Movie Review--Godzilla (2014)

"The arrogance of man is thinking nature is in our control, and not the other way around.  Let them fight."
--Dr. Ishiro Serizawa, Godzilla


It is no exaggeration to say that Gareth Edwards' Godzilla does for its lead creature, to some extent, what Batman Begins did for its titular hero.  At its best, his Godzilla delivers a fairly grounded reintroduction to the classic monster, accompanied by generally solid filmmaking--a product immensely better than the 1998 Roland Emmerich movie of the same name.  The major weakness is the serious lack of development in the human characters beyond Bryan Cranston's, but the successful qualities of the film far outweigh the lackluster ones.

Photo credit: The_JIFF on Visual Hunt
 / CC BY

Production Values

Godzilla is a great example of how a movie with superb effects doesn't have to allow the said effects to overpower every other dimension of the film.  That said, the CGI for Godzilla and the two MUTO (massive unidentified terrestrial organism) "antagonists" is wonderful.  The creatures look far more real than many non-human entities in the MCU, a testament to the quality of the visuals.  The cinematography elevates key moments (the HALO drop and the final fight between Godzilla and the MUTOs particularly stand out in this regard), complementing the epic scale of the events and the integrity of the effects.  Nevertheless, everything leading up to the climax is handled with an exceptional level of restraint, as much of the action before the final fight is shown indirectly or merely implied.

Despite the fact that the focus is on the humans far more often than it is on the monsters, the human characters are collectively shallow.  It is the sequence of in-world events and great use of buildup that provides and sustains the momentum.  This does not mean that none of the performances stand out, of course!  Bryan Cranston is phenomenal in the brief screentime given to him, making the most of a character that dies relatively early in the film.  If his character would have remained alive for the entirety of the movie--or simply even just more of it--the human component of Godzilla could have perhaps rivaled the monster spectacle.

Elizabeth Olsen is certainly underused, but at least she handles her role effectively, considering its limited scope.  Aaron Taylor-Johnson, however, receives the worst of the stunted characterization.  Although he becomes the main character, his characterization remains superficial at best.  It is not that his performance is terrible, but the character simply needed more substance.  Similarly, many of the other actors or actresses, such as Ken Watanabe, don't have a lot to work with.


Story

Spoilers!

In the wake of a mine collapse in the Philippines, a large being (a MUTO) is discovered in a cocoon-like structure.  A second MUTO left a trail leading to the ocean after causing the collapse, ending up in a Japanese nuclear power plant, which it destroys before it enters a feeding state for 15 years.  It leaves after an attempt to end its life, killing numerous personnel in the process.  Godzilla, a third creature, begins hunting the MUTO as it travels towards the west coast of the United States.  Godzilla eventually attacks the two MUTOs at the coast, killing both after a prolonged fight.


Intellectual Content

One of Ken Watanabe's lines suggests that Godzilla is meant to illustrate the futility of human efforts to subjugate the natural world and the non-human creatures contained therein.  As is far too common in cinema, though, the movie doesn't thoroughly explore its best themes (though human helplessness in the face of the MUTOs is explicitly conveyed), relegating them to the sidelines in favor of a stylish narrative.


Conclusion

With stronger characterization and deeper thematic content, Godzilla would have been the towering gold standard for monster movies of this magnitude from the moment of its release.  The flaws of Godzilla are obvious, but they are still eclipsed by the film's spectacle, effects, cimematography, and overall execution.  The final fight alone justifies the broad strokes of everything building up to it.  At the very least, the movie easily surpasses its abysmal shared universe sibling Kong: Skull Island.  Here's to hoping that the impending King of the Monsters is at least as competent as its predecessor!


Content:
 1.  Violence:  The majority of the action is reserved for the second half of the movie, but the finale features a brutal fight involving three giant creatures.  In one scene, Godzilla literally melts the head of another monstrous organism off of its torso using a stream of blue energy from its mouth.
 2.  Profanity:  Words like damnit and shit are used at various times.

The Cruciality Of Mental Health

If one type of health is more important than another, any society that seeks to operate in a way that acknowledges reality should treat the former as if it is in some sense a higher priority than the latter.  However, American culture is structured in a way that, if anything, encourages inverse priorities: though mental health surpasses physical health in importance, physical health is often given more overt attention.  An emphasis on mental health does not have to entail trivializing physical health, but mental health is more foundational to individual wellbeing than its physical counterpart could possibly be.

A person can psychologically thrive even when afflicted with intense physical disorders or discomforts, but a healthy body alone does nothing to soften the potentially devastating consequences of mental illness.  Physical health is not necessarily accompanied by mental health.  The presence of one form of flourishing does not necessitate the presence of the other.  Thus, someone whose body is in optimal condition might nonetheless experience deep suffering on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, some in both secular society and the church tend to regard mental illness as if it is not present in a person's life just because it cannot be physically observed, which helps reinforce norms that discourage people with mental health issues from coming forward to obtain the help they need.  When mental health is not addressed openly, those who suffer from its absence might keep their trials secret, perhaps fearing that they would be misunderstood if they revealed their struggles.

Christians, of all people, should be among the first to emphasize the cruciality of both physical and psychological health, as well as the cruciality of receiving medicational help when necessary.  The importance of mental health exceeds that of physical health, and it deserves to be treated as such.  A person cannot enjoy a thoroughly fulfilling life when their own consciousness is a cauldron of suffering.  A collective society cannot thrive in the deepest sense if psychological health is neglected in favor of physical health--even so, to champion one does not mean that one must disregard the other.

Deconstructing The Calvinist Analogy Of The Rabbit And Vulture

In an effort to illuminate a concept at the heart of Calvinism, Calvinists may appeal to a hypothetical situation featuring a rabbit and a vulture.  Meant to be an analogy for the human heart, the situation fails to even affirm the starting premise of Calvinism (though Calvinism's denial of human free will is objectively false without regard to what the Bible teaches, as I will soon explain).  Any argument for Calvinism is rooted in falsities and assumptions, and the rabbit/vulture analogy is no exception!

The analogy uses the examples of the two different kinds of animals to make an incorrect point about human nature, volition, and moral failings.  In it, a rabbit and a vulture are separately given the opportunity to choose between a pile of carrots and a pile of meat.  According to the Calvinists who use this analogy, the rabbit and vulture can only choose what is compatible with their natures, with rabbits being herbivores and vultures being carnivores.

They mistakenly think that this hypothetical scenario illustrates some deep truth about what it means to be human.  According to them, humans are incapable of choosing righteousness or salvation on their own because of their fallen natures, and thus God must intervene in someone's life, choosing them for redemption, before he or she can actually "choose" God over sin (calling a predestined event a choice is dishonest at best, of course).  Not only is the Calvinist position on human free an ideology that is logically false [1] and contradictory to what the Bible teaches about God [2], but the analogy involving the rabbit and vulture doesn't even establish that the animals themselves will eat the appropriate food.

Even if a rabbit is offered a massive pile of carrots, it might not eat any of the carrots at all; likewise, even if a vulture is offered a mountain of carcasses, it might not eat any of the meat in front of it.  The fact that an animal has the opportunity to eat even a familiar food does not mean that it will actually eat anything to begin with.  The rabbit and vulture analogy fails entirely for these reasons alone!  Even so, there is at least one other major problem with this Calvinist analogy.

