When I was a child, I once heard someone say "the older you get, the less time it seems you have in a day"
At the time, I didn't get it. A day has 24 hours for everyone, so how could it decrease as you get older?
Now that I'm in my thirties, the point is starting to make sense.
When you're a child, and the only thing that takes up most of your time is some form of compulsory education, you ironically can't wait for time to speed up so you can get past all that boring stuff, or at least skip the seeming drudgery of reading textbooks and answering questions by bubbling in or circling answers on tests. In reality, school is basically the last time time seems so slow you want it to speed up, because as you graduate and enter world proper, time starts to decrease.
Excepting college, and even that is variable depending on whether you also work during college, time decreases exponentially because you are subtracting the time spent working a steady job from time to do other things, and as you get promoted and/or your responsibilities increase, your time seems to grow shorter and shorter as you become more and more dependable to your employer.
With that said, I now more than understand why time decreases as you get older.
Back before my own responsibilities increased regularly, