Does a person have to fight with their friends at some point? Some might believe that such a thing is inevitable, though they might think that it can be postponed. And their conclusion would be false. On any given day, a person could go without any sort of verbal skirmish with any of their friends. This means that no one has to fight with their friends at all: if each day can pass without incident, then no day has to contain a fight. The ramifications extend into the realm of relationships other than friendships.
Just as someone can go decades without having any serious relational problems with their most cherished friendships, someone can go decades without ever once entering a verbal fight with their spouse. Living in close proximity to a person for a prolonged period of time does not mean that the relationship will inevitably have periods of major interpersonal strife. In fact, such proximity, if accompanied by genuine intimacy, could even lower the probability of strife arising.
Anyone who says that a couple will or must fight at some point is trying to
instill an untrue expectation in listeners, however well-meaning
they might be. Of course, a couple might fight, but that is not the same as them having
to fight, as if to start a close relationship with a person is to
commence a countdown to an inescapable relationship fracture.
Communication, transparency, and mutual benevolence can see to the avoidance of fights. When people are quick to communicate honestly and lovingly, practically every possible relationship breakdown can be avoided in full. If two people who love each other do not allow inconveniences to evolve into sources of resentment, and if they openly address problems--or potential problems--as or before they appear, then they can enjoy a healthy relationship that is undeterred by fighting. When a person is committed to maintaining their marital relationship, it can be incredibly easy to avert every fight that might surface.
No one has to treat their spouse spitefully, hostilely, or belittlingly even once. That people often pretend like this is impossible does not mean that it is, just that they do not understand that no marital conflict has to escalate to the point of a heated fight. No one has to hurt or war with those they are closest to.
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Refuting An Assumption About Free Will
If one listens to the way that Christian apologists characterize free will, it becomes apparent that they tend to regard free will as something that must be assumed in order for any epistemological framework to function. Of course, this fits right alongside many other components of their claims, which also rest on alleged or actual assumptions (like conscience-based moral knowledge, for instance). Free will does not have to be assumed, as it is easily demonstrable from basic truths.
As I have written about before, knowledge cannot exist without free will--without self-guided volition, a being has no true knowledge, as everything about its worldview formation is controlled by external forces. There are many things that I know--with absolute certainty, might I add (which is required to have actual knowledge)--though they are very specific. Here is a partial list of miscellaneous truths I can prove, at least five of which have been neglected by historical and contemporary philosophers:
It follows from my possession of this knowledge, as well as knowledge of other matters, that I must have free will, since I could not know anything without it. No one has to assume anything. The belief that assumptions are either necessary or good is a despicable error that is only assumed by people who want to cling to a preferred worldview irrespective of that worldview's verifiability or veracity. It is not surprising that many Christian apologists defend assumptions: combating assumptions would mean abandoning many of their arguments and conclusions!
Awareness of my free will is as simple as awareness that my knowledge of logic, myself, and miscellaneous other matters requires it. Evangelical apologists who represent free will as if we have to assume it exists, regardless of our metaphysical positions, and as if this assumption somehow legitimizes subsequent knowledge claims do a disservice to apologetics, and to broader philosophy as a whole. Assumptions are never legitimate. On the contrary, assumptions exclude knowledge, for one cannot know and assume something at once.
Just like I do not assume logic's existence or intrinsic veracity, I do not assume that I have free will. I know I do.
As I have written about before, knowledge cannot exist without free will--without self-guided volition, a being has no true knowledge, as everything about its worldview formation is controlled by external forces. There are many things that I know--with absolute certainty, might I add (which is required to have actual knowledge)--though they are very specific. Here is a partial list of miscellaneous truths I can prove, at least five of which have been neglected by historical and contemporary philosophers:
- A thing is what it is (if a thing was not what it is, it would be something else--but that something else would only be what it is--logic is unavoidable and inherently true)
- Logic, both first principles and the laws of deductive reasoning, exists by absolute necessity in the absence of all other things (logic does not depend on any mind, material object, or other thing for its existence and veracity)
- I exist as a consciousness (perception on any level necessitates that I exist as a conscious mind that grasps the external laws of logic)
- I have sensory perceptions of specific external stimuli
- I have a body of some kind, though I do not know its appearance (I cannot feel physical sensations if I am only a consciousness, since consciousness is immaterial, and this is incapable of producing or experiencing physical sensations on its own)
- I know I am not dreaming when I am awake because I cannot contact any external objects if I am merely dreaming (a dream is only a series of immaterial mental images)
- My memory reliably feeds me information consistent with my perceptions of the external world (if my memory did not do this, I would be adrift in confusion about everything except for logical axioms and my immediate mental states)
- The present moment exists (there cannot not be a "right now")
- Time is strictly immaterial (it is an intangible duration, and thus cannot be made of matter)
It follows from my possession of this knowledge, as well as knowledge of other matters, that I must have free will, since I could not know anything without it. No one has to assume anything. The belief that assumptions are either necessary or good is a despicable error that is only assumed by people who want to cling to a preferred worldview irrespective of that worldview's verifiability or veracity. It is not surprising that many Christian apologists defend assumptions: combating assumptions would mean abandoning many of their arguments and conclusions!
Awareness of my free will is as simple as awareness that my knowledge of logic, myself, and miscellaneous other matters requires it. Evangelical apologists who represent free will as if we have to assume it exists, regardless of our metaphysical positions, and as if this assumption somehow legitimizes subsequent knowledge claims do a disservice to apologetics, and to broader philosophy as a whole. Assumptions are never legitimate. On the contrary, assumptions exclude knowledge, for one cannot know and assume something at once.
Just like I do not assume logic's existence or intrinsic veracity, I do not assume that I have free will. I know I do.
Wearing What Is Comfortable
The obnoxious statements of evangelical Christians do nothing to alter the fact that clothing itself is ultimately about emphasizing functionality, signifying status, protecting wearers from the elements, or gratifying subjective senses of style. On its own, it has absolutely nothing to do with the sexuality of wearers or observers. Evangelicals often fail to see this and, ironically, try to sexualize nonsexual things more than many secular people do, especially when it comes to the attire of women.
Regardless of gender, people can and should wear or not wear whatever is comfortable, practical, and preferable for them. If a person wants to cover their body because it makes them subjectively feel comfortable, there is nothing wrong with that. If a person wants to expose their body because it makes them subjectively feel comfortable, there is nothing wrong with that either. The activities and preferences of a non-legalist will determine what he or she wants to wear or not wear, since there is no moral obligation in any direction in terms of covering the body.
Maybe a person wants to prevent sunburns, so he or she will cover more more skin. Perhaps a person wants to become more accepting of his or her body, and thus wears more revealing clothing. There are numerous reasons why a person might wear or not wear clothing that have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. Clothing is never about sexuality in itself, since no clothing is itself sexual--not even lingerie [1]. People might subjectively or culturally perceive certain clothing to be sexual, though these perceptions have nothing to do with the nature of the clothing itself. Of course, people are free to dress in a way that makes them feel sexy, if they enjoy such a feeling. But many people wear certain clothing because it is practical or comfortable for them.
As for the evangelical myth that the Bible instructs people (particularly women) to hide the majority of their bodies, 1 Timothy 2:9, as I have explained before, has nothing to do with requiring that people cover their bodies to a certain extent. It is about particular displays of wealth. The verse restricts certain forms of expensive clothing from being worn during worship. Ironically, less expensive clothing can be more revealing than clothes of a lesser cost. Even if the verse was about covering bodies, it would apply to men as well as to women.
No one has ever been imbecilic enough to deny to me that the command of the preceding verse about prayer would ultimately apply to both genders, so consistency dictates that 1 Timothy 2:9 would also apply to men and women alike--if a thing is good or evil, the gender of a person is totally irrelevant. Mosaic Law does not demand the covering of the human body, meaning that its command to not add to God's moral revelation can only mean that exposure of the human body is not sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2), and Genesis calls the human body "very good," even in a state of full nudity. If 1 Timothy 2:9 did teach evangelical ideas about modesty, it would contradict significant doctrines in other books of the Bible.
Every person is free to wear whatever is comfortable for them without any concern whatsoever for the amount of the body it exposes or covers--or for who is offended. Where there is no moral obligation, people can do as they please, and it is rationally and Biblically clear that there is no basis for submitting to the preferences of others when it comes to the matter of clothing. Comfort, whether physical or psychological, is what people should dress for.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/lingerie-is-not-sexual.html
Regardless of gender, people can and should wear or not wear whatever is comfortable, practical, and preferable for them. If a person wants to cover their body because it makes them subjectively feel comfortable, there is nothing wrong with that. If a person wants to expose their body because it makes them subjectively feel comfortable, there is nothing wrong with that either. The activities and preferences of a non-legalist will determine what he or she wants to wear or not wear, since there is no moral obligation in any direction in terms of covering the body.
Maybe a person wants to prevent sunburns, so he or she will cover more more skin. Perhaps a person wants to become more accepting of his or her body, and thus wears more revealing clothing. There are numerous reasons why a person might wear or not wear clothing that have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. Clothing is never about sexuality in itself, since no clothing is itself sexual--not even lingerie [1]. People might subjectively or culturally perceive certain clothing to be sexual, though these perceptions have nothing to do with the nature of the clothing itself. Of course, people are free to dress in a way that makes them feel sexy, if they enjoy such a feeling. But many people wear certain clothing because it is practical or comfortable for them.
As for the evangelical myth that the Bible instructs people (particularly women) to hide the majority of their bodies, 1 Timothy 2:9, as I have explained before, has nothing to do with requiring that people cover their bodies to a certain extent. It is about particular displays of wealth. The verse restricts certain forms of expensive clothing from being worn during worship. Ironically, less expensive clothing can be more revealing than clothes of a lesser cost. Even if the verse was about covering bodies, it would apply to men as well as to women.
No one has ever been imbecilic enough to deny to me that the command of the preceding verse about prayer would ultimately apply to both genders, so consistency dictates that 1 Timothy 2:9 would also apply to men and women alike--if a thing is good or evil, the gender of a person is totally irrelevant. Mosaic Law does not demand the covering of the human body, meaning that its command to not add to God's moral revelation can only mean that exposure of the human body is not sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2), and Genesis calls the human body "very good," even in a state of full nudity. If 1 Timothy 2:9 did teach evangelical ideas about modesty, it would contradict significant doctrines in other books of the Bible.
Every person is free to wear whatever is comfortable for them without any concern whatsoever for the amount of the body it exposes or covers--or for who is offended. Where there is no moral obligation, people can do as they please, and it is rationally and Biblically clear that there is no basis for submitting to the preferences of others when it comes to the matter of clothing. Comfort, whether physical or psychological, is what people should dress for.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/lingerie-is-not-sexual.html
The Folly Of Comparing The External World To Morality
In the course of being exposed to the follies of psuedo-thinkers, one might come across the claim that moral skepticism is illicit because morality, like the external world, cannot be proven, and yet we should still believe in both--and we are somehow irrational for not believing in either. According to those who advance this nonsense, an alleged inability to verify the existence of something means that believing in another unprovable thing is sound.
They literally argue that not knowing one thing makes believing in a separate, unverifiable thing rational: even if the comparison was valid, and even if one could not prove that an external world of matter exists, being incapable of proving that moral obligations exist has nothing to do with knowledge of the external world. Of course, the people who spout this are usually just fucking parrots of sophistic Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, who is notorious for assuming crucial premises that are utterly indemonstrable, even if they are true. Thankfully, no one needs to worry about skepticism about the very existence of the external world. Such a position is not rational, as the existence of the external world can be demonstrated.
There is an external world (there are also other things outside of my mind, like logic and space--not that I've ever seen Craig or his followers be that specific or explain the ramifications of such a thing!). Furthermore, this is provable in full. Without a physical body, my mind would be incapable of experiencing physical sensations, as consciousness is immaterial. Therefore, it follows by necessity that I have a body because I do experience physical sensations [1]. In addition to this, my body is in contact with something physical beyond it. Physical sensations cannot exist in the absence of at least one physical receptor and one physical stimulus (even if one's body was stimulating its own sense of touch). Even if my body was the only material thing in existence, there is still matter outside of my mind.
Morality is categorically different than the external world--conscience is a useless epistemic tool if one wants knowledge of morality itself and not merely knowledge of one's moral feelings, perceptions, and preferences, and even the existence of an uncaused cause does not mean that morality exists. With these two facts in consideration, a rational person will not compare the external world to morality, as if the two things are on equal epistemological footing in any way.
It is worth mentioning that very few people I know of have been intelligent enough to prove to themselves that there is any external world to begin with. Many people, including Craig, seem to imply that the inability to know if external objects have the appearances they are perceived to have somehow means that we lack the ability to know if there is any external world at all. This false, implicit conclusion is where many people ultimately stop.
As any rationalist can plainly see, this is nothing but a non sequitur fallacy; it does not follow at all, and it contradicts the direct logical proof that there is an external world. Whether or not I might be a brain in a vat or in the matrix has nothing to do with the fact that I know that there is an external world because of the aforementioned proof, and, even if my body is just a brain in a vat of electrodes, there is still an external world [2]! There is absolutely no grounds for skepticism about the existence of the external world unless a person is considering the matter for the first time in a brief period of rationalistic contemplation.
I spend so much time refuting the asinine fallacies and erroneous claims of Christians like Craig because they are much more likely to be subsumed into the philosophies of Christians (and because he is sometimes a terrible logician) than the fallacies endorsed by secularists. When someone is looked up to by a great number of fallacious followers, he or she needs to be intellectually demolished. Deconstructing fallacies is one of the most important aspects of all of philosophy. Despite the esteem with which people regard them, many popular figures advocate worldviews riddled with assumptions, fallacies, and errors. Thorough intelligence is extraordinarily difficult to find.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/misunderstanding-brain-in-vat-scenario.html
They literally argue that not knowing one thing makes believing in a separate, unverifiable thing rational: even if the comparison was valid, and even if one could not prove that an external world of matter exists, being incapable of proving that moral obligations exist has nothing to do with knowledge of the external world. Of course, the people who spout this are usually just fucking parrots of sophistic Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, who is notorious for assuming crucial premises that are utterly indemonstrable, even if they are true. Thankfully, no one needs to worry about skepticism about the very existence of the external world. Such a position is not rational, as the existence of the external world can be demonstrated.