The second major error in the analogy is the assumption that if animals act as deterministic puppets, humans do as well.  This is a mere assumption because it relies on the fallacy of composition--that is, it treats humans as if whatever is metaphysically true of animals must also be metaphysically true of humans.  No one can demonstrate that animals are deterministic or capable of making free choices, as the fact that humans are non-telepaths prevents us from even knowing if animals (or, ultimately, other humans) are conscious at all.

The most significant flaw with Calvinism, though, is that I know with absolute certainty that I possess free will [1], regardless of what the Bible or any other person claims.  If I did not have free will, I could not know anything at all because I my worldview would be dictated by some external force (God, nature, etc.) and thus nothing would be certain--not even that a thing is what it is or that my mind exists.  However, logical axioms (as well as any other logically demonstrable truth [3]) and the existence and contents of my own consciousness, in addition to several other things, cannot be illusions.  In order to doubt or deny them, they must be affirmed, which makes them necessary truths that can be proven in full.

It follows from the fact that any fact can be known with absolute certainty that I do have free will, meaning that I can voluntarily deliberate, reason, and choose to think or act in a certain way.  Genuine knowledge is impossible apart from an autonomous will and the affiliated capacity for sound reasoning.  If the Bible denied human free will, then every part of the Bible containing the denial would be false, as my free will is a brute fact that I have immediate confirmation of.  The matter is that simple.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/refuting-assumption-about-free-will.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-contradiction-of-calvinism.html

[3].  See here:
 A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/metaphysics-and-absolute-certainty.html
 B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-extent-of-absolute-certainty.html
 C.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-impossibility-of-total-ignorance.html

Introspection And Christian Spirituality

There is a very particular aspect of a Christian's personal past that he or she could greatly benefit from periodically acknowledging: it can be very sobering and healthy for Christians to reflect from time to time on where they were before committing to Christianity, as well as where they would be if not for that commitment.  What exactly a person may have experienced prior to becoming a Christian and where they would have ended up had they not become a Christian are things that might differ wildly from one individual to the next, but every Christian is capable of having at least a somewhat clear idea of what their lives might look like if they had not made that commitment.

Whatever a person's past or wherever they would be apart from Christianity, though, they are capable of benefitting from such a reflection.  Now, the purpose of this contemplation should not be to foster unnecessary sadness about the past or about possible futures that were never realized, but to solidify a sense of gratefulness for what has been gained.  Furthermore, the difference between the two motivations can be the difference between gratuitous guilt and spiritual freedom.  An individual's subjective state of mind will dictate which of these two outcomes would be actualized, and those with the strength to endure a look within themselves could even find sadness to have an empowering effect.

Regret over the past or sadness over what could have been can certainly be useful motivators for making sound decisions; the desire to avoid mistakes, whether familiar or new, can be a strong impulse.  Nevertheless, there is no reason to impose burdensome things upon oneself if they are likely to hinder one's spiritual or general psychological health.  There is nothing inherently dangerous about dwelling on past mistakes, but it must be done in a way that does not spiritually cripple the person engaging in the contemplation.

Fixating on past errors long after one has moved on could be detrimental to the pursuit of the spiritual thriving that Jesus suggests in John 10:10.  Christian life, if Jesus is referring to a holistic flourishing, is not intended to be an affair devoid of subjective excitement and fulfillment.  Thus, caution is called for when examining one's past, something that possesses immense personal significance--and therefore a great potential to either comfort or frustrate.  This does not mean that reflection on the past is negative, of course!  It simply means that the issue, as with many others, is complex and multi-faceted.

Movie Review--Brightburn

". . . I know I'm something else, something superior."
--Brandon, Brightburn


Brightburn has the advantage of standing apart from many other movies in the superhero genre, merging an inverted version of the classic Superman story with a horror-slasher emphasis.  Some scenes even cleverly mirror specific moments in Man of Steel (a very underrated movie with the misfortune of being followed by several major misteps) before they head in a completely different direction.  In fact, I would recommend watching Man of Steel shortly before or after watching Brightburn.  Brandon, the malicious Superman-like being who arrives on earth in an alien vessel, is no Clark Kent!  Having a unique concept, however, does not elevate Brightburn to anywhere near the status of the best superhero/supervillain movies.  The film ultimately showcases an excellent idea that deserves a better delivery than the one it receives.


Production Values

Brightburn usually reserves its special effects for scenes involving dramatic kills, with the deaths becoming more frequent and violent throughout the second half of the movie.  The CGI is well-placed; instead of offering another effects-laden spectacle, Brightburn focuses more on the buildup to and the intensity of Brandon's misdeeds.  Because of this, the first half is very much a slow burn start to a story that eventually leads to brutal murders.  The performances, rather than the effects, carry the film prior to the deaths, also adding some needed weight when the violence begins.

Elizabeth Banks and David Denman contribute a great deal to the movie's successes, portraying parents (albeit not biological parents) whose dream of raising a child is threatened by Brandon's increasingly strange behaviors.  Their relationship as both lovers and concerned parents is realized rather well from the beginning onward.  Of course, without a solid performance from Jackson Dunn, who acts Brandon himself, the movie wouldn't even begin to take flight.  Thankfully, he plays the character with all of the curiosity and malice needed to make the most of how the script handles its evil Superman figure.  The script hardly gives him the material he needs to fashion a complex, deep character, though.


Story

Mild spoilers!

An extraterrestrial pod lands near the home of the Breyer family in Kansas, carrying an alien being that resembles an ordinary human baby.  Naming him Brandon, the couple raises him as if he is an adopted child, but he starts to act if he is drawn to a secret compartment in the barn concealing the ship.  He becomes deeply upset when he learns his true identity, but I will refrain from spoiling anything further!


Intellectual Content

For a film that is intended to defy genre norms, Brightburn doesn't develop its themes beyond the baseline, generic extent that is needed to even make the film an inverted Superman story.  There is so much more that could have been done with the character of Brandon.  Near the very end, he claims that he wants to do what is right, but there is scarcely any explicit internal conflict in the earlier scenes, and it is unclear if he was merely lying.  Brightburn would have greatly benefited from a deeper examination of what it means for someone with the powers of a superhuman savior figure to fall into darkness or be born a psychopath.

Some people erroneously think that a natural orientation towards their values (i.e. a conscience that leans in a specific direction) is etched into the minds of all intelligent creatures, when humanity itself has always been in significant moral disunity in large part due to the utter subjectivity of conscience.  If even humans do not share the same value frameworks, it should not be surprising for another species, hypothetical or actual, to have different values or disregard human preferences regarding the use of its abilities.  The film simply neglects the most significant ramifications of its central premise.


