The Defender

Hot take: We as a Western society like depression. We like darkness. We like the “broken” guy. Take a look at shows like Rick and Morty, BBC’s Sherlock (to some extent), House M.D., Bojack Horseman, Doc Martin, and many others. We always like to see how this “weird” but “smart” guy struggles with his relationship and struggles to be a better person. 

That’s all well and good... IF we keep in mind that he is the abnormality. Not us. The problem lies in him, not me. Where he represents some universal condition, it is not necessarily an inevitable one. 

The lead characters of all these shows tend to have a pessimistic view of life. Take Dr. House especially. “Life is pain”, he says. And so he drives almost everyone away. They think the universe is meaningless and godless (literally and figuratively). We would be stupid to take their advice. Clearly there is something wrong with them. House has an addiction and tries to solve his loneliness through work and prostitutes, Morty is alcoholic and also lonely, Bojack is depressed, Martin has anxiety. Healthy people have none of these. So what they say should be taken with a grain of salt. 

Two shows point to a better world. Sherlock starts out like the guys above: cold, analytical, unappreciative of relationships. But we quickly realise - and Sherlock himself quickly realises - that he is the one missing out. There is some healthy view of the world that he, in all his genius, never realised. In Season 3 there is this one scene where Sherlock and his brother Mycroft have a little game. They try to one-up each other by analysing a stranger’s hat:

(See the vid below)

Sherlock: A quick sniff of the offending bobble tells us all we need to know about the state of his breath.

Mycroft: Brilliant! Elementary.

Sherlock: But you've missed his isolation.

Mycroft: I don't see it.

Sherlock: Plain as day.

Mycroft: Where? 

Sherlock: There for all to see.

Mycroft: Tell me.

Sherlock: Plain as the nose on your -

Mycroft: Tell me! 

Sherlock: Well, anybody who wears a hat as stupid as this isn't in the habit of hanging around other people, is he? 

By the third season Sherlock has grown, and this has helped him even in his intellectual pursuits. He could have stuck to his isolation and obsessiveness, but he didn’t. He opened up and really started to care for John and the others. It was through his empathy that he recognised the stranger’s isolation. That’s good. That’s growth. 

The other show, which is even better, is Lucifer. On the surface Lucifer is everything that’s bad about our obsession with the anti-hero: violent, destructive, has orgies, ignores important problems, hides his feelings... But the creators of the show always keeps it very clear to the audience that Lucifer is the one with the issue. Lucifer has the “daddy issues”. Lucifer himself often admits this. In fact his entire therapy thing is an attempt to deal with a recognition that he has the problem. Not Cloe, he. We should not emulate him. We can study him, and laugh at him, and cry for him. But not copy him. 

The point of everything is this: depressed does NOT equal depth or intelligence. What is sad is not necessarily true. What is pessimistic is not necessarily realistic. Quite the opposite usually. We have a tendency for taking the sad guy to be the one with the right view of life, and the happy guy to be the one with the naive and stupid view of life. Why? What is the rational reason for this? We do so because we think in our heart of hearts that life really is meaningless. But if it is NOT meaningless, then of course the happy man would be the right one. We shouldn’t mock him.

Now, of course if the universe is meaningless then we should agree with Dr. House. And if it has meaning, we should agree with Dr. Wilson. But suppose we don’t know whether it is meaningless or not. If we don’t know the facts, then shouldn’t we chose the healthier option? The view that is conducive to happiness, relationships, and love? Isn’t it the more “fitting”? 

I think linked to the “depression equals depth” assumption is the idea that happy people are naive. That they do not know pain. The idea that everyone who really knows pain would be cynical and depressed. But surely the facts don’t show that? All the great people in history have known suffering. Most of the happy people you know might even have suffered more than the rest. In fact, it is usually those with the most pain in life who somehow manage to be the happiest in spite of it all. And we envy them for that. 

It is easy to be sad. You simply let your sadness overwhelm you. It doesn’t take effort. You just allow it. But to be happy is difficult. To be grateful is an exercise. To overcome and see past your own pain is a skill. It takes effort. And we don’t like that. 

One fictional character that encompasses an awareness of suffering, and yet stays happy, is Father Brown. You might have heard about him. He is a creation of G. K. Chesterton. He appears has a kind of detective priest who solves crime by looking at the characters of people.

In Chesterton’s autobiography he explained how the glory of Father Brown lies not in him being some naive priest, but rather in a priest that is more aware of evil than others, but doesn’t let it overwhelm him. He transcends it. He based Brown on a person he knew in real life: Father John o’Connor:

I mentioned to the priest in conversation that I proposed to support in print a certain proposal, it matters not what, in connection with some rather sordid social questions of vice and crime. On this particular point he thought I was in error, or rather in ignorance; as indeed I was. And, merely as a necessary duty and to prevent me from falling into a mare's nest, he told me certain facts he knew about perverted practices which I certainly shall not set down or discuss here. 

I have confessed on an earlier page that in my own youth I had imagined for myself any amount of iniquity; and it was a curious experience to find that this quiet and pleasant celibate had plumbed those abysses far deeper than I. I had not imagined that the world could hold such horrors. If he had been a professional novelist throwing such filth broadcast on all the bookstalls for boys and babies to pick up, of course he would have been a great creative artist and a herald of the Dawn. As he was only stating them reluctantly, in strict privacy, as a practical necessity, he was, of course, a typical Jesuit whispering poisonous secrets in my ear. 

When we returned to the house, we found it was full of visitors, and fell into special conversation with two hearty and healthy young Cambridge undergraduates, who had been walking or cycling across the moors in the spirit of the stern and vigorous English holiday. They were no narrow athletes, however, but interested in various sports and in a breezy way in various arts; and they began to discuss music and landscape with my friend Father O'Connor. I never knew a man who could turn with more ease than he from one topic to another, or who had more unexpected stores of information, often purely technical information, upon all. 

The talk soon deepened into a discussion on matters more philosophical and moral; and when the priest had left the room, the two young men broke out into generous expressions of admiration, saying truly that he was a remarkable man, and seemed to know a great deal about Palestrina or Baroque architecture, or whatever was the point at the moment. Then there fell a curious reflective silence, at the end of which one of the undergraduates suddenly burst out. "All the same, I don't believe his sort of life is the right one. It's all very well to like religious music and so on, when you're all shut up in a sort of cloister and don't know anything about the real evil in the world. But I don't believe that's the right ideal. I believe in a fellow coming out into the world, and facing the evil that's in it, and knowing something about the dangers and all that. It's a very beautiful thing to be innocent and ignorant; but I think it's a much finer thing not to be afraid of knowledge."

To me, still almost shivering with the appallingly practical facts of which the priest had warned me, this comment came with such a colossal and crushing irony, that I nearly burst into a loud harsh laugh in the drawing-room. For I knew perfectly well that, as regards all the solid Satanism which the priest knew and warred against with all his life, these two Cambridge gentlemen (luckily for them) knew about as much of real evil as two babies in the same perambulator.

And so, to end my much too long post, I will make my point clear: there is nothing necessarily deep in being sad. And there’s nothing necessarily superficial in being happy. Don’t be depressed because you think it is deep. Don’t envy those who are clearly unhappy. Don’t mistake joy for foolishness.

P. S. I am not making any comment on depression as an actual psychological disease. I understand that this is not always a choice. But this just reinforces my point: clearly depression isn’t healthy. So we shouldn’t emulate it. We should pity and help those who have it, but we are idiots if we think people who suffer from it are somehow “deeper” and “more profound” than our happy Christian neighbour. There’s something this neighbour - who has the same problems us we - realise that we don’t. 

There is a modern trend to think that all religions are the same. Or, even worse, that the differences don’t matter. That’s not true. But because of it there has been a lot more “inter-faith” dialogues. 

These dialogues are all good and well. They are necessary and helpful. But there is a line that should not be crossed. 

A Christian acquintance of mine recently shared a Whatsapp photo of him going out with his friends who are members of an embassy of a Muslim country. I’d rather not say which country. He is a dedicated Christian and studies theology, but he is also very liberal. 

In one whatsapp status he shared a photo of himself, with two of his Muslim friends. They are standing on the carpet, barefoot, and about to pray. He even says “Joining a traditional Muslim prayer session!!”. A similar photo says, “Prepared with all the rituals and clothing, to make it authentic!! :-)”.

This is wrong on so many levels. You can respect people of a different faith, allow them their places of worship, talk with them, become best friends with them, and just treat them like humans. But as a Christian you need commitment. You cannot just pretend to worship Allah, or pretend to say the Shahada. I’m pretty sure some serious Muslims would agree with me that this is almost an insult against Islam. It is meant in good faith so you cannot really hold it against him. But it reflects a deep disregard not only to your loyalty to God himself, but also to the believers of that other faith. 

If I had a committed Muslim friend I would not like it if he pretended to pray to Christ out of some desire to be culturally enriched. I won’t stop him, but I would question his own loyalty to Allah for doing that. Your faith is a serious matter. You expect others to take it seriously too. 

Let me start with a disclaimer. I am not saying that Ready Player One is meant to be a metaphor for Christianity. I also did not watch it thinking “Wow, these things feel like metaphors”. At best (or worst, depending on your point of view), I’m using the movie as an example. I’m appropriating it. And I’m sure a similar argument can be made for The Matrix, Inception and Sword Art Online. The first time I watched the movie I just enjoyed it. I loved the references to Minecraft, Halo, and a host of others. It’s only on my second viewing that I probed a bit deeper.

With the above out of the way I’ll say this: I watched the movie for a second time now and I was struck by something. My mother (her first time watching it) said Halliday’s avatar, Anorak, is godlike. As a Christian this bothered her (though not me). This is true. Throughout the movie other players seem to be worshipping him. Wade himself bowed to Anarok the first time he saw him. And, obviously, all the Gunters know everything about him. 

Halliday is this obscure god of the OASIS. He designed it. He ruled it. Even after his death. He’s also a good god. Of course the analogy is not perfect. Halliday was disinterested in the affairs of his players, though he did try to keep the game clean from advertisements and monetization. And Halliday himself made many mistakes. (By the way, it’s interesting how Anorak is a confident wise wizard - the opposite of Halliday who was insecure and made foolish mistakes). 

