The American church is in a bad situation- memberships dropping, criticisms gone unanswered and unaddressed, issues within individual churches that make the overall faith look bad, and things like that are ordinary. However, there is a larger problem that I believe that the church needs to address in order to begin to fix these problems. That is the focus of the church, and our perspective on how faith should be handled. This will be perhaps the most beneficial change the church can make: make salvation less important. This isn't to say that salvation is not important, but there is nothing we can do at the present that will impact how heaven or hell will be, but rather that we can do things to change how the world around us is in the present and will be in the future. This is the duty of the Church in this world, and this focus will be the most beneficial thing for the church that could happen.
First, this change in focus will result in a radical image change. The current popular image of the church is a dysfunctional body of false priests and apathetic masses. The image of the church has come under siege by false generalizations and the reality of a lukewarm body. When the church begins living in the world by biblical standards, there will be massive transformation. Rather than going to church on Sunday to learn about salvation or forgiveness or some book that most people would never read anyway because of sloth, the church would be a place to coordinate helping the needy, working on addressing spiritual illnesses like addiction, depression, and the struggles of this world (including sin in our own lives), and solving problems as a community. This organizational structure is intrinsically good and will be a witness in and of itself- a functional body of believers who would address not only the situations of life but also the criticisms of poor image without having to plaster over unfortunate situations- without solid leadership (and there is a lot of good in the church at present, but it isn't structural so much as by the feats of a few leaders and some followers) bad image is inevitable, but when the Church is a lifestyle not a social club the glory of Christ will become apparent.
Second, we will actually find salvation. Christ says that whatever is done to the least of these is done unto Him, and likewise that the one who he does not recognize (presumably by deed) will not be saved. Now this is not to say that faith is unimportant (for it definitely is, it may not be utterly necessary, an issue I will hopefully address after further reading and research), but rather that the living of faith is what is important. God is just, this is a message echoed throughout scripture. If a believer and a nonbeliever live identical lives with identical sins, but the nonbeliever does what is right and the believer counts nodding his head along to the sermons on Sunday as "enough" then who could justly be saved? Faith alone doesn't save, and works don't save either, but a faith lived is what is required. A life with a testament to faith is the only way to find peace- by doing what is right or by a devotion to God, we grow closer in relationship, but by simply pretending to believe, we deceive ourselves and the world around us. The fact is that we need to live lifestyles, not just mindsets, modeled after the teachings of Christ. Not everyone needs to stand behind a pulpit, and many people may be saved by simple devotion to Christ in an academic/scholarly/monastic method, but it is through doing good in the world that we truly manifest the Holy Spirit within and demonstrate that we have accepted Christ as savior- self denial stating "I believe in Christ as savior" means nothing if your life says "Sin is my purpose". This isn't to mean that belief is bad- faith is crucial to motivation, because doing good to be good gives way to doing bad to feel good. The debate on whether we are saved by works or by faith has taken a dichotomous perspective (granted, with both sides usually consenting that the other is good), but the notion that both need to be done as evidence of each other escapes many. However, as the Bible clearly emphasizes faith and also the importance of living in a Christ honoring way, it is probably important to do both. As a disclaimer, I haven't tested if I'm saved yet, so if I'm wrong, sorry, but I'm just trying to evaluate the Bible in ways that makes the most sense. And since testing would mean dying, it would be hard to send back the results anyway. More seriously, salvation is an incredibly difficult and important concept, and while I believe my statements, do whatever feels like it would be pleasing to a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God first, and listen to one person second. My argument here is that the idea "Got it! Saved! Can/will be a bad person now!" is the issue, and that an intentional, Christ centered lifestyle is the surest path. Granted, humans aren't perfect and there will be failures along the way, for all have sinned and most will probably sin again, but it is so rare for apathetic 'believers" to truly do something because of Christ (not just because it was the right thing or it was good for them) that the challenge of perspective could change lives for the better.
Third, the Church living in service to God would change the world. The are estimated to be over two hundred million Christians in the United States. Let's say that only 10% actually do at least one thing that requires self sacrifice for the good of Christ, for example purposes let us let that be donating 10% of their income to providing housing for the homeless. Assuming a $50,000 dollar median income of Christian households (close to figures provided for the average American, but rounded for math purposes), that means with an average household size of 3 (significantly larger than the American average household size modified for math purposes, because I'm not doing the math on 2.59) that there are about 6,600,000 households donating $5,000. This would be $33,000,000,000, larger than the national deficit as of the time of this post, and could buy 165,000 houses at the price of $200,000 (the median prices of houses are either above or below substantially depending on region). While this is not necessarily the way that Christians could or should live in service. In fact, giving money is a bad way of service because it can be viewed as a indulgence tax to God, which is bad. While giving money can show where your heart is, it is most important to remember that it is crucial to act in such a way that is pleasing to God and have faith, not merely bailout all churches from debt or fixing the national deficit. There is a personal interaction that makes ministry and witness helpful beyond the monetary investment, and a change of lifestyle is important. However, the statistics just show how staggering the impacts of even just 10% of Christians doing one thing that helps others (admittedly being a very drastic example) could be. Likewise, if every Christian (or even just 1%) gave food to the hungry on any given night, there would be 2 million meals (or burgers, sandwiches, or whatever) given away to the hungry. It's not that Christians can't change the world, it's that we haven't. A just God would say that He has trusted us with so much, and we just buried our money in the ground while the others, even the unbelievers, have invested and brought about returns.
To conclude, I would like to recount a story I once heard. A waitress was adamantly opposed to accepting Christ, despite the kindness of a stranger. When the stranger asked why she was so bitter at Christians, she stated that they acted like they owned the place, and then didn't even tip well at the end, like they were entitled to free service. It is important to remember that our belief in and of itself doesn't make us exceptional- it is the fact that we live lives that witness to the glory of Christ that gives us our distinction from the world. If we lack that, then we become false and empty. By worrying about our own souls, we ignore the problems around us and live empty, hollow lives, but a focus on a dramatic lifestyle change could truly influence the world for the better, and spread the Word better than any pulpit ever could.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Scriptural Gender Equality
When considering the role of women in the Church, many people look to sources such as the Pauline or pastoral epistles that discuss the "proper" role of women in the Church, but fail to evaluate the inconsistencies that exist there- Paul states that all are alike, male and female, but then supposedly writes that women are supposed to be submissive to men and silent before in letters such as 1/2 Timothy and Titus. However, the actions of Paul and his attitudes towards women in his benedictions show that there is a significant difference from this stance, since he ministered alongside and mentioned in his benedictions women who were leaders in the Church. As a Nazarene, my denomination believes that women can become clergy, but some other denominations are opposed to female clergy. However, I recommend an analysis of the actions of Christ and Paul in evaluating what role that women should have in the Church.
I recommend looking to the example of Mary and Martha, which demonstrates Jesus teaching to women and the idea that this is right. He encourages Mary and Martha to learn from Him, as He is only in there in the moment and other actions can be delayed. The significance of this story is probably mostly in my head, but I view it as a clear vindication of female leaders in the Church. There is a value to the idea of women learning, and not only because they themselves learn. As part of the Christian tradition linked back to the great commission, there is an obvious emphasis on teaching what we have learned. Because of Christ's value on teaching, not just the stereotypical male leader or religious type, but also tax collectors, prostitutes, and even the Samaritan woman at the well, so removed from his culture and position that just talking to her would be scandalous, it is a logical assumption that all of these are encouraged to also teach in turn, for Christ encouraged the Samaritan woman to spread news of his arrival, and some of His staunchest followers were women (Mary Madelene among others). The link between the teaching and the action is that there is no point to useless teaching- while the teaching probably had the purpose of eventually having these women extend their knowledge and teach another with what they have learned. These actions, though not an outright statement of justification for women in ministry, provide evidence to support fulfillment of that role rather than the myth of female inferiority in reference to ministry.
There is also the Pauline example. In the conclusions of some of his letters, he mentions favorably a female deacon named Phoebe, among other examples of women with important spiritual roles in the Church. While many letters attributed to Paul look critically upon the role of women in ministry, there is an important issue that may invalidate the argument that Paul himself wrote these. In the time of the early Christian Church, writing letters in the name of another who was more respected or honored than you would be a sign of respect, showing that it was their wisdom that gave you your ideas. This pseudonymy is significant because it means that these letters ascribed to the leader Paul may not actually reflect the stance of this renowned figure. However, these letters were still canonized, meaning that they have some significance to the Church, but not necessarily meaning that these letters have any sort of ultimate theological sway. Understand that this post is written from a viewpoint of plenary inspiration, which states that scripture is inerrant in terms of salvation, and all other things are written by man and only inspired by God, not necessarily Truth, but rather the writing of men interpreted and compiled into scripture by flawed men who use words to justify their own actions. In addition, the positions in Paul's letters where he criticizes women seem more hesitant, such as concerning the practice of covering the head while praying, Paul states after approving of the practice for women, that there is no tradition in the Church that promotes this and is not observed or essential to faith. Essentially, I look to the idea that actions speak louder than words, and accounts of Paul's endorsements and cooperation in ministry with women would clearly state that women can and should be ministers if so called.
This matter is both varied and confusing based on the lack of a definitive statement in either direction in scripture (or the debatable authenticity or interpretation of any statements, such as the passage that states that women should be silent in church and ask their husbands afterwards). However, I feel that as a guideline the examples of Christ and Paul demonstrate a value to women in ministry, and urge that if anyone feels called to minister that they do so if capable, regardless of any factors, unless it would be to the detriment of the Church.
I recommend looking to the example of Mary and Martha, which demonstrates Jesus teaching to women and the idea that this is right. He encourages Mary and Martha to learn from Him, as He is only in there in the moment and other actions can be delayed. The significance of this story is probably mostly in my head, but I view it as a clear vindication of female leaders in the Church. There is a value to the idea of women learning, and not only because they themselves learn. As part of the Christian tradition linked back to the great commission, there is an obvious emphasis on teaching what we have learned. Because of Christ's value on teaching, not just the stereotypical male leader or religious type, but also tax collectors, prostitutes, and even the Samaritan woman at the well, so removed from his culture and position that just talking to her would be scandalous, it is a logical assumption that all of these are encouraged to also teach in turn, for Christ encouraged the Samaritan woman to spread news of his arrival, and some of His staunchest followers were women (Mary Madelene among others). The link between the teaching and the action is that there is no point to useless teaching- while the teaching probably had the purpose of eventually having these women extend their knowledge and teach another with what they have learned. These actions, though not an outright statement of justification for women in ministry, provide evidence to support fulfillment of that role rather than the myth of female inferiority in reference to ministry.
