evangelical Christians might say otherwise.
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/sexuality-in-marriage-part-1-mutuality.html
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Handling Depression
Depression is a vicious monster, a deep sadness that goes beyond the sadness resulting from what some would call a bad day. It can be mild or severe and can afflict numerous people quite differently. How should Christians with depression handle their condition? I am writing this post largely out of concern for the large number of those around me who suffer from some sort of depression (at church, my college, and perhaps in my family). Several years ago I did not understand depression as I do now; now I have seen just how destructive and cruel it can be in the lives of those around me. This monstrous mental shackle can make simple tasks seem exhausting and can sap the vitality and will to live from those who suffer from it. Side effects or direct results of it can include anything from a sense of aimless frustration to apathy or an inability to experience emotional pleasure (to a small or great extent).
Telling depressed people to just "do" simple things they may have trouble with isn't helpful. Actually, it's rather asinine. Just as someone cannot live easily with a damaged limb, someone cannot live easily with mental illness or mental pain. Imagine yourself having a natural state of sadness that makes you rarely want to socialize outside of a small group of friends or see the public or visit stores to obtain things you need to survive. Now imagine someone telling you to just "get over it". I hope you see how this poor, pitifully inadequate advice does not help emotionally or mentally.
Remember that if Christianity is true, meaning and human value remain fixed and outside of our feelings--meaning our mental health does not determine if God loves us and does not distort our moral status before God. Having depression is not sinful and depression does not mean that you aren't loving God enough. Simply trying to will the deeper aches of this condition away will not help at all, and loving God will not necessarily alleviate the pain. Any pastor or Christian who says otherwise does not understand the concept of depression or its multiple faces. People who try to blame someone else's depression on his or her lack of love for or commitment to God may be well-meaning, but they are useless.
While I do not at all think I have suffered anywhere near as severely as some I know, I have experienced periods of mild to deep depression. Although depression could easily be coupled with an existential crisis, mine seems to be more existential than not, meaning mine is not so much a depression I've always carried within me but one that developed during my intense examination of philosophy and theology (epistemological limitations and the things they prevent me from knowing terrify me). But some things have helped me. Things that have enabled me to cope with this are friends, entertainment, and prayer. I find that I am far less depressed during times where I regularly hang out with my handful of close friends. Since we are social beings (Genesis 2:18) and I am a very extroverted person, this does not surprise me at all. I also enjoy entertainment (music, movies, and video games), and sometimes relaxing and watching or playing something makes me have fun and get excited. Despite these things, I realize that depression can manifest itself in notably distinct ways in the lives of different individuals and that different strategies may be needed. I am simply sharing things that have helped me.
There are some who may never truly be capable of being happy, just content or "not terrible" at best. I may not be able to recommend anything that actually makes them experience happiness itself. Indeed, no prescription or stage of personal growth may ultimately ensure that they can be happy. But I can remind them that it does not follow from them feeling unhappy, perhaps even worthless, that they have no significance and value. I can listen to them, be there for them, pray for them, encourage them, and do things with them.
To those who are Christians, I emphasize the potential joy that can come about from relating to God and other humans made in his image. I also encourage you to not treat others with depression like some have: don't feed them lies about their relationship with God or tell them things about their own psychology that aren't true. To those who are not Christians--or not even theists at all, I remind you that, whether or not you suffer from depression, if God does not exist then there can be no meaning. Again, feelings of joy or emptiness and sadness do not mean that reality does or does not have meaning. Since the only way that there can be meaning is if God exists (not that the existence of a deity in itself logically necessitates that meaning also exists), it is hopelessly futile to seek for meaning outside of God. No one can find what does not exist.
As I have said before, "I do not love life itself, I only love a handful of things in life" [1]. I know what it is like to be depressed, though not as depressed as some. I know how human existence can seem exhausting and agonizing and frustrating. But I have used reason to discover enough information to lead to my commitment to Christianity, a worldview that boasts immense evidential support and, if true, describes how meaning transcends any mental condition of mine or another person. Just because existence feels or seems hopeless doesn't mean it is in actuality. If you suffer from depression, especially the more debilitating kinds, I hope you find relief. Short of that, I hope you can at least find contentment. Do not trivialize depression--if you need help, ask! If you can avoid at least some part of depression, why not do so?
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/confessions-of-christian-existentialist.html
Telling depressed people to just "do" simple things they may have trouble with isn't helpful. Actually, it's rather asinine. Just as someone cannot live easily with a damaged limb, someone cannot live easily with mental illness or mental pain. Imagine yourself having a natural state of sadness that makes you rarely want to socialize outside of a small group of friends or see the public or visit stores to obtain things you need to survive. Now imagine someone telling you to just "get over it". I hope you see how this poor, pitifully inadequate advice does not help emotionally or mentally.
Remember that if Christianity is true, meaning and human value remain fixed and outside of our feelings--meaning our mental health does not determine if God loves us and does not distort our moral status before God. Having depression is not sinful and depression does not mean that you aren't loving God enough. Simply trying to will the deeper aches of this condition away will not help at all, and loving God will not necessarily alleviate the pain. Any pastor or Christian who says otherwise does not understand the concept of depression or its multiple faces. People who try to blame someone else's depression on his or her lack of love for or commitment to God may be well-meaning, but they are useless.
While I do not at all think I have suffered anywhere near as severely as some I know, I have experienced periods of mild to deep depression. Although depression could easily be coupled with an existential crisis, mine seems to be more existential than not, meaning mine is not so much a depression I've always carried within me but one that developed during my intense examination of philosophy and theology (epistemological limitations and the things they prevent me from knowing terrify me). But some things have helped me. Things that have enabled me to cope with this are friends, entertainment, and prayer. I find that I am far less depressed during times where I regularly hang out with my handful of close friends. Since we are social beings (Genesis 2:18) and I am a very extroverted person, this does not surprise me at all. I also enjoy entertainment (music, movies, and video games), and sometimes relaxing and watching or playing something makes me have fun and get excited. Despite these things, I realize that depression can manifest itself in notably distinct ways in the lives of different individuals and that different strategies may be needed. I am simply sharing things that have helped me.
There are some who may never truly be capable of being happy, just content or "not terrible" at best. I may not be able to recommend anything that actually makes them experience happiness itself. Indeed, no prescription or stage of personal growth may ultimately ensure that they can be happy. But I can remind them that it does not follow from them feeling unhappy, perhaps even worthless, that they have no significance and value. I can listen to them, be there for them, pray for them, encourage them, and do things with them.
To those who are Christians, I emphasize the potential joy that can come about from relating to God and other humans made in his image. I also encourage you to not treat others with depression like some have: don't feed them lies about their relationship with God or tell them things about their own psychology that aren't true. To those who are not Christians--or not even theists at all, I remind you that, whether or not you suffer from depression, if God does not exist then there can be no meaning. Again, feelings of joy or emptiness and sadness do not mean that reality does or does not have meaning. Since the only way that there can be meaning is if God exists (not that the existence of a deity in itself logically necessitates that meaning also exists), it is hopelessly futile to seek for meaning outside of God. No one can find what does not exist.
As I have said before, "I do not love life itself, I only love a handful of things in life" [1]. I know what it is like to be depressed, though not as depressed as some. I know how human existence can seem exhausting and agonizing and frustrating. But I have used reason to discover enough information to lead to my commitment to Christianity, a worldview that boasts immense evidential support and, if true, describes how meaning transcends any mental condition of mine or another person. Just because existence feels or seems hopeless doesn't mean it is in actuality. If you suffer from depression, especially the more debilitating kinds, I hope you find relief. Short of that, I hope you can at least find contentment. Do not trivialize depression--if you need help, ask! If you can avoid at least some part of depression, why not do so?
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/confessions-of-christian-existentialist.html
Saturday, October 28, 2017
John 19:11 And Theonomy
The Bible is not unclear about God's demands on human government. Political and legal infrastructures are not neglected issues! I've still seen a lot of people in my life hold that people should generally submit to their governments as they are, even citing Scriptural passages like Romans 13 or John 19:11 as Biblical confirmation that God has little to no objective instructions for all governments and that citizens of practically all regimes are objectively obligated to submit to them, sometimes going as far as to say that no objective universal standard of criminal justice exists and that human governments are free to rule as they see fit, according to their own conceptions of justice.
No, Romans 13 does not teach that governments have innate authority to do and punish as they please, but I have addressed that elsewhere [1]. I've dismantled the asinine and morally horrendous claim that the thieves on the cross, or by extension those crucified by Rome other than Jesus, deserved such wicked tortures [2], another thing I've only seen defended by those who claim that governments have innate authority simply by being governing political bodies. I've proven logically and philosophically that morality is not invented by or changed by any era of time or society, as it exists grounded in God's nature and God must reveal moral information to us for us to have moral knowledge [3]. In short, I have already established the conclusion which I will affirm yet again here.
What of John 19:10-11? I will quote them here.
John 19:10-11--"'Do you refuse to speak to me?' Pilate said. 'Don't you realize I have the power either to free you or to crucify you?' Jesus answered, 'You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.'"
Is Jesus condoning Roman ideas of "justice"? Is he endorsing crucifixion and Roman legal customs? Jesus is saying that God could easily emove all of Pilate's alleged "authority", not that God approves of the Roman legal and political system, with its nationalism, racism, and heinously unbiblical forms of torture, to name just three grave sins of the Roman Empire. Yahweh cannot endorse what contradicts his moral nature. To say that John 19:11 means God condoned Rome is to say that God was not vehemently opposed to a system of oppression, tyranny, and discrimination based upon a worldview of arrogance and militarism, all things which his own Law condemns directly.
A government that treats foreigners as if they do not have the same human rights as nationals (Exodus 22:21, 23:9, Leviticus 24:22), that uses illicit forms of torture meant to wholly degrade and maliciously inflict as much artificially prolonged agony as possible in the name of "justice" (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), that preys on other civilizations with its malevolent imperialistic militarism--and that later persecutes Christians and demands its emperors be worshipped as deities--does not have moral authority because it is both out of alignment with the only objective moral obligations that exist (those which correspond to God's nature and are revealed in Scripture) and is practicing some of the worst evils condemned by the Bible.
If a leader is obligated to act in a certain way--and Scripture is clear in Mosaic Law that leaders are not to act as tyrants, discriminate against people because of their ethnicity or gender, authorize any tortures beyond the limited range prescribed in the Bible, receive worship as if they are gods or goddesses, or engage in militaristic behaviors--and that leader instead rules as a tyrannical, oppressive, malevolent, unjust figure, then that leader is not abiding by the only obligations that could make him or her a ruler with any moral authority. Such rulers have no right to be called or treated as if they are just or good; government does not decide what is just or good [1], as God reveals these things.
God does not want people to submit to a regime like Rome that practices tyranny, murder, rape, illicit slavery, emperor worship, illicit tortures, militarism, racism, and sexism. He already revealed what a just society will do to those who murder and rape and abduct--the penalty is death in all cases (Exodus 21:12-14; Deuteronomy 22:25-27; Exodus 21:16). If God prescribed this response and his moral nature does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17), then how could he protect the reign of tyrants and instead condemn those who resist tyranny for opposing what is intrinsically evil? Anyone who disputes these truths must hold to the Biblically impossible position that God was more concerned with telling first century men and women to tolerate tyranny and injustice than he was with actually ending the blasphemies, sexual violences, wicked military campaigns, and immoral tortures of the era. They must embrace an absurdity which teaches that it is morally good to tolerate moral evil.
God already revealed his prescriptions for how to handle these depravities. Only the objective morality grounded in God's nature and revealed in Scripture has authority; no other moral claim can.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/romans-13-and-reconstructionism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-illusionary-guidance-of-natural-law.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
No, Romans 13 does not teach that governments have innate authority to do and punish as they please, but I have addressed that elsewhere [1]. I've dismantled the asinine and morally horrendous claim that the thieves on the cross, or by extension those crucified by Rome other than Jesus, deserved such wicked tortures [2], another thing I've only seen defended by those who claim that governments have innate authority simply by being governing political bodies. I've proven logically and philosophically that morality is not invented by or changed by any era of time or society, as it exists grounded in God's nature and God must reveal moral information to us for us to have moral knowledge [3]. In short, I have already established the conclusion which I will affirm yet again here.
What of John 19:10-11? I will quote them here.
John 19:10-11--"'Do you refuse to speak to me?' Pilate said. 'Don't you realize I have the power either to free you or to crucify you?' Jesus answered, 'You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.'"
Is Jesus condoning Roman ideas of "justice"? Is he endorsing crucifixion and Roman legal customs? Jesus is saying that God could easily emove all of Pilate's alleged "authority", not that God approves of the Roman legal and political system, with its nationalism, racism, and heinously unbiblical forms of torture, to name just three grave sins of the Roman Empire. Yahweh cannot endorse what contradicts his moral nature. To say that John 19:11 means God condoned Rome is to say that God was not vehemently opposed to a system of oppression, tyranny, and discrimination based upon a worldview of arrogance and militarism, all things which his own Law condemns directly.