Now for my actual point. The OASIS is a good world, but not an easy one. You could die and lose all your progress. Of course, this doesn’t mean you die in real life. Then again the film makes it clear that for many people dying in the game is akin to losing in life. The OASIS has its safe areas, but also its dangerous ones. 

(Unrelated but I wanted to share it: I love how Wade killed Artemis to save Samantha. At first he fell in love with Artemis. By the end he loved Samantha more)

The more blatant symbolism (if I can call it that) is that the game was designed by an outside force. By a power outside of the OASIS. And, importantly, it was infiltrated by an outside force who sought to rule over the game. To put it bluntly, God created the world and the demons want to rule it. The OASIS contain good people, but also those loyal to Sorrento. 

Throughout the film there was the theme that the OASIS is not all there is. People are disregarding their real lives. Their more important lives for something lesser. And yet the OASIS is not disrespected. Even to the end everyone loves the OASIS as something good. It should not be destroyed or avoided. But people should merely not make it as important as they do. Throughout the film Wade (and Halliday) begin to realise that the OASIS is not all there is. Halliday wanted to escape reality through the game. Wade wanted to use the OASIS to have a better real home, content with the dark forces that sought to change the virtual world. Both of them realised their mistakes. By the way, it is interesting that it was only after learning of real suffering through Samantha that Wade first realised the necessity to be good and to fight for good causes. Both reality and the OASIS only became really important when he knew real suffering. But I digress.

As Christians we have a similar theme. The world is not evil, at least not completely so. It is not something to be avoided. Food and drink are good. Love is good. We should not become ascetic monks who starve ourselves out of a conviction that the world is somehow evil. It is not. We should also not be content, like both Halliday and Wade, with the escapism that the world provides. We shouldn’t lose ourselves in it. And we shouldn’t be unaware of the dark forces in the world. We should keep our eyes and minds on the real world outsides. Not by ignoring this world, just like Wade decided not to ignore the OASIS by taking Sorrento’s bribe. No. We improve this world by not, paradoxically, making it so important. It is only when you are aware of the actual world that you can improve the one you are in. 

As C. S. Lewis put it: 

If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.

Disclaimer: I am not a theologian and I am not studying theology. My knowledge of these matters come mostly from what I’ve read, or what I have heard from those who seem knowledgeable on this. I don’t mind being proven wrong.

I met this guy a few years back. He struck me as a real Christian. But I’ve noticed over the years that often the people you respect most for their faith end being those you respect least. I still respect him and I do think he IS a Christian. But he shared a couple of stuff on his Whatsapp status today that I had to address. 

For many people out there it will just be a case of my word against his. Even worse, he IS actually studying theology. But at least there is a “my word” against his and not just “his words”.  

He made a list about “10 things about Christianity that Jesus would not be happy about if he returned”. 

1. That his vision for a transformed society, which he called the “kingdom of God”, got twisted into an afterlife fantasy about Heaven”.

Fair enough. Kinda. I wonder whether he actually believes there is a heaven, but that’s too unclear to comment on. However, either way this “kingdom of God” is NOT a kingdom on earth at the moment. As I understand it (and again, I could be wrong), Jesus himself saw himself as the Kingdom of God. In fact if I recall correctly that’s what N. T. Wright said in his book, The Challenge of Jesus (it was also said by the apologist William Lane Craig). It is through Christ that we can partake in a shadow of what is to come. So in a sense yes, we should work towards transforming society right now. But the Kingdom is in him, not here. But we shouldn’t expect that there will be a kingdom of God in our life time before his return. 

2. That a religion was formed to worship his name, instead of a movement to advance his message. 

This is really on the line between orthodoxy and heresy. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. He is right if he means that we should not just worship him. We should also spread the Gospel. That’s fine so far that goes. But what he is hopefully not saying is that worshipping his name is wrong. 

3. That the gospel says his death solved the problem of humankind’s separation from God, instead of his life as a witness that there is no separation from God.

This is downright wrong, if not blatantly heretical. The point IS that we are fallen human beings. This came about through our own sinful deeds. It is only through Christ’s sacrifice that we are forgiven and allowed true access to God’s presence. The Jews in the Old Testament were never allowed to venture into the temple all the way to where the Ark was. They were unclean. Only the high priests could go there and only extremely rarely. But through Christ’s atonement we are cleansed. Though our sins are red, they shall be white as snow.

4. That the religion bearing his name was conceived by the theories and doctrines of Paul, instead of the truth Jesus lived and demonstrated.

Agreed. I remember studying religious studies how they would argue that Paul founded Christianity. Only much later on did I discover that all sane historians believe Jesus did actually exist. It is because of him that Christianity has come about.

5. That he was said to exclusively be God in the flesh, putting his example out of reach, rather than teaching that we all share in the same spirit that empowered his character and life.

Yes and no. Once again this takes a very fine line. It is true that Jesus being God incarnate does not put his example out of reach. If anything, he became as much a man to show what the perfect man would be. Do we share the same spirit, though? This is an odd question and it is beyond my knowledge. My problem is this: The Christian doctrine is that God is a trinity. Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is the third. We share the third Person, the Holy Spirit, in that the Holy Spirit lives in us. I don’t know though whether Jesus actually had the Holy Spirit while on earth. I mean, why would he? And when Jesus went away he said he would send the Spirit after him. 

So I don’t know. But I’m just cautious about this point. 

6. That the religion that claims Jesus, teaches that his wisdom and teachings are the only legitimate way to know truth and God. 

“Truth and God”. Two statements are made here: 

That only only his wisdom and teachings are legitimate ways to know truth.

And that only his wisdom and teachings are legitimate ways to know God. 

I agree on the former, but not the latter. 

No one in their right mind would say that you have to be a Christian to know truth. Life, nature and everything we learn can be known whether you’re an atheist or not. Many Christians would argue that it is through the natural world that you can come to know God. 

The second point is more difficult. Yes, but I would change it a bit. Jesus’s wisdom and teachings are the only legitimate way to know God as best as you could. As with the point above, it is possible to learn some things about God in other places. Like Plato who argued for God’s goodness. Or the Hindus who are not that far away with their whole idea of Avatars. That’s true. You can learn facts about God from outside of Christianity. Many Christian theologians from the beginning agreed on this. They took inspiration from Plato and Aristotle and others. 

It is also possible (though I know some will disagree) that you are honestly mistaken about Him. Suppose you grew up in a Muslim family and for some reason or another you were never really exposed to Christianity. If you are honestly a Muslim and you never consciously rejected Christianity then maybe (A BIG maybe cause I don’t know), maybe you’ll still be saved after death. 

BUT... if you KNOW of Christ and you know what he offers then it’s stupid to hold to anything else. I mean, I’m sure those cheap PlayStation 3 knock-offs have some good games here and there, but why have the knock-offs when you can have the same thing? Even worse, suppose you see the love of your life. Why settle for anyone less than him or her if you can have him or her? Isn’t it insulting and an outright rejection to reject your love for something worse? 

It is possible that by loving someone you learn how to appreciate the love of your life when you meet him or her. But that’s not the same as rejecting your love for the lesser version. In the same vein you can only truly love God by accepting him as completely as you can. Anything else is just fear and idolatry.

So to get back to the statement, you can know some things about God in other faiths. You may even (perhaps I’m wrong) know him somewhat if you are honestly seeking him in that faith. But if he revealed the true path to you, if he revealed the Christian faith and Christ himself, and you reject it, then you reject him. In that case you cannot know God.

7. The idea that humankind stands condemned before God and deserving of God’s wrath and eternal judgement, requiring the death of Jesus to fix it.

This is the same as point 3. This is downright true. Anything else is heresy. This is the entire point of Christianity. We are standing condemned and we do require Christ to “fix” it. It’s like THE central message. 

I need to actually quote the Bible here:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

We have all done bad things. As C. S. Lewis said, in ancient times people knew of the disease but not the cure. Today people do not even know of the disease. Look deep into yourself. Do you really like what you see? We all have this spite and anger, jealous, pride and lust. Do you like it? Do you like the fact that you’ve just said this or that to your friend? Or thought this other thing about your mother? What is this in us that makes us so wretched? A part of us wants to be punished. We did this one very terrible thing which no man on earth should approve. It should be condemned. We want others to be punished for doing this and a part of us want ourselves to be punished as well. 

THAT, is what Christians mean when they say we are sinful and need to be saved. We need to be saved from ourselves. And we can’t. That’s what we mean when we say we stand accused before God. And that only Jesus can fix it. He takes all that guilt and badness on him and is punished in our place. 

8. That people are waiting on Jesus to return to save the world and end suffering, rather than taking responsibility for saving the world and saving suffering ourselves.

Yes and no. As Christians we are obligated to help others in the here and now. That’s true. We should alleviate suffering as far as we can. But we will never save the world or end suffering completely. That’s simply unrealistic, as anyone with a basic grasp of human nature or politics can tell you. 

9. That people think there is magical potency in uttering the name of Jesus, rather than accessing our own natural powers and capabilities to effect change.

Agreed. His name is not some magical chant that you can use as you wish. That’s simply blasphemy.

10. That people have come to associate Jesus with church, theology, politics and power, rather than courage, justice, humanity, beauty and love.

Why not both?

---

Every so often I find that people get confused on morally judging countries. They switch standards without knowing it and they end up defending the death of millions. 

Take that Iranian oil tanker that Britain recently captured. Was it right or wrong? This is tricky. Britain is obligated to follow EU law which bans trade with Syria. So Britain had to do it. They would have been “wrong” not to. But there’s also the moral question of whether Syria should be sanctioned at all. Should Britain have violated EU law to help Syria? 

What about Iran? They are obligated to respect the laws of other states. So in a sense they have no right to be surprised at what happened. But on the other hand there are (I think) maritime laws which should allow trade between territories. Why should Britain and Spain get preference for conveniently being situated in such a spot that they control the straits of Gibralter, in effect controlling entry into Europe? After all, Britain and Israel attacked Egypt when Egypt closed the Suez canal. So was Britain wrong after all? What about the effect of the sanctions on the people of Syria? But then again maybe that oil intended to help a regime killing the people of Syria. 

Do you see how difficult this is? Moral questions are not easy. 

Many discussions confuse these things. America would make a case that North Korea is imprisoning and killing their own people indiscriminately. That gives them the moral case to sanction North Korea to force them to become more democratic. 

