One of the most significant indicators that someone does not understand Christianity is the belief that there is a major disconnect between the moral commands of the Old Testament and those of the New Testament. This myth has been accepted by a large number of Christians, as well as by many non-Christians who have not read the Bible very thoroughly. Perhaps the largest manifestation of this falsity is the idea that the Old Testament prescribes unjust capital punishments which the New Testament revokes. Evangelicals, as well as pseudo-atheists, often misunderstand several passages from the gospels that do not contradict Old Testament legal ethics in any way.
The story of the woman caught in adultery can be found in one such passage: John 8:1-11. In these verses, a group of Pharisees brings a woman to Jesus, claiming to have found her in the process of committing adultery with an unnamed man. Jesus, after the Pharisees emphasize that Mosaic Law calls for her death, ultimately tells the group that the one among them who is without sin should hurl the first stone. Allegedly, the oldest texts of the book of John do not feature this story, but, regardless of its status within the canon, the passage does not in any way contradict theonomy. The New Testament only affirms the legal penalties demanded by the Old Testament (Matthew 15:3-9).
The fact that Jesus did not stone the woman has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Romans allowed the Jews to conduct their own executions, as some have so ignorantly suggested; only an inept theologian would regard cruel Roman legal norms, which were often deeply opposed to the ethical commands of Mosaic Law [1], as authoritative and Yahweh's own legal penalties as morally problematic. Yahweh's commands, not arbitrary societal ideas of justice, dictate the only authoritative legal punishments according to Christianity. A Christian who regards any cultural norms as authoritative is guilty of a grand heresy, since morality is rooted in God's nature--and his nature does not change (Malachi 3:6).
With this point resolved, it then becomes clear that Jesus did not stone the woman for one of several possible reasons. Since Jesus did not come to abolish Yahweh's instructions about criminal
justice (Matthew 5:17-19), and thus he would not have tried to
undermine Mosaic Law's commands regarding legal justice, any opposition to Yahweh's laws on his part would
create an internal contradiction within Christianity that is not present
in Biblical theology. Consequently, other explanations must be examined. One possibility is that the Pharisees truly did discover the woman in the act of adultery, but the man escaped. Another possibility is that the woman was caught while committing adultery, as the alleged witnesses claimed, but those who found her ignored the man's sin, which deserves death just as much as hers did (Deuteronomy 22:22).
Since John 8:3 says, before it even quotes the Pharisees, that the woman was "caught in adultery," there is nothing that can support the idea that the scenario involved an innocent woman who was being framed. However, verse 6 does say that the Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus "in order to have a basis for accusing him." They seem to have had no concern for actual justice, instead hoping to advance their own personal goals. This was their great error in the story. If God himself prescribes execution for a particular moral offense, there can be nothing sinful about wanting to enforce the penalty--or going so far as to celebrate its consequences. The Pharisees were not guilty because they wanted to carry out a prescription in Mosaic Law, but because they trivialized justice for their own gain.
Jesus, had he stoned the woman or approved of her stoning, would have seemingly contradicted Mosaic Law. There is no evidence that the Pharisees gave the woman a trial, as the Torah mandates, and it is quite possible that they allowed the adulterous man to go unpunished. Either deviation from Mosaic Law is enough to render their actions unjust. John 8:1-11 does not convey a story where Jesus models the tolerance that contemporary conservative and liberal Christians alike selectively invoke. Instead, if anything, the story is about Jesus refusing to participate in an injustice that is defined as such by the Old Testament. There is nothing in the story that even suggests anti-nomianism or the promotion of tolerance. Jesus did not challenge, disregard, or overturn the judicial instructions of Yahweh. Any ideas to the contrary are nothing but myths accepted by gullible people. At worst, such ideas are examples of a moral relativism that has been internalized by the modern church.
[1]. One obvious example is crucifixion, yet evangelicals are often stupid enough to pretend like the thieves crucified alongside Jesus deserved the unbiblical brutality of Roman law. I refute this idea in great detail here:
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html
Saturday, March 30, 2019
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Complementarianism Facilitates Female-Male Abuse
Almost every instance of sexism against one gender is accompanied by sexism against the other gender. Complementarianism is rightly criticized for enabling abusive men to hurt women and then be defended by conservatives anyway (in addition to simply being logically and Biblically false). While complementarianism as an ideology is not false simply because of what it might result in, it is a brute fact that a complementarian mindset makes it easier for certain instances of male-female abuse to occur. What is often neglected, though, is the manner in which complementarianism facilitates the abuse of men by women. Female-male abuse is actually not even considered genuine abuse by many people, who regard it as humorous or acceptable.
Since statistics about a population's experiences are inherently unverifiable, there is no ultimate point to citing abuse statistics. Nevertheless, even if particular statistics were both accurate and verifiable, the seeming lack of reported cases of female-male abuse does not in any way signify that women do not abuse men. It only takes several moments of reflection to establish that there is no act of viciousness, sadism, or oppression that cannot be carried out by women. Unfortunately, cultural biases have prevented many people from accepting this obvious and basic fact.
How many men have been sexually or physically abused by women, whether in a minor or major way, and been deterred from acknowledging their abuse as what it is because of misandrist social norms? There is no way to know, but it is easy to demonstrate that there is a side of conservative ideas about gender roles that utterly trivializes or denies the suffering of men. Ironically, conservatives tend to completely overlook or deny this aspect of complementarianism (in its religious or secular forms) in favor of pretending like the mere push for consistent gender equality in the church and workplace is itself misandrist.
This side of complementarianism has historically manifested itself in the belief that men are expendable, and thus should be the nation's primary or only soldiers. It has manifested itself in the acceptance of the idea that the abuse of women is somehow more vile than the abuse of men--yet if men and women have equal value, as conservatives (usually) concede, such a double standard is an abomination. Additionally, it has manifested itself in the idea that men cannot be victimized by women in a physical or sexual [1] sense, despite reason, the Bible, and basic human experience disproving this in full.
Complementarianism clearly allows abusive men to easily misuse their alleged status as leaders. However, it also allows women to treat men in ways that would enrage many people if the genders were switched. If a woman strikes a man outside of a context like self-defense, the offense is commonly regarded as comedic, not as a deplorable injustice. If a woman sexually harasses a man, the offense is commonly seen as something the man should find desirable, not as something worthy of great indignation. If a woman physically or sexually harms a man, it is more likely that the victim would be mocked or overlooked by complementarians than defended by them.
Egalitarians who harshly condemn the abuse of women by men without condemning the abuse of men by women just as harshly, much less without drawing attention to the abuse of men by women, are hypocrites who either do not understand the ramifications of actual egalitarianism or choose to ignore them. Affirming gender equality is about deconstructing all double standards, not just those that specifically hurt women. Although women are often acknowledged as victims of sexism, every sexist societal stance against women entails some sort of sexism against men, whether or the hostile or "benevolent" variety. Men have been collectively and horrendously injured by patriarchal ideas just as women collectively have been [2].
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/when-women-rape-men.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/how-complementarianism-injures-men.html
Since statistics about a population's experiences are inherently unverifiable, there is no ultimate point to citing abuse statistics. Nevertheless, even if particular statistics were both accurate and verifiable, the seeming lack of reported cases of female-male abuse does not in any way signify that women do not abuse men. It only takes several moments of reflection to establish that there is no act of viciousness, sadism, or oppression that cannot be carried out by women. Unfortunately, cultural biases have prevented many people from accepting this obvious and basic fact.
How many men have been sexually or physically abused by women, whether in a minor or major way, and been deterred from acknowledging their abuse as what it is because of misandrist social norms? There is no way to know, but it is easy to demonstrate that there is a side of conservative ideas about gender roles that utterly trivializes or denies the suffering of men. Ironically, conservatives tend to completely overlook or deny this aspect of complementarianism (in its religious or secular forms) in favor of pretending like the mere push for consistent gender equality in the church and workplace is itself misandrist.
This side of complementarianism has historically manifested itself in the belief that men are expendable, and thus should be the nation's primary or only soldiers. It has manifested itself in the acceptance of the idea that the abuse of women is somehow more vile than the abuse of men--yet if men and women have equal value, as conservatives (usually) concede, such a double standard is an abomination. Additionally, it has manifested itself in the idea that men cannot be victimized by women in a physical or sexual [1] sense, despite reason, the Bible, and basic human experience disproving this in full.
Complementarianism clearly allows abusive men to easily misuse their alleged status as leaders. However, it also allows women to treat men in ways that would enrage many people if the genders were switched. If a woman strikes a man outside of a context like self-defense, the offense is commonly regarded as comedic, not as a deplorable injustice. If a woman sexually harasses a man, the offense is commonly seen as something the man should find desirable, not as something worthy of great indignation. If a woman physically or sexually harms a man, it is more likely that the victim would be mocked or overlooked by complementarians than defended by them.
Egalitarians who harshly condemn the abuse of women by men without condemning the abuse of men by women just as harshly, much less without drawing attention to the abuse of men by women, are hypocrites who either do not understand the ramifications of actual egalitarianism or choose to ignore them. Affirming gender equality is about deconstructing all double standards, not just those that specifically hurt women. Although women are often acknowledged as victims of sexism, every sexist societal stance against women entails some sort of sexism against men, whether or the hostile or "benevolent" variety. Men have been collectively and horrendously injured by patriarchal ideas just as women collectively have been [2].
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/when-women-rape-men.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/how-complementarianism-injures-men.html
The Vast Sea Of Worldviews
While total skepticism is entirely refuted by the necessary nature of logical axioms and the truths that follow from them, some skeptics of the self-refuting variety mistakenly claim that knowledge of every distinct worldview and fact is required to have even foundational knowledge. To deny axioms is to affirm them, but I have addressed this contradiction extensively. There is an alternate way to demonstrate the intrinsic errors of total skepticism (legitimate skepticism acknowledges that anything that cannot be logically proven is ultimately unknown). The very nature of reason allows for knowledge of necessary truths even if one is not familiar with every worldview.
I do not need to know exactly what the sum of 32,541 and 78,905 is to know with absolute certainty that the answer is not five. To refute any contrary claims in full, I only need to show that two plus three (like four plus one or five plus zero) is five; this alone proves that adding larger numbers by necessity results in a greater sum. There is always a way to disprove every incorrect mathematical conclusion about which combinations of numbers equal five without resorting to something so simple. Despite this, it is not as if one has to prove that three plus four--or four plus five, five plus six, and so on--does not equal five in order to know that two plus three infallibly amounts to five.
Mathematical truths form only a subset of logical truths. Logical truths, therefore, are far broader than those merely pertaining to numeric values. Proving any logical fact, like proving a specific truth about addition, automatically refutes all possible alternative claims, even if someone is not aware of just how many alternative ideas there are. No one needs to comprehend how many different forms of theism there are, for example, to know with absolute certainty that there is an uncaused cause [1]. Similarly, no one needs to know how many different epistemological frameworks (rationalism, empiricism, sensory empiricism, etc.) there are to know that reason is true by necessity.
Epistemology is far more complex and simplistic than many people realize all at once. Many articles of knowledge are far more difficult to obtain than the average person would like to pretend; simultaneously, many articles of knowledge are also far easier to obtain than is commonly imagined. There is a vast sea of worldviews, but reason provides epistemological solidity due to the absolute certainty it imparts. Refuting a host of philosophical positions is often as simple as proving a basic logical truth. Cling to reason, and a legion of demonstrable truths will never be distant, even if some truths remain unknown or unknowable.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
I do not need to know exactly what the sum of 32,541 and 78,905 is to know with absolute certainty that the answer is not five. To refute any contrary claims in full, I only need to show that two plus three (like four plus one or five plus zero) is five; this alone proves that adding larger numbers by necessity results in a greater sum. There is always a way to disprove every incorrect mathematical conclusion about which combinations of numbers equal five without resorting to something so simple. Despite this, it is not as if one has to prove that three plus four--or four plus five, five plus six, and so on--does not equal five in order to know that two plus three infallibly amounts to five.
Mathematical truths form only a subset of logical truths. Logical truths, therefore, are far broader than those merely pertaining to numeric values. Proving any logical fact, like proving a specific truth about addition, automatically refutes all possible alternative claims, even if someone is not aware of just how many alternative ideas there are. No one needs to comprehend how many different forms of theism there are, for example, to know with absolute certainty that there is an uncaused cause [1]. Similarly, no one needs to know how many different epistemological frameworks (rationalism, empiricism, sensory empiricism, etc.) there are to know that reason is true by necessity.
Epistemology is far more complex and simplistic than many people realize all at once. Many articles of knowledge are far more difficult to obtain than the average person would like to pretend; simultaneously, many articles of knowledge are also far easier to obtain than is commonly imagined. There is a vast sea of worldviews, but reason provides epistemological solidity due to the absolute certainty it imparts. Refuting a host of philosophical positions is often as simple as proving a basic logical truth. Cling to reason, and a legion of demonstrable truths will never be distant, even if some truths remain unknown or unknowable.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
Monday, March 25, 2019
Is Kindness Obligatory?
A variety of simple, trivial acts of kindness often have their moral value drastically overestimated. As a result of this faulty emphasis, it is easy for a superficially kind person to develop a reputation for being genuinely good even if he or she believes in morally horrific ideas, since all it takes to convince many people is subtly shifting the emphasis to petty but visible acts of kindness. The ease of this deception can obscure the fact that many particular acts of kindness are not objectively important. If the value of kindness is so distorted, what place within a sound ethical framework is there for it? Yes, some Biblical verses (such as 1 Corinthians 13:4 and Ephesians 4:32) classify kindness as morally good, but this does not mean that one has an obligation to be kind to everyone at all times.
Before I proceed, I want to clarify that I am very grateful for opportunities to display kindness towards people whom I respect or love in the sense of appreciating them as individuals, not merely in the impersonal sense God prescribes for each person to show towards all others (the Bible never commands one to have strong personal affection for every living human). However, kindness is not the objective of every interaction I have with another person. Is kindness good? As long as it does not interfere with justice, yes. Nevertheless, it is often not obligatory.
Does someone sin if they do not hold the door open for another person? Do they sin if they do not speak to strangers in a distinctly pleasant tone? What makes one random act of kindness obligatory as opposed to another? Since a person could always be more kind, such as by making an additional kind statement or performing an additional benevolent deed, practically any line drawn is purely arbitrary. It is futile to argue that someone should go beyond what is obligatory, since such an argument entails the idea that someone has an obligation to do that which they have no obligation to carry out.