Conclusion

Brightburn might fall short as far as its thematic content is concerned, but it might still be worth watching for anyone who wishes to see a brutal, unconventional take on the Superman story.  It is the execution that falters, not the conceptual foundation, as the latter is quite strong.  Indeed, one of the only aspects of Suicide Squad that is in any way noteworthy (in a positive sense) is the reason Amanda Waller wants to form her team: she wants to have a defense force ready in case another Superman appears and does not share the values of comtemporary America.  It took a group outside of DC to make a movie that actually depicts that idea!  Given that a credits scene sets up characters for possible sequels and that the movie has certainly not exhausted the potential for Brandon as a character, we might soon see a Brightburn cinematic universe that rectifies some of its initial mistakes.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  Several scenes are fairly gruesome, far exceeding the violence in a typical superhero or supervillain film.  In one scene, a woman's eye is pierced by a glass shard, which she pulls out, producing blood.  In another scene, a man's jaw is slammed so hard against a steering wheel that it hangs in an unnatural manner.  Some of the kills are quite bloody!
 2.  Profanity:  Multiple characters utter "shit" or variations of "fuck."
 3.  Sexuality:  The opening scene shows Brandon's "parents" engaging in foreplay.  Later on, Mr. Breyer discusses sexuality with Brandon in a very open manner and in a surprisingly positive way, but his explanation is very sexist, as it describes men as having inherently high sex drives by virtue of being men and also ignores female sexuality.  Numerous societal and individual problems have been created as a result of these two myths about sexuality.

A Refutation Of Universalism

Many who reject the fallacious and unbiblical doctrine of eternal conscious torment decry it as unjust (according to Biblical standards, it is [1]), but similar charges are sometimes leveled against annihilationism.  Some object to eternal conscious torment and annihilationism alike, regarding both as unjust ideas that distort God's character.  Christian universalists--that is, those who hold that God will ultimately redeem every deviant soul--might even try to defend this idea by appealing to the Bible.

However, the Bible does not even suggest in any way that universal salvation is true.  Instead, the Bible clearly and repeatedly describes the destiny of unsaved beings (with a few potential exceptions mentioned in Revelation 20:10) as death (Ezekiel 18:4, Romans 6:23) and destruction (Matthew 10:28, 2 Peter 2:6).  The idea that eventual salvific reconciliation to God awaits every fallen being is utterly contrary to the Bible.  Without even searching for verses that allegedly support universalism, one can easily find numerous verses that consistently predict that the unsaved will suffer annihilation of mind and body.

Even if the Bible did not actually teach annihilationism--even if words like destruction, death, and perishing referred to eternal conscious torment (though it is asinine to suppose in any way that they do)--it certainly does not teach universalism!  Matthew 7:13-14 alone, even when isolated completely from the rest of the Bible, disqualifies universal salvation from being anything more than an ideology that is blatantly rejected by Scripture.  If the masses are headed for destruction and eternal life will only be received by a relatively small number of people, as Matthew 7 says, salvation is not a future reality for many people.

Universalism holds a great appeal for some, but this appeal is rooted in nothing but strictly subjective, arbitrary preferences, none of which are in any way capable of confirming whether something is just or unjust.  Universal salvation cannot be established by the Bible, nor can it be defended by reason.  If the Bible is true, annihilationism (with the aforementioned small handful of possible exceptions) is the accurate model of the ultimate fate of the wicked.  Neither inevitable salvation nor endless pain awaits legions of unsaved people.  Instead, the banishment from existence and the forfeiture of eternal life is the basic joint penalty for sin.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-irrelevance-of-mercy-to.html

Western Civilization Is Not Evidence For God's Existence

Asinine arguments for God's existence are often more damaging to theism's grip on a society than atheists themselves are.  The vast majority of the historical and comtemporary arguments for the existence of God are nothing but inept, petty attempts at "proving" a conclusion that has been accepted beforehand.  There are also statements about various subjects that are implied to have significance for the issue of God's existence, such as when conservatives speak of Western (more specifically, American) civilization as if it helps affirm the presence of God in human history.  The existence and functioning of Western civilization is nothing but a red herring to the subject of God's existence at best.

The proponents of this fallacious implied argument regard the very continuation of Western society as if it somehow confirms not only that there is a God, but also that God is a personal, moral being that prescribes Western values.  Even when one ignores the non sequitur fallacies inherent in this argument, it relies on assumed premises.  After all, any other established culture could have used the same argument in hopes of persuading people that its most commonly praised deity exists, with each society considering its own arbitrary values proven valid by its successes.

In order to make this argument, a Westerner must already regard the values of his or her culture as authoritative.  However, values can only be grounded in the existence of a deity, so one must prove that (1) a deity exists, that (2) the deity at least likely has a moral nature, and that there is at least strong evidence that (3) the deity has revealed its moral nature to humans before one can have a basis for approving of a particular set of values.  Conscience and social norms are both irrelevant to moral epistemology and often dangerous, as they easily compel ignorant people to follow a distorted form of morality.  Ironically, conservatives rely on the very subjectivity and tradition they claim do not ground morality when they laud their values.

There is also, of course, the fact that the West has never truly operated in a thoroughly Christian manner.  Some point to broad areas where Western and Biblical values are similar, but the true measure of a culture's Biblicality lies in the specifics, and this is precisely where the idea that the West is a champion of most Biblical values fails [1].  If a Christian claims to genuinely want Biblical values to be present in the West, they must ironically refuse to endorse many of the ethical stances taken by the modern church.  The twin scourges of anti-nomianism and legalism have devoured the church for centuries, rendering much of its moral teachings unbiblical as a result.  Western civilization's values overlap with actual Biblical morality only at selective points.

Despite these facts, Christian apologists and historians dramatically overhype the significance of Western culture, with some going so far as to pretend like the West at least helps establish the existence of God.  In actuality, nothing at all about Western civilization is even mere evidence for God's existence.  The stupidity of many apologists or theologians does not mean that God does not exist; it merely means that almost all of their arguments for God's existence are refuted in full by a simple logical analysis.  Furthermore, there is only one way to prove the existence of a deity: demonstrating the necessity of an uncaused cause that is responsible for bringing contingent existents [2] into being.  The popular Christian apologists have yet to admit this, but its veracity is not lessened.

[1].  Among other things, the West endorses a deeply unbiblical justice system and sexual prudery, both of which are affronts to Biblical Christianity.  American/Western values only ever connected with those of the Bible in an incomplete way, and there are always examples of major disparities between the two at any given moment in history.

[2].  Not everything besides God that exists is contingent on something else.  The laws of logic and space are the only two things that exist due to the impossibility of their nonexistence, whereas even God himself could not exist apart from the laws of logic, without which he could not even be what he is.  See here for more elaboration:
 A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
 B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
 C.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html

The Intellectual Affects The Personal

Nothing about possessing intellectual depth and personal depth at the same time is impossible, and yet many continue to treat the two as natural enemies.  The intellectual and personal dimensions of human nature are not inherently at war, and there is no use in pitting one against the other because they are not exclusive to begin with.  However, one does always impact the other, regardless of how strong the other is.

It is, of course, entirely possible to engage in philosophy without one's personal preferences interfering; all that is required to do so is an adherence to reason.  However, the inverse is not true: it is impossible for one to engage in philosophy without one's personal life being affected by it in at least some small way.  The process of pursuing truth will inevitably affect the personal side of the person involved in that pursuit.

The personal never has to overpower the intellectual, but the intellectual will always impose itself on the personal to at least some small extent.  A person's worldview determines how they behave, react, and approach the circumstances of their life.  As such, one cannot escape the personal consequences of holding to a certain worldview by denying or failing to acknowledge them.

Human existence is an inherently personal one.  This fact, like most others, is often misunderstood by laypeople and academia alike.  It does not mean that we are incapable of achieving a truly rationalistic worldview, nor does it mean that we will invariably allow our personal desires to lead us away from demonstrable truths.  Instead, it simply means that each of us must bear the personal consequences of our worldviews, desirable or not.

