#you used a *meaningless nothing word* therefore you are invalid!

[frogeyedape]

Louder for those in the back: doing/saying something fascist doesn't make you a fascist. If your goal is not be fascist and you realize you did/said something fascist, you can change your behavior!

What gaytors doesn't get is all text is "in conversation" with other text and yeah, that includes individual reblogs in a reblog chain.

It is worthwhile to point out, as others above have, than anon was asking a question with a baseline assumption that is pretty fascist. You don't *ask* that kind of question without some kind of fascist understanding of the world. That doesn't mean Anon is or has to be fascist, but the *question* is. Anon can now decide whether to reevaluate their behavior and go on and not do fascist things. Or...not. As the case may be.

Do you think authors sometimes don't realize how their, uh, interests creep into their writing? I'm talking about stuff like Robert Jordan's obvious femdom kink, or Anne Rice's preoccupation with inc*st and p*dophilia. Did their editors ever gently ask them if they've ever actually read what they've written?

Firstly, a reminder: This is not tiktok and we just say the words incest and pedophilia here.

Secondly, I don't know if I would call them 'interests' so much as fixations or even concerns. There are monstrous things that people think about, and I think writing is a place to engage with those monstrous things. It doesn't bother me that people engage with those things. I exist somewhere within the whump scale, and I would hope no one would think less of me just because sooner or later I like to rough a good character up a bit, you know? It's fun to torture characters, as a treat!

But, anyway, assuming this question isn't, "Do writers know they're gross when I think they are gross" which I'm going to take the kind road and assume it isn't, but is instead, "Do you think authors are aware of the things they constantly come back to?"

Sometimes. It can be jarring to read your own writing and realize that there are things you CLEARLY are preoccupied with. (mm, I like that word more than concerns). There are things you think about over and over, your run your mind over them and they keep working their way back in. I think this is true of most authors, when you read enough of them. Where you almost want to ask, "So...what's up with that?" or sometimes I read enough of someone's work that I have a PRETTY good idea what's up with that.

I've never read Robert Jordan and I don't intend to start (I think it would bore me this is not a moral stance) and I've really never read Rice's erotica. In erotica especially I think you have all the right in the world to get fucking weird about it! But so, when I was young I read the whole Vampire Chronicles series. I don't remember it perfectly, but there's plenty in it to reveal VERY plainly that Anne Rice has issues with God but deeply believes in God, and Anne Rice has a preoccupation with the idea of what should stay dead, and what it means to become. So, when i found out her daughter died at the age of six, before Rice wrote all of this, and she grew up very very Catholic' I said, 'yeah, that fucking checks out'.

Was Rice herself aware of how those things formed her writing? I think at a certain point probably yes. The character of Claudia is in every way too on the nose for her not to have SOME idea unless she was REAL REAL dense about her own inner workings. But, sometimes I know where something I write about comes from, that doesn't mean I'm interested in sharing it with the class. I would never ever fucking say, 'The reasons I seem to write so much of x as y is that z happened to me years ago' ahaha FUCK THAT NOISE. NYET. RIDE ON, COWBOY.

But I've known some people in fandom works who clearly have something going on and don't seem to realize it. Or they're very good at hiding it. Based on the people I'm talking about I would say it's more a lack of self-knowledge, and I don't even mean that unkindly. I have, in many ways, taken myself down to the studs and rebuilt it all, so I unfortunately am very aware of why I do and write the things I do most of the time. It's extremely annoying not to be able to blame something. I imagine it must be very freeing. But it ain't me, babe.

Anyway, a lot of words to say: Maybe! But that might not stop them from writing it, it might be a useful thing for them to engage with, and you can always just not read it.

Also, we don't censor words here.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

hi! firstly, sorry in advance for the long ask. your blog is very thought provoking! secondly, i wanna say i really appreciate all your writing on totk - i’ve kinda deliberately avoided looking at any critiques of the game because, quite frankly, i had a fun time in the moment while playing it and i didn’t want to sully that experience, but your posts have all been quality and have given me a lot to think about with respect to the narrative, its aims, and whether or not “pure, uncomplicated, escapist fiction” is actually a good thing

i digress though - the subject i wanted to ask about, which comes up both in your general “all the consequences were undone and therefore nothing mattered” stance, and more directly in your post about dondons/humanity/morality (specifically the part about “should we trust the bargainer statues that nothing matters? or should we actually care about light vs dark?”) is kind of the age old sentiment that the journey is more important than the destination, and how you think about this in the context of zelda as a narrative, as a defining game in the adventure genre, and now as a landmark in the open world style

in the case of the bargainer statue, i was thrown by you framing “trusting the statues about morality” vs “being moved by the struggle of light against dark” as an either/or - a grimly nihilistic view. in the game (and, i think, in real life), the message is that the ultimate futility of everything does not invalidate the reality of people living their lives in the present, and a positive nihilism challenges us to try and help people and do good in spite of that meaninglessness. this is why the bargainer statues feel so bizarre and un-zelda-like (or at the very least, un-hyrulian. not a bad thing!) - the universe of zelda has always at its core been about how helping other people is a noble endeavor and is its own reward (with gratitude in skyward sword actually manifesting this physically), and the bargainers’ ambivalence flies in the face of this. it’s obvious to us as the player that towns being destroyed and lives being torn apart is objectively bad, even if everyone ends up as a poe in the depths either way, and the bargainers reading as sinister and alien actually reinforces this more than it calls it into question. the quality of the time spent in life matters, even if the ending looks the same

as a game, i think zelda has always been at least as much about the stories and connections you experience on your quest to deal with the big bad as it is about that actual climactic fight. it’s always leaned into the adventure half of “action/adventure,” and in some ways i do think this is what “gameplay before story” originally meant. as you’ve noted, some of the brightest points of totk are the sidequests and characters for whom you can make a small but noticeable difference, and through which you’re driven to interrogate the world and maybe yourself too. and it’s because of these connections that reverting things at the end doesn’t make everything futile and pointless. link is our connection to hyrule, and if the adventure impacted us positively, then we can infer that it impacted link (and to a lesser extent, zelda) positively as well, and that’s worthwhile even if the external circumstances change

a last quick point is that i think the increasingly open world nature of the series also reinforces this - sure you can run naked straight to castle and beat ganondorf without engaging with the game in any way, and you’ll save the day the same as someone who put in 300 hours on the way there, but your takeaway will be completely different, because that journey is the entire point

anyways thanks again for your thoughtful posts and for reading this far if you did!

Heyy thank you so much for perusing my blog and leaving such a thoughtful ask, it's greatly appreciated! <3

That's interesting you took the Dondon post in that way, as it wasn't what I meant at all haha. But I do recognize it was worded in kind of a cryptic way, and left it up to interpretation perhaps a tad too much (see: the limits of subtext), so I can try and make myself a little more clear (and I also think you bring up really good points that completely deserve to be mentioned and that I personally do not mention nearly enough)

What I meant by the "either/or" isn't what we, as an audience should take away as what's important or meaningful, and completely discard the other part as useless. It's not what we experience ingame, and this contradiction is inherently interesting and sparks some degree of conflict (good! storytelling need those and totk is conflict anemic honestly)

What bothered me is that we are prompted, in the game, to see things in an extremely black and white way in spite of an argumentation that maybe, we shouldn't. It's not bad in itself, I even think it's great that we get to question the moral fabric of the world! It's one of the very rare (in my opinion) compelling things about the narrative weaved out for us. But the endgoal of the game still remains the same: find Zelda, and swear yourself/all of your friends to Rauru's ancestral kingdom by using his powers and his guiding hand. Link's role in restoring Hyrule is never even hinted as being a potential question mark, or something we should ponder upon (Twilight Princess did directly question Hyrule in more ways than one, WW is also there, etc). But moreso than in other games in my opinion: we are doing the bidding of a king's territorial war that happened a very long time ago, and the current state of Hyrule doesn't seem to indicate the need for pushing a unified kingdom back onto everybody, or at least it wouldn't be a problem if not for Ganondorf's presence (which in of itself is still arguable as an argument for royal unity, since people would have been willing to band together for the sake of their own communities regardless of whether or not there was a unifying realm --remove the Sage's vow, and I don't believe Link's friends would have let him handle his fight on his own even without having to swear their alliegeance to what is basically a dead kingdom by this point).

My problem isn't the statues; it's that this Light/Darkness framing is only ever questioned when close to them/the Monster Brothers, and the rest of the world is extremely rigid in what is the correct path --but without the added tragic weight that other Zelda games generally have about this aspect (the Sages in OoT being torn from their previous aspect/your own lost childhood, Skyward Sword's Hylia and the way she enacts her plan through people who never had a choice --and that's identified as something bittersweet, not to mention the infamous curse of Demise...)

I do adore what you mention, this sort of "positive nihilism" as a staple of the series. It's never as apparent as in Majora's Mask in my opinion, where getting people comfort and rest is ultimately without consequence as you constantly reset their minds, but it still feels meaningful to have helped. I think BotW did that really well too --where you help people rebuidling life and meaning in the middle of the desolation, making the post-apocalypse hopeful, a place for potential growth and change and resilience and experimentation. In TotK, however, I don't think your efforts are as centered around making sure these people get a future as they were in BotW (except maybe, as you mentioned, in a couple of sidequests --Lurelin's village being one of them, for example). Maybe it's because Ganondorf's threat is not as clear as the Calamity's was, maybe it's because what guides your adventure is to find Zelda first and foremost rather than defeating whatever threatens the peace (treated narratively as a hindrance more than the core problem, even if it is ultimately the core problem --again, the narration/quest design is pretty messy here and it doesn't help matters), or maybe it's because the endgoal is not for people to make their own way into the world, but mostly for the wayward folk of Hyrule to be ushered back onto the glorious trail of Hylian/Zonai's legacy --but to me, the game has a weird agenda regarding Link/the player's role into this world that is generally tangential to his role as a hero and a balancing force in other legends. Here, he starts the game as a knight. His duty is to Zelda, but it ends up overlapping to what Zelda represents in a far more abstract way than usual.

What I think works in TotK in terms of "positive nihilism" is actually Ultrahand, and this gimmick of "world as playground", which I believe is a very clever and engaging way to imagine an open world. There are a ton of little gameplay moments that are yours to shape and inject meaning into; manipulation for the sake of it, the joy of play, and experimentation being rewarded and never punished. To me, this feels the most like inhabiting the world, making it your own, and doing things because they matters to you --and this being enough. But narratively speaking, this is just not really the story being told to us: we are told, us and basically every other NPC, to conform to a plan laid out for us that doesn't ever need to be investigated or questioned --even though now, at crossroad of what the future could look like, would be the perfect moment to do so.