Kindness is not itself the supreme goal of morality. Instead, it is largely supererogatory in many relationships--a marital relationship or friendship should be marked by mutual kindness to at least some degree, but this does not mean that one is obliged to perform particular acts of unecessary kindness for strangers. To reduce Christianity to a system featuring a God who saves us merely so we can be superficially kind to others is to trivialize genuine Christian morality and Yahweh's nature alike. Kindness is not at the core of Biblical moral obligations. Indeed, even the Christian conception of love can seem deeply unkind to some individuals under the right circumstances. Truth and justice, above all else, are the foundations of Christian morality.
Instead of always wondering about whatever course of action will display the most kindness, the first ethical question a Christian should ask himself or herself pertains to whether or not an action is just according to the Bible. Justice does not necessarily exclude kindness, but it can be hindered by a surplus of the latter. The core of morality is ultimately about treating God, other people, and even animals according to what they deserve, which is about not violating one's obligations towards them; anything else that is good can only be supererogatory. Treating someone in a way that does not violate any obligations towards them is a matter of justice, not one of kindness. Justice, therefore, should be the chief concern of moralists.
Before I proceed, I want to clarify that I am very grateful for opportunities to display kindness towards people whom I respect or love in the sense of appreciating them as individuals, not merely in the impersonal sense God prescribes for each person to show towards all others (the Bible never commands one to have strong personal affection for every living human). However, kindness is not the objective of every interaction I have with another person. Is kindness good? As long as it does not interfere with justice, yes. Nevertheless, it is often not obligatory.
Does someone sin if they do not hold the door open for another person? Do they sin if they do not speak to strangers in a distinctly pleasant tone? What makes one random act of kindness obligatory as opposed to another? Since a person could always be more kind, such as by making an additional kind statement or performing an additional benevolent deed, practically any line drawn is purely arbitrary. It is futile to argue that someone should go beyond what is obligatory, since such an argument entails the idea that someone has an obligation to do that which they have no obligation to carry out.
Kindness is not itself the supreme goal of morality. Instead, it is largely supererogatory in many relationships--a marital relationship or friendship should be marked by mutual kindness to at least some degree, but this does not mean that one is obliged to perform particular acts of unecessary kindness for strangers. To reduce Christianity to a system featuring a God who saves us merely so we can be superficially kind to others is to trivialize genuine Christian morality and Yahweh's nature alike. Kindness is not at the core of Biblical moral obligations. Indeed, even the Christian conception of love can seem deeply unkind to some individuals under the right circumstances. Truth and justice, above all else, are the foundations of Christian morality.
Instead of always wondering about whatever course of action will display the most kindness, the first ethical question a Christian should ask himself or herself pertains to whether or not an action is just according to the Bible. Justice does not necessarily exclude kindness, but it can be hindered by a surplus of the latter. The core of morality is ultimately about treating God, other people, and even animals according to what they deserve, which is about not violating one's obligations towards them; anything else that is good can only be supererogatory. Treating someone in a way that does not violate any obligations towards them is a matter of justice, not one of kindness. Justice, therefore, should be the chief concern of moralists.
Quantum Physics: Atoms And Ions
While the mention of quantum physics is fairly likely to intimidate or confuse many people, many adult Americans are already familiar with its most simple concepts. Even the basic, conventional models of the atom, as well as the conventional explanation of electricity, involve quantum physics, though the words "quantum physics" and "electricity" are not typically spoken of in direction connection with each other. Nevertheless, it is necessary to understand the basic components of an atom to have a solid comprehension of contemporary ideas concerning quantum physics.
All scientific explanations of natural phenomena are speculative at best and are subject to possible spontaneous revision, as only the laws of logic, not scientific laws, are universal and inviolable by nature. There is still great benefit, though, to becoming thoroughly familiar with scientific models simply because of the convenience such information allows for in daily life [1], and this is certainly true of the foundational physics of atoms. The very electricity that many people use on a daily basis is associated with the fundamental components of atoms, which by definition are in the domain of quantum physics.
The standard conception of atoms regards them as minute particles that contain a variety of subatomic particles which carry their own respective charges: atoms contain electrons (which carry a negative charge), protons (which carry a positive charge), and neutrons (which carry no charge). Protons and neutrons are located in the nucleus, or center, of an atom, while electrons remain at a distance from the center; they orbit the nucleus in fixed loops according to the Bohr model and orbit in fairly unpredictable patterns according to the electron cloud model, the latter of which is regarded as an improvement over the former. These are the two common models of the atom, which are featured in many educational materials that many people are exposed to throughout their lives.
Of course, there is more to basic quantum physics than the mere makeup of atoms. If an atom gains or loses electrons, it becomes what is termed an ion. The exact type of ion it becomes depends on whether it gains or loses electrons. Electrically neutral atoms (which feature an equal number of protons and electrons) that lose electrons obtain a positive charge and are called cations, while atoms that gain electrons obtain a negative charge and are called anions. The movement of electrons can be manipulated and exploited for a variety of purposes, ranging from electrical heating to the powering of portable devices.
Anyone who understands even this much about contemporary atomic science is familiar with several foundational aspects of quantum physics. No one needs to regard a scientific concept with the word "quantum" before it as something too challenging to be grasped by the average person. Before one can explore the notion of an electron appearing in two places simultaneously [2], one must understand what an electron even is within the framework of modern science. Fortunately, many people have already been exposed to this information, at least to some extent. Quantum physics is not as foreign as some might think!
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-value-of-scientific-awareness.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-cant-i-be-in-two-places.html
All scientific explanations of natural phenomena are speculative at best and are subject to possible spontaneous revision, as only the laws of logic, not scientific laws, are universal and inviolable by nature. There is still great benefit, though, to becoming thoroughly familiar with scientific models simply because of the convenience such information allows for in daily life [1], and this is certainly true of the foundational physics of atoms. The very electricity that many people use on a daily basis is associated with the fundamental components of atoms, which by definition are in the domain of quantum physics.
The standard conception of atoms regards them as minute particles that contain a variety of subatomic particles which carry their own respective charges: atoms contain electrons (which carry a negative charge), protons (which carry a positive charge), and neutrons (which carry no charge). Protons and neutrons are located in the nucleus, or center, of an atom, while electrons remain at a distance from the center; they orbit the nucleus in fixed loops according to the Bohr model and orbit in fairly unpredictable patterns according to the electron cloud model, the latter of which is regarded as an improvement over the former. These are the two common models of the atom, which are featured in many educational materials that many people are exposed to throughout their lives.
Of course, there is more to basic quantum physics than the mere makeup of atoms. If an atom gains or loses electrons, it becomes what is termed an ion. The exact type of ion it becomes depends on whether it gains or loses electrons. Electrically neutral atoms (which feature an equal number of protons and electrons) that lose electrons obtain a positive charge and are called cations, while atoms that gain electrons obtain a negative charge and are called anions. The movement of electrons can be manipulated and exploited for a variety of purposes, ranging from electrical heating to the powering of portable devices.
Anyone who understands even this much about contemporary atomic science is familiar with several foundational aspects of quantum physics. No one needs to regard a scientific concept with the word "quantum" before it as something too challenging to be grasped by the average person. Before one can explore the notion of an electron appearing in two places simultaneously [2], one must understand what an electron even is within the framework of modern science. Fortunately, many people have already been exposed to this information, at least to some extent. Quantum physics is not as foreign as some might think!
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-value-of-scientific-awareness.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-cant-i-be-in-two-places.html
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Anarchy And Its Outcomes
In itself, anarchy is merely the state of having a classless society, which, by virtue of being classless, is without a governing body. In such a system, there is no ruling class, no explicit political framework, and no explicit social hierarchy (except that which is voluntarily and arbitrarily formed by individual people without governmental coercion). Anarchy is often equated with what might come about due to the absence of government, namely, outright chaos. However, anarchy itself is not the same as any of its possible consequences. An ideology is not identical with the events that some of its adherents might bring about.
Anarchy does not have to result in socially chaotic outcomes, but the absence of a governing body does inevitably remove formal protection from what would otherwise be classified as criminal and vigilante activities. In order to have a society that possesses a somewhat predictable stability, there must be some sort of group or class of people who have both the social or financial power and the moral authority to enforce just penalties for deserving offenses. Thus, anarchy itself is not intrinsically evil, but it always holds the potential for great danger.
In a society where no one commits any moral offenses that deserve formal retaliation, there is nothing immoral about a state of anarchy. If someone engages in an activity that deserves a specific penalty, however, anarchy must be abandoned in order to pursue justice. A formal body that can impose just penalties would be called for by the very nature of morality. For such a system to be legitimate, its legal punishments could not be dictated by conscience, popularity, or tradition, meaning an intentionally just legal system inevitably requires some form of evidentially supported divine revelation [1]. Without a theonomist framework, there is not even a basis for classifying one act as a crime instead of another. The idea that anarchy is an innately anti-theistic ideology is completely mistaken, though few would acknowledge this.
The reason why anarchy is not innately vile is simple. Just because there are no political laws (which is not the same as there being no moral laws) in a region does not mean that people will collectively lapse into violence. Inversely, the mere presence of governments does nothing to guarantee the absence of moral crimes on its own. The morality of anarchy is not as simple as some characterize it to be. Anarchy does not inherently promote violence, but it is not an inherently utopian social condition all the same. It is neither morally positive nor negative on its own, though people do have an obligation to form some form of governmental body when moral offenses with the ontological status of punishable crimes (that is, actions that deserve terrestrial punishments) are carried out.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-intersection-of-politics-and.html
Anarchy does not have to result in socially chaotic outcomes, but the absence of a governing body does inevitably remove formal protection from what would otherwise be classified as criminal and vigilante activities. In order to have a society that possesses a somewhat predictable stability, there must be some sort of group or class of people who have both the social or financial power and the moral authority to enforce just penalties for deserving offenses. Thus, anarchy itself is not intrinsically evil, but it always holds the potential for great danger.
In a society where no one commits any moral offenses that deserve formal retaliation, there is nothing immoral about a state of anarchy. If someone engages in an activity that deserves a specific penalty, however, anarchy must be abandoned in order to pursue justice. A formal body that can impose just penalties would be called for by the very nature of morality. For such a system to be legitimate, its legal punishments could not be dictated by conscience, popularity, or tradition, meaning an intentionally just legal system inevitably requires some form of evidentially supported divine revelation [1]. Without a theonomist framework, there is not even a basis for classifying one act as a crime instead of another. The idea that anarchy is an innately anti-theistic ideology is completely mistaken, though few would acknowledge this.
The reason why anarchy is not innately vile is simple. Just because there are no political laws (which is not the same as there being no moral laws) in a region does not mean that people will collectively lapse into violence. Inversely, the mere presence of governments does nothing to guarantee the absence of moral crimes on its own. The morality of anarchy is not as simple as some characterize it to be. Anarchy does not inherently promote violence, but it is not an inherently utopian social condition all the same. It is neither morally positive nor negative on its own, though people do have an obligation to form some form of governmental body when moral offenses with the ontological status of punishable crimes (that is, actions that deserve terrestrial punishments) are carried out.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-intersection-of-politics-and.html
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Pro-Life Feminism
Though it may be unpopular to point out the conflict between them, genuine feminism cannot be reconciled with the pro-choice position, since it emphasizes the same metaphysical basis for human value that the pro-life stance does. In fact, pro-life ideas naturally accompany feminism. A "pro-choice feminist" holds to two ideas that contradict each other, for feminism, while it may focus on gender relations, is ultimately about the rights that all humans share simply because they are human.
If a human right to life exists (which can only vanish in cases of legitimate self-defense/warfare or just capital punishment), girls and boys in the womb do not possess less of a right to life than adult women and men do. Therefore, sound feminism affirms the humanity and human rights of the unborn just as much as it affirms the humanity and equal human rights of adult men and women. Genuine feminism, being an egalitarian ideology, is not compatible with abortion. The same moral principles that contradict sexism contradict pro-choice ideas.
Some will claim that a woman's right to bodily autonomy necessitates that she must decide for herself if abortion is something she wants to pursue. This claim may even be mistakenly equated with the living out of feminism. It is actually bodily autonomy that makes abortion, not pro-life philosophy, erroneous [1]. Abortion, after all, violates a baby's bodily autonomy in a manner that extinguishes its very life. As has already been explained, there is no such thing as a legitimate feminist endorsement of abortion in the name of women's rights, but the argument for abortion from bodily autonomy contradicts itself as it is.
A sincere, consistent feminist (and an actual feminist is what one could also call an egalitarian) will not only defend women and men who are mistreated on the basis of sex outside of the womb, but will also defend the unborn girls and boys who cannot speak on their own behalf. A pro-life stance is just one manifestation of egalitarianism, for a human's size and location have nothing to do with whether or not they have value by virtue of being human. It takes a thoroughly egalitarian person to uphold the rights of all people, especially if some of them are completely unable to protect themselves from injustice.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/01/bodily-autonomy-contradicts-abortion.html
If a human right to life exists (which can only vanish in cases of legitimate self-defense/warfare or just capital punishment), girls and boys in the womb do not possess less of a right to life than adult women and men do. Therefore, sound feminism affirms the humanity and human rights of the unborn just as much as it affirms the humanity and equal human rights of adult men and women. Genuine feminism, being an egalitarian ideology, is not compatible with abortion. The same moral principles that contradict sexism contradict pro-choice ideas.
Some will claim that a woman's right to bodily autonomy necessitates that she must decide for herself if abortion is something she wants to pursue. This claim may even be mistakenly equated with the living out of feminism. It is actually bodily autonomy that makes abortion, not pro-life philosophy, erroneous [1]. Abortion, after all, violates a baby's bodily autonomy in a manner that extinguishes its very life. As has already been explained, there is no such thing as a legitimate feminist endorsement of abortion in the name of women's rights, but the argument for abortion from bodily autonomy contradicts itself as it is.
A sincere, consistent feminist (and an actual feminist is what one could also call an egalitarian) will not only defend women and men who are mistreated on the basis of sex outside of the womb, but will also defend the unborn girls and boys who cannot speak on their own behalf. A pro-life stance is just one manifestation of egalitarianism, for a human's size and location have nothing to do with whether or not they have value by virtue of being human. It takes a thoroughly egalitarian person to uphold the rights of all people, especially if some of them are completely unable to protect themselves from injustice.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/01/bodily-autonomy-contradicts-abortion.html
The Difference Between Polyamory And Affairs
Can a person have multiple close friends at the same time? Anyone who believes otherwise is entirely in error. Nevertheless, many people who would quickly affirm that having close friendships with multiple people simultaneously does not have to cheapen those friendships are willing to say that having multiple romantic partners simultaneously somehow degrades those relationships. What is true of one is true of the other, contrary to this common hypocrisy, and thus it follows from the possibility of enjoying multiple deep friendships at once than it is certainly possible to enjoy multiple romantic and marital relationships at once.