There is also the Pauline example. In the conclusions of some of his letters, he mentions favorably a female deacon named Phoebe, among other examples of women with important spiritual roles in the Church. While many letters attributed to Paul look critically upon the role of women in ministry, there is an important issue that may invalidate the argument that Paul himself wrote these. In the time of the early Christian Church, writing letters in the name of another who was more respected or honored than you would be a sign of respect, showing that it was their wisdom that gave you your ideas. This pseudonymy is significant because it means that these letters ascribed to the leader Paul may not actually reflect the stance of this renowned figure. However, these letters were still canonized, meaning that they have some significance to the Church, but not necessarily meaning that these letters have any sort of ultimate theological sway. Understand that this post is written from a viewpoint of plenary inspiration, which states that scripture is inerrant in terms of salvation, and all other things are written by man and only inspired by God, not necessarily Truth, but rather the writing of men interpreted and compiled into scripture by flawed men who use words to justify their own actions. In addition, the positions in Paul's letters where he criticizes women seem more hesitant, such as concerning the practice of covering the head while praying, Paul states after approving of the practice for women, that there is no tradition in the Church that promotes this and is not observed or essential to faith. Essentially, I look to the idea that actions speak louder than words, and accounts of Paul's endorsements and cooperation in ministry with women would clearly state that women can and should be ministers if so called.
This matter is both varied and confusing based on the lack of a definitive statement in either direction in scripture (or the debatable authenticity or interpretation of any statements, such as the passage that states that women should be silent in church and ask their husbands afterwards). However, I feel that as a guideline the examples of Christ and Paul demonstrate a value to women in ministry, and urge that if anyone feels called to minister that they do so if capable, regardless of any factors, unless it would be to the detriment of the Church.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Discipline in the Church
When people think of discipline in the Church, there's an assumption that this is either a Jamestown style beating system or a theocratic replacement of law and order. Neither of these have any scriptural merit- the Bible does not ask us to flog anyone who fails or falls short, nor to replace the secular governments of the world. Rather, discipline in the Church is like a pruning. The parable of a tree with branches with good fruit being spared and branches without fruit being cut off is more accurate: The Church should never punish individuals, but should control the congregation. The justification comes from Paul's epistles which state that immoral Christians should be cut off from the body of Christ unless reformed and other teachings about conflict management in the Church. (Church with a capital C refers to the Church Universal, or the community of all believers, whereas church is an individual structure of subset)
First, there is a necessity to protect the Church from negative internal influences. If anyone sins in the Church, they are to be confronted, first by a few (a couple of witnesses and a leader to mediate), then a council (the elders of a church), then the entire body as a whole. This is adding a step to the scriptural guidelines, but with the scale of individual churches shifting from gatherings in households to buildings housing thousands of believers, this shift protects the time of the many, especially since we have compartmentalized church time to an hour/hour and a half on Sunday morning. The importance of this action is the elimination of complacency- a self policing body will be more likely to follow its tenets than a body that doesn't enforce the rules. This isn't to say that the violators should be rejected, but rather isolated so as not to corrupt the body. Even more importantly, no one is to be held sacred above guilt- even the highest leader must be examined and criticized if doing something wrong. An impure stream does not become pure by simply adding pure water, but rather the contaminant must be removed, same with the body of believers and with the lives of members of the Church. Preaching on Sunday is insufficient to promote any substantial change in the lives of individuals, some other focus must also accompany the routine action of attending services. Confrontation provides this impetus to change that simply being told an action is wrong doesn't. Be sure to give the accused a chance to speak and explain themselves, so as not to wrongly judge and therefore be judged. We will be judged for our judgements, so let them be just and fair, not hasty or overly critical.
Second, this regulation should *NOT* be used to exclude those outside the church from being allowed in. Sanctification (being made holy) is a goal of the church, and as Paul states, it is not to the immoral stranger that we make our judgement, for they have not been taught the rules, but rather to the immoral companions who have been taught but ignore. If we reject those who have not heard the teaching of Christ because they have not heard, then who will tell them? We too have at one point in time been without Christ, and therefore in sin and death. We were also accepted in, despite our failings, and taught to pursue sanctification. To reject others systematically would be to essentially reject ourselves (admittedly our former, flawed selves) for sake of a few. Christ did not come to save a few or a group, but to save the world and all within it.
Third, do not exclude any because of their sin if they struggle. If someone is struggling with an addiction, or circumstances that force them to sin, or simply failing in the moment of temptation, do not shove them away but rather offer them support and forgiveness, lifting them up with your support. Throwing away all life in an individual because of one illness is fallacy; so too is rejecting a soldier because they have not won the battle. Defeats come at all points in life, and all struggle and fall at one point or another, but this is not merit to reject them. The only time a believer should be removed from the Church is if they reject Christ by choosing to pursue sin over life. Give a clear dichotomy: serve either the Lord through a pursuit of sanctification, or admit that you have forsaken Him and leave the Body for a time. Do not lock the door that they have exited through, but do close it, so that a return would have to be out of more than simply mechanical habit or false repentance. It is unwise for a man who has been poisoned by a snake to just let the snake keep biting because he is already poisoned. However, as our goal is the salvation of souls, if there is true reform and dedication to Christ, allow the individual who has been rejected to enter back into the Church. If an individual struggles, but is not a corrupting influence (is dedicated to Christ, but has a persistent sin), do not shun this individual, but keep a constant environment of accountability and support for them.
Discipline in the Church relies upon the values of faith and accountability. Anyone who is in the Church for the sake of anything other than Christ is to be rebuked, first by a few, than by many, than by all, and then cast out the offender for the sake of the integrity of all the Church. This stance is exclusionary, but necessary to protect the Church from corruption. Yet do not shun anyone because of sin, but rather because of their heart, and who they serve. It is not the failings that matter, because all fail and fall short of the glory of God, but rather the rejection of God and Christ for pursuit of sin or other masters.
First, there is a necessity to protect the Church from negative internal influences. If anyone sins in the Church, they are to be confronted, first by a few (a couple of witnesses and a leader to mediate), then a council (the elders of a church), then the entire body as a whole. This is adding a step to the scriptural guidelines, but with the scale of individual churches shifting from gatherings in households to buildings housing thousands of believers, this shift protects the time of the many, especially since we have compartmentalized church time to an hour/hour and a half on Sunday morning. The importance of this action is the elimination of complacency- a self policing body will be more likely to follow its tenets than a body that doesn't enforce the rules. This isn't to say that the violators should be rejected, but rather isolated so as not to corrupt the body. Even more importantly, no one is to be held sacred above guilt- even the highest leader must be examined and criticized if doing something wrong. An impure stream does not become pure by simply adding pure water, but rather the contaminant must be removed, same with the body of believers and with the lives of members of the Church. Preaching on Sunday is insufficient to promote any substantial change in the lives of individuals, some other focus must also accompany the routine action of attending services. Confrontation provides this impetus to change that simply being told an action is wrong doesn't. Be sure to give the accused a chance to speak and explain themselves, so as not to wrongly judge and therefore be judged. We will be judged for our judgements, so let them be just and fair, not hasty or overly critical.
Second, this regulation should *NOT* be used to exclude those outside the church from being allowed in. Sanctification (being made holy) is a goal of the church, and as Paul states, it is not to the immoral stranger that we make our judgement, for they have not been taught the rules, but rather to the immoral companions who have been taught but ignore. If we reject those who have not heard the teaching of Christ because they have not heard, then who will tell them? We too have at one point in time been without Christ, and therefore in sin and death. We were also accepted in, despite our failings, and taught to pursue sanctification. To reject others systematically would be to essentially reject ourselves (admittedly our former, flawed selves) for sake of a few. Christ did not come to save a few or a group, but to save the world and all within it.
Third, do not exclude any because of their sin if they struggle. If someone is struggling with an addiction, or circumstances that force them to sin, or simply failing in the moment of temptation, do not shove them away but rather offer them support and forgiveness, lifting them up with your support. Throwing away all life in an individual because of one illness is fallacy; so too is rejecting a soldier because they have not won the battle. Defeats come at all points in life, and all struggle and fall at one point or another, but this is not merit to reject them. The only time a believer should be removed from the Church is if they reject Christ by choosing to pursue sin over life. Give a clear dichotomy: serve either the Lord through a pursuit of sanctification, or admit that you have forsaken Him and leave the Body for a time. Do not lock the door that they have exited through, but do close it, so that a return would have to be out of more than simply mechanical habit or false repentance. It is unwise for a man who has been poisoned by a snake to just let the snake keep biting because he is already poisoned. However, as our goal is the salvation of souls, if there is true reform and dedication to Christ, allow the individual who has been rejected to enter back into the Church. If an individual struggles, but is not a corrupting influence (is dedicated to Christ, but has a persistent sin), do not shun this individual, but keep a constant environment of accountability and support for them.
Discipline in the Church relies upon the values of faith and accountability. Anyone who is in the Church for the sake of anything other than Christ is to be rebuked, first by a few, than by many, than by all, and then cast out the offender for the sake of the integrity of all the Church. This stance is exclusionary, but necessary to protect the Church from corruption. Yet do not shun anyone because of sin, but rather because of their heart, and who they serve. It is not the failings that matter, because all fail and fall short of the glory of God, but rather the rejection of God and Christ for pursuit of sin or other masters.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
An Analysis of Oh, Sleeper
I listen to very... interesting music. It's only a step (from a pedantic standpoint) from not being music, and its message is often antithetical to what the perception of the genre assumes it to be. To be more straightforward, I listen to Christian metalcore. Yeah, the stuff where you can barely scratch out the lyrics from the gargles coming from the throat of the lead vomitter. All jokes aside, the genre is home to some very expressive, honest bands willing to voice their faith and dedication in unique and powerful ways. Oh, Sleeper is a upcoming leader in this genre (taking 1st on the iTunes metal chart and 23rd in the overall charts with their latest release, Children of Fire), and delivers potent theological messages through their albums.