I think what I ultimately tried to point out in that Dondon post is how jarring this hint that, perhaps nothing you do In The Name of Light actually means anything, and this having zero impact on the rigidity of the pupose you are supposed to accomplish In The Name of Light --and the game never seemingly acknowledging that paradox, which made for a (I think, unplanned) pretty oppressive playing experience on my end.

[whitewolfofwinterfell]

hey, shannen! regarding your last post about skins (effy/cook): it's really interesting to hear other opinions. Personally, I liked that that specific pair didn't end up together; I always thought their relationship was too dysfunctional and damaging to make a good fit! But I have to admit, I didn't watch all of the fire/ice etc episodes and maybe it's been too long to remember s3/s4 correctly haha;) just love to hear your take on it if you find some time! best wishes :)

Hey there, anon!

I couldn’t have recieved this ask at a better time, because I literally just finished re-watching seasons 3 and 4 of Skins yesterday! 

Thanks for sending this ask, I always love to discuss these topics and I’ve never really had the opportunity to discuss Cook and Effy in-depth before. Strap yourself in, because this is pretty lengthy, but hopefully you’ll enjoy reading my take on it. :)

Cook and Effy are a very complicated ship for me, because part of me thinks they’re very toxic and that practically they could never work as a couple. However, the other part of me thinks that they were only portrayed that way on the surface, and that in actuality, there is no basis for thinking that. Cook and Effy absolutely could’ve worked together if the show had given them that opportunity.

Personally, I don’t think it was their relationship that was dysfunctional or damaging, but Cook and Effy themselves. As people, Cook and Effy were both deeply damaged people by the time they met in season 3. Having known Effy from seasons 1 and 2, we know that she suffered from some form of Selective Mutism and that she generally had a lot of emotional difficulties in regards to opening up to and connecting to others. Nothing describes that as well as her line in season 2 when she said, “Sometimes I think I was born backwards, you know, came out my mum the wrong way. I hear words go past me backwards. The people I should love I hate, and the people I hate–” In seasons 1 and 2 Effy was around 14-15 years old and she was already demonstrating reckless and self-destructive behaviours - regularly taking drugs, having sex with people she barely knew and generally entering into dangerous situations (e.g. Spencer in 1x08) with no regard for her safety or well-being. Also, at the end of season 1, she suffered the trauma of seeing Tony get hit by the bus, which we know hugely impacted her because she made reference to it in season 4.

As for Cook, although we never physically get to see his past in the same way we do with Effy, we know enough to know that his childhood was far from happy and that it deeply affected him. His mother was a neglectful and unstable alcoholic who was known for having sex with men for money and his father abandoned him when he was a young child (we also know he was a complete asshole from his appearance in the season 3 finale). He had an uncle, who was a bigoted drug dealer who not only supplied him with drugs but encouraged him to partake in it. Everything we know about Cook’s family suggests that he was neglected and it’s very likely that he raised himself for the most part, which explains why emotionally he was closed off, afraid to connect to others and incapable of maintaining healthy relationships (this was particularly clear with his friendships with Freddie and JJ).

So, to summarise, Cook and Effy are two people that both struggled (for different reasons) with emotionally connecting to people and that were terrified of opening themselves up to love because they didn’t want to get hurt. Their relationship for the majority of season 3 (up until 3x08) was a manifestation of that inability to forge connections and/or fear of it. It was a shallow relationship built almost exclusively on sex, and although some may perceive it as unhealthy, it wasn’t. It was a mutual understanding between two people whose reasons for being together were the same - they were using each other.

For Effy, her sexual relationship with Cook was all about avoiding and repressing her feelings for Freddie. We know this because Effy said in 4x05 that she knew from the very first time she saw Freddie he was the closest she would ever get to being close and in 3x07 Cook revealed whilst under the influence of “truth” pills that Effy was having sex with him because she couldn’t stand the fact that she loved Freddie.

With Cook, his reasons for entering into a sexual relationship with Effy were simply because he was attracted to her (which we know from the first moment he saw her) and that was what Cook did and was used to doing - he had casual sex with lots of girls. Cook’s perception of sex was a clear indicator of the complex emotional issues he had. His obsession with having sex was a result of him desperate craving intimacy whilst simultaneously being afraid of it. He had sex to attempt to have that intimacy with another person, but then labelled it as casual and meaningless to invalidate that intimacy and close himself off to it.

When looking at it like this, it might seem ridiculous that I then claim that their relationship wasn’t damaging, because it certainly wasn’t what constitutes a healthy relationship, but by the same token, it wasn’t bad either. From the first time they had sex, there was a mutual understanding between Cook and Effy that their relationship was just no-strings attached sex. There was no manipulation or coercion, it was all consensual and mutual. As their relationship continued, it became complicated because feelings got involved and both of them were hurt by each other, but it was the kind of hurt all relationships experience and nothing particularly awful. In season 3, Effy was hurt when she found out Cook was sleeping with Pandora but she knew that she and Cook weren’t exclusive and that they could both sleep with whoever they wanted. Effy’s reaction to that was much more about Pandora’s betrayal, as her best friend, than Cook’s. And Cook was hurt continuously by Effy’s feelings for Freddie and her relationship with him. Besides that, there was nothing that happened between Cook and Effy that constitutes damaging. In fact, I’d argue that Effy’s relationship with Freddie was much more damaging to her than her relationship with Cook was. What I’m trying to say is that Cook and Effy’s relationship was exactly what a friends-with-benefits or casual-sex-buddy relationship looks like, and therefore not dysfunctional. Even when their relationship developed beyond the casual type due to Cook falling in love with Effy, it was still what any non-reciprocated relationship is. Cook was heartbroken, he attempted to express his love for her on occasions and she made it clear that she didn’t return his feelings in a respectful but firm way (excluding 4x07 when she rudely told him to piss off after he told her he loved her, which always really bugged me because it felt so OOC).

Regarding your comment about Cook and Effy not being a great fit, I’ve actually always felt the opposite. Although they’re very similar (x) and the popular saying is that opposites attract, I think Cook and Effy worked together really well. I don’t think we got to see just how well they could’ve worked, because they were never truly together and most of their relationship was about the triangle with Freddie/Effy. Effy said in 4x07 that Cook was never good for her, but I never understood that because there’s absolutely nothing to support that claim. If you look close enough, you can see how good they were together. The two of them actually spent a lot of time together, although we never see it on-screen, it’s spoken about or hinted at. For example, in 3x08 Cook turned up at Effy’s house and was on a first name basis with her mom and had brought groceries to cook for her, suggesting he spent a lot of time at her house (and not always in her bedroom since he knows her mom) and also that they did do other things other than just have sex. Cook also knew that Effy’s favourite film was E.T. which means they either watched it together or Effy told him. At the end of season 3 they spent a significant amount of time (we can assume weeks, maybe even months) on the run together, only in the company of each other. My point is, they clearly got on well and knew each other too. Whenever Cook and Effy had scenes that weren’t the melodramatic angsty type that Skins is well known for, they were light and natural together (x). Throughout the whole of the season 3 finale (which is a very Ceffy centric episode), they worked. If you take the Freddie/love triangle drama out of the equation, they were affectionate towards each other, they had fun, Effy was supportive and protective over Cook when it came to his dad and Cook was making plans for his future with Effy (to get a job and a boat). Putting aside their individual issues (which I mentioned above), when Cook and Effy were together they were good together. Even if they were just having sex, that was okay, because it was what they both wanted. They knew how to have fun and be in a moment together, and that was what drew them together from the beginning, because they could lose themselves in a moment and forget about everything else. Also, for all their similarities, Cook didn’t have the same depressive tendencies as Effy and was able to keep her on an even keel more so than anybody else (this is particularly obvious in comparison to Freddie, who I felt fed Effy’s depression). That’s why I find it so strange that there’s this perception that Cook was wrong or bad for her, because firstly, Cook never actually did anything to warrant him being “bad” for her. He drank too much, did drugs too much, partied too much but so did Effy, so did Freddie, so did every character on the show (excluding JJ). Cook never did anything to push Effy to a dark place, he never did anything to hurt her or harm her in anyway. Everything they did together was what Effy was doing before she met Cook and what she did with everybody else. In fact, I sincerely believe that Cook was capable of helping Effy and reaching her emotionally more than anybody else. In 4x07 when Effy was in a fragile mental state, she trusted Cook (despite not knowing him because of some hypnosis bullshit her psychopathic therapist did to her) and later in on the episode Cook was the one that brought her back.

As for Cook and Effy ending up together, I believe 100% that they should’ve been together, even if they hadn’t stayed together. If I had been in charge of the show, I would’ve completely scrapped the Freddie/Effy relationship and pursued a Cook/Effy romance from the beginning. From my perspective, it made complete sense that these two damaged people that were unable to emotionally connect would strike up a causal sexual relationship and eventually come to fall in love. Obviously, it wouldn’t have been a straightforward road for them or a particularly happy relationship, but it would’ve been very interesting to watch their ups and downs. Cook loved Effy completely, she was the first and only girl he had ever loved, and that was significant for his character and to have her return that love would’ve led to development for both of them. Skins as a show is all about young love and it’s realistic in its portrayal of that. All of the Skins relationships have their problems and none of them last (because the reality is a lot of young relationships don’t last as their lives go in different directions), so I couldn’t see Cook and Effy’s relationship lasting and them staying together, even if they had been together in seasons 3 and 4. Season 7, however, is a completely different story.