There is a fairly widespread belief that polyamory and adultery can be interchangeable words, not because all adultery is polyamorous, but because all polyamory is regarded as adulterous. Polyamory involves the consent of a person's spouse in the sense that a polyamorous relationship is not conducted behind the back of their spouse, as well as in the sense that adultery by nature involves extramarital sexual behaviors (though this does not include the use of erotic media or sexual flirtation), whereas polyamory can involve plural marriages. Polyamorous marriages cannot be adulterous because adultery can only occur when a married person has extramarital sex.
There is no genuine betrayal in polyamory, although it is often characterized as if it is, at best, one spouse voluntarily permitting the other party to romantically or sexually betray them. This misperception is due not to rationalistic or genuinely Biblical ideas (the Bible obviously permits polyamory in itself), but to cultural conditioning and personal jealousy. The concept of polyamory does not contradict spousal fidelity in any way, for there is nothing about having multiple spouses that means one of them must be neglected, trivialized, or emotionally wounded.
An affair, unlike mere polyamory, is initiated by someone either with the goal of secrecy, lest the person's spouse find out, or against the will of a spouse. Affairs are inherently adulterous because one party is actively betrayed by the other. Adultery, by definition, can only be sex that one partner in a committed relationship has with another partner to whom he or she is not committed. This is the key difference between polyamory and adultery, and it is not difficult to distinguish the two. Marital commitment to two or more people does nothing to violate or degrade the commitment between the original husband and wife, whereas adultery shows a disregard for stable commitment.
Conservative social forces, both in a religious and generic secular sense, are responsible for cultivating a culture where various nonsinful forms of romantic and sexual expression are arbitrarily considered taboos. Polyamory is just one of multiple examples of nonsinful romantic/sexual processes or acts that have been demonized by irrational minds. Certainly, polyamory is not something that every couple desires or would find favorable. It is still a legitimate, non-adulterous option for people who are so inclined.
There is a fairly widespread belief that polyamory and adultery can be interchangeable words, not because all adultery is polyamorous, but because all polyamory is regarded as adulterous. Polyamory involves the consent of a person's spouse in the sense that a polyamorous relationship is not conducted behind the back of their spouse, as well as in the sense that adultery by nature involves extramarital sexual behaviors (though this does not include the use of erotic media or sexual flirtation), whereas polyamory can involve plural marriages. Polyamorous marriages cannot be adulterous because adultery can only occur when a married person has extramarital sex.
There is no genuine betrayal in polyamory, although it is often characterized as if it is, at best, one spouse voluntarily permitting the other party to romantically or sexually betray them. This misperception is due not to rationalistic or genuinely Biblical ideas (the Bible obviously permits polyamory in itself), but to cultural conditioning and personal jealousy. The concept of polyamory does not contradict spousal fidelity in any way, for there is nothing about having multiple spouses that means one of them must be neglected, trivialized, or emotionally wounded.
An affair, unlike mere polyamory, is initiated by someone either with the goal of secrecy, lest the person's spouse find out, or against the will of a spouse. Affairs are inherently adulterous because one party is actively betrayed by the other. Adultery, by definition, can only be sex that one partner in a committed relationship has with another partner to whom he or she is not committed. This is the key difference between polyamory and adultery, and it is not difficult to distinguish the two. Marital commitment to two or more people does nothing to violate or degrade the commitment between the original husband and wife, whereas adultery shows a disregard for stable commitment.
Conservative social forces, both in a religious and generic secular sense, are responsible for cultivating a culture where various nonsinful forms of romantic and sexual expression are arbitrarily considered taboos. Polyamory is just one of multiple examples of nonsinful romantic/sexual processes or acts that have been demonized by irrational minds. Certainly, polyamory is not something that every couple desires or would find favorable. It is still a legitimate, non-adulterous option for people who are so inclined.
Distinguishing Islam From Arabic Culture
Just as there are those who criticize the Bible out of ignorance of its actual teachings, there are those, often Christians themselves, who criticize the Quran without having read anything more than a few Quranic verses removed from their contexts, or without having read the Quran at all. There is no point in defending Islam itself as a contender for a religion that corresponds to reality, for reasons I will explain below. This does nothing to change the fact that a straw man is illegitimate even if the worldview being straw manned can only be erroneous.
No rationalist could entertain the idea that the Quran is possibly true for long if they have basic knowledge of Biblical and Quranic legal ethics. Islam can only be false, as its own claims about the Old Testament necessitate that the Quran is incorrect whether or not the Bible is actually true. This is because the Quran blatantly contradicts the Old Testament while affirming that the Torah has divine authority, meaning the Quran is false if the Torah is true and false if the Torah is itself false [1]. However, it is still vital to distinguish between the actual teachings of the Quran, the ultimate foundation for Islam, and the constructs of Arabic culture, just as it is crucial to distinguish between actual Christianity and the evangelical ideas that are so commonly mistaken for it.
One example of this distinction between actual Islam and the culture that often claims the religion is the fact that Arabic culture pressures women into wearing burkas, though the Quran demands no such thing. Thus, the actual Quranic stance on this issue is far closer to that of the Bible. Now, if Islam was truly consistent with the Old Testament, it would not only not prescribe burkas, but would also permit the public nudity of both genders (Genesis 2:25 with 1:31, Deuteronomy 4:2, and Isaiah 20:1-6) because the human body is not shameful or sinful according to the Bible. Even a slight disparity in the ethical stances of the Torah and the Quran logically falsifies the latter.
Nevertheless, the Quran does not endorse many ideas that are ascribed to it. Religious texts, like logic, science, and many miscellaneous worldviews, tend to be misunderstood by both their proponents and opponents alike. This is as true of the Quran as it is of the Bible, the true teachings of which scarcely resemble the evangelical conception of Christianity in any regard whatsoever. It is rather easy to deceive many people about the nature of ideological matters as it is, but when religious zeal, which is often rooted in faith instead of reason, is manipulated on a broad social level, a thorough distortion of religious texts is often present.
The point is not that genuine Islam is true or even that it is logically possible for a Quranic worldview to be true. I have already cited a contradiction that inescapably renders it false. After all, only one genuine contradiction is needed to invalidate a religion, though there are other such ethical disparities between the Quran and Torah. Instead, the point is that very few Westerners understand true Islam, and many Christians who object to Islam have likely not read the Quran thoroughly, if at all. They are only reacting to an Arabic culture that itself does not consistently understand the Quran. The pseudo-Islamic ideologists who prescribe burkas ironically share many similarities with American evangelicals: both represent a religious text that they distort and contradict in direct violation of its command to not contrive additional rules (compare Deuteronomy 4:2 with Surah 16:116-117).
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/quranic-punishment-surah-538.html
No rationalist could entertain the idea that the Quran is possibly true for long if they have basic knowledge of Biblical and Quranic legal ethics. Islam can only be false, as its own claims about the Old Testament necessitate that the Quran is incorrect whether or not the Bible is actually true. This is because the Quran blatantly contradicts the Old Testament while affirming that the Torah has divine authority, meaning the Quran is false if the Torah is true and false if the Torah is itself false [1]. However, it is still vital to distinguish between the actual teachings of the Quran, the ultimate foundation for Islam, and the constructs of Arabic culture, just as it is crucial to distinguish between actual Christianity and the evangelical ideas that are so commonly mistaken for it.
One example of this distinction between actual Islam and the culture that often claims the religion is the fact that Arabic culture pressures women into wearing burkas, though the Quran demands no such thing. Thus, the actual Quranic stance on this issue is far closer to that of the Bible. Now, if Islam was truly consistent with the Old Testament, it would not only not prescribe burkas, but would also permit the public nudity of both genders (Genesis 2:25 with 1:31, Deuteronomy 4:2, and Isaiah 20:1-6) because the human body is not shameful or sinful according to the Bible. Even a slight disparity in the ethical stances of the Torah and the Quran logically falsifies the latter.
Nevertheless, the Quran does not endorse many ideas that are ascribed to it. Religious texts, like logic, science, and many miscellaneous worldviews, tend to be misunderstood by both their proponents and opponents alike. This is as true of the Quran as it is of the Bible, the true teachings of which scarcely resemble the evangelical conception of Christianity in any regard whatsoever. It is rather easy to deceive many people about the nature of ideological matters as it is, but when religious zeal, which is often rooted in faith instead of reason, is manipulated on a broad social level, a thorough distortion of religious texts is often present.
The point is not that genuine Islam is true or even that it is logically possible for a Quranic worldview to be true. I have already cited a contradiction that inescapably renders it false. After all, only one genuine contradiction is needed to invalidate a religion, though there are other such ethical disparities between the Quran and Torah. Instead, the point is that very few Westerners understand true Islam, and many Christians who object to Islam have likely not read the Quran thoroughly, if at all. They are only reacting to an Arabic culture that itself does not consistently understand the Quran. The pseudo-Islamic ideologists who prescribe burkas ironically share many similarities with American evangelicals: both represent a religious text that they distort and contradict in direct violation of its command to not contrive additional rules (compare Deuteronomy 4:2 with Surah 16:116-117).
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/quranic-punishment-surah-538.html
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
A Benefit Of Emphasizing Originality
Philosophy is mistakenly considered by many to be the domain of an intellectual elite, despite the fact that there are two distinct errors in this position. First of all, many academics and historical philosophers rely extensively on fallacies, and thus the idea that directly contributing to academia signifies philosophical competency is nonsense. Second, philosophy is in no way something that only concerns a relatively small group of people. In order to clarify that philosophical truths can be understood by otherwise average people, rationalists need to call for a collective shift towards originality, something that can only be achieved by means of rationalism.
An emphasis on originality in both of its forms--the discovery of completely/largely unknown truths and autonomous worldview formation respectively--is key to ensuring that people who might otherwise distance themselves from personal philosophical contemplation put effort into independent, rationalistic thinking. After all, a right understanding of originality empowers people to construct sound worldviews on the basis of reason, as opposed to the pitfalls of tradition, consensus, and preferences. This emphasis makes philosophy seem more like the inviting, all-encompassing thing that it is, rather than something that is not accessible to the average person.
Philosophy is for everyone, after all, for it engulfs the whole of human life. It does not require a formal university education to be grasped, nor does it possess an intrinsic difficulty that renders sophisticated knowledge unobtainable to all but a select few. There are certainly vital truths, ignored by every historical philosophical author and every contemporary academic that I know of, that only a handful of likeminded rationalists have discovered [1], but this does not mean that only a few have the capacity to identify these truths. The reason why most people are not more philosophically competent than they are presently is strictly that many people put minimal or no sincere effort into developing their intelligence.
The first form of originality naturally becomes rarer with the passage of time (though it is not dead yet: again, see [1]), but the second form is available to every generation, regardless of geographical, cultural, or historical factors [2]. This is because the latter is bound to the private exercise of reason, with reason itself being universal and immutable; reason is the key to intellectual autonomy (which is at the heart of originality) and the discovery of neglected truths alike. That reason is accessible to all, to at least some extent, sustains the continuation of the second type of originality.
When people are encouraged to embrace this universal form of originality, they are more likely to recognize that knowledge is within their grasp and that they do not necessarily need to rely on other people to discover even complex truths. Many truths can be proven in full without involving other people at all. Dialogue between intelligent people can help bring clarity, yes, and the asking of honest questions should never be deterred. However, no one's worldview needs to hinge upon another person's claims in the sense that all truth-seekers can independently confirm, refute, or, if epistemic limitations demand it, remain skeptical about the information they receive from others as the laws of logic dictate.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/originality-is-available-to-all.html
An emphasis on originality in both of its forms--the discovery of completely/largely unknown truths and autonomous worldview formation respectively--is key to ensuring that people who might otherwise distance themselves from personal philosophical contemplation put effort into independent, rationalistic thinking. After all, a right understanding of originality empowers people to construct sound worldviews on the basis of reason, as opposed to the pitfalls of tradition, consensus, and preferences. This emphasis makes philosophy seem more like the inviting, all-encompassing thing that it is, rather than something that is not accessible to the average person.
Philosophy is for everyone, after all, for it engulfs the whole of human life. It does not require a formal university education to be grasped, nor does it possess an intrinsic difficulty that renders sophisticated knowledge unobtainable to all but a select few. There are certainly vital truths, ignored by every historical philosophical author and every contemporary academic that I know of, that only a handful of likeminded rationalists have discovered [1], but this does not mean that only a few have the capacity to identify these truths. The reason why most people are not more philosophically competent than they are presently is strictly that many people put minimal or no sincere effort into developing their intelligence.
The first form of originality naturally becomes rarer with the passage of time (though it is not dead yet: again, see [1]), but the second form is available to every generation, regardless of geographical, cultural, or historical factors [2]. This is because the latter is bound to the private exercise of reason, with reason itself being universal and immutable; reason is the key to intellectual autonomy (which is at the heart of originality) and the discovery of neglected truths alike. That reason is accessible to all, to at least some extent, sustains the continuation of the second type of originality.
When people are encouraged to embrace this universal form of originality, they are more likely to recognize that knowledge is within their grasp and that they do not necessarily need to rely on other people to discover even complex truths. Many truths can be proven in full without involving other people at all. Dialogue between intelligent people can help bring clarity, yes, and the asking of honest questions should never be deterred. However, no one's worldview needs to hinge upon another person's claims in the sense that all truth-seekers can independently confirm, refute, or, if epistemic limitations demand it, remain skeptical about the information they receive from others as the laws of logic dictate.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/originality-is-available-to-all.html
Sunday, March 17, 2019
The Prohibition Of Idols
In Deuteronomy 4:15-19, Moses prohibits the creation or use of any physical images that are taken to be visual representations of Yahweh. Far from being an arbitrary command, this instruction is framed around a crucial aspect of God's nature. To disregard it is to neglect this aspect of God's being. In order to understand the prohibition, one must rightly identify the metaphysical substance of Yahweh and the moral ramifications that follow.