A government that treats foreigners as if they do not have the same human rights as nationals (Exodus 22:21, 23:9, Leviticus 24:22), that uses illicit forms of torture meant to wholly degrade and maliciously inflict as much artificially prolonged agony as possible in the name of "justice" (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), that preys on other civilizations with its malevolent imperialistic militarism--and that later persecutes Christians and demands its emperors be worshipped as deities--does not have moral authority because it is both out of alignment with the only objective moral obligations that exist (those which correspond to God's nature and are revealed in Scripture) and is practicing some of the worst evils condemned by the Bible.
If a leader is obligated to act in a certain way--and Scripture is clear in Mosaic Law that leaders are not to act as tyrants, discriminate against people because of their ethnicity or gender, authorize any tortures beyond the limited range prescribed in the Bible, receive worship as if they are gods or goddesses, or engage in militaristic behaviors--and that leader instead rules as a tyrannical, oppressive, malevolent, unjust figure, then that leader is not abiding by the only obligations that could make him or her a ruler with any moral authority. Such rulers have no right to be called or treated as if they are just or good; government does not decide what is just or good [1], as God reveals these things.
 |
| No human social leader has authority in himself or herself. Apart from alignment with God's moral nature, a ruler simply imposes one arbitrary value judgment instead of a different one. |
God does not want people to submit to a regime like Rome that practices tyranny, murder, rape, illicit slavery, emperor worship, illicit tortures, militarism, racism, and sexism. He already revealed what a just society will do to those who murder and rape and abduct--the penalty is death in all cases (Exodus 21:12-14; Deuteronomy 22:25-27; Exodus 21:16). If God prescribed this response and his moral nature does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17), then how could he protect the reign of tyrants and instead condemn those who resist tyranny for opposing what is intrinsically evil? Anyone who disputes these truths must hold to the Biblically impossible position that God was more concerned with telling first century men and women to tolerate tyranny and injustice than he was with actually ending the blasphemies, sexual violences, wicked military campaigns, and immoral tortures of the era. They must embrace an absurdity which teaches that it is morally good to tolerate moral evil.
God already revealed his prescriptions for how to handle these depravities. Only the objective morality grounded in God's nature and revealed in Scripture has authority; no other moral claim can.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/romans-13-and-reconstructionism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-illusionary-guidance-of-natural-law.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
Thursday, October 26, 2017
What Is A Spirit?
If someone uses the word "spirit" in your presence, what comes to mind as to the definition of the word? I do not mean spirit as in "the spirit of an age"; I do not mean a prevailing ideology of an era, but a spirit in the sense that one might mean when one refers to a human soul or a theological entity. What is a spirit? The answer holds immense ramifications for a great deal of philosophy and theology.
What people generally mean when they use the word spirit (and what I mean by the word spirit) is nothing more than a consciousness that is not metaphysically restricted to a body by logical necessity and that can possibly animate or move certain physical objects. A spirit is a immaterial, animating force, a thing that perceives and experiences. Can one prove that at least one spirit exists? Of course! If a spirit is a consciousness, then I am a spirit housed in a body (it is possible to prove to oneself that one has a body as well as a mind; see part six of my series Examining The Meditations in a footnote below). I am not an unembodied mind like the Christian conception of Yahweh (John 4:24). I have both a nonphysical conscious mind and a material body of some sort.
Every conscious being has a type of "spirit", although it seems that "spirit" is not the word that people in my society prefer to use when referring to a mind. According to James 2:26 human death occurs when the spirit/mind of a person no longer inhabits his or her body. Defined in this way, a conscious person knows with absolute certainty that he or she has a spirit! To doubt one is conscious one must be conscious; consciousness cannot be an illusion [1]. That I have a spirit is one of the only immediate certainties I can have and one of only a handful of things that cannot be false.
The Biblical teaching that humans have spirits is an area where defining a word differently might lead to people understanding the concept differently, in a way that facilitates comprehension and acceptance. If someone thinks the concept of a spirit is a notion of some unverifiable thing that might not even exist within a person, he or she might reject the concept entirely; if he or she realizes that a spirit is just a conscious mind that can animate a body or exist on its own [2], that person can see that it is rationally impossible for no spirit to exist as long as there is some thought or perception anywhere in existence. I hope that more Christians will come to see the easy defensibility and verifiability of the Bible's affirmation of the existence of the human spirit!
If I have a spirit and if my spirit is not part of my body (and both are true), then my spirit--my conscious mind that animates my body and that comprises my "self"--can survive after the death of my body as described in Scripture. The mind and its consciousness are not the brain or any other body part, but even if they completely died with the body that would not logically mean that no afterlife is possible--God could resurrect the body and the mind with it. Interestingly, I rarely hear this possibility mentioned (an afterlife that is accessed exclusively with a body)!
Thus, even if my consciousness is extinguished upon the biological shutdown of my body and my mind/spirit does not travel to the afterlife by itself (for a time before the resurrection of my body), it does not follow logically in any way that my consciousness will never experience an afterlife or that one does not exist at all. Christian doctrine ultimately teaches that the bodies of the saved will be resurrected (see 1 Corinthians 15), so Christians need not mistakenly think that their eternal life consists of existence as permanently disembodied minds. It still remains true that the death of the body does not logically necessitate the death of the mind/spirit.
A spirit is not some unverifiable fantasy; it is not some unconfirmed myth. As long as I think, perceive, will, dream, or experience anything at all, my spirit is immediately proven to me! Whether or not it survives the shutdown of my body is not a question that I can answer with deductive reasoning. But the concept of the afterlife as a place where spirits can reside before the resurrection of their bodies is not some logical impossibility.
How someone answers the question "What is a spirit?" may tell much about his or her worldview, for it is a highly important question to reflect on for those who have yet to arrive at the truth of the matter. The answers we provide do generate great ripples that affect other facets of our philosophies and theologies, so Christians must not shy away from understanding both the question and its answer.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/consciousness-cannot-be-illusory.html
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-immateriality-of-consciousness.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-5-i-am-i.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
What people generally mean when they use the word spirit (and what I mean by the word spirit) is nothing more than a consciousness that is not metaphysically restricted to a body by logical necessity and that can possibly animate or move certain physical objects. A spirit is a immaterial, animating force, a thing that perceives and experiences. Can one prove that at least one spirit exists? Of course! If a spirit is a consciousness, then I am a spirit housed in a body (it is possible to prove to oneself that one has a body as well as a mind; see part six of my series Examining The Meditations in a footnote below). I am not an unembodied mind like the Christian conception of Yahweh (John 4:24). I have both a nonphysical conscious mind and a material body of some sort.
Every conscious being has a type of "spirit", although it seems that "spirit" is not the word that people in my society prefer to use when referring to a mind. According to James 2:26 human death occurs when the spirit/mind of a person no longer inhabits his or her body. Defined in this way, a conscious person knows with absolute certainty that he or she has a spirit! To doubt one is conscious one must be conscious; consciousness cannot be an illusion [1]. That I have a spirit is one of the only immediate certainties I can have and one of only a handful of things that cannot be false.
The Biblical teaching that humans have spirits is an area where defining a word differently might lead to people understanding the concept differently, in a way that facilitates comprehension and acceptance. If someone thinks the concept of a spirit is a notion of some unverifiable thing that might not even exist within a person, he or she might reject the concept entirely; if he or she realizes that a spirit is just a conscious mind that can animate a body or exist on its own [2], that person can see that it is rationally impossible for no spirit to exist as long as there is some thought or perception anywhere in existence. I hope that more Christians will come to see the easy defensibility and verifiability of the Bible's affirmation of the existence of the human spirit!
If I have a spirit and if my spirit is not part of my body (and both are true), then my spirit--my conscious mind that animates my body and that comprises my "self"--can survive after the death of my body as described in Scripture. The mind and its consciousness are not the brain or any other body part, but even if they completely died with the body that would not logically mean that no afterlife is possible--God could resurrect the body and the mind with it. Interestingly, I rarely hear this possibility mentioned (an afterlife that is accessed exclusively with a body)!
Thus, even if my consciousness is extinguished upon the biological shutdown of my body and my mind/spirit does not travel to the afterlife by itself (for a time before the resurrection of my body), it does not follow logically in any way that my consciousness will never experience an afterlife or that one does not exist at all. Christian doctrine ultimately teaches that the bodies of the saved will be resurrected (see 1 Corinthians 15), so Christians need not mistakenly think that their eternal life consists of existence as permanently disembodied minds. It still remains true that the death of the body does not logically necessitate the death of the mind/spirit.
A spirit is not some unverifiable fantasy; it is not some unconfirmed myth. As long as I think, perceive, will, dream, or experience anything at all, my spirit is immediately proven to me! Whether or not it survives the shutdown of my body is not a question that I can answer with deductive reasoning. But the concept of the afterlife as a place where spirits can reside before the resurrection of their bodies is not some logical impossibility.
How someone answers the question "What is a spirit?" may tell much about his or her worldview, for it is a highly important question to reflect on for those who have yet to arrive at the truth of the matter. The answers we provide do generate great ripples that affect other facets of our philosophies and theologies, so Christians must not shy away from understanding both the question and its answer.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/consciousness-cannot-be-illusory.html
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-immateriality-of-consciousness.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-5-i-am-i.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
The Sin Of Vanity
Physical beauty can be neglected as a topic by some Christians, perhaps at times out of a desire to not elevate it more highly than it metaphysically deserves, an effort to emphasize the soul more than the body. It still remains an important issue that needs to be addressed, especially in an American culture seemingly obsessed with it. Beauty is not an entirely new subject for my blog. I have written a small handful of posts on it before. All claims about beauty are objectively true or false and yet human perceptions of beauty are purely subjective [1]; the Bible teaches that both men and women can be very beautiful, for beauty is not exclusive to or monopolized by one gender [2]; admiration of beauty is not intrinsically sexual [3]; I have talked about these things on other articles. But I have not actually defined what it means to desire to be beautiful in a way that is vain and sinful. That is the objective here.
Just as sexual objectification occurs only when someone reduces a person to just the sexual aspect of his or her humanity and personhood, and not when one thinks about, looks at, admires, or becomes aroused by someone's body, vanity occurs only when someone cares more about physical appearance and beauty than mental, intellectual, spiritual, and moral matters. One does not become vain by spending a certain number of hours adjusting or checking his or her appearance, by thinking about his or her bodily appearance often, by having a strong desire to be beautiful and admired as beautiful. These things may occur because of vanity in the mind of an individual, but they themselves are not vain.
It is not necessarily shallow to love beauty and have a personal urge to be or become beautiful. This is natural to the personalities of some; some people have a desire to show their (objective or alleged) physical beauty to others. This alone does not establish the presence of arrogance. Just because a person likes "showing off" his or her body does not mean that he or she thinks less of others or thinks that beauty determines human value. Someone may want to be beautiful for others in general because of social pressure (and thus may need to be reminded that they have value not from being physically attractive or sexually desirable but from being made in the image of God), for the opposite gender out of a desire to be admired by them, or simply for himself or herself. Diverse motivations for this drive can exist.
The Bible does not condemn beauty or the desire to view it in others or possess it in one's own body. But it does teach constantly that other things have greater significance, for God is concerned with the heart of a person even when other humans stop only at their body, beauty, or sexuality (not that the human body, naked or clothed, is at all sexual on its own), as the prophet Samuel said in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 16:7). There are many aspects to human nature beyond just the external appearance of the body, such as moral accountability, rich emotions, rationality, and the capacity for salvation and relationships with God and other humans. This point needs to be remembered, but, beyond this, one is morally free to savor and seek beauty of the human body, whether of one's own or that of another person!
While I'm addressing the subject of physical beauty, not only does the Bible explicitly describe men as well as women as having beautiful bodies, for it is fallacious and erroneous to believe one gender is more intrinsically beautiful than the other, but it is also very fallacious and incorrect to say that women care about their appearances more than males do. The desire to be beautiful does not appear in only one gender, though my culture encourages this more with women than men. I myself know what it is like to deeply want to be physically beautiful; I just care more about other matters. Vanity is not a male or female sin, just as lust, malice, selfishness, pride, and other behaviors or attitudes are not male or female sins. People are people; people are individuals. As I've said many times before, the fallacious and contra-Biblical gender stereotypes (all gender stereotypes) society and the church often encourage are impossibly flawed, illogical, and erroneous.