But then people switch standards: Suddenly they say that America, as a state, has no right to made demands on North Korea, as a state. That’s kinda true. All states are supposed to be equal. America in international law does not have the right to sanction, say, the Venezuelan regime without United Nations Security Council approval. And yet they would be moral if they do. But again people would refer to America as a political entity interfering the domestic affairs of another political entity. They switch from caring about people to caring about abstract social constructs.

Take Hong Kong at the moment. For the sake of the argument ignore the treaty Britain and China agreed on which guarantees Hong Kong certain rights. People would, from their lack of info, say that Hong Kong belongs to China and that therefore Western states have no right to support the protesters. Luckily these people are surprisingly in a minority. They value the international norms between states more than the rights of people. They would rather see everyone in Hong Kong lose their freedom and their lives in the name of “equality of states”.

Do you see the problem? In all these cases we went from talking about the rights of humans to the rights of political entities. 

Keep this in mind. At the end of the day the people are what matters. I know it’s difficult. It opens up dangerous questions about how far any single state should unilaterally intervene. Like in Iraq, which was a mistake. And yet no one would say that America should have stayed out of Rwanda during the genocide there. In fact many African states still blame the West for NOT intervening. 

Often in discussions about morality people would point to “compassion” and “empathy” as a way to avoid using the word “good”. Even though, of course, they clearly mean the same thing. The problem is that these other terms always miss the point. They are always, in one way or another, a type of enlightened self-interest. That by helping others you help yourself. That by caring for another that you somehow benefit. Even discussions on altruism often go that way: that it’s good to help the community because if the community benefits then in the long term you will too. 

The problem with all of these is quite obvious: they remain self-centered. Others are helped. And yes that’s good. And better than mere short-sighted selfishness. But the goal remains your own benefit. Nothing is ever truly done for some other person simply for the sake of that person. Even if it costs to your life to help someone who cannot possibly ever help you. After all, if an action costs you your life, then how exactly can it possibly be “enlightened self-interest”? There’s no “self” left. 

A possible criticism proves the point: perhaps the “self” has an interest in maintaining the group. Or country, or children or whatever. But then it’s no longer self-interest: the concern is not for the self but for the other.

What is ultimately best? A truly self-interested personality? Where steps to help others also intend to help you? Or is a truly altruistic personality better? 

I think there is another possibility. I did not google it so I don’t know how popular it is and whether my conception of the term is better than whatever is out there. I am talking about enlightened humility. 

Enlightened humility is the opposite of enlightened self-interest. With enlightened humility your focus is always on something or someone outside of you. But with a twist: even if it helps you. Or even if it does not.

There are basically a false version of humility, and what is actually meant by humility. But I refer to the second as “enlightened” to distinguish it. The false version is that you should only be humble in so far as YOU are humble. For instance, suppose a friend offers you a chocolate. But you don’t accept his offer. But you know he WANTS you to have it. The enlightened type would ALLOW him to make a sacrifice that he wants to make for you. The false type would be “humble” just for being “humble” without consideration for the desire or good of the other. And that’s actually just self-interest. But to keep the distinction I’ll refer to the good type as “enlightened humility”.

For another example, suppose your grandmother made you some food. You ate some. She offers more. But you are “humble” so you say no. In reality if you really cared for her you would eat more, for her sake. Whether the food is great or not.

In this mentality you help someone else. But you will not refrain from helping yourself if it will help that person. The difference is that your eyes are on that other person, not yourself. You may benefit from it, but it’s not ultimate goal. Here you are the instrument for someone else. Other people do not become your instrument.

But if we compare the two “enlightened” types, which one would you say is better? The one that ultimately looks after the self, or the one that does not? 

The core problem with enlightened self-interest is that it allows for the possibility that there is a situation where helping others would be against your interests, in which case you are justified in not helping others. If helping others will reduce your power, or influence, or amount of chocolates, or whatever, then you won’t help them. There comes a point where enlightened self-interest is simply self-interest. Simply selfish. 

Humility - enlightened humility - (which are actually the same as I said), does not have this flaw. It will help the others even if it itself is not helped. And it will help the others even if it itself IS helped. It is always applicable and others always benefit. It is therefore better.

If you choose this option it gets even better. You are now loyal to something outside of you. Whether it helps you or destroys you is no longer the concern. As long as that other improves and gets better. This loyalty is therefore a kind of blind loyalty. You will try to help that thing no matter how bad it is, because IT is your concern and not your opinion on it. You want to make it better, no matter how you found it. You don’t consider how that thing’s filth makes you dirty. Only how that thing can be improved.

The fact that we even prefer an “enlightened” version of self-interest shows that we prefer efforts that look beyond the self. And therefore it follows that our preference is ever so slightly on the side of humility, true humility. And therefore enlightened humility - or just humility - is preferable.

I’ll end with an excerpt of a book by G. K. Chesterton (Pimlico is a British town):

Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing—say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. For decoration is not given to hide horrible things: but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck. 

My original title would have been “defending Christian sexual ethics”. Then I recalled C. S. Lewis’s and G. K. Chesterton’s advice that we should say things in a way that is actually clear. Basically, why sex before marriage is bad and why marriage is good.

What I am about to argue is somewhat based on Christian doctrine. But not completely. If you’re not a Christian then you will still find value in this. You might just simply not care about the specifically Christian arguments. The Christian section is more to augment the other points I make. 

Why I’m writing this

I just need to first explain why I’m writing this. The modern world is so filled with sex. It is really just impossible to get away from it. Nowadays I have to watch my every thought. I mean, if I wanted to, at any time of day, I could watch porn literally within 10 seconds on my phone. All it takes is to go on Chrome and search “porn”. Just knowing I can do it worries me. Then there are all the movies with these scenes. And all the references. And all the insinuations. And the adverts. And all the real life temptations. I mean I just wanted to watch The Defenders, a MARVEL TV show, and the very first episode has an explicit scene. It’s like I just cannot escape it anymore.

There comes a point where you just need to clear your head.

What actually spurred me on is a Whatsapp status by an acquaintance. He is a Christian studying theology. He is very, well, “progressive”. He supports LGBT in the church, premarital sex, you name it. He posted a picture of the books he is reading for a theological assignment on premarital sex. Instead of just thinking “I disagree” I thought I should prove myself and actually write why I disagree. 

Some arguments

Now for the meat of the discussion. What follows are short ramblings which I hope are helpful.

The first argument is basically that our modern yearning for sex is both unnatural and unhealthy. C. S. Lewis made the good point that the modern sex drive is way out of proportion. We talk of “liberating” it when in fact we are overblowing it. If we eat we don’t eat an entire cake each day. If we’re thirsty, we don’t down a 2 litre Coca Cola in a minute. We know, with wisdom, that there is a limit to what we should desire. And yet we make an exception for sex. 

Lewis compared it to a strip club... 

Or take it another way. You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act—that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us? 

A slightly more Christian argument relevant to the previous point, but still I think applicable for everyone, is this. Marriage, and waiting until then, is better. Christianity supports sex in marriage completely. It is not evil. It is not bad. But Lewis, again, puts it better than I could:

Christianity has glorified marriage more than any other religion: and nearly all the greatest love poetry in the world has been produced by Christians. If anyone says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once. But, of course, when people say, "Sex is nothing to be ashamed of," they may mean "the state into which the sexual instinct has now got is nothing to be ashamed of." 

If they mean that, I think they are wrong. I think it is everything to be ashamed of. There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food: there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food and dribbling and smacking their lips. 

The most important argument I want to make is actually more emotional. For some this will be the weakest argument. For others perhaps the strongest. So bear with me. 

If you love that person, and if he or she loves you, don’t you want him or her to be as good as they can be? As pure, as perfect? If you love something, anything, you are willing to tear it down to improve it. Like a mother who scolds you for your filthy hands because she loves you. Or a father who grounds you because he loves you and wants you to learn to be better. We suffer out of love. This is relevant, because it shows that at heart we really want our beloved to the best he or she can be. 

Think of it this way. Picture that love of your life. And now imagine an exact duplicate standing next to him or her. The same personality and history. But with one catch. That duplicate has never had sex. Or at least really tries to keep away from it. Which of the two do you respect the most? Just some food for thought. 

Any declaration of love is a declaration of eternity. It is a promise that you will love that one person for ever. It is treacherous and a reflection of shallowness to, the next day, simply fall in love with someone else. This is not so much an argument against premarital sex as one for monogamy, but hang on. I have heard people say “Well, we will get married eventually so we might as well have sex now”. This is dangerous. Do you know that? If you do, then why not just get married first? Why not? Are you afraid you don’t mean it when you said you love that person? Or are you just lying to deceive him or her? Or lying to yourself? 

As Chesterton said, marriage is simply taking you at your word. You pledged that you will love her or him forever. Marriage is basically life, or society or God saying, “Prove it: marry that person”. 

What are some of your objections to this? That it’s “too big a step”? Again, that just shows that you are not sure and are taking advantage of a person even though you claim you are sure. If you’re a girl and a guy “loves you”, but won’t marry you, what is he saying exactly other than that he is not sure he loves you, or will continue to love you? 

Some more mature responses are probably things like “I would first want to get a job” or something like that. That’s more understandable. And it’s something I have to consider first.

But now for more grounded arguments. 

The first is that abstinence shows you are capable of controlling yourself. And at the same time it shows respect. It is a declaration and proof that you really do love that person and that it is not just sexual. It’s a minor argument, but it helps. Even if I were not a Christian this would be sufficient for me: I am proving to myself and to her that what I am promising her are not just words. 

Psychologically also we like to pretend that we are just human machines. That’s not true. You don’t have to be a Christian to think this. Psychology, from the little I am aware of, is well aware of just how personal our physical actions are. Sex is no different. You are tying yourself to someone. Either that or you are degrading sex into something that is just meaningless. 

Just a few weeks ago my friends and I were having a Dungeons and Dragons session. It was getting rather late so my one close friend and I started talking while the others were busy. At school he was really in love with a girl. And slept with her. They broke up, but now, five whole years later, he still thinks of her almost every day. He’s a Christian, but by far not one of those church going types, if you know what I mean. And out of nowhere he was like: “They say when you have sex a part of that person is always with you. That’s true”. It was a surprise coming from him.