Yahweh is strictly a spirit (John 4:24). In other words, he is a consciousness without a body. Thus, since Yahweh has no physical form whatsoever, the construction of an image to represent him is ironically contrary to the objective of worshiping him. This is the reason why Moses commands the Israelites to never make an image of a man, woman, animal, or or other image or shape that is intended to portray the divine consciousness, even as an aid to worship. Positive intentions cannot make an immoral act righteous.
When one worships God, it must be in a manner that reflects God's actual nature. Anything else is idolatrous precisely because it ignores the actual information about God imparted by both reason and Scripture and trivializes it. One does not even need to appeal to the Bible in order to demonstrate that God is a nonphysical being; the uncaused cause, having created matter, must precede matter, therefore making it an immaterial existent. Even if rationalistic grounds are considered when completely separated from the content of the Bible, the idea that God has a physical nature is simply an incorrect understanding of the uncaused cause.
As for the historical iconoclasm controversy over whether images of Jesus violate the command of Deuteronomy to make no idol of God, there is a very simple fact that settles the matter. Jesus is not Yahweh. Though Jesus is divine, he is not the same being as Yahweh, with the Bible consistently distinguishing between the two in various ways, with a key distinction between the two being that Jesus actually has a body. This resolves the entire "dilemma" of using physical representation of Jesus to facilitate the worship of a deity without a physical form rather easily. There is nothing sinful about making images of Jesus because 1) the son of God and God are distinct entities and because 2) those who use such images of Jesus are not worshiping the physical objects themselves.
A right understanding of God is a prerequisite for sound worship. In light of what isolated deductive reasoning and the Bible both illuminate about the uncaused cause, there is no basis for regarding a material object to convey God's nature accurately, but this does not disqualify using physical representations of Christ in worship despite the fact that Christ is himself divine. Problems only emerge when the physical is mistaken for an actual depiction of Yahweh himself--something that many Christians do not even seem to struggle with in minor ways.
Yahweh is strictly a spirit (John 4:24). In other words, he is a consciousness without a body. Thus, since Yahweh has no physical form whatsoever, the construction of an image to represent him is ironically contrary to the objective of worshiping him. This is the reason why Moses commands the Israelites to never make an image of a man, woman, animal, or or other image or shape that is intended to portray the divine consciousness, even as an aid to worship. Positive intentions cannot make an immoral act righteous.
When one worships God, it must be in a manner that reflects God's actual nature. Anything else is idolatrous precisely because it ignores the actual information about God imparted by both reason and Scripture and trivializes it. One does not even need to appeal to the Bible in order to demonstrate that God is a nonphysical being; the uncaused cause, having created matter, must precede matter, therefore making it an immaterial existent. Even if rationalistic grounds are considered when completely separated from the content of the Bible, the idea that God has a physical nature is simply an incorrect understanding of the uncaused cause.
As for the historical iconoclasm controversy over whether images of Jesus violate the command of Deuteronomy to make no idol of God, there is a very simple fact that settles the matter. Jesus is not Yahweh. Though Jesus is divine, he is not the same being as Yahweh, with the Bible consistently distinguishing between the two in various ways, with a key distinction between the two being that Jesus actually has a body. This resolves the entire "dilemma" of using physical representation of Jesus to facilitate the worship of a deity without a physical form rather easily. There is nothing sinful about making images of Jesus because 1) the son of God and God are distinct entities and because 2) those who use such images of Jesus are not worshiping the physical objects themselves.
A right understanding of God is a prerequisite for sound worship. In light of what isolated deductive reasoning and the Bible both illuminate about the uncaused cause, there is no basis for regarding a material object to convey God's nature accurately, but this does not disqualify using physical representations of Christ in worship despite the fact that Christ is himself divine. Problems only emerge when the physical is mistaken for an actual depiction of Yahweh himself--something that many Christians do not even seem to struggle with in minor ways.
Saturday, March 16, 2019
A Partial Idealism
The truth about metaphysics and epistemology is often more nuanced than typical philosophical systems dare to suggest. The core of basic idealism--the idea that matter cannot exist without being perceived--is entirely unverifiable, with the type of idealism that holds matter to be an illusion being demonstrably false [1]. Despite these facts, however, there are specific elements of idealistic philosophy that, if framed correctly, do correspond to reality.
For example, the relationship between matter and mind involves a subjectivity that can only be a function of an individual consciousness. A thing such as physical pain can only exist as a subjective experience within a mind: pain does not exist simply because an environment that causes objective harm to living beings exists. The same is true of something like physical pleasure. Without consciousness, neither pain nor pleasure can exist, because they are purely mental states, even though they can be caused by external, material stimuli. Does this mean that the matter that provokes mental responses like pain and pleasure itself depends on the immediate perception of a mind?
This does not follow. One form of idealism posits that, since humans can only perceive a very small area of nature at a given time, the whole of nature is sustained only by the direct perception of God. Such a claim cannot escape the same epistemological errors that render humans unable to know if nature ceases to exist when they do not perceive it. It must be clarified that, though matter might not require perception for it to exist, matter is strictly contingent on the metaphysical existence of the uncaused cause (God).
The relationship between God and creation is quite different from a human and his or her lesser creations. If a person fashions a new material object from existing matter and then dies upon completing the project, the new object can continue to exist. Apart from God's existence, though, there is nothing to keep things which depend on God, including all matter, in a continued state of existence. This means that nature is ultimately mind-dependent, albeit dependent on the mind of God (though I cannot even prove that I myself am not the uncaused cause). Nevertheless, it still does not follow that God must perceive the whole of creation at once in order for it to persist.
Furthermore, not everything depends on God's existence for its own being. It is not possible for everything to be mind-dependent. The laws of logic and the very space that holds matter cannot be constructs of the divine mind for the same reason they cannot be constructs of the human mind: they exist by intrinsic necessity [2]. God is not the supreme metaphysical existent; reason itself is. This is one of the most metaphysically and theologically significant truths about God that historical and contemporary Christians have, at large, completely ignored or denied. God is the reference point for all values, but logical truths are a completely different matter.
In light of each of these truths, some forms of idealism can only be false, while the veracity of others is uncertain. Modern thinkers who appeal to quantum physics in order to argue for matter being dependent upon perception only believe their premises on mere faith. How could one perceive whether or not matter exists when it is not perceived? Such a thing is impossible! The word for someone who thinks that they can know that which cannot be proven is "delusional." Unfortunately, delusion of various sorts has been the norm for the entirety recorded human history.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html
For example, the relationship between matter and mind involves a subjectivity that can only be a function of an individual consciousness. A thing such as physical pain can only exist as a subjective experience within a mind: pain does not exist simply because an environment that causes objective harm to living beings exists. The same is true of something like physical pleasure. Without consciousness, neither pain nor pleasure can exist, because they are purely mental states, even though they can be caused by external, material stimuli. Does this mean that the matter that provokes mental responses like pain and pleasure itself depends on the immediate perception of a mind?
This does not follow. One form of idealism posits that, since humans can only perceive a very small area of nature at a given time, the whole of nature is sustained only by the direct perception of God. Such a claim cannot escape the same epistemological errors that render humans unable to know if nature ceases to exist when they do not perceive it. It must be clarified that, though matter might not require perception for it to exist, matter is strictly contingent on the metaphysical existence of the uncaused cause (God).
The relationship between God and creation is quite different from a human and his or her lesser creations. If a person fashions a new material object from existing matter and then dies upon completing the project, the new object can continue to exist. Apart from God's existence, though, there is nothing to keep things which depend on God, including all matter, in a continued state of existence. This means that nature is ultimately mind-dependent, albeit dependent on the mind of God (though I cannot even prove that I myself am not the uncaused cause). Nevertheless, it still does not follow that God must perceive the whole of creation at once in order for it to persist.
Furthermore, not everything depends on God's existence for its own being. It is not possible for everything to be mind-dependent. The laws of logic and the very space that holds matter cannot be constructs of the divine mind for the same reason they cannot be constructs of the human mind: they exist by intrinsic necessity [2]. God is not the supreme metaphysical existent; reason itself is. This is one of the most metaphysically and theologically significant truths about God that historical and contemporary Christians have, at large, completely ignored or denied. God is the reference point for all values, but logical truths are a completely different matter.
In light of each of these truths, some forms of idealism can only be false, while the veracity of others is uncertain. Modern thinkers who appeal to quantum physics in order to argue for matter being dependent upon perception only believe their premises on mere faith. How could one perceive whether or not matter exists when it is not perceived? Such a thing is impossible! The word for someone who thinks that they can know that which cannot be proven is "delusional." Unfortunately, delusion of various sorts has been the norm for the entirety recorded human history.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html
Movie Review--Captive State
"We have one more chance to light a fire big enough for the whole world to see."
--Rafe, Captive State
Many movies about extraterrestrial invasions focus on depicting Earth's initial contact with the aliens or the first stages of resistance. Captive State summarizes both within the first ten minutes, instead showing the buildup to and aftermath of a major rebel plan against alien representatives known as Legislators. The story is in no way simple, and relatively little is communicated to the audience in a straightforward way, but those who give the movie a chance to slowly explain itself might be very impressed by the end. Consistent warnings by various characters against Greeks bearing gifts suggest the twists of the subversive third act. Seeing the various plot threads unify near the end will justify the entire film for some viewers, while others will likely find that the slow, complicated nature of the story dulls the excitement of waiting for the finale. After all, the themes and plot ideas are often far grander than their execution.
Production Values
Despite being about an alien occupation of Earth that is rebranded as a positive, beneficial arrangement for humanity, the movie scarcely shows its alien antagonists. Instead, much of the drama involves various human efforts to help or hinder the Legislators. The Legislators themselves enjoy a fairly original design, being creatures that can walk on all fours or stand upright, their skin covered by porcupine-like spines. Since the focus is placed on humans, however, Captive State succeeds only to the extent that the humans are portrayed well.
One of the biggest problems of the film is the manner in which the script completely sets key characters aside for a great deal of the runtime, leaving viewers uncertain if they are even still a part of the story. There are even characters with potential for holding the spotlight that are abandoned after the first few dozen minutes. Thankfully, the characters that do receive persistent attention from the script are acted well, even if the enigmatic, complex nature of the story means many of them are not particularly developed by the final shot.
Vera Farmiga (one of my favorite actresses, especially because of her performance in The Conjuring series) makes the most of her scenes, although she does not appear in very many of them. Her character does turn out to be quite different than initial perceptions imply, mirroring the plot as a whole. As the story progresses, though, it falls mostly on John Goodman and Ashton Sanders to keep viewers invested in the human-Legislator conflict, with their respective characters finding themselves at the center of the narrative. Both actors handle their roles admirably, with Goodman in particular being difficult to read in terms of personal motivation.
Story
Spoilers!
Almost ten years after alien beings successfully established themselves as the ultimate rulers of Earth, maintaining a dangerous peace with humanity that some perceive to be genuine, a young man named Gabriel discovers that his allegedly deceased brother is still alive, contributing towards a plan to strike back at the Legislators. When the scheme succeeds, tension between the Legislators and humans heightens. The ordeal leads to the exposure of a deeper resistance movement than the pro-Legislator police force expected.
Intellectual Content
Serving as a political thriller within the context of a extraterrestrial occupation, Captive State naturally features the explicitly political themes of oppression and liberty. Some viewers might be distracted from these themes by the complexity of the script, though. Still, even viewers who have trouble following the plot trajectory will be exposed to a relatively unique take on alien-human interaction, where the aliens strong arm humanity into a superficially prosperous unity. If genuine extraterrestrial creatures were ever discovered, they could range from powerless (by comparison to humans) to intelligent but manipulative to extremely hostile. The aliens of Captive State fall somewhere in between the latter two.
Conclusion
Captive State is certainly not for everyone, but those who are willing to watch all the way to the final scene will be rewarded with a grand payoff that strings many aspects of the story into a coherent whole. The movie's flaws are obvious, but so are its strengths: an intelligently constructed plot and talented performances. I would not be surprised if Captive State is relatively quiet in theaters--especially considering that it was released right between enormous titles like Captain Marvel, Shazam!, and Avengers: Endgame--but comes to be more widely admired several years later. The ideal viewer is someone who appreciates both science fiction and political thrillers, but that shouldn't stop people who enjoy complicated storytelling in general from considering the film.
Content:
1. Violence: Aliens are occasionally shown attacking humans, and a resistance member's wounded torso is seen.
--Rafe, Captive State
Many movies about extraterrestrial invasions focus on depicting Earth's initial contact with the aliens or the first stages of resistance. Captive State summarizes both within the first ten minutes, instead showing the buildup to and aftermath of a major rebel plan against alien representatives known as Legislators. The story is in no way simple, and relatively little is communicated to the audience in a straightforward way, but those who give the movie a chance to slowly explain itself might be very impressed by the end. Consistent warnings by various characters against Greeks bearing gifts suggest the twists of the subversive third act. Seeing the various plot threads unify near the end will justify the entire film for some viewers, while others will likely find that the slow, complicated nature of the story dulls the excitement of waiting for the finale. After all, the themes and plot ideas are often far grander than their execution.
 |
|
Production Values
Despite being about an alien occupation of Earth that is rebranded as a positive, beneficial arrangement for humanity, the movie scarcely shows its alien antagonists. Instead, much of the drama involves various human efforts to help or hinder the Legislators. The Legislators themselves enjoy a fairly original design, being creatures that can walk on all fours or stand upright, their skin covered by porcupine-like spines. Since the focus is placed on humans, however, Captive State succeeds only to the extent that the humans are portrayed well.
One of the biggest problems of the film is the manner in which the script completely sets key characters aside for a great deal of the runtime, leaving viewers uncertain if they are even still a part of the story. There are even characters with potential for holding the spotlight that are abandoned after the first few dozen minutes. Thankfully, the characters that do receive persistent attention from the script are acted well, even if the enigmatic, complex nature of the story means many of them are not particularly developed by the final shot.
Vera Farmiga (one of my favorite actresses, especially because of her performance in The Conjuring series) makes the most of her scenes, although she does not appear in very many of them. Her character does turn out to be quite different than initial perceptions imply, mirroring the plot as a whole. As the story progresses, though, it falls mostly on John Goodman and Ashton Sanders to keep viewers invested in the human-Legislator conflict, with their respective characters finding themselves at the center of the narrative. Both actors handle their roles admirably, with Goodman in particular being difficult to read in terms of personal motivation.
Story
Spoilers!