The journey towards understanding as much of reality as can be verified, given one's epistemic limitations, is a thoroughly transformative one.  A concern for truth will change a person as he or she reasons various facts out, and this change will unavoidably affect how that person lives.  Indeed, the intersection of the intellectual and personal can be the most subjectively fulfilling part of existence when verifiable certainty collides with passion.  There is no greater flourishing that can be enjoyed than that which comes about when both central aspects of human nature are integrated properly.

Sexual Attraction And Friendship

American culture has in recent years become more willing to admit than men and women can be intimate but platonic friends, and yet it is still rare to find someone who affirms that even men and women who are sexually attracted to each other can be close friends.  Many still at least live as if they believe that the latter is not true.  Though the implications are almost always ignored, this mistaken idea has horrendously unsound ramifications for marriage.  In fact, no one can simultaneously believe that 1) spouses who experience sexual attraction towards each other can also enjoy nonsexual forms of intimacy and that 2) unmarried men and women cannot be close friends if either harbors sexual feelings for the other.

Anyone who thinks that men and women cannot be friends if sexual attraction is present can only be consistent if they also think that spouses cannot truly be friends.  Both beliefs are utterly false, of course, but the emphasis here is on the fact that no one can consistently believe the former without completely accepting the latter.  If more people realized this, perhaps no one would ever deny that sexuality and the affection of friendship are not locked in a zero-sum game where the presence of one necessitates the absence of the other.

Regardless of whether hypothetical sexual attraction exists within a friendship or a marriage, it does not have to prevent two people from developing, maintaining, and enjoying a relationship of true affection.  Only a fallacious, reductionistic view of humankind would ever regard anything else as the case.  Sexual attraction and the personal affection of friendship are in no way exclusive.  Indeed, the ideal marriage for many people features both.

A marriage is a genuine, mutual friendship with a distinctly sexual component if the couple wishes (as a marriage where one or all spouses are asexuals who are disinterested in sex is no less valid).  In such a relationship, there is no clash between personal love and sexual feelings being experienced at once despite the fact that they are directed towards the same person.  Though it is almost never acknowledged as such, a strong marriage that encompasses sexual attraction is the most common example of how deep affection and sexual feelings can coexist.

It is entirely possible to feel sexual attraction towards a person and not allow it to interfere with a thriving relationship.  It is entirely possible to feel sexual attraction towards a person and not experience it in a way that detracts from the platonic behavioral side of the relationship.  It is entirely possible to feel sexual attraction for someone and still cherish the whole of their being.  Sexuality is nothing to fear or worship, and the church and the secular world as a whole have yet to admit both of these truths at once.

The Mad Queen

"I am Daenerys Stormborn of the blood of Old Valyria, and I will take what is mine; with fire and blood I will take it."
--Daenerys Targeryen, Game of Thrones (season two, episode six)


Historically speaking, women have hardly been provided with the opportunity to commit the same acts of savagery men are often asssociated with due to millennia of fallacious social conditioning.  Thanks to asinine conservative traditions, brutality is expected from men (which is more misandrist than many of the ideas conservatives war against), while women are regarded as naturally innocent beings who must be sheltered from the violence of the world.  These sexist stereotypes invariably result in a great deal of emotional and even physical harm of men--after all, treating men brutally is erroneously seen as less severe than treating women brutally--but they also exempt women from a great deal of just criticism.

Men are not naturally prone to violence, and women are not naturally prone to peacefulness.  All of a person's behaviors reduce down to either expressions of individuality or submission to cultural conditioning [1]; logical necessity dictates that these are the only two legitimate causes of a person's actions.  An integral part of genuine feminism/egalitatianism is acknowledging that women are no less capable of injustice and cruelty than men are--something that Game of Thrones repeatedly affirms.  The most recent episode of the eighth and final season, titled The Bells, provides an enormous example of this when Daenerys Targeryen finally yields to genocidal impulses.

Daenerys, her true goal of her conquests already exposed as the personal acquisition of power, rides her dragon through the city of King's Landing as it indiscriminately burns civilians and soldiers.  The injustice of this is heightened due to the fact that King's Landing had already surrendered.  The bells of the city ring beforehand, signifying the surrender of her enemy's army--yet she proceeds to incinerate numerous people and structures anyway.  Even some of her most staunch allies observe in shock and horror as she openly acts exactly like the kind of tyrant she would claim to despise.

Aerys II Targeryen, Daenerys' father and the Mad King, only attempted to burn King's Landing, but his daughter actually does the deed.  It is not as if this snap came out of nowhere.  Daenerys was already a despicable tyrant by Biblical standards long before season eight of Game of Thrones, having demanded unjust forms of tortorous executions and thus proven herself a thorough hypocrite in earlier seasons.  Her massacre of the people of King's Landing was hardly out of character in one sense.  She might have had better motives than many in Westeros and Essos in earlier seasons, but she already deserved to die just as her former husband, as well as numerous other characters, did, even before her genocidal dragon ride.

Of course, Daenerys' descent into madness is not the first time that Game of Thrones has portrayed the abusive actions of women.  Jon Snow's girlfriend, Ygritte, attempted to murder him by repeatedly shooting arrows at him when he left her for the sake of protecting the realm.  Unnamed women sexually assaulted Theon Greyjoy by fondling his body without his consent while he was in a disoriented state of mind when he woke up after being confined by Ramsay Bolton, something that many people are too stupid to even identify as sexual assault.  Cersei Lannister has demonstrated many times that she is willing to do whatever is necessary to expand or solidify her power, no matter how unjust: she even blew up an entire building full of innocents.

There is not a single act of cruelty that a man can carry out that a woman cannot, and atrocities like illicit genocide, illicit torture, and sexual abuse [2] are no exceptions.  Both complementarians and egalitarians of the religious or secular kinds often stupidly ignore this truth at best, outright denying it at worst.  As shocking as seeing them might be for some, there is a need for far more examples of tyrannical women like Daenerys Targeryen in entertainment [3] precisely because far too many people are not intelligent enough to realize this fact on their own.

If anything, The Bells has at least given viewers an opportunity to see a major power within the world of entertainment acknowledge that no amount of patriarchal deception can change the fact that women, like men, can choose to commit the worst of sins.  A person's moral failings are not dictated by their gender, and contrary ideas are inherently, inescapably misandrist or misogynistic.  Consistent egalitarians (i.e., true egalitarians) do not pretend like one gender is naturally more oriented towards empathy or violence, for gender is irrelevant to the human capacity for destructive behaviors.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-alleged-differences-between-men-and.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/when-women-rape-men.html

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-need-for-female-protagonists-and.html

Jesus And Inanna

One of the most fallacious claims of either Jesus mythicists or those who deny the evidence for the resurrection of the historical Jesus is the assertion that early Christians plagiarized the stories of pagan deities.  Inanna, the Sumerian goddess of war and sexuality, is even said to have been crucified before being resurrected.  If one examines the stories without any assumptions, it becomes clear that this claim misinterprets the text and fallaciously interprets the resurrection story of Jesus found in the Bible.  Yes, this topic is far more mainstream and generic than the subjects I prefer to tackle (it is also one of few areas that renowned Christian apologists would often handle correctly), but it is still important nonetheless.