It also makes me think of something else. You will always think of that first person you had sex with. Maybe even on your marriage day or honeymoon. You will, or you will find it hard not to, compare your husband or wife with all the people you’ve slept with. They will always be a part of your life. Either you will have slept with so many people that you won’t remember all of it (which is worse), or if you’ve slept with just a few you will remember all of it. And be honest, will this or won’t it bother you in your marriage life? 

For my part I would like to be in a relationship where, even if it ends, I can look back and say “I treated her with respect” and she can look back and say “We are not meant to be together, but at least he has not damaged me in any lasting way and always treated me with respect”. 

Lastly, if you are reading this you probably already doubt that you want to do it. Realise that. You probably don’t. And you don’t have to. You owe that person nothing. You never owe that person your body. 

Honestly, at this point I realise that my arguments so far are flimsy. So I apologise if I have disappointed you. At least I know now on what I have based my own opinions. 

To be even more honest my actual main goal is this: If you are a girl (or a guy) and you feel pressured to have sex, don’t. Think twice. Ask yourself why. Is it just lust? Or is it love? If it’s love, then it can wait. After all, “love is patient”. If that person is hasty, why? Maybe that’s just lust. Maybe not. At least just think twice. 

Christian arguments

I am not an expert on the Christian arguments. To be blunt, the New Testament clearly disallows it. We are called to abstain from all sexual immorality. For the average Jew at the time - a conservative folk - this clearly included premarital sex. Jesus equates fornication to murder and stealing. The Apostle Paul says that fornicators - people who have sex out of marriage - will not enter Heaven. The morality of not entering Heaven aside, at least he is clear.

The arguments, from what I have seen, seems to be that “sexually immoral” does not include premarital sex. This is very add. Adultery (sex with another person when you are married, or sex with a married person) is clearly condemned. So is incest and bestiality. Even lustful thoughts are bad. But, for some reason, premarital sex is not? Clearly when the New Testament speaks of “sexual immorality” the average Jew at the time understood that it included premarital sex. In fact the case of Mary, Jesus’ mother, seems to show this. Joseph wanted to end their engagement because she was pregnant. Why? Because (although wrongly) he thought she had sex with someone else, and that this is wrong. Luckily for him this was an exception, but the point still stands.

But there is more. Paul urged people who cannot control their passions - who lust for each other - to marry. This is clear. Even if you don’t love that person, and just lust after him or her, you should marry and then have sex. Otherwise why would he mention marriage? Why would he even mention it as a problem? He would just have been like “if you lust for another, then go ahead and have sex”. Not, “If you lust for another, marry”. 

You have to keep in mind one thing. Jesus died for our sins. He loves us in spite of our sins. A guy who has sex with a girl is, in a way, “just as bad” as me lying to my friend. Lying is also wrong. Or hating someone. Or stealing money. Just as sex is today way too much discussed, so it is also way too much condemned by the Church. It should be condemned, but not more so than all these other problems. Jesus loves you even if you do one of these things. But he expects us to at least try to stop. 

Think of that woman at the well. She was caught in the act of adultery. She had done it multiple times. The people wanted to stone her. Jesus did not. He loved her and let her go. BUT, and it’s important, he told her to stop doing it. 

You love your friends or parents even though they do this or that. You don’t think what they do are right. And you would want them to stop. But you love them all the same. In the same vein God loves you even though we do this or that. It doesn’t make it right. He would want us to stop. But he loves us all the same.

Today I was thinking of a specific verse. Jesus said “If you love me, keep my commands.” I like  logical argumentation. If you like it too, look at it like this: If you love him, you would keep his commands. Therefore it follows that if you do not keep his commands, that you do not love him. I realised this today and it worries me a bit. But it’s also something to consider when thinking of these things.

Conclusion

I know my arguments are weak. I just felt like I should give my opinion not because they are good, but because I feel there is a need to defend this view. 

Good luck. Listen to this song:

That’s the sentiment I got today from a surprisingly successful YouTube video. It’s a couple of Christian guys who go through the MCU to find direct and indirect Christian references in an attempt to show its anti-Christian nature. I’m serious. Normally I would just leave it be, but I feel I should address it. There are so many positive comments on that video that I need to say something. 

The short answer is “No, the MCU is NOT out to irritate Christians one way or another”. I am aware that they seem to be going into more political, so called “inclusive” territory. That’s not my concern here. So this post is hopefully relevant to you as a Christian regardless of your political or social views. I’m talking about Ultron saying “Upon this rock I will built my Church” or Tony Stark saying “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar”. That’s what I - and the video - are looking at. 

To keep the post short I will give a short Christian response.

C. S. Lewis, and his predecessor G. K. Chesterton (along with Tolkien, I may add), had a specific view of human history. Namely, if Christianity is true - if it is really this one key feature of life - then you would expect shadows of it before it occurred. You won’t be surprised that distortions have come about. You would expect to find myths of dying and rising gods. You would expect to see legends of heroes rising from the dead. This, in essence, is my response to the video.

Yes, there are parallels to Tony Stark and Jesus, or Christianity more broadly... and most “hero journeys”. You often have a selfish, destructive unsympathetic character undergo some radical event. Usually it’s some encounter with death: either they almost die, or someone close to them does. And then their eyes are open. It’s a kind of spiritual resurrection: now they are different. Now they are better. Looking at the MCU you find the idea of a spiritual resurrection in most of their characters: Tony Stark injured, captured, exposed to his effect on the world and witnessing his mentor die. Thor, arrogant brute, being humbled and made to care for others. Steve Rogers... we’ll he’s a unique case (and so is Vision), which I’ll discuss later. Bruce Banner not so much, but watch this space. Black Widow, a former assassin saved by Clint, and turned hero. All of the Guardians, before just a couple of “losers” turn to become heroes. Don’t forget Nebula.

We like these movies not because they glorify bad people. We like them because they glorify redemption. And that’s probably one of the most key Christian doctrines. It’s so true that it is clear even to non-Christians. So the video guys miss the point: we don’t like Tony’s narcissism. We like him because he is good in spite of it and he is getting better.

But let me go further. Another reason we like these movies and characters - and hero journeys in general - is how they complete their journeys into pure selflessness. At the end of the day they are willing to sacrifice themselves. Tony almost kills himself saving Peter. In The Avengers you see Cap telling him that he is not a hero and is only selfish... only to see him later on almost sacrificing himself saving New York. Steve killed himself - or he thought he would - saving the world in The First Avenger. Thor was willing to let Loki kill him to save his friends. And at the end even sacrificed seeing Jane again trying to stop him. Banner, even, spent his whole solo movie trying to get rid of Hulk. But when faced with people dying in Harlem he jumped out of the helicopter, not even knowing if he will die, in an effort to save the people. In Endgame you see Tony, again, sacrificing himself and a life with his family saving the universe. Natasha, too, did the same. 

I could go on and tell you about Strange willing to die for all eternity, Peter Parker giving up his dream dance with his crush, Quicksilver dying to save Clint, Cap, again, willing to die to save Bucky’s soul, Scott Lang going subatomic to save his daughter, Groot saving his friends in GotG vol1, etc. Even Yondu redeemed himself by saving Quill. It extends to the Netflix heroes too, though I’ve only cared for DareDevil: sacrificing his friends and a normal life to save the city. 

We love these characters because they are, when push comes to shove, selfless. Not that they are perfect - none of them are. 

With all this in mind, to come back to Christianity, the answer is YES. There ARE parallels to Christ’s death and resurrection. There IS a parallel between the normal Christian being spiritually reborn. And that’s the point. We should expect these parallels. And we love these movies because they reflect what each of us, in the deepest parts of our souls, know to be good: resurrection and self-sacrifice.

Steve Rogers, and Vision, are the exceptions that prove the rule. The character trait of Steve is that he is morally perfect, or at least the most of them all. So he doesn’t have that spiritual resurrection. Rather, he is an almost Jesus figure in his perfection and willingness to die for others. He is that ideal. Unlike the others he doesn’t strive for it. He is it. And yet he still struggles to keep it. The same goes to Vision, though to a smaller extent. Ultron was a mad egoist with a God-complex. He wanted a saviour - a not so subtle messianic reference - which turned out to be Vision. And... Ultron was disappointed. Vision’s goodness was, in Ultron’s view, a defect. And yet Vision beat him. It is reminiscent of the verse in the Gospel of John: the lights shines in the darkness, but the darkness does not comprehend it. 

The critics in the video are right in one aspect, but it’s a ludicrously obvious one. These analogies - these characters with these traits - are just that: analogies. As a Christian we do believe that only Christ fulfils these ideals. And as such, all of these characters will always somehow not be enough. They will never match Christ. That’s true. But no one, no Christian does (or at least should) idolise these Marvel heroes. But they are worthy imperfect examples pointing us to a higher truth. They point us (if I may) closer to Christ and the moral perfection we all desire. They will, obviously, seem like a step downwards from the character of Jesus. That’s true. But they are also a step upwards from our normal life. As long as they inspire you to be better they are good.

Just a P. S. I am not saying it is all good. I think my whole experience of the MCU WAS a bit marred in Infinity War when Quill said “What am I supposed to say, Jesus?”. I believe that was unnecessary to say the least. I also don’t appreciate many of them using “Jesus” as a cuss word. 

The modern Christian world seems to be in the process of either going into a dangerously conservative, alt-right mentality, or an overly socially liberal one. Neither is good. There are people on the liberal side with honest intentions. I grant them that. Acceptance of homosexuality, modern sexual mores, and every other modern fad is, in a sense, understandable and perhaps even enviable. 

I recently came across a blog by a Christian. The title of the blog is the same as the title for this post. The idea of the blog is to see how false Christian views are having a negative impact - how they are seen by atheists. That’s an interesting and praiseworthy goal. 

However, in a process of making Christianity attractive to the modern world it also serves to strip the faith of its transcendental objectivity. As G. K. Chesterton put it more than a century ago, “We do not want, as the newspapers say, a Church that will move with the world. We want a Church that will move the world."

There are core Christian doctrines at odds with modern Western fads: its opposition to abortion and homosexual behaviour comes first to mind. Perhaps also the issue of female pastors or clergymen. 

Merely 50 years, or perhaps a 100 years ago, these positions were perfectly normal. And they were considered normal for thousands of years. In fact, the irony is that the first time that they were so opposed as they were today were at the founding of Christianity itself. 