Almost ten years after alien beings successfully established themselves as the ultimate rulers of Earth, maintaining a dangerous peace with humanity that some perceive to be genuine, a young man named Gabriel discovers that his allegedly deceased brother is still alive, contributing towards a plan to strike back at the Legislators. When the scheme succeeds, tension between the Legislators and humans heightens. The ordeal leads to the exposure of a deeper resistance movement than the pro-Legislator police force expected.
Intellectual Content
Serving as a political thriller within the context of a extraterrestrial occupation, Captive State naturally features the explicitly political themes of oppression and liberty. Some viewers might be distracted from these themes by the complexity of the script, though. Still, even viewers who have trouble following the plot trajectory will be exposed to a relatively unique take on alien-human interaction, where the aliens strong arm humanity into a superficially prosperous unity. If genuine extraterrestrial creatures were ever discovered, they could range from powerless (by comparison to humans) to intelligent but manipulative to extremely hostile. The aliens of Captive State fall somewhere in between the latter two.
Conclusion
Captive State is certainly not for everyone, but those who are willing to watch all the way to the final scene will be rewarded with a grand payoff that strings many aspects of the story into a coherent whole. The movie's flaws are obvious, but so are its strengths: an intelligently constructed plot and talented performances. I would not be surprised if Captive State is relatively quiet in theaters--especially considering that it was released right between enormous titles like Captain Marvel, Shazam!, and Avengers: Endgame--but comes to be more widely admired several years later. The ideal viewer is someone who appreciates both science fiction and political thrillers, but that shouldn't stop people who enjoy complicated storytelling in general from considering the film.
Content:
1. Violence: Aliens are occasionally shown attacking humans, and a resistance member's wounded torso is seen.
Friday, March 15, 2019
The Incarnation
The incarnation, the process by which Jesus assumed a human body, is a metaphysically significant event even without taking the later ministry of Jesus into consideration. Though Genesis alone refutes the possibility of Christianity teaching
any form of Gnosticism, the incarnation similarly lands a fatal blow on
the idea that matter is itself wicked. Matter is not only an integral
part of the creation that God declared to be "very good," but it is the very
vehicle by which Jesus entered human existence.
In assuming a human form (John 1:1-2, 14), Jesus affirmed the goodness of the human body--a divine being could not (Jesus is not Yahweh [1], but as a divine being, James 1:13 still applies to him) inhabit a body of matter if there is something fundamentally evil about physicality. The redemption of humanity ultimately extends to the redemption of the body, which is affected by sin to the same extent as the human soul. Though the material component of human beings has suffered decay as a result of sin (Romans 8:20-21), it will be redeemed in the cases of those who have chosen restoration to God.
Christian eschatology teaches that the bodies of the saved will eventually be resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:42-44); the Christian afterlife does not do away with matter [2], instead featuring a very intimate combination of matter and spirit, just as current human existence does. The idea that matter is a failed experiment to be discarded by God is thoroughly unbiblical. Matter was not permanently tainted by the Fall, and it will not be wholly destroyed or abandoned by God. Jesus' very possession of a resurrected body foreshadows what awaits all Christians.
The incarnation is far more than a humble first step in a salvation plan: it is an affirmation of the goodness of the metaphysical substance that God fashioned the physical universe, including the human body, out of. There is nothing in Christianity that resembles the aversion to matter displayed by ascetic legalists. When Christians appreciate and accept the physicality of the human body and of nature as a whole, they are capable of celebrating the incarnation of Jesus with an even greater depth, and vice versa.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/10/exegeting-john-1428.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-aether.html
In assuming a human form (John 1:1-2, 14), Jesus affirmed the goodness of the human body--a divine being could not (Jesus is not Yahweh [1], but as a divine being, James 1:13 still applies to him) inhabit a body of matter if there is something fundamentally evil about physicality. The redemption of humanity ultimately extends to the redemption of the body, which is affected by sin to the same extent as the human soul. Though the material component of human beings has suffered decay as a result of sin (Romans 8:20-21), it will be redeemed in the cases of those who have chosen restoration to God.
Christian eschatology teaches that the bodies of the saved will eventually be resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:42-44); the Christian afterlife does not do away with matter [2], instead featuring a very intimate combination of matter and spirit, just as current human existence does. The idea that matter is a failed experiment to be discarded by God is thoroughly unbiblical. Matter was not permanently tainted by the Fall, and it will not be wholly destroyed or abandoned by God. Jesus' very possession of a resurrected body foreshadows what awaits all Christians.
The incarnation is far more than a humble first step in a salvation plan: it is an affirmation of the goodness of the metaphysical substance that God fashioned the physical universe, including the human body, out of. There is nothing in Christianity that resembles the aversion to matter displayed by ascetic legalists. When Christians appreciate and accept the physicality of the human body and of nature as a whole, they are capable of celebrating the incarnation of Jesus with an even greater depth, and vice versa.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/10/exegeting-john-1428.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-aether.html
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Schrodinger's Cat
The infamous thought experiment involving "Schrodinger's cat" is, like many other concepts, misinterpreted. Instead of taking it to be an illustration of the asinine nature of a certain model of quantum mechanics--which holds two conflicting quantum events to both occur until an external observer notices them, at which point only one of them becomes actualized--some regard it as confirmation that logic does not govern all things, a complete impossibility! The cat is supposed to serve as an analogy for quantum particles by giving an example at the macro level of ordinary experience.
In the thought experiment, a cat, locked in isolation, is threatened by a single radioactive atom, which may kill the cat via the effects of its decay--or may not decay at all. How could one tell if the cat is alive or dead at a given time? One would have to check, yet, just as one cannot see and not see a thing at once, one cannot find that the cat is both dead and alive simultaneously. The cat could only be in one condition or the other, since there is no overlap between them.
Some people arrive at the egregious misunderstanding that the hypothetical cat in question actually is somehow both dead and alive at once--something which, if they deliberated in a sound manner, they should realize is an impossibility. There is no such thing as two opposites being simultaneously true. The point of such a thought experiment is not to argue against logic, which is self-refuting, but to highlight the flaws of the Copenhagen model of quantum mechanics, as well as to emphasize that non-observers cannot know whether the cat is living or not due to the seemingly equal probability of various quantum events.
Nothing in quantum physics contradicts logic. Nothing in quantum physics can contradict logic. Furthermore, no one needs science to demonstrate that contradictions are impossible, as they only need to contemplate reason itself to prove that logic governs all. Science bows to logic, not the other way around. Metaphysical ideas cannot ultimately be verified or falsified by scientific observation, but by the exercise of the intellect in accordance with the external laws of logic.
To be within the realm of possibility, an idea must contain no contradictions. This is the first aspect of a concept to consider when investigating ideas that do not possess self-evidence (that is, the unique self-verifying nature that only a small handful of truths have). Since existence and non-existence are exclusive categories, cats, as well as any other existents of the material or immaterial kind, by necessity can only exist or not exist at once. It is rather alarming that someone might not realize this on their own, instead looking to quantum physics to settle a matter that is resolved without engaging in science at all. That someone would require a scientist's affirmation of a basic logical truth before accepting it demonstrates only that the person in question lacks intelligence and is without significant intellectual autonomy.
In the thought experiment, a cat, locked in isolation, is threatened by a single radioactive atom, which may kill the cat via the effects of its decay--or may not decay at all. How could one tell if the cat is alive or dead at a given time? One would have to check, yet, just as one cannot see and not see a thing at once, one cannot find that the cat is both dead and alive simultaneously. The cat could only be in one condition or the other, since there is no overlap between them.
Some people arrive at the egregious misunderstanding that the hypothetical cat in question actually is somehow both dead and alive at once--something which, if they deliberated in a sound manner, they should realize is an impossibility. There is no such thing as two opposites being simultaneously true. The point of such a thought experiment is not to argue against logic, which is self-refuting, but to highlight the flaws of the Copenhagen model of quantum mechanics, as well as to emphasize that non-observers cannot know whether the cat is living or not due to the seemingly equal probability of various quantum events.
Nothing in quantum physics contradicts logic. Nothing in quantum physics can contradict logic. Furthermore, no one needs science to demonstrate that contradictions are impossible, as they only need to contemplate reason itself to prove that logic governs all. Science bows to logic, not the other way around. Metaphysical ideas cannot ultimately be verified or falsified by scientific observation, but by the exercise of the intellect in accordance with the external laws of logic.
To be within the realm of possibility, an idea must contain no contradictions. This is the first aspect of a concept to consider when investigating ideas that do not possess self-evidence (that is, the unique self-verifying nature that only a small handful of truths have). Since existence and non-existence are exclusive categories, cats, as well as any other existents of the material or immaterial kind, by necessity can only exist or not exist at once. It is rather alarming that someone might not realize this on their own, instead looking to quantum physics to settle a matter that is resolved without engaging in science at all. That someone would require a scientist's affirmation of a basic logical truth before accepting it demonstrates only that the person in question lacks intelligence and is without significant intellectual autonomy.
Reality Is Not A Construct Of The Nervous System
One variation of naturalism that has become popularized by the development of neuroscience is the notion that one's nervous system constructs reality. In other words, according to this asinine ideology, nothing it objectively knowable in itself, and nothing necessarily exists apart from the nervous system. Riddled with errors, the "nervous system construct" conception of metaphysics is rather easy to defeat. If even one thing exists independently from the nervous system or from matter itself, the entire concept is refuted in full. There is such a thing: the laws of logic.
There is no being, particle of matter, or other existent (i.e. time or space) that the existence of logic hinges upon. As such, logic cannot possibly be a construct of either the nervous system or a mind (human or divine), for it exists in the absence of both. It alone exists strictly due to its own intrinsic necessity [1]. Truth, being nothing but a function of logic, therefore cannot depend on the nervous system or on any other thing for its necessary existence.
Even if these facts are set aside despite them showing that it is impossible for the "nervous system construct" idea of reality to be true, there are numerous other problems with this asinine belief. The unverifiable nature of the nervous system's very existence is a prominent one. No one can even prove to me that I have a brain, much less that the brain has a causal connection to the mind (only a very strong correlation can be demonstrated). Some mistakenly hold that the very existence of matter is unverifiable, but this is not the case [2]; however, it does not follow from the mere existence of matter that the nervous system itself exists.
Consciousness, unlike the seeming existence of the nervous system, cannot be an illusion, being one of only a handful of metaphysical existents (including logic) that cannot be illusory by nature of what they are. In contrast, most facts about one's body are ultimately unknown. There is no way to truly know the interior of one's body, which renders the issue of the nervous system's very existence unsettled; beyond the fact that some sort of matter is real and that my consciousness inhabits a physical shell, only perceptions of what that body is like can be verified. While matter does exist, the only things comprised of matter that I can know the existence of are my body (again, see [2]) and some sort of external world beyond it. There is no proof that the brain, neurons, or the spinal cord exist, only mere evidence based on sensory perceptions that are subject to potential change at any time.
Naturalism is refuted in whole by the existence of even a single immaterial thing. The laws of logic alone, being both intangible and necessary even in the absence of matter, falsify naturalism. The existence of one's consciousness, which is required to even grasp the independent laws of logic, likewise falsifies naturalism. One does not even need to continue listing nonphysical existents like time and the space that holds matter to demonstrate that it is utterly impossible for everything that exists to be physical. Reality is not a construct of the nervous system, and reason, the core of reality, is itself immaterial.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
There is no being, particle of matter, or other existent (i.e. time or space) that the existence of logic hinges upon. As such, logic cannot possibly be a construct of either the nervous system or a mind (human or divine), for it exists in the absence of both. It alone exists strictly due to its own intrinsic necessity [1]. Truth, being nothing but a function of logic, therefore cannot depend on the nervous system or on any other thing for its necessary existence.
Even if these facts are set aside despite them showing that it is impossible for the "nervous system construct" idea of reality to be true, there are numerous other problems with this asinine belief. The unverifiable nature of the nervous system's very existence is a prominent one. No one can even prove to me that I have a brain, much less that the brain has a causal connection to the mind (only a very strong correlation can be demonstrated). Some mistakenly hold that the very existence of matter is unverifiable, but this is not the case [2]; however, it does not follow from the mere existence of matter that the nervous system itself exists.
Consciousness, unlike the seeming existence of the nervous system, cannot be an illusion, being one of only a handful of metaphysical existents (including logic) that cannot be illusory by nature of what they are. In contrast, most facts about one's body are ultimately unknown. There is no way to truly know the interior of one's body, which renders the issue of the nervous system's very existence unsettled; beyond the fact that some sort of matter is real and that my consciousness inhabits a physical shell, only perceptions of what that body is like can be verified. While matter does exist, the only things comprised of matter that I can know the existence of are my body (again, see [2]) and some sort of external world beyond it. There is no proof that the brain, neurons, or the spinal cord exist, only mere evidence based on sensory perceptions that are subject to potential change at any time.
Naturalism is refuted in whole by the existence of even a single immaterial thing. The laws of logic alone, being both intangible and necessary even in the absence of matter, falsify naturalism. The existence of one's consciousness, which is required to even grasp the independent laws of logic, likewise falsifies naturalism. One does not even need to continue listing nonphysical existents like time and the space that holds matter to demonstrate that it is utterly impossible for everything that exists to be physical. Reality is not a construct of the nervous system, and reason, the core of reality, is itself immaterial.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
The Need For Female Protagonists And Antagonists
Every time a film like Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel is released, there are those who decry the movie as a metaphorical figurehead for some sort of anti-men movement. With the release of Captain Marvel several days ago, such slanderous accusations have become commonplace yet again, with the charges even deterring some people from watching the film at all. It is obvious that these protesters have either never seen the movie or dramatically misinterpreted its message, just as they almost certainly have never grasped the need for both female protagonists and female antagonists.
Never mind the fact that Captain Marvel is about human and individualistic empowerment, not the unilateral elevation of one gender or the other. Never mind that it does not portray men as naturally weak, vile, or selfish, or that it does not portray women as naturally powerful, righteous, and just. Some people perpetuate the claims of misandry on the part of the filmmakers regardless. However, those who viewed Captain Marvel despite the false accusations (if they are rational people) learned that the movie does not even slightly endorse sexism against men. The only feminist undertones in the film reflect actual feminism: the idea that women and men can live alongside each other as metaphysical and moral equals.
Genuine feminism is about liberating both men and women from the fallacious notions of gender roles and sexist double standards. It was never about the domination of men by women, although some horrendously sexist people might misappropriate the title of "feminist" as they seek to mistreat men. They are guilty of many fallacies and moral errors they charge their opponents, those who cling to the conservative status quo, with representing. Straw manning feminism accomplishes nothing except making it clear that conservatives are just as philosophically clueless as they often seem from a distance.