In the story of Inanna's descent, the titular goddess ventures to the underworld to visit her sister Erishkegal, and she is told to remove one article of clothing in order to pass through each gate along the way.  By the time that Inanna finds her sister, she is naked.  She is soon turned into a corpse and subsequently hung on a hook, though she is ultimately resurrected after her personal messenger alerts her father.  Now, there are definite similarities between the resurrection stories of Inanna and Jesus, but there are also key distinctions.

For instance, Jesus is plainly described as dying in the same external world inhabited by living humans, not in an underworld of any sort.  Jesus' death did not occur within a realm beyond that occupied by ordinary people.  Then there is the false claim that Inanna, like Jesus, was crucified.  However, the atrocity of Roman crucifixion entailed the nailing of a live man or woman to a cross, not the hanging of a corpse upon a mere hook.  Victims of Roman crucifixion were also stripped naked against their will prior to being attached to their crosses, whereas Inanna voluntarily surrendered her garments as she made her way to Erishkegal.

Though some superficial similarities between the story of Jesus (at least the Biblical story of Jesus) and that of Inana do exist--for instance, both figures are denuded and killed before resurrecting--the differences are obvious and major.  The two are far from sharing the same details.  Indeed, the only way to overlook this is to assume that one narrative copies the other.

There is a more significant truth, however: even if the story of Jesus matched the story of Inanna or another deity perfectly, it would not follow from them sharing identical features that Jesus was not a historical figure or that he did not actually resurrect.  The veracity of the Biblical story of Jesus does not stand or fall on whether other resurrection stories have similar or even identical details.  When this fact is accepted, the idea that Jesus' death and resurrection resemble those of pagan deities can be recognized as the red herring that it is.

Proverbs 31 Contradicts Complementarianism

The woman described in Proverbs 31 is ironically lauded by many complementarian women, who tend to look down upon women working outside of the home, as a role model.  In spite of this, the very inclusion of Proverbs 31 in the Bible shows that Christianity does not prescribe one specific lifestyle for women (or for men).  Nothing at all in the passage is ambiguous or complicated, and yet many complementarians still fail to recognize that the final chapter of Proverbs is blatantly egalitarian.

Even a cursory reading of Proverbs 31 reveals that the Bible is entirely supportive of women working away from their families and homes in a way that radiates industry (31:14-17) and strength (31:25).  The woman of Proverbs 31 is autonomous, entrepreneurial, and willing to generously share the rewards she earns for herself.  In contrast, her husband is not described as being as physically active or industrious as she is, establishing that the Bible does not demand that men live as if they must provide for their family (it is astonishing that almost no one comments on how sexist this idea is towards men).  Neither men nor women have any specific Biblical obligations to work inside or outside of their homes.

Proverbs 31 is not the only part of the Bible that contradicts this particular aspect of complementarian nonsense, of course.  The very fact that the Bible does not condemn working inside or outside of the home already refutes the idea that Christianity holds that women belong at home and men belong in an external workplace (Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4; see here [1]), but Proverbs 31 is addressed far more than Biblical moral epistemology is.  Either one refutes at least part of complementarian ideology on its own; the fact that the ramifications of one are glossed over despite receiving so much attention confirms the myopic tendency of evangelicals to rely on inherited assumptions.

Women are just as capable of functioning in the corporate sphere as men are, and men are just as capable of functioning in the domestic sphere as women are--when affirming that women are free to live outside of traditional boundaries, egalitatians need to affirm that men are just as free to live outside of traditional boundaries.  The genuine liberation of one gender from sexist notions is always accompanied by the liberation of the other gender from its own sexist shackles.  Proverbs 31 is merely one of many Biblical passages that denies legalistic shackles placed on both men and women alike.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/identifying-sin.html

Game Review--ARK: Survival Evolved (Android)

"Watch out for sand.  It's course and it gets everywhere."
--Loading screen, ARK: Survival Evolved


ARK: Survival Evolved is one of the most ambitious mobile games thus far, showcasing how smartphone gaming is truly capable of delivering console-sized experiences (yes, the loading screens in ARK do reference Star Wars quotes).  It is a port of the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One game of the same name, and a free one at that, albeit one that requires the viewing of ads in order to access certain content (one can pay to have ads removed).  While the game is a very significant technical accomplishment, ARK: Survival Evolved's severe difficulty could easily drive players away out of frustration.  In other words, it is very challenging.

Production Values

As far as production values are concerned, the game is a very impressive achievement by default because, as mentioned above, it was not ported over from the era of the GameCube or PlayStation 2, as some previous mobile games have been (such as Prince of Persia: Warrior Within); it is a PlayStation 4 and Xbox One game that has been almost entirely moved to the Android, with some expected differences in the visuals.  Despite the obvious reduction in the quality of the graphics, ARK: Survival Evolved looks great on smartphones given that it is literally a current generation console game running on a smartphone, and the frame rate remains consistent the vast majority of the time.

The audio is of a more mixed quality.  Various sounds might randomly cut out, only to resume at fairly unpredictable intervals.  This can happen at any time: during combat, foraging expeditions, or inventory analysis.  When audio glitches are not present, though, the sound is clear and complements the visuals well.  There is no dialogue during the hours of grinding in single player, as the survivor must traverse an isolated island alone.


Gameplay

The single player side of ARK is designed to serve as a sort of tutorial that slowly teaches the precise mechanics of the game, but competitive and cooperative multiplayer modes are also available for people who want variety or quicker progression.  In either case, players must gather miscellaneous items for survival purposes, earning experience points and unlocking engram points upon completing certain objectives.  Engram points can be spent on engrams, permanent crafting blueprints that allow for the creation of new objects (weapons, huts, and so on).  One can even obtain the ability to ride tamed dinosaurs and design firearms.

For the most part, the controls are set up very well, considering that ARK is a console game relocated to a device used almost entirely via a touch screen.  Still, there are still times where the controls are not adequately explained, and trial and error might be called for to merely discover how to perform a particular task (when I first switched to from first person to third person by accident, I had no idea how to switch back).  Even when someone knows which virtual buttons are supposed to trigger which activities, sometimes the touch screen won't consistently register the inputs.  This can result in unnecessary deaths when you can't run away from a predatory creature.

Whenever a player dies, his or her items (except crafted or gifted items if certain settings are chosen) are dropped in a small satchel-like bag that expires after a fixed period of time.  Fortunately, a blatant green beam marks every location where one has died.  As the screenshot below evidences, dying can be a very common experience.  Players might die repeatedly in the same area as they simply try to recover their inventory from the initial death.  Perhaps the biggest problem with the mobile and console versions of ARK is the gratuitous difficulty even when playing on easy mode.

Yes, ARK has some fairly realistic elements, with vulnerability being one of them.  Meat will spoil, playable characters will suffer from exposure to heat and to the cold, and the characters will even defecate.  However, the looming possibility of rapid or numerous, consecutive deaths will almost certainly frustrate even committed players.  Even when playing on easy mode, the player's survivor respawns almost naked, which means all protective clothing must be re-equipped or, on higher difficulties, crafted all over again.  This, of course, only makes the survivor susceptible to quicker deaths.

Story

There is not much of an explicit narrative to ARK, but there is a general sequence of events as far as objectives go.  An unnamed man or woman wakes up on a strange island populated by dinosaurs and other ancient or exotic creatures, and he or she collects items and builds structures, clothes, and weapons while trying to endure the elements.  Players complete objectives that entail hunting a specific number and type of creatures, building structures using different materials, and equipping complete sets of crafted clothing.