There is nothing wrong with pursuing beauty as long as vanity is not a part of that pursuit. People need not fear physical beauty as an unspiritual thing; unmarried men and women who are not dating need not feel awkward or shameful for wanting to compliment each other's bodies; no one needs to feel like his or her priorities are misplaced simply for having a strong desire to feel or be beautiful. After all, God created the human body, and he made people, some more than others, to admire and want beauty.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-objectivity-of-beauty.html
[2]. I mean by this that reason undermines all attempts to argue that one gender is more beautiful than the other and that the Bible affirms the beauty of the male and female body. I know many girls who find the male body very beautiful. See here:
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-beauty-of-both-genders.html
[3]. See here, for instance:
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
Just as sexual objectification occurs only when someone reduces a person to just the sexual aspect of his or her humanity and personhood, and not when one thinks about, looks at, admires, or becomes aroused by someone's body, vanity occurs only when someone cares more about physical appearance and beauty than mental, intellectual, spiritual, and moral matters. One does not become vain by spending a certain number of hours adjusting or checking his or her appearance, by thinking about his or her bodily appearance often, by having a strong desire to be beautiful and admired as beautiful. These things may occur because of vanity in the mind of an individual, but they themselves are not vain.
It is not necessarily shallow to love beauty and have a personal urge to be or become beautiful. This is natural to the personalities of some; some people have a desire to show their (objective or alleged) physical beauty to others. This alone does not establish the presence of arrogance. Just because a person likes "showing off" his or her body does not mean that he or she thinks less of others or thinks that beauty determines human value. Someone may want to be beautiful for others in general because of social pressure (and thus may need to be reminded that they have value not from being physically attractive or sexually desirable but from being made in the image of God), for the opposite gender out of a desire to be admired by them, or simply for himself or herself. Diverse motivations for this drive can exist.
The Bible does not condemn beauty or the desire to view it in others or possess it in one's own body. But it does teach constantly that other things have greater significance, for God is concerned with the heart of a person even when other humans stop only at their body, beauty, or sexuality (not that the human body, naked or clothed, is at all sexual on its own), as the prophet Samuel said in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 16:7). There are many aspects to human nature beyond just the external appearance of the body, such as moral accountability, rich emotions, rationality, and the capacity for salvation and relationships with God and other humans. This point needs to be remembered, but, beyond this, one is morally free to savor and seek beauty of the human body, whether of one's own or that of another person!
While I'm addressing the subject of physical beauty, not only does the Bible explicitly describe men as well as women as having beautiful bodies, for it is fallacious and erroneous to believe one gender is more intrinsically beautiful than the other, but it is also very fallacious and incorrect to say that women care about their appearances more than males do. The desire to be beautiful does not appear in only one gender, though my culture encourages this more with women than men. I myself know what it is like to deeply want to be physically beautiful; I just care more about other matters. Vanity is not a male or female sin, just as lust, malice, selfishness, pride, and other behaviors or attitudes are not male or female sins. People are people; people are individuals. As I've said many times before, the fallacious and contra-Biblical gender stereotypes (all gender stereotypes) society and the church often encourage are impossibly flawed, illogical, and erroneous.
There is nothing wrong with pursuing beauty as long as vanity is not a part of that pursuit. People need not fear physical beauty as an unspiritual thing; unmarried men and women who are not dating need not feel awkward or shameful for wanting to compliment each other's bodies; no one needs to feel like his or her priorities are misplaced simply for having a strong desire to feel or be beautiful. After all, God created the human body, and he made people, some more than others, to admire and want beauty.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-objectivity-of-beauty.html
[2]. I mean by this that reason undermines all attempts to argue that one gender is more beautiful than the other and that the Bible affirms the beauty of the male and female body. I know many girls who find the male body very beautiful. See here:
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-beauty-of-both-genders.html
[3]. See here, for instance:
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Women Are Not Mysterious
The fallacy-filled, erroneous, unbiblical belief that "women are mysterious" is one of many disappointingly popular claims. One of its many problems is how it can also be used as a convenient way to dismiss the points of a woman. It's so damn frustrating, as a rationalist and a Christian, to hear some men seemingly sincerely state belief in this, and it's also very damn irritating to hear some women agree in order to set up some joke based on cultural conditioning and fallacious stereotypes. Whether articulated in attempts at humor, as a part of a defense mechanism, a blind recitation of false ideas, or out of genuine ignorance, this conclusion, if actually believed, is an asinine one. Yet I have heard many people bring it up, even if only in jest.
Just because one person who happens to be a woman is enigmatic does not mean she is enigmatic just because she is a woman or that all women share this characteristic. To say otherwise is to leap into fallacies and objectively demonstrable errors. Personality traits have nothing to do with whether someone is a man or woman, but everything to do with his or her subjective nature and experiences [1]. Thus, it follows that there is no such thing as an innate "mysterious" nature embedded deep within female consciousness. As I said above, one or more women might truly have mysterious natures (and subjectively perceiving someone to be mysterious does not mean he or she truly is), but this in no way means anything more than just that--several people who are women might display mysterious behaviors or attitudes from time to time.
Do you want to actually see a more experiential confirmation of this that involves more than deductive reasoning (though logic refutes this in full without external experience)? Don't just shed assumptions and fallacies, go talk to actual women and get to know them! Experience can affirm the truths about this matter that reason can prove on its own. As a man or woman who holds to this error talks to women, he or she can see that women are people just like men are. Really, this isn't very difficult to realize. The vague, absurd notions of some alleged innate mysteriousness women possess cannot actually survive a confrontation with reality.
God intended for men and women to be friends and allies to each other, sharing the mutual understanding that both genders are people--and that their differences stop at anatomy and physiology. There is nothing about someone's personality that exists just because of that person's gender and body. The belief that women are mysterious by nature of being women, as opposed to some men and some women being mysterious by nature of being unique individuals, is something only a fallacious mind would devise or accept, just one more example of the stupid societal stereotypes that plague conversations and beliefs about gender. Seriously, these things are not that difficult to rationally discover. Women are not mysterious simply by nature of being women.
Logic, people. It is helpful.
[1]. See here for an explanation of why it does not follow from having a male or female body that one will have so-called "masculine" or "feminine" traits. It is rationally and experientially obvious that these beliefs are constructs, and the Bible does not speak of any such things, instead consistently showing men and women who buck all sorts of stereotypes and cultural expectations. Here are some examples of articles where I address these things:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-alleged-differences-between-men-and.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/generalizations-about-men-and-women.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
Just because one person who happens to be a woman is enigmatic does not mean she is enigmatic just because she is a woman or that all women share this characteristic. To say otherwise is to leap into fallacies and objectively demonstrable errors. Personality traits have nothing to do with whether someone is a man or woman, but everything to do with his or her subjective nature and experiences [1]. Thus, it follows that there is no such thing as an innate "mysterious" nature embedded deep within female consciousness. As I said above, one or more women might truly have mysterious natures (and subjectively perceiving someone to be mysterious does not mean he or she truly is), but this in no way means anything more than just that--several people who are women might display mysterious behaviors or attitudes from time to time.
Do you want to actually see a more experiential confirmation of this that involves more than deductive reasoning (though logic refutes this in full without external experience)? Don't just shed assumptions and fallacies, go talk to actual women and get to know them! Experience can affirm the truths about this matter that reason can prove on its own. As a man or woman who holds to this error talks to women, he or she can see that women are people just like men are. Really, this isn't very difficult to realize. The vague, absurd notions of some alleged innate mysteriousness women possess cannot actually survive a confrontation with reality.
 |
| No one is mysterious just because he or she is a man or a woman. Some people, men and women, might be mysterious and some might not be, but reality contradicts those who say anything more. |
God intended for men and women to be friends and allies to each other, sharing the mutual understanding that both genders are people--and that their differences stop at anatomy and physiology. There is nothing about someone's personality that exists just because of that person's gender and body. The belief that women are mysterious by nature of being women, as opposed to some men and some women being mysterious by nature of being unique individuals, is something only a fallacious mind would devise or accept, just one more example of the stupid societal stereotypes that plague conversations and beliefs about gender. Seriously, these things are not that difficult to rationally discover. Women are not mysterious simply by nature of being women.
Logic, people. It is helpful.
[1]. See here for an explanation of why it does not follow from having a male or female body that one will have so-called "masculine" or "feminine" traits. It is rationally and experientially obvious that these beliefs are constructs, and the Bible does not speak of any such things, instead consistently showing men and women who buck all sorts of stereotypes and cultural expectations. Here are some examples of articles where I address these things:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-alleged-differences-between-men-and.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/generalizations-about-men-and-women.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
Saturday, October 21, 2017
The Necessity Of Self-Education
Many people will try to sell you their truth claims as you meet and listen to them. Yet if you probe the claims and those who offer them, you will likely discover that almost nine of the claims or claimers are reliable. Even if the conclusions of these assertions follows from their premises, you will find that many of the starting premises are unverifiable or demonstrably false--and yet this does not prevent the claimers from announcing that they have found the truth.
How can one know what to reject, what to analyze with pure skepticism, and what is true? After all, few who are willing and quick to tell you what they think is true will want to admit outright if their beliefs are false or unfounded! So how can one come to know how to navigate the bombardment of competing and exclusive truth claims one will inevitably meet?
No one can know how to identify and verify truth without engaging in the process of self-education. Apart from teaching yourself, you will never be equipped to assess the claims of others. Other than through this method, how is it even possible for someone to do anything else but blindly rely on the useless guides other people can so often turn out to be? It is not possible. Anyone who does not self-educate will have to merely assume and be at the mercy of the fallacies of others.
If you want actual knowledge and not just acceptance of what other people claim, you must subject everything to doubt, identify what cannot be false, see what follows from these infallible truths, and then begin appraising claims hurled your way according to this system founded upon the infallible [1]. You must seize control of your own worldview and deny that authority to other people. Do not expect to arrive at truth except by chance if you approach it any other way!
None of this means that every person who wants to persuade you of a worldview is a moron or a malevolent deceiver, though (and persuasion is not proof). Some well meaning people with correct conclusions might offer you the most asinine arguments and explanations for their worldview; some people with highly erroneous conclusions may have better defenses but also have a totally false starting point for their arguments. You must learn to detect all of this if you wish to repel false claims and accept the true ones. No person can intentionally embrace truth if he or she does not know what it is and recognize it, and the only way to truly know is to set cultural conditioning, familial upbringing, and the fallacious or unverified beliefs of others aside. Self-education is a necessity for someone who wants to know the truth as opposed to what other people will ignorantly or knowingly pass off as the truth, when they may offer nothing but pathetic distortions and lies.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-necessity-of-cartesian-skepticism.html
How can one know what to reject, what to analyze with pure skepticism, and what is true? After all, few who are willing and quick to tell you what they think is true will want to admit outright if their beliefs are false or unfounded! So how can one come to know how to navigate the bombardment of competing and exclusive truth claims one will inevitably meet?
No one can know how to identify and verify truth without engaging in the process of self-education. Apart from teaching yourself, you will never be equipped to assess the claims of others. Other than through this method, how is it even possible for someone to do anything else but blindly rely on the useless guides other people can so often turn out to be? It is not possible. Anyone who does not self-educate will have to merely assume and be at the mercy of the fallacies of others.
If you want actual knowledge and not just acceptance of what other people claim, you must subject everything to doubt, identify what cannot be false, see what follows from these infallible truths, and then begin appraising claims hurled your way according to this system founded upon the infallible [1]. You must seize control of your own worldview and deny that authority to other people. Do not expect to arrive at truth except by chance if you approach it any other way!
None of this means that every person who wants to persuade you of a worldview is a moron or a malevolent deceiver, though (and persuasion is not proof). Some well meaning people with correct conclusions might offer you the most asinine arguments and explanations for their worldview; some people with highly erroneous conclusions may have better defenses but also have a totally false starting point for their arguments. You must learn to detect all of this if you wish to repel false claims and accept the true ones. No person can intentionally embrace truth if he or she does not know what it is and recognize it, and the only way to truly know is to set cultural conditioning, familial upbringing, and the fallacious or unverified beliefs of others aside. Self-education is a necessity for someone who wants to know the truth as opposed to what other people will ignorantly or knowingly pass off as the truth, when they may offer nothing but pathetic distortions and lies.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-necessity-of-cartesian-skepticism.html
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
A Refutation Of Trinitarianism (Part 3)
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-1.html
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-2.html
In parts one and two of this series, I explained what heresy is and isn't, demonstrated using logic and math that the popular conception of the Trinity is objectively false and impossible, and showed that the Bible teaches that Yahweh and Christ (in particular) are distinct beings. With those issues addressed, I will turn my attention to responding to a common defense of Trinitarianism I have encountered and to highlighting the vagueness of the alleged Biblical confirmation of the Trinity.
I have found a certain argument presented to be by multiple Trinitarians throughout my life. When pressed for a defense of the Trinity as defined by them, Trinitarians will sometimes hide behind the pathetic claim that the Trinity is not comprehensible because of the limitations or corruption of our human intellects. Ironically, even if this were true that the Trinity exists but is not comprehensible, they have admitted that they are holding to an irrational belief in the sense that they are admitting that they cannot rationally establish Trinitarianism and thus must believe without actual confirmation. If they argue against the human intellect as a whole in order to uphold this erroneous point, they will be using the very thing they are calling unreliable to argue against itself, meaning their claim here is self-defeating. Human cognitive abilities are infallibly reliable to the extent that they are aligned with reason itself and no one can argue to the contrary without affirming and relying on that very thing. Of course, the Trinity isn't even possible. In part two of this series I explained that in detail. Trinitarianism is objectively impossible and the Bible rejects it.