There is an external world (there are also other things outside of my mind, like logic and space--not that I've ever seen Craig or his followers be that specific or explain the ramifications of such a thing!). Furthermore, this is provable in full. Without a physical body, my mind would be incapable of experiencing physical sensations, as consciousness is immaterial. Therefore, it follows by necessity that I have a body because I do experience physical sensations [1]. In addition to this, my body is in contact with something physical beyond it. Physical sensations cannot exist in the absence of at least one physical receptor and one physical stimulus (even if one's body was stimulating its own sense of touch). Even if my body was the only material thing in existence, there is still matter outside of my mind.
Morality is categorically different than the external world--conscience is a useless epistemic tool if one wants knowledge of morality itself and not merely knowledge of one's moral feelings, perceptions, and preferences, and even the existence of an uncaused cause does not mean that morality exists. With these two facts in consideration, a rational person will not compare the external world to morality, as if the two things are on equal epistemological footing in any way.
It is worth mentioning that very few people I know of have been intelligent enough to prove to themselves that there is any external world to begin with. Many people, including Craig, seem to imply that the inability to know if external objects have the appearances they are perceived to have somehow means that we lack the ability to know if there is any external world at all. This false, implicit conclusion is where many people ultimately stop.
As any rationalist can plainly see, this is nothing but a non sequitur fallacy; it does not follow at all, and it contradicts the direct logical proof that there is an external world. Whether or not I might be a brain in a vat or in the matrix has nothing to do with the fact that I know that there is an external world because of the aforementioned proof, and, even if my body is just a brain in a vat of electrodes, there is still an external world [2]! There is absolutely no grounds for skepticism about the existence of the external world unless a person is considering the matter for the first time in a brief period of rationalistic contemplation.
I spend so much time refuting the asinine fallacies and erroneous claims of Christians like Craig because they are much more likely to be subsumed into the philosophies of Christians (and because he is sometimes a terrible logician) than the fallacies endorsed by secularists. When someone is looked up to by a great number of fallacious followers, he or she needs to be intellectually demolished. Deconstructing fallacies is one of the most important aspects of all of philosophy. Despite the esteem with which people regard them, many popular figures advocate worldviews riddled with assumptions, fallacies, and errors. Thorough intelligence is extraordinarily difficult to find.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/misunderstanding-brain-in-vat-scenario.html
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Qualifyers For Legitimate Leadership
There are two components of legitimate leadership: intelligence and moral character. I do not mean shallow intelligence of the kind that almost any random person can muster up when circumstances force them to, and I do not mean selective moral character, or an outer appearance of character that conceals immoral or amoral intents. I am referring to consistent, deep, genuine intelligence and goodness.
One can certainly be a leader without these characteristics, as all it takes to be a leader is the management of other people. But no one can deserve to be a leader without wielding intelligence and righteousness. The issue at hand is not what makes a person a leader, but what makes them a worthy, legitimate leader. Leaders could stumble into competent decisions without consulting reason or having a sound worldview, but they would not have an intellect fit for leadership. Likewise, they could produce very effective results in certain areas, but if those results come with the violation of moral obligations, their "successes" are illegitimate.
Ironically, American Christians can be very selective about admitting these truths. Many evangelicals defended the election of Donald Trump by resorting to arguments that literally denied that a leader must be a good person with righteous intentions and methods to be deserving of a political position. As a great deal of observational and conversational evidence can establish, evangelicals will tend to do or say anything at all that they think will protect their oft-unbiblical and contra-rational beliefs, even if it means diving into open hypocrisy and logical errors.
After all, when it comes to a select handful of significant moral issues--like abortion--they fiercely acknowledge that utilitarian politics and popular consensus cannot change moral facts and can be quite willing to call out asinine fallacies. But when it comes to almost anything other than abortion or homosexuality, the average evangelical is content to generally overlook key matters or accept heinously illogical positions on them, even with enormous issues like criminal justice and torture (all while opposing a host of activities that the Bible declares to be innocent). The fact that few Christians even talk of such things highlights how little they seem to consider or care about them.
Denial and neglect change nothing about the fact that no one is fit to be a leader without significant intelligence and thorough moral character. The demands of reason and morality will not vanish because someone holds a position of terrestrial authority, no matter how sincerely followers approve of a leader. Since a person's worldview is always with them, leadership and politics are inherently philosophical matters which are governed by numerous epistemological, moral, and metaphysical facts that many people, leaders included, are often thoroughly ignorant of. If a person is ignorant of those matters, they cannot deserve to wield political power.
One can certainly be a leader without these characteristics, as all it takes to be a leader is the management of other people. But no one can deserve to be a leader without wielding intelligence and righteousness. The issue at hand is not what makes a person a leader, but what makes them a worthy, legitimate leader. Leaders could stumble into competent decisions without consulting reason or having a sound worldview, but they would not have an intellect fit for leadership. Likewise, they could produce very effective results in certain areas, but if those results come with the violation of moral obligations, their "successes" are illegitimate.
Ironically, American Christians can be very selective about admitting these truths. Many evangelicals defended the election of Donald Trump by resorting to arguments that literally denied that a leader must be a good person with righteous intentions and methods to be deserving of a political position. As a great deal of observational and conversational evidence can establish, evangelicals will tend to do or say anything at all that they think will protect their oft-unbiblical and contra-rational beliefs, even if it means diving into open hypocrisy and logical errors.
After all, when it comes to a select handful of significant moral issues--like abortion--they fiercely acknowledge that utilitarian politics and popular consensus cannot change moral facts and can be quite willing to call out asinine fallacies. But when it comes to almost anything other than abortion or homosexuality, the average evangelical is content to generally overlook key matters or accept heinously illogical positions on them, even with enormous issues like criminal justice and torture (all while opposing a host of activities that the Bible declares to be innocent). The fact that few Christians even talk of such things highlights how little they seem to consider or care about them.
Denial and neglect change nothing about the fact that no one is fit to be a leader without significant intelligence and thorough moral character. The demands of reason and morality will not vanish because someone holds a position of terrestrial authority, no matter how sincerely followers approve of a leader. Since a person's worldview is always with them, leadership and politics are inherently philosophical matters which are governed by numerous epistemological, moral, and metaphysical facts that many people, leaders included, are often thoroughly ignorant of. If a person is ignorant of those matters, they cannot deserve to wield political power.
Game Review--Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (Wii)
". . . seven days ago we discovered that all Aurora Units were infected with an unknown virus."
--242, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Taking inspiration from Metroid Prime Hunters, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption integrates both Samus' ship and other bounty hunters into the gameplay and story in a very natural evolution of the franchise. If only more Wii games were like it, the reputation of the console would have likely been quite different! Since the first two Metroid Prime games had such an impact on gaming, Corruption needed to both honor its predecessors and provide significant additions to the subseries to capture maximum acclaim. It succeeds on both accounts. With Metroid Prime 4 on the distant horizon, the wait provides a great opportunity for Metroid fans to revisit one of the best games in the series.
Production Values
As with the later game Other M, Metroid Prime 3 is one of the most attractive games on the Wii--and it was also one of the first. There are three main planets to visit, along with several ships, all of which have their own distinct atmospheres, ecosystems, and collectibles. The level design is incredibly diverse and thoughtful, with Corruption having the most unique planet to appear in a Metroid game thus far (Elysia).
There is plenty of voice acting for various characters, like Federation marines and other bounty hunters, but Samus never speaks as she does in Other M. She remains the silent, stoic warrior that she is in Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, and Metroid Prime Hunters. The characters that do speak have writing and voice acting that are generally neither incredible nor horrendously poor in quality, though some of the voice actors are great fits for their roles. The rest of the audio is great, from the music (the soundtrack, including the title theme, is gorgeous!) to the iconic sound effects of the series.
Gameplay
With the exception of some specific gestures used to twist objects or move handles, the motion controls tend to work very well. Players must use pulling gestures with the nunchuk to remove enemy shields, rip away loose materials, and open up certain pathways; this is a great application of the nunchuk's motion controls. The point-to-aim controls with the Wii remote feel great, since they allow for far more natural, broad glances and shooting than the GameCube controller does.
Other additions to the classic Prime gameplay include hypermode and ship abilities. Now Samus can sacrifice energy tanks to briefly obtain heightened combat power and can upgrade her ship to equip it with its own abilities, like the capability to launch missiles at large targets. The ship is much more thoroughly integrated into the gameplay. Whereas the ship stayed in one location in Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2, in Corruption players can enter inside and fly to different planets as the story or desire for exploration demands. This makes the accessible parts of the universe seem much more vast than before.
Story
Metroid chronology:
1. Metroid/Metroid: Zero Mission (NES/GBA)
2. Metroid Prime (GameCube)
3. Metroid Prime Hunters (DS)
4. Metroid Prime 2: Echoes (GameCube)
5. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (Wii)
6. Metroid Prime: Federation Force (3DS)
7. Metroid II: Return of Samus/Metroid: Samus Returns (Game Boy/3DS)
8. Super Metroid (SNES)
9. Metroid: Other M (Wii)
10. Metroid Fusion (GBA)
Spoilers!
Samus lands her ship aboard a Galactic Federation vessel, where she and three other bounty hunters are educated about the Federation's AU (Aurora Unit) supercomputers and recent Space Pirate activity, including the theft of AU 313. After they are tasked with administering a software vaccine to the AUs on other planets, Space Pirates attack both the vessel and the planet Norion below--and soon a massive object plummets towards the surface. Dark Samus seemingly defeats all four hunters and leaves them unable to prevent the object, called a Leviathan Seed, from reaching Norion, but Samus activates a defense system before falling into a month-long coma.
When she awakens, Samus learns that her body is self-generating Phazon (as a result of exposure to the weaponry of Dark Samus), which she can harness to enter hypermode. An AU tells Samus to travel to two nearby planets, Bryyo and Elysia, as they were struck by Leviathan Seeds of their own, the seeds producing Phazon. Though the other hunters were dispatched to these planets, they have gone silent, succumbing to the corrupting power of the Phazon in their own bodies.
Eventually, Samus visits the Pirate Homeworld, which has also been penetrated by a Leviathan Seed, and delivers it from the Leviathan as she did Bryyo and Elysia. As she progresses, the Phazon in her body corrupts her to a further extent, but she soon travels to the planet Phaaze, the origin of all Phazon in the galaxy. Samus defeats Dark Samus for the final time (as well as a stolen Aurora Unit), liberating the universe, and herself, from the effects of Phazon.
Intellectual Content
Being a prominent Metroid game, Corruption features numerous items to acquire and puzzles to solve, both mandatory and optional. There are many ways to use new abilities and weapons in the search for missile expansions, ship missile expansions, energy tanks, and energy cells; since there are multiple planets to visit and multiple landing sites on each planet, there is an extensive virtual world to scour. Players must use Samus' many abilities and weapons along with her ship's abilities to unlock all of the pathways needed to obtain every collectible.
Conclusion
Corruption easily succeeds as both a Metroid title and as a science fiction/adventure shooter, taking full advantage of the Wii's hardware capabilities and carefully evolving its franchise. Whether a person likes exploration, exotic weaponry, or just the general Metroid atmosphere, it is likely that they will appreciate the game. It would be a thrilling relief if Metroid Prime 4 continues and improves the franchise the way that Corruption did!
Content:
1. Violence: Samus' beam and missile weapons can freeze, scorch, and incinerate enemies, but all deaths occur bloodlessly.
2. Profanity: A Federation leader uses a mild expletive in one scene.
--242, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Taking inspiration from Metroid Prime Hunters, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption integrates both Samus' ship and other bounty hunters into the gameplay and story in a very natural evolution of the franchise. If only more Wii games were like it, the reputation of the console would have likely been quite different! Since the first two Metroid Prime games had such an impact on gaming, Corruption needed to both honor its predecessors and provide significant additions to the subseries to capture maximum acclaim. It succeeds on both accounts. With Metroid Prime 4 on the distant horizon, the wait provides a great opportunity for Metroid fans to revisit one of the best games in the series.
 |
|
Production Values
As with the later game Other M, Metroid Prime 3 is one of the most attractive games on the Wii--and it was also one of the first. There are three main planets to visit, along with several ships, all of which have their own distinct atmospheres, ecosystems, and collectibles. The level design is incredibly diverse and thoughtful, with Corruption having the most unique planet to appear in a Metroid game thus far (Elysia).
There is plenty of voice acting for various characters, like Federation marines and other bounty hunters, but Samus never speaks as she does in Other M. She remains the silent, stoic warrior that she is in Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes, and Metroid Prime Hunters. The characters that do speak have writing and voice acting that are generally neither incredible nor horrendously poor in quality, though some of the voice actors are great fits for their roles. The rest of the audio is great, from the music (the soundtrack, including the title theme, is gorgeous!) to the iconic sound effects of the series.
Gameplay
With the exception of some specific gestures used to twist objects or move handles, the motion controls tend to work very well. Players must use pulling gestures with the nunchuk to remove enemy shields, rip away loose materials, and open up certain pathways; this is a great application of the nunchuk's motion controls. The point-to-aim controls with the Wii remote feel great, since they allow for far more natural, broad glances and shooting than the GameCube controller does.
Other additions to the classic Prime gameplay include hypermode and ship abilities. Now Samus can sacrifice energy tanks to briefly obtain heightened combat power and can upgrade her ship to equip it with its own abilities, like the capability to launch missiles at large targets. The ship is much more thoroughly integrated into the gameplay. Whereas the ship stayed in one location in Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2, in Corruption players can enter inside and fly to different planets as the story or desire for exploration demands. This makes the accessible parts of the universe seem much more vast than before.
Story
Metroid chronology:
1. Metroid/Metroid: Zero Mission (NES/GBA)
2. Metroid Prime (GameCube)
3. Metroid Prime Hunters (DS)
4. Metroid Prime 2: Echoes (GameCube)
5. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (Wii)
6. Metroid Prime: Federation Force (3DS)
7. Metroid II: Return of Samus/Metroid: Samus Returns (Game Boy/3DS)
8. Super Metroid (SNES)
9. Metroid: Other M (Wii)
10. Metroid Fusion (GBA)
Spoilers!