Intellectual Content

Premeditated strategy is very necessary if one wants to intentionally survive for long in ARK.  Progress must often be made in incremental steps, and players ideally need to be willing to exercise caution and perform risky tasks at the right times.


Conclusion

That ARK is a free-to-play mobile version of a massive console game is definitely a sufficient reason for many people to play it.  However, since ARK's depth is unfortunately rivaled by its difficulty, each player will have to decide for himself or herself if the former makes enduring the latter worthwhile.  If one can tolerate bursts of repeated deaths and can put up with prolonged grinding, then the mobile version of ARK: Survival Evolved can offer a rewarding experience, but anyone looking for a casual game is better off settling for something else.


Content:
1. Violence:  Hacking away at creatures can removed portions of their skin and leave bloody wounds.  Some creatures, especially raptors, are highly dangerous and must be evaded or killed lest they viciously attack the player's survivor.

The Exception To Abortion's Immorality

Convenience, ignorance, and stubbornness are never logically or morally valid reasons for committing an immoral act, and the majority of reported cases of abortion are motivated by one of these three things.  Nevertheless, there is one situation where a mother does not sin in choosing an abortion, even if she is fully aware that it results in the death of an actual human being.  This exceptional scenario, of course, exists when the life of a mother and the life of a baby cannot both be preserved at the same time.

Many aspects of abortion are far from logically, scientifically, and Biblically unclear.  The issue of abortion to save a mother's life, however, is usually perceived to be at least somewhat more ambiguous than whether or not a fetus is a baby, and with good reason.  It is a very self-contained matter, with some who espouse pro-life ideology conceding that it deserves more than a casual dismissal.

In very specific scenarios, the process of carrying or giving birth to a baby might kill the mother.  Some Christians are willing to admit that there is a difference between casually murdering an unborn baby and killing it in order to save the mother's life--if that is truly what is necessary to save her--but what often goes completely unaddressed is the fact that there is no Biblical obligation at all for a mother to die so that her unborn child can live (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32).  While self-sacrifice and putting another person ahead of oneself are certainly good on the Christian worldview, no woman is in moral error if she opts to prolong her own life at the expense of her baby's.

There are Christians who would quickly point to Jesus' self-sacrificial willingness to die as if it is something that all people should emulate, but Jesus was never obligated to allow himself to die.  It follows from this that no one else is either: one supererogatory act cannot make another supererogatory act obligatory.  The self-sacrifice argument for mothers always choosing to die so that their babies can live fails because of this.

This truth needs to be emphasized, but so does the fact that abortion in other instances is not legitimized by this exception.  That a mother whose pregnancy endangers her life can legitimately choose to terminate the baby to save herself does not mean that abortion itself is not inherently wrong under other circumstances.  It only means that no one is morally required to suffer or die on another person's behalf.

A Myth About Obligation To Family

Among the many delusions of Western society sits the idea that all of one's immediate family members always deserve one's affection and commitment, no matter how incorrigible and unworthy of that affection they are.  If a person does not choose a relationship--and, short of some unprovable pre-conception consciousness, no one can choose their parents or siblings--they are not obligated to treat that person any differently than they are obligated to treat someone that they do not know.  There is no way to even argue against the statements that follow without appeals to the useless subjectivity of conscience or to the arbitrary constructs of tradition.

Not only is a family member whom one did not choose (i.e., a parent or sibling) not owed some special affection by merely existing in a biological relationship with oneself, but the idea that family ties automatically entail an obligation of loyalty is incredibly destructive.  Because of this myth, abusive parents and siblings are even able to emotionally manipulate people into remaining in harmful relationships.  The abused party feels as if he or she is engaging in some sort of immoral betrayal by turning away from the abusive family member, when there is nothing Biblically wrong with despising or severing such relationships to begin with.

When family members are regarded as people first and only then as family, the aforementioned unhealthy forms of emotional attachment can be avoided entirely.  Avoiding unnecessary pain is a helpful consequence of not defaulting to positive attitudes towards parents and siblings simply because they are parents and siblings, but the more foundational issue is the fact that the moral value of general family relations has been dramatically overhyped throughout human history.  Reason and Scripture alike confirm this.

Like every other human being, a family member whom one did not choose cannot claim that personal affection or commitment is owed to them unless they have first earned it.  It does not follow from having a parent or sibling that they deserve unconditional affection by default.  Lest conservative Christians, who are known to gratuitously emphasize family, think that the Bible commands that one invest a special degree of effort into relationships with one's parents or siblings, it must also be affirmed that the Bible never prescribes this kind of indiscriminate, blind familial affection.

If a family member is unwilling to live for reason and morality, there is nothing immoral about allowing the relationship to fade or diminish.  The only legitimate reason to invest in all members of one's family at all times, regardless of whether that investment is deserved, is mere self-interest.  The very Bible that conservatives claim emphasizes family never does so to the extent that they often pretend [1], and many people have suffered false guilt and voluntarily remained in hurtful relationships because of their lies.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/a-lie-about-family.html

Legality's Insignificance

One of the most dangerous ideas that could take hold of a culture is the notion that the legality of a matter entails a moral obligation to act in a certain way.  If someone disputes this, he or she must by necessity argue against both reason and morality, as there is no such thing as a legitimate state that bases its laws in anything other than morality itself (and reason by extension).  Legality pertains strictly to the political laws of a given state, while morality pertains to actual obligations that exist independent of human governments.  Many people argue for specific laws by appealing to popularity, alleged consequences, and conscience, but each of these is irrelevant to whether a law is just or unjust.

A legal system is only valid if its laws completely overlap with moral laws, without deviating in one way or another.  It is an inherent injustice for laws to restrict that which there is no obligation to avoid or, alternatively, for them to require that which there is no obligation to carry out.  Where there is no obligation, every individual is free to live as they please.  Personal liberty is all that should govern all such aspects of life.  If one does not mistake subjective preferences for indicators of moral truth, no offense against reason has been committed, and if one does not fail to uphold an actual moral obligation, no evil has been committed.

While many prefer laws based upon some sort of utilitarian approach--both conservative and liberal ideas about legality hinge upon consequences, after all--lawmakers forfeit any right to submission that they have as soon as they legislate something that deviates from the limited obligations of governments.  Legal rules possess validity solely if they correspond to ethical truths.  Apart from morality itself, there is no basis for laws, and, consequently, the only laws with legitimate authority are those in alignment with actual moral obligations.

Humans have the capacity to make autonomous decisions, and they are morally permitted to use this freedom in whatever ways they wish as long as no moral laws are violated in the process.  However, there is no error whatsoever in violating any of the judicial/political laws which are not rooted in the aforementioned moral laws.  Reason reveals that in such cases, and in such cases alone, there is no higher authority than one's own subjective preferences.

Legality, in itself, is utterly meaningless.  Either there is no such thing as morality, in which case laws have no authority, or there is such a thing as morality, in which case only laws that perfectly align with this morality should be obeyed.  Regardless of whether moral nihilism or moral objectivism is true, legality has no inherent significance, and thus only a fool would hold that laws are authoritative by default after seriously contemplating the matter.