Their freshman release was When I am God, an edgily title album that probably made more than a couple Christian shoppers wonder what it was doing in Christian stores and music displays. However, the full line (When I am God, this church is unsound) provides much more accurate insight into the band's true meaning. The album begins with an intense display of emotion on Vices like Vipers, a song detailing the dangers of vices and the wisdom of God. The Charlatan's Host is a powerful song about hypocrisy with strong resemblance to the story of David and Uriah (also known as David and Bathsheba). Later, the Color Theft is a call to live life the right way, even if it becomes difficult, because a life of mediocrity is like a world without color. The End of a Dark Campaign is the final song on the album, and talks of mercy and redemption.
Attempting to improve upon an excellent first release, their sophomore release is a tale of the war between God and the devil in plain words. The first track, The Son of the Morning (also the album's title) is the devil's take on the battle, a proud, arrogant stance that defies the mercy of God and brags of his presumed might. Then the album is packed with songs that deal with the battle for the human soul: The New Breed proclaims that we are all saved through Christ, urging this generation to find salvation ("If you are the new breed, scream 'I am Immortal in You'"). In All Honesty is an account of the evil that lurks in the heart of man, tangibly portrayed as a monster, killing then running "faster than guilt could ever", followed by a rejection of mercy because of the idea of self-worthlessness. Breathing Blood is a track with vivid imagery, with the contrast of breathing the blood of fallen enemies, but only drowning in the insufficiency of the slaughter, or accepting the mercy of the blood of Jesus. World Without a Sun is a potent track about fearing evil; the lyrics proclaim "I fear a world without the sun, but never who wished it gone", meaning that while we as Christians fear for the absence of salvation (for the souls that are lost), we never fear the forces that seek to destroy or corrupt. The Fire Dawn is a rousing song with a sharp edge, proclaiming that through the strength given by God, we can stand against any force of evil thrown against us. Finally, the Finisher is an account of the ultimate victory of God, destroying the Son of the Morning by cutting off his horns (hence the album art, a "broken" pentagram, symbolizing the devil with his horns cut off, defeated).
Children of Fire, the band's most recent release (though hopefully not their last) deals with the what if scenario of humanity trying to survive after the final battle. How do we act, now that there is no devil? How do we follow a God we cannot find? (The lyrics for the album are scarce, so I'll fix any inaccuracies in this post when the final lyrics come out, because my hearing can be a bit suggestive.) A key theme of the album is the premise of justice. Endseekers establishes the premise of the song, following the final battle, with the captain (God) leaving humanity to grow ("'So long all you children'
Don't go! We're almost there! 'Your road is not yet coming to an end'"). Shed Your Soul is a track about the rejection of morality, justice, and faith. The song proclaims "
We're on our own!" and continues to reject God. Fortunately, the album doesn't end there. The Marriage of Steel and Skin talks about the hijackers, the followers who enforce an overly violent justice in the bleakness of a world without God. The man stands for the victims and hunts down their murderers, avenging his daughter's honor. Hush Yael is a song that has great potency in or out of context. Out of context, it is simply a call for action regarding a terrorist that killed most of an Israeli family ("The 22nd day of the 4th month, 1979 warrants a judgement Because he came and he saw And this coward conquered a family asleep in their home"). However, in context, the song also develops how to do justice: standing up beyond the spite and hatred to resist evil, while keeping memory of the fallen and holding people accountable for their actions, even to their graves if necessary. The Conscience Speaks is a powerful followup, proclaiming "You shed his blood in my name To cover up the messes that he made. Will you please let it go? I helped you shed in their name But can't you see our wounds still remain? Will you please let it go". The meaning of this passage is that we need to stop blaming God for the actions of men (the Crusades, witch trials, etc.) and our own hypocrisy (such as the vices that the church proclaims is bad being about equally prevalent inside the church, and the idea that God needs to fix our problems or He is somehow derelict in His duties). In The Wake Of Pigs deals with hypocrisy in the church in more depth, crying for a pure voice that will urge us to climb, contrasted to the voices preaching for profit. The track Chewing the Stitch deals with the nature of man and the need for community and accountability to grow ("We are monsters on our own, banded together we'll overcome") and calling the Church to stand even when the world wants us to be quiet ("Don't expect us to apologize, Rebel dogs in the spotlight. We want no truce, No truce or compromise.) in order to witness as we are called, even if it makes people uncomfortable or displeased.
This is just a brief summary of the points in Oh, Sleeper's first three albums. Hopefully I can append this post when the next album comes out, and this post helps you find the meaning behind the lyrics.
Their freshman release was When I am God, an edgily title album that probably made more than a couple Christian shoppers wonder what it was doing in Christian stores and music displays. However, the full line (When I am God, this church is unsound) provides much more accurate insight into the band's true meaning. The album begins with an intense display of emotion on Vices like Vipers, a song detailing the dangers of vices and the wisdom of God. The Charlatan's Host is a powerful song about hypocrisy with strong resemblance to the story of David and Uriah (also known as David and Bathsheba). Later, the Color Theft is a call to live life the right way, even if it becomes difficult, because a life of mediocrity is like a world without color. The End of a Dark Campaign is the final song on the album, and talks of mercy and redemption.
Attempting to improve upon an excellent first release, their sophomore release is a tale of the war between God and the devil in plain words. The first track, The Son of the Morning (also the album's title) is the devil's take on the battle, a proud, arrogant stance that defies the mercy of God and brags of his presumed might. Then the album is packed with songs that deal with the battle for the human soul: The New Breed proclaims that we are all saved through Christ, urging this generation to find salvation ("If you are the new breed, scream 'I am Immortal in You'"). In All Honesty is an account of the evil that lurks in the heart of man, tangibly portrayed as a monster, killing then running "faster than guilt could ever", followed by a rejection of mercy because of the idea of self-worthlessness. Breathing Blood is a track with vivid imagery, with the contrast of breathing the blood of fallen enemies, but only drowning in the insufficiency of the slaughter, or accepting the mercy of the blood of Jesus. World Without a Sun is a potent track about fearing evil; the lyrics proclaim "I fear a world without the sun, but never who wished it gone", meaning that while we as Christians fear for the absence of salvation (for the souls that are lost), we never fear the forces that seek to destroy or corrupt. The Fire Dawn is a rousing song with a sharp edge, proclaiming that through the strength given by God, we can stand against any force of evil thrown against us. Finally, the Finisher is an account of the ultimate victory of God, destroying the Son of the Morning by cutting off his horns (hence the album art, a "broken" pentagram, symbolizing the devil with his horns cut off, defeated).
Children of Fire, the band's most recent release (though hopefully not their last) deals with the what if scenario of humanity trying to survive after the final battle. How do we act, now that there is no devil? How do we follow a God we cannot find? (The lyrics for the album are scarce, so I'll fix any inaccuracies in this post when the final lyrics come out, because my hearing can be a bit suggestive.) A key theme of the album is the premise of justice. Endseekers establishes the premise of the song, following the final battle, with the captain (God) leaving humanity to grow ("'So long all you children'
Don't go! We're almost there! 'Your road is not yet coming to an end'"). Shed Your Soul is a track about the rejection of morality, justice, and faith. The song proclaims "
We're on our own!" and continues to reject God. Fortunately, the album doesn't end there. The Marriage of Steel and Skin talks about the hijackers, the followers who enforce an overly violent justice in the bleakness of a world without God. The man stands for the victims and hunts down their murderers, avenging his daughter's honor. Hush Yael is a song that has great potency in or out of context. Out of context, it is simply a call for action regarding a terrorist that killed most of an Israeli family ("The 22nd day of the 4th month, 1979 warrants a judgement Because he came and he saw And this coward conquered a family asleep in their home"). However, in context, the song also develops how to do justice: standing up beyond the spite and hatred to resist evil, while keeping memory of the fallen and holding people accountable for their actions, even to their graves if necessary. The Conscience Speaks is a powerful followup, proclaiming "You shed his blood in my name To cover up the messes that he made. Will you please let it go? I helped you shed in their name But can't you see our wounds still remain? Will you please let it go". The meaning of this passage is that we need to stop blaming God for the actions of men (the Crusades, witch trials, etc.) and our own hypocrisy (such as the vices that the church proclaims is bad being about equally prevalent inside the church, and the idea that God needs to fix our problems or He is somehow derelict in His duties). In The Wake Of Pigs deals with hypocrisy in the church in more depth, crying for a pure voice that will urge us to climb, contrasted to the voices preaching for profit. The track Chewing the Stitch deals with the nature of man and the need for community and accountability to grow ("We are monsters on our own, banded together we'll overcome") and calling the Church to stand even when the world wants us to be quiet ("Don't expect us to apologize, Rebel dogs in the spotlight. We want no truce, No truce or compromise.) in order to witness as we are called, even if it makes people uncomfortable or displeased.
This is just a brief summary of the points in Oh, Sleeper's first three albums. Hopefully I can append this post when the next album comes out, and this post helps you find the meaning behind the lyrics.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Death of Honesty
Today, truth is a commodity for sale. Media machines spin the news to support their views. Earlier today I was reading a NYT article, which essentially critiqued the UN for taking a pro-Israel stance on the issue of the West Gaza blockade. The article focused heavily on the admonitions over the commando raid on a boat, but barely mentioned that the issue was not the raid but the force used (though armed men on a non-military vessel are breaching maritime law and are technically pirates, see Wikipedia link for the original incident) was excessive. They went so far as to imply that "the report takes a broadly sympathetic view of Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza", implying that the UN was somehow wrong or emotionally motivated. This stand alone sentence serves to make the reader feel that the UN was unwise in their decision, but provides no rational basis. On NPR, a full paragraph of a five paragraph article states (and poorly, since there is a typo changing a word (legal) to a word that means the opposite (illegal)) Pakistan's stance, and then blatantly lies, saying that Israel does not want to apologize (which is incorrect- Israel's stance (according to the NYT article that actually addressed the topic in depth, if slantingly) was of regret and willingness to make reparations, but not of full apology, a significant difference. Also, none of the news sources reference the "three other ships, [on which] activists showed passive resistance, which [were] suppressed by Israeli forces without deaths or severe injuries, and two other boats were taken without incident. The ships were subsequently towed to Israel, where all people aboard were detained awaiting deportation."