It is quite important for there to be more movies like Captain Marvel. Furthermore, entertainment needs to not only feature female heroes to give examples of women to look up to, but also female villains to demonstrate that the capacity for evil does not discriminate against either gender. Patriarchal ideas have long characterized women as naturally innocent beings that must be protected by men, rather than beings who are capable of every sin that men are--without exception. Social conditioning has prevented humanity from seeing a great deal of the viciousness and selfishness that women can display.
No one has a tendency to any particular kind of sin simply because they were born with certain genitalia; individual moral resolve, not gender, dictates a person's moral triumphs and flaws. In Wonder Woman, Dr. Poison, a woman, was Ares' example of human corruption. Since many people are too unintelligent to reason logical truths out for themselves, the appearance of certain ideas in entertainment is necessary for those truths to become accepted by a culture. Conservatives stupidly oppose the recent tendency for cinema, gaming, and literature to have more female protagonists, thinking that such characters threaten the reputation of men, when it is actually the absence of female characters in villainous roles that help contribute to the social acceptance of misandrist ideas.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
Never mind the fact that Captain Marvel is about human and individualistic empowerment, not the unilateral elevation of one gender or the other. Never mind that it does not portray men as naturally weak, vile, or selfish, or that it does not portray women as naturally powerful, righteous, and just. Some people perpetuate the claims of misandry on the part of the filmmakers regardless. However, those who viewed Captain Marvel despite the false accusations (if they are rational people) learned that the movie does not even slightly endorse sexism against men. The only feminist undertones in the film reflect actual feminism: the idea that women and men can live alongside each other as metaphysical and moral equals.
Genuine feminism is about liberating both men and women from the fallacious notions of gender roles and sexist double standards. It was never about the domination of men by women, although some horrendously sexist people might misappropriate the title of "feminist" as they seek to mistreat men. They are guilty of many fallacies and moral errors they charge their opponents, those who cling to the conservative status quo, with representing. Straw manning feminism accomplishes nothing except making it clear that conservatives are just as philosophically clueless as they often seem from a distance.
It is quite important for there to be more movies like Captain Marvel. Furthermore, entertainment needs to not only feature female heroes to give examples of women to look up to, but also female villains to demonstrate that the capacity for evil does not discriminate against either gender. Patriarchal ideas have long characterized women as naturally innocent beings that must be protected by men, rather than beings who are capable of every sin that men are--without exception. Social conditioning has prevented humanity from seeing a great deal of the viciousness and selfishness that women can display.
No one has a tendency to any particular kind of sin simply because they were born with certain genitalia; individual moral resolve, not gender, dictates a person's moral triumphs and flaws. In Wonder Woman, Dr. Poison, a woman, was Ares' example of human corruption. Since many people are too unintelligent to reason logical truths out for themselves, the appearance of certain ideas in entertainment is necessary for those truths to become accepted by a culture. Conservatives stupidly oppose the recent tendency for cinema, gaming, and literature to have more female protagonists, thinking that such characters threaten the reputation of men, when it is actually the absence of female characters in villainous roles that help contribute to the social acceptance of misandrist ideas.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
Marriage Should Not Displace Friendship
That Genesis describes marriage as being a major solution to human solitude does not exclude friendships from performing the same function. A person can live without marital relationship and still be relationally fulfilled thanks to nonromantic social bonds--including those present in platonic opposite gender friendships. Nevertheless, it is easy to find people who are delusional enough to genuinely think that relational closeness with one member of the opposite gender limits or prevents closeness with another.
Nothing about sharing emotional and even physical intimacy with friends of the opposite gender detracts from or excludes having a marital relationship. It is not as if individual men and women have only a limited amount of affection to bestow upon people of the opposite gender, nor is it true that a married person who enjoys deep emotional closeness with friends of the opposite gender has betrayed their spouse. Neither type of relationship threatens the existence of the other; both are fully capable of flourishing simultaneously.
In the context of cultures that discourage non-romantic intimacy between men and women outside of family relationships, extramarital opposite gender friendships do not communicate marital weakness, but marital security. It often takes intelligence, strength, and perhaps even courage to disregard cultural norms and endure the pathetic concerns of ignorant observers. Consequently, that a married person has close opposite gender friends might signify a strong marriage. Marriage does not and should not displace friendship.
Finding quality friendships is often difficult enough without the sexism of one spouse demanding that the other deprive himself or herself of cross-gender friendships, a decision that significantly restricts their pool of potential friends. Anyone who is not satisfied with their romantic relationship unless their significant other does not have friendships with the other gender is not worthy of having a romantic relationship to begin with. It is always amusing to see which arbitrary, controlling, petty measures some people will go to in order to feel artificially secure.
Instead of embracing basic rationality, many people, especially Christians, are egoistic enough to sincerely believe that their significant others owe them the totality of their emotional intimacy with the opposite gender (several family relationships being the usual exceptions). Imagine if parents thought their children should not develop intimate relationships with people outside of their families! Would the same people who oppose friendship with the other gender while in a romantic relationship approve of such idiocy? The hypocrisy and arbitrariness of the average person's worldview are immense. Stupidity is a common ailment, and there is no aspect of Western society that is safe from its ravages.
Nothing about sharing emotional and even physical intimacy with friends of the opposite gender detracts from or excludes having a marital relationship. It is not as if individual men and women have only a limited amount of affection to bestow upon people of the opposite gender, nor is it true that a married person who enjoys deep emotional closeness with friends of the opposite gender has betrayed their spouse. Neither type of relationship threatens the existence of the other; both are fully capable of flourishing simultaneously.
In the context of cultures that discourage non-romantic intimacy between men and women outside of family relationships, extramarital opposite gender friendships do not communicate marital weakness, but marital security. It often takes intelligence, strength, and perhaps even courage to disregard cultural norms and endure the pathetic concerns of ignorant observers. Consequently, that a married person has close opposite gender friends might signify a strong marriage. Marriage does not and should not displace friendship.
Finding quality friendships is often difficult enough without the sexism of one spouse demanding that the other deprive himself or herself of cross-gender friendships, a decision that significantly restricts their pool of potential friends. Anyone who is not satisfied with their romantic relationship unless their significant other does not have friendships with the other gender is not worthy of having a romantic relationship to begin with. It is always amusing to see which arbitrary, controlling, petty measures some people will go to in order to feel artificially secure.
Instead of embracing basic rationality, many people, especially Christians, are egoistic enough to sincerely believe that their significant others owe them the totality of their emotional intimacy with the opposite gender (several family relationships being the usual exceptions). Imagine if parents thought their children should not develop intimate relationships with people outside of their families! Would the same people who oppose friendship with the other gender while in a romantic relationship approve of such idiocy? The hypocrisy and arbitrariness of the average person's worldview are immense. Stupidity is a common ailment, and there is no aspect of Western society that is safe from its ravages.
Monday, March 11, 2019
A Myth About Freedom Of Speech
When pressed for a defense of free speech--and it must be noted that there is a difference between taking advantage of a culture's alleged support of freedom of speech for manipulative purposes and wholeheartedly endorsing the American conception of freedom of speech--supporters will often claim that the goal of free speech is to promote the discovery of truth. Whether or not this is the actual purpose, it does not alter the fact that a right to freedom of speech is a contradiction in terms, a logical impossibility (with one exception depending on the definition, which will be addressed below).
No one has a right to believe in anything that is not both true and provable. If there are no objective moral values, then no one has a right to anything at all, meaning no one can have a right to freedom of belief, speech, or behavior; if there are objective moral values, then no one has a right to believe, say, or do whatever they want, since some beliefs and actions are immoral and thus should not be defended. People can therefore only be morally "free" to express verbal support for ideas that are both true and verifiable.
Far from aiding the public's search for truth, encouraging freedom of speech (unless one strictly defines it as the social/legal freedom to say anything that is not irrational or immoral) inevitably makes it more difficult for many actual truth seekers to sort through the legions of asinine claims that are so prevalent in human civilizations. This usual consequence aside, how many people who believe in freedom of speech only want the truth to be elevated? Almost all models of free speech are not aimed at truth, but at the gratification of subjective desires to escape social judgment on grounds of reason and morality.
Tolerance of intellectual mediocrity and failure, not the celebration of truth, is the aim of many who regard freedom of speech as some inherent human right. If this were not the case, no one would protect those who try to defend miscellaneous errors by claiming that they have a supposed "right" to believe/say what they wish. Only those who are in the right can have a right to speak their mind, along with those who sincerely seek after truths they have yet to discover as long as they do not promote any fallacies or errors in the process.
It is not those who treat irrational people in a brutal and predatory way who need to be silenced, but those who are irrational. There those who mistakenly conclude that this stance against freedom of speech entails the support of legal penalties for verbalizing erroneous beliefs. This does not follow, and the charge is nothing but a straw man of the anti-tolerance position. The person who cares about truth will not seek to give stupidity a platform, but they will not call for legal penalties for the mere support of errors when this support is separated from actual criminal speech (slander, perjury, and so on). This distinction does not serve as a shield for proponents of freedom of speech: irrespective of how strongly a person feels about free speech, it is impossible for there to be such a thing as a right for members the public to affirm whatever ideologies they prefer.
No one has a right to believe in anything that is not both true and provable. If there are no objective moral values, then no one has a right to anything at all, meaning no one can have a right to freedom of belief, speech, or behavior; if there are objective moral values, then no one has a right to believe, say, or do whatever they want, since some beliefs and actions are immoral and thus should not be defended. People can therefore only be morally "free" to express verbal support for ideas that are both true and verifiable.
Far from aiding the public's search for truth, encouraging freedom of speech (unless one strictly defines it as the social/legal freedom to say anything that is not irrational or immoral) inevitably makes it more difficult for many actual truth seekers to sort through the legions of asinine claims that are so prevalent in human civilizations. This usual consequence aside, how many people who believe in freedom of speech only want the truth to be elevated? Almost all models of free speech are not aimed at truth, but at the gratification of subjective desires to escape social judgment on grounds of reason and morality.
Tolerance of intellectual mediocrity and failure, not the celebration of truth, is the aim of many who regard freedom of speech as some inherent human right. If this were not the case, no one would protect those who try to defend miscellaneous errors by claiming that they have a supposed "right" to believe/say what they wish. Only those who are in the right can have a right to speak their mind, along with those who sincerely seek after truths they have yet to discover as long as they do not promote any fallacies or errors in the process.
It is not those who treat irrational people in a brutal and predatory way who need to be silenced, but those who are irrational. There those who mistakenly conclude that this stance against freedom of speech entails the support of legal penalties for verbalizing erroneous beliefs. This does not follow, and the charge is nothing but a straw man of the anti-tolerance position. The person who cares about truth will not seek to give stupidity a platform, but they will not call for legal penalties for the mere support of errors when this support is separated from actual criminal speech (slander, perjury, and so on). This distinction does not serve as a shield for proponents of freedom of speech: irrespective of how strongly a person feels about free speech, it is impossible for there to be such a thing as a right for members the public to affirm whatever ideologies they prefer.
The Impossibility Of Lusting After Single People
Several crucial details about the Biblical concept of lust can be determined simply from a logical analysis of the English words in Matthew 5:28. Since the verse refers to a sin of the mind, it cannot be condemning physiological arousal, to name just one example. Because the verse condemns looking with lust, it cannot be condemning the mere act of looking at the bodies of people of the opposite gender. Many legalists overlook even these fairly obvious facts that a reading of the English translations makes plain, but even people who recognize the actual meaning of the Greek word for lust might fail to realize that no one can lust after a single person.
As I have explained before, the Greek word for lust refers to nothing but coveting: wanting to take something, a marital partner in this case, away from another person for one's own. It follows that the lust referred to in Matthew 5:28 does not even necessarily have a sexual component, since a person can covet another person's spouse in a nonsexual way. Regardless, sexual feelings for a separately married person are not themselves depraved. It is only the actual coveting of another person's spouse that the Bible prohibits. The Biblical condemnation of lust, though, by nature of what lust is, only applies when one person covets a separately married person.
In other words, it is not even possible for someone to lust after a single person, as single people do not maritally belong to anyone else in the first place (or they are not in a committed romantic/sexual relationship). Thus, there can be no desire to take them away from a life partner for oneself. Nevertheless, it is still possible for someone to sexually objectify an unmarried person, just as it is possible for a married person to objectify their spouse. Sexual objectification is, in fact, a worse offense than lust itself, for disregarding all of a person other than a single aspect is inherently degrading, whereas coveting someone else's spouse does not have to involve a near-total neglect of the victim's personhood.
If a woman sees an attractive man and experiences feelings of sexual attraction, even to the point where she fantasizes about his body while self-pleasuring, she has committed no sin, even if the man is married to another woman (it is pathetic that many people who claim to revere the Bible are often in denial about female sexuality [1], considering that the Bible gives clear examples of "female" sexuality being no different from "male" sexuality). There must be a desire on her part to take him from his current partner for her to be guilty of lust. Likewise, a man who sees an attractive woman, feels sexual attraction, and sexually fantasizes about her has not sinned, even if the woman is married to another man.
If someone has sexual feelings for a single person, though, it is impossible for lust to be present by default. Lust is not synonymous with sexual arousal or sexual attraction whether or not they are prompted by a married or single person, and neither of them needs to be fought or resisted on their own. God did not create human sexuality in order to condemn people for experiencing exactly what he intended.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/female-sexuality.html
As I have explained before, the Greek word for lust refers to nothing but coveting: wanting to take something, a marital partner in this case, away from another person for one's own. It follows that the lust referred to in Matthew 5:28 does not even necessarily have a sexual component, since a person can covet another person's spouse in a nonsexual way. Regardless, sexual feelings for a separately married person are not themselves depraved. It is only the actual coveting of another person's spouse that the Bible prohibits. The Biblical condemnation of lust, though, by nature of what lust is, only applies when one person covets a separately married person.
In other words, it is not even possible for someone to lust after a single person, as single people do not maritally belong to anyone else in the first place (or they are not in a committed romantic/sexual relationship). Thus, there can be no desire to take them away from a life partner for oneself. Nevertheless, it is still possible for someone to sexually objectify an unmarried person, just as it is possible for a married person to objectify their spouse. Sexual objectification is, in fact, a worse offense than lust itself, for disregarding all of a person other than a single aspect is inherently degrading, whereas coveting someone else's spouse does not have to involve a near-total neglect of the victim's personhood.
