Unique Discoveries (Part Two)

Intelligence is scarce enough as it is, but even many otherwise intelligent people throughout history have failed to secure the details of many aspects of reality.  The first post in this miniseries was intended, as is this one, to celebrate the now two years of my blog's existence by emphasizing how intellectual originality and uniqueness are certainly not nonexistent things.  In it I listed eight specific things that I have discovered--strictly through private deduction--that no historical or living philosopher, theologian, or other author I know of has realized or admitted.  As a follow-up, I will provide seven more miscellaneous examples of particular truths that have gone either unrecognized or unacknowledged by almost everyone throughout recorded history.

I love to highlight and applaud the similar discoveries of other people, so, once again, if any readers have discovered specific truths that few or no other people have acknowledged throughout human history, I invite them to share their findings in the comments!

As specified before, if a statement is underlined that means I have not dissected the point in its own respective article.  You can find the start to this miniseries here:

https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/unique-discoveries-part-1.html


9.  Time is immaterial [1]

Time is not contingent by necessity upon the external world, and it is purely nonphysical, although its elapsing is accompanied by events that occur in the external world.  It is intangible, a thing not comprised of matter.  It is, in one sense, perhaps odd that this fact goes unacknowledged by many, as it is one of the most obvious truths about time and can be easily deduced from one's immediate experiences.


10.  Men and women who are sexually attracted to each other can still be deep friends [2]

The idea that men and women cannot or should not be friends is a vastly destructive, fallacious, unbiblical one.  When internalized, this idea limits friendship to one part of humanity by misrepresenting the other part.  Mistaken beliefs about friendship and gender have had a devastating effect on gender relations throughout history.  A person who truly thinks a genuine, intimate friendship between a man and woman is impossible is unintelligent.  But it is also extremely irrational to think that sexual attraction renders two people unable to relate as friends.  Indeed, realizing that it does not render them able to be friends can be liberating thing.  Men and women who are sexually attracted to each other can still be genuine friends, however the attraction affects the relationship's romantic status.  To teach otherwise is to represent sexual attraction as a dehumanizing, overpowering thing, which puts forth a horrifically distorted understanding of sexual feelings, free will, and human relationships (of both marriages and friendships where sexual attraction is present).

11.  The Bible does not teach Trinitarianism [3]

Almost all Christians consider non-Trinitarianism some sort of heresy.  This does not change the fact that the Bible never equates Jesus with Yahweh, or Yahweh with the Holy Spirit, or Jesus with the Holy Spirit.  If it did, then the only possibilities would be that any hypothetical verses proposing Trinitarianism can't be true (due to the logical impossibility of three distinct beings with their own minds being one single being) or that God merely appears in different ways like the same person might wear three sets of clothing.  Instead of teaching something logically impossible or teaching that the three members of the alleged Trinity are identical, the Bible constantly distinguishes between Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, whose nature is far more enigmatic than evangelicals like to admit--which means many claims about the Holy Spirit are unverifiable and unfalsifiable at best, and thus should not be made to begin with.


12.  The Bible does not say the thieves crucified with Jesus deserved crucifixion [4]

Only very limited, specific kinds of tortures are prescribed by the Bible, meaning that any contexts or methods of torture beyond or besides them are intrinsically unjust on the Christian worldview.  Crucifixion, much less Roman crucifixion, is never among them, violating numerous commands in Mosaic Law.  Note what many evangelicals say about the story of Jesus' death, especially when they reference the unbiblical idea that Jesus took a literal cross each person deserves or mention the equally unbiblical idea that the thieves crucified alongside Jesus deserved their crucifixions.  In many cases either or both of these ideas will be stated outright or heavily implied.  Many evangelicals will encourage "loving" behaviors in daily life while believing in the background that one of the most sadistic, degrading, and cruel processes of historical torture was somehow just.  The cognitive dissonance, much less the illogicality and unbiblicality, is enormous.  That evangelicals rarely call out unjust/unbiblical form of torture on sound Biblical and logical grounds shows how misguided their moral priorities often are.


13.  Erotic media is not sinful unless it features immoral sexual activities (rape, adultery, bestiality, etc.) AND is intended to arouse people or make them take pleasure in sinful behaviors [5]

Not everyone has the desire to consume erotic media of any form, though evangelicals are often stupid enough to think everyone has sexual impulses to begin with, or that all people are drawn to the same expressions of sexuality.  Christians, especially women (since Christians are conditioned to perceive that women are generally either asexual or demisexual beings by many evangelical teachers), might feel deeply ashamed of any desires they have to view erotic media, as well as the fact that erotic media can stimulate physical and mental pleasure.  Confusion about the definition of lust in the Bible, a misunderstanding of sexual objectification, prudish asceticism, years of tradition, and fallacious cultural beliefs about the nature of erotic media all contribute to the fear or hatred many Christians have for erotic media.  Yet there is nothing about erotic media whatsoever--apart from depictions of defined sexual sins which are intended to arouse viewers/readers--that is sinful.  There is nothing immoral about creating or consuming erotic media alone, using it with a spouse, using it with friends, or masturbating to it.  Deuteronomy 4:2 and Romans 7:7 make this clear.


14.  Using drugs for recreational, non-medical purposes is not always sinful

Alcohol use is not condemned by the Bible; drunkenness is.  Yet many Christians do not consistently extend the same Biblical principles to drug use, although identical moral principles would govern the use of drugs and alcohol alike, since both are things that can alter mental states to the point of "intoxication."  There is nothing wrong with using a substance to intentionally alter mental states for pleasure or comfort, given that the substance does not inevitably result in addiction and that the user does not abuse it by getting high.  For some reason, this is a far more controversial thing than making the same claims about alcohol, despite the obvious parallels!


15.  The Quran does not condemn many things Muslims often consider sinful, and often these things are involve the human body, sexuality, or gender relations--including public nudity, bikinis, sexual attraction, and opposite gender friendships

Crucial parts of Islam are objectively false because they contain logical or historical errors, but the Quran teaches theonomist ethics and theonomist moral epistemology just as the Bible does.  Like the Bible, the Quran does not condemn many activities often perceived to be morally wrong, which by its own standard means that these things are not sinful.  Compare Deuteronomy 4:2 to Surah 16:116-117; both the Bible and Quran condemn adding to their commands.  In part, this is not surprising at all, since the Quran claims to be revelation from the God of Moses.  What is also not surprising is that Muslim teachers have treated things that are not sinful on the Islamic worldview as if they are immoral, just as most Christians have treated things that are not sinful on the Christian worldview as immoral throughout history.  Since the Torah does not condemn things like nudity, sexual attraction, profanity, drug use without intoxication, and opposite gender friendships, all while saying to not add to its commands (Deuteronomy 4:2), the Quran would have to not condemn these things in order to remain consistent with Abrahamic and Mosaic revelation.  Of course, the Quran is not consistent with other aspects of Biblical ethics (with criminal justice; see Exodus 22:1-3 and Surah 5:38 for just one example of an inconsistency), and this is the only argument against Islam that can refute it in full, since it is based strictly in logic and not in matters of history or science, which are incapable of proving almost anything at all in an ultimate sense.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-immateriality-of-time.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/flirtatious-friendships.html

[3].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-1.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-2.html
  C.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-3.html

[4].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html

[5].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-1.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html
  C.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-3.html