Admittedly, I've only focused on one issue and a few news sources, but these cases are widespread and rampant. Next time you read the news, try to find phrases and paragraphs that support yellow journalism, and you'll find that a lot of the facts that the media machine declares are not really true at all, but rather the opinion of the editors, authors, or outlets that publish them. I'm not saying not to read the news, but I'm saying don't be misled, because every article I've found in recent history has had a bias in one direction or another. Fortunately, some of these have been editorials, but the line between opinion and news has been blurred too far lately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/01/140125112/u-n-panel-finds-israels-naval-blockade-legal-but-flotilla-raid-excessive?ft=1&f=1001
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=UN&st=cse
Edits are for grammar, feel free to check the articles for context.
Admittedly, I've only focused on one issue and a few news sources, but these cases are widespread and rampant. Next time you read the news, try to find phrases and paragraphs that support yellow journalism, and you'll find that a lot of the facts that the media machine declares are not really true at all, but rather the opinion of the editors, authors, or outlets that publish them. I'm not saying not to read the news, but I'm saying don't be misled, because every article I've found in recent history has had a bias in one direction or another. Fortunately, some of these have been editorials, but the line between opinion and news has been blurred too far lately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/01/140125112/u-n-panel-finds-israels-naval-blockade-legal-but-flotilla-raid-excessive?ft=1&f=1001
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=UN&st=cse
Edits are for grammar, feel free to check the articles for context.
The Nature of the Trinity
The Trinity consists of three distinct entities, but yet is one single entity. This is a difficult concept to grasp, but is easier to understand through a division of the three, and then the idea that they operate with a common purpose, motivation, and essence/power that makes them one entity at the core (though Christ and the Father have expressed different, though not conflicting, opinions.) However, the easiest way I've found to explain this is through the idea of a three-role God.
The first role is Deliverer- the role of the Father, who uses his power in order to actively intervene, and seems at many times to be the sole acting force of the Trinity (though that would be inaccurate, as the Son and the Spirit have unique roles). The Deliverer role manifests through a concept of power, doing things that we would call miraculous, or by setting up events to happen, or through a variety of factors (there are more in-depth studies of the way God works, and I'm not particularly familiar with that sort of literature). The Deliverer is also the Judge, determining what is right and wrong and serving as the ultimate King.
The second role is Redeemer- the role of the Son, who uses his life as a sacrifice for our sin. As a perfect individual (at least morally), His sacrifice is the only way to permanently atone for all sin (notably, this hypothetically invalidates traditional sacrifice as a rejection of God's plan from a Christian viewpoint, but if you don't believe in Christ, you don't believe in the Son and would reject the Christian viewpoint from which I am writing anyway). The Redeemer needs not possess "supernatural" powers, merely invoking the Father, but may (I wasn't there, okay?) and certainly fulfills His part of the Trinity by providing a shield for humanity, allowing the wrath of God to be averted by covering imperfection with the sacrifice of perfection.
The third role is Truth- the Holy Spirit, who functions as a semi-tangible presence of God after the desertion of the temple and the death and ascent of Christ. Since Christ represents a new era of faith, with God being not only actively involved, but actively guiding (previously, God established rules, and enforced them, but Christ provides for mercy) and shaping community in order to make the church function in the way that it ought in order to best serve society and to protect and spread Truth. Many "churches" operate without true spiritual guidance because they fail to recognize the importance of adherence to scriptural Truth, but also without any form of the Holy Spirit (a difficult explanation to someone who has never experience the Holy Spirit's guidance. It's not like a seizure of control, but more a gradual shift where things that God finds abhorrent become abhorrent to you, and things that please God become pleasing to you. It's really a subtle change, and not only difficult to recognize as spiritual, but also easy to deny as maturing or becoming morally adjusted. My growth was marked by when I began to read the Bible every day which made a shift, but did not drastically change my habits or personality), making it difficult to remain centered in scriptural accuracy. Sorry Rob Bell, but you can't simply make scripture change to suit your needs. When we assume human inerrancy, we eliminate all room for the holy spirit to act.
To conclude, the Trinity is a set of three roles that fulfill different purposes (sorry for the poor explanation of the Spirit), but most importantly one unified body that functions with one purpose. Congress is made up of many individuals, but they are one corporate body, and while God is not hindered by party politics, the analogy is, if marred by humanity's perspective, appropriate.
The first role is Deliverer- the role of the Father, who uses his power in order to actively intervene, and seems at many times to be the sole acting force of the Trinity (though that would be inaccurate, as the Son and the Spirit have unique roles). The Deliverer role manifests through a concept of power, doing things that we would call miraculous, or by setting up events to happen, or through a variety of factors (there are more in-depth studies of the way God works, and I'm not particularly familiar with that sort of literature). The Deliverer is also the Judge, determining what is right and wrong and serving as the ultimate King.
The second role is Redeemer- the role of the Son, who uses his life as a sacrifice for our sin. As a perfect individual (at least morally), His sacrifice is the only way to permanently atone for all sin (notably, this hypothetically invalidates traditional sacrifice as a rejection of God's plan from a Christian viewpoint, but if you don't believe in Christ, you don't believe in the Son and would reject the Christian viewpoint from which I am writing anyway). The Redeemer needs not possess "supernatural" powers, merely invoking the Father, but may (I wasn't there, okay?) and certainly fulfills His part of the Trinity by providing a shield for humanity, allowing the wrath of God to be averted by covering imperfection with the sacrifice of perfection.
The third role is Truth- the Holy Spirit, who functions as a semi-tangible presence of God after the desertion of the temple and the death and ascent of Christ. Since Christ represents a new era of faith, with God being not only actively involved, but actively guiding (previously, God established rules, and enforced them, but Christ provides for mercy) and shaping community in order to make the church function in the way that it ought in order to best serve society and to protect and spread Truth. Many "churches" operate without true spiritual guidance because they fail to recognize the importance of adherence to scriptural Truth, but also without any form of the Holy Spirit (a difficult explanation to someone who has never experience the Holy Spirit's guidance. It's not like a seizure of control, but more a gradual shift where things that God finds abhorrent become abhorrent to you, and things that please God become pleasing to you. It's really a subtle change, and not only difficult to recognize as spiritual, but also easy to deny as maturing or becoming morally adjusted. My growth was marked by when I began to read the Bible every day which made a shift, but did not drastically change my habits or personality), making it difficult to remain centered in scriptural accuracy. Sorry Rob Bell, but you can't simply make scripture change to suit your needs. When we assume human inerrancy, we eliminate all room for the holy spirit to act.
To conclude, the Trinity is a set of three roles that fulfill different purposes (sorry for the poor explanation of the Spirit), but most importantly one unified body that functions with one purpose. Congress is made up of many individuals, but they are one corporate body, and while God is not hindered by party politics, the analogy is, if marred by humanity's perspective, appropriate.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Are we living in a Post-Morality age?
Post-morality is a situation in which a culture has abandoned morality for a system of quicker, easier judgements based on the whims of individuals. A couple high profile incidents recently include the violent and destructive riots in Britain, and the vandal flash-mobs in the United States. Similar events have been post-religion, as seen in Europe where religion has basically dwindled and been replaced by secular lives for individuals, openly rejecting faith, and in various failed states, such as the Soviet Union where government became the determinant of right and wrong, not morality, and the hedonistic Roman Empire, which went up in flames because the idea of decadence became so pervasive that no-one would sacrifice in order to defend the borders from the Visigoths and other marauders. While secular philosophy has tried to fill the void of religion for determining right and wrong, with interesting and meritorious offerings by the likes of Kant and Mills, culture seems to be taking an insidious turn.
Granted, not every age has had a proviso for morality- in the Dark Ages, feudalism meant that the vast majority had no consideration for independent action, but there was still respect for the law of the land, if only because of an iron hand, while the Papacy attempted to keep kings in line, while being severely addled by corruption within the church. While morality was not a constant concern, there was still great concern for doing what was right, even if only because the pope said it and therefore you had to or you would burn forever, or if you didn't follow the laws, the lord would come by and have your head chopped off. Still, even in this mess, there were still concerns about following some sort of code of ethics that encouraged the people to follow laws for more than just the consequences.
In the end, the pursuit of morality may have spelled its own downfall- the idea of relativism. Relativism is a frankly absurd idea that each person has their own code of right and wrong, because things can irrationally change from individual to individual (note the sarcasm). Most pre-modern ethicists would have been appalled by the idea that an individual can dictate morality, and for good reason. If everything is right and wrong based on the ideas of individuals, then there would be constant moral deadlock, because if I believe x is wrong, then I cannot let anyone do it, but if someone believes x is right, they cannot let me stop people from doing x. Besides that, everyone would agree that killing is wrong (hopefully), yet relativism defends people half a world away doing it because "they think it is right", which literally justifies every atrocity and almost every crime (some people know they're wrong and still act that way, which is interesting, but more complex than this post). Relativism dictates, on a fundamental level, that everything is right, but all except the most dedicated adherents would agree that someone robbing them would be wrong, because being robbed is a violation of their code.
However, while relativism is a potential cause of the issue, there is a more significant issue of justification and irresponsibility going on. A man in Britain who was arrested for planning riots and planned to appeal receiving a four year prison term thought it was disproportionate, but the riots have caused damages to many shops and the cost in stolen or destroyed property will greatly harm either business owners or the companies that insure them or both. The individual has been told not to worry about their actions, because they are simply not to be held responsible because they deserve something that they have not gotten. This entitlement attitude results in the idea that you can simply take what you want, regardless of the price. These individuals, according to the following article, have never owned their own property. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2846968.html While the article is heavily focused on the premise of owning property, the idea is that the rioters have no ties to possession or to personal responsibility- in addition, others aren't being considered for their full value as human beings. The idea of post-morality is that you do what you want- essentially a self-centered corruption of utilitarian ethics. People still make connections to others, making it harder to justify robbing a neighbor, but a stranger is much less important. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-17/world/uk.riot.sentences_1_riot-environment-sentences-looting/2?_s=PM:WORLD Sophie Willett, of the Howard League for Penal Reform, told CNN: "I think we must expect that participation in the public disturbances is an aggravating factor when you come before the courts. Stealing a bottle of water in the riot environment is different to going into you local shop and stealing a bottle of water. But, in that spirit we must apply some sort of proportion to this and actually we have to look at people's genuine, ongoing danger to the community and that is what we need to look at when we send people to prison." Notice the last sentence- the ongoing danger. The speaker states that people should be held less responsible because of the atmosphere of the crime. Granted, aggravating and mitigating factors are important in law, but the fact that you could rob a stranger, and get less punishment because you were just going along with a mob implies a degree of irrationality and justification.