The pagan world was rife with what we today would call cultural relativism. You worship Moloch? Sacrifice your child by throwing her into the fire! You’re a gay homosexual? Go ahead! You have a different god? Add him to the pantheon! How dare you say only your god is God? How dare you be so exclusionary? Sexual purity! What? That’s unheard of! 

To be fair, every age has his religious and secular reformers, though they usually fail. The point I am driving at is that Christianity was not politically or culturally welcomed with open arms. Jesus was crucified. The apostles were exiled, beheaded, crucified upside down, skinned alive. 

Obviously many people welcomed it. They recognised that the cultural mores of the time were exactly that: mores of the time. The values of the Church - here I mean the body of Christians - are objective and unchanging throughout time. It is something, at least, for you to hold on to when the whole world is going through moral fashions. Without some absolute standard, how would you know that you are progressing at all? How do you know that your “improvements” are not really part of a regress to a darker time? On what basis do you judge your views? The only option - from a secular point - is to compare it with past ages. After all: homosexuality was commonly despised 70 years ago. What’s to say your grandchildren won’t hate it either? This doesn’t, of course, prove whether it is moral or not. But that’s my point. If you judge the morals of one time (today) with another (the Victorian era), you won’t know whether today’s morals or those of the other era are really right. They are just fashions coming and going. Your “noble” beliefs are just beliefs your time.

And if you think moral progress - if you know it’s progress at all - is inevitable, I would like to burst your bubble: the great Roman empire was followed by the dark ages. The Chinese reign of the Han was followed by centuries of division and conflict. The French revolution of the brotherhood of humankind was followed by the Reign of Terror and emperors, before Europe simply returned the monarchical status quo. The prosperity of democracy in Germany and Italy (I might be mistaken of the latter) led to the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini. The post-independence glory and improvement from colonialism led to genocide in Rwanda.

Today you see similar events in Turkey, Thailand, Venezuela... somewhat prospering countries descending into autocracy, disaster and populism. Without going into politics too much, if you are a liberal yourself, would you say Trump and Brexit are signs of moral improvements? 

But I digressed way too long. Let me get back to the point: Christianity will always be “off”. It will never “fit” with the modern world. Either it has a supernatural, out-of-time quality, or it does not. If it is the former, we should take it seriously. If it is simply another system and a product of its time then why bother reforming it at all? 

To use another quote by Chesterton, “Christianity is always out of fashion because it is always sane; and all fashions are mild insanities.”

To conclude, I have not argued in this essay that Christianity is true. Nor did I argue that Christian morals with regards to homosexuality and other issues are better. I left that for another time. My point is simply that we should either take seriously what it claims, or we just shouldn’t bother with it as at all.

As C. S. Lewis put it: 

I’ve been wondering about these issues for a while. And I know that some of what I might say might come off as creepy. It might show that I’ve thought too much about this, if you know what I mean. And you would be right. In this overly-sexual world staying away from sexual thoughts and videos and movies and all the rest is incredibly hard. Honestly, it’s something I’ve been battling with. One thing I discovered is obvious: that it dehumanizes people. 

I will try to present a moral argument against it by pointing you to the experiences of these people. Keep in mind this will all be hypothetical. I do not know if this is actually case. Maybe, at the end of it all, you can say that it’s just pure speculation. And maybe you are right. This is one giant argument from emotion. And that’s the entire point. 

I’ll begin with this: it sounds like a cliche, but it’s true. Pornography really does objectify people. As in it strips them of all meaning and humanity. Think of a girl of 20 years doing pornography. What exactly led her to that situation? Surely no 10 year old says “One day I want to be a porn star”. I’m pretty sure most 18 year olds won’t even say that. We would often chuckle at people who says “I want to be a world-famous ballet dancer” or “I will be playing for the national football, rugby or cricket team”. We envy their dedication, but we know the chances are slim. When they do succeed - even when they fail - we respect them. 

That’s not the same with pornography. Barring a few cases (I’ll get to them) no one dreamed of doing it. It’s not a place where you can test your ambitions. Where, like a movie actor, you know if you keep at it you might even become famous. It’s not even some necessary evil to some societal good. Movie actors, at least, often help charities. People in government or NGOs can help change the world. So do churches and mosques and even businesses. Who does pornography for charity? Who thinks “making some guy online get it off” is a worthy social goal? No one. So, firstly, we know pornography is not a greater good. 

What is it then? Why, it’s personal. It’s about the survival of that girl or that guy. She became involved in it somehow to survive. How did this happen? Did she really just think “Hey I’m gonna try pornography?”. There might be some people like that. No. Most likely she was already struggling with money or respect. Maybe she was a waiter at some disreputable bar. Maybe after that she joined a strip-club, where someone recruited her for pornography. That’s sad. If you had a choice: A decent job or pornography, who wouldn’t choose the job? The point I’m struggling to make is that pornography seems to be based on necessity, not desire. It’s not for the greater good, but something that that person has to do. Or thought she has to do. 

Once she’s in it, what can she do? This might seem a bit vulgar, but think about that first day that this girl had to do a video. Was she scared? I doubt she was excited (I’ll deal with those later). There in a studio with a bunch of people watching (after all, someone has to record it, and edit it, and direct it). I pity her. Maybe after a while she got used to it. But aren’t there moments where, even while doing a video, she was sad or depressed? Think about it. No one is happy all the time. There are a bunch of humiliating and shocking things these people have to do. Did they really want to? Odds are that at least a few of the girls you watch online are actually timid and afraid: easily manipulated to do things they did not want to do. If they say “no, I don’t want to do that”, well there’s the door! The industry doesn’t need her. What power does she have? 

Can she get out? How? How much do we know about the porn industry? How much power does the industry have? Don’t they have an interest in humiliating their workers? In controlling them? So how can she get out? If she applies for a job, and the employer asks “What have you done the past year?”, what will she say? Be honest and not get the job? Or hide it? The longer she is not “working” the harder it will be for her to get a job. How many years of skills is she missing out on?

And it’s not just about money and having a job. This is a human being. She has friends and family. Maybe even a guy she is in love with. What is happening in her heart when she is with them? Or even while she is working? She is most likely hiding what she is really doing. And I’m pretty sure those she told are probably not some hardcore feminist who encourages it. At best they would accept it, but hope she gets out. How does this influence her relationships? If she goes on a date, what can she say? If she’s looking for a good guy, will she flaunt the fact that she does porn? Or maybe, if she says it, she’ll only attract the worst kinds of men. 

At the end of each day she has to go home. What is it like? At the end of the video you watched she had to shower. Drive home. Listen to some music. Maybe she read a book. Or perhaps she went to eat out somewhere or made food at home. There are some far fetched dreams that will come up about living here or taking a vacation over there. And when she heads to bed, knowing what happens the next day, what does she do? Will she laugh? Will she be excited? Will she cry? Or maybe she won’t feel anything at all. Maybe too tired. Or just indifferent. That’s just it though. Have you ever realised that every porn actor you’ve seen have cried? Have probably cried in the past month? That makes them a lot more human, doesn’t it? If they haven’t cried in the past month, or even year, how much of their soul have they lost? This is a test you should apply to every person you don’t care about or don’t like. Every actor or politician or person you hate, no matter how good or how evil: imagine that person crying. 

After all, for how long will this last? The irony is that it won’t last long. Maybe a year, maybe 5 years. Maybe 15. Will it last until she is 40? Probably not. She will probably be kicked out somehow before then. Or people will lose interest in her aging and over-used body. Maybe she will do more and more extreme things to stay relevant. And by that age, what will she be thinking? Will she think she has lived a full life? Or will she wish she had a normal life with a normal husband and a child? Hell, maybe she has a child and she’s still doing this. What does that mean for her as a role-model? How does that make her feel? Is she happy?

Now, with the rise of feminism I have to address what they would say. They would say pornography is liberating. They might despise male-driven porn industries, but then encourage self-liberating “safe” porn. Or soft-core porn. This is a step in the right direction, but is it really better? The people in these situations, I admit, have it better. And they choose to be there, hopefully because they want to and not because they need to. Just keep in mind that at the end of they day the people you are selling your bodies too are a bunch of horny men. But perhaps you’re not selling it like that. Maybe it’s “art” and shown at some “art conventions” or whatever you use to justify it. These feminists will say the porn actresses should like it. They should be proud. If they have children, they shouldn’t hide it. I almost want to agree. The feminists who say this have a good intention: they don’t want her to be ashamed of something she initially had to do. (After all, what choice did she have?) But, let’s be honest, will that help? Will it really make her feel better if she accepts it? Maybe it will help... for a while. But, at heart, will she ever truly accept it? That this is the way her life is?

Isn’t it sad that your best friend or your daughter (or mother) would choose to do this? I know this and the above paragraph is not as powerful, so many of you will disagree here. You might say that these people are honestly in favour of it. You might point to a porn star here and there who likes her job. But does the average girl in one of the hundred videos on the website’s home-page like it? And this porn star, does she really have respect? The only respect are from feminists who wish to give her that. And that’s just, honestly, heartbreaking. Where can she go? Maybe she wants to leave it too. But she’s famous. What can she do?

I’ll leave with this. It is an excerpt from the book, Notes from Underground by the Russian author, Fyodor Dostoevsky. It was published about a 150 years ago. Some things never change. Here the narrator is talking to a prostitute. Keep in mind, the point I’m making is compassion, NOT disrespect: we should care that anyone can end up like this. Each girl in the videos you watch face or could face these problems. It’s rather long. 

"Oh, hush, Liza! How can you talk about being like a book, when it makes even me, an outsider, feel sick? Though I don't look at it as an outsider, for, indeed, it touches me to the heart.... Is it possible, is it possible that you do not feel sick at being here yourself? Evidently habit does wonders! God knows what habit can do with anyone. Can you seriously think that you will never grow old, that you will always be good-looking, and that they will keep you here for ever and ever? 