And now I will assess the process of actually arriving at this vague belief. The Trinity must be cobbled together in an illogical manner from scattered texts. It is not only logically and mathematically impossible and Biblically false, but it is also nowhere laid out in the text itself directly. Even if the Bible did actually teach the Trinity (and it doesn't, as I established in part two of this series), one would quite possibly not be able to identify this doctrine without a great deal of assumptions and conditioning. I have yet to meet someone who said that he or she would have found and embraced the doctrine of the Trinity had that person never had any previous theological influence exerted on him or her by others. The Bible simply does not have information about the ontology of all three divine beings in the same place in a systematic manner that describes the evangelical notion of the Trinity.
I suspect that many Trinitarians know deep down that they cannot defend or truly articulate how God could possibly be three persons in one, how these three separate minds are still one single being. Unless they mean that there are three separate divine beings who share the same moral nature and to describe this group they use the word "Trinity", they propose an erroneous thing. Sometimes they may even appeal to traditional creeds based on the consensus of historical theologians instead of the Bible in an effort to defend the Trinity--after they reject logic and math in this area, they must hold something up besides Scripture, for the Bible does not teach Trinitarianism.
As I said before, beyond the fact that the Trinity is simply a false truth claim, the real reason to oppose it is not because it is vague and impossible to apply to one's life in any significant way, but because representing an impossible contradiction as being at the core of Christian theology is extremely asinine. If Christianity is true, and if the concept of the Trinity as popularly defined cannot be true, then equating one with the other is to mix two irreconcilable things and present them to the world as a consistent truth that conforms to reality.
And that is a highly dangerous thing for Christians to do.
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-2.html
In parts one and two of this series, I explained what heresy is and isn't, demonstrated using logic and math that the popular conception of the Trinity is objectively false and impossible, and showed that the Bible teaches that Yahweh and Christ (in particular) are distinct beings. With those issues addressed, I will turn my attention to responding to a common defense of Trinitarianism I have encountered and to highlighting the vagueness of the alleged Biblical confirmation of the Trinity.
I have found a certain argument presented to be by multiple Trinitarians throughout my life. When pressed for a defense of the Trinity as defined by them, Trinitarians will sometimes hide behind the pathetic claim that the Trinity is not comprehensible because of the limitations or corruption of our human intellects. Ironically, even if this were true that the Trinity exists but is not comprehensible, they have admitted that they are holding to an irrational belief in the sense that they are admitting that they cannot rationally establish Trinitarianism and thus must believe without actual confirmation. If they argue against the human intellect as a whole in order to uphold this erroneous point, they will be using the very thing they are calling unreliable to argue against itself, meaning their claim here is self-defeating. Human cognitive abilities are infallibly reliable to the extent that they are aligned with reason itself and no one can argue to the contrary without affirming and relying on that very thing. Of course, the Trinity isn't even possible. In part two of this series I explained that in detail. Trinitarianism is objectively impossible and the Bible rejects it.
And now I will assess the process of actually arriving at this vague belief. The Trinity must be cobbled together in an illogical manner from scattered texts. It is not only logically and mathematically impossible and Biblically false, but it is also nowhere laid out in the text itself directly. Even if the Bible did actually teach the Trinity (and it doesn't, as I established in part two of this series), one would quite possibly not be able to identify this doctrine without a great deal of assumptions and conditioning. I have yet to meet someone who said that he or she would have found and embraced the doctrine of the Trinity had that person never had any previous theological influence exerted on him or her by others. The Bible simply does not have information about the ontology of all three divine beings in the same place in a systematic manner that describes the evangelical notion of the Trinity.
I suspect that many Trinitarians know deep down that they cannot defend or truly articulate how God could possibly be three persons in one, how these three separate minds are still one single being. Unless they mean that there are three separate divine beings who share the same moral nature and to describe this group they use the word "Trinity", they propose an erroneous thing. Sometimes they may even appeal to traditional creeds based on the consensus of historical theologians instead of the Bible in an effort to defend the Trinity--after they reject logic and math in this area, they must hold something up besides Scripture, for the Bible does not teach Trinitarianism.
As I said before, beyond the fact that the Trinity is simply a false truth claim, the real reason to oppose it is not because it is vague and impossible to apply to one's life in any significant way, but because representing an impossible contradiction as being at the core of Christian theology is extremely asinine. If Christianity is true, and if the concept of the Trinity as popularly defined cannot be true, then equating one with the other is to mix two irreconcilable things and present them to the world as a consistent truth that conforms to reality.
And that is a highly dangerous thing for Christians to do.
Sexuality In Marriage (Part 1): Mutuality
Sexuality is a rather complex subject. I've written numerous posts about various sexual issues or aspects of sexuality by this point! Thankfully the complexity of something does not mean it is incapable of being understood or applied, though. To initiate this series on marital sexuality as revealed by rationalism and Christianity, I will elaborate on a highly important issue: mutuality. This is not a point the Bible is unclear on. Although some think the Bible teaches a one-sided concern for male sexuality, it rather obviously elevates and demands mutuality in marriage and sexual behaviors, denying stereotypes, opposing unilateral sexual teachings that favor one gender over the other, and condemning all sexual abuse ranging from rape (to be discussed here) to a woman assaulting a man's genitals in a fight (Deuteronomy 25:11-12). In this post I will be analyzing some things which follow from a specific passage of the New Testament:
1 Corinthians 7:3-5--"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time . . ."
This passage is clearly egalitarian and explicitly non-complementarian; it does not demand that either the man or woman unilaterally submits to the other as if either did not have his or her own autonomy, will, and ownership of his or her own body. Instead it obviously teaches a mutual submission in the realm of marital sexuality, one where husbands and wives act according to "mutual consent" and both own each other's bodies in addition to their own, but not in a degrading or violating way: "The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife." There are no sexual roles, as men and women alike can initiate or decline sex--and there is absolutely nothing about being male or female that means one has a specific attitude towards sexuality.
Having a type of "possession" of a spouse's body does not in any way mean that one spouse has the right to coerce, manipulate, or spite the other into having sex. This possession of another's body exists purely alongside the mutual consent that Paul speaks of. In Mosaic Law the penalty for rape is execution (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), with the act of rape described in such a way as that the Bible says it is as if a rapist has murdered his or her victim. Nonconsensual sex is never morally right--not as a punishment, not as something a person believes he or she has a right to. Deuteronomy is not ambiguous when it fastens capital punishment to all acts of rape. God condemns all rape, whether rape of a stranger or of inmates in a prison or of one's spouse. Sex is not something to be forced on one spouse by the other (and people who think women can't or don't rape men are either unintelligent or uneducated) or to be withheld in order to hurt the other party.
The objective obligation to mutual consent means that as long as a couple collectively agrees to a sex act and as long as it is not an act that violates other revealed moral obligations (no adultery, for example, regardless of spousal consent) they have the moral right to express and explore their sexualities and desires however they want. Oral sex, frequent sex, public sex, consensual BDSM--none of these things are objectively wrong and thus there are no grounds for opposing them in themselves. There are several ramifications of this in a particular area that I want to save for a future post, but I certainly want to present them later.
Of course, marital sexuality can be far more enjoyable once people stop assuming that women aren't just as sexual as men. I've already explained this multiple times, so I'll mostly save that information for a link [1]. Logic, Scripture, and experience all testify to the utter falseness of this asinine belief. Women should not be shamed about their sex drives or have their sexual desires ignored by an evangelical and social world that still somewhat operates as a patriarchy. Women can and do initiate sex, fantasize about sex, and crave it, and there is nothing unnatural or sinful about this. Why this is so difficult for some to realize, I don't know! Complementarian beliefs combined with frustrating social conditioning have promoted the untrue idea that women are not sexual beings in the way that men are and that men are far more explicitly sexual beings than they really are. Reason, mutuality, communication, and awareness of Scripture all serve as acids that erode these bullshit construct beliefs.
Despite the importance of the topic, there are other aspects to marital sexuality than just mutuality. Other topics I plan on addressing in this series include variety, how to handle mismatched sex drives, and the proper stance on a particular controversial issue. I hope to continue this series soon, as the desire strikes me. Until then, stay logical and do not distort the contents of Scripture!
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/women-are-visual.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-alleged-differences-between-men-and.html
1 Corinthians 7:3-5--"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time . . ."
This passage is clearly egalitarian and explicitly non-complementarian; it does not demand that either the man or woman unilaterally submits to the other as if either did not have his or her own autonomy, will, and ownership of his or her own body. Instead it obviously teaches a mutual submission in the realm of marital sexuality, one where husbands and wives act according to "mutual consent" and both own each other's bodies in addition to their own, but not in a degrading or violating way: "The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife." There are no sexual roles, as men and women alike can initiate or decline sex--and there is absolutely nothing about being male or female that means one has a specific attitude towards sexuality.
Having a type of "possession" of a spouse's body does not in any way mean that one spouse has the right to coerce, manipulate, or spite the other into having sex. This possession of another's body exists purely alongside the mutual consent that Paul speaks of. In Mosaic Law the penalty for rape is execution (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), with the act of rape described in such a way as that the Bible says it is as if a rapist has murdered his or her victim. Nonconsensual sex is never morally right--not as a punishment, not as something a person believes he or she has a right to. Deuteronomy is not ambiguous when it fastens capital punishment to all acts of rape. God condemns all rape, whether rape of a stranger or of inmates in a prison or of one's spouse. Sex is not something to be forced on one spouse by the other (and people who think women can't or don't rape men are either unintelligent or uneducated) or to be withheld in order to hurt the other party.
The objective obligation to mutual consent means that as long as a couple collectively agrees to a sex act and as long as it is not an act that violates other revealed moral obligations (no adultery, for example, regardless of spousal consent) they have the moral right to express and explore their sexualities and desires however they want. Oral sex, frequent sex, public sex, consensual BDSM--none of these things are objectively wrong and thus there are no grounds for opposing them in themselves. There are several ramifications of this in a particular area that I want to save for a future post, but I certainly want to present them later.
Of course, marital sexuality can be far more enjoyable once people stop assuming that women aren't just as sexual as men. I've already explained this multiple times, so I'll mostly save that information for a link [1]. Logic, Scripture, and experience all testify to the utter falseness of this asinine belief. Women should not be shamed about their sex drives or have their sexual desires ignored by an evangelical and social world that still somewhat operates as a patriarchy. Women can and do initiate sex, fantasize about sex, and crave it, and there is nothing unnatural or sinful about this. Why this is so difficult for some to realize, I don't know! Complementarian beliefs combined with frustrating social conditioning have promoted the untrue idea that women are not sexual beings in the way that men are and that men are far more explicitly sexual beings than they really are. Reason, mutuality, communication, and awareness of Scripture all serve as acids that erode these bullshit construct beliefs.
Despite the importance of the topic, there are other aspects to marital sexuality than just mutuality. Other topics I plan on addressing in this series include variety, how to handle mismatched sex drives, and the proper stance on a particular controversial issue. I hope to continue this series soon, as the desire strikes me. Until then, stay logical and do not distort the contents of Scripture!
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/women-are-visual.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-alleged-differences-between-men-and.html
The Immateriality Of Logic
To ask yourself "What is logic?" is to ask yourself one of the most important questions in all of human epistemology. Understanding of the nature of logic is the key that unlocks the doorway to knowledge. I have written at length about various aspects of and truths about logic elsewhere, so here I will focus almost exclusively on the metaphysics of logic: what it is and why it cannot be something material or found in nature. Someone who realizes that logic is immaterial can understand the nature of logic and see that the core of reality is immaterial. Only then can someone recognize the transcendence of logic and that nature is contingent while certain nonphysical things are not contingent but inescapably necessary.
Logic is a series of universal and inviolable laws that govern all of reality and reveal what does and does not follow from specific facts and propositions. To claim, as I have heard of some doing, that logic is anything else--a social construct, the product of human intellectual evolution, a process merely contained within the human brain or mind--is to claim something impossible and false. Despite any denial of this, logic and logical truths exist by pure necessity and exist independently of anything else; nothing else has to exist for logic to exist.
Logic is grasped by the mind, which is itself a nonphysical, immaterial thing [1]. No one can physically grasp logic with the hands--someone can understand that he or she is grabbing a specific material object with his or her hand(s), for instance, through comprehension of the logical law of identity, but that person is not grabbing logic itself. Logic is the means by which he or she understands what he or she is doing, not the object being grabbed. Every intelligible experience of the mind and senses is only intelligible because the mind comprehends the three basic laws of logic (law of identity, law of noncontradiction, and the law of excluded middle) and, at least to some degree, what follows from them.