I’m a huge Skins fan and have been since I was a young teenager, but I strongly dislike season 7 and the choices that were made. In my opinion, to bring Effy and Cook back for the final season and not have them interact was criminal. Regardless of Effy’s romantic relationship with Freddie, Effy and Cook were strongly connected and fans would have loved to have seen them reunite. Since you didn’t watch season 7, you won’t be aware of how Cook and Effy developed, so I’ll briefly summarise. In season 7, Cook and Effy had both hugely mellowed in comparison to how they were in seasons 3 and 4, whilst keeping their core personalities. In season 7, Cook and Effy as a couple would’ve just worked. It was a chance to explore their unfulfilled potential and finally make the most of Kaya and Jack’s chemistry whilst remaining respectful to the Freddie/Effy relationship. If I could’ve written season 7 I would have had Cook be on the run (like he was in Rise) and Effy pursuing him because she’s seeking answers about Freddie’s disappearance. I would’ve had the two reunite and have Cook fall to pieces, because it’s Effy - the only girl he’s ever loved - and she brings to the surface everything he’s been keeping bottled up. But I would have him suppress those emotions and react angrily to her having found him, telling her she was stupid for looking for him and that she should’ve let it go. I’d have Effy respond angrily telling him that she couldn’t let it go and that since he and Freddie have gone everything’s gone to shit. Eventually, Cook would tell her the truth about what happened with Freddie and the therapist, and then in their grief-stricken and heightened emotional state they sleep together. Afterwards, Effy is conflicted because on the one hand she’s still grieving for Freddie but on the other, her feelings for Cook are resurfacing and the fact that Cook loves Freddie and is grieving him too means that they’re connected in a unique way. I would then have Cook get angry at Effy (again, because let’s face it, this is Cook lol), tell her to leave and go back to her life and forget about him like she should’ve done the first time, that he deserves to be punished and on the run for the rest of his life for what he did. Then Effy defends his actions saying Freddie’s death was her fault, she was the one that brought the doctor into their life and when Cook killed him he was only defending himself. I would’ve had Effy choose to stay with Cook and live with him on the run because she feels she has nothing at home to go back for. At that point, they wouldn’t be together, but the implication would clearly be there. It wouldn’t be a happy ending and it would be open ended, but I think it would’ve worked perfectly. Not only would it have provided the fans (and Cook and Effy) with closure for Freddie’s death, but would’ve explored that potential of Cook and Effy and ended on a semi-positive note.

One final thing I wanted to talk about, is that despite the fact that I think Cook and Effy were a good fit and definitely weren’t dysfunctional, shipping Cook and Effy isn’t about happy endings or them being ‘good’ for each other or even ending up together. The appeal of the ship (for me, at least) is the messiness and realness of it. When two people have such complex and unresolved issues as Cook and Effy, it’s impossible to be in a healthy, happy, functioning relationship, because they’re not those things themselves. However, Cook and Effy show what love can be when it’s not neat or simple or easily defined. They also show that you can love another person with your whole heart despite feeling broken inside. Plus, Cook and Effy had such a palpable chemistry, history and connection that it’s difficult for me not to ship them and root for them to be together, even if only temporarily.

[iamanartichoke]

All the wank over the past couple of days has made me realize that a lot of us, here on Tumblr, could probably use a refresher in what constitutes a logical fallacy, if we are going to engage in discussion, discourse, or basic conversation with another human being. So, here are some of the most prevalent fallacies I’ve seen circulating these past couple of days, along with helpful examples. 

** Please note that I am providing these examples without subjective commentary about either side of the Ragnarok argument. Do with these what you will. 

1. Ad Hominem: Literally against the man. This is a fallacy which occurs when you attack your opponent’s person rather than their argument. This seems to be a favorite among many people on tumblr. 

Example of an Ad Hominem fallacy in action:  

Person 1: I don’t think Taika Waititi did Loki justice in Thor Ragnarok.  Person 2: You are a moron and you should feel bad. 

Example of what you can say to avoid this fallacy: 

Person 1: I don’t think Taika Waititi did Loki justice in Thor Ragnarok.  Person 2: I can see why you think that, but if you look at it from this point of view, it’s actually in Loki’s character to do A, B, or C. 

2. Slippery Slope. This is a type of reasoning which oversimplifies the idea that every action has a consequence and follows it to the absolute worst possible conclusion or outcome that could occur. 

Example of a Slippery Slope fallacy in action:  

Person 1: If you don’t like hearing XYZ about Thor Ragnarok, you should just block people who post it.  Person 2: If I block people who post XYZ about Thor Ragnarok, it’s like I’m saying it’s okay for them to have XYZ opinion, and that I condone it, and it’s chasing me off of my own tumblr and my own posts, and it’s like saying I don’t have freedom of speech or choice and I don’t have a right to not see things on my tumblr that will make me feel bad and my tumblr experience will be ruined and I’ll look bad to my friends and the world will end. 

Example of what you can say to avoid this fallacy: 

Person 1: If you don’t like hearing XYZ about Thor Ragnarok, you should just block people who post it.  Person 2: Oh, that’s a good idea, thanks. 

3. Circular Argument: This occurs when a person is just repeating their same argument over and over again. Kind of self-explanatory. 

Example of a Circular Argument fallacy in action:

Person 1: Tom Hiddleston said Taika Waititi told him that he wasn’t going to change Loki, therefore all Ragnarok dissenters’ arguments are invalid.  Person 2: What Tom actually said was XYZ. Person 1: Okay, but Tom Hiddleston said Taika Waititi told him that he wasn’t going to change Loki, are you really going to ignore the words from Tom’s own mouth?  Person 2: Look at Loki’s behavior in this instance from Ragnarok vs. this other instance from The Dark World. Here’s how they’re different.  Person 1: Whatever, Tom Hiddleston said Taika Waititi told him ... 

Example of what you can say to avoid this fallacy: 

Person 1: Tom Hiddleston said Taika Waititi told him that he wasn’t going to change Loki, therefore all Ragnarok dissenters’ arguments are invalid. Person 2: What Tom actually said was XYZ. Person 1: Okay, well, I can see how that context might change things, but I still think that Loki was in-character and that his arc makes sense.  Person 2: That’s fair, I just disagree with you.  Person 1: That’s fair. 

4. Hasty Generalization: This is when a blanket statement or judgment is passed on a person’s argument without adequate evidence to support it. 

Example of a Hasty Generalization fallacy in action:

Person 1: All Loki stans hate Thor Ragnarok.  Person 2: All Loki stans hate Taika Waititi.  Person 3: All Loki stans just want to bang Tom Hiddleston. 

Example of what you can say to avoid this fallacy: 

I don’t have any. Don’t generalize. 

5. Appeal to Hypocrisy: This fallacy means that instead of focusing on the argument, a dissenter will instead distract the point to their opponent’s actions to help prove their point. 

Person 1: You commented on my post with a different opinion, now I’m going to tell all my friends to harass and report you. Person 2: Hey, that’s bullying and it’s not cool. People can express different opinions.  Person 1: Well, look at you coming on my post to threaten me and bully me! I’m just posting my own different opinion, which you said I could do! 

Bonus: Hate Speech. “Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” (via the American Bar Association) (emphasis mine) 

Example of hate speech in action:

Person 1: Taika Waititi is just a [insert slur here] who did a shitty job with Thor Ragnarok.

Example of what you can say to avoid being the kind of person who uses hate speech:

Person 1: Taika Waititi shit on previous Thor canon when he decided to make Ragnarok a comedy. 

** This one seems to need a bit of explanation. The difference between hate speech and criticism here is that One attacks Taika’s person, which has nothing to do with his job as a director, while the other attacks his actions. It is negative, but it is not hate speech. 

Just a note that labeling anything even slightly negative or critical as “hate speech” just makes the term meaningless and detracts from instances of real hate speech, which undermines those who are oppressed and discriminated against due to their race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever. 

I hope this guide will prove helpful to your future fandom endeavors. 

[thanhduydesign]

Education Flashcard - Past (1)

The first part examines the past social prejudices and preconceived notions when people are discussing about education through idioms (or “ca dao tục ngữ” in Vietnamese). I was looking at particularly Vietnamese idioms so I tried to find a medium to properly display both the Vietnamese version and the translation. This led me to the time when I was studying for English tests, we would use these flashcards in order to memorize words and its translation. Also, I used a wire to connect them so it is expandable with more idioms from other cultures too.

---

Education, for me, has always been the ultimate goal in my career. As a Vietnamese, my experience with education itself was rather harsh and meaningless. “What is education? Is it important? Why do I find myself clueless when interacting with education? Why do I need to learn this? What is the point of all of this?” were some of the questions that I have always been asking myself whenever I think about education. However, in this particular project, I did not intend to look up for the answers; rather, I want to ask those questions and I want the viewers to ask those questions together coming up with their own questions related to their experiences. For me, design has always been like that. It is more about raising question and provoking change through those questions rather than confirming and propagating the preconceived notions. And I intend to do just that in this project. 

Moreover, I also want to tell my own story through this project, using a set of designed objects. As you know, Viet Nam has a long history of colonization, and education plays a pivotal role in it. Although our country has been unified for more than 30 years, the education system itself has not changed a bit. It is the education system that was once implemented on us in order to rule and govern us as slave and now it is still looking at us, students as its slaves. The education goal is not to guide us through life or make us a better version of ourselves but to make us listen and be tolerant. There is absolutely nothing wrong about it but to what extent? Our voices are invalidated and our rights are stripped off. We are taught to listen, not to question. We are taught to be tolerant, not to stand up against. And we are taught to become robots, not to be humans.

My main goal for this project, as I mentioned, is to critically question about the education system itself, my education itself. Through my story, I also want the viewers, the readers to relate to their own story and question their own education as well. What do you believe in? And what form should education take? I believe these questions don’t have a definite answers to it but rather very subjective. Therefore, it is not the answer that is important, but the question is more crucial.

[yourgodmoments]

Jesus and the Religiose

One of the meanings of ‘religion’ is, ‘a particular system of faith and worship.’ Religion is a man-made construct, to attempt to explain God and have a relationship with Him.’ ’Religiose’ is defined as being ‘excessively religious.’  

When Jesus began His ministry in Judea, the temple in Jerusalem was a place of worship for Jehovah God, the God of the Old Testament Bible. The New Testament had yet to be written. (Still the same God.)

The religious focus in that temple was centered around the behaviors that one would live by, to satisfy God. These were primarily found in the Torah, i.e. the first five books of the Bible, which were written by a Holy Spirit-inspired Moses, referred to as the Mosaic Law.

Those doing the teaching of the Law were called Pharisees, widely believed to be the first ‘rabbis,’ or at least their forerunners. The problem, in Jesus’ time, was that many of the Pharisees added their own personal ‘interpretations’ to the Laws. Put bluntly, they twisted the scriptures to suit their own purposes, and became fervent taskmasters over their laity - punishing them if they did not live up to them. The Pharisees became religiose.

This did not set well with Jesus, because what they did ran against God’s word with regards to keeping His word pure:

“You shall not add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God…” Dt. 4:2 NKJV

The first time Jesus voiced His displeasure with the Pharisees was when He was dining with His latest convert, the apostle Matthew. He did so by speaking a parable to Pharisees that were present (they’d been following Him around, worrying that their control over the people was being usurped by Jesus’ teachings and miracles):

“No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old one is good.’ “ Lk. 5:36 - 39. ESV

Jesus was describing a process that was well known and understood by the people living at that time - saying that using a new piece of cloth to patch an older one will tear away from the old if it has not been previously ‘preshrunk’ with a combination of pressure, heat and moisture. He’s trying to get the Pharisees to see that the old forms of Judaism could not contain the New Covenant message He was bringing, because His message was not a patch for the old one.