I say nothing of the loathsomeness of the life here.... Though let me tell you this about it--about your present life, I mean; here though you are young now, attractive, nice, with soul and feeling, yet you know as soon as I came to myself just now I felt at once sick at being here with you! One can only come here when one is drunk. But if you were anywhere else, living as good people live, I should perhaps be more than attracted by you, should fall in love with you, should be glad of a look from you, let alone a word; I should hang about your door, should go down on my knees to you, should look upon you as my betrothed and think it an honour to be allowed to. I should not dare to have an impure thought about you. But here, you see, I know that I have only to whistle and you have to come with me whether you like it or not. I don't consult your wishes, but you mine. The lowest labourer hires himself as a workman, but he doesn't make a slave of himself altogether; besides, he knows that he will be free again presently. 

But when are you free? Only think what you are giving up here? What is it you are making a slave of? It is your soul, together with your body; you are selling your soul which you have no right to dispose of! You give your love to be outraged by every drunkard! Love! But that's everything, you know, it's a priceless diamond, it's a maiden's treasure, love--why, a man would be ready to give his soul, to face death to gain that love. But how much is your love worth now? You are sold, all of you, body and soul, and there is no need to strive for love when you can have everything without love. And you know there is no greater insult to a girl than that, do you understand? 

To be sure, I have heard that they comfort you, poor fools, they let you have lovers of your own here. But you know that's simply a farce, that's simply a sham, it's just laughing at you, and you are taken in by it! Why, do you suppose he really loves you, that lover of yours? I don't believe it. How can he love you when he knows you may be called away from him any minute? He would be a low fellow if he did! Will he have a grain of respect for you? What have you in common with him? He laughs at you and robs you--that is all his love amounts to! You are lucky if he does not beat you. Very likely he does beat you, too. Ask him, if you have got one, whether he will marry you. He will laugh in your face, if he doesn't spit in it or give you a blow--though maybe he is not worth a bad halfpenny himself. 

And for what have you ruined your life, if you come to think of it? For the coffee they give you to drink and the plentiful meals? But with what object are they feeding you up? An honest girl couldn't swallow the food, for she would know what she was being fed for. You are in debt here, and, of course, you will always be in debt, and you will go on in debt to the end, till the visitors here begin to scorn you. And that will soon happen, don't rely upon your youth--all that flies by express train here, you know. You will be kicked out. And not simply kicked out; long before that she'll begin nagging at you, scolding you, abusing you, as though you had not sacrificed your health for her, had not thrown away your youth and your soul for her benefit, but as though you had ruined her, beggared her, robbed her. And don't expect anyone to take your part: the others, your companions, will attack you, too, win her favour, for all are in slavery here, and have lost all conscience and pity here long ago. They have become utterly vile, and nothing on earth is viler, more loathsome, and more insulting than their abuse. 

And you are laying down everything here, unconditionally, youth and health and beauty and hope, and at twenty-two you will look like a woman of five-and-thirty, and you will be lucky if you are not diseased, pray to God for that! No doubt you are thinking now that you have a gay time and no work to do! Yet there is no work harder or more dreadful in the world or ever has been. One would think that the heart alone would be worn out with tears. And you won't dare to say a word, not half a word when they drive you away from here; you will go away as though you were to blame. You will change to another house, then to a third, then somewhere else, till you come down at last to the Haymarket. There you will be beaten at every turn; that is good manners there, the visitors don't know how to be friendly without beating you. You don't believe that it is so hateful there? Go and look for yourself some time, you can see with your own eyes. 

Once, one New Year's Day, I saw a woman at a door. They had turned her out as a joke, to give her a taste of the frost because she had been crying so much, and they shut the door behind her. At nine o'clock in the morning she was already quite drunk, dishevelled, half-naked, covered with bruises, her face was powdered, but she had a black-eye, blood was trickling from her nose and her teeth; some cabman had just given her a drubbing. She was sitting on the stone steps, a salt fish of some sort was in her hand; she was crying, wailing something about her luck and beating with the fish on the steps, and cabmen and drunken soldiers were crowding in the doorway taunting her. You don't believe that you will ever be like that? I should be sorry to believe it, too, but how do you know; maybe ten years, eight years ago that very woman with the salt fish came here fresh as a cherub, innocent, pure, knowing no evil, blushing at every word. Perhaps she was like you, proud, ready to take offence, not like the others; perhaps she looked like a queen, and knew what happiness was in store for the man who should love her and whom she should love. Do you see how it ended? 

It has been almost exactly a year since Black Panther released. I was optimistic to go see it. As this movie is strongly political and racial I’ll state it like this: I’m white, and I went to see it with three of my white best friends. The theater was packed with black people. 

We enjoyed all of it, or rather, my friends enjoyed it. I did too, but the many racial and political connotations unnerved me. For South Africans this movie is even more relevant to our realities than for America or elsewhere. 

The language the directors adopted for Wakanda is isiXhosa, the second most popular black language in South Africa. One of the two main villains, Klaw, has a clear Afrikaner accent and talks about “going back to Jo’burg” (that is, Johannesburg). The black man sitting to my right pointed out both these facts to his girlfriend. As an Afrikaner, the son of people who endorsed Apartheid, I didn’t feel quite so comfortable. 

Afterwards I saw that my feelings were shared by many people online. Some gave technical critiques of the movie, such as plotholes or an overuse of CGI, while other focused on the political and economic message. I agreed with most of it. 

However, I finally bought the movie today and gave it another watch with my mother. This time I believe the movie presents a way more nuanced message, one that critiques both radicalism and isolationism, in direct rebuke to those who love Killmonger or Wakanda’s system. 

I’ll give this breakdown along two dimensions: authority and legitimacy in the political system of Wakanda, and the morality of isolationism vs radicalism. 

On the former, Wakanda is a sovereign absolute monarchy. Power sharing is informal, with the Jabari tribe not submitting to Wakandan rule (or at least not without reservations), and the king dependent on the loyalty of the other tribes. I will not beat a dead horse for arguing in favour of democracy over a monarchy. I do believe it is better, but it’s not something I’ll argue here.

 You have T’Challa, at the very beginning, challenged by the arch-conservative/traditionalist M’baku. He critiques T’Challa for being weak as leader and weak as warrior. He therefore uses tradition to challenge T’Challa for the throne. Failing, he yielded so he won’t leave his tribe leaderless. 

Another aspect of authority and legitimacy comes with Killmonger’s arrival in Wakanda. He uses the tradition of the political system - ritual combat - to initiate a de-facto coup. He kills the king and subsequently ignores the rest of Wakandan tradition. Tradition was useful at the beginning, but like Erdogan today with democracy, Killmonger used tradition as a train only until he got to his destination. He exposed the inherent flaw of the Wakandan political system. This system, praised from the beginning for its uniqueness (recall W’Kabi’s words: “then Wakanda will be like everywhere else”), has the same weakness as most monarchies. Okoye, in love of Wakanda, believes the right thing is to hold to this political system and serve Killmonger as the rightful king - she equated the political system with the country, with the people itself. In her eyes, the state and the country is one. 

Shuri, in turn, was in the beginning mocked by M’baku for spitting on Wakandan tradition. Yet, ironically, it was her love for Wakanda in spite of the political system and tradition and in love of the people rather than the state and its corrupt leader, who saw the moral necessity for coup. Keep in mind she wanted to pit M’baku against Killmonger before she knew T’Challa was alive. For her, Wakanda is - in Odin’s word - “a people, not a place”. Or rather, “a people in this place, not an abstract system of authority”. Wakanda is not just a set of traditions. 

Both sides have a case to make: you cannot just support coups when you feel like it. A country needs stability. A leader needs loyalty. On the other hand, you should not just support dictators simply because they are in power. That’s a strong lesson for many African and other states. Your priority should be with the people and not the system. For Africans and elsewhere this means that if you really love your country, then you should critique and remove corrupt leaders. Don’t defend them. Your loyalty is with the people, not them. The same can be said of Venezuela. Many peope support Maduro. Why? Venezuelans suffer like they never have before. They have their own Killmonger. But you support him over the people. 

The second dimension is isolationism vs radicalism. Early on Nakia tells T’Challa that Wakanda should help more. Later on Killmonger makes the powerful case that Wakanda ignored the pains and sufferings of people around the world. He obviously meant black people, but it’s worth noting that he wanted to help oppressed people in China too. At the end T’Challa actually agrees. ALL the previous kings were wrong for turning a blind eye. Tying in with the former dimension, he is willing to recognise the mistakes of the past to move forward. Don’t pretend that your ancestors were perfect. That your country is perfect. Be willing to improve. But, and T’Challa is wise enough to realise it, don’t move too far either. If you hate something, then going the complete opposite is not the answer.

As T’Challa tells Killmonger by the end, “You have become what you hated”. I believe if the movie’s case against Killmonger can be expressed in one sentence, that sentence would be it. In desiring the justice of his people, Killmonger killed innocents. He started a civil war. He burned down the tradition of his own country. He was willing to murder the oppressors in turn. He even, ironically, staged a coup in an African country and deposed its king! He became an imperialist who wanted to enforce his will on the world. He unironically quoted the British maxim, “The sun will never set on the Wakandan empire”. He adopted the same bigoted motivations of the West which sought to “civilize the world” by imposing its will on it. Instead of a “white man’s burden” he carried the “oppressed man’s burden”. He became what he hated. The most perfect cinematographic scene was after he defeated T’Challa: as he walks towards the throne the camera turns upside down, symbolising not just the political revolution, but the completion of the change of Killmonger into what he hated. 

At the end of the day T’Challa is the great and wise king who was willing to break with the past without undermining Wakanda’s traditions. He was willing to accept Killmonger’s critiques without turning into what he hated: he opened up Wakanda to the world and decided to help people around the globe peacefully, morally. 

People online say the movie supports isolationism. That’s false. Wakanda opened up. Others, in turn, like Killmonger. They are wrong. They are turning into what they hate. 

As a lasting thought I’ll add this: T’Challa said that Killmonger is the product of the mistakes of Wakanda. Sometimes our indifference when we could have helped is what drives people to hate us.

Keep in mind that I intend for this piece to develop over time as I add more depth and more sources.  

That the Biblical creation account, described mostly in Genesis 1, is describing a literal 24-hour period is a view taken for granted both by Christians and atheists. This view is simply in error. 

For this discussion I will divide the post into three sections: scriptural reasons to reject a literal reading, responses to scriptural criticism, and responses to myths about the issue. I am - for the most part - adopting a reductio ad absurdum approach: I am taking everything more literally than even the young earth creationist would want me to.