Truth and logic exist by self-mandated necessity even if no consciousness or matter did. If no matter existed, non-matter would still be non-matter instead of matter, it would be true that matter does not exist, the proposition "Matter exists" would be false and not true, and so on. Logic does not depend on the existence of any conscious mind (not even God's) or material object in order to exist; as I have said, it is a series of universal, inviolable, immaterial laws that govern all of reality and that exist by pure necessity by its own nature,not because of anything else, immaterial or material. Even if no material world and thus no trees existed, and even if neither God nor any other conscious mind existed, it would still be true that IF trees existed then matter would exist and that IF all humans are mortal and Cooper is a human then Cooper is mortal. Apart from logic no knowledge could exist in any mind. Yes, experience of some kind is necessary for all knowledge [2]--but logic alone makes experiences intelligible to begin with.
Of course, logic is not the only thing that exists. I exist as a mind with a body, so both mind and matter exist [3]. From this and several logical truths alone it follows that an uncaused cause exists, whether me or some other thing [4]--this uncaused cause cannot be logic, because logic cannot actually cause anything to come into existence.
Really, understanding logic is quite simple. Reality cannot be reduced down into any lesser components than those in logic. Logic is; logic exists by pure necessity; logic cannot be erroneous; logic and its laws are immaterial and exist totally independent of any matter or mind.
Logic, people. It is helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-immateriality-of-consciousness.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-necessity-of-experience-to-knowledge.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
Logic is a series of universal and inviolable laws that govern all of reality and reveal what does and does not follow from specific facts and propositions. To claim, as I have heard of some doing, that logic is anything else--a social construct, the product of human intellectual evolution, a process merely contained within the human brain or mind--is to claim something impossible and false. Despite any denial of this, logic and logical truths exist by pure necessity and exist independently of anything else; nothing else has to exist for logic to exist.
Logic is grasped by the mind, which is itself a nonphysical, immaterial thing [1]. No one can physically grasp logic with the hands--someone can understand that he or she is grabbing a specific material object with his or her hand(s), for instance, through comprehension of the logical law of identity, but that person is not grabbing logic itself. Logic is the means by which he or she understands what he or she is doing, not the object being grabbed. Every intelligible experience of the mind and senses is only intelligible because the mind comprehends the three basic laws of logic (law of identity, law of noncontradiction, and the law of excluded middle) and, at least to some degree, what follows from them.
Truth and logic exist by self-mandated necessity even if no consciousness or matter did. If no matter existed, non-matter would still be non-matter instead of matter, it would be true that matter does not exist, the proposition "Matter exists" would be false and not true, and so on. Logic does not depend on the existence of any conscious mind (not even God's) or material object in order to exist; as I have said, it is a series of universal, inviolable, immaterial laws that govern all of reality and that exist by pure necessity by its own nature,not because of anything else, immaterial or material. Even if no material world and thus no trees existed, and even if neither God nor any other conscious mind existed, it would still be true that IF trees existed then matter would exist and that IF all humans are mortal and Cooper is a human then Cooper is mortal. Apart from logic no knowledge could exist in any mind. Yes, experience of some kind is necessary for all knowledge [2]--but logic alone makes experiences intelligible to begin with.
Of course, logic is not the only thing that exists. I exist as a mind with a body, so both mind and matter exist [3]. From this and several logical truths alone it follows that an uncaused cause exists, whether me or some other thing [4]--this uncaused cause cannot be logic, because logic cannot actually cause anything to come into existence.
Really, understanding logic is quite simple. Reality cannot be reduced down into any lesser components than those in logic. Logic is; logic exists by pure necessity; logic cannot be erroneous; logic and its laws are immaterial and exist totally independent of any matter or mind.
Logic, people. It is helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-immateriality-of-consciousness.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-necessity-of-experience-to-knowledge.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
The Nature Of Sin
One of the most important concepts in all of Christian theology is the subject of sin. It is a central issue to Christianity, for without sin there could be no need for redemption. Without an accurate understanding of sin it is impossible to understand many other theological matters like God's nature and the gospel. I find, very frustratingly, that many Christians I know of would likely agree with the foundational truths I will point out, both Biblically and philosophically, but refuse to confront what follows from them--especially when it comes to moral epistemology and the veracity of particular moral claims.
To discover the nature of sin one must answer several questions at a minimum. What is sin? Did it exist before the Bible was gradually revealed? How can someone know what is sinful and what isn't? In order to answer that first question, I will provide the Biblical definition of sin. Sin is whatever violates the laws of God:
1 John 3:4--"Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness."
Sin, in the Christian worldview, is solely what contradicts and violates moral laws that conform to God's nature, nothing less. It does not change depending on culture or time. Non-theonomists may believe this but their worldview truly does not allow for it, unsurprisingly. Despite this, disagreement over what makes something sinful or over what specific things are sinful does not prove anything except that disagreement exists and that left to ourselves we merely have subjective perceptions of morality. If something is right or wrong it is so totally irrespective of anyone's feelings, preferences, cultural upbringing, social agreement, or assumptions. Only a fallacious mind appeals to these things in an effort to verify or defend a moral claim. No amount of willpower or desire makes something sinful not sinful or something not sinful sinful.
God ultimately revealed his moral laws to humans through his revelation provided in Old Testament Law. 1 John 3:4 does not mean that before Mosaic Law was revealed there was no such thing as sin, however, for the moral laws and obligations that Mosaic Law describes still existed as a part of God's nature, although humans had no way to actually know them at that point. Moral truths still existed because God's nature still existed. Although there was no Mosaic Law before the events in described in Exodus, sin was still sin--kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22), murder (Exodus 21:12-14), rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), theft (Exodus 22:1-4), arson (Exodus 22:6), racism (Exodus 23:9), sexism (Exodus 21:26-27), perjury (Deuteronomy 19:16-21), lust/coveting (Exodus 20:17), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), sorcery (Exodus 22:18), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), and other sins were still objectively wrong. Mosaic Law merely reflects moral laws that would exist even if the written Bible did not.
Multiple verses (Revelation 15:3, for instance) describe Yahweh as being righteous, just, and good. In the Christian worldview there is no external moral standard that God conforms to sometimes and doesn't at other times; his very character IS good. It is not that God can sometimes be good and sometimes evil. There is no other moral authority in the universe.
This realization leads to the issue of moral epistemology (how moral truths can be known). In fact, it is impossible for values to exist apart from a deity, and it is impossible for humans, who are not God, to know morality unless God reveals it to them [1]. One can prove this from deductive reasoning alone, with nothing but logic grasped by the mind. The Bible itself affirms this--as it would if it is true, since it and logic would not deviate from one another--saying that Mosaic Law is necessary to know moral obligations:
Romans 7:7--"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said 'Do not covet.'"
Adding to God's laws by claiming that things which do not contradict his nature--profanity, nudity, masturbation, alcohol, opposite-gender friendships, metal music, etc. (to use some examples I've addressed on my blog)--are wrong is strictly condemned by God's law itself (Deuteronomy 4:2) [2]. In my experience it is largely common to find people who drastically misunderstand which actions and attitudes are sinful and which aren't, with many condemning things the Bible does not and rejecting the very things the Bible prescribes. Even so, human error does not affect the veracity of truth.
Sin, ultimately, is something quite familiar to humanity. All throughout human history one can find recorded instances of the gravest of moral atrocities. Acts of extreme selfishness and cruelty have existed almost as long as humans themselves have. Whether these accounts are discovered in the Bible or elsewhere, one can learn a multitude of stories that present a history marred by sin. And no one can adequately understand the solution to the problem of sin if that person does not understand the problem itself, nor can anyone understand the problem unless he or she knows the standard of morality and just how he or she has deviated from it. Comprehension of sin--what its nature is, what its nature is not, what specific behaviors or attitudes are sinful--is inseparable from a correct understanding of Scripture and Christianity.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-delusion-of-inverse-morality.html
To discover the nature of sin one must answer several questions at a minimum. What is sin? Did it exist before the Bible was gradually revealed? How can someone know what is sinful and what isn't? In order to answer that first question, I will provide the Biblical definition of sin. Sin is whatever violates the laws of God:
1 John 3:4--"Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness."
Sin, in the Christian worldview, is solely what contradicts and violates moral laws that conform to God's nature, nothing less. It does not change depending on culture or time. Non-theonomists may believe this but their worldview truly does not allow for it, unsurprisingly. Despite this, disagreement over what makes something sinful or over what specific things are sinful does not prove anything except that disagreement exists and that left to ourselves we merely have subjective perceptions of morality. If something is right or wrong it is so totally irrespective of anyone's feelings, preferences, cultural upbringing, social agreement, or assumptions. Only a fallacious mind appeals to these things in an effort to verify or defend a moral claim. No amount of willpower or desire makes something sinful not sinful or something not sinful sinful.
God ultimately revealed his moral laws to humans through his revelation provided in Old Testament Law. 1 John 3:4 does not mean that before Mosaic Law was revealed there was no such thing as sin, however, for the moral laws and obligations that Mosaic Law describes still existed as a part of God's nature, although humans had no way to actually know them at that point. Moral truths still existed because God's nature still existed. Although there was no Mosaic Law before the events in described in Exodus, sin was still sin--kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22), murder (Exodus 21:12-14), rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), theft (Exodus 22:1-4), arson (Exodus 22:6), racism (Exodus 23:9), sexism (Exodus 21:26-27), perjury (Deuteronomy 19:16-21), lust/coveting (Exodus 20:17), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), sorcery (Exodus 22:18), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), and other sins were still objectively wrong. Mosaic Law merely reflects moral laws that would exist even if the written Bible did not.
Multiple verses (Revelation 15:3, for instance) describe Yahweh as being righteous, just, and good. In the Christian worldview there is no external moral standard that God conforms to sometimes and doesn't at other times; his very character IS good. It is not that God can sometimes be good and sometimes evil. There is no other moral authority in the universe.
This realization leads to the issue of moral epistemology (how moral truths can be known). In fact, it is impossible for values to exist apart from a deity, and it is impossible for humans, who are not God, to know morality unless God reveals it to them [1]. One can prove this from deductive reasoning alone, with nothing but logic grasped by the mind. The Bible itself affirms this--as it would if it is true, since it and logic would not deviate from one another--saying that Mosaic Law is necessary to know moral obligations:
Romans 7:7--"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said 'Do not covet.'"
Adding to God's laws by claiming that things which do not contradict his nature--profanity, nudity, masturbation, alcohol, opposite-gender friendships, metal music, etc. (to use some examples I've addressed on my blog)--are wrong is strictly condemned by God's law itself (Deuteronomy 4:2) [2]. In my experience it is largely common to find people who drastically misunderstand which actions and attitudes are sinful and which aren't, with many condemning things the Bible does not and rejecting the very things the Bible prescribes. Even so, human error does not affect the veracity of truth.
Sin, ultimately, is something quite familiar to humanity. All throughout human history one can find recorded instances of the gravest of moral atrocities. Acts of extreme selfishness and cruelty have existed almost as long as humans themselves have. Whether these accounts are discovered in the Bible or elsewhere, one can learn a multitude of stories that present a history marred by sin. And no one can adequately understand the solution to the problem of sin if that person does not understand the problem itself, nor can anyone understand the problem unless he or she knows the standard of morality and just how he or she has deviated from it. Comprehension of sin--what its nature is, what its nature is not, what specific behaviors or attitudes are sinful--is inseparable from a correct understanding of Scripture and Christianity.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-delusion-of-inverse-morality.html
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Consciousness Cannot Be Illusory
Despite its simultaneous simplicity and complexity, consciousness is the foundation of human experiences in that no human experiences could exist at all apart from human consciousness. And yet some, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson (a quick Google search can find a YouTube video where he proposes this), suggest that consciousness is an illusion and/or that it doesn't actually exist. Yet I know with absolute certainty that this is false, for at the very least my own consciousness exists. I may not be able to know if any minds exist outside of my own, but I cannot be mistaken about my own consciousness. I know that I have written on some of this before. Still, I want to very directly address this. I will explain here how consciousness cannot be an illusion.
 |
| Apart from consciousness, the human body would be nothing but an unanimated shell. It is consciousness, a property of minds, that enables perception, thought, memory, and rationality. |
Some may say that I can only perceive that my body exists but never actually know if I have a physical body or not. Now, there is a way for me to prove to myself with absolute logicality and absolute certainty that I do have a physical body of some kind [2]; I do not mean at all to imply that I can at best only perceive that I have a body outside of my mind. But even if this were untrue and no such proof existed which I could access, my point is entirely unaffected. The thing is that if I even perceive that I have a mind, or consciousness, then it is impossible for me to not have one, since the ability to perceive is consciousness itself.
Even if there were no external world, no objects or locations that existed outside of my mind, no matter at all--and I know that there is some sort of material external world outside of my mind [3], so this is a totally hypothetical scenario--as long as I am thinking, perceiving, experiencing, or willing anything at all, then I know with absolute certainty that my conscious mind exists and that it grasps the necessary existence of logic and truth. Even if my senses perceived nothing but pure immaterial illusions, mental constructs of my imagination taking the form of sensory perceptions, and nothing outside of the present moment could be certain, my consciousness still exists and I know this for sure as long as I am experiencing perception or thought of any kind whatsoever. Whether dreaming or awake, any experience at all necessitates consciousness (see [2] for this as well). Consciousness cannot be an illusion because an illusion cannot be perceived apart from consciousness.