Samus lands her ship aboard a Galactic Federation vessel, where she and three other bounty hunters are educated about the Federation's AU (Aurora Unit) supercomputers and recent Space Pirate activity, including the theft of AU 313. After they are tasked with administering a software vaccine to the AUs on other planets, Space Pirates attack both the vessel and the planet Norion below--and soon a massive object plummets towards the surface. Dark Samus seemingly defeats all four hunters and leaves them unable to prevent the object, called a Leviathan Seed, from reaching Norion, but Samus activates a defense system before falling into a month-long coma.
When she awakens, Samus learns that her body is self-generating Phazon (as a result of exposure to the weaponry of Dark Samus), which she can harness to enter hypermode. An AU tells Samus to travel to two nearby planets, Bryyo and Elysia, as they were struck by Leviathan Seeds of their own, the seeds producing Phazon. Though the other hunters were dispatched to these planets, they have gone silent, succumbing to the corrupting power of the Phazon in their own bodies.
Eventually, Samus visits the Pirate Homeworld, which has also been penetrated by a Leviathan Seed, and delivers it from the Leviathan as she did Bryyo and Elysia. As she progresses, the Phazon in her body corrupts her to a further extent, but she soon travels to the planet Phaaze, the origin of all Phazon in the galaxy. Samus defeats Dark Samus for the final time (as well as a stolen Aurora Unit), liberating the universe, and herself, from the effects of Phazon.
Intellectual Content
Being a prominent Metroid game, Corruption features numerous items to acquire and puzzles to solve, both mandatory and optional. There are many ways to use new abilities and weapons in the search for missile expansions, ship missile expansions, energy tanks, and energy cells; since there are multiple planets to visit and multiple landing sites on each planet, there is an extensive virtual world to scour. Players must use Samus' many abilities and weapons along with her ship's abilities to unlock all of the pathways needed to obtain every collectible.
Conclusion
Corruption easily succeeds as both a Metroid title and as a science fiction/adventure shooter, taking full advantage of the Wii's hardware capabilities and carefully evolving its franchise. Whether a person likes exploration, exotic weaponry, or just the general Metroid atmosphere, it is likely that they will appreciate the game. It would be a thrilling relief if Metroid Prime 4 continues and improves the franchise the way that Corruption did!
Content:
1. Violence: Samus' beam and missile weapons can freeze, scorch, and incinerate enemies, but all deaths occur bloodlessly.
2. Profanity: A Federation leader uses a mild expletive in one scene.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Evangelical Mysticism
Evangelicalism survives in part because of the myth that one's private emotions and introspection can reveal some special knowledge about God, or perhaps about his alleged "plan" for one's life. It takes no more than several moments to recognize the multiple fallacies inherent in such a claim. A feeling can never inform one of anything about reality except the existence and nature of that feeling (though sophistic apologists like William Lane Craig still pretend like one can even know that God exists through such experiences!).
This fallacy-riddled spiritual framework inevitably reduces down to mysticism, the pursuit of theological knowledge through non-intellectual means. Since mysticism and rationalism are viciously exclusive, mysticism almost always features claims of personal experiences at its core. Pure mysticism is rooted neither in reason nor in any particular religious text; it is based on personal experience and that alone. Evangelicals do not go so far as to embrace total mysticism, but they certainly substitute mysticism for intelligence and Biblical exegesis in many areas.
Is there even any evidence at all that God has a particular plan for individuals--that if they do not get married to specific people or take certain jobs, they have deviated from God's will for their respective lives? Does even a single Bible verse serve as actual support for this? Evangelicals can only defend these supposed facts about God's will on the basis of subjective experiences, with the correspondence to any actual divine will being entirely unverifiable at best, as nothing in the Bible even hints at God having respective plans for the details of each person's life--and logic uproots any attempt to argue for such a thing. Reason exposes all claims about knowledge of these plans as non sequiturs and instances of begging the question or circular reasoning.
There is nothing else that a person who claims to have discovered God's will for his or her life can appeal to besides mysticism! That nothing in the Bible even suggests that God has plans tailored to the lives of each individual does not prevent evangelicals from mindlessly repeating the myth, as the idea that such plans exist anyway is deeply entrenched within baseline evangelicalism. Then there is the amusing fact that one single act of disobedience, or even simple ignorance, could totally disrupt God's plans for many lives if God truly had specific plans for many events within each one.
Consider all of the ways that one ignorant or rebellious Christian would affect not just his or her life by straying from God's "plans," but the lives of many around him or her! For example, all it would take is one marriage to the wrong partner for numerous other intended marriages to be averted, with the consequences passed on from person to person. Ironically, this would render God's plans for individuals ineffective, something many evangelicals would not want to admit!
Evangelical mysticism is more destructive than its adherents realize, for it is irrational stupidity and extra-Biblical doctrine masquerading as something vital to the very lifestyles of Christians. Not only is this mysticism asinine by nature of its non-intellectual foundation, but it can also lead to great hurt in the lives of sincere adherents who become frustrated with their lack of ability to identify divine plans that, at least in the way many define them, aren't there. Confusion about God's alleged will for one's life and the potential associated frustration is easily avoidable if one embraces rationalistic and exegesis-rooted theology.
This fallacy-riddled spiritual framework inevitably reduces down to mysticism, the pursuit of theological knowledge through non-intellectual means. Since mysticism and rationalism are viciously exclusive, mysticism almost always features claims of personal experiences at its core. Pure mysticism is rooted neither in reason nor in any particular religious text; it is based on personal experience and that alone. Evangelicals do not go so far as to embrace total mysticism, but they certainly substitute mysticism for intelligence and Biblical exegesis in many areas.
Is there even any evidence at all that God has a particular plan for individuals--that if they do not get married to specific people or take certain jobs, they have deviated from God's will for their respective lives? Does even a single Bible verse serve as actual support for this? Evangelicals can only defend these supposed facts about God's will on the basis of subjective experiences, with the correspondence to any actual divine will being entirely unverifiable at best, as nothing in the Bible even hints at God having respective plans for the details of each person's life--and logic uproots any attempt to argue for such a thing. Reason exposes all claims about knowledge of these plans as non sequiturs and instances of begging the question or circular reasoning.
There is nothing else that a person who claims to have discovered God's will for his or her life can appeal to besides mysticism! That nothing in the Bible even suggests that God has plans tailored to the lives of each individual does not prevent evangelicals from mindlessly repeating the myth, as the idea that such plans exist anyway is deeply entrenched within baseline evangelicalism. Then there is the amusing fact that one single act of disobedience, or even simple ignorance, could totally disrupt God's plans for many lives if God truly had specific plans for many events within each one.
Consider all of the ways that one ignorant or rebellious Christian would affect not just his or her life by straying from God's "plans," but the lives of many around him or her! For example, all it would take is one marriage to the wrong partner for numerous other intended marriages to be averted, with the consequences passed on from person to person. Ironically, this would render God's plans for individuals ineffective, something many evangelicals would not want to admit!
Evangelical mysticism is more destructive than its adherents realize, for it is irrational stupidity and extra-Biblical doctrine masquerading as something vital to the very lifestyles of Christians. Not only is this mysticism asinine by nature of its non-intellectual foundation, but it can also lead to great hurt in the lives of sincere adherents who become frustrated with their lack of ability to identify divine plans that, at least in the way many define them, aren't there. Confusion about God's alleged will for one's life and the potential associated frustration is easily avoidable if one embraces rationalistic and exegesis-rooted theology.
The Gift Of Immortality
The evangelical assumption that every human will live forever in one way or another is so deeply ingrained in both Christian and secular minds that even non-Christians might scoff at the claim that the Bible teaches that the human soul is mortal. If very few Christians wield correct exegesis, then there is a much larger number of non-Christians that misunderstands basic Biblical teachings. It might surprise many to discover just how blatant and intrinsically rational conditional immortality is within the Christian worldview. Immortality of the human soul and body is not natural, but it is a gift extended to all humans that will accept it.
Pro ECT (eternal conscious torment) theologians scarcely look to the Old Testament for information about the ultimate destinations of the saved and unsaved, and with good reason. The Old Testament betrays very few, scattered details about the afterlife. However, the New Testament only affirms that humans are inherently mortal in a post-fall world, so the New Testament does not rescue the myth that human consciousness is immortal or indestructible. Depending on their degree of lunacy, pro ECT theologians might even argue that it is both immortal and indestructible!
Consider 1 Timothy 6:16, which is not a verse which is dificult to understand: God is the only conscious being that is immortal and everlasting because of his metaphysical nature, meaning that humans cannot be either of these things on their own. Immortality of mind and body are gifts bestowed upon those who commit themselves to Christ (John 3:16); they are not characteristics inherent in humanity. If immortality was an innate component of human nature, then humans could not seek after or obtain it (Romans 2:7).
How can Jesus give eternal life to those who will already live forever even if they pay no regard to him? How can God give to humans what they already possess? The Biblical doctrine on the matter is clear, though distorted by centuries of fallacies and heresies--humans do not live forever apart from the eternal life that can only be obtained by a voluntary reconciliation with God.
God never created the human soul to be deathless irrespective of whether it is fallen or in its original state. In fact, no verse even implies that the human soul lives forever by nature of being the human soul. Divorced from eternal life, which only God can impart, the human mind, like the human body, will be brought to the point of nonexistence in hell (Matthew 10:28). This extinction of consciousness is the just penalty for evil, for the Bible calls death the wages of sin, not endless torture for every sinful being.
Pro ECT (eternal conscious torment) theologians scarcely look to the Old Testament for information about the ultimate destinations of the saved and unsaved, and with good reason. The Old Testament betrays very few, scattered details about the afterlife. However, the New Testament only affirms that humans are inherently mortal in a post-fall world, so the New Testament does not rescue the myth that human consciousness is immortal or indestructible. Depending on their degree of lunacy, pro ECT theologians might even argue that it is both immortal and indestructible!
Consider 1 Timothy 6:16, which is not a verse which is dificult to understand: God is the only conscious being that is immortal and everlasting because of his metaphysical nature, meaning that humans cannot be either of these things on their own. Immortality of mind and body are gifts bestowed upon those who commit themselves to Christ (John 3:16); they are not characteristics inherent in humanity. If immortality was an innate component of human nature, then humans could not seek after or obtain it (Romans 2:7).
How can Jesus give eternal life to those who will already live forever even if they pay no regard to him? How can God give to humans what they already possess? The Biblical doctrine on the matter is clear, though distorted by centuries of fallacies and heresies--humans do not live forever apart from the eternal life that can only be obtained by a voluntary reconciliation with God.
God never created the human soul to be deathless irrespective of whether it is fallen or in its original state. In fact, no verse even implies that the human soul lives forever by nature of being the human soul. Divorced from eternal life, which only God can impart, the human mind, like the human body, will be brought to the point of nonexistence in hell (Matthew 10:28). This extinction of consciousness is the just penalty for evil, for the Bible calls death the wages of sin, not endless torture for every sinful being.
The Supernatural In Entertainment
Some genres allow for a far more organic inclusion of traditionally supernatural beings or events than others do. Fantasy (Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones) and adventure (Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider) lend themselves particularly well to explorations of religious and supernatural subjects. In fantasy, this is because supernatural abilities like magic are often somewhat prevalent. In the adventure genre, this is because the stories often feature legends of the supernatural that are revealed to be at least partially true.
Fantasy is more likely to incorporate its respective supernatural aspects into the very fabric of the worldbuilding, with entire races or groups being affiliated with blatant supernatural powers--though the occasional story keeps the use of magic to a minimum. Adventure, to the contrary, often keeps the supernatural in the background, emphasizing it in the finale. Despite these key differences in story presentation, no other genres fit supernaturality into their narratives as naturally.
Entertainment, partly because of the way the supernatural is usually handled in these genres, implicitly encourages to an understanding of the supernatural that excludes the recognition of certain things as being separate from nature. As entertainment is made by people, and most people do not understand the supernatural, this is hardly strange. Many people grossly overcomplicate the notion of the supernatural: not only are traditional supernatural beings (unembodied spirits, whether divine, angelic, or demonic) or realms (the afterlife) entirely logically possible, but people also do not need to verify that any of them exist to know the existence of supernatural things.
Since something must only be distinct from nature to be supernatural, the laws of logic, basic consciousness, and even the nonphysical space that holds matter are supernatural. Every contemplation of first principles, act of introspection, and use of deduction is an inherently supernatural activity, since it is only possible because of things separate from the material world. Logic, consciousness, and space are deeply connected to nature--logic because it governs all things, including material objects, consciousness because it animates physical bodies, and space because it holds matter itself--but none of them are a component of nature.
Entertainment often reinforces a faulty understanding of supernaturalism by treating only things such as divine activity, disembodied spirits, and post-mortem existence as supernatural. Because entertainment can easily influence many aspects of a culture, it is not surprising that many are accepting of this understanding of the supernatural, despite its glaring flaws. There are multiple supernatural things that people regularly overlook simply because of a popular misconception about what it means to be beyond nature, despite the rational obviousness of its errors.
Fantasy is more likely to incorporate its respective supernatural aspects into the very fabric of the worldbuilding, with entire races or groups being affiliated with blatant supernatural powers--though the occasional story keeps the use of magic to a minimum. Adventure, to the contrary, often keeps the supernatural in the background, emphasizing it in the finale. Despite these key differences in story presentation, no other genres fit supernaturality into their narratives as naturally.
 |
| Tomb Raider (2013), following the tradition of many adventure stories, features a supernatural nemesis--something intriguingly left out of the 2018 movie. |
Entertainment, partly because of the way the supernatural is usually handled in these genres, implicitly encourages to an understanding of the supernatural that excludes the recognition of certain things as being separate from nature. As entertainment is made by people, and most people do not understand the supernatural, this is hardly strange. Many people grossly overcomplicate the notion of the supernatural: not only are traditional supernatural beings (unembodied spirits, whether divine, angelic, or demonic) or realms (the afterlife) entirely logically possible, but people also do not need to verify that any of them exist to know the existence of supernatural things.