Scriptural reasons to reject a literal reading

I’m going to use the creation story itself, from Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 to show that it should be read allegorically. As many YECs are also King James Onlyists, I will use the King James. The first and the most important argument to show that it is not meant to be taken literally is the wide usage of the word “day”, which has 3/4 DIFFERENT definitions.

Consider verse 5:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Here we have our first two definitions for the word “day”. In the one definition the word “day” refers to the light itself. The second definition refers to the period between “evening and morning”. What is interesting about this second one is that the period between “evening and morning” is... can you believe it? NOT 24 hours, but rather half a day, more or less 12 hours. Some might say, “oh, but surely that is just figurative language to describe an entire day”. Sure I would agree with you, but then YOU are the one NOT reading the passage literally. You accuse us of putting our own meaning into Genesis, yet here you want to do the same? No. If you want to read the passage literally with no room for symbolism or idioms (how dare you?!), then you would come across half a day. 

Now consider Chapter 2:2-3

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

There is no closure for the seventh day, no “evening and morning”. I know some young earth creationists, like Kent Hovind, simply ignore the significance of this fact. Was the Genesis author too stupid to realise his mistake? Here the definition of a “day” is uncertain. It would seem that here “day” refers to an unspecified period of time. 

Now for the next few paragraphs I am setting aside my strict literalist view. The significance of the seventh day not having closure is very rich in symbolic meaning. It is to mean that we are still IN the creation day, that we have not moved on to some “new week”. That would have been absurd. Think about it: if the passage said: “And the evening and the morning were the seventh day” then we would assume that we are living in some new week, in a “day 8″ or a new creation week. That would seem incredibly absurd. 

With this in mind, it makes a lot of sense that the seventh day does not have closure. Rather, Christ’s crucifixion signified the symbolic ending of the creation week. What was it that the Apostle John said about Jesus in John 1:1 again? 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Here John is blatantly referencing Genesis 1:1. Now what does John record Jesus said at his death? 

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

“It is finished”. At last, the creation week is finished. Few Christians realise the importance of his words here, though some like Chesterton and Lewis do: at last, the old has passed away and now we are new creations in Christ - in a way, a new creation week has dawned upon us! It is no coincidence that Christ rose on the first day of the week. 

The Genesis author NOT giving closure to the seventh day cries out for some deeper meaning. 

Our last verse to consider regarding the definition of the word “day” is verse 2:4:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens

Now suddenly the word “day” refers to the entire creation week. Not one day, but a long period of time. It is like saying “in my young day at university we did this and that”. 

So thus far we have four definitions for the word “day”, NONE of which refer to a 24-hour period but which, especially if you look at the third one given, cries out for a symbolic meaning. 

The second aspect of my argument refers to the composition of the creation. As John Lennox pointed out, it is very interesting that the first three days are creation: the heaven, earth, sea, and land. The next three concern the fulfillment: plants, animals, birds, stars. Creation and fulfillment. Very clearly we are dealing with a figurative work here. 

All in all, look at it like this. If you picked up a book with dry, meaningless facts, you would arguably take it to be factual and historical. But the moment you read something with blatant symbolic messages - such as the story of the tortoise and the hare - THEN you are justified in changing your interpretation to one of allegory. Why? Because the CONTENT ITSELF screams for a non-historic reading. The same applies with the creation account.

Possible responses

One response is that the original Hebrew shows different usages of the word “day” in the creation account. Yes, you are right, but you are still wrong. In three of the cases the word “yō-wm“ is used. Only my definition of chapter 2:2 is different (bay-yō-wm). I admit total ignorance of Hebrew, but I thought it necessary to point this out. For the the King James Onlyist, not only are you wrong (three of the four definitions still have the same Hebrew word), but you are wrong: YOU are the one who always stick to the King James, sometimes claiming it better than the original. If you appeal to different translations, then YOU are the “guru”, to use Hovind’s words, trying to teach people something that they would not otherwise have read. The literal reading of the Genesis account, as I discussed in the previous section, does not lead you to suppose a 24-hour day creation. The moment you refer to other verses and other translations, you are tacitly admitting that Genesis 1-2:4 does NOT teach this by itself.

I challenge anyone to use the creation story itself to show that it refers to literal 24 hour days.

Another objection is referring to Genesis 20:11

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

YECs often point to similar verses. First off, I’d like to point out that by pointing out this verse you are, as I said in the previous objection, now trying to use other verses to show a 24-hour reading of Genesis because by then you tacitly admit that you cannot use the Genesis account itself to prove 24-days. That being said, this passage above does not necessarily refer to 24 hour days. The most obvious thing to point out was that God was talking symbolism here: you Israelites will work six days as a symbolic reflection of the six days of creation”. 

The Genesis 20:11 verse does not necessarily refer to 24-hour days. The Jews wandered in the desert for 40 (literal) years. Did they therefore have to celebrate it each year for fourty years (if that even makes sense?), or fourty days at least? No. The Jewish Sukkot is held for 7 days - seven days to commemorate a fourty year event. This shows that the length of the celebration is not necessarily tied to the length of the actual event. As such, God telling people to work for six literal does NOT therefore mean the actual event being celebrated lasted six literal days.

Therefore this objection is rendered moot. You can only pursue it further by insisting the existence of some literal linkage, but you don’t have proof. 

Responses to myths

One chief myth the average YEC and the average atheist may have is that reading Genesis allegorically is new, that Christians have always taken it to mean 24 days, that only in response to evolution did we change our views and that taking it allegorically is only an ad-hoc response. You are wrong. 

Famous Christian theologians, like Augustine (it is important to read the link), and Origen before him, have taken the creation account to be allegorical or at least non-literal. As such, taking the creation story as non-literal is not simply a Christian saying “Oh no! Science says the earth is old! We better reinterpret the Bible!”. Instead, the Christian can say “Science says the earth is old. So what? The Bible doesn’t comment on the matter”. 

This issue was a serious problem for me. Only on learning that an allegorical understanding is not simply some ad-hoc response did I finally let go of my young earth creationism.

I repeat my challenge to the YEC: try to read the creation account itself and show me where it mentions a literal 24-hour period and explain the blatant symbolic messages. The moment you have to appeal to other verses in distant passages you are admitting that you can’t do it. Nevertheless, if you have such verses, send it to me and I’ll look at them anyway. 

There are a couple more issues I’ll add to this over time, but for now what I have said will suffice. 

For more info 

The issue of slavery is often brought up by skeptics to show some lack of morality among the Christian God by referring to his supposed condoning of slavery in the Old Testament and in Jesus’ lack of comment on the matter. 

In answering this, I am making heavy use of a book by Paul Copan called “Is God a Moral Monster?”, so all rights go to him. This post is basically a summary of what he says on slavery. I strongly encourage everyone to read this book. The quotations, unless otherwise stated, are excerpts from this book. The book deals with this in 3 chapters, and hence I am dividing my summary into three parts. Keep in mind that I faced a difficult choice on which parts to exclude for brevity’s sake. The areas with “...” indicate sentences I left out.

Three accusations will be focused on in this three part series: 

1) God did not prevent or speak out against slavery

2) Slavery was part of Old Testament law

3) Jesus did not condemn slavery

Part 1 - Slavery in the Old Testament (Overview)

During the book, Copan seems to suggest that God’s commandments were gradually revealed to the Israelites. If you are into politics, consider the following: Would imposing a full-blown constitutional democracy on Saudi-Arabia be successful at this moment? Would the people accept it? Or will they revolt? The alternative is to gradually introduce democracy into a society which has not any love for it. In the same vein, Copan notes a distinct change in Israelite morality: You have the creation message which embodies the “perfect” world (no slavery in the Garden of Eden!), followed by a gradual decline in morality up to the Exodus (multiple wives, strong pagan influence, sacrificing children). During Moses’ rule the commandments themselves were fleshed out and improved between the book of Exodus and Deuteronomy. After all, would telling the average pagan Israelite living in Egypt take seriously the suggestion that you should love your enemy? The prophets send during the Old Testament attempted to avoid Israel from once again descending into degeneracy. It is after the exile of Israel that Jesus comes and delivers the complete picture, 

Keep the above in mind. The first step in talking about slavery in the Old Testament would be to define what we are talking about and to analyze how ancient Israel society treated them.

A mistake critics make is associating servanthood in the Old Testament with antebellum (prewar) slavery in the South - like the kind of scenario Douglass described. By contrast, Hebrew (debt) servanthood could be compared to similar conditions in colonial America. Paying fares for passage to America was too costly for many individuals to afford. So they’d contract themselves out, working in the households - often in apprentice-like positions - until they paid back their debts. One-half to two-thirds of white immigrants to Britain’s colonies were indentured servants. 

Likewise, an Israelite strapped for shekels might become an indentured servant to pay off his debt to a “boss” or “employer” (’adon). Calling him a “master” is often way too strong a term, just as the term ‘ebed (”servant, employee”) typically shouldn’t be translated “slave.” John Goldingay comments that “there is nothing inherently lowly or undignified about being an ‘ebed.” Indeed, it is an honorable, dignified term. Even when the terms buy, sell or acquire are used of servants/employees, they don’t mean the person in question is “just property.” Think of a sports player today who gets “traded” to another team, to which he “belongs.” Yes, teams have “owners,” but we’re hardly talking about slavery here! Rather, these are formal contractual agreements, which is what we find in Old Testament servanthood/employee arrangements. One example of this contracted employer/employee relationship was Jacob’s working for Laban for seven years so that he might marry his daughter Rachel. In Israel, becoming a voluntary servant was commonly a starvation-prevention measure; a person had no collateral other than himself, which meant either service or death.

Now, debt tended to come to families, not just individuals. Whether because of failed crops or serious indebtedness, a father could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (”sell” himself) to work in the household of another: “one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself “(Lev. 25:47 NIV). Perhaps his wife or children might “be sold” to help sustain the family through economically unbearable times. If his kinfolk didn’t “redeem” him (pay off his debt), then he would work as a debt-servant until he was released after six years ... In other words, this servanthood wasn’t imposed by an outsider, as it was by slave traders and plantation owners in the antebellum South. What’s more, this indentured service wasn’t unusual in other parts of the ancient Near East either (though conditions were often worse). And later on, when inhabitants of Judah took back Hebrew servants they had released, God condemned them for violating the law of Moses and for forgetting that they were once slaves in Egypt whom God had delivered ... 