My proposed solution to the matter is faith, because true Christianity teaches that you love your neighbor, or anyone, as yourself, but if you refuse faith as a compass, remember to hold others in high regard- they have the same feelings and thoughts as anyone else, and it is important to hold them responsible for their actions and to hold yourself responsible for your actions against them. Don't be willing to let a neighbor continue to do something that you know is wrong just because they think it is right, confront them, so that if you do something that is harmful they will confront you. Once society can openly debate on what offends us or what harms us, and confront the perpetrators, we can hold people responsible for their actions. Don't be willing to let others ruin their lives because it seems alright or they are willing to take actions that you believe are wrong. A degree of confrontation is necessary to insure that there is open discourse. However, do not hold others in debt because of their actions, because the power for justice has been given to the government. Do not enforce your views over others, but solve issues through open discourse and never do anything to others that you would not want others to do to you. Yes, this is a long rant to support the golden rule, but it is important now as ever before to hold up this principle and understand the danger of apathy- complacency has never led to success or happiness, and ignorance and surrender have led to atrocity. Be aware of the importance of actions, so that you will not be willing to idly drift through life, being fine with whatever.
Granted, not every age has had a proviso for morality- in the Dark Ages, feudalism meant that the vast majority had no consideration for independent action, but there was still respect for the law of the land, if only because of an iron hand, while the Papacy attempted to keep kings in line, while being severely addled by corruption within the church. While morality was not a constant concern, there was still great concern for doing what was right, even if only because the pope said it and therefore you had to or you would burn forever, or if you didn't follow the laws, the lord would come by and have your head chopped off. Still, even in this mess, there were still concerns about following some sort of code of ethics that encouraged the people to follow laws for more than just the consequences.
In the end, the pursuit of morality may have spelled its own downfall- the idea of relativism. Relativism is a frankly absurd idea that each person has their own code of right and wrong, because things can irrationally change from individual to individual (note the sarcasm). Most pre-modern ethicists would have been appalled by the idea that an individual can dictate morality, and for good reason. If everything is right and wrong based on the ideas of individuals, then there would be constant moral deadlock, because if I believe x is wrong, then I cannot let anyone do it, but if someone believes x is right, they cannot let me stop people from doing x. Besides that, everyone would agree that killing is wrong (hopefully), yet relativism defends people half a world away doing it because "they think it is right", which literally justifies every atrocity and almost every crime (some people know they're wrong and still act that way, which is interesting, but more complex than this post). Relativism dictates, on a fundamental level, that everything is right, but all except the most dedicated adherents would agree that someone robbing them would be wrong, because being robbed is a violation of their code.
However, while relativism is a potential cause of the issue, there is a more significant issue of justification and irresponsibility going on. A man in Britain who was arrested for planning riots and planned to appeal receiving a four year prison term thought it was disproportionate, but the riots have caused damages to many shops and the cost in stolen or destroyed property will greatly harm either business owners or the companies that insure them or both. The individual has been told not to worry about their actions, because they are simply not to be held responsible because they deserve something that they have not gotten. This entitlement attitude results in the idea that you can simply take what you want, regardless of the price. These individuals, according to the following article, have never owned their own property. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2846968.html While the article is heavily focused on the premise of owning property, the idea is that the rioters have no ties to possession or to personal responsibility- in addition, others aren't being considered for their full value as human beings. The idea of post-morality is that you do what you want- essentially a self-centered corruption of utilitarian ethics. People still make connections to others, making it harder to justify robbing a neighbor, but a stranger is much less important. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-17/world/uk.riot.sentences_1_riot-environment-sentences-looting/2?_s=PM:WORLD Sophie Willett, of the Howard League for Penal Reform, told CNN: "I think we must expect that participation in the public disturbances is an aggravating factor when you come before the courts. Stealing a bottle of water in the riot environment is different to going into you local shop and stealing a bottle of water. But, in that spirit we must apply some sort of proportion to this and actually we have to look at people's genuine, ongoing danger to the community and that is what we need to look at when we send people to prison." Notice the last sentence- the ongoing danger. The speaker states that people should be held less responsible because of the atmosphere of the crime. Granted, aggravating and mitigating factors are important in law, but the fact that you could rob a stranger, and get less punishment because you were just going along with a mob implies a degree of irrationality and justification.
My proposed solution to the matter is faith, because true Christianity teaches that you love your neighbor, or anyone, as yourself, but if you refuse faith as a compass, remember to hold others in high regard- they have the same feelings and thoughts as anyone else, and it is important to hold them responsible for their actions and to hold yourself responsible for your actions against them. Don't be willing to let a neighbor continue to do something that you know is wrong just because they think it is right, confront them, so that if you do something that is harmful they will confront you. Once society can openly debate on what offends us or what harms us, and confront the perpetrators, we can hold people responsible for their actions. Don't be willing to let others ruin their lives because it seems alright or they are willing to take actions that you believe are wrong. A degree of confrontation is necessary to insure that there is open discourse. However, do not hold others in debt because of their actions, because the power for justice has been given to the government. Do not enforce your views over others, but solve issues through open discourse and never do anything to others that you would not want others to do to you. Yes, this is a long rant to support the golden rule, but it is important now as ever before to hold up this principle and understand the danger of apathy- complacency has never led to success or happiness, and ignorance and surrender have led to atrocity. Be aware of the importance of actions, so that you will not be willing to idly drift through life, being fine with whatever.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
What is Freedom?
Freedom is a complicated subject, but also the basis for most schools of thought. Religion requires the ability to choose between right and wrong in order to function, but philosophy also assumes that there is an intrinsic nature of free will in order to make decisions (otherwise ends or means wouldn't matter, because what we are going to do is what we are going to do), but very rarely is the nature of freedom analyzed beyond either a lack of servitude or the ability to make decisions. However, what is the nature of being free beyond the physical or philosophical? There are more levels to freedom than simply making our own choices.
I propose that freedom is wanting to do what you should do. I believe that there is one correct (or various correct, depending on the situation) way to act, at least concerning ethics. Freedom means a lack of coercion that would attempt to prevent you choosing to do that action. Essentially, I could allowed to make only one choice a day, but if I could make the right choice at that branch, without coercion, I would be free. If I was given a thousand opportunities, but made a wrong one because I was lured into it, I would not be free. However, making a wrong decision of my own accord is an act of freedom (though in that context I would rather be a slave, unable to choose.) While this is a depressing view of freedom, the premise extends beyond narrow philosophical allusions. Freedom in my view extends beyond that, a complete freedom- physical, mental, and philosophical. This means three things.
First, there can be no tangible force preventing me from making the right decision. If I was restrained, and couldn't help someone who was injured, I would not be free to make that choice and therefore would not be free. Furthermore, there could be no threat of violence, reprimand, or punishment that would deter me from making the right choice- though hopefully the impetus for the proper course of action would outweigh the negative stimuli. Even if I made the decision and was punished for it, I would not be free, because making the right decision had negative consequences, designed to deter me from doing so again, or in more severe cases deal damage to me so that I would be less able to act in the future. You will notice that I do not care if I am forced to do what is right, such as following laws, because I am not forced to go against my ideals. Note that my nature is to do what is wrong, but if I am prevented from being able to choose what is not right, I am not impaired, I am aided. Again, depressing, but not once you think about the consequences of wrong actions.
Second, there can be no mental persuasion that is holding me in sway. These are more varied, from bribes and incentives to addiction, trauma, stress, and even mental conditioning (i.e. punishment for doing the action in the past). If I act out of a neurological urge resulting from addiction, I am not free (presuming the action is wrong), or if I do wrong because of a personal incentive or bribe I am not free to choose because the choice, normally a split decision, is weighted in the favor of what is wrong. While these *DO NOT* justify doing harm, they are limitations of freedom, but even a prisoner is held accountable for his actions, and growing up in a family of thieves does not justify theft, but does instil an idea that theft is acceptable. However, being conditioned by punishment to deter from what is wrong is still freedom, because it prompts the correct response. Certainly being punished for stealing is not wrong, and the resulting deterrence is also wrong. In order to invalidate at least this portion of the argument, it would be necessary to state that the threat of prison or other punitive measures is wrong.
Third, there can be no philosophical strings attached- meaning that there can be no "set up" of the situation. There can be no condition that makes the situation wrong. Each action must be considered entirely independent of the context- otherwise, an individual begins to execute justice. It would be wrong to deny help to a wounded murderer, even though they have guilt that could condemn them to death. Furthermore, there cannot be an unreasonable expectation of knowledge. If helping the wounded murderer would result in the murderer overpowering the doctor and then escaping to kill again, but the doctor has no way to know that the wounded individual is a murderer, the doctor cannot be held accountable. However, helping a murderer and then allowing him to escape knowing that he is a criminal is wrong, since this thwarts justice. However, the justice must be executed by the state. This is not to say that individuals cannot help the state, the doctor would be obligated to restrain or detain the murderer, but could not arrest and execute the man. Similarly, anyone doing something that is harmful should be restrained- a rioter should be restrained by anyone capable of doing so, but should not be arrested and thrown in prison by a bystander, because this bypasses justice. In the absence of government, vigilantism is justified as the only method of justice, but while government exists, it has a monopoly over punitive force unless otherwise granted (i.e. parents disciplining their children). To pertain more to freedom, if I am forced to do wrong because I helped someone in need, and that individual used my aid to harm others, but I had no knowledge of his evil intent, then I am not culpable of that situation. Furthermore, if I do wrong to a someone because they have done something to harm me, I am still doing wrong, because I did something to take justice into my own hands, which is inherently wrong. However, if I shot and killed someone because they were about to shoot me or someone else, I am not culpable, because the justice of government means nothing if the harm could have been prevented. However, if I shot and killed someone when I could have merely subdued him without any harm coming of it, I have taken justice into my own hands, and have done wrong. However, the philosophical situation cannot dictate the action's goodness- if the suspect I subdued later killed someone, I am not guilty because I chose not to kill him. The situations stand independently because of the freedom of choice- the past is done and gone, and I as an individual should not hold others accountable unless they have done a crime against me or society and have not been punished, and I cannot act to prevent something in the distant future, because individuals have the right to choose and the future is not written entirely by the present (just because someone stole from me doesn't mean I can assume they will steal again, and though it does not mean I should ignore their past actions, I cannot assume they will always steal.)