The Two Testaments

The Old and New Testaments, usually characterized as if they are thoroughly incoherent, fit together more intimately than many people recognize.  Nevertheless, some inside and outside of the church pretend like a person must trivialize one to declare allegiance to the other.  American Christendom has practically abandoned the Old Testament in favor of the New.  Those who subscribe to evangelical Christianity often attempt to understand everything in the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, but the fact of the matter is that the only legitimate approach is often the exact opposite of this.

The New Testament is the illusory refuge of evangelical Christians, whose general incompetence with handling Old Testament texts with regards to ethics is even known among non-Christians (especially when it comes to Mosaic Law).  They flee from the clarity of the Pentateuch in favor of the vague, incomplete commandments of the New Testament.  In an effort to distance themselves from Mosaic Law and what they subjectively deem "offensive" actions of God, they posit that the New Testament somehow makes the majority, if not the whole, of the Old Testament's instructions about issues like criminal justice obsolete (a stance that entails massive internal contradictions [1]).

Ironically, claiming that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament at best only results in a contradiction that would nullify the New Testament itself, as it consistently references and hinges upon the Old Testament.  Jesus, Paul, and other New Testament authors quote and allude to the historical and moral components of the Old Testament quite frequently.  If the Old Testament can be discarded, it follows that the New Testament, for which the Old Testament serves as an inescapable foundation, must likewise be discarded.

The Old Testament can be true if the New Testament is not, but the New Testament is neither correct nor properly understandable apart from the Old Testament.  Rather than accept this, evangelicals tend to act as if the inverse is true.  Their distortions cannot change the fact that the New Testament stands or falls on the validity of the Old.  If a disparity between the two existed, the Old Testament would not be the problem.  The New Testament would instead be the problematic portion of the Bible.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-consequences-of-non-theonomy.html

How Logic's Existence Refutes Solipsism

Solipsism is almost inevitably treated by laypeople and academic philosophers alike as if its epistemological and metaphysical variations cannot be refuted.  It is indeed true that many people do not know how to falsify it in full, but this does not mean that the refutation is not simple.  It is entirely possible to prove the existence of matter [1], though doing so is more complex and challenging than it might seem: logic might be simple, but the information one must sort through using logic is often vast.  However, no one needs to go so far as to actually demonstrate the existence of even a single physical thing to disprove all forms of solipsism.

The laws of logic, which encompass every axiom and every conclusion that follows from its premises, exist in the complete absence of all other things.  Since the nonexistence of logic relies on a contradiction that actually necessitates the existence of logic, it is impossible for logic to not exist (for instance, truth, which is a function of logic, cannot not exist, as the absence of truth is still a truth).  If logic must exist without regard to anything else, then it must exist outside of and independent of my mind.  Only a very small number of people are likely to ever discover how logic itself refutes solipsism, of course, but this refutation of solipsism is nonetheless easier for many to discover on their own than proving the existence of matter is.  In actuality, however, the vast majority of people who are not skeptical about the existence of matter mistakenly think logic is dependent on some other thing.

The existence of logic, though, cannot refute solipsism if it hinges on something other than itself, as an example clarifies.  If logic depended on, say, God for its own existence (though it is utterly impossible for it to depend on anything other than itself), this would not establish that logic exists independent of my own mind.  Although it seems unlikely, the uncaused cause and my mind might be one and the same, which would mean--according to this inept argument--that logic still does not exist outside of my mind.  In other words, if logic depended on something other than my mind for its existence, I could not even know if my mind is ultimately synonymous with that very thing, which means the entire argument collapses based upon the assumption that the two are distinct.

Theists who argue for a "divine solipsism" where nothing exists outside of or without the mind of God--which is exactly what the metaphysics of almost every historical and current Christian reduces down to--cannot consistently argue against any other kind of solipsism.  An uncaused cause exists, and so does my mind, as long as I perceive anything at all; there is still no proof that I am not responsible for creating the physical world and then banishing my memories of doing so.  Theism is logically necessary, but this neither means that to prove theism is to prove the existence of another mind nor that God can create logic itself.

Once a person realizes that God exists and that logic exists independent of God (or matter or any other distinct existent), it becomes clear that logic is even more metaphysically significant and foundational than God.  Without God, there could be no creation, but without logic, there could be no God (as God could not even be God apart from the law of identity).  This in no way trivializes the fact that matter and contingent minds depend on God for their own existence, but it does affirm that logic is the ultimate metaphysical existent.

Oftentimes, the most significant truths have yet to even be introduced to public consciousness.  Despite the fact that it resolves every foundational metaphysical or epistemological issue in philosophy [2], logic's necessary existence in the absence of everything else continues to be overlooked or unrealized.  Thankfully, reason can illuminate truths about itself that have been denied, ignored, or undiscovered throughout the entire history of academic philosophy.  All one needs to do to understand this is simply use reason.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html

The Pettiness Of (Most) Romantic Jealousy

One of the most basic, obvious indicators that a romantic partner is full of pettiness or legalistic tendencies is an innate dislike of any emotional intimacy their partner shares with someone else of the opposite gender.  Another is an innate dislike of their partner appreciating another person's body, either in a sexual or platonic sense.  American culture treats this controlling jealousy as if it is a sign of affection or commitment, when it is actually confirmation that a partner is selfish and illogical.

Almost all variations of jealousy are not rational, romantic, or productive; they are instead unintelligent, poisonous, and immoral.  The common stance that they are endearing, healthy impulses is thoroughly asinine.  If someone loves another person in the fullest sense, they will not actively prevent them from enjoying nonsinful pleasures, and this includes various pleasures associated with cross-gender interaction.

Occasionally, there might be someone who simply struggles with insecurities about their significant other's interaction with the opposite gender even though they would never actually act in a legalistic or controlling manner.  In such a case, this does not produce any problems in the relationship of the two significant others, as the insecurity is nothing but a subjective difficulty that the insecure partner will simply have to deal with.  The one who struggles with jealousy in this way is not guilty of any error.  If this insecurity is ever allowed to manifest itself beyond this, though, it has become a form of controlling legalism.

A husband's wife is not a slave for him to control.  In the same way, a wife's husband is not a slave for her to control.  If a person is not secure enough to permit their significant other to befriend the opposite gender, admire the human body, or experience sexual attraction to someone else of the opposite gender, then they do not deserve to be married in the first place.  There is a distinct line between adulterous thoughts or behaviors and innocent cross-gender interaction of a platonic or sexual kind, and the Bible clearly defines adultery as nothing but a married person having extramarital sex.

Husbands and wives have no right to act upon sexual or romantic jealousy in any context other than a situation that is actually adulterous (which excludes a great many things that the average person seems to be bothered by).  Ironically, many things that trigger insecurity and romantic jealousy are not sexual or romantic in any way at all, though irrational cultural constructs treat them as if they are threatening to the life of a marriage or dating relationship.  Anything from platonic emotional intimacy between unmarried (or separately) men and women to the regular use of Biblically legitimate erotic media is neither sinful nor dangerous in itself.