If a woman sees an attractive man and experiences feelings of sexual attraction, even to the point where she fantasizes about his body while self-pleasuring, she has committed no sin, even if the man is married to another woman (it is pathetic that many people who claim to revere the Bible are often in denial about female sexuality [1], considering that the Bible gives clear examples of "female" sexuality being no different from "male" sexuality). There must be a desire on her part to take him from his current partner for her to be guilty of lust. Likewise, a man who sees an attractive woman, feels sexual attraction, and sexually fantasizes about her has not sinned, even if the woman is married to another man.
If someone has sexual feelings for a single person, though, it is impossible for lust to be present by default. Lust is not synonymous with sexual arousal or sexual attraction whether or not they are prompted by a married or single person, and neither of them needs to be fought or resisted on their own. God did not create human sexuality in order to condemn people for experiencing exactly what he intended.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/female-sexuality.html
Sunday, March 10, 2019
Evangelical Hypocrisy Regarding Capital Punishment
As with many other issues, evangelicals hold to contradictory ideas with respect to capital punishment. On one hand, evangelicals who endorse the death penalty for murder say that they wish to implement Biblical justice. On the other hand, they loudly celebrate the mistaken notion that Christians are somehow freed from the obligation to enforce other Biblical examples of capital punishment laws (which Jesus affirms in passages like Matthew 15:3-9), all while denying that their conception of ethics reduces down to a religious version of cultural relativism.
There are many levels to the irony of this, one of them being that the wording of Deuteronomy 22:25-27 necessitates that rape always deserves the same penalty as murder, even if all other capital punishment requirements in the Bible were not obligatory in the present day. If this was the only problem with the common evangelical position on the death penalty, it alone would expose the ignorance and illogicality of many evangelical minds. However, it is far from the only flaw.
It does not matter how strongly a Christian dislikes the thought of someone being executed for offenses like adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22), sorcery (Exodus 22:18), bestiality (Leviticus 20:15-16), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), or false accusations of sins that merit the death penalty (Deuteronomy 19:16-21); the Bible plainly prescribes capital punishment for each of these behaviors, clarifying that God's nature, and thus morality, does not change (Malachi 3:6). Justice does not depend upon anyone's conscience, but on God's moral character. How many Christians who cry out for Western culture to embrace "Biblical morality" truly mean that they want each of these actions, as well as several others, to be legally punishable by death upon the testimony of two or three honest witnesses? Not many!
It quickly becomes apparent upon serious conversation that many evangelicals either do not know what the Bible actually teaches or they are only concerned with their subjective preferences. They often focus disproportionately on a select handful of moral issues like abortion and homosexual behaviors and even demonize nonsinful things like erotic media, thinking they have upheld the bulk of Biblical morality simply by opposing them. There is much more to living out Biblical morality than merely condemning a given culture's acceptance of two immoral practices.
There is no place for conscience when evaluating the morality of various legal penalties. Believing themselves to be making the Biblical choice when it comes to moral epistemology, evangelicals are forced to resort to relying on the subjective whims of conscience when arguing for or against practically any criminal punishment, as well as when arguing for or against the criminalization of almost any sin, instead of admitting that the Bible demands the death penalty for more than just murder. Fortunately, their hypocrisy is not difficult to detect. The facade of Biblicality when it comes to evangelical positions on capital punishment can be refuted by someone with only minimal understanding of reason and Biblical ethics.
There are many levels to the irony of this, one of them being that the wording of Deuteronomy 22:25-27 necessitates that rape always deserves the same penalty as murder, even if all other capital punishment requirements in the Bible were not obligatory in the present day. If this was the only problem with the common evangelical position on the death penalty, it alone would expose the ignorance and illogicality of many evangelical minds. However, it is far from the only flaw.
It does not matter how strongly a Christian dislikes the thought of someone being executed for offenses like adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22), sorcery (Exodus 22:18), bestiality (Leviticus 20:15-16), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), or false accusations of sins that merit the death penalty (Deuteronomy 19:16-21); the Bible plainly prescribes capital punishment for each of these behaviors, clarifying that God's nature, and thus morality, does not change (Malachi 3:6). Justice does not depend upon anyone's conscience, but on God's moral character. How many Christians who cry out for Western culture to embrace "Biblical morality" truly mean that they want each of these actions, as well as several others, to be legally punishable by death upon the testimony of two or three honest witnesses? Not many!
It quickly becomes apparent upon serious conversation that many evangelicals either do not know what the Bible actually teaches or they are only concerned with their subjective preferences. They often focus disproportionately on a select handful of moral issues like abortion and homosexual behaviors and even demonize nonsinful things like erotic media, thinking they have upheld the bulk of Biblical morality simply by opposing them. There is much more to living out Biblical morality than merely condemning a given culture's acceptance of two immoral practices.
There is no place for conscience when evaluating the morality of various legal penalties. Believing themselves to be making the Biblical choice when it comes to moral epistemology, evangelicals are forced to resort to relying on the subjective whims of conscience when arguing for or against practically any criminal punishment, as well as when arguing for or against the criminalization of almost any sin, instead of admitting that the Bible demands the death penalty for more than just murder. Fortunately, their hypocrisy is not difficult to detect. The facade of Biblicality when it comes to evangelical positions on capital punishment can be refuted by someone with only minimal understanding of reason and Biblical ethics.
Saturday, March 9, 2019
The Goodness Of Pleasure
Instead of distracting from one's relationship with God, pleasure is a valuable thing that is an integral part of an ideal relationship with God. Christendom is in dire need of the recognition that God created humans for pleasure--not for a hedonistic indulgence that regards pleasure as what defines that which is good, but for the experience of the pleasures of an untainted existence where God himself walks among us. God created humans so that we could experience the pleasure of relationships with himself, with other humans, and even with animals, as well as the joys of intellectual, spiritual, and sensual realities.
The pleasures God fashioned us for are as diverse as they are powerful: friendship, sexual expression, music, originality, humor, entertainment, creativity, intellectual discovery, self-development, and food are just a handful of examples. Because God made people to be autonomous individuals, a given person's affinity for a particular pleasure might be far weaker or stronger than that of another person. The experience of pleasure is subjective. However, some things that can generate pleasure are objectively more significant than others. For instance, a love of reason, of God, or of friendship is a love of something that matters more than other things that can provide pleasure.
Some pleasures pertain strictly to the mind or its grasp of the external laws of reason (though all experiences of pleasure require a perceiving mind and that mind's grasp of the independent, external laws of logic to even be experienced at all), and some pertain to both the mind and the senses. Concerning the latter, there is nothing shameful about many sensual pleasures that have been illicitly opposed by misguided Christians who chose asceticism over rationality [1]. At the same time, genuine intellectual pleasures are known only by a scarce handful of Christians; if this were not the case, the church at large would not be adrift in such an asinine intellectual stupor.
Both mental/intellectual pleasures and sensual pleasures are good as long as they do not entail the violation of any moral obligations. The Biblical creation account clearly specifies that God created both the human mind and the human body, calling each "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Any theology that devalues either the mind (consciousness/spirit) or the body is a heretical construct of fallacious minds. When one realizes that God intentionally created people with the capacity for miscellaneous pleasures of the spirit and pleasures of the body, it should become easier to shed any reluctance to indulge in nonsinful forms of both.
Christian morality does not simply not condemn pleasure itself: pleasure is the reason God created humans in the first place. A right relationship with God is the pleasure that grounds lesser human pleasures, anchoring them to the one who conjured them into existence. Hedonism is merely a perversion of the desire for fulfillment that can only be constructively met by a right understanding of reality, and a right understanding of reality requires accurate theology.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/enjoying-sensuality.html
The pleasures God fashioned us for are as diverse as they are powerful: friendship, sexual expression, music, originality, humor, entertainment, creativity, intellectual discovery, self-development, and food are just a handful of examples. Because God made people to be autonomous individuals, a given person's affinity for a particular pleasure might be far weaker or stronger than that of another person. The experience of pleasure is subjective. However, some things that can generate pleasure are objectively more significant than others. For instance, a love of reason, of God, or of friendship is a love of something that matters more than other things that can provide pleasure.
Some pleasures pertain strictly to the mind or its grasp of the external laws of reason (though all experiences of pleasure require a perceiving mind and that mind's grasp of the independent, external laws of logic to even be experienced at all), and some pertain to both the mind and the senses. Concerning the latter, there is nothing shameful about many sensual pleasures that have been illicitly opposed by misguided Christians who chose asceticism over rationality [1]. At the same time, genuine intellectual pleasures are known only by a scarce handful of Christians; if this were not the case, the church at large would not be adrift in such an asinine intellectual stupor.
Both mental/intellectual pleasures and sensual pleasures are good as long as they do not entail the violation of any moral obligations. The Biblical creation account clearly specifies that God created both the human mind and the human body, calling each "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Any theology that devalues either the mind (consciousness/spirit) or the body is a heretical construct of fallacious minds. When one realizes that God intentionally created people with the capacity for miscellaneous pleasures of the spirit and pleasures of the body, it should become easier to shed any reluctance to indulge in nonsinful forms of both.
Christian morality does not simply not condemn pleasure itself: pleasure is the reason God created humans in the first place. A right relationship with God is the pleasure that grounds lesser human pleasures, anchoring them to the one who conjured them into existence. Hedonism is merely a perversion of the desire for fulfillment that can only be constructively met by a right understanding of reality, and a right understanding of reality requires accurate theology.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/enjoying-sensuality.html
Movie Review--Captain Marvel
"Without us, you're only human."
--Supreme Intelligence, Captain Marvel
Far from being the misandrist and gratuitous movie some fallaciously expected, Captain Marvel is a largely excellent film that both stands well on its own and integrates well into other MCU entries. With connections to the first Avengers film, Infinity War, and Endgame, Captain Marvel definitely ties into important franchise plot points--but never in ways that detract from its own script. Its tone is far more consistent than that of many other fairly recent MCU offerings, despite featuring plenty of comedy, drama, and action, and it becomes clear early on that the relationships and development of the central characters are its greatest strength. It only took 14 years for Marvel to release another female-led superhero film following Elektra, but the results are fantastic.
Production Values
The occasional strange CGI shot (like when Carol is falling before she triggers her flight ability) fails to poison the usual effectiveness of the colorful visuals. After the use of some duller aesthetics near the beginning, vibrant colors become more and more prominent, especially once Carol Danvers learns the full extent of her powers. As for Danvers, internet trolls who expected Brie Larson to be incapable of giving a fitting performance were mistaken in their assumptions (when the hell are people going to stop pretending like they can know a film's quality before its release?). Her demeanor naturally changes from stoic to comedic to depressed when needed. Danvers' arc isn't about a significant transformation of her character, like with Wonder Woman or Iron Man, but is instead one about self-discovery.
Many of Brie's greatest moments, though, are not the ones where she displays her incredible powers or learns crucial information about herself; her greatest moments are the ones where she interacts with Samuel L. Jackson. The best aspect of the movie by far is the relationship between Carol and Nick, which is realized with superb writing and with great acting on the parts of both Larson and Jackson. In fact, Fury's lines give him the opportunity to show a side of the character that is more playful and friendly than anything he has revealed elsewhere in the MCU.
Offering a great performance of his own, Ben Mendelsohn proves himself to be a standout actor, playing the Skrull representative Talos with a gravity that still allows for instances of humor. Many of the supporting characters are utilized excellently, and the imbecilic fears that Captain Marvel would use its titular hero in a way that degrades the male characters were completely unfounded. The script incorporates multiple strong male and female characters without ever pitting one gender against the other. Lastly, the soundtrack for the film is superior to many of the mediocre, generic scores for other MCU movies. With exceptions like The Incredible Hulk, most Marvel movies from 2008 onward have been accompanied by very lackluster soundtracks, but Captain Marvel's sets itself apart from the others, with an appropriate emphasis on the techno genre that fits into the science fiction atmosphere very well. The use of actual songs is also noteworthy!
Story
Spoilers!
After being captured by a shapeshifting alien race known as the Skrulls, Vers, a member of warrior society called the Kree, escapes her confinement only to struggle with seemingly suppressed memories. Her escape leads her to Earth, where a young Nick Fury works on behalf of S.H.I.E.L.D. Vers hopes to return to her fellow Kree soldiers, who hope to prevent a Skrull takeover of the earth.
The Skrull already have a presence on the planet, however, and the true nature of the Kree-Skrull war is far more morally ambiguous than Vers initially thinks. Vers discovers that she actually was a native of Earth, Carol Danvers, before she was taken by the Kree and trained to be a talented warrior, forced to question her allegiance to her faction in light of the new information. The Tesseract and Ronan the Accuser make appearances, all of which provide context for later events of the MCU.
Intellectual Content
The script lightly touches upon epistemic issues involving memory, but no philosophical theme is developed beyond a superficial level, unlike with Doctor Strange.
Conclusion
Captain Marvel is one of the MCU's best "origin" stories--it is more of a partial origin story, since the movie opens long after Carol obtains her powers--blending comedy, characterization, and lore significance into a mostly coherent whole. It has some sporadic flaws, but the overall product is exactly what the MCU should be delivering at this point. There is a sense in which Captain Marvel is intended to excite fans for Endgame, yet it also remains a great standalone film that celebrates the rich cinematic history of the MCU--plus, it stands alongside Wonder Woman as one of the only superhero movies directed or, in this case, co-directed by a woman! I eagerly await the return of Carol Danvers in Endgame! Thanos' days are numbered.
Content:
1. Violence: There are plenty of fights involving fists, energy blasts, and weaponry, though blood is only seen on some occasions. Nothing shown onscreen is graphic.
2. Profanity: Variations of "shit" are used twice, with other minor expletives scattered throughout.
--Supreme Intelligence, Captain Marvel
Far from being the misandrist and gratuitous movie some fallaciously expected, Captain Marvel is a largely excellent film that both stands well on its own and integrates well into other MCU entries. With connections to the first Avengers film, Infinity War, and Endgame, Captain Marvel definitely ties into important franchise plot points--but never in ways that detract from its own script. Its tone is far more consistent than that of many other fairly recent MCU offerings, despite featuring plenty of comedy, drama, and action, and it becomes clear early on that the relationships and development of the central characters are its greatest strength. It only took 14 years for Marvel to release another female-led superhero film following Elektra, but the results are fantastic.