As I have clarified in this article, I am not at all suggesting that there is no such thing as matter or that I cannot know for sure if I have a body or if an external world exists. See some of the links below for more information on these subjects. Idealism (which holds that nothing exists but minds and their perceptions) is a very asinine metaphysical position, one that is objectively false. Yet, though I have mentioned this before and plan on exploring it more thoroughly in the future, the primary attention of this article is how consciousness cannot be an illusion and therefore the issue of idealism will be mostly kept separate.
There are some that might deny the existence of consciousness or the mind because to acknowledge these things would mean admission that their worldviews are objectively incorrect. One example of this type of person is a naturalist, someone who believes that nothing except for nature exists--just purely physical matter. The truth of the matter (I amuse myself sometimes) is that my mind and logic could not exist if naturalism were true. Yet they do. Logic exists by pure necessity and would exist even if no minds or matter existed at all, and since I am conscious I know that my mind exists. And then there is the fact that an uncaused cause exists (what I mean by the word "God") [4]--and if I did not have a beginning then I am that being, or at the very least I have always existed as a conscious mind.
My consciousness is what animates my body. Without consciousness and the mind that is the seat of that consciousness my body would be lifeless. Indeed, this is how the Bible defines death in James 2:26: as the separation of the mind/soul from the body. It cannot be an illusion, for to experience an illusion I must have consciousness, and thus it is objectively impossible for my consciousness to be anything but real, even if my consciousness perceives some things that are merely illusory. A rationalist can realize this very quickly, yet some scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson instead offer absolutely asinine claims that reality pushes away because they are impossible. The existence of consciousness remains proven in full to any mind that thinks and perceives.
[1]. I have written about miscellaneous aspects of consciousness and phenomenology in other places, such as the following ones:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-immateriality-of-consciousness.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/types-of-thoughts.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/aspects-of-consciousness.html
[2]. This is one of the articles where I discussed this proof:
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-external-world.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Happiness In Marriage
A few weeks ago I had to read Pride and Prejudice for a college assignment and decided to write out the following points out of concern for the subject matter. Very early on in the book, a character named Charlotte says that "'Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance'" (16), articulating a belief that the book itself criticizes as the story unfolds. Her question-begging claim is not only downright false just by nature of the incorrect logical relationship she presents the concepts as having, but it would prove quite dangerous to the relational health of marriages if spouses actually believed this nonsense. It is entirely possible for spouses to love such other in such a way so that genuine happiness arises--with happiness being a feeling or sense of satisfaction, pleasure, and excitement.
At least two courses of action could lead to a marriage that totally contradicts Charlotte's description: 1) careful selection of a spouse with compatible personality traits and 2) putting intentional, consistent effort into cultivating a pleasant relationship. Rightly administered, these two things could easily produce a marriage relationship with genuine happiness for both partners. Taking such a relationship seriously in a way that incorporates intimacy, intentionality, and mutuality will not result in mere chance controlling satisfaction and fulfillment.
If someone were to disregard these two things then Charlotte's words would certainly be true--but only about a marriage where both spouses do nothing to maintain or improve the relationship. It is not as if there are no calculated steps at all which one could take to at least increase the probability of happiness in marriage. Happiness in a marriage immersed in love of God and in mutuality and in intentionality is not a marriage where happiness will only arise by pure chance.
In a book that contains multiple false or fallacious statements about marriage--such as the one that rich single man "in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" (3)--Charlotte's comment stands out as obviously false. For the reasons presented above it simply is totally avoidable to have marital happiness only come about by arbitrary chance. And if I become married in the future, I certainly would expect that my wife and I would not decide to just hope blindly that happiness has a place in our relationship, with no measures in place by which we could at least attempt to bring it about!
Pride and Prejudice. Austen, Jane. Ed. Gray, Donald. New York: Norton and Company, 2001. Print.
At least two courses of action could lead to a marriage that totally contradicts Charlotte's description: 1) careful selection of a spouse with compatible personality traits and 2) putting intentional, consistent effort into cultivating a pleasant relationship. Rightly administered, these two things could easily produce a marriage relationship with genuine happiness for both partners. Taking such a relationship seriously in a way that incorporates intimacy, intentionality, and mutuality will not result in mere chance controlling satisfaction and fulfillment.
If someone were to disregard these two things then Charlotte's words would certainly be true--but only about a marriage where both spouses do nothing to maintain or improve the relationship. It is not as if there are no calculated steps at all which one could take to at least increase the probability of happiness in marriage. Happiness in a marriage immersed in love of God and in mutuality and in intentionality is not a marriage where happiness will only arise by pure chance.
In a book that contains multiple false or fallacious statements about marriage--such as the one that rich single man "in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" (3)--Charlotte's comment stands out as obviously false. For the reasons presented above it simply is totally avoidable to have marital happiness only come about by arbitrary chance. And if I become married in the future, I certainly would expect that my wife and I would not decide to just hope blindly that happiness has a place in our relationship, with no measures in place by which we could at least attempt to bring it about!
Pride and Prejudice. Austen, Jane. Ed. Gray, Donald. New York: Norton and Company, 2001. Print.
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Shared Ideology In Friendship
A friend is a companion with whom one shares a social relationship and a personal bond based upon bilateral affection, while an acquaintance is someone with whom one sees or interacts with but does not share a friendship. One could easily have far more acquaintances than friends! You may see the same acquaintances for years, decades even, without ever actually bonding with them personally and coming to love them as friends. But actual friendships can prove very rewarding and empowering. Friendships can provide great emotional, spiritual, and intellectual support that offers stability to life. A friendship with someone whom I have become intimately attached to is one of the greatest pleasures I could hope for in terrestrial life! Even so, some have suggested to me that ideology does not or should not shape friendships, and this suggestion is a very shortsighted one.
Sometimes a person will tell me that dissolving friendships over ideological differences is pointless or that initiating them over ideological similarities is shallow. First of all, anyone who actively does not want to be friends with a pro-Nazi individual or someone who is extremely sexist or racist does build friendships, to at least some degree, on ideology. I know I do not want an intimate social relationship with someone who is anti-intellectual, sexist, racist, hedonistic, or a number of other things. I have also never seen someone who, despite his or her words, truly lived as if shared ideologies do not matter in a friendship. Second, how could basing a significant part of a friendship around ideologies that both parties share and that are demonstrably true be a pointless thing? Since truth, reality, and knowledge are the only things that may turn out to have meaning in the end, framing a friendship around these issues is not a shallow thing, but a sign of intellectual or spiritual soberness and maturity. To base a friendship on these things is to found a relationship on the only things that could prove to actual be meaningful.
In the past few months I have had two friendships of mine dissipate, to a great extent in the first case and perhaps a lesser extent in the second, because of ideological splits. Not only is it objectively pointless (whether or not reality turns out to be meaningful, apathy about worldview matters could never be anything but objectively without a point) to not share discoveries about reality with one's close friends, but I have no subjective desire to shackle myself into draining friendships with those who offer no intellectual or spiritual stimulation whatsoever. In the first terminated friendship in my recent life (the past year), the split encompassed practically everything--epistemology, theology, priorities, methodology, ethics, and so on. This friend scarcely ever clarified his actual worldview but eventually opposed mine at almost every possible opportunity. It was clear that this person was thoroughly irrational, deluded by his arbitrary beliefs and multitude of assumptions, and I thus was not surprised when we relationally drifted apart. In the case of the second person, I realized that this "friend" not only did not truly behave like a committed friend towards me but also that she admits outright that she has little to no concern to be in alignment with any existing rational or moral truths. In both cases, I am content to now count these former friends among my intellectual opponents, and I cannot bring myself to desire to maintain friendships with intellectual opponents. It is with great sincerity that I call them enemies of truth and enemies of my own self.
I currently have only a small handful of friendships. And I am very content with that. It is not an easy thing to find the type of friend I desire--someone who shares my commitment to reason, truth, and Christianity and someone whom I want to develop an intense relational connection with. I would rather have no friends at all than have shallow "friends" who have committed intellectual treason against reality and who do not reciprocate behavior and attitudes that I grant to them. Even though I am extremely extroverted I cannot bring myself to want to be in the presence of most people I have met, much less develop actual friendships with them. In my experience people at large are stepped in irrationality and varying degrees of apathy towards ultimate matters.
Severing myself from those who frustrate me with their fallacies and gratuitous errors is one of the most subjectively fulfilling things I have ever done in my life. One of the greatest blessings a lover of truth can have is a friend or number of friends who share that love, and I deeply, wholeheartedly, inarticulably cherish all of those who are my friends.
Sometimes a person will tell me that dissolving friendships over ideological differences is pointless or that initiating them over ideological similarities is shallow. First of all, anyone who actively does not want to be friends with a pro-Nazi individual or someone who is extremely sexist or racist does build friendships, to at least some degree, on ideology. I know I do not want an intimate social relationship with someone who is anti-intellectual, sexist, racist, hedonistic, or a number of other things. I have also never seen someone who, despite his or her words, truly lived as if shared ideologies do not matter in a friendship. Second, how could basing a significant part of a friendship around ideologies that both parties share and that are demonstrably true be a pointless thing? Since truth, reality, and knowledge are the only things that may turn out to have meaning in the end, framing a friendship around these issues is not a shallow thing, but a sign of intellectual or spiritual soberness and maturity. To base a friendship on these things is to found a relationship on the only things that could prove to actual be meaningful.
In the past few months I have had two friendships of mine dissipate, to a great extent in the first case and perhaps a lesser extent in the second, because of ideological splits. Not only is it objectively pointless (whether or not reality turns out to be meaningful, apathy about worldview matters could never be anything but objectively without a point) to not share discoveries about reality with one's close friends, but I have no subjective desire to shackle myself into draining friendships with those who offer no intellectual or spiritual stimulation whatsoever. In the first terminated friendship in my recent life (the past year), the split encompassed practically everything--epistemology, theology, priorities, methodology, ethics, and so on. This friend scarcely ever clarified his actual worldview but eventually opposed mine at almost every possible opportunity. It was clear that this person was thoroughly irrational, deluded by his arbitrary beliefs and multitude of assumptions, and I thus was not surprised when we relationally drifted apart. In the case of the second person, I realized that this "friend" not only did not truly behave like a committed friend towards me but also that she admits outright that she has little to no concern to be in alignment with any existing rational or moral truths. In both cases, I am content to now count these former friends among my intellectual opponents, and I cannot bring myself to desire to maintain friendships with intellectual opponents. It is with great sincerity that I call them enemies of truth and enemies of my own self.
I currently have only a small handful of friendships. And I am very content with that. It is not an easy thing to find the type of friend I desire--someone who shares my commitment to reason, truth, and Christianity and someone whom I want to develop an intense relational connection with. I would rather have no friends at all than have shallow "friends" who have committed intellectual treason against reality and who do not reciprocate behavior and attitudes that I grant to them. Even though I am extremely extroverted I cannot bring myself to want to be in the presence of most people I have met, much less develop actual friendships with them. In my experience people at large are stepped in irrationality and varying degrees of apathy towards ultimate matters.
Severing myself from those who frustrate me with their fallacies and gratuitous errors is one of the most subjectively fulfilling things I have ever done in my life. One of the greatest blessings a lover of truth can have is a friend or number of friends who share that love, and I deeply, wholeheartedly, inarticulably cherish all of those who are my friends.
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Sunday Church: A Construct Of Tradition
Never does the Bible say that meeting in churches on Sundays is something Christians have an obligation to do. Have you ever heard of this before? Unless you came to this conclusion on your own, I would doubt so. But not only is the idea that Christians must meet every Sunday an idea foreign to the Bible, but churches in America also have become practically useless, paralyzed by intellectual stupor, ignorance of the Bible, and petty shallowness. Does this mean that the Bible has nothing to say about Christians meeting with each other? No, but it does not say what many seem to assume.
Unfortunately I can recall hearing others talk like attending church regularly on Sundays is a staple of Christian morality, when the Bible says no such thing. Here is the closest thing to a passage mandating church that the Bible contains:
Hebrews 10:25--"Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching."
Does this verse prescribe that Christians meet together? Yes. Does it specify that this must occur on a weekly basis on Sunday mornings? Not at all! Why then would people speak and act as if the Bible demanded that they attend a church weekly on a specific day of the week, even claiming to experience guilt upon missing these sessions? The answer is simple: many people seem to know very little about what the Bible actually teaches and either read alien traditions into prescriptions in the text or they inherit baseless ideas from teachers who create or buy into non-obligatory traditions.
Beyond the fact that the Bible does not require Sunday church, there are other problems with many churches I've gone to since becoming a Christian. Most churches I have visited or attended have been little more than dens of irrationality, shallowness, error, hypocrisy, legalism, and tradition. Being in such an environment frustrates me more than anything else, although it does provide me a sense of appreciation for reason and sound theology, neither of which I would expect to find in many churches in any significant form.