Similarly, Jesus spoke of the fact that new fermenting wine must be put into new goatskins, because the outgassing of fermentation would cause the old skins to swell to the bursting point. It is metaphorical reference to the fact that the Pharisees can’t mix His message with theirs and that they are not spiritually able to receive His.

Finally, the last sentence in the parable alludes to the Pharisees’ stubborn preference for their old ways, which will ultimately deny them the kingdom.

Jesus has another confrontation with the Pharisees in the temple - they, being angry with Him for previously healing a cripple at the pool called Bethesda. He responds by pointing out their scriptural ignorance regarding the coming of the Messiah:

“…the very works that I do - bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me…You have neither heard His voice at any time, or seen His form. But you do not have His world abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” Jn. 5:36 - 40. NKJV

Even though Jesus is chiding them for their disbelief, you can see that He is offering them eternal life at the same time. They refused…

Jesus took issue with the Pharisees again, during His Sermon on the Mount:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For I truly say to you until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Mt. 5:17, 18. ESV

Jesus is refuting the Pharisees’ claim that He was trying to invalidate the Mosaic Law. Christ was sent from God to open the eyes of the ‘spiritually blind,’ in order to give them the full understanding of all Scriptures so they could walk their best with His Father.

He blasts the Pharisees again:

“Therefore whoever relaxes on of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Mt. 5:19, 20. ESV

He is telling the crowd listening to His sermon that the Pharisees have so distorted the laws of God that if they follow them, it will jeopardize their chance for salvation. Furthermore, He offers an example of a law that the Pharisees had twisted:

“You have heard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” Mt. 5:43 NKJV

The first part of that sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor is a quote from Moses (Lv. 19:18). The ‘hate your enemy’ part was added by the Pharisees, and thus, not scriptural.

Jesus continued to have run-ins with the Pharisees throughout His ministry. He finally reveals their evil nature:

“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.’ “ Mk. 7:6, 7. NKJV

“You leave the commandment of God and hold to the traditions of men. You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of of God in order to establish your tradition!” Mk. 7:8, 9. ESV

Ouch! That must of stung. Jesus is alluding to the worthlessness of their traditions - those ascribed by them to have the same authority as the Mosaic Law, even though the Pharisees made them up.

Jesus gathers a crowd around Him to crystalize the nature of the Pharisees and their meaningless rituals:

“…there is nothing outside a man [such as food] which by going into him can defile him [morally or spiritually]; but the things which come out of [the heart] of man are what defile and dishonor him.” Mk. 7:15 AMP

Later, Jesus tells them of their ultimate fate for their hardened hearts and their fake religiosity:

“You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” Jn. 8:19 NKJV

“I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot go”…”You are from beneath; I am from above, You are of this world; I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die for your sins.” Jn. 8:21, 23, 24. NKJV

There are still religiose people today - pharisaical, re-writing scripture, judging portions to of it be false, seeking approval and status for their piety and denying the Christ-road to salvation. As you can see, without repentance, things will not go well for them.

That’s why it is so important to bring the message of salvation to as many as we can. What they do with it is up to them…

If we stick to God’s word and live by it, our salvation is assured.

Goodnight and God bless.  

[vincentcheungteam]

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (2): Scripture

The Bible, or Scripture, is the ultimate authority and first principle of the Christian system, and it is the source of our knowledge about God and the things of God. Therefore, it is appropriate to begin the study of theology by considering the attributes of Scripture.

THE NATURE OF SCRIPTURE

Biblical revelation exists in propositional form. Although many people deprecate words in favor of images and feelings, God chose to reveal himself and to communicate with us in the words of human language. Words are able to convey in an exact and univocal manner information from God and about God. This affirms that Scripture is a meaningful divine revelation, and it also affirms that preaching and writing are able to communicate the mind of God as set forth in the Bible.

The propositional nature of the Bible testifies against the popular notions that human language is inadequate to speak about God, that images are superior to words, that music is of greater value than preaching, and that religious experiences can teach a person more about divine things than theological studies.

Some people insist that the Bible speaks in a manner that produces vivid mental images. This supposedly shows that although the Bible consists of words, the intended effect of these words is to produce images, and this is implicit endorsement for images as the superior vehicles of communication. The argument is farfetched and desperate. First, its basis is not in the Bible itself, but a claim about the effect that it has in readers. Second, at best it describes the reaction of only some readers; other readers may respond differently. Third, if God wanted to communicate with us through images, he could have inspired the prophets and apostles to draw pictures into the Bible. But there is not even one.

If images are superior, then how come there are no drawings in the Bible? If images are essential to theological communication, the inclusion of drawings would ensure that no one forms the wrong mental pictures when exposed to divine revelation. Even if mental images are intended, the fact that God chose to use words to produce them implies that words are sufficient and superior. Nevertheless, besides word images, the Scripture also uses words to discuss the things of God in abstract terms, not associated with any images.[1]

Suppose we show a drawing of Christ's crucifixion to a person who has no knowledge of the Christian faith. Without any verbal explanation, it would be impossible for him to ascertain that Christ himself was innocent, that he died to satisfy God's wrath, and that he did this to redeem those whom God had chosen before the creation of the world. The picture suggests no relationship between the event to anything divine or spiritual. It does not show whether the event was historical or fictional. And there would be no way of knowing the words Christ spoke when he was on the cross. The image carries no theological meaning. And unless there are at least several hundred words to explain it, no proper interpretation is possible. But once there are that many words to explain it, the picture has become unnecessary. A picture is not worth a thousand words. It cannot even replace one word. If there were ten million pictures to depict every detail of the life of Christ, there would still be no intelligible gospel. If there is no gospel, then there is no salvation, and the person who is shown these picture would remain in his sin and destined for hell, befuddled rather than enlightened by our massive art collection.

Any view that extols music over verbal communication suffers similar criticisms. It is impossible to derive any meaning or any religious content from music if it is performed without words. The Book of Psalms is a large collection of songs, and provides us with a rich heritage for worship, doctrine, and reflection. However, this whole heritage consists of words. The original tunes are conspicuously absent. No musical notation is found in any part of the Bible. Thus God's design in the inspiration of Scripture shows that the value of the biblical psalms is in the words and not the tunes. Music plays a secondary role in worship; that is, compared to the words of Scripture and the ministry of preaching, the tunes themselves are unimportant. Whether we sing John 3:16 to the tune of a birthday song or a company jingle has no effect on the content. But if the lyrics revert back to the birthday or the products, then even a Bach tune cannot save us.

As for religious experiences, when it comes to communicating information, even a vision of Christ cannot replace a thousand words from Scripture. Without knowledge of the Scripture, a person cannot evaluate any religious experience, whether it is a healing miracle or an angelic visitation. Religious experiences, without verbal communication, do not carry their own interpretation, so that the most spectacular supernatural encounters remain unintelligible without words to inform the mind with definite information. And just as ten thousand images cannot match the intelligibility of even one word or sentence, even a vision of God requires verbal interpretation. This is not an irreverent remark, since it is God himself who sends us his words and commands us to heed them. Rather, it is irreverent to assert that his words are unnecessary or that some other means of communication is superior to the one that he has chosen.

The entire Exodus episode could not have occurred if God had remained silent when he appeared to Moses in the burning bush. When Jesus appeared in a bright light on the road to Damascus, what if he had refused to answer when Saul asked him, "Who are you, Lord?" The reason Saul realized who was speaking to him was because Jesus answered with the words, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:3-6). Religious experiences are meaningless unless they are accompanied by verbal communication that carry intelligible content.

Another erroneous position toward the Bible is to regard it as a mere record of revelatory events, rather than God's revelation itself. That is, the Bible is not revelation, but a record of revelation – revelation as such consists not in words and propositions, but in things such as creation, miracles, divine appearances, the "person" of Christ, his acts of compassion and sacrifice, and so on. It is true that, in a sense, a miracle can be considered revelation, but about what does the miracle reveal? Does it reveal something about God, or the devil? And what about God does the miracle reveal? Does it reveal that he is powerful, that he is compassionate, or that he can do things to help people but usually does not? What are we supposed to derive from a miracle? We need words to tell us the principles by which to interpret these events, and then we need words to state the interpretations of these events. Otherwise, one interpretation is just as invalid as its opposite, since without a standard of interpretation, no interpretation can be a necessary inference from any event. Thus the events in themselves reveal nothing unless there is an abundance of words to interpret them. The words themselves constitute the revelation. Since they constitute what is revealed, they are identified with revelation.

Some people are afraid that a strong devotion to Scripture would imply that we prize the record of a revelatory event more than the event itself. The event possesses special value because it is regarded as revelation. But if Scripture is itself revelation, then this concern is misguided. As Paul explains, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). The words of the Bible were breathed out by God. If that is not revelation, then nothing is revelation. And how can words breathed out by God himself be less of a revelation than a miracle or even the person of Christ? This way of thinking pits God against himself, and results in complete confusion.

Moreover, even if we regard the events recorded in the Bible as revelation, we have no direct contact with them. The only public and persistent revelation we have contact with is the Bible. It is self-defeating to deprecate a revelation that we do possess in favor of a kind of revelation that we do not. God did not only design and cause the events that the words of the Bible describe and interpret, but he also selected and caused to be written these very words that we find in the Bible. And many statements in the Bible do not correspond to personal appearances, actions, or events; rather, the propositions alone constitute the revelation: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

Since this high view of Scripture is the one that Scripture itself affirms, it is the only one that is rightly called Christian, and every Christian is required to agree with it. As long as a person denies that the Bible is itself divine revelation, it remains nothing more than an ordinary book, so that he would hesitate to offer it complete reverence, as if it is possible to excessively adore it.

There are preachers who tell believers that they should look to "the Lord of the book, not the book of the Lord," or something to this effect. But since the words of Scripture were breathed out by God, and those words constitute the only public and explicit revelation from God, it is impossible to look to the Lord without looking to his book. In fact, since the words of Scripture are the very words of God, a person is looking to the Lord only to the extent that he is looking to the words of the Bible. A "person" is identified with his thoughts and his words. Someone who tells me, "I agree with you, as in the person, but I disagree with your thoughts and your words," is not clever or respectful, but insane. To agree with me is to agree with my thoughts and my words. There is no difference.