Since something must only be distinct from nature to be supernatural, the laws of logic, basic consciousness, and even the nonphysical space that holds matter are supernatural. Every contemplation of first principles, act of introspection, and use of deduction is an inherently supernatural activity, since it is only possible because of things separate from the material world. Logic, consciousness, and space are deeply connected to nature--logic because it governs all things, including material objects, consciousness because it animates physical bodies, and space because it holds matter itself--but none of them are a component of nature.
Entertainment often reinforces a faulty understanding of supernaturalism by treating only things such as divine activity, disembodied spirits, and post-mortem existence as supernatural. Because entertainment can easily influence many aspects of a culture, it is not surprising that many are accepting of this understanding of the supernatural, despite its glaring flaws. There are multiple supernatural things that people regularly overlook simply because of a popular misconception about what it means to be beyond nature, despite the rational obviousness of its errors.
Saturday, September 22, 2018
Consciousness Is The Soul
When people in general refer to the religious concept of a soul, they mean by the word "soul," at the very least, some aspect of consciousness that can live on after its body has died. Consciousness is an inescapable component of the religious idea of the soul. In fact, it is the soul, though many act like the soul must be a religious concept, when this is entirely untrue. Few have had the revelation that consciousness and the soul are one in the same. In reality, the tendency for secular Westerners to avoid referring to consciousness as spirit or soul is just a vain attempt to distance basic phenomenology from both nonreligious and potential religious ramifications (mind-body dualism and the possibility of an afterlife, respectively).
This equivalence is why the process of introspection can be called "soul-searching"--it is nothing more than a consciousness examining its immediate contents. In reflecting on one's current mental states, with conscious focus retreating into itself, one gazes into one's soul. This is all that the phrase means. It has nothing to do with any distinctly religious concepts, since it has nothing to do with any doctrine of the afterlife or other considerations of a primarily theological nature.
The concept of the soul is not inherently connected to the notion of an afterlife. Popular consensus suggests there is an intrinsic connection, as if the existence of the soul hinges on the veracity of a developed religion, but reason exposes this consensus as the nonsense that it is. A contra-rational connection of the soul and the afterlife has led to many people abandoning the idea of the soul due to skepticism about conscious existence after the death of one's body.
Once one realizes that consciousness is strictly immaterial, despite the fact that it can animate a physical body, it becomes obvious that there does not need to be an afterlife for one to have a soul. Even on an emergent naturalistic worldview, I would still have a soul because consciousness cannot be illusory. The problem is that few people realize that consciousness and the soul, whenever it comes to terrestrial existence, are identical.
Since only an imbecile would deny their own consciousness, one must be quite unintelligent in order to deny that their soul exists. It is linguistic norms and popular belief that keep people from more openly realizing that the soul is not a notion that can be legitimately doubted, for if a person denies that they have a soul, they must have a soul--otherwise they could not reflect on the concept, since they would not exist as a consciousness.
This equivalence is why the process of introspection can be called "soul-searching"--it is nothing more than a consciousness examining its immediate contents. In reflecting on one's current mental states, with conscious focus retreating into itself, one gazes into one's soul. This is all that the phrase means. It has nothing to do with any distinctly religious concepts, since it has nothing to do with any doctrine of the afterlife or other considerations of a primarily theological nature.
The concept of the soul is not inherently connected to the notion of an afterlife. Popular consensus suggests there is an intrinsic connection, as if the existence of the soul hinges on the veracity of a developed religion, but reason exposes this consensus as the nonsense that it is. A contra-rational connection of the soul and the afterlife has led to many people abandoning the idea of the soul due to skepticism about conscious existence after the death of one's body.
Once one realizes that consciousness is strictly immaterial, despite the fact that it can animate a physical body, it becomes obvious that there does not need to be an afterlife for one to have a soul. Even on an emergent naturalistic worldview, I would still have a soul because consciousness cannot be illusory. The problem is that few people realize that consciousness and the soul, whenever it comes to terrestrial existence, are identical.
Since only an imbecile would deny their own consciousness, one must be quite unintelligent in order to deny that their soul exists. It is linguistic norms and popular belief that keep people from more openly realizing that the soul is not a notion that can be legitimately doubted, for if a person denies that they have a soul, they must have a soul--otherwise they could not reflect on the concept, since they would not exist as a consciousness.
Exodus 20:17 Is Not Sexist
To some readers, one of the Ten Commandments--more specifically, the commandment against coveting (Exodus 20:17)--seems to suggest that marriage is a sexist relationship, with husbands owning their wives in the same way that they own animals or houses. This is because the verse condemns coveting a neighbor's wife or anything else that belongs to a neighbor. Some forms of complementarianism embrace this misinterpretation of the passage, for not all complementarians are are delusional as others! There are two facts which undermine this claim entirely. First, nothing in the text actually excludes or denies the idea that husbands also belong to their wives. Second, if the moral component of the command applies to both genders, then it follows by necessity that husbands belong to their wives in the same way that wives belong to their husbands.
As a brief examination of the text and concepts shows, the morality of the command certainly is not binding on just one gender, as the command prohibits coveting anything that belongs to one's neighbor. Men and women have neighbors. Women can have both male and female neighbors, and they are prohibited from coveting married men to the same extent that men are prohibited from coveting married women, since it is coveting itself that is wrong, not just coveting on the part of a male. Nothing about the command against coveting is gender-specific. Thus, it follows that women should not covet another woman's husband, just as men should not covet another man's wife.
If the command does not apply to one gender only--and a basic exercise of reason proves that it must apply to both--then Exodus 20:17 cannot teach that wives are unilaterally owned by their husbands, since everything it states extends in both directions. Thus, the verse cannot be sexist. Recognizing this is a simple matter of consistency. From Genesis onward, men and women are identified in Scripture as beings of equal significance who share the same task of presiding over other aspects of creation. Marriage changes nothing about this.
In another passage of the Bible, Paul states with explicit clarity that husbands and wives share a mutual "ownership" of each other's bodies (1 Corinthians 7:3-5), which amounts to an outright denial of the notion that only husbands "own" only wives. If a husband's body belongs to both him and his wife and vice versa, there can be no such thing as wives being belongings of men alongside inanimate objects and mere animals. Mutual belonging means not only that all members of a marital relationship are metaphysical equals, but that they are capable of achieving a far deeper level of connectedness and intimacy than would otherwise be possible.
No part of the Bible teaches that wives are the "property" of their husbands in a one-sided sense. Mosaic Law and the writings of Paul make it clear that husbands and wives are not to treat each other as if one unilaterally owns the other, for they are partners of equal value. Both partners in a marriage do belong to each other--but this belonging is founded on mutuality, commitment, and love. It is not a degrading, unilateral ownership.
As a brief examination of the text and concepts shows, the morality of the command certainly is not binding on just one gender, as the command prohibits coveting anything that belongs to one's neighbor. Men and women have neighbors. Women can have both male and female neighbors, and they are prohibited from coveting married men to the same extent that men are prohibited from coveting married women, since it is coveting itself that is wrong, not just coveting on the part of a male. Nothing about the command against coveting is gender-specific. Thus, it follows that women should not covet another woman's husband, just as men should not covet another man's wife.
If the command does not apply to one gender only--and a basic exercise of reason proves that it must apply to both--then Exodus 20:17 cannot teach that wives are unilaterally owned by their husbands, since everything it states extends in both directions. Thus, the verse cannot be sexist. Recognizing this is a simple matter of consistency. From Genesis onward, men and women are identified in Scripture as beings of equal significance who share the same task of presiding over other aspects of creation. Marriage changes nothing about this.
In another passage of the Bible, Paul states with explicit clarity that husbands and wives share a mutual "ownership" of each other's bodies (1 Corinthians 7:3-5), which amounts to an outright denial of the notion that only husbands "own" only wives. If a husband's body belongs to both him and his wife and vice versa, there can be no such thing as wives being belongings of men alongside inanimate objects and mere animals. Mutual belonging means not only that all members of a marital relationship are metaphysical equals, but that they are capable of achieving a far deeper level of connectedness and intimacy than would otherwise be possible.
No part of the Bible teaches that wives are the "property" of their husbands in a one-sided sense. Mosaic Law and the writings of Paul make it clear that husbands and wives are not to treat each other as if one unilaterally owns the other, for they are partners of equal value. Both partners in a marriage do belong to each other--but this belonging is founded on mutuality, commitment, and love. It is not a degrading, unilateral ownership.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Genesis Does Not Prescribe Monogamy
At the mention of polyamorous marriages, evangelicals often repeat the myth that God's original intent for marriage was monogamy, though God tolerated polyamorous marriages for a time under Mosaic Law. Setting aside the fact that a morally perfect deity could never enforce or reveal legislation even codifying or regulating a sinful thing (James 1:13), the Bible is explicitly clear that nothing is immoral about polyamory. Since Genesis details the account of the first marriage, and since no other place in the Bible prohibits polyamorous marriages, the fact that the opening chapters of the Bible do not even hint at any intent for humans to only have one marital partner at a time dispels any contrary ideas.
That God created Adam and Eve as the first humans, as opposed to multiple men and women who acted as shared marital partners, does not mean that God discourages or loathes polyamory; this simply does not follow. Like complementarians and those hostile towards nudity (in other words, many contemporary conservative theologians), anti-polyamorists misrepresent the opening book of the Bible by positing mere assumptions rooted in tradition-based constructs, when the creation account that they point to refutes them instead of vindicating them.
Nowhere does Genesis prescribe monogamy as an obligatory thing, so it certainly cannot establish that polyandry and polygamy are sinful despite the fact that the narrative of human creation in Eden features one man and one woman. Even a cursory examination of the first chapters of Genesis reveals that there is no command to marry just one person anywhere in the text. There is nothing about this that should shock or offend Christians! What should bother them is how unintelligent every argument against polyamory is--every single one reduces down to an appeal to subjective emotions or arbitrary societal preferences. If the Bible is true, neither has any authority. If the Bible is not true, neither has any authority.
Evangelicals pretend like romantic affection cannot be legitimate if it is channeled into two or more committed dating/marital relationships simultaneously, as if having a plurality of spouses somehow means that one has betrayed the initial spouse. But having an overt romantic and/or sexual bond with a second person does not exclude a strong love for the first one. Both are logically compatible; neither has to displace the other. Just as people can have multiple close friends, deeply cherishing each one of them without neglecting the others, so too can they enjoy romantic intimacy with multiple spouses. Adultery involves extramarital sex once one is already married, so being married to more than one spouse at once cannot be adultery. In their rush to defend worthless assumptions, evangelicals overlook this fact out of ignorance or out of intellectual stubbornness.
The consciences of evangelicals may scream out their petty, emotionalistic objections that have been instilled in them by years of immersion in strictly monogamous American social norms and Protestant subculture, but nothing about the truth is affected. The creation narrative, Mosaic Law, and other portions of the Bible agree: there is nothing immoral about polyamory, or else God would have condemned it (as usual, see 1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7, and Deuteronomy 4:2). God did not intend for all married people to practice either monogamy or polyamory. Neither is ever declared sinful, with some people naturally gravitating towards one or the other. Individuals are free to choose between monogamy and polyamory as their personalities, life circumstances, and longings dictate.
That God created Adam and Eve as the first humans, as opposed to multiple men and women who acted as shared marital partners, does not mean that God discourages or loathes polyamory; this simply does not follow. Like complementarians and those hostile towards nudity (in other words, many contemporary conservative theologians), anti-polyamorists misrepresent the opening book of the Bible by positing mere assumptions rooted in tradition-based constructs, when the creation account that they point to refutes them instead of vindicating them.
Nowhere does Genesis prescribe monogamy as an obligatory thing, so it certainly cannot establish that polyandry and polygamy are sinful despite the fact that the narrative of human creation in Eden features one man and one woman. Even a cursory examination of the first chapters of Genesis reveals that there is no command to marry just one person anywhere in the text. There is nothing about this that should shock or offend Christians! What should bother them is how unintelligent every argument against polyamory is--every single one reduces down to an appeal to subjective emotions or arbitrary societal preferences. If the Bible is true, neither has any authority. If the Bible is not true, neither has any authority.
Evangelicals pretend like romantic affection cannot be legitimate if it is channeled into two or more committed dating/marital relationships simultaneously, as if having a plurality of spouses somehow means that one has betrayed the initial spouse. But having an overt romantic and/or sexual bond with a second person does not exclude a strong love for the first one. Both are logically compatible; neither has to displace the other. Just as people can have multiple close friends, deeply cherishing each one of them without neglecting the others, so too can they enjoy romantic intimacy with multiple spouses. Adultery involves extramarital sex once one is already married, so being married to more than one spouse at once cannot be adultery. In their rush to defend worthless assumptions, evangelicals overlook this fact out of ignorance or out of intellectual stubbornness.
The consciences of evangelicals may scream out their petty, emotionalistic objections that have been instilled in them by years of immersion in strictly monogamous American social norms and Protestant subculture, but nothing about the truth is affected. The creation narrative, Mosaic Law, and other portions of the Bible agree: there is nothing immoral about polyamory, or else God would have condemned it (as usual, see 1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7, and Deuteronomy 4:2). God did not intend for all married people to practice either monogamy or polyamory. Neither is ever declared sinful, with some people naturally gravitating towards one or the other. Individuals are free to choose between monogamy and polyamory as their personalities, life circumstances, and longings dictate.
Movie Review--Beowulf (2007)
"Men, Grendel. They have slain so many of our kind."
--Grendel's mother, Beowulf
"I've come to kill your monster."
--Beowulf, Beowulf
Beowulf is a unique film that emphasizes the epic, brutal nature of the poem that it is derived from. No, it does not perfectly mirror the story of the poem, but the changes work in the cinematic format. Successful experimentation can be far more important than flawless accuracy in translating the source material to a new medium. The results are spectacular, even with the over-the-top action sequences and narrative changes. Beowulf is set during a time when Christian influence is starting to appear alongside the presence of Norse mythology, when Jesus is initially referenced alongside Odin. The quasi-historical foundation blends together with the fantasy elements in a beautiful fashion. It is one of the darkest--and most brilliantly-crafted--animated films I have seen.