In defense of Sunday church as an objective moral obligation some may say that one obtains benefits from meeting with other Christians. But these benefits can be received, and in some cases far more potently, through a non-traditional system of meeting with other Christians. Gathering with a handful of intelligent, committed Christians who are close friends can provide all of the alleged and actual general benefits of Sunday church and more. One can develop socially and spiritually in this way too, and people like me would not have to suffer the frustration of being in shallow church communities where the people hold to asinine, extra-Biblical, and irrational beliefs elevated via tradition and consensus. Some people dislike attending, much less regularly attending, gatherings of shallow people who engage in shallow theology and listen to shallow sermons. Is there any sin in this dislike? Anyone who would claim that a dislike of intentionally meeting with superficial and irrational people who cling to tradition over reason and Scripture is sinful is someone who believes an asinine and logically indefensible proposition.
I'm not the only person I know of who is deeply frustrated with the state of most churches I've been to. I have several friends who also have detected the fact that in American churches preaching without substance, sound logic, or a solid grasp of Scripture is not uncommon. A byproduct of this lackluster preaching is shallow congregations [1]. To demonstrate this, just go ask average churchgoers a few questions about what they claim to believe--not about what is true or verifiable, just what they think they believe. It amuses me how quickly one could bring down the flimsy walls of their worldviews.
When churches fail to represent Christian morality correctly (by setting aside moral commands that God has revealed and holding up imaginary moral "obligations" [2]), scarcely move beyond things that are agonizingly superficial (there is so much more to the Bible than just the concepts in John 3:16), teach highly erroneous theology (eternal conscious torment, Trinitarianism, complementarianism, sexual prudery, and so on), and generally foster and protect an environment of superficial community based on errors, the sole rational response is to recognize the uselessness of such structures. I have written posts, sometimes multiple posts, on these very issues, so feel free to locate them if you want more information on what I mean by these complaints. But these problems combined with the wholly extra-Biblical nature of Sunday church services to begin with mean that those who rise above the fallacies of the average churchgoer and the Biblical ignorance of the average professing Christian will likely not want to have much to do with most church congregations.
I did not say that all churches suffer from these problems, although almost every one I have visited has indeed displayed at least one or more of these significant problems. And just because someone attacks or points out the unnecessary nature of Sunday church does not mean that he or she rejects the Bible's command to meet with other believers! The actual Biblical command says nothing of Sunday morning gatherings and leaves the application of this instruction to be decided by individual Christians, meaning that if a Christian wanted to he or she could meet biweekly on Friday afternoons with as little as 1-3 other Christians and fulfill this in that way, perhaps even meeting with a few Christians one at a time throughout a week. Tradition does not determine truth. Misrepresentation of Christian morality is condemned by the Bible itself (Deuteronomy 4:2)--not that this ever stopped Christians, real or professed, from creating an onslaught of meaningless rules and norms with no objective authority or goodness whatsoever, including the belief that Christians must attend church on Sundays in the presence of shallow people.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/my-people-are-destroyed-from-lack-of.html
[2]. A large part of my blog has been devoted to discussing instances of this and its stupidity. This occurs when Christians claim or imply that anything which God has not condemned is wrong (profanity, being alone with the opposite gender, masturbation, secular music, etc) and yet distance themselves from or deny the objectively good nature of what God has revealed (the contents of Mosaic Law, mostly).
Unfortunately I can recall hearing others talk like attending church regularly on Sundays is a staple of Christian morality, when the Bible says no such thing. Here is the closest thing to a passage mandating church that the Bible contains:
Hebrews 10:25--"Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching."
Does this verse prescribe that Christians meet together? Yes. Does it specify that this must occur on a weekly basis on Sunday mornings? Not at all! Why then would people speak and act as if the Bible demanded that they attend a church weekly on a specific day of the week, even claiming to experience guilt upon missing these sessions? The answer is simple: many people seem to know very little about what the Bible actually teaches and either read alien traditions into prescriptions in the text or they inherit baseless ideas from teachers who create or buy into non-obligatory traditions.
Beyond the fact that the Bible does not require Sunday church, there are other problems with many churches I've gone to since becoming a Christian. Most churches I have visited or attended have been little more than dens of irrationality, shallowness, error, hypocrisy, legalism, and tradition. Being in such an environment frustrates me more than anything else, although it does provide me a sense of appreciation for reason and sound theology, neither of which I would expect to find in many churches in any significant form.
In defense of Sunday church as an objective moral obligation some may say that one obtains benefits from meeting with other Christians. But these benefits can be received, and in some cases far more potently, through a non-traditional system of meeting with other Christians. Gathering with a handful of intelligent, committed Christians who are close friends can provide all of the alleged and actual general benefits of Sunday church and more. One can develop socially and spiritually in this way too, and people like me would not have to suffer the frustration of being in shallow church communities where the people hold to asinine, extra-Biblical, and irrational beliefs elevated via tradition and consensus. Some people dislike attending, much less regularly attending, gatherings of shallow people who engage in shallow theology and listen to shallow sermons. Is there any sin in this dislike? Anyone who would claim that a dislike of intentionally meeting with superficial and irrational people who cling to tradition over reason and Scripture is sinful is someone who believes an asinine and logically indefensible proposition.
I'm not the only person I know of who is deeply frustrated with the state of most churches I've been to. I have several friends who also have detected the fact that in American churches preaching without substance, sound logic, or a solid grasp of Scripture is not uncommon. A byproduct of this lackluster preaching is shallow congregations [1]. To demonstrate this, just go ask average churchgoers a few questions about what they claim to believe--not about what is true or verifiable, just what they think they believe. It amuses me how quickly one could bring down the flimsy walls of their worldviews.
When churches fail to represent Christian morality correctly (by setting aside moral commands that God has revealed and holding up imaginary moral "obligations" [2]), scarcely move beyond things that are agonizingly superficial (there is so much more to the Bible than just the concepts in John 3:16), teach highly erroneous theology (eternal conscious torment, Trinitarianism, complementarianism, sexual prudery, and so on), and generally foster and protect an environment of superficial community based on errors, the sole rational response is to recognize the uselessness of such structures. I have written posts, sometimes multiple posts, on these very issues, so feel free to locate them if you want more information on what I mean by these complaints. But these problems combined with the wholly extra-Biblical nature of Sunday church services to begin with mean that those who rise above the fallacies of the average churchgoer and the Biblical ignorance of the average professing Christian will likely not want to have much to do with most church congregations.
I did not say that all churches suffer from these problems, although almost every one I have visited has indeed displayed at least one or more of these significant problems. And just because someone attacks or points out the unnecessary nature of Sunday church does not mean that he or she rejects the Bible's command to meet with other believers! The actual Biblical command says nothing of Sunday morning gatherings and leaves the application of this instruction to be decided by individual Christians, meaning that if a Christian wanted to he or she could meet biweekly on Friday afternoons with as little as 1-3 other Christians and fulfill this in that way, perhaps even meeting with a few Christians one at a time throughout a week. Tradition does not determine truth. Misrepresentation of Christian morality is condemned by the Bible itself (Deuteronomy 4:2)--not that this ever stopped Christians, real or professed, from creating an onslaught of meaningless rules and norms with no objective authority or goodness whatsoever, including the belief that Christians must attend church on Sundays in the presence of shallow people.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/my-people-are-destroyed-from-lack-of.html
[2]. A large part of my blog has been devoted to discussing instances of this and its stupidity. This occurs when Christians claim or imply that anything which God has not condemned is wrong (profanity, being alone with the opposite gender, masturbation, secular music, etc) and yet distance themselves from or deny the objectively good nature of what God has revealed (the contents of Mosaic Law, mostly).
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Movie Review--It: Chapter One
"This isn't real enough for you Billy? I'm not real enough for you?"
--Pennywise, It: Chapter One
Yes, as my movie reviews evidence, I am a lover of horror. It is one of my favorite genres! I had been looking forward to the release of It: Chapter One for several months and was finally able to watch it. Author Stephen King has crafted some very unique stories, and It matches his personal modus operandi. I can't think of anyone besides King that I would expect this story from in literary form. The movie, though, forgoes some of the more controversial elements I have heard of from the book (so far at least). Though it (get it?) has several flaws, including a somewhat repetitive style of setting up scares, fans of Stephen King or general horror or both may find a lot to appreciate here. But it offers a haunting take on the story of how a being from another dimension torments the children of a town called Derry, though it is much more than just another film with a slasher antagonist--it is a movie with heart and quality filmmaking.
Production Values
On practically all fronts, the casting and acting in It: Chapter One are splendid and very fitting. The child acting in particular puts little Anakin's performance in The Phantom Menace to serious shame! Bill and Beverly, two members of the main group of children, are especially acted in a very lifelike, immersive way, though all members of the Losers Club (with the possible exception of one) are consistently acted wonderfully. The demeanor of the children really captures the initial sense of helplessness that is only highlighted by the abusive or neglectful tendencies of most adults shown onscreen. They have no one to turn to who can truly help, but they also have almost no adults (who make an appearance) to request help from because many of Derry's adults have rather obvious flaws that make them poor confidants and assistants. While not part of the Losers Club, Bill's little brother Georgie is beautifully acted and demonstrates the genuine talent of Jackson Robert Scott, who was excellently cast for the role. A scene he shares with his older brother near the end is very emotionally potent and exemplifies how even a character who does not appear during the majority of a film can make a definite impact on the story.
Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise, of course, has to succeed for the titular character of the film to make the movie worth bearing the name the children give to him. And Pennywise definitely makes an impact in this film, despite only actually speaking a handful of times. Skarsgard's grin and voice may even be matched with Pennywise in the same way that Heath Ledger's mannerisms and acting for his Joker character became so deeply connected to the idea of the Joker in cinema. His portrayal of the telepathic, malevolent, energetic "dancing clown" is very memorable. Bill did a great job animating the demented antagonist of the story!
It does have some jump scares, yet this was not 2016's jump scare fest The Forest; the jump scares here have more substance than they would if they were random afterthoughts. They do not detract from the atmosphere of horror because they are not the only scares in the movie. The horror builds all the way until the climax, and it is not merely psychological suspense that develops, as a very visual horror plays a large role in many scenes. For these reason It does not succumb to some of the lackluster "horror" in some genre entries (like the aforementioned The Forest).
From the opening scene with brothers Bill and Georgie making a paper boat to the scene with the band of children defeating Pennywise for a time, It bleeds out (bleeds out! I amuse myself sometimes) high production values in acting, set design, and quality cinematography--one shot where someone twisting a picture frame changes the camera angle was particularly unique. The people who complain about previous efforts to adapt Stephen King stories from novel to film may find themselves truly enjoying It.
Story
(SPOILERS included in this section)
In the town of Derry, a sweet little boy named Georgie makes a paper boat with his older brother and then lets it glide atop the water from an overhead rainstorm. But when his boat goes into a sewer hole and Georgie looks inside, the face of a clown appears. The clown identifies himself as "Pennywise" and talks to Georgie before biting his arm off and pulling the screaming child down into the sewers.
Georgie's brother Bill and some other children soon form a little neighborhood group called the "Losers Club", one that eventually expands to include six boys and one girl. Each of the members has encountered at least one instance where they saw some apparition or were chased by beings. As they begin to share their stories, they realize that they seem to have been haunted by the same entity, which they call "It". Together they discover that It seems to inhabit the sewers beneath Derry. As a group they escape death at the hands of this being twice: once in a garage and once in an "abandoned" house.
All but two members of the Losers Club quit the club activities involving the investigation or pursuit of Pennywise due to fright and fear of actual injuries or ones they may receive in the future, but once the girl, Beverly, is taken by Pennywise, the other members reconnect and venture down into Pennywise's sewers. Reunited and equipped with memories of how they were able to surprise Pennywise in the house by briefly shedding or overcoming their fears, the children use this knowledge and begin not only mentally repulsing Pennywise but also physically attacking him. Together, they drive him back to a shaft leading even deeper underground, where he retreats.
The club leaves the sewers and then uses a glass shard to swear a collective blood oath that the members will come back to Derry in 27 years if Pennywise returns, followed by an emotional goodbye sequence in which they must leave with the memories of their recent hellacious experiences pressed into their minds.
Intellectual Content
The themes of It: Chapter One reduce down mostly to fear and childhood issues like loss of innocence and the isolation children may have in their suffering. In It, as may happen in actuality, division amplifies fear, and isolation from those who do not share or understand those fears can heighten a sense of helplessness. The children realize that Pennywise absorbs strength from the mental existence of their fears--but this means that an absence of their fears means an absence of his power of them. Only when the children in the Losers Club realize that Pennywise poses a far deadlier threat to them individually than to them as a collective group do they begin to find ways to temporarily overpower him as they unite together. The movie presents fear as a powerful, debilitating force, but one that can indeed be conquered through sharing those fears with others and then facing them together, not alone.