To summarize, freedom means your decisions are not influenced by another and not manipulated by outside forces, but can be influenced by protections that only prevent you from doing what is wrong. The reason for this is that when you do what is wrong, there are consequences. A safeguard that keeps me from stealing limits my options, but not my freedom, but a barrier to helping others in need limits my freedom.
What is right and wrong is a much lengthier discussion.
I propose that freedom is wanting to do what you should do. I believe that there is one correct (or various correct, depending on the situation) way to act, at least concerning ethics. Freedom means a lack of coercion that would attempt to prevent you choosing to do that action. Essentially, I could allowed to make only one choice a day, but if I could make the right choice at that branch, without coercion, I would be free. If I was given a thousand opportunities, but made a wrong one because I was lured into it, I would not be free. However, making a wrong decision of my own accord is an act of freedom (though in that context I would rather be a slave, unable to choose.) While this is a depressing view of freedom, the premise extends beyond narrow philosophical allusions. Freedom in my view extends beyond that, a complete freedom- physical, mental, and philosophical. This means three things.
First, there can be no tangible force preventing me from making the right decision. If I was restrained, and couldn't help someone who was injured, I would not be free to make that choice and therefore would not be free. Furthermore, there could be no threat of violence, reprimand, or punishment that would deter me from making the right choice- though hopefully the impetus for the proper course of action would outweigh the negative stimuli. Even if I made the decision and was punished for it, I would not be free, because making the right decision had negative consequences, designed to deter me from doing so again, or in more severe cases deal damage to me so that I would be less able to act in the future. You will notice that I do not care if I am forced to do what is right, such as following laws, because I am not forced to go against my ideals. Note that my nature is to do what is wrong, but if I am prevented from being able to choose what is not right, I am not impaired, I am aided. Again, depressing, but not once you think about the consequences of wrong actions.
Second, there can be no mental persuasion that is holding me in sway. These are more varied, from bribes and incentives to addiction, trauma, stress, and even mental conditioning (i.e. punishment for doing the action in the past). If I act out of a neurological urge resulting from addiction, I am not free (presuming the action is wrong), or if I do wrong because of a personal incentive or bribe I am not free to choose because the choice, normally a split decision, is weighted in the favor of what is wrong. While these *DO NOT* justify doing harm, they are limitations of freedom, but even a prisoner is held accountable for his actions, and growing up in a family of thieves does not justify theft, but does instil an idea that theft is acceptable. However, being conditioned by punishment to deter from what is wrong is still freedom, because it prompts the correct response. Certainly being punished for stealing is not wrong, and the resulting deterrence is also wrong. In order to invalidate at least this portion of the argument, it would be necessary to state that the threat of prison or other punitive measures is wrong.
Third, there can be no philosophical strings attached- meaning that there can be no "set up" of the situation. There can be no condition that makes the situation wrong. Each action must be considered entirely independent of the context- otherwise, an individual begins to execute justice. It would be wrong to deny help to a wounded murderer, even though they have guilt that could condemn them to death. Furthermore, there cannot be an unreasonable expectation of knowledge. If helping the wounded murderer would result in the murderer overpowering the doctor and then escaping to kill again, but the doctor has no way to know that the wounded individual is a murderer, the doctor cannot be held accountable. However, helping a murderer and then allowing him to escape knowing that he is a criminal is wrong, since this thwarts justice. However, the justice must be executed by the state. This is not to say that individuals cannot help the state, the doctor would be obligated to restrain or detain the murderer, but could not arrest and execute the man. Similarly, anyone doing something that is harmful should be restrained- a rioter should be restrained by anyone capable of doing so, but should not be arrested and thrown in prison by a bystander, because this bypasses justice. In the absence of government, vigilantism is justified as the only method of justice, but while government exists, it has a monopoly over punitive force unless otherwise granted (i.e. parents disciplining their children). To pertain more to freedom, if I am forced to do wrong because I helped someone in need, and that individual used my aid to harm others, but I had no knowledge of his evil intent, then I am not culpable of that situation. Furthermore, if I do wrong to a someone because they have done something to harm me, I am still doing wrong, because I did something to take justice into my own hands, which is inherently wrong. However, if I shot and killed someone because they were about to shoot me or someone else, I am not culpable, because the justice of government means nothing if the harm could have been prevented. However, if I shot and killed someone when I could have merely subdued him without any harm coming of it, I have taken justice into my own hands, and have done wrong. However, the philosophical situation cannot dictate the action's goodness- if the suspect I subdued later killed someone, I am not guilty because I chose not to kill him. The situations stand independently because of the freedom of choice- the past is done and gone, and I as an individual should not hold others accountable unless they have done a crime against me or society and have not been punished, and I cannot act to prevent something in the distant future, because individuals have the right to choose and the future is not written entirely by the present (just because someone stole from me doesn't mean I can assume they will steal again, and though it does not mean I should ignore their past actions, I cannot assume they will always steal.)
To summarize, freedom means your decisions are not influenced by another and not manipulated by outside forces, but can be influenced by protections that only prevent you from doing what is wrong. The reason for this is that when you do what is wrong, there are consequences. A safeguard that keeps me from stealing limits my options, but not my freedom, but a barrier to helping others in need limits my freedom.
What is right and wrong is a much lengthier discussion.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
The Importance of Worship to Faith
I'm a ministry major, so if you read this blog, even though it's just random thoughts, you'll probably see some ministry stuff. If you want to change your life for the better, go ahead and read it. If you don't like religion or faith, feel free to click away. I won't be offended and it's only your loss.
Many people don't understand faith, even those who profess to have faith in Christ. Frequently, faith is treated as simply a ceremony performed on Sundays that covers you for the week or month or time between visits, and while this might be true for the purpose of salvation (the Christian faith holds that if you believe in Christ as savior, no matter what you've done or what you do, as long as you look to Christ for salvation, you will be saved), it is not the best way to live your life. Even in my relatively comfortable life, the difference from when I treated faith as a ritual to when I actively engaged in my faith in Christ is a night and day difference in how I feel and view the world.
For others, active engagement is a check-box, wherein you devote a half hour to reading the Bible or praying, but it's simply a chore or ritual. While this is probably better than the former, simply going through the motions is frequently insufficient to significantly change your life. While many things are beneficial to spiritual growth, and any involvement is better than none, a ritual is a sorry devotion because it's like punching a clock to get paid. You do it, but it doesn't really seem like something you would want to do, and for good reason. The Bible can be hard to read, especially in more literal translations that leave some grammar and context to an individuals deciphering and research or the genealogy or law chapters (these are indeed worth reading, but can be difficult and painful to go through, especially if going for comprehension or thoroughness). However, while this can bring a degree of spiritual satisfaction, I propose an additional easy supplement to the touted prayer and reading routine: worship.
Worship is defined as to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion, but in all practicality it can simply be paying respect to God by saying "This is Your creation, and it is good." There are a myriad of ways to do this, ranging from singing hymns and songs in church, to actively worshiping through music (even listening), or simply acknowledging a greatness about something and ascribing what is good of it to God. While not taking the place of prayer or reading, worship can be just as beneficial in helping your faith grow.
My personal form of worship is listening to music and singing along to the lines of praise. I've found some songs that speak profoundly to me and always remind me of what is important in life, and make an effort to not only listen to these songs, but engage in thinking about what the lines are and what they mean. Everyone can have their own form of worship, and there's no real restriction on what worship can and cannot be (excepting, of course, sin, which is anything that is displeasing to God). Worship is also more than simply an emotional experience or spiritual discipline, but also a precedent- as Christians, we are called to be living temples, meaning that we are to be glorifying to God, and impressive through our actions and words as the temple was through stone and gold. Worship is also doing things that are pleasing to God, and abstinence from sin. Perpetual worship can be as easy as doing what is right to other people because they are to be treated as Christ, and avoiding harm or anything impure or sinful that would displease God.
Understand that I haven't taken any theology classes yet, but from what I've found in my own walk, I hope this will be helpful to you or at the very least that it will not be harmful.
Many people don't understand faith, even those who profess to have faith in Christ. Frequently, faith is treated as simply a ceremony performed on Sundays that covers you for the week or month or time between visits, and while this might be true for the purpose of salvation (the Christian faith holds that if you believe in Christ as savior, no matter what you've done or what you do, as long as you look to Christ for salvation, you will be saved), it is not the best way to live your life. Even in my relatively comfortable life, the difference from when I treated faith as a ritual to when I actively engaged in my faith in Christ is a night and day difference in how I feel and view the world.
For others, active engagement is a check-box, wherein you devote a half hour to reading the Bible or praying, but it's simply a chore or ritual. While this is probably better than the former, simply going through the motions is frequently insufficient to significantly change your life. While many things are beneficial to spiritual growth, and any involvement is better than none, a ritual is a sorry devotion because it's like punching a clock to get paid. You do it, but it doesn't really seem like something you would want to do, and for good reason. The Bible can be hard to read, especially in more literal translations that leave some grammar and context to an individuals deciphering and research or the genealogy or law chapters (these are indeed worth reading, but can be difficult and painful to go through, especially if going for comprehension or thoroughness). However, while this can bring a degree of spiritual satisfaction, I propose an additional easy supplement to the touted prayer and reading routine: worship.
Worship is defined as to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion, but in all practicality it can simply be paying respect to God by saying "This is Your creation, and it is good." There are a myriad of ways to do this, ranging from singing hymns and songs in church, to actively worshiping through music (even listening), or simply acknowledging a greatness about something and ascribing what is good of it to God. While not taking the place of prayer or reading, worship can be just as beneficial in helping your faith grow.