Once a servant was released, he was free to pursue his own livelihood without any further obligations within that household. He returned to being a full participant in Israelite society.

...

So unavoidable lifelong servanthood was prohibited, unless someone loved the head of the household and wanted to attach himself to him (Exod. 21:5). Servants - even if they hadn’t paid off their debts - were granted release every seventh year with all debts forgiven (Deut. 15). As we’ll see, their legal status was unique and a dramatic improvement over law codes in the ancient Near East. One scholar writes that “Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood.”

An Israelite servant’s guaranteed release within seven years was a control or regulation to prevent the abuse and institutionalizing of such positions. The release year reminded the Israelites that poverty-induced servanthood wasn’t an ideal social arrangement. On the other hand, servanthood existed in Israel precisely because poverty existed: no poverty, no servants in Israel. And if servants lived in Israel, it was a voluntary (poverty-induced) arrangement and not forced.

Copan goes on to note that besides the 7 years release, Old Testament law gave a number of ways to limit voluntary debt-servitude

A good deal of Mosaic legislation was given to protect the poor from even temporary indentured service. The poor were given opportunities to glean the edges of fields or pick lingering fruit on trees after their fellow Israelites harvested the land (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:20-21). Also, fellow Israelites were commanded to lend freely to the poor (Deut. 15:7-8), who weren’t to be charged interest (Exod. 22: 25; Lev. 25:36-37) ... Also, debts were to be automatically canceled every seven years. In fact, when debt-servants were released, they were to be generously provided for without a “grudging heart” (Deut. 15:10 NIV). The bottom line: God didn’t want there to be any poverty in Israel (Deut. 15:4). Therefore, servant laws existed to help the poor, not harm them or keep them down.

In addition to the above, the law required certain actions for the injuring of slaves. Consider this in relation to more modern (American, colonial) slavery where slaves were often raped and murdered. 

Another marked improvement of Israel’s laws over other ancient Near Eastern law codes is the release of injured servants (Exod. 21:26-27). When an emplyer (master) accidentally gouged out the eye or knocked out the tooth of his male or female servant/employee, he or she was to go free. No bodily abuse of servants was permitted. And as we’ll discuss in the next chapter, if an employer’s discipline resulted in the immediate death of his servant, that employer (master) himself was to be put to death (Exod. 21:20; note that the word for “punished” is very strong, always connoting the death penalty).

In strong contrast to colonial slavery, Mosaic law outlawed the kidnapping of a person to sell as a slave, which was punished by death.

He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his posession, shall surely be put to death. (Exod. 21:16)

If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you. (Deut 24:7) (Note the prohibition of kidnapping in 1 Tim. 1:10.)

Not bad, is it? The above clearly flies in the face of any person who has ever used the Bible to somehow justify slavery.

Most of the above (not all) referred to Israelite servants, not foreign ones. 

Another unique feature in Israel’s “slave laws” was this: Israel was commanded to offer safe harbor to foreign runaway slaves (Deut. 23.15-16). The [American] Southern states’ Fugitive Slave Law legally required runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. This sounds more like the Code of Hammurabi than the Bible. Hammurabi even demanded the death penalty for those helping runaway slaves. 

...

One more matter, although some claim that the runaway slave in Deuteronomy 23 isn’t a foreigner but an Israelite, we have plenty of reason to reject that idea. For one thing, no mention of the word brother or neighbor is used. In addition, according to Leviticus 25, Israelites weren’t allowed to enslave fellow Israelites. Also, the foreign fugitive slave could freely choose a place to live in Israel (”in your midst,” “in one of your towns” [Deut. 23:16]), unlike the rest of the Israelites, who had to stay on the land allotted to clans (cf. Numbers, Joshua). Thus, those who benefited weren’t society’s elite but vulnerable, marginalized foreign persons in the midst of a completely different society ...

Copan, in the summary of the chapter, says the following:

Though Israel’s laws on servitude weren’t the moral ideal, they show far greater moral sensitivity than other ancient Near Eastern texts. In doing so, they point us back to God’s ideal at the beginning: all humans are God’s image-bearers (Gen. 1:26-27). Contrary to what Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris say, servanthood in Israel can hardly be called “a warrant for trafficking in humans” or a means of treating people “like farm equipment.” No, God’s ultimate intention wasn’t for humans to “keep slaves.” In fact, the Genesis ideal is that all humans are equal and that they do not work for another; rather, each person under God’s care is to be his own “master,” sitting under his own vine and fig tree (1 Kings 4:25; Micah 4:4; Zech. 3:10).

Let’s take a look at the two accusations outlined above: that God does not prevent or speak out against slavery, and that slavery was part of Hebrew law. As we have seen, the term “slave” is not the same as in the Old Testament. God outright outlawed slavery in the modern sense, as Mosaic law prohibits treating people as chattel and prevents them from stealing people. The Mosaic law strives for the ideal of no servitude, but only includes it so far as to help the poor while preventing it from being institutionalized by having servants set free each 7 years, and not allowing physical abuse. 

Copan has two more chapters on this issue which I will summarise next in Part 2 and Part 3. Part 2 deals with challenging texts on slavery and Part 3 on slavery and the New Testament. 

Each part is independent of the other (each with a different author), so there is no need to read the first two, but I strongly recommend it.

See Part 1 by C. S. Lewis here

See Part 2 by G. K. Chesterton here

In his book, Jesus Among Other Gods, Ravi Zacharias provides an interesting account of the problem of good and evil (and by doing so he provides an argument for moral values and because of that an argument for God - The issues of the existence of moral values and the problem of suffering often overlap). Being influenced by the arguments of both C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton, he provides a comprehensive account in this long post. 

Chapter 5 - Is God the Source of my Suffering? - Living with Contradiction (p112)

The first escape route in the problem of evil is propounded by those who protest that God cannot exist because there is too much evil evident in life. They see no logical contradiction within their system since they do not have to prove that evil coexists with a good Creator. Evil exists; therefore, the Creator does not. That is categorically stated. 

But here, Christianity provides a counterchallenge to remind them that they have not escaped the problem of contradiction. If evil exists, then one must assume that good exists in order to know the difference. If good exists, one must assume that a moral law exists by which to measure good and evil. But if a moral law exists, must not one posit an ultimate source of moral law, or at least an objective basis for moral law? By an objective basis, I mean something that is transcendingly true at all times, regardless of whether I believe it or not. 

This argument is very compelling and must be given due consideration by anyone who denies the existence of God but accepts the presence of evil In contrast to the Christian’s assertion that God is necessary in order to posit the notions of good and evil, the skeptic responds by asking, “Why cannot evolution explain our moral sense? Why do we need God?”

The is the latest approach by antitheistic thinkers who seek to explain good and evil apart from God. Over the years naturalists first denied causality as an argument to prove God’s existence: Why do we have to have a cause? Why can’t the universe just be? Then they denied design as an argument for God’s existence: Why do we need a designer? Now they deny morality as an argument for God’s existence: Why do we need to posit a moral law or a moral law source? Why can’t it just be a pragmatic reality? This I find fascinating! They want a cause for suffering or a design for suffering, but they have already denied that either of these is necessary to account for every effect. 

This attempt to deny God because of the presence of evil is so fraught with the illogical that one marvels at its acceptance. Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a nonmoral process has produced a moral basis of life, while at the same time denying any objective moral basis for good and evil. Does it not seem odd that of all the permutations and combinations that a random universe might afford we should end up with the notions of the true, the good, and the beautiful? In reality, why call anything good or evil? Why not call it orange or purple? That way, we settle it as different preferences. By the way, Bertrand Russell tried that latter approach and looked quite pathetic at it. The truth is that we cannot escape the existential rub by running from a moral law. Objective moral values exist only if God exists. Is it all right, for example, to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say no. We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore God must exist. Examining those premises and their validity presents a very strong argument. In fact, J. L. Mackie, one of the most vociferous atheists who challenged the existence of God on the basis of the reality of evil, granted at least this logical connection when he said:

We might well argue ... that objective intrinsically prescriptive features, supervenient upon natural ones, constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most likely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful God to create them. 

Therefore, the conclusion must be agreed upon that nothing can be intrinsically, prescriptively good unless there also exists a God who has fashioned the universe thus. But that is the very Being skeptics want to deny because of the existence of evil. 

The first exist door to flee from God is opened, and the sight is terrifying. Only one option is left, and that is to try to alter the shape of the door. Recognizing that if evil is admitted then an objective moral law might need to be invoked, the skeptic tries a new track. Listen to this incredible explanation by one of atheism’s champions, Richard Dawkins, of Oxford:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no other good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. 

Do you see what has happened? The skeptic started by presenting a long list of horrific things, saying, “These are immoral, therefore there is no God.” But to raise these issues as moral issues is to assume a state of affairs that evolution cannot afford. There is just no way to arrive at a morally compelling ought, given the assumptions of naturalism. What then does the skeptic do? He denies objective moral values because to accept such a reality would be to allow for the possibility of God’s existence. He concludes then that there really isn’t such a thing as evil after all. 

This is supposed to be an answer? If DNA neither knows nor cares, what is it that prompts our knowing and our caring? Are we just embodied computers, overvaluing our senses? If our feelings have no bearing at all on the reality of this question then maybe ours is the artificial intelligence and the computer’s the genuine one, for it has no feeling; it has only information. Computers do not “care” and do not “grieve over evil,” and are, therefore, closer to reality. 

Is this what we have come to? We must be warned that there are no brakes on this slippery slope once we step onto it. The denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself. Can you imagine telling a raped woman that the rapist merely danced to his DNA? Tell the father of young Adam Triplett that he is merely dancing to his DNA. Tell the victims of Auschwitz that their tormentors merely danced to their DNA, and tell the loved ones of those cannibalized by Jeffrey Dahmer that he merely danced to his DNA. So dance along!

“First of all it [God’s incorporeality] means that that which is ultimate is not material in nature. The ultimate reality is spiritual in nature, not material. That is to say, persons are the locus of value, whether this be the divine Persons of the Trinity, or human persons created in God’s image. Persons are the locus of value. And therefore one single person is worth more than all of the material universe combined. Now think of that. That means that you as an individual person are worth more than the entire material universe in God’s economy.” 

William Lane Craig