Production Values
The style of Beowulf is similar to that of the God of War video games in terms of both the visual spectacle and soundtrack, and it is a great fit for the film: the deaths are brutal and the score wonderfully accentuates the story. The fact that the movie is entirely animated helps make some of the more unrealistic and exaggerated moments seem right at home. For instance, Beowulf recounts how he swam in a race against someone named Brecca for five days straight before fighting off sea monsters, thereby losing the race. If Beowulf had been created as a live action movie with accompanying CGI, such a scene could have seemed highly laughable. Very notably, the animation still looks fine in 2018!
The cast does a phenomenal job with each role. Whether it's the voice performance of Ray Winstone as Beowulf, Anthony Hopkins as Hrothgar, or Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mother, the acting is a wonderful fit within the grim universe realized by the animators. There is no weak link with the voice acting; everyone contributes and succeeds. The characters' appearances are often modeled after the actors and actresses themselves, the visuals accentuating the voice acting by reminding people who is playing whom. It's also ironic, might I add, that Hopkins' character praises Odin so frequently, considering that he later played Odin in the MCU.
Story
Spoilers!
As King Hrothgar celebrates with his people in a mead hall, a demon offspring named Grendel forces his way inside and terrorizes the group, easily killing many before he teleports away in a blue flame. The sounds from the hall annoyed and enraged Grendel, who has sensitive hearing. Hrothgar announces that he needs a hero to deliver his kingdom. The Geat Beowulf, leading other Geats, lands at the shore to meet with Hrothgar and defeat Grendel. He succeeds by overstimulating Grendel's sense of hearing, which led to him breaking off one of Grendel's arms.
Grendel survives long enough to return home before he dies, his mother promising vengeance. Beowulf soon awakens one morning to find a great number of corpses hanging from the ceiling beams--Hrothgar quickly identifies the new monster as Grendel's mother. Beowulf travels to the lair of the water demon, where Grendel's mother appears as a woman and asks him to give her a son to replace Grendel. Seduced, Beowulf obliges, and the two produce a son.
Hrothgar promises Beowulf the throne, committing suicide to enable a quick succession. Before his suicide, Hrothgar had shown Beowulf the Royal Dragon Horn, which he had obtained after defeating the dragon Fafnir, and he had told Beowulf that the throat is a dragon's weak spot and that exploiting that weakness is the only way to kill a dragon. Many years later, as an established king, Beowulf quells a Frisian revolt shortly before a dragon--his son--threatens to destroy the kingdom. Beowulf kills the dragon (using the information Hrothgar imparted) in a final act of heroism before he dies from his wounds, his altruistic deeds remembered despite the fact that he literally helped create the problem.
Intellectual Content
Beowulf says that the "Christ God" has ended the age of heroes, "leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear and shame." In saying this, Beowulf betrays an extraordinarily ignorant understanding of Christianity. First of all, Christianity is not about pacifism, which is implied in Beowulf's comment. Thus, Christianity does not exclude heroic military or monarchical acts. Jesus never condemns all violence, as he affirms the executions prescribed in the Torah by Yahweh (Matthew 5:17-19, 15:3-9). There are numerous examples of warfare and killings authorized--demanded, even--by the Christian god, though there are clear, universal boundaries that Mosaic Law places on such things. Second, Beowulf implicitly assumes that the values of his culture correspond to existing value obligations, when conscience and consensus are absolutely useless when pursuing moral knowledge. He has no reason whatsoever to even suspect that the moral values held by his kingdom's inhabitants exist to begin with; he never once entertains the possibility that they are mistaken or incomplete. His criticism of Christianity falls apart even if Christianity isn't true.
Conclusion
Beowulf might not be for lovers of the written work, but it is a great film. The excellence of the production values bleeds over into every crevice of the story, characterization, and action. Is it controversial? Of course! But it remains extremely well-realized and highly unique--what other epic poem has had an animated movie of this scope and quality fashioned from it? It is a project that stands on a stage by itself, and I applaud the filmmakers for investing in such a bold and distinctive movie.
Content:
1. Violence: Grendel tosses around humans effortlessly, impaling them on objects, breaking their bones, and dismembering them. Beowulf kills sea serpents in very violent ways, even emerging from inside of one by cutting a way out through its eye, and he overpowers Grendel by using graphic measures. That Beowulf is animated and PG-13 does not mean that the violence is mild.
2. Profanity: In a few scenes, miscellaneous characters use profanity (variations of "damn").
3. Nudity: Beowulf removes all of his clothing to fight Grendel, and his nude body is seen from the back. Grendel's mother appears to Beowulf as a naked woman, visible from the front, with a golden liquid moving across her skin.
4. Sexuality: Sexual comments from both men and women are fairly common. Nonconsensual sexual advances made towards women are also common for the first half of the movie, unfortunately. Hrothgar's soldiers, as well as the Geats (though not Beowulf), tend to view sexual expression with a partner as something that a man imposes on a woman instead of something mutual that is free of stereotypes of gender roles.
--Grendel's mother, Beowulf
"I've come to kill your monster."
--Beowulf, Beowulf
Beowulf is a unique film that emphasizes the epic, brutal nature of the poem that it is derived from. No, it does not perfectly mirror the story of the poem, but the changes work in the cinematic format. Successful experimentation can be far more important than flawless accuracy in translating the source material to a new medium. The results are spectacular, even with the over-the-top action sequences and narrative changes. Beowulf is set during a time when Christian influence is starting to appear alongside the presence of Norse mythology, when Jesus is initially referenced alongside Odin. The quasi-historical foundation blends together with the fantasy elements in a beautiful fashion. It is one of the darkest--and most brilliantly-crafted--animated films I have seen.
 |
|
Production Values
The style of Beowulf is similar to that of the God of War video games in terms of both the visual spectacle and soundtrack, and it is a great fit for the film: the deaths are brutal and the score wonderfully accentuates the story. The fact that the movie is entirely animated helps make some of the more unrealistic and exaggerated moments seem right at home. For instance, Beowulf recounts how he swam in a race against someone named Brecca for five days straight before fighting off sea monsters, thereby losing the race. If Beowulf had been created as a live action movie with accompanying CGI, such a scene could have seemed highly laughable. Very notably, the animation still looks fine in 2018!
The cast does a phenomenal job with each role. Whether it's the voice performance of Ray Winstone as Beowulf, Anthony Hopkins as Hrothgar, or Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mother, the acting is a wonderful fit within the grim universe realized by the animators. There is no weak link with the voice acting; everyone contributes and succeeds. The characters' appearances are often modeled after the actors and actresses themselves, the visuals accentuating the voice acting by reminding people who is playing whom. It's also ironic, might I add, that Hopkins' character praises Odin so frequently, considering that he later played Odin in the MCU.
Story
Spoilers!
As King Hrothgar celebrates with his people in a mead hall, a demon offspring named Grendel forces his way inside and terrorizes the group, easily killing many before he teleports away in a blue flame. The sounds from the hall annoyed and enraged Grendel, who has sensitive hearing. Hrothgar announces that he needs a hero to deliver his kingdom. The Geat Beowulf, leading other Geats, lands at the shore to meet with Hrothgar and defeat Grendel. He succeeds by overstimulating Grendel's sense of hearing, which led to him breaking off one of Grendel's arms.
Grendel survives long enough to return home before he dies, his mother promising vengeance. Beowulf soon awakens one morning to find a great number of corpses hanging from the ceiling beams--Hrothgar quickly identifies the new monster as Grendel's mother. Beowulf travels to the lair of the water demon, where Grendel's mother appears as a woman and asks him to give her a son to replace Grendel. Seduced, Beowulf obliges, and the two produce a son.
Hrothgar promises Beowulf the throne, committing suicide to enable a quick succession. Before his suicide, Hrothgar had shown Beowulf the Royal Dragon Horn, which he had obtained after defeating the dragon Fafnir, and he had told Beowulf that the throat is a dragon's weak spot and that exploiting that weakness is the only way to kill a dragon. Many years later, as an established king, Beowulf quells a Frisian revolt shortly before a dragon--his son--threatens to destroy the kingdom. Beowulf kills the dragon (using the information Hrothgar imparted) in a final act of heroism before he dies from his wounds, his altruistic deeds remembered despite the fact that he literally helped create the problem.
Intellectual Content
Beowulf says that the "Christ God" has ended the age of heroes, "leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear and shame." In saying this, Beowulf betrays an extraordinarily ignorant understanding of Christianity. First of all, Christianity is not about pacifism, which is implied in Beowulf's comment. Thus, Christianity does not exclude heroic military or monarchical acts. Jesus never condemns all violence, as he affirms the executions prescribed in the Torah by Yahweh (Matthew 5:17-19, 15:3-9). There are numerous examples of warfare and killings authorized--demanded, even--by the Christian god, though there are clear, universal boundaries that Mosaic Law places on such things. Second, Beowulf implicitly assumes that the values of his culture correspond to existing value obligations, when conscience and consensus are absolutely useless when pursuing moral knowledge. He has no reason whatsoever to even suspect that the moral values held by his kingdom's inhabitants exist to begin with; he never once entertains the possibility that they are mistaken or incomplete. His criticism of Christianity falls apart even if Christianity isn't true.
Conclusion
 |
|
Beowulf might not be for lovers of the written work, but it is a great film. The excellence of the production values bleeds over into every crevice of the story, characterization, and action. Is it controversial? Of course! But it remains extremely well-realized and highly unique--what other epic poem has had an animated movie of this scope and quality fashioned from it? It is a project that stands on a stage by itself, and I applaud the filmmakers for investing in such a bold and distinctive movie.
Content:
1. Violence: Grendel tosses around humans effortlessly, impaling them on objects, breaking their bones, and dismembering them. Beowulf kills sea serpents in very violent ways, even emerging from inside of one by cutting a way out through its eye, and he overpowers Grendel by using graphic measures. That Beowulf is animated and PG-13 does not mean that the violence is mild.
2. Profanity: In a few scenes, miscellaneous characters use profanity (variations of "damn").
3. Nudity: Beowulf removes all of his clothing to fight Grendel, and his nude body is seen from the back. Grendel's mother appears to Beowulf as a naked woman, visible from the front, with a golden liquid moving across her skin.
4. Sexuality: Sexual comments from both men and women are fairly common. Nonconsensual sexual advances made towards women are also common for the first half of the movie, unfortunately. Hrothgar's soldiers, as well as the Geats (though not Beowulf), tend to view sexual expression with a partner as something that a man imposes on a woman instead of something mutual that is free of stereotypes of gender roles.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
A Refutation Of Naturalism (Part 2)
Apart from the laws of logic, which cannot not exist even in the absence of everything else, and consciousness, there is another thing which is both immaterial and provable. This thing is space, the dimension that holds or can hold matter. Space surrounds all objects and beings, extending outward from them in all directions. It is a prerequisite for the existence of any matter at all. Without it, there could be nowhere for the matter to be! The mere existence of space disproves even the possibility of metaphysical naturalism being true in the same way that the existence of reason and consciousness disprove it.
If the entire material world was to cease to exist--with every subatomic particle, molecule, and object vanishing entirely--space would remain unaffected. This is because there is no such thing as the absence of a dimensional area that could hold matter, even if reality was completely devoid of physical substance. Thus, space, like the laws of logic, cannot not exist, being uncreated and necessary in itself. There is no height, depth, direction, or place where one can escape the omnipresent existence of space.
The very space that holds matter cannot be comprised itself. Space precedes matter, for matter cannot have always existed (there cannot be an endless past series of events in the material world, or else the present moment would never have arrived, and the present moment cannot be an illusion). Yet it is impossible for space itself to not exist. Matter has a beginning and can have an end; space has no beginning or ending, existing by necessity. Without matter, there is still the dimension that could hold matter.
Since matter cannot exist without space, but space exists without matter, the two cannot be identical. This serves as a direct alternative refutation of metaphysical naturalism/physicalism, which holds that nothing exists that is not made of matter. It is extraordinarily uncommon for a metaphysical truth this precise to be acknowledged or articulated, but this fact remains accessible to all people who take the time to reason it out.
Even if one ignores the immateriality of logic and consciousness, there can be no escape from the reality that the space occupied by matter is immaterial and thus falsifies naturalism. The universe can expand outward, but space already stretches on, infinite, boundless, and immutable. There is nowhere the cosmos could reach where there is not already space waiting for it.
If the entire material world was to cease to exist--with every subatomic particle, molecule, and object vanishing entirely--space would remain unaffected. This is because there is no such thing as the absence of a dimensional area that could hold matter, even if reality was completely devoid of physical substance. Thus, space, like the laws of logic, cannot not exist, being uncreated and necessary in itself. There is no height, depth, direction, or place where one can escape the omnipresent existence of space.
The very space that holds matter cannot be comprised itself. Space precedes matter, for matter cannot have always existed (there cannot be an endless past series of events in the material world, or else the present moment would never have arrived, and the present moment cannot be an illusion). Yet it is impossible for space itself to not exist. Matter has a beginning and can have an end; space has no beginning or ending, existing by necessity. Without matter, there is still the dimension that could hold matter.
Since matter cannot exist without space, but space exists without matter, the two cannot be identical. This serves as a direct alternative refutation of metaphysical naturalism/physicalism, which holds that nothing exists that is not made of matter. It is extraordinarily uncommon for a metaphysical truth this precise to be acknowledged or articulated, but this fact remains accessible to all people who take the time to reason it out.
Even if one ignores the immateriality of logic and consciousness, there can be no escape from the reality that the space occupied by matter is immaterial and thus falsifies naturalism. The universe can expand outward, but space already stretches on, infinite, boundless, and immutable. There is nowhere the cosmos could reach where there is not already space waiting for it.
An Erection Is Not Consent
There are more myths about rape than just those related to basic evangelical modesty teachings [1] or the denial that women can rape men [2]. The latter myth, which only survives because of asinine ideas about gender-specific personality traits, is often accompanied by several other grave falsities. One such deplorable lie interferes with general public willingness to accept that women can sexually victimize men: the lie holds that if a man has an erection, he consents to whatever sexual acts a woman imposes upon him.