The occasional strange CGI shot (like when Carol is falling before she triggers her flight ability) fails to poison the usual effectiveness of the colorful visuals. After the use of some duller aesthetics near the beginning, vibrant colors become more and more prominent, especially once Carol Danvers learns the full extent of her powers. As for Danvers, internet trolls who expected Brie Larson to be incapable of giving a fitting performance were mistaken in their assumptions (when the hell are people going to stop pretending like they can know a film's quality before its release?). Her demeanor naturally changes from stoic to comedic to depressed when needed. Danvers' arc isn't about a significant transformation of her character, like with Wonder Woman or Iron Man, but is instead one about self-discovery.
Many of Brie's greatest moments, though, are not the ones where she displays her incredible powers or learns crucial information about herself; her greatest moments are the ones where she interacts with Samuel L. Jackson. The best aspect of the movie by far is the relationship between Carol and Nick, which is realized with superb writing and with great acting on the parts of both Larson and Jackson. In fact, Fury's lines give him the opportunity to show a side of the character that is more playful and friendly than anything he has revealed elsewhere in the MCU.
Offering a great performance of his own, Ben Mendelsohn proves himself to be a standout actor, playing the Skrull representative Talos with a gravity that still allows for instances of humor. Many of the supporting characters are utilized excellently, and the imbecilic fears that Captain Marvel would use its titular hero in a way that degrades the male characters were completely unfounded. The script incorporates multiple strong male and female characters without ever pitting one gender against the other. Lastly, the soundtrack for the film is superior to many of the mediocre, generic scores for other MCU movies. With exceptions like The Incredible Hulk, most Marvel movies from 2008 onward have been accompanied by very lackluster soundtracks, but Captain Marvel's sets itself apart from the others, with an appropriate emphasis on the techno genre that fits into the science fiction atmosphere very well. The use of actual songs is also noteworthy!
Story
Spoilers!
After being captured by a shapeshifting alien race known as the Skrulls, Vers, a member of warrior society called the Kree, escapes her confinement only to struggle with seemingly suppressed memories. Her escape leads her to Earth, where a young Nick Fury works on behalf of S.H.I.E.L.D. Vers hopes to return to her fellow Kree soldiers, who hope to prevent a Skrull takeover of the earth.
The Skrull already have a presence on the planet, however, and the true nature of the Kree-Skrull war is far more morally ambiguous than Vers initially thinks. Vers discovers that she actually was a native of Earth, Carol Danvers, before she was taken by the Kree and trained to be a talented warrior, forced to question her allegiance to her faction in light of the new information. The Tesseract and Ronan the Accuser make appearances, all of which provide context for later events of the MCU.
Intellectual Content
The script lightly touches upon epistemic issues involving memory, but no philosophical theme is developed beyond a superficial level, unlike with Doctor Strange.
Conclusion
Captain Marvel is one of the MCU's best "origin" stories--it is more of a partial origin story, since the movie opens long after Carol obtains her powers--blending comedy, characterization, and lore significance into a mostly coherent whole. It has some sporadic flaws, but the overall product is exactly what the MCU should be delivering at this point. There is a sense in which Captain Marvel is intended to excite fans for Endgame, yet it also remains a great standalone film that celebrates the rich cinematic history of the MCU--plus, it stands alongside Wonder Woman as one of the only superhero movies directed or, in this case, co-directed by a woman! I eagerly await the return of Carol Danvers in Endgame! Thanos' days are numbered.
Content:
1. Violence: There are plenty of fights involving fists, energy blasts, and weaponry, though blood is only seen on some occasions. Nothing shown onscreen is graphic.
2. Profanity: Variations of "shit" are used twice, with other minor expletives scattered throughout.
Friday, March 8, 2019
Mistakes In Approaching The Pauline Writings
In modern evangelicalism, the writings of Paul--more specifically, misrepresentations of Paul's words--are often treated as the pinnacle of Biblical teachings, followed by those of Jesus, and then by those of the Old Testament. In reality, the emphasis should be in reverse order. The Old Testament is the foundation of the teachings of Jesus, with both serving as the foundation of the Pauline books.
If every part of the Bible has divinely inspired authority, no single part is "more true" than another. No truth can possess more veracity than another truth. However, some parts of the Bible are objectively more foundational or important than others. Paul's writings have nothing to hold them up when they are removed from the context of the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, and the gospels. Isolating his contributions from these other books of the Bible inevitably results in an erroneous theology.
Just as damaging as the irrational elevation of Paul over the Old Testament, though, is the systematic distortion of what Paul actually says: Paul is not the sexist, anti-nomian Calvinist that he is often represented as being by many modern evangelicals. Evangelicals rightly decry Catholicism for its heavy reliance on human traditions, when the bulk of their own theologies is nothing but popular straw men of Paul's claims that have become wrongly accepted as his actual positions. When combined with a dangerous overemphasis on Paul, these distortions have horrendous ideological consequences.
If the Pauline books were omitted from the Bible, our understanding of only a few Biblical doctrines would be diminished, while, at the same time, a very large proportion of the passages that are often misinterpreted by Christians and non-Christians alike would be removed. A significant number of the verses that are misquoted or referenced out of context in order to mistakenly argue for some unbiblical position--such as complementarianism, Calvinism, or modesty teachings--are from Paul's books. This, of course, does not invalidate Paul's actual claims, but it is a largely unaddressed fact.
Other asinine theological claims, like the ones that God created everything [1] and that eternal conscious torment awaits all unsaved beings [2], do not originate from misinterpretation of Pauline writings, so not all major Biblical errors come from distortions of Paul's texts. Great care is needed when approaching any Biblical passage precisely because there is not a single Biblical idea that has not been twisted, but some portions of the Bible happen to be more commonly misinterpreted, even though it is often out of sincerity. Despite the manner in which his writings are usually twisted the most frequently, Paul is by no means the misogynistic, deterministic, anti-nomian author evangelicals and atheists alike often make him out to be.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/revelation-20-and-annihilationism.html
If every part of the Bible has divinely inspired authority, no single part is "more true" than another. No truth can possess more veracity than another truth. However, some parts of the Bible are objectively more foundational or important than others. Paul's writings have nothing to hold them up when they are removed from the context of the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, and the gospels. Isolating his contributions from these other books of the Bible inevitably results in an erroneous theology.
Just as damaging as the irrational elevation of Paul over the Old Testament, though, is the systematic distortion of what Paul actually says: Paul is not the sexist, anti-nomian Calvinist that he is often represented as being by many modern evangelicals. Evangelicals rightly decry Catholicism for its heavy reliance on human traditions, when the bulk of their own theologies is nothing but popular straw men of Paul's claims that have become wrongly accepted as his actual positions. When combined with a dangerous overemphasis on Paul, these distortions have horrendous ideological consequences.
If the Pauline books were omitted from the Bible, our understanding of only a few Biblical doctrines would be diminished, while, at the same time, a very large proportion of the passages that are often misinterpreted by Christians and non-Christians alike would be removed. A significant number of the verses that are misquoted or referenced out of context in order to mistakenly argue for some unbiblical position--such as complementarianism, Calvinism, or modesty teachings--are from Paul's books. This, of course, does not invalidate Paul's actual claims, but it is a largely unaddressed fact.
Other asinine theological claims, like the ones that God created everything [1] and that eternal conscious torment awaits all unsaved beings [2], do not originate from misinterpretation of Pauline writings, so not all major Biblical errors come from distortions of Paul's texts. Great care is needed when approaching any Biblical passage precisely because there is not a single Biblical idea that has not been twisted, but some portions of the Bible happen to be more commonly misinterpreted, even though it is often out of sincerity. Despite the manner in which his writings are usually twisted the most frequently, Paul is by no means the misogynistic, deterministic, anti-nomian author evangelicals and atheists alike often make him out to be.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/revelation-20-and-annihilationism.html
Mutuality In Friendship
There is far more talk within egalitarian circles about mutuality within marriage than there is about mutuality within non-marital friendships. Just like marriage, friendship is only ideal when it is grounded in the mutual commitment, love, and honesty of both parties. In fact, since a friendship is by definition a relationship of affection between two people, all friendships require some degree of mutuality to even exist at all. Mutuality is thus the foundation of all actual friendships.
At the core of friendship is a commitment on the part of both parties to the other. This does not mean that one friend will not need to "carry" the other (or the relationship as a whole) through a particular time of difficulty or emotional exhaustion, nor does it mean that some personalities will not seek to initiate more social contact than others. Instead, it means that the affection one party has for the other is in some way mirrored by the recipient of that affection.
Temporary circumstances (or even prolonged ones) of difficulty do not have to extinguish the affection that enables friendships to endure. If friends are genuine in their commitment, they will persist in their bond even when one has to put in more effort than usual. Mutuality not only forms friendships, but it sustains them during the trials both parties confront.
Some friends will naturally be or become closer than others, and those who pursue truth will, in all likelihood, naturally gravitate towards having closer relationships with similar people. Friendship, at its best, is shared between two intellectual, spiritual, and moral equals. In such relationships, the love of truth provides the catalyst for intimate personal bonding, with the shared love of truth allowing for the deepest of mutuality. It is only in both intellectual and emotional intimacy that the most thorough mutuality is observed.
At the core of friendship is a commitment on the part of both parties to the other. This does not mean that one friend will not need to "carry" the other (or the relationship as a whole) through a particular time of difficulty or emotional exhaustion, nor does it mean that some personalities will not seek to initiate more social contact than others. Instead, it means that the affection one party has for the other is in some way mirrored by the recipient of that affection.
Temporary circumstances (or even prolonged ones) of difficulty do not have to extinguish the affection that enables friendships to endure. If friends are genuine in their commitment, they will persist in their bond even when one has to put in more effort than usual. Mutuality not only forms friendships, but it sustains them during the trials both parties confront.
Some friends will naturally be or become closer than others, and those who pursue truth will, in all likelihood, naturally gravitate towards having closer relationships with similar people. Friendship, at its best, is shared between two intellectual, spiritual, and moral equals. In such relationships, the love of truth provides the catalyst for intimate personal bonding, with the shared love of truth allowing for the deepest of mutuality. It is only in both intellectual and emotional intimacy that the most thorough mutuality is observed.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
The Legitimacy Of Female Pastors
One of the most blatant manifestations of evangelical sexism against women is the hostility towards female pastors, despite the fact that this hostility hinges upon a distortion of the Bible and a denial of reason. The Old Testament, even when completely isolated from the New Testament (more specifically, isolated from 1 Timothy 2), refutes the idea that Christianity demands that women be barred from preaching to both men and women. In place of Biblical egalitarianism, mainstream Christianity accepts arbitrary restrictions on female leadership in church, sometimes allowing them to address men as long as they are not "teaching" them.
All such arbitrary opposition to female pastors is rooted in a misunderstanding of Paul's comment in 1 Timothy 2 (or cultural or personal biases), not in an accurate understanding of the Bible. Since God directly and blatantly appointed a woman to preside militarily over Israelite men (Judges 2:16-17 and 4:4-7), it cannot be the case that God condemns women who teach or lead men, as God cannot instruct anyone to sin (James 1:13). Paul's prohibition of female pastors has no legitimacy outside of the church he addressed 1 Timothy to, and, even then, that context would not apply after whatever circumstances led to that command changed.
And yet the majority of church history has been supportive of this nonsense! Restricting an entire gender from preaching to the other gender accomplishes nothing except for hindering the promotion of sound theology. If only men are permitted to theologically educate others, the church's capacity for engaging with theology is significantly diminished. Those who want this to be the state of the modern church endorse something that is ultimately counterproductive to the goals of the church. Unsurprisingly, allegiance to myths and fallacies prevents many from recognizing this.
Men and women are free to disregard cultural norms as they please, especially if those norms demand that they suppress their natural talents, thereby discouraging them from using those talents in the ways that take the largest advantage of them. In defending the illogical and contra-Biblical doctrine of complementarianism, evangelicals are upholding a destructive legalism that contradicts the actual commands of the Bible to not regard extra-Biblical moral beliefs as valid (Deuteronomy 4:2).
May the day arrive soon when it is common for Christians to despise misogynistic ideas about ecclesiology as much as they should despise racist ecclesiological stances. If someone opposed the ordination of non-white pastors, the only Biblical response would be to denounce this racism as the wicked discrimination that it is, for all humans bear God's image (Genesis 1:26-27). The only difference between opposing the ordination of non-whites and the ordination of women is that opposing the latter is more destructive, given that there are more women excluded from the pulpit in America than there are other ethnicities to exclude. Evangelical hostility towards female pastors is nothing but selective indulgence in illicit discrimination.
All such arbitrary opposition to female pastors is rooted in a misunderstanding of Paul's comment in 1 Timothy 2 (or cultural or personal biases), not in an accurate understanding of the Bible. Since God directly and blatantly appointed a woman to preside militarily over Israelite men (Judges 2:16-17 and 4:4-7), it cannot be the case that God condemns women who teach or lead men, as God cannot instruct anyone to sin (James 1:13). Paul's prohibition of female pastors has no legitimacy outside of the church he addressed 1 Timothy to, and, even then, that context would not apply after whatever circumstances led to that command changed.
And yet the majority of church history has been supportive of this nonsense! Restricting an entire gender from preaching to the other gender accomplishes nothing except for hindering the promotion of sound theology. If only men are permitted to theologically educate others, the church's capacity for engaging with theology is significantly diminished. Those who want this to be the state of the modern church endorse something that is ultimately counterproductive to the goals of the church. Unsurprisingly, allegiance to myths and fallacies prevents many from recognizing this.
Men and women are free to disregard cultural norms as they please, especially if those norms demand that they suppress their natural talents, thereby discouraging them from using those talents in the ways that take the largest advantage of them. In defending the illogical and contra-Biblical doctrine of complementarianism, evangelicals are upholding a destructive legalism that contradicts the actual commands of the Bible to not regard extra-Biblical moral beliefs as valid (Deuteronomy 4:2).
May the day arrive soon when it is common for Christians to despise misogynistic ideas about ecclesiology as much as they should despise racist ecclesiological stances. If someone opposed the ordination of non-white pastors, the only Biblical response would be to denounce this racism as the wicked discrimination that it is, for all humans bear God's image (Genesis 1:26-27). The only difference between opposing the ordination of non-whites and the ordination of women is that opposing the latter is more destructive, given that there are more women excluded from the pulpit in America than there are other ethnicities to exclude. Evangelical hostility towards female pastors is nothing but selective indulgence in illicit discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)