My personal form of worship is listening to music and singing along to the lines of praise. I've found some songs that speak profoundly to me and always remind me of what is important in life, and make an effort to not only listen to these songs, but engage in thinking about what the lines are and what they mean. Everyone can have their own form of worship, and there's no real restriction on what worship can and cannot be (excepting, of course, sin, which is anything that is displeasing to God). Worship is also more than simply an emotional experience or spiritual discipline, but also a precedent- as Christians, we are called to be living temples, meaning that we are to be glorifying to God, and impressive through our actions and words as the temple was through stone and gold. Worship is also doing things that are pleasing to God, and abstinence from sin. Perpetual worship can be as easy as doing what is right to other people because they are to be treated as Christ, and avoiding harm or anything impure or sinful that would displease God.
Understand that I haven't taken any theology classes yet, but from what I've found in my own walk, I hope this will be helpful to you or at the very least that it will not be harmful.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Solving Asymmetrical Conflict Problems
If you follow the conflicts in the Middle East, Vietnam, and modern battlespaces, the issue facing modern commanders is the difference between traditional forces and modern, guerrilla or insurgent forces. Traditional forces fight a war of strength, but insurgencies wage a war of attrition. There are three key components to fixing an asymmetrical situation- logistics, presence, and intelligence.
Logistics are very difficult in an asymmetric battlespace because of the key issue of space. Lines of supply are tempting targets because by crippling caravans you can rob your enemy of resources and force them to withdraw. The solvency to this issue dwells in options- as a military commander, the way to secure resources is to secure methods of acquisition. Land, air, and sea should all be accessible. There is a simply way to promote access, a basic premise dating back to the Roman Empire and even beyond- secure camps. If you can secure a foothold that your enemy cannot crush, you can free yourself from needing to fight a defensive campaign. The way to apply this concept is to establish military cities independent of civilian infrastructure- especially when fighting insurgents who use the civilian infrastructure to strike at bases and presences. These cities would optimally be established on coastlines away from civilian sites to prevent interference. Coastlines open a stable source of resources- sea. Inland bases need to be resupplied by ground convoys or more expensive air routes. Sea is both harder to target by a landlocked enemy, but also allows naval assets to be deployed. However, inland conflicts limit the availability of sea routes. Still the concept of isolated bases as centers of logistics is effective. Furthermore, these ought not be bases or outposts, but entire centers of combat, secured within a radius from civilian centers and monitored by UAV or satellite surveillance. Making an impenetrable foothold is both a boon to morale, but offers a fallback point if anything goes wrong. These centers ought be the largest presence a force deploys.
Presence is an important issue because large forces present tempting targets to ambushes, long range attacks, IEDs and traps. Furthermore, traditional presences are easy to track and difficult to move without alerting hostiles. An alternate presence method is using small, infantry or light vehicle oriented groups that comb the wilderness and engage from long distances. Whatever the situation, it is imperative to know the landscape of a region, and spread forces across various routes to limit the damage potential, and use air or fast ground assets to respond to threats. Slow land assets should be reserved for strategic strikes, and never moved in the open without light, fast cover and recon to insure their security. Drone forces are essential to winning an asymmetrical engagement because they are more disposable than soldiers. Drones can allow expedient movement to dangerous areas because they can soak explosive and armor piercing weaponry, and can pave the way for trained soldiers who can see insurgent reactions and eliminate unsettled or exposed insurgents who react to drones. Aerial recon and attack drones serve as great methods of securing potentially dangerous areas and surveying civilian areas. Land drones can sweep and clear without the risk of catching gunfire or triggering explosives, especially hardy models that can withstand blasts and light gunfire. In addition, deployed land assets should focus on being harder to touch- every vehicle destroyed or soldier killed can be exploited to bolster morale. Blast proof and durable light vehicles are essential to fast, light deployments, provided they can be given exits if the situation gets too tough. Heavy vehicles should always be attached a lighter, faster escort that can sweep the area. All vehicles should be designed to go off road, in order to avoid ambushes and IEDs that are staged along civilian routes. Infantry forces should be small and include marksmen and medics, with air support kept at hand to respond to overwhelming threats. Artillery should be established in safe locations to target any attacks on supply centers or bases, and to support attacks and forays. Engagement with civilian centers should be limited to avoid civilian casualties and the risk of hidden insurgents. Squads should be assigned to learning the terrain and moving off the paths to search for and destroy insurgents, as well as to watch civilian centers from a distance and strike from a range using snipers before heavy engagements begin.
Intelligence is vitally important, but infiltration takes time and is risky. An alternative is UAV and satellite surveillance. While these techniques can be expensive to maintain, a heavy intelligence presence can pay off by revealing enemy positions and warning of impending actions. This advanced warning will enable commanders to react to threats. Forces should also recon- with modern communication technology, there is no excuse for not using recon elements to relay situations on the ground. Light and fast vehicles should sweep ahead at high speeds and search for likely problems and situations, while moving at a speed that would make insurgent responses rushed and ineffective. Infantry squads should be prepared to operate for extended durations and scout positions before conflicts.
Asymmetrical conflicts can only be solved by using less force, not more. Nimble and spontaneous tactics and actions (with the foundation of good intelligence) will enable a larger traditional force to effectively counter a smaller, less centralized, modern force.
Logistics are very difficult in an asymmetric battlespace because of the key issue of space. Lines of supply are tempting targets because by crippling caravans you can rob your enemy of resources and force them to withdraw. The solvency to this issue dwells in options- as a military commander, the way to secure resources is to secure methods of acquisition. Land, air, and sea should all be accessible. There is a simply way to promote access, a basic premise dating back to the Roman Empire and even beyond- secure camps. If you can secure a foothold that your enemy cannot crush, you can free yourself from needing to fight a defensive campaign. The way to apply this concept is to establish military cities independent of civilian infrastructure- especially when fighting insurgents who use the civilian infrastructure to strike at bases and presences. These cities would optimally be established on coastlines away from civilian sites to prevent interference. Coastlines open a stable source of resources- sea. Inland bases need to be resupplied by ground convoys or more expensive air routes. Sea is both harder to target by a landlocked enemy, but also allows naval assets to be deployed. However, inland conflicts limit the availability of sea routes. Still the concept of isolated bases as centers of logistics is effective. Furthermore, these ought not be bases or outposts, but entire centers of combat, secured within a radius from civilian centers and monitored by UAV or satellite surveillance. Making an impenetrable foothold is both a boon to morale, but offers a fallback point if anything goes wrong. These centers ought be the largest presence a force deploys.
Presence is an important issue because large forces present tempting targets to ambushes, long range attacks, IEDs and traps. Furthermore, traditional presences are easy to track and difficult to move without alerting hostiles. An alternate presence method is using small, infantry or light vehicle oriented groups that comb the wilderness and engage from long distances. Whatever the situation, it is imperative to know the landscape of a region, and spread forces across various routes to limit the damage potential, and use air or fast ground assets to respond to threats. Slow land assets should be reserved for strategic strikes, and never moved in the open without light, fast cover and recon to insure their security. Drone forces are essential to winning an asymmetrical engagement because they are more disposable than soldiers. Drones can allow expedient movement to dangerous areas because they can soak explosive and armor piercing weaponry, and can pave the way for trained soldiers who can see insurgent reactions and eliminate unsettled or exposed insurgents who react to drones. Aerial recon and attack drones serve as great methods of securing potentially dangerous areas and surveying civilian areas. Land drones can sweep and clear without the risk of catching gunfire or triggering explosives, especially hardy models that can withstand blasts and light gunfire. In addition, deployed land assets should focus on being harder to touch- every vehicle destroyed or soldier killed can be exploited to bolster morale. Blast proof and durable light vehicles are essential to fast, light deployments, provided they can be given exits if the situation gets too tough. Heavy vehicles should always be attached a lighter, faster escort that can sweep the area. All vehicles should be designed to go off road, in order to avoid ambushes and IEDs that are staged along civilian routes. Infantry forces should be small and include marksmen and medics, with air support kept at hand to respond to overwhelming threats. Artillery should be established in safe locations to target any attacks on supply centers or bases, and to support attacks and forays. Engagement with civilian centers should be limited to avoid civilian casualties and the risk of hidden insurgents. Squads should be assigned to learning the terrain and moving off the paths to search for and destroy insurgents, as well as to watch civilian centers from a distance and strike from a range using snipers before heavy engagements begin.
Intelligence is vitally important, but infiltration takes time and is risky. An alternative is UAV and satellite surveillance. While these techniques can be expensive to maintain, a heavy intelligence presence can pay off by revealing enemy positions and warning of impending actions. This advanced warning will enable commanders to react to threats. Forces should also recon- with modern communication technology, there is no excuse for not using recon elements to relay situations on the ground. Light and fast vehicles should sweep ahead at high speeds and search for likely problems and situations, while moving at a speed that would make insurgent responses rushed and ineffective. Infantry squads should be prepared to operate for extended durations and scout positions before conflicts.
Asymmetrical conflicts can only be solved by using less force, not more. Nimble and spontaneous tactics and actions (with the foundation of good intelligence) will enable a larger traditional force to effectively counter a smaller, less centralized, modern force.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Government and Finances
I'm going to be very unpopular after this post...
I'm sure that you probably know of the American government's financial state, and the lack of agreement as to a solution. The conservatives are focused on cutting spending to what they see as wasteful spending programs, and the liberals are focused on taxing the rich in order to give the government more money to cover social programs. I'm not going to attack these programs now, but I am going to say that the federal budget is out of control. I have one suggestion to both sides: grow up.
I was raised in a financially aware family, with my parents wanting me to make financially sound decisions and I striving against that, and always considered what I would do if I was ever in economic hardship or even the big d-word... debt. However, the approach is different for a government. In a government, there are special interests, impossible promises, and cries to save the whatever it is that matters today (frequently at the cost of the well being of both the people who soak the price and also otherizing or degrading the recipients). I believe that the government has a big problem in cutting the debt- itself. The way a government functions is based entirely in politics, but that is neither pragmatic nor practical.