Fits of baseless jealousy do not indicate that a person's partner is guilty of legitimate infidelity, instead establishing that the jealous partner is himself or herself irrational--and perhaps mistaking adulterous inclinations of their own for something everyone struggles with.  In many cases, jealousy only highlights the weaknesses and stupidity of the one who succumbs to it.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

The Long Night: The Characterization Of The Night King

"He wants to erase this world, and I am its memory."
--Bran Stark, Game of Thrones (season eight, episode two)


Characters with serpentine hearts can serve as mirrors that affirm the complexity of human life, and few works of entertainment highlight this with the clarity of Game of Thrones.  However, not every character in the show is particularly multi-faceted.  In The Long Night, viewers finally see the Night King and his forces attack Winterfell, yet many have complained about the fact that he is ultimately killed without any final revelations about his past or objectives.  His relative lack of motivation and complexity, especially when held up next to villains like Cersei Lannister or Ramsey Bolton (or Daenerys Targaryen, for that matter), has received intense criticism.

What many overlook is that simplicity can itself be deep in the right contexts.  Indeed, a character can be deep without having an extensive backstory or complicated internal conflict, though such characters must usually be archetypes that are handled in very precise ways.  Sometimes certain people forget that a simple idea or trait can still be powerful in its own right.  It is when a character is expected to be more that some forget this fact.

Without the subversion of expectations, there would be no innovation in modern entertainment.  This does not mean that all expectation subversion is clever or necessary, but the fact that a show known for its unconventional storytelling and subversion of expectations thwarted even more expectations is hardly surprising.  Nevertheless, it is not as if nothing about the Night King's worldview or intentions came to light before his death.  The Night King's motives, though somewhat simplistic, were clearly explained, at least in part, prior to the episode in which he died.

The Night King was anticipated by some to be a pseudo-Lovecraftian figure whose concerns, in a sense, transcend ordinary human affairs, with sheer coldness being his disposition towards humanity.  Indeed, this is the version of the Night King that was realized in the show--to a certain extent.  Though his motives are still somewhat unexplored in that there was never a large focus on them, miscellaneous pieces of dialogue from the past few seasons indicate that the Night King is a rogue weapon of sorts, originally created by the Children of the Forest to destroy the First Men.

After being transformed from a human into the Night King as we see him, he attempted to do exactly what he was made for: annihilate humanity.  Turning on his creators, he commenced the first "Long Night," though he was eventually repelled for a time.  His powers of necromancy allowed him to reanimate corpses for use as soldiers in an undead army.  He sought to plunge the world into a perpetual night, its inhabitants brought into his legions after being claimed by death.

Some may wish that the Night King's personification of death involved something of a deeper characterization (myself being among them), but he is not a poorly written character.  If the writers only wanted him to be the embodiment of death, hoping to overcome all life and subsume every formerly living creature into his army, then he was portrayed without error.  The Night King was never (as far as the evidence suggests) intended to be anything other than a representation of death in the form of a tangible antagonist.

The most successful of simple villains are almost inevitably the ones that embody some thematic force, and the Night King is no different.  Comparative simplicity does not mean that a villain poses no threat or that he or she is without justification for being included in the narrative.  If every villain is nothing but a metaphorical character, then the metaphors become generic and the tropes shallow--but Game of Thrones has already provided numerous villains that do not fall into this category.  The Night King served his purpose within the the overarching story, and the fact that he was unexpectedly killed by Arya without ever saying a word does not automatically cheapen his existence.

Socrates Did Not Invent Philosopy

Rather than address concepts themselves, divorced from unnecessary references to historical philosophers, many thinkers (though the word may be too generous) prefer to focus on the names and lives of dead philosophers.  Particular figures like Socrates are practically credited with bringing philosophy into existence, as if humanity was incapable of considering philosophical matters before him, and as if familiarity with Socrates or other figures is necessary to engage in philosophy.  Socrates did not invent philosophy, but I do not mean that the Pre-Socratics (consisting of incompetent thinkers such as Thales, a naturalist who claimed everything is made of water) did so.

Though few acknowledge it, philosophy is not about people or books, but about ideas and the correspondence of those ideas to reality [1].  The discipline of philosophy exists as long as there is even a single mind that contemplates philosophical issues--and since these issues encompass every aspect of reality, it is impossible for a human to never brush up against them.  There is no need to study or live alongside someone like Socrates to become a philosopher (especially considering that he ironically imitated the sophists in their willingness to use fallacies [2]); all one needs to be a philosopher is an intellect and the desire to explore reality.

Thus, philosophy preceded Socrates because, if even a single person lived before him, it is impossible for him to have been the first human to pose philosophical questions or to at least attempt to use reason to establish answers.  Everyone is a philosopher to some extent, although most people are very shallow and assumptive philosophers at best, Socrates included.  The problem with many people is not that they cannot understand or contemplate philosophy, but that they are unwilling to put effort into forgoing assumptions.  Indeed, it is this very unwillingness that keeps the average person shackled to false or unproveable worldviews.

Furthermore, there is hardly an academic or historical figure that is any different than the average person in this regard.  Many in academia even gratuitously and erroneously look up to the past thinkers that helped fashion academia into the cesspool of fallacies that it is.  The person who reveres Socrates and other historical philosophers trivializes or denies originality, rationality, and autonomy; the philosophers studied by academia overlooked many key truths and used legions of fallacies, and are often held up in a way that ignores intellectual autonomy, as if people cannot discover truths without reading published works.  Socrates is no example of enlightenment or intelligence, and he is certainly not responsible for the existence of philosophy.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/philosophy-is-not-about-books.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/socrates-sophist.html

Where False Ideas Derive Their Power

It is hardly unusual for Christians to distinguish between people and their individual moral weaknesses, despite the fact that the latter can only exist because of the former.  In treating them as wholly distinct, these Christians aim to tolerate problematic people while reserving moral judgment for their behaviors, as if there is any point to such a distinction.  Distinguishing between fallacious thinkers and their errors is likewise pointless and illogical.  Deceptions, assumptions, and fallacies are certainly enemies of truth seekers, but so is anyone who defends them.

False ideas cannot have any power except when they are embraced and acted upon by unintelligent or morally misguided individuals.  The notion that people are not the enemy of truth seekers is therefore extraordinarily asinine: if ideas only have power when they are acted upon, then incorrect or unsound ideas are not responsible for human errors, but people themselves are responsible for whatever power an error holds.  Short of repentence, how can someone deserve to be treated as if they are separate from their worst fallacies and offenses?

In light of these facts, to tolerate an irrational person is to tolerate irrationality; to tolerate an unjust person is to tolerate injustice.  The subject of tolerance is hardly complex, and yet it is often treated like it is an unsolvable enigma.  There is no paradoxical obligation to be intolerant of the intolerant but tolerant of everyone else, as that which is not erroneous does not need to be tolerated and that which is erroneous should never be tolerated.  The matter is as simple as realizing that no one can possibly have a natural right to complete ideological or behavioral freedom [1] and that tolerance of something vile only makes the tolerator resemble the wrongdoer whom is being tolerated.

If logical and moral errors were never tolerated, none of them could ever seize control of any society.  There is no such thing as the development or preservation of a rational, just society apart from intolerance towards anything that threatens its integrity.  As long as no one is actually mistreated--as long as the threshold separating justice and injustice is not crossed--there is no limitation on how brutally people are permitted to treat those who are not aligned with reason.  Since errors are powerless without the people who advocate for them, the latter deserves as much harshness as the former.


[1].  There are no rights if objective values do not exist, but if objective values do exist there can be no right to do or even believe anything that contradicts them.