Our contact with God is through the words of the Bible. Proverbs 22:17-21 indicates that to trust the Lord is to trust his words:

Pay attention and listen to the sayings of the wise; apply your heart to what I teach, for it is pleasing when you keep them in your heart and have all of them ready on your lips. So that your trust may be in the LORD, I teach you today, even you. Have I not written thirty sayings for you, sayings of counsel and knowledge, teaching you true and reliable words, so that you can give sound answers to him who sent you?

God rules and teaches his church through the Bible; therefore, our attitude toward it reflects our attitude toward God. Anyone who loves God will love his words just as much, and he will not distinguish between the two. Those who claim to love God ought to demonstrate it by a zealous obsession with his words:

Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long…How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! (Psalm 119:97, 103)

The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous. They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb. (Psalm 19:9-10)

A person loves God only to the extent that he loves the Bible. Love for the Bible is the standard by which all other aspects of spiritual life are measured.

THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE

The Bible is the verbal revelation of God. It is God speaking to us. It is the voice of God itself. The very nature of the Bible indicates that the best way to communicate divine revelation is by means of words. We know God by studying the words of God, that is, the words of the Bible. It is the most precise, accurate, and comprehensive source of information about God available to us.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

All the words of the Bible were breathed out by God.[2] He caused the human writers to set down the exact words that he wanted to use in order to communicate his thoughts. This is the doctrine of DIVINE INSPIRATION.

Scripture, or the Bible, consists of the Old and New Testaments, sixty-six documents in total, functioning as an organic whole. The apostle Peter, of course, recognizes the Old Testament as Scripture. But when he endorses Paul's writings, he calls them Scripture as well, and puts them on the same level as the writings of the prophets:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

He explains that the men who wrote Scripture were "carried along by the Holy Spirit," so that no part of it "had its origin in the will of man," or came by "the prophet's own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Likewise, the apostles wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit.

The Bible is an exact verbal revelation from God, so that Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). God exercised such precise control over the Bible's production that its content, to the very letter, is what he desired to set in writing. The Bible reveals God's nature and God's mind in an exact and univocal manner.

There is the objection that this high view of Scripture implies a dictation theory of biblical inspiration, and since the various documents in Scripture seem to reflect the different personalities, backgrounds, and literary styles of the writers, the dictation theory must be ruled out, and so divine inspiration is excluded as well. However, this is an unintelligent objection.

Christians scramble to deny the dictation theory, but there is nothing inherently absurd or impossible about it. God could have dictated his thoughts to reflect a variety of personalities and literary styles to suit his purposes and to manifest his manifold wisdom. There is no need to renounce the principle of dictation, since there is nothing wrong with it. And as indicated by the prophets themselves, significant portions of the Bible were indeed dictated and written down. Perhaps the most prominent example is the Ten Commandments – God himself wrote on the tablets as he spoke, but Moses also recorded the exact words that God said. Many dictated passages are found, and clearly marked, in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, many of the other prophets, and all passages where God's words are marked out as direct quotations.

Given the power and wisdom of God, the objection against dictation is irrelevant, and is immediately defeated. It is an unthinking reaction to the doctrine of inspiration based on prejudice and false assumptions about how God must reveal himself in words, or if he had chosen dictation, how it must have occurred. But God's ability defies human restrictions. It is a matter of interest as to whether divine inspiration happened this way or whether it happened in some other way, but there is no inherent problem with dictation.

In any case, a high view of Scripture does not imply that all of it must have been revealed by dictation. And even when dictation occurred, God did not dictate his word to the prophets and apostles as a man would dictate his letters to a secretary. A person might assume that dictation is the highest form of inspiration, since it is the most familiar human situation in which a writer records the exact words of another person. However, dictation in this human context does not model the highest form of inspiration.

A man may dictate his words to the secretary, but he has no control over the details of the secretary's life – her birth, family, education, personality, circumstances, and even her very thoughts. In contrast, the Bible teaches that God exercises total control over every detail of his creation, to the extent that even the thoughts of men are under his control.3 This is true regarding the biblical writers. God so ordained, directed, and controlled the thoughts and lives of his chosen instruments, that when the time came, their personalities and backgrounds were perfectly suited to write those portions of Scripture he had assigned to them:

The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say." (Exodus 4:11-12)

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." …Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth." (Jeremiah 1:4-5, 9)

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ….But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles…(Galatians 1:11-12, 15-16)

God did not find the right people to write Scripture, but he created the right people to write it, and then he caused them to write it.[4] At the time of writing, the Spirit of God controlled them in such a deliberate and complete manner that they wrote down materials that were beyond what their natural intelligence could conceive.[5] The product was God's verbal revelation, and it was to the very letter what he desired to set in writing. And by his control of nature, history, and mankind, he has preserved his book to this day.

Therefore, the inspiration of the Bible does not refer only to the times when God exercised special control over the writers, although he indeed exercised this control, but the preparation began even before the creation of the world. God controls every detail of every person, and thus every biblical writer, and not just when they sat down to write Scripture. In comparison, mere dictation is weaker and implies a lower view of Scripture, since it ascribes to God less control over the process.

This view of inspiration explains the so-called "human element" in Scripture. The biblical documents reflect the various social, economic, and intellectual backgrounds of the authors, their different personalities, and their unique vocabularies and literary styles. This phenomenon is what one would expect given the biblical view of inspiration, in which God exercised complete control over their lives, circumstances, even their very thoughts, and not only the writing process. Therefore, the "human element" in Scripture is part of what God intended to produce, so that it does not damage the doctrine of inspiration, but it is consistent with it and explained by it.

THE UNITY OF SCRIPTURE

The inspiration of Scripture implies the unity of Scripture. The fact that the words of Scripture proceeded from one rational divine mind implies that it should exhibit perfect coherence. This is what we find in the Bible. Although the personality and literary style of each writer is evident, the design and the unity of the Bible indicate a single divine author. Each scriptural document exhibits perfect internal consistency, and all the documents are consistent with one another. The Bible never contradicts itself.

Jesus affirms the coherence of Scripture, and he assumes this in all of his teachings and applications of the Bible. This is demonstrated in his response to Satan's temptation:

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Matthew 4:5-7)

Satan urges Jesus to jump from the temple on the basis of Psalm 91:11-12. Jesus counters with Deuteronomy 6:16, suggesting that Satan's use of the passage contradicts the instruction from Deuteronomy, and therefore it is a misapplication. When a person interprets a passage of Scripture in a manner that contradicts another passage, he mishandles the text. Christ's argument assumes the unity of Scripture, and even the devil does not challenge it.

On another occasion, as Jesus confronts the Pharisees, his challenge to them assumes the unity of Scripture and the law of noncontradiction:

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:41-46)

Since David was "speaking by the Spirit," he could not have erred. But if Christ was to be David's descendent, how could he also be David's Lord? The fact that this poses a problem in the first place means that both Jesus and the Pharisees assume the unity of Scripture and the law of noncontradiction. If they believe that the Scripture contradicts itself, or if they think that a person can affirm two propositions that contradict each other, then Jesus would not be making a meaningful point. The answer is that the Messiah would be both human and divine, and therefore David's "son" and "Lord."

Nevertheless, it is popular to tolerate contradictions in theology. Alister McGrath writes in his Understanding Doctrine:

The fact that something is paradoxical and even self-contradictory does not invalidate it…Those of us who have worked in the scientific field are only too aware of the sheer complexity and mysteriousness of reality. The events lying behind the rise of quantum theory, the difficulties of using models in scientific explanation – to name but two factors which I can remember particularly clearly from my own period as a natural scientist – point to the inevitability of paradox and contradiction in any except the most superficial engagement with reality….[6]

This is nonsense. Granting that McGrath knows enough science to speak on the subject, this is a testimony against science, and not an argument for embracing contradictions in theology. He assumes the reliability of science and judges all other disciplines by it. His thinking is that if there are contradictions in science, then contradictions must be acceptable, and we must accept them in theology as well.

However, the fact that science often contradicts itself is a reason to maintain that it is irrational and unreliable, and not a reason to permit contradictions in other fields of study. Science is an irrational discipline of speculation about reality. Sometimes its theories happen to correlate with effects that we desire, but it cannot discover any truth about reality. Knowledge about reality comes from valid deductions from biblical revelation, and never from scientific or empirical methods.[7] McGrath gives no argument for us to ignore or tolerate the contradictions in science; rather, he assumes the reliability of science despite the contradictions. There is no justification for this.

What makes science the standard by which we must judge all other disciplines? What gives science the right to make the rules for all other fields of study? McGrath states that science points "to the inevitability of paradox and contradiction in any except the most superficial engagement with reality." But science is not theology. Science contradicts itself and crumbles, but this does not mean that theology suffers the same fate. In fact, McGrath has a very big problem. His statement implies that unless God contradicts himself when he speaks to us, his words are "most superficial." He is right that science contradicts itself, but the application to theology is false.

In any case, theology deals with God, who has the right and power to govern all of thought and life. God knows the nature of reality, and communicates it to us through the Bible. Therefore, it is theology that makes the rules for science, and a biblical system of theology contains no paradoxes or contradictions. In his attempt to deny this, McGrath commits himself to the blasphemy that God is either inconsistent, or he is superficial. He seems to think that if men cannot talk about reality without contradictions, then even God cannot tell us about reality without contradictions. This is how much McGrath thinks of men, or rather, this is how little he thinks of God.

For any proposition that affirms X, the proposition that contradicts it is one that affirms not-X. This is what a contradiction means. Any proposition that affirms one thing is by necessity also a denial of its opposite. To affirm X is to deny not-X, and to affirm not-X is to deny X. To keep this simple, let us assume that Y = not-X, so that the opposite of X is Y. Thus to affirm X is to deny Y, and to affirm Y is to deny X. Or, X = not-Y, and Y = not-X. Then, since to affirm a proposition is to deny its opposite, to affirm X and Y at the same time is the equivalent of affirming not-Y and not-X. Thus to affirm two contradictory propositions is in reality to deny both. But to affirm both not-Y and not-X is also to affirm X and Y, which again means to deny Y and X. And so the whole operation becomes meaningless. The upshot is that it is impossible to affirm two contradictory propositions at the same time.

To affirm the proposition, "Adam is a man" (X), is to deny the contradictory proposition, "Adam is not a man" (Y, or not-X). Likewise, to affirm the proposition, "Adam is not a man" (Y), is to deny the contradictory proposition, "Adam is a man" (X). Now, to affirm both "Adam is a man" (X) and "Adam is not a man" (Y) is only to deny both propositions in reverse order. That is, it is equivalent to denying "Adam is not a man" (Y) and "Adam is a man" (X). But then we are back to affirming the two propositions in reverse order again. When we affirm both, we deny both; when we deny both, we affirm both. Therefore, there is no intelligible meaning in affirming two contradictory propositions. It is to say nothing and to believe nothing.