The solution to the problems is a marriage of the proposals by both sides- not a compromise with both sides giving some ground, but both sides must give all ground in order to promote a recovery from the debt. At 4.6% annual interest (the rate of a US Treasury I bond) is 657,360,159,500,000 (as of when I calculated it). That would be about 658 billion dollars rounded up because the amount is increasing- rapidly. This is the amount that taxpayers waste each year IN INTEREST ON THE DEBT! I don't know about you, but 657 billion could save a lot of whatevers, so here's what I propose, a radical theory that makes no sense and will be denounced as heresy- cut spending AND raise taxes. It's a principle called austerity- you keep your economy in line. Once you do that, you can actually fix the problems. The amount of interest wasted greatly increases the debt, but instead of fixing the problem, Washington twiddles its thumbs in a childish debate. Both sides need to come forward to the American people, and clearly say that there's a problem that needs to be fixed.
Or we could just pass on the debt, because the next generation loves taxes and is entirely self reliant and won't need social programs.
I'm sure that you probably know of the American government's financial state, and the lack of agreement as to a solution. The conservatives are focused on cutting spending to what they see as wasteful spending programs, and the liberals are focused on taxing the rich in order to give the government more money to cover social programs. I'm not going to attack these programs now, but I am going to say that the federal budget is out of control. I have one suggestion to both sides: grow up.
I was raised in a financially aware family, with my parents wanting me to make financially sound decisions and I striving against that, and always considered what I would do if I was ever in economic hardship or even the big d-word... debt. However, the approach is different for a government. In a government, there are special interests, impossible promises, and cries to save the whatever it is that matters today (frequently at the cost of the well being of both the people who soak the price and also otherizing or degrading the recipients). I believe that the government has a big problem in cutting the debt- itself. The way a government functions is based entirely in politics, but that is neither pragmatic nor practical.
The solution to the problems is a marriage of the proposals by both sides- not a compromise with both sides giving some ground, but both sides must give all ground in order to promote a recovery from the debt. At 4.6% annual interest (the rate of a US Treasury I bond) is 657,360,159,500,000 (as of when I calculated it). That would be about 658 billion dollars rounded up because the amount is increasing- rapidly. This is the amount that taxpayers waste each year IN INTEREST ON THE DEBT! I don't know about you, but 657 billion could save a lot of whatevers, so here's what I propose, a radical theory that makes no sense and will be denounced as heresy- cut spending AND raise taxes. It's a principle called austerity- you keep your economy in line. Once you do that, you can actually fix the problems. The amount of interest wasted greatly increases the debt, but instead of fixing the problem, Washington twiddles its thumbs in a childish debate. Both sides need to come forward to the American people, and clearly say that there's a problem that needs to be fixed.
Or we could just pass on the debt, because the next generation loves taxes and is entirely self reliant and won't need social programs.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Games and Culture
Games and Culture: Why games are not art... yet.
I'm a gamer. Not going to lie, I spend a lot (probably way too much) time on games. Games are very popular, and I'll probably get yelled at from a few fellow nerds for saying that not all games are art. Certainly some games are art (and I'm probably biased), but a vast majority are drivel. To find the answer, we must know what is art.
So what does art entail? Art has been defined in many ways, by many people, frequently to include or exclude what they want to in order to prove a point. I'm going to follow in their footsteps and define art as something that makes you think, or muse, or contemplate a specific or general action, feeling, or thought. This technically means that art is subjective, up to the whims of an individual. Any specific examples, therefore, are invalidated, because people think differently. However, we can see the purpose of the game as an example? Is it just to have fun or be amusement (the entomology of such literally meaning to be without thought), or does it engage the player and make them think? The answer to that question determines art, and as such, many books, movies, photos, music, and even classical paintings are not art.
Why are not all games art? Many have impressive graphics or sound, impressive gameplay, and the list goes on to oblivion. The reason is that these games stop there, being mainly eyecandy or impressive visually, but not raising any questions about life proper. Deus Ex (the original, old, pixely exploration/adventure) beats out Call of Duty, whatever they're on now because of how it presents issues. In Call of Duty, you play a soldier, pull the trigger, perhaps some engagement at a few story points, but your actions have no consequence or purpose. In Deus Ex, you encounter all of society, the gritty and the glamorous and have to make decisions that have lasting consequences. Games will never have true consequences, as the characters within them are just lines of code made to perform a prepared purpose, but some games seriously consider the characters as having weight, yet others simply use them as vehicles for entertainment. This distinction helps draw a basic line between the two, because characters that emulate human traits tend to make us evaluate our actions, but characters that simply serve to entertain don't make us question anything. Characters do not need to be human, but must be important to the player, so as to make simply ignoring them or exploiting them an action that will have consequences as in real life.
Many games are not art because their purposes are entertainment. I'm not saying it's wrong to have fun playing games, but it's not the same as engaging in a game. Fun is a goal in and of itself, but it does not bring about improvement or questioning or benefits that art has as a matter of secondary impact. I'm not saying that Halo or Call of Duty ought to be boycotted, but they are not on the same level as a game that makes you think. However, many games are detrimental to thought. Consumable substances range from medicines that can heal, foods that can satiate but are dangerous if out of portion, and finally destructive chemicals and poisons that are detrimental to health. Similarly, there are many types of game. Some are truly art and encourage development, thought, and improvement. I would say that a vast majority are simply entertainment, generating fun but not really any value. However, there are some that are negative in impact- not simply a time waster or pointless fun with friends, but literally harmful. These games desensitize or promote harmful behavior or viewpoints. Sexism is a major issue in the gaming industry because sex sells. However, truly helpful images of women are incredibly rare, with most women either being exalted heroines that don't really serve to promote women but rather serve to create an impossible standard and fantastical figure, or simply appeal to the largely male demographics that play games, seducing gamers with images and degrading women from individuals to simply objects. Other vices abound, but it's hard to do drugs digitally, but objectification and the like are much easier. I don't support the theories that video games cause violence, but they can make violence seem more acceptable because the victim "deserved it" or "it was awesome!" The lack of consequence in games serves to contribute to a perception of lack of consequence in real life, which isn't true.
I'm not trying to criticize gaming unfairly- most other mediums of media are just as bad if not possibly worse. However, the fact that gamers whine about being excluded from the art moniker, then go back to playing Call of Duty mindlessly is a bit annoying. The video game industry (and other industries also) need to realize that mindless entertainment doesn't last. The great classics of television such as The Andy Griffith show will be remembered for their plots and themes, but the shows of today will be remembered for edgy jokes, profanity, and how they treat issues casually. Media in its entirety has lost the point of entertainment, which would be improvement through providing models for action and asking questions that mundane lives fail to present.
I'm a gamer. Not going to lie, I spend a lot (probably way too much) time on games. Games are very popular, and I'll probably get yelled at from a few fellow nerds for saying that not all games are art. Certainly some games are art (and I'm probably biased), but a vast majority are drivel. To find the answer, we must know what is art.
So what does art entail? Art has been defined in many ways, by many people, frequently to include or exclude what they want to in order to prove a point. I'm going to follow in their footsteps and define art as something that makes you think, or muse, or contemplate a specific or general action, feeling, or thought. This technically means that art is subjective, up to the whims of an individual. Any specific examples, therefore, are invalidated, because people think differently. However, we can see the purpose of the game as an example? Is it just to have fun or be amusement (the entomology of such literally meaning to be without thought), or does it engage the player and make them think? The answer to that question determines art, and as such, many books, movies, photos, music, and even classical paintings are not art.
Why are not all games art? Many have impressive graphics or sound, impressive gameplay, and the list goes on to oblivion. The reason is that these games stop there, being mainly eyecandy or impressive visually, but not raising any questions about life proper. Deus Ex (the original, old, pixely exploration/adventure) beats out Call of Duty, whatever they're on now because of how it presents issues. In Call of Duty, you play a soldier, pull the trigger, perhaps some engagement at a few story points, but your actions have no consequence or purpose. In Deus Ex, you encounter all of society, the gritty and the glamorous and have to make decisions that have lasting consequences. Games will never have true consequences, as the characters within them are just lines of code made to perform a prepared purpose, but some games seriously consider the characters as having weight, yet others simply use them as vehicles for entertainment. This distinction helps draw a basic line between the two, because characters that emulate human traits tend to make us evaluate our actions, but characters that simply serve to entertain don't make us question anything. Characters do not need to be human, but must be important to the player, so as to make simply ignoring them or exploiting them an action that will have consequences as in real life.
Many games are not art because their purposes are entertainment. I'm not saying it's wrong to have fun playing games, but it's not the same as engaging in a game. Fun is a goal in and of itself, but it does not bring about improvement or questioning or benefits that art has as a matter of secondary impact. I'm not saying that Halo or Call of Duty ought to be boycotted, but they are not on the same level as a game that makes you think. However, many games are detrimental to thought. Consumable substances range from medicines that can heal, foods that can satiate but are dangerous if out of portion, and finally destructive chemicals and poisons that are detrimental to health. Similarly, there are many types of game. Some are truly art and encourage development, thought, and improvement. I would say that a vast majority are simply entertainment, generating fun but not really any value. However, there are some that are negative in impact- not simply a time waster or pointless fun with friends, but literally harmful. These games desensitize or promote harmful behavior or viewpoints. Sexism is a major issue in the gaming industry because sex sells. However, truly helpful images of women are incredibly rare, with most women either being exalted heroines that don't really serve to promote women but rather serve to create an impossible standard and fantastical figure, or simply appeal to the largely male demographics that play games, seducing gamers with images and degrading women from individuals to simply objects. Other vices abound, but it's hard to do drugs digitally, but objectification and the like are much easier. I don't support the theories that video games cause violence, but they can make violence seem more acceptable because the victim "deserved it" or "it was awesome!" The lack of consequence in games serves to contribute to a perception of lack of consequence in real life, which isn't true.
I'm not trying to criticize gaming unfairly- most other mediums of media are just as bad if not possibly worse. However, the fact that gamers whine about being excluded from the art moniker, then go back to playing Call of Duty mindlessly is a bit annoying. The video game industry (and other industries also) need to realize that mindless entertainment doesn't last. The great classics of television such as The Andy Griffith show will be remembered for their plots and themes, but the shows of today will be remembered for edgy jokes, profanity, and how they treat issues casually. Media in its entirety has lost the point of entertainment, which would be improvement through providing models for action and asking questions that mundane lives fail to present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)