The story provides a perfect way to explore how children can be susceptible to both abuse (whether from humans or Pennywise) and how, as children, they can do so very little to actually change their circumstances. It shows how children can both feel and literally be trapped in isolation and agonizing fear without any aid or hope of it from the adults who are supposed to protect them. If a child told you he or she had seen a demonic apparition, would you believe that child? Obviously it is logically possible that the child may be both telling the truth and actually aware that he or she is telling the truth and not misinterpreting some event or sighting. But would you really believe that person? What if seven children told you about it? That is a dilemma faced by the Losers Club. As the appearances of both "It" itself and the abnormal phenomena caused by Pennywise increase, it becomes clear that either the adults of Derry or the children are not actually perceiving things as they are in reality.
It is unclear if the adults are the ones who do not see "reality" as it is, their minds and senses blinded by Pennywise, or if the children are the ones who are having experiences that in some way do not conform to the way things are outside of their visions. I do not mean by this suggestion that Pennywise and the images the children see have no existence whatsoever--at the very least his torments exist as perceptions of the children's minds and senses, even if the children really only experience them on that perceptual plane, and at the very least Pennywise himself exists as a spiritual being that can appear in a material form. I mean that regardless, one group sees the external world with minds and senses that perceive correctly and one sees an illusion that may as well have been devised by Descartes' hypothetical demon (yes, as a rationalist and mind-body dualist, I enjoyed including that reference in this review!).
Conclusion
Another example of the horror renaissance of recent years, It demonstrates that horror is a genre that can convey deep emotion and showcase inspiringly well-realized characters. I have not read the source material--I now want to--but one could enjoy the movie on its own with little knowledge of the background lore, especially since the film itself barely describes any of it. The lore is simply not the focus. The children are, and that proves one of the most impressive strengths of the work. I eagerly await 2019's sequel!
Content:
1. Violence: Some of the violence is inflicted on humans by other humans, some on humans by Pennywise, and some on Pennywise by humans. There are times where characters are impaled, beaten, and slashed in ways that do show blood (but little gore). In one scene Pennywise bites a kid's arm off and the child tries to crawl away with a bleeding stump. The movie also shows some very brutal examples of neighborhood bullying that once involve a bully using a knife to literally carve into the stomach of another kid onscreen.
2. Profanity: These children cuss a lot at times! They use various expletives ranging from "mild" to f-bombs.
--Pennywise, It: Chapter One
Yes, as my movie reviews evidence, I am a lover of horror. It is one of my favorite genres! I had been looking forward to the release of It: Chapter One for several months and was finally able to watch it. Author Stephen King has crafted some very unique stories, and It matches his personal modus operandi. I can't think of anyone besides King that I would expect this story from in literary form. The movie, though, forgoes some of the more controversial elements I have heard of from the book (so far at least). Though it (get it?) has several flaws, including a somewhat repetitive style of setting up scares, fans of Stephen King or general horror or both may find a lot to appreciate here. But it offers a haunting take on the story of how a being from another dimension torments the children of a town called Derry, though it is much more than just another film with a slasher antagonist--it is a movie with heart and quality filmmaking.
 |
|
Production Values
On practically all fronts, the casting and acting in It: Chapter One are splendid and very fitting. The child acting in particular puts little Anakin's performance in The Phantom Menace to serious shame! Bill and Beverly, two members of the main group of children, are especially acted in a very lifelike, immersive way, though all members of the Losers Club (with the possible exception of one) are consistently acted wonderfully. The demeanor of the children really captures the initial sense of helplessness that is only highlighted by the abusive or neglectful tendencies of most adults shown onscreen. They have no one to turn to who can truly help, but they also have almost no adults (who make an appearance) to request help from because many of Derry's adults have rather obvious flaws that make them poor confidants and assistants. While not part of the Losers Club, Bill's little brother Georgie is beautifully acted and demonstrates the genuine talent of Jackson Robert Scott, who was excellently cast for the role. A scene he shares with his older brother near the end is very emotionally potent and exemplifies how even a character who does not appear during the majority of a film can make a definite impact on the story.
Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise, of course, has to succeed for the titular character of the film to make the movie worth bearing the name the children give to him. And Pennywise definitely makes an impact in this film, despite only actually speaking a handful of times. Skarsgard's grin and voice may even be matched with Pennywise in the same way that Heath Ledger's mannerisms and acting for his Joker character became so deeply connected to the idea of the Joker in cinema. His portrayal of the telepathic, malevolent, energetic "dancing clown" is very memorable. Bill did a great job animating the demented antagonist of the story!
It does have some jump scares, yet this was not 2016's jump scare fest The Forest; the jump scares here have more substance than they would if they were random afterthoughts. They do not detract from the atmosphere of horror because they are not the only scares in the movie. The horror builds all the way until the climax, and it is not merely psychological suspense that develops, as a very visual horror plays a large role in many scenes. For these reason It does not succumb to some of the lackluster "horror" in some genre entries (like the aforementioned The Forest).
From the opening scene with brothers Bill and Georgie making a paper boat to the scene with the band of children defeating Pennywise for a time, It bleeds out (bleeds out! I amuse myself sometimes) high production values in acting, set design, and quality cinematography--one shot where someone twisting a picture frame changes the camera angle was particularly unique. The people who complain about previous efforts to adapt Stephen King stories from novel to film may find themselves truly enjoying It.
Story
(SPOILERS included in this section)
In the town of Derry, a sweet little boy named Georgie makes a paper boat with his older brother and then lets it glide atop the water from an overhead rainstorm. But when his boat goes into a sewer hole and Georgie looks inside, the face of a clown appears. The clown identifies himself as "Pennywise" and talks to Georgie before biting his arm off and pulling the screaming child down into the sewers.
Georgie's brother Bill and some other children soon form a little neighborhood group called the "Losers Club", one that eventually expands to include six boys and one girl. Each of the members has encountered at least one instance where they saw some apparition or were chased by beings. As they begin to share their stories, they realize that they seem to have been haunted by the same entity, which they call "It". Together they discover that It seems to inhabit the sewers beneath Derry. As a group they escape death at the hands of this being twice: once in a garage and once in an "abandoned" house.
All but two members of the Losers Club quit the club activities involving the investigation or pursuit of Pennywise due to fright and fear of actual injuries or ones they may receive in the future, but once the girl, Beverly, is taken by Pennywise, the other members reconnect and venture down into Pennywise's sewers. Reunited and equipped with memories of how they were able to surprise Pennywise in the house by briefly shedding or overcoming their fears, the children use this knowledge and begin not only mentally repulsing Pennywise but also physically attacking him. Together, they drive him back to a shaft leading even deeper underground, where he retreats.
The club leaves the sewers and then uses a glass shard to swear a collective blood oath that the members will come back to Derry in 27 years if Pennywise returns, followed by an emotional goodbye sequence in which they must leave with the memories of their recent hellacious experiences pressed into their minds.
Intellectual Content
The themes of It: Chapter One reduce down mostly to fear and childhood issues like loss of innocence and the isolation children may have in their suffering. In It, as may happen in actuality, division amplifies fear, and isolation from those who do not share or understand those fears can heighten a sense of helplessness. The children realize that Pennywise absorbs strength from the mental existence of their fears--but this means that an absence of their fears means an absence of his power of them. Only when the children in the Losers Club realize that Pennywise poses a far deadlier threat to them individually than to them as a collective group do they begin to find ways to temporarily overpower him as they unite together. The movie presents fear as a powerful, debilitating force, but one that can indeed be conquered through sharing those fears with others and then facing them together, not alone.
The story provides a perfect way to explore how children can be susceptible to both abuse (whether from humans or Pennywise) and how, as children, they can do so very little to actually change their circumstances. It shows how children can both feel and literally be trapped in isolation and agonizing fear without any aid or hope of it from the adults who are supposed to protect them. If a child told you he or she had seen a demonic apparition, would you believe that child? Obviously it is logically possible that the child may be both telling the truth and actually aware that he or she is telling the truth and not misinterpreting some event or sighting. But would you really believe that person? What if seven children told you about it? That is a dilemma faced by the Losers Club. As the appearances of both "It" itself and the abnormal phenomena caused by Pennywise increase, it becomes clear that either the adults of Derry or the children are not actually perceiving things as they are in reality.
It is unclear if the adults are the ones who do not see "reality" as it is, their minds and senses blinded by Pennywise, or if the children are the ones who are having experiences that in some way do not conform to the way things are outside of their visions. I do not mean by this suggestion that Pennywise and the images the children see have no existence whatsoever--at the very least his torments exist as perceptions of the children's minds and senses, even if the children really only experience them on that perceptual plane, and at the very least Pennywise himself exists as a spiritual being that can appear in a material form. I mean that regardless, one group sees the external world with minds and senses that perceive correctly and one sees an illusion that may as well have been devised by Descartes' hypothetical demon (yes, as a rationalist and mind-body dualist, I enjoyed including that reference in this review!).
Conclusion
Another example of the horror renaissance of recent years, It demonstrates that horror is a genre that can convey deep emotion and showcase inspiringly well-realized characters. I have not read the source material--I now want to--but one could enjoy the movie on its own with little knowledge of the background lore, especially since the film itself barely describes any of it. The lore is simply not the focus. The children are, and that proves one of the most impressive strengths of the work. I eagerly await 2019's sequel!
Content:
1. Violence: Some of the violence is inflicted on humans by other humans, some on humans by Pennywise, and some on Pennywise by humans. There are times where characters are impaled, beaten, and slashed in ways that do show blood (but little gore). In one scene Pennywise bites a kid's arm off and the child tries to crawl away with a bleeding stump. The movie also shows some very brutal examples of neighborhood bullying that once involve a bully using a knife to literally carve into the stomach of another kid onscreen.
2. Profanity: These children cuss a lot at times! They use various expletives ranging from "mild" to f-bombs.
The Resilience Of Memory
What would happen if I were to wake up with all of the contents of my memory erased? What would such a hypothetical scenario mean for my epistemology? I write this answer in order to affirm that even if our memories are "rebooted" human knowledge would not disappear forever.
Suppose that tonight while I am sleeping God, an alien, or a malevolent demon removes or destroys the entirety of my memories--all memories of events in my life, all facts about various disciplines I have memorized, and even all stored knowledge of my own personality. What then? I would awake and not even know that my memories had disappeared, because I would be unable to remember what the previous night was like and thus would not and could not tell that I had possessed far more knowledge only less than 24 hours before.
But I would still be aware of my consciousness, immediate perceptions, and axiomatic truths upon waking. It would not be true that I would have no knowledge of anything at all did this happen. And this foundation would support rediscovery. Reality itself would not have changed, only my awareness of it. Truth would still be truth despite my empty memory. Thus even if the process required far longer than the first time, I could reattain a great deal of my previous knowledge. Of course, my memories of past events in my life would not be replaced unless the being that took or destroyed them decided to return them to my mind, but I would be capable of discovering logic (beyond the axioms and necessary truths that are immediately grasped, I mean), mathematics, philosophy, Christian theology, and science all over again. A memory purge would not mean the end of either reality or my ability to have and obtain knowledge; it would just set back my knowledge, but not erase its existence entirely or render me unable to relearn.
As I have elaborated upon before, to deny human knowledge through attacking human memory is to embark on a fallacious quest. Just as with other facts about memory, it is not difficult to realize that even the total emptying of my memory would not erase all of my knowledge, change reality itself, or obstruct me from reeducation. The resilience of memory would allow it to bounce back and reobtain extensive knowledge.
Suppose that tonight while I am sleeping God, an alien, or a malevolent demon removes or destroys the entirety of my memories--all memories of events in my life, all facts about various disciplines I have memorized, and even all stored knowledge of my own personality. What then? I would awake and not even know that my memories had disappeared, because I would be unable to remember what the previous night was like and thus would not and could not tell that I had possessed far more knowledge only less than 24 hours before.
But I would still be aware of my consciousness, immediate perceptions, and axiomatic truths upon waking. It would not be true that I would have no knowledge of anything at all did this happen. And this foundation would support rediscovery. Reality itself would not have changed, only my awareness of it. Truth would still be truth despite my empty memory. Thus even if the process required far longer than the first time, I could reattain a great deal of my previous knowledge. Of course, my memories of past events in my life would not be replaced unless the being that took or destroyed them decided to return them to my mind, but I would be capable of discovering logic (beyond the axioms and necessary truths that are immediately grasped, I mean), mathematics, philosophy, Christian theology, and science all over again. A memory purge would not mean the end of either reality or my ability to have and obtain knowledge; it would just set back my knowledge, but not erase its existence entirely or render me unable to relearn.
As I have elaborated upon before, to deny human knowledge through attacking human memory is to embark on a fallacious quest. Just as with other facts about memory, it is not difficult to realize that even the total emptying of my memory would not erase all of my knowledge, change reality itself, or obstruct me from reeducation. The resilience of memory would allow it to bounce back and reobtain extensive knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)