To illustrate, it is clear that divine sovereignty and human freedom contradict each other.[8] If God controls everything, including man's thoughts, then man is not free from God. If man is free from God in any sense or to any degree, then God does not control everything.[9] Yet some theologians claim that the Bible teaches both divine sovereignty and human freedom, and so they insist that we must affirm both. However, since to affirm divine sovereignty is to deny human freedom, and to affirm human freedom is to deny divine sovereignty, then to affirm both only means to reject both divine sovereignty (in the form of an affirmation of human freedom) and human freedom (in the form of an affirmation of divine sovereignty). But to deny both means to affirm both in reverse order, and to affirm both means to deny both in reverse order again.

The necessary result is that the person who claims to believe both divine sovereignty and human freedom believes neither. In claiming to believe all of the Bible, he in fact believes none of it. In this example, since the Bible affirms divine sovereignty and denies human freedom, there is no contradiction – not even an apparent one. On the other hand, when non-Christians allege that the incarnation of Christ entails a contradiction, the Christian does not have the option to deny either the divinity or the humanity of Christ. Rather, he must formulate the doctrine as the Bible teaches it, and show that there is no contradiction. The same applies for the doctrine of the Trinity. In any case, if a person claims that he sees contradictions in the Bible, this means that he does not – he cannot – believe the Bible.

A popular response is that these are only apparent contradictions; that is, the doctrines only seem like contradictions to the mind of men, but they are in perfect harmony in the mind of God. This answer is futile. There is no difference between an apparent contradiction and an actual contradiction when it comes to affirming it. It remains that to affirm one thing is to deny the other at the same time, so that to affirm both is to deny both, and that to deny both is to affirm both again. Thus the person who affirms an apparent contradiction really affirms nothing and denies nothing. Whether the contradiction is only an apparent one is irrelevant. As long as it appears real to the person, it is real enough.

Moreover, how can a person distinguish between an apparent contradiction from an actual contradiction? He can never know that a contradiction is only an apparent one. Unless he knows how to resolve the apparent contradiction, it will appear the same to him as an actual contradiction. And if he knows that a contradiction is only an apparent one, then he has already resolved it, and the term contradiction no longer applies. If we must tolerate apparent contradictions, then we must tolerate all contradictions. We often challenge nonChristian views on the basis that they contradict themselves. But if we tolerate apparent contradictions, then there is nothing to prevent non-Christians from claiming that the contradictions in their worldviews are only apparent ones.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones illustrates how the tradition of embracing paradox has poisoned our theology. He makes Christians look like fools before the world. This is so ridiculous that I must make a point of saying that these are two consecutive paragraphs, with no interruption in between:

Above all, we shall have to realise that there are certain things which we, with our finite minds, will not be able to reconcile with one another. Now I am trying to avoid the use of technical terms as far as I can, but here I must introduce the word antinomy — not antimony. What is an antinomy? It is a position in which you are given two truths which you yourself cannot reconcile. There are certain final antinomies in the Bible, and as people of faith we must be ready to accept that. When somebody says, "Oh, but you cannot reconcile those two," you must be ready to say, "I cannot. I do not pretend to be able to. I do not know. I believe what I am told in the Scripture."

So, then, we approach this great doctrine like this: in the light of the things we have already considered about the being, the nature, and the character of God, this doctrine of the eternal decrees must follow as an utter, absolute necessity. Because God is who and what He is, He must work in the way in which He does work. As we have seen, all the doctrines in the Bible are consistent with one another, and when we are considering any particular doctrine we must remember that it must always be consistent with everything else. So as we come to study what the Bible tells us about the way in which God works, we must be very careful not to say anything that contradicts what we have already said about His omniscience, His omnipotence, and all the other things that we have agreed together are to be found in the Scriptures.[10]

In the first paragraph, he insists on contradiction. In the second, he insists on coherence. It is difficult to ascertain the precise reason for this insanity. Perhaps the first paragraph shows that he has been infected with the human tradition that there are contradictions in the Bible, whether apparent or actual, and that piety entails paradox. And perhaps the second paragraph expresses what he is compelled to admit, that if the Bible is true, it must be self-consistent, and that if we are to understand the Bible, or if we are to affirm the Bible, then we must perceive it as self-consistent, with no apparent or actual contradictions. In any case, he says, "There are certain things which we, with our finite minds, will not be able to reconcile with one another." But if these two paragraphs provide any indication, it would appear that some minds are vastly more finite than others.[11]

Scientists and non-Christians may wallow in contradictions, but Christians must not tolerate them. Rather than abandoning the unity of Scripture or the law of noncontradiction as a "defense" against those who assert that biblical doctrines contradict themselves, we must affirm and demonstrate the perfect harmony of these doctrines. On the other hand, Christians should expose the incoherence of non-Christian beliefs, and challenge their adherents to abandon them.

THE INFALLIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE

The inspiration and unity of Scripture imply the infallibility of Scripture. The Bible contains no errors; it is correct in all that it asserts. Since God does not lie or err, and the Bible is his word, it follows that everything written in it is true. As Jesus says, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), and that "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law" (Luke 16:17).

The INFALLIBILITY of Scripture refers to the impossibility of error or an inability to err – the Bible cannot err. On the other hand, the INERRANCY of Scripture emphasizes that the Bible does not err. The former refers to the potential, while the latter addresses the actual state of affairs. Now, it is possible for a person to be fallible but produces a text that is free from error. The possibility of error does not guarantee error. People who are capable of making mistakes nonetheless do not constantly make mistakes. Thus infallibility implies inerrancy, but inerrancy does not necessarily imply infallibility. Therefore, strictly speaking, infallibility is the stronger word, and it entails inerrancy, but sometimes the two are interchangeable in usage. In any case, since our position is that the Bible cannot err and that it does not err, we say that it is both infallible and inerrant.

There are those who reject the inerrancy of Scripture, but at the same time desire to affirm, in some sense, the perfection of God and that the Bible is his word, and so they maintain the strange position that the Bible is infallible but errant. In other words, the Bible cannot contain error, but it does contain error. This is absurd and impossible. Sometimes what they mean is that the Bible is infallible in one sense, perhaps when it talks about spiritual things, while it contains errors in another sense, perhaps when it talks about historical matters. However, biblical statements about spiritual things are inseparably bound to biblical statements about history, so that it is impossible to affirm one and reject the other.

For example, it is impossible to separate what Scripture says about the resurrection of Christ as an event of history and what it says about the spiritual meaning of this event. If the resurrection did not happen as the Bible says it did, then what it says about its spiritual significance cannot be true. And if what it says about its spiritual significance is true, then it must also be affirmed that the resurrection happened as the Bible says it did. This is because the spiritual significance of the resurrection depends on its historicity, that Jesus Christ died in his physical body, and was buried, but was then physically raised from the dead and ascended to the right hand of God.

Those who reject biblical infallibility and inerrancy have no authoritative epistemological principle by which they can judge one part of Scripture to be true and another part to be false. Since the Bible is the only objective source of information from which the Christian system is constructed, a person who considers any portion of Scripture as fallible or errant must reject the whole of Christianity. And accordingly, we can reject his claim to be a Christian.

A person cannot question or reject the ultimate authority of a system of thought and still claim allegiance to it, since the ultimate authority in any system defines and produces the entire system. Once a person questions or rejects the ultimate authority of a system, he is no longer an adherent of the system, but he is one who adheres to the principle by which he questions or rejects the ultimate authority of the system that he has abandoned. To have an ultimate authority other than the Scripture is to reject the Scripture, since the Bible itself claims to be infallible and ultimate. Therefore, a person who rejects biblical infallibility and inerrancy assumes the intellectual position of a non-Christian, and he must proceed to defend and justify his worldview against the Christian's arguments for the truth of the biblical faith.

Confusion permeates the present theological climate; therefore, it is best to explicitly affirm both biblical infallibility and inerrancy, and explain what we mean by these terms. God is infallible, and since the Bible is his word, it cannot and does not contain errors. We affirm that the Bible is infallible in every sense of the term, and therefore it must also be inerrant in every sense of the term. The Bible cannot and does not contain errors, whether it is speaking of spiritual, historical, or other matters. It is correct in all that it affirms.

THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

The extent of the Bible's authority determines the level of control that it has over our lives. The inspiration, unity, and infallibility of Scripture imply that it possesses absolute authority. Since the Scripture is the very word of God, or God speaking, the necessary conclusion is that it carries the authority of God. Therefore, the authority of Scripture is identical to the authority of God.

The Bible itself sometimes refer to God and Scripture as if the two are interchangeable. As Warfield writes, "God and the Scriptures are brought into such conjunction as to show that in point of directness of authority no distinction was made between them."[12]

The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you…and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:1-3)

The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." (Galatians 3:8)

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me…But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth…'" (Exodus 9:13-16)

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (Romans 9:17)

Whereas the Genesis passage says that it was "the Lord" who spoke to Abraham, Galatians says, "The Scripture foresaw…[The Scripture] announced…." The passage from Exodus states that it was "the Lord" who told Moses what to say to Pharaoh, but Romans says, "the Scripture says to Pharaoh…." If we believe that the Bible is the word of God, then we would also refer to God and the Scripture as if they are identical. We would personify the Bible as the Bible does to itself. Anyone who never does this probably does not believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Since God possesses absolute authority, the Bible also carries absolute authority. Since there is no difference between God speaking and the Bible speaking, there is no difference between obeying God and obeying the Bible. To believe and obey the Bible is to believe and obey God; to disbelieve and disobey the Bible is to disbelieve and disobey God. The Bible is more than an instrument through which God speaks to us; rather, the words of the Bible are the very words that God speaks – there is no difference. The Bible is God's voice, and the authority of Scripture is total.

THE NECESSITY OF SCRIPTURE

The Bible is necessary for precise and authoritative information about the things of God. Since theology is central to all of thought and life, Scripture is necessary as a foundation to all of human civilization. Those who reject the Bible nevertheless continue to assume Christian principles to govern their thought and life, although they refuse to admit this. One task of the Christian apologist is to expose the non-Christian's implicit assumption of biblical premises despite their explicit rejection of them. But to the extent that any worldview consistently excludes biblical premises, it degenerates into skepticism and barbarism.