An erection does not mean that a man wants sex, just as vaginal wetness or a clitoral erection alone does not mean that a woman wants to have sex. The human body can be manipulated into reaching a state of physiological arousal even when the mind inhabiting the body does not wish for his or her genitalia to become aroused, and the body can experience genital arousal even without being sexually stimulated by the mind or by the senses. This is true of both genders. Hell, even asexuals like me can experience physiological arousal (thank God [3]!)--there is no logical connection between arousal of the genitalia and arousal of the mind. Either one can exist on its own, meaning that the presence of one does not prove the presence of the other.
The genitalia of both men and women, as many people know, can respond to various sexual and nonsexual stimuli. Even a lack of consent to be exposed to such stimuli does not guarantee that a person will not become physically aroused. For instance, unwanted tactile stimulation could stimulate an erection. A person's body could be touched, even against their will, in ways that elicits a sexual bodily response, and the gender of the person is entirely irrelevant. Thus, that a man has an erection in a given situation does not prove or even necessarily imply that he wants a woman to touch or have sex with him.
When women are sexually assaulted by men, those around them are expected to acknowledge the cruelty of the acts they endure. When men are sexually assaulted by women, the same people might trivialize the abuse by treating it as something humorous, unimportant, or less immoral than male-female sexual assault. Anyone who would discriminate against men like this deserves the full hostility of logicians and ethicists. The gender of a victim has absolutely nothing to do with the depravity of an evil behavior.
As a basic logical analysis easily demonstrates, the presence of an erection does not mean that a man consents to whatever a woman wants to do to him. Anyone who pretends otherwise relies on nothing but a blatant, destructive use of the non sequitur fallacy. It is because of moral inconsistency and the prevalence of untrue stereotypes that some deem it socially acceptable to take female-male rape lightly. It enrages me that there are those who do not take female sexual harassment or assault of men seriously, when it is no less evil than assault of a woman. Whether it is dismissed entirely, mocked, or described using myths about female-male rape, the response is often heinous and irrational. The Bible condemns all nonconsensual sexual activities, regardless of the gender of the victimized person [4].
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/when-women-rape-men.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/can-asexuals-masturbate.html
[4]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/misunderstanding-bible-on-rape.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/sexuality-in-marriage-part-1-mutuality.html
An erection does not mean that a man wants sex, just as vaginal wetness or a clitoral erection alone does not mean that a woman wants to have sex. The human body can be manipulated into reaching a state of physiological arousal even when the mind inhabiting the body does not wish for his or her genitalia to become aroused, and the body can experience genital arousal even without being sexually stimulated by the mind or by the senses. This is true of both genders. Hell, even asexuals like me can experience physiological arousal (thank God [3]!)--there is no logical connection between arousal of the genitalia and arousal of the mind. Either one can exist on its own, meaning that the presence of one does not prove the presence of the other.
The genitalia of both men and women, as many people know, can respond to various sexual and nonsexual stimuli. Even a lack of consent to be exposed to such stimuli does not guarantee that a person will not become physically aroused. For instance, unwanted tactile stimulation could stimulate an erection. A person's body could be touched, even against their will, in ways that elicits a sexual bodily response, and the gender of the person is entirely irrelevant. Thus, that a man has an erection in a given situation does not prove or even necessarily imply that he wants a woman to touch or have sex with him.
When women are sexually assaulted by men, those around them are expected to acknowledge the cruelty of the acts they endure. When men are sexually assaulted by women, the same people might trivialize the abuse by treating it as something humorous, unimportant, or less immoral than male-female sexual assault. Anyone who would discriminate against men like this deserves the full hostility of logicians and ethicists. The gender of a victim has absolutely nothing to do with the depravity of an evil behavior.
As a basic logical analysis easily demonstrates, the presence of an erection does not mean that a man consents to whatever a woman wants to do to him. Anyone who pretends otherwise relies on nothing but a blatant, destructive use of the non sequitur fallacy. It is because of moral inconsistency and the prevalence of untrue stereotypes that some deem it socially acceptable to take female-male rape lightly. It enrages me that there are those who do not take female sexual harassment or assault of men seriously, when it is no less evil than assault of a woman. Whether it is dismissed entirely, mocked, or described using myths about female-male rape, the response is often heinous and irrational. The Bible condemns all nonconsensual sexual activities, regardless of the gender of the victimized person [4].
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/when-women-rape-men.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/can-asexuals-masturbate.html
[4]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/misunderstanding-bible-on-rape.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/sexuality-in-marriage-part-1-mutuality.html
Game Review--Metroid: Other M (Wii)
"My past is not a memory. It's a force at my back. It pushes and steers. I may not always like where it leads me, but like any story, the past needs resolution."
--Samus Aran, Metroid: Other M
Just because something is different from the norm does not mean that it is of poor quality. Experimentation within a genre or franchise is natural, so it does not surprise me that controversial games like Other M and Federation Force eventually emerged from the Metroid series. Metroid: Other M is certainly different from the usual series fare, but it manages to be bold, inventive, and well-crafted. The intellectual aspects the series is known far are reduced due to the linear nature of the story, meaning there is less initial emphasis on random collectible hunting, but the story itself explores almost entirely new territory.
Other M is by far the most existential, personal Metroid game, having the most complex narrative of all games in the franchise thus far. This polarizing development will greatly affect how much enjoyment series players will derive from Other M, as will the nontraditional gameplay that mostly occurs in third-person, though no one can legitimately say that the title does not illuminate many things about Samus' past and personality. Samus is still a lethal warrior--but she is also revealed to be a sensitive, introspective person who cares deeply for certain individuals. Her emotionality is explored quite thoroughly during the story of Other M.
Production Values
For a 2010 Wii game, the graphics are excellent (first-party games for the Wii tend to have graphics vastly superior to those of third-party games), with the colors normally having distinct, vibrant tones. The cinematics sometimes have an unfocused look, as if the camera literally is not focused on what it is looking at, but the in-gameplay aesthetics are some of the best the platform ever saw. But the age and system of Other M make whatever visual imperfections are present seem quite tame considering how well they hold up today.
The audio is much more controversial. Yes, Samus finally speaks--and she talks a lot. That means that there is a great deal of voice acting. Some people might appreciate the storytelling that this allows for, while others might object to Other M's deviation from the franchise norm of portraying Samus as a largely silent bounty hunter. The story is very cinematic and dialogue-heavy, giving Samus many opportunities to converse with others and to introspectively talk to herself. In many cases, the voice actress for Samus is quite successful. The supporting cast is mostly fine, but sometimes characters seem to slip into a monotone delivery, although this never was overdone to the point of my frustration.
Gameplay
There are two major aspects of the gameplay that have upset some fans: 1) the third-person gameplay (with some side-scrolling and limited first-person play) and 2) the inability to use most weapons or suit functions until Adam authorizes them. Instead of Samus discovering additional weaponry and suit abilities in the environments around her, Adam must allow the use of certain functions at scripted points in the narrative. The beam effects stack as one obtains new beams, as switching between them, like in Metroid Prime, is not permitted. Iconic abilities like the gravity suit, plasma beam, speed booster/shinespark, and seeker missiles all make an appearance, so there is no ignoring traditions when it comes to the weaponry!
What is permitted is switching between third-person and first-person at will, though first-person locks Samus into one place, leaving her both stationary and particularly vulnerable. While in third-person, Samus can dodge most enemy attacks with properly timed uses of the D-pad, and these dodges are both smooth and incorporated well into the gameplay. The influence of Team Ninja is definitely noticeable, as context-sensitive finishing moves are far closer to what one might expect from Ninja Gaiden than from traditional Metroid games. There are now various physical attacks that Samus can initiate if enemies are weak enough. These moves fits very well into the novelty of the overall gameplay style, displaying a side of Samus that had never before been exposed in her games. Thankfully, Samus Returns for the 3DS retained the allowance of physical combat moves, which added something entirely new to the Metroid style.
There is even a Zero Suit section reminiscent of a Zero Suit-only portion of Metroid: Zero Mission! I loved seeing an element from a series classic resurrected in a new gameplay format!
Story
Metroid chronology:
1. Metroid/Metroid: Zero Mission (NES/GBA)
2. Metroid Prime (GameCube)
3. Metroid Prime Hunters (DS)
4. Metroid Prime 2: Echoes (GameCube)
5. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (Wii)
6. Metroid Prime: Federation Force (3DS)
7. Metroid II: Return of Samus/Metroid: Samus Returns (Game Boy/3DS)
8. Super Metroid (SNES)
9. Metroid: Other M (Wii)
10. Metroid Fusion (GBA)
Spoilers!
After killing Mother Brain in a modern reimagining of the ending to Super Metroid, bounty hunter Samus Aran wakes up in a Galactic Federation Infirmary. Once she leaves the facility, her ship intercepts a distress call from a vessel called the Bottle Ship deep in space. Samus travels to this ship and discovers that there is already a Federation squad on site, led by her former commanding officer Adam Malkovich, with a friend named Anthony present as well.
Evidence mounts that a highly malevolent creature is aboard. Computer data reveals that the Federation used the ship to conduct illegal bioweapon development programs. And, as if the team needs more to handle, one of the Federation marines is a traitor, killing of the others one at a time to conceal the failed bioweapon experiments. Using the residual DNA left on her suit, the Federation had recreated Ridley and metroids--going so far as to genetically modify the metroids to eliminate their natural vulnerability to cold in order to produce near-invincible living weaponry.
Adam sacrifices himself to kill what he thinks are all or most of the metroids on the ship, with Samus learning that there is a queen metroid aboard. The situation descends into utter chaos as more Federation personnel arrive to quell the threat posed by dangerous organisms, which are acting aggressively due to the telepathic commands of an artificial intelligence standing in for Mother Brain. Samus sees the resolve of the crisis. With the Bottle Ship scheduled to be destroyed by the Federation, she returns to recover the helmet of Adam in time to save the last physical connection to her cherished friend before it is annihilated, escaping to her ship in her Zero Suit within minutes of the remotely triggered explosion.
Intellectual Content
The puzzle-solving is unfortunately toned down in Other M. Defeating all of the enemies in certain rooms even triggers the appearance of nearby item locations on the player's HUD (heads up display). It's not quite as revealing as one of Samus' Aeion abilities in Samus Returns that can expose all item locations, but it does mean that there is not as much need for exploration. Given the very linear nature of the story, genuine freedom to scour the Bottle Ship for items at whim does not come until after one completes the game. Hunting down collectibles can still require careful observation despite this.
Conclusion
Yes, Other M deviates from quite a few franchise norms, but some players who love the series, myself included, still thoroughly enjoyed it. It blends side-scrolling, first-person, and third-person gameplay in a very coherent manner--and I have not played any other game that pulls that off! Other M is not a bad game. Contrarily, it has some masterful aspects, with Samus' third-person agility providing a very novel direction for the series to travel in. The evolution of the franchise proved very divisive, but division only means that people have not reached a universal consensus, not that the object of division is a negative thing.
Content:
1. Violence: Samus uses a variety of beams and physical attacks to defeat aliens, which are vaporized upon being killed. As one might expect from the franchise, there is no graphic violence.
--Samus Aran, Metroid: Other M
Just because something is different from the norm does not mean that it is of poor quality. Experimentation within a genre or franchise is natural, so it does not surprise me that controversial games like Other M and Federation Force eventually emerged from the Metroid series. Metroid: Other M is certainly different from the usual series fare, but it manages to be bold, inventive, and well-crafted. The intellectual aspects the series is known far are reduced due to the linear nature of the story, meaning there is less initial emphasis on random collectible hunting, but the story itself explores almost entirely new territory.
Other M is by far the most existential, personal Metroid game, having the most complex narrative of all games in the franchise thus far. This polarizing development will greatly affect how much enjoyment series players will derive from Other M, as will the nontraditional gameplay that mostly occurs in third-person, though no one can legitimately say that the title does not illuminate many things about Samus' past and personality. Samus is still a lethal warrior--but she is also revealed to be a sensitive, introspective person who cares deeply for certain individuals. Her emotionality is explored quite thoroughly during the story of Other M.
 |
|
Production Values
For a 2010 Wii game, the graphics are excellent (first-party games for the Wii tend to have graphics vastly superior to those of third-party games), with the colors normally having distinct, vibrant tones. The cinematics sometimes have an unfocused look, as if the camera literally is not focused on what it is looking at, but the in-gameplay aesthetics are some of the best the platform ever saw. But the age and system of Other M make whatever visual imperfections are present seem quite tame considering how well they hold up today.
The audio is much more controversial. Yes, Samus finally speaks--and she talks a lot. That means that there is a great deal of voice acting. Some people might appreciate the storytelling that this allows for, while others might object to Other M's deviation from the franchise norm of portraying Samus as a largely silent bounty hunter. The story is very cinematic and dialogue-heavy, giving Samus many opportunities to converse with others and to introspectively talk to herself. In many cases, the voice actress for Samus is quite successful. The supporting cast is mostly fine, but sometimes characters seem to slip into a monotone delivery, although this never was overdone to the point of my frustration.
Gameplay
There are two major aspects of the gameplay that have upset some fans: 1) the third-person gameplay (with some side-scrolling and limited first-person play) and 2) the inability to use most weapons or suit functions until Adam authorizes them. Instead of Samus discovering additional weaponry and suit abilities in the environments around her, Adam must allow the use of certain functions at scripted points in the narrative. The beam effects stack as one obtains new beams, as switching between them, like in Metroid Prime, is not permitted. Iconic abilities like the gravity suit, plasma beam, speed booster/shinespark, and seeker missiles all make an appearance, so there is no ignoring traditions when it comes to the weaponry!
What is permitted is switching between third-person and first-person at will, though first-person locks Samus into one place, leaving her both stationary and particularly vulnerable. While in third-person, Samus can dodge most enemy attacks with properly timed uses of the D-pad, and these dodges are both smooth and incorporated well into the gameplay. The influence of Team Ninja is definitely noticeable, as context-sensitive finishing moves are far closer to what one might expect from Ninja Gaiden than from traditional Metroid games. There are now various physical attacks that Samus can initiate if enemies are weak enough. These moves fits very well into the novelty of the overall gameplay style, displaying a side of Samus that had never before been exposed in her games. Thankfully, Samus Returns for the 3DS retained the allowance of physical combat moves, which added something entirely new to the Metroid style.