Biblical revelation is the only justifiable first principle from which one may deduce information about ultimate issues such as metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Knowledge belonging to subsidiary categories such as politics and biology are also limited to propositions deducible from revelation. Without revelation as the starting point, knowledge is impossible. Any other first principle fails to justify itself, and so a system that depends on it cannot even begin.

Scripture is necessary for defining every Christian concept and activity. It governs every aspect of the spiritual life, including preaching, prayer, worship, and guidance. Scripture is also necessary for salvation, since the information necessary for salvation is revealed in the Bible, and must be communicated to a person for him to receive salvation. Paul writes, "the holy Scriptures…are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15).

An earlier section points out that all men know that the Christian God exists, and that he is the only God. Men are born with this knowledge. Although this knowledge is sufficient to condemn unbelief and disobedience, it is insufficient for salvation. A person gains knowledge about the work of Christ either directly from Scripture, or indirectly as someone preaches or writes about the Christian faith on the basis of Scripture.

Therefore, the Bible is necessary for knowledge leading to salvation, instructions leading to spiritual growth, answers to the ultimate questions, and for knowledge about reality. It is the necessary precondition for all knowledge and for any rational apprehension of God and the universe.

THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE

Christians must avoid two extremes regarding the clarity of Scripture. One maintains that Scripture is totally obscure to the average person, so that only an elite group of professionals can interpret it. The other view claims that the Scripture is so simple that nothing in it is difficult to understand, and that no training in hermeneutics is required to handle the text. By extension, a seasoned theologian's exposition is no more reliable than an unlearned person's opinion.

The former position closes off the Scripture from the general populace, and prevents anyone from challenging the interpretations of professionals. But the other position is also dangerous. The Bible is not so simple that every person can interpret it with equal ease and accuracy. Referring to Paul's writings, the apostle Peter says, "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand." He warns that "ignorant and unstable people distort" Paul's words, "as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).

Many people would like to think of themselves as competent in important matters such as theology and hermeneutics, but instead of praying for wisdom and studying the Scripture, they merely assume that they are as capable as the theologians or their own pastors. This way of thinking results in confusion and disaster. Anyone can be taught to understand the Bible better. It is not necessary to be trained by professors and seminaries. It is even possible to be self-taught, to learn from books, or even as Paul says, to be taught by God. One way or another, a person must be taught and trained. One's education, diligence, reverence, and divine endowment all contribute to his ability to interpret and apply the Bible.

There are those who consider a seminary education the only adequate training. Of course, many of these are seminary students and graduates, and this claim elevates their kind into a form of exclusive priesthood. But it is pure rubbish, and there is no reason for anyone to accept it. Indeed, the very fact that they espouse this human invention shows that their seminary education is inadequate, and that they remain grossly incompetent and unspiritual. The Holy Spirit is not dead, and there is nothing in the Bible that requires him to teach his people through seminaries, or even through churches. Anyone who affirms the priesthood of all believers, that Christ alone is the mediator between God and man, must also agree that it is possible for anyone to pick up the Bible and be guided to the truth by God without any human teacher. Just because the church is a God-ordained institution does not mean that it is another mediator between God and man along with Jesus Christ. It does what God says it does, and no more. Nevertheless, the point remains that, no matter how it happens, a person must receive reliable teaching on the doctrines of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. Anyone who asserts an interpretation must be able to provide a sober, reverent, and logical explanation for it.

This is not to undermine the place of preachers and theologians, but to maintain their role as servants of Christ, and not as an elite class of believers. In fact, even though many passages in the Bible are easy to understand, some of them require extra diligence and wisdom to interpret. It is possible for a person to read the Scripture and gain from it sufficient understanding and knowledge for salvation, although sometimes one may need help from a reliable believer:

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)

It is also possible to learn the basic tenets of the Christian faith by reading the Bible without human aid. But some passages can be difficult to understand. In those cases, a person may enlist the assistance of preachers and theologians to explain the passages, but we must insist that they are never necessary in any particular instance, since only Christ is the true teacher and mediator.

Nehemiah 8:8 affirms the place of the preaching ministry: "They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read." The final authority rests in the statements of Scripture, and not in the interpretations of scholars. The Bible is never wrong, although our understanding of it and inferences from it may sometimes be invalid.[13] For this reason, every church should train its members in theology, hermeneutics, and logic, so that they may better handle the word of truth.

Therefore, although the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture grants every person the right to read and interpret the Bible, it does not eliminate the need for teachers in the church, but rather affirms their importance. Paul writes that God has established the ministerial office of the teacher, and that he has appointed individuals to fulfill the role (1 Corinthians 12:28). But James warns that not many should be eager to take up this office: "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1). In another place, Paul writes, "Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment" (Romans 12:3). The office is a serious responsibility. It is dangerous to claim it out of pride or ambition.

As for those whom God has chosen and endowed to be ministers of doctrine, they are able to handle the more difficult passages in Scripture, and they can extract valuable insights from it that may elude others. Ephesians 4:7-13 refers to this office as one of Christ's gifts to his church, and therefore Christians ought to value and respect those standing in such a ministry.

This generation despises authority. People hate being told what to do or what to believe, although they think this way in part because they have been told to do so. Most people do not respect even the authority of God or Scripture, let alone the authority of the church and its ministers. They consider their opinion just as good as that of the apostles, or at least that of the preachers and the theologians. Their religion is democratic, not authoritarian. But the Bible commands Christians to obey their leaders: "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you" (Hebrews 13:17). Every Christian has the right to read the Bible and follow God directly, with Christ as his sole mediator. But this must not translate into illegitimate defiance[14] against the learned teaching of scholars or the authority of church leaders.

THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE

Many Christians claim to affirm the sufficiency of Scripture, but their actual thinking and practice deny it. The doctrine affirms that the Bible contains sufficient information for a person not only to find salvation in Christ, but afterward to receive instruction and guidance in every aspect of thought and life, either by the explicit statements of Scripture, or by necessary inferences from it.

The Bible contains all that is necessary to construct a complete worldview, a true view of reality. It conveys to us not only the will of God in the general matters of Christian faith and conduct, but by applying biblical precepts, we can also know his will when making specific and personal decisions. Everything that we need to know as Christians is found in the Bible.

Paul writes that the Scripture is not only divine in origin, but that it is also comprehensive in scope:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

The necessary implication is that extra-biblical means of guidance such as visions and prophecies are unnecessary; however, since the Bible does not declare that they have ceased, God may still grant them whenever he pleases. Whether God still speaks to people in these special ways is another question, but there is no biblical justification to deny the possibility.

We must defy theologians who insist that God no longer performs the miraculous or speaks to people in special ways, because they assert this not on the basis of solid deduction from Scripture, as they themselves might demand for all other doctrines, but by imposing artificial schemes on Scripture concerning the progress of revelation, and by other farfetched arguments. Both cessationism and fanaticism are wrong. But the doctrine of God's sovereignty is always right, and we must not compromise it in any way and to any degree in favor of human tradition or to appease religious pressure.

That said, problems occur when Christians deny that the Bible is sufficient to provide comprehensive instruction and guidance. Some of them complain that the Bible lacks specific information they need to make personal decisions. However, in light of Paul's words – that is, since God asserts through his apostle that the Bible is sufficient – the deficiency must be in these individuals and not in the Bible.

They lack the information they need because of their immaturity and ignorance. The Bible is indeed sufficient to guide them, but they neglect to study it. Some of them also exhibit strong rebellion, so that although the Bible clearly addresses their situations, they refuse to obey its commands and instructions. Or, they refuse to accept the very method of receiving guidance from Scripture in the first place, but insist that God must guide them, at least occasionally, through visions, dreams, and prophecies, although he has already written down what they need to know in the Bible.

When God does not grant their demand for extra-biblical guidance, some of them even decide to seek information through forbidden methods, such as astrology, divination, and other occult practices. Their rebellion is such that if God does not provide the desired information in the ways that they prefer, or if he does not agree with their desires, then they are determined to get what they want from the devil.

Knowledge of God's will comes from an intellectual understanding and application of Scripture.[15] Paul writes:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:2)

Christian theology must affirm the sufficiency of Scripture, that it is a comprehensive source of information, instruction, and guidance. The Bible contains the whole will of God, including the information a person needs for salvation, spiritual development, and personal guidance. It contains sufficient information so that, if one were to fully obey it, he would fulfill the will of God in every detail of life, and he sins to the extent he disobeys. Although we will not attain perfect obedience in this life, it remains that the Bible contains all the information required to live a perfect Christian life.[16]

_____ [1] See Vincent Cheung, The View from Above. [2] The word translated "given by inspiration of God" (KJV) or "inspired by God" (NASB) is theopneustos. It means expiration (to breathe out) rather than inspiration (to breathe in), so that the NIV translates it as "God-breathed." Although "inspiration" is an acceptable theological term referring to the divine origin of Scripture, and as such the word remains useful, it does not convey the literal meaning of theopneustos. [3] The Bible denies that man has "free will." Although the will of man exists as a function of the mind, it is not "free" in the sense that it can operate apart from God's constant and complete control. [4] Some call this position ORGANIC INSPIRATION, but others consider the term ambiguous or misleading. The point is that God did not merely suggest or dictate words to the writers, but he controlled all the details of their thoughts and lives. The biblical doctrine of inspiration is far more ambitious than mere dictation. [5] Scripture exceeds what men could produce without divine inspiration, but it is not beyond the ability of men to understand. [6] Alister McGrath, Understanding Doctrine; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990; p. 138. [7] See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations. [8] The doctrine of divine sovereignty will be discussed and applied throughout this book. Also see Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians and The Author of Sin. [9] The doctrine of compatibilism teaches that man is not free from God, but that man is still free in a sense. However, unless the kind of freedom under consideration is freedom from God, it is irrelevant, since the topic concerns God's control over man. See Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin. [10] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible, Vol. 1 (Crossway), p. 95-96. [11] See Vincent Cheung, Blasphemy and Mystery. [12] The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 1; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2000 (original: 1932); p. 283. [13] Nevertheless, this does not turn interpretation into a matter of mere opinion, since the validity of inferences from Scripture is an objective matter – that is, logic is objective – so that all interpretations can be proved or refuted with an objective definiteness. [14] Since there is no difference between obeying God and obeying Scripture, and since Scripture is our direct contact with the revealed will of God, the immediate object of our allegiance is the Bible (Acts 17:11), by which we may test the teachings and practices of those with learning and authority in the church. Therefore, teachings and practices that deny biblical doctrines constitute sufficient grounds to defy human authority. "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29). [15] See Vincent Cheung, Godliness with Contentment, "Biblical Guidance and Decision-Making." [16] For more on the sufficiency of Scripture, see Vincent Cheung, The Ministry of the Word.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology (2010), p. 13-31.

Copyright © 2010 by Vincent Cheung http://www.vincentcheung.com

[confrontingbabble-on]

“The following  briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer  who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument.  Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence,  facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent  either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling,  offensive remarks and anger.

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing  to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence  that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because  we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not  exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence  or non-existence.

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe  in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience  to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their  knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone,"  "everything," "absolute."

appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot  learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument,  then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition,  relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith  depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy):  (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice  a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam):  using the words of an "expert" or authority as the  bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence  that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes  in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim  does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents  the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason  and sources of evidence behind it.

Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): an argument that concludes a premise (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to  desirable or undesirable consequences. Example: some religious people believe that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution.

argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should  judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar  crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does  not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or  that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because  God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe  in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing  about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain  way.

argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal  to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll  burn in hell)

argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used  in reliance on people's ignorance.

argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular  support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts  and reasons. This can lead to bandwagon fallacies (see below).

bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit  simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g.,  Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.)  Simply because many people may believe something says nothing  about the fact of that something. For example many people during  the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number  of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g.,  We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.)  But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?

circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that  which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says  so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument  depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something  to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness  and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms  have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of  many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)

confirmation bias (similar to observational selection):  This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence  that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence  that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger  role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and  prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer,  the believer will notice the few "answered" prayers  while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would  indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at  worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at  best).

confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More  men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players  than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act  violently when they grow up.) But does television programming  cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch  violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates  violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould  called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause  as "probably among the two or three most serious and common  errors of human reasoning" (The  Mismeasure of Man).

excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only  the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending  to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate,  etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands  guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between  the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains  many "maybes."

half truths (suppressed evidence): A statement usually  intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for  an accurate description.

loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered,  indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating  your wife yet?)

meaningless question: (e.g., "How high is up?"  "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes  a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible,  then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction.  Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an  infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number  of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty  words such as "is," "are," "were,"  "was," "am," "be," or "been."

misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the  majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore,  stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract  the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin  

non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow."    An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established    premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births    during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates    to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or    did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical  variations?

no true Christian (no true Scotsman): an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with an example, rather than denying it, this fallacy  excludes the specific case without reference to any  objective rule. Example: Many Christians in history have started wars. Reply: Well no true Christian would ever start a war.  

observational selection (similar to confirmation bias):    pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable.    Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people    winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure    to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while    the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude    that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just  the reverse holds true.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened  after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur,  but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China,  so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness  derived from something entirely independent from China.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide  the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to  prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove  UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence  in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain  certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence,  or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something  that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those  who make the claims.

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention  by changing the subject.

reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract  belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete  event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure  of intelligence; the concept of race (even though genetic attributes  exist), from the chosen combination of attributes or the  labeling of a group of people, come from abstract social constructs;  Astrology; god(s); Jesus; Santa Claus, black race, white race, etc.

slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action,  will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor  assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control  how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because  we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.

special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter  to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of  an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect  of the question at issue. (e.g. How can God create so much suffering  in the world? Answer: You have to understand that God moves in  mysterious ways and we have no privilege to this knowledge. Or:  Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind  it.)

statistics of small numbers: similar to observational  selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never  got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my  Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point  to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.

straw man: creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking  it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by  random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural  selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not  depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with  false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument. (From the email that I get on NoBeliefs.com this appears as the most common fallacy of all.)

two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we  did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can  you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The  guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.

Use-mention error: confusing a word or a concept with something that supposedly exists. For example an essay on THE HISTORY OF GOD does not refer to an actual god, but rather the history of the concept of god in human culture. (To avoid  confusion, people usually put the word or phrase in quotations.

_______________________

Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:

1) Skepticism of unsupported claims

2) Combination of an open mind with critical thinking

3) Attempts to repeat experimental results.

4) Requires testability

5) Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

6) Uses descriptive language

7) Performs controlled experiments

8) Self-correcting

9) Relies on evidence and reason

10) Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge

11) Produces useful knowledge

Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following  criteria:

1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism

2) Does not require critical thinking

3) Does not require experimental repeatability

4) Does not require tests

5) Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

6) Uses vague language

7) Relies on anecdotal evidence

8) No self-correction

9) Relies on belief and faith

10) Makes absolute claims

11) Produces no useful knowledge”

https://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

[universalpronouns-blog]

The Universal Set

[TL;DR Clause: If you do not read it, youhave no business attacking it.] In Maths we learn about the Universal set. Let {U} = The Universal Set There is nothing outside the Universal set. Anything that can exist, does exist, could exist, orncould be said to exist, must exist by definition within the Universal set, as demonstrared with {U}. Nothing can be outside the Universal set. Though it can be argued that things can exist outside the Universal set, the arguments are both invalid and undefined. We represent this phenomenon with the symbol θ. Nothing that exists can exist outside the {U}. Attempting to demonstrate something outside of {U} results in θ. There is no way around it. The math is absolute. Just as you cannot divide by zero [or you get θ] and you cannot demonstrate 0^0 [or you get θ], you cannot exist outside of {U}. It cannot be done. This is not a matter of choice. This is not a matter of preference, this is the way that it is. There is no debate. There is no valid argument. Your emotions are irrelevent. Your gender is irrelevent. Your identity is irrelevent. It is upon this principle that the Universal pronouns are founded. It is upon this principle that they word. The Universal pronouns are Universal. They apply to everyone equally, because everyone exists within the {U}. They cannot exist outside of the {U}. Existence outside the {U} is θ. The Universal pronouns apply to everybody. To state that they do not is θ. "Your Universal pronouns do not apply to me."= θ. They apply to everyone equally. They do not discriminate. They are for people who believe in equality and equal rights. "Your are forcing your Universal pronouns on us. / You're putting us all in a box." We did not force you to exist. We did not build the box. The box has always existed. You have always been in the box. (ANY form of "No we haven't" = θ ) We did nothing more than present words for a phenomenon that has always occured and always existed. If you exist, you are in the {U}. If you are in the {U}, the Universal pronouns apply. To state that you are not and they do not is θ. There is no valid argument. There is no debate. This is absolute. We do not force you to use these words. We have stated repeatedly that this is your choice. Yet the Universal pronouns DO exist, and their definition does stand. This is absolute. "You're taking these words from 'X'" This is not a valid argument against the words or the definition. This is not a religious issue. This is not a cultural issue. This is a language issue. If you want to attack us for our choice of phonetics and symbology, you might as well attack everyone else in the process, including and especially people and business who are named 'Om', other groups that use the sounds/words (of which there are many), and the mathmeticians, scientists, and philosophers that teach about the Universe, the {U}, and many other logical things that can trigger your fragile psyches. "You're claiming our pronouns are invalid." That is a lie. We never said that. We said the Universal pronouns are Universal and apply to everybody equally. They are and they do. "You know they have to be used by everybody to be Universal, right?" The error is yours. The Universal pronouns are Universal in nature because of the principles they are founded upon as well as the range of their application. The Universal pronouns are Universal because they apply to everybody within the {U}. Because everyone who exists exists within the {U}, it applies to everyone. This is an example of people misapplying and using the wrong definition. "Universalpronouns is a troll, a {prefix}-ist, and/or a {prefix}-phobe." (Multiply these as necessary.) These are unfounded allegations with no basis in reality. We believe in equal rights and equality and have presented a singular pronoun set affixed to Universal principles fornthe purpose of treating everybody the same. In what reality is promoting 'Equality' and 'Equal Rights' sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. These arguments are not simply invalid, they are ludicrous and ridiculous, and discredit the individuals making them. It also weakens the definitions of the words theybuse and renders them meaningless. We never said you had to use the words, we offered them as a choice. "*profanity*, *filth*, *foul* / You're bad/vile/insensitive etc." These are not valid arguments. Our speech has been consistently clean and inoffensive. We have forced nobody to use our words. We have used the Universal pronouns nearly never, especially on, for, or against those who have asked us not to even though they DO apply. Morality is irrelevent. The words exist. They have been defined. They do not discriminate. We believe in freedom of choice and equality. Those who attack us have demonstrated that they do not. They are insensitive and like to play the victims. For this reason we do not care. "You have no right to and/or you cannot make words that apply to everybody." We can and we did and demonstrated both how and why. There is no debate. "Who gave you the right? What gives you the authority? Etc." We do not need permission to coin, construct, define, and/or apply words. We do not need permission to use words. We do not need to be told which words we are to use. You do not have the right to dictate to us which words we can use, when we can use them, or why we can or cannot use those words. The error is yours. "People are getting hurt. Real harm is being done. Your words are literally violent, etc." This notion is wholly ridiculous despite whatever echochamber you live in might say otherwise. A person cannot be made to feel something by someone else without their own conscious, unconcscious, or subconscious consent. This is a fact. You are responsible for your own feelings. ["Victim Blaming" is not applicable either and is equally ridiculous. You are being triggered by facts and we are neither responsible nor do we care. That is your problem.] Violent words, by definition, apply only to statements used to incite action against an individual, such as 'Get Them!' or 'Kill all [blank].' Our words do not qualify. Your arguments against is are not valid. "You do not listen." Yes. We do. You arguments are invalid, irrational, illogical, and/or irrelevent. This is your problem. The error is yours. "You're misgendering us [by definition and/or etc] etc." Your definitions are wrong. The Universal pronouns are Universal and they apply to everyone equally. They do not rely on gender, they have nothing to do with gender, therefore the claim that we are misgendering anyone is ludicrous and fictitious. The error is yours. "We do not identity with the Universal pronouns [therefore they don't apply.]" The Universal pronouns do not rely on the concept of identity to function. Identity plays no role in the Universal pronouns. The Universal pronouns rely only on the concept of existence and therefore apply everyone equally. Identity is irrelevent. Your argument is invalid. The error is yours. "You could have used any words you wanted, but...etc." We could have. We chose the the words we did for reasons that are our own. The Universal pronouns exist. They have been defined. The definition stands. "But they/them etc." They/them pronouns are not singular pronouns. They are of a plural nature. People widely missapply them in the singular sense because there has previously been no singular option. There is now. They/them pronouns simply do not work (properly) in every situation, and even if they did it is irrelevent. The Universal pronouns still exist, have been defined, and can be used by those who choose. To bring up They/Them at all is a redirection technique. They are plural. Period. Who even cares anyway?