There is even a Zero Suit section reminiscent of a Zero Suit-only portion of Metroid: Zero Mission! I loved seeing an element from a series classic resurrected in a new gameplay format!
Story
Metroid chronology:
1. Metroid/Metroid: Zero Mission (NES/GBA)
2. Metroid Prime (GameCube)
3. Metroid Prime Hunters (DS)
4. Metroid Prime 2: Echoes (GameCube)
5. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (Wii)
6. Metroid Prime: Federation Force (3DS)
7. Metroid II: Return of Samus/Metroid: Samus Returns (Game Boy/3DS)
8. Super Metroid (SNES)
9. Metroid: Other M (Wii)
10. Metroid Fusion (GBA)
Spoilers!
After killing Mother Brain in a modern reimagining of the ending to Super Metroid, bounty hunter Samus Aran wakes up in a Galactic Federation Infirmary. Once she leaves the facility, her ship intercepts a distress call from a vessel called the Bottle Ship deep in space. Samus travels to this ship and discovers that there is already a Federation squad on site, led by her former commanding officer Adam Malkovich, with a friend named Anthony present as well.
Evidence mounts that a highly malevolent creature is aboard. Computer data reveals that the Federation used the ship to conduct illegal bioweapon development programs. And, as if the team needs more to handle, one of the Federation marines is a traitor, killing of the others one at a time to conceal the failed bioweapon experiments. Using the residual DNA left on her suit, the Federation had recreated Ridley and metroids--going so far as to genetically modify the metroids to eliminate their natural vulnerability to cold in order to produce near-invincible living weaponry.
Adam sacrifices himself to kill what he thinks are all or most of the metroids on the ship, with Samus learning that there is a queen metroid aboard. The situation descends into utter chaos as more Federation personnel arrive to quell the threat posed by dangerous organisms, which are acting aggressively due to the telepathic commands of an artificial intelligence standing in for Mother Brain. Samus sees the resolve of the crisis. With the Bottle Ship scheduled to be destroyed by the Federation, she returns to recover the helmet of Adam in time to save the last physical connection to her cherished friend before it is annihilated, escaping to her ship in her Zero Suit within minutes of the remotely triggered explosion.
Intellectual Content
The puzzle-solving is unfortunately toned down in Other M. Defeating all of the enemies in certain rooms even triggers the appearance of nearby item locations on the player's HUD (heads up display). It's not quite as revealing as one of Samus' Aeion abilities in Samus Returns that can expose all item locations, but it does mean that there is not as much need for exploration. Given the very linear nature of the story, genuine freedom to scour the Bottle Ship for items at whim does not come until after one completes the game. Hunting down collectibles can still require careful observation despite this.
Conclusion
Yes, Other M deviates from quite a few franchise norms, but some players who love the series, myself included, still thoroughly enjoyed it. It blends side-scrolling, first-person, and third-person gameplay in a very coherent manner--and I have not played any other game that pulls that off! Other M is not a bad game. Contrarily, it has some masterful aspects, with Samus' third-person agility providing a very novel direction for the series to travel in. The evolution of the franchise proved very divisive, but division only means that people have not reached a universal consensus, not that the object of division is a negative thing.
Content:
1. Violence: Samus uses a variety of beams and physical attacks to defeat aliens, which are vaporized upon being killed. As one might expect from the franchise, there is no graphic violence.
What Is Manipulation?
Manipulation is a word that is often treated in a negative way, as if manipulating someone inevitably involves dehumanizing, using, and discarding them. Manipulation certainly could be applied in such an unethical way. But manipulation itself is merely the use of influence to persuade a person to do what you want them to. Since influence is not wrong, manipulation itself cannot be immoral. At its core, manipulation is like the more specific practice of bribery in that it is not wrong unless the end for which it is used is wrong [1]. Otherwise, it is morally neutral.
Many people attempt to use manipulation every day without ever lapsing into moral wrongdoing. Every time someone alters a behavior with the objective of affecting someone else's respective behaviors as a result, they are using manipulation. The goals and methods can vary with the person and situation, but this process is manipulation at its core in every case. It is simply not called that regularly or openly.
Consider job interviews: the whole point of them (on the side of the one being questioned) is to manipulate the perceptions of a potential employer enough to convince him or her to hire you. This does not mean that the interviewee relies on deception or sees the interviewer as nothing more than a pathway to a possible career. It is only when people mentally reduce others to nothing but a useful but temporary tool--objectifying them by this reductionistic attitude--that their manipulation becomes immoral.
Ethical manipulation is possible, being something that many people already live out on a daily basis. Whether it's the manipulation of a teacher to obtain a grade or manipulation of a manager to achieve a workplace goal, a person can exercise their influence in a way that does not hurt or trivialize those around them. On one level, many people seem to realize this, as their behaviors show that they do not object to this basic manipulation in practice. But few will use words to verbally identify their use of influence and persuasion what it is.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/understanding-bribery.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/refuting-objections-to-bribery_9.html
Many people attempt to use manipulation every day without ever lapsing into moral wrongdoing. Every time someone alters a behavior with the objective of affecting someone else's respective behaviors as a result, they are using manipulation. The goals and methods can vary with the person and situation, but this process is manipulation at its core in every case. It is simply not called that regularly or openly.
Consider job interviews: the whole point of them (on the side of the one being questioned) is to manipulate the perceptions of a potential employer enough to convince him or her to hire you. This does not mean that the interviewee relies on deception or sees the interviewer as nothing more than a pathway to a possible career. It is only when people mentally reduce others to nothing but a useful but temporary tool--objectifying them by this reductionistic attitude--that their manipulation becomes immoral.
Ethical manipulation is possible, being something that many people already live out on a daily basis. Whether it's the manipulation of a teacher to obtain a grade or manipulation of a manager to achieve a workplace goal, a person can exercise their influence in a way that does not hurt or trivialize those around them. On one level, many people seem to realize this, as their behaviors show that they do not object to this basic manipulation in practice. But few will use words to verbally identify their use of influence and persuasion what it is.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/understanding-bribery.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/refuting-objections-to-bribery_9.html
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
An Asinine Criticism Of Erotic Media
Is it wrong to play video games that portray different laws of physics than those which govern the external world in actuality? Is it wrong to imagine what it would be like if history had taken a different course? Is it wrong to enjoy fictional stories? The only Biblical answer to each of these things is no (Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4). To deny this is to reject the very moral epistemology set forth by both reason and Scripture [1], thereby embracing a heretical moral framework.
Despite the fallacies of condemning fiction on the grounds that it is fiction, many people are prone to object to erotic media (whether literature, videos, or images) on the vague charge that it is "unrealistic." Whatever they mean by the word, they commit obvious non sequitur fallacies every time they make this argument. It does not follow from an absence of realism that a thing is sinful.
It does follow from the innocence of enjoying fiction and imagination, quite plainly, that erotic media intended to exaggerate some aspect of reality is not sinful because of the exaggeration. Different things can sexually excite different people. As long as they are not using media glorifying sexual immorality (rape, adultery, bestiality, incest, homosexuality, and so on) to stimulate themselves, people can explore and enjoy their sexual preferences with the aid of erotic media, even if they are sexually titillated by things that are somewhat "unrealistic."
Whether or not erotic media displays realism has nothing to do with whether or not it is sinful to create or consume such media, but it is also true that there is nothing impossible about the existence of realistic sexual videos, images, or literature. An erotic video or image could capture a sense of realism. It's not as if being "unrealistic" is a logical requirement for something to qualify as erotic media to begin with.
The truth about erotic media is offensive to many Christians: there is nothing sinful, objectifying, or degrading about simply using it to sexually stimulate one's mind or body [2]. God does not condemn the use of erotic media, within certain moral boundaries (see [2]), by singles or married people in their sexual expression. Whether or not sexual videos (or images or writings) are realistic is completely irrelevant, though they certainly could be perfectly realistic. As controversial as it is, erotic media is not an immoral thing on its own.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/identifying-sin.html
[2]. 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
Despite the fallacies of condemning fiction on the grounds that it is fiction, many people are prone to object to erotic media (whether literature, videos, or images) on the vague charge that it is "unrealistic." Whatever they mean by the word, they commit obvious non sequitur fallacies every time they make this argument. It does not follow from an absence of realism that a thing is sinful.
It does follow from the innocence of enjoying fiction and imagination, quite plainly, that erotic media intended to exaggerate some aspect of reality is not sinful because of the exaggeration. Different things can sexually excite different people. As long as they are not using media glorifying sexual immorality (rape, adultery, bestiality, incest, homosexuality, and so on) to stimulate themselves, people can explore and enjoy their sexual preferences with the aid of erotic media, even if they are sexually titillated by things that are somewhat "unrealistic."
Whether or not erotic media displays realism has nothing to do with whether or not it is sinful to create or consume such media, but it is also true that there is nothing impossible about the existence of realistic sexual videos, images, or literature. An erotic video or image could capture a sense of realism. It's not as if being "unrealistic" is a logical requirement for something to qualify as erotic media to begin with.
The truth about erotic media is offensive to many Christians: there is nothing sinful, objectifying, or degrading about simply using it to sexually stimulate one's mind or body [2]. God does not condemn the use of erotic media, within certain moral boundaries (see [2]), by singles or married people in their sexual expression. Whether or not sexual videos (or images or writings) are realistic is completely irrelevant, though they certainly could be perfectly realistic. As controversial as it is, erotic media is not an immoral thing on its own.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/identifying-sin.html
[2]. 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
Assigning Biblical Lashes
Careful readers of Deuteronomy 25 will notice something rather important about the corporal punishment laws of verses 1-3: though the text outlines extremely specific guidelines for how to inflict floggings, it does not mention any particular offenses which deserve punishment via lashes. In many cases, the Torah is very specific when it attaches a penalty to a crime, mentioning specific ratios for financial restitution, exact contexts that merit the amputation of a body part, and so on. As for when to apply corporal punishment, it is unusually silent.
Deuteronomy 25:1-3 does say that lashes should be administered when two parties have some sort of legal dispute and one of them deserves corporal punishment. These verses are explicitly clear that some offenders can deserve to receive the physical punishment of lashes. They are clear about which methods of flogging are immoral, yet the situations that call for corporal punishment are left unspoken. What might these unspecified, miscellaneous crimes be?
Attempts at various capital and non-capital offenses, including attempted kidnapping, attempted murder, and attempted rape, would qualify for punishment with lashes. If murder is wrong, then so is attempted murder, as an attempt to carry out a sin can only be sinful itself. The same is true of other offenses listed by the Bible. Depending on the point at which the perpetrator is caught, the number of lashes for such attempts could range from a small handful to the full 40.
There is a reason that Deuteronomy details the manner in which corporal punishment must be conducted without prescribing lashes for any particular offenses. This is because, unlike with executions, corporal punishment is meant to be applied--within Biblical boundaries--as needed in the context of random crimes that are not assigned specific penalties by Mosaic Law. What these crimes are can be easily deduced from the laws that are mentioned. For example, since the Bible condemns rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27, 1 Corinthians 7:3-5), it follows by necessity that lesser cases of sexual assault are also sinful on the Christian worldview. As such, sexual assault short of rape would be an example of a miscellaneous crime that deserves somewhere from 1-40 lashes.
Corporal punishment, unlike prison sentences, ends quickly, with the recipient reintegrating into society without wasting years of his or her life in confinement. If prison was just, God would have prescribed confinement for various crimes instead of lashes. Nothing about makeshift prisons would have been impossible for the Jews to use as a punishment if God demanded it. But God did not authorize confinement except when a person is being held for a trial [1]. Those who mistake Biblical flogging laws for a doctrine of cruelty and prison for a humane thing do not understand the nature of either.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-function-of-incarceration-in-mosaic.html
Deuteronomy 25:1-3 does say that lashes should be administered when two parties have some sort of legal dispute and one of them deserves corporal punishment. These verses are explicitly clear that some offenders can deserve to receive the physical punishment of lashes. They are clear about which methods of flogging are immoral, yet the situations that call for corporal punishment are left unspoken. What might these unspecified, miscellaneous crimes be?
Attempts at various capital and non-capital offenses, including attempted kidnapping, attempted murder, and attempted rape, would qualify for punishment with lashes. If murder is wrong, then so is attempted murder, as an attempt to carry out a sin can only be sinful itself. The same is true of other offenses listed by the Bible. Depending on the point at which the perpetrator is caught, the number of lashes for such attempts could range from a small handful to the full 40.
There is a reason that Deuteronomy details the manner in which corporal punishment must be conducted without prescribing lashes for any particular offenses. This is because, unlike with executions, corporal punishment is meant to be applied--within Biblical boundaries--as needed in the context of random crimes that are not assigned specific penalties by Mosaic Law. What these crimes are can be easily deduced from the laws that are mentioned. For example, since the Bible condemns rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27, 1 Corinthians 7:3-5), it follows by necessity that lesser cases of sexual assault are also sinful on the Christian worldview. As such, sexual assault short of rape would be an example of a miscellaneous crime that deserves somewhere from 1-40 lashes.
Corporal punishment, unlike prison sentences, ends quickly, with the recipient reintegrating into society without wasting years of his or her life in confinement. If prison was just, God would have prescribed confinement for various crimes instead of lashes. Nothing about makeshift prisons would have been impossible for the Jews to use as a punishment if God demanded it. But God did not authorize confinement except when a person is being held for a trial [1]. Those who mistake Biblical flogging laws for a doctrine of cruelty and prison for a humane thing do not understand the nature of either.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-function-of-incarceration-in-mosaic.html
Monday, September 17, 2018
Both Genders Need Skill Development
If men and women are segregated at the level of basic societal functions, they will inevitably forfeit opportunities to develop a range of skills that could greatly benefit them if their circumstances change. Rigid roles leave them incapable of easily learning a spectrum of skills that they might need in their everyday lives, though these talents might greatly benefit them. Complementarianism is logically invalid and Biblically untrue, but it also preserves social structures, at the level of the family and the workplace, that actively hinder self-education and personal growth in certain areas.
This absurdity discourages men and women from educating themselves about matters which they might need to be aware of in the future. For example, men need to know how to cook; women need to know how to manage vehicles. No one should be taught these things on the basis of gender, for both moral and pragmatic reasons. Segregating activities by gender is not only unjust in light of the metaphysical equality of men and women, but it also sets men and women up for various incompetencies with basic, needed skills. Life circumstances do not discriminate by gender.
When skills are taught according to gender, not according to necessity or personal interest, it may appear to shallow thinkers that men and women are born with an innate tendency to gravitate towards different abilities and personalities. This, of course, is completely fallacious: complementarians assume that their pathetic ideology has a basis in reason and science, when both refute their claims. There is no logical or Biblical basis for the exclusion of either men or women from a self-educational pursuit.
If a girl is told her entire life that a woman should cook for her family, then she will likely be a far more skilled cook than she otherwise would be. Nothing about her abilities, though, depends on her gender. Her talent with cooking can only be part of her natural individuality or the result of repeated practice (in this case, practice reinforced by social conditioning). And, in agreeing to be confined within an arbitrary familial or societal realm, she surrenders the chance to better herself in other areas that complementarians do not emphasize for her. But the pragmatic consequences of gender-based skill development are obvious! What if a man never marries? Should he starve or always purchase food that is ready to be consumed? What if a woman never marries? Should she leave problems with her vehicle totally in the hands of strangers?
There is nothing to gain by selectively educating men and women about activities they need to be at least somewhat competent with--except the illusion that an irrational, contra-Biblical framework actually corresponds to reality. But there is much to lose by intentionally preventing the development of someone's skill just because of their gender. Both genders need to develop a variety of skills that will profit everyone!
This absurdity discourages men and women from educating themselves about matters which they might need to be aware of in the future. For example, men need to know how to cook; women need to know how to manage vehicles. No one should be taught these things on the basis of gender, for both moral and pragmatic reasons. Segregating activities by gender is not only unjust in light of the metaphysical equality of men and women, but it also sets men and women up for various incompetencies with basic, needed skills. Life circumstances do not discriminate by gender.
When skills are taught according to gender, not according to necessity or personal interest, it may appear to shallow thinkers that men and women are born with an innate tendency to gravitate towards different abilities and personalities. This, of course, is completely fallacious: complementarians assume that their pathetic ideology has a basis in reason and science, when both refute their claims. There is no logical or Biblical basis for the exclusion of either men or women from a self-educational pursuit.
If a girl is told her entire life that a woman should cook for her family, then she will likely be a far more skilled cook than she otherwise would be. Nothing about her abilities, though, depends on her gender. Her talent with cooking can only be part of her natural individuality or the result of repeated practice (in this case, practice reinforced by social conditioning). And, in agreeing to be confined within an arbitrary familial or societal realm, she surrenders the chance to better herself in other areas that complementarians do not emphasize for her. But the pragmatic consequences of gender-based skill development are obvious! What if a man never marries? Should he starve or always purchase food that is ready to be consumed? What if a woman never marries? Should she leave problems with her vehicle totally in the hands of strangers?
There is nothing to gain by selectively educating men and women about activities they need to be at least somewhat competent with--except the illusion that an irrational, contra-Biblical framework actually corresponds to reality. But there is much to lose by intentionally preventing the development of someone's skill just because of their gender. Both genders need to develop a variety of skills that will profit everyone!
Subjectivity Cannot Exist Without Objectivity
The ultimate forms of sophism encompass denial of what cannot be false. One of the greatest signs of disconnectedness from reality is a denial of objectivity, either as part of an epistemological methodology or as a fundamental aspect of metaphysics. Objectivity is intrinsically embedded in the very fabric of reality; to deny objectivity is to affirm it. Subjectivity is an intrinsic part of consciousness, but this only means that all perceptions exist with reference to a particular perceiving subject. This subjectivity only exists because objectivity does.
All knowledge can only be held from the perspective of consciousness, as there would otherwise be nothing that can do the knowing, though there would, at the very least, still be logical facts that exist and that could be known if a consciousness grasped them. That there must be a perceiving subject for knowledge to exist (not for truth to exist) does not mean that nothing can be known for sure, as logic is objective and fixed, and thus it can illuminate many infallible truths about itself, one's own consciousness, and many other subjects [1]. Truth is objective because it cannot be anything else.
Without objectivity, one could not even identify subjectivity as subjectivity. A person is objective to the extent that he or she is rational; perfect objectivity is possible, and one can achieve this simply by following reason alone wherever it leads. Only those attempting to protect invalid assumptions will deny this foundational truth about epistemology.
If everything was metaphysically and epistemologically subjective, subjectivity would itself be objectivity, for there would be no distinction between the two--just as illusion would be reality if everything was an illusion, meaning that it is objectively impossible for everything to be an illusion [2]. Consider another analogy: if there was no such thing as a waking experience, dreaming itself would be the equivalent of a waking experience, since there would be no distinction between the two conditions. Anyone who denies one to emphasize the other does not understand either.
Those who misrepresent all things as being subjective misunderstand the most basic, incontrovertible aspects of reality. Logic cannot be subjective; as a result, nothing about metaphysics is subjective and no one is hopelessly lost in abysmal subjectivity. Indeed, there can only be such a thing as subjectivity because objectivity exists, and objectivity grounded in reason is the one thing that enables a person to even know what subjectivity is.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/metaphysics-and-absolute-certainty.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/not-everything-can-be-illusion.html
All knowledge can only be held from the perspective of consciousness, as there would otherwise be nothing that can do the knowing, though there would, at the very least, still be logical facts that exist and that could be known if a consciousness grasped them. That there must be a perceiving subject for knowledge to exist (not for truth to exist) does not mean that nothing can be known for sure, as logic is objective and fixed, and thus it can illuminate many infallible truths about itself, one's own consciousness, and many other subjects [1]. Truth is objective because it cannot be anything else.
Without objectivity, one could not even identify subjectivity as subjectivity. A person is objective to the extent that he or she is rational; perfect objectivity is possible, and one can achieve this simply by following reason alone wherever it leads. Only those attempting to protect invalid assumptions will deny this foundational truth about epistemology.
If everything was metaphysically and epistemologically subjective, subjectivity would itself be objectivity, for there would be no distinction between the two--just as illusion would be reality if everything was an illusion, meaning that it is objectively impossible for everything to be an illusion [2]. Consider another analogy: if there was no such thing as a waking experience, dreaming itself would be the equivalent of a waking experience, since there would be no distinction between the two conditions. Anyone who denies one to emphasize the other does not understand either.
Those who misrepresent all things as being subjective misunderstand the most basic, incontrovertible aspects of reality. Logic cannot be subjective; as a result, nothing about metaphysics is subjective and no one is hopelessly lost in abysmal subjectivity. Indeed, there can only be such a thing as subjectivity because objectivity exists, and objectivity grounded in reason is the one thing that enables a person to even know what subjectivity is.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/metaphysics-and-absolute-certainty.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/not-everything-can-be-illusion.html
The Purpose Of Prayer
Prayer can certainly precede significant displays of divine power (James 5:13-18), but this is not always the case. Despite the instances in Scripture where prayers lead to miraculous outcomes, the primary, everyday purpose of prayer has nothing to do with elaborate displays of supernaturalism. To expect such a thing from prayer in general is an unhealthy and irrational thing. On the contrary, prayer can play a valuable role in facilitating spiritual growth on an individual level.
Just like speaking with one's human companions can produce great personal growth and the growth of the relationship between oneself and one's friends, prayer is useful for triggering individual growth and relational growth with respect to God. Not all prayer is accompanied or succeeded by a renovation of one's life circumstances, but all prayer has the capacity to be useful for the development of character.
One of the greatest purposes of prayer is the goal of acknowledging and deepening one's own relationship with God. Indeed, its most important functions in our lives can be those of shaping our character and developing our spirituality. If a Christian prays for a nonsinful wish to come about, could the prayer be realized in a plainly supernatural way? Of course. Is there any reason to expect a supernatural result to one's prayers? Not at all.
Even if God answered a prayer for a dramatic outcome (say, for the healing of a disease), there is no way of knowing whether or not God, some other factor, or both directly brought about the eventual state of things. In cases of answered prayer, knowing the exact causal factors for the results is not necessary when it comes to cultivating a deeper relationship with God. Though there is always the possibility of God answering prayers for nonsinful things, hoping for such things to be brought about does not have to be the main desire motivating prayer.
I do not pray about my circumstances because I expect God to directly transform them in an obvious way--though he could. I simply have no logical or experiential basis for an expectation like this. In fact, such an expectation could prove very damaging, for it does not correspond to how God actually tends to behave. Expecting this without basis could produce great misery, frustration, and even dissatisfaction with God. Instead, I pray simply because I care about my relationship with God, just as I converse with my friends because I care about my relationships with them.
Just like speaking with one's human companions can produce great personal growth and the growth of the relationship between oneself and one's friends, prayer is useful for triggering individual growth and relational growth with respect to God. Not all prayer is accompanied or succeeded by a renovation of one's life circumstances, but all prayer has the capacity to be useful for the development of character.
One of the greatest purposes of prayer is the goal of acknowledging and deepening one's own relationship with God. Indeed, its most important functions in our lives can be those of shaping our character and developing our spirituality. If a Christian prays for a nonsinful wish to come about, could the prayer be realized in a plainly supernatural way? Of course. Is there any reason to expect a supernatural result to one's prayers? Not at all.
Even if God answered a prayer for a dramatic outcome (say, for the healing of a disease), there is no way of knowing whether or not God, some other factor, or both directly brought about the eventual state of things. In cases of answered prayer, knowing the exact causal factors for the results is not necessary when it comes to cultivating a deeper relationship with God. Though there is always the possibility of God answering prayers for nonsinful things, hoping for such things to be brought about does not have to be the main desire motivating prayer.
I do not pray about my circumstances because I expect God to directly transform them in an obvious way--though he could. I simply have no logical or experiential basis for an expectation like this. In fact, such an expectation could prove very damaging, for it does not correspond to how God actually tends to behave. Expecting this without basis could produce great misery, frustration, and even dissatisfaction with God. Instead, I pray simply because I care about my relationship with God, just as I converse with my friends because I care about my relationships with them.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
The Irrelevance Of Mercy To Annihilationism
An unfortunate habit of some annihilationists the making of a set of appeals to the mercy of God, as if annihilation can be both just and merciful at once. A thing is just if it is deserved, and a thing is merciful if one does not receive what one deserves. The two cannot coexist in the same place at the same time--with one "exception," though this "exception" does not involve a contradiction [1]. Annihilationism, at its heart, is about God's justice, the totality of Scripture affirming this. Mercy has nothing to do with it.
Eternal conscious torment for all unsaved beings violates Biblical descriptions of justice, which always involve proportionality to particular offenses (Deuteronomy 25:1-3, Exodus 21:23-25). A finite sin--indeed, even a legion of finite sins--cannot deserve infinite punishment, for this would violate the very foundation of justice. God will not torment all humans eternally because he is just, not because he fails to give people what they deserve!
The second death has nothing to do with mercy. To call annihilation merciful is to indirectly call God unjust, for mercy only exists when there is an absence of justice [1] because someone is not given what they deserve. Yet God, who is just, cannot fail to enact perfect justice. Only one thing can follow from the fact that God will annihilate the wicked: the deaths of their minds and bodies are events of justice, not of mercy. If eternal conscious torture was just, then God would inflict exactly that upon all unsaved humans in hell; the fact that the Bible teaches otherwise can only mean that such a thing is inherently unjust by Biblical standards.
There is no need for annihilationists to appeal to God's mercy because mercy is entirely irrelevant to whether or not annihilationism is true or just. Thus, the word mercy does not even need to be mentioned by annihilationists, since it has nothing to do with basic theological facts about the nature of hell. One may legitimately speak of the mercy involved in allowing fallen humans salvation, but there is no mercy in destroying them rather than perpetually tormenting them.
[1]. The salvation of Christians is the one thing that in some way serves as an actual exception, depending on how one approaches the gospel. In a sense, there is justice in human salvation, for, in dying, Jesus was able to pay the wages of sin on behalf of others who would follow him (Romans 6:23). There is also mercy, since redeemed humans are no longer bound for hell and the annihilation of consciousness and body (Matthew 10:28). There is no contradiction here when all components are rightly understood.
Eternal conscious torment for all unsaved beings violates Biblical descriptions of justice, which always involve proportionality to particular offenses (Deuteronomy 25:1-3, Exodus 21:23-25). A finite sin--indeed, even a legion of finite sins--cannot deserve infinite punishment, for this would violate the very foundation of justice. God will not torment all humans eternally because he is just, not because he fails to give people what they deserve!
The second death has nothing to do with mercy. To call annihilation merciful is to indirectly call God unjust, for mercy only exists when there is an absence of justice [1] because someone is not given what they deserve. Yet God, who is just, cannot fail to enact perfect justice. Only one thing can follow from the fact that God will annihilate the wicked: the deaths of their minds and bodies are events of justice, not of mercy. If eternal conscious torture was just, then God would inflict exactly that upon all unsaved humans in hell; the fact that the Bible teaches otherwise can only mean that such a thing is inherently unjust by Biblical standards.
There is no need for annihilationists to appeal to God's mercy because mercy is entirely irrelevant to whether or not annihilationism is true or just. Thus, the word mercy does not even need to be mentioned by annihilationists, since it has nothing to do with basic theological facts about the nature of hell. One may legitimately speak of the mercy involved in allowing fallen humans salvation, but there is no mercy in destroying them rather than perpetually tormenting them.
[1]. The salvation of Christians is the one thing that in some way serves as an actual exception, depending on how one approaches the gospel. In a sense, there is justice in human salvation, for, in dying, Jesus was able to pay the wages of sin on behalf of others who would follow him (Romans 6:23). There is also mercy, since redeemed humans are no longer bound for hell and the annihilation of consciousness and body (Matthew 10:28). There is no contradiction here when all components are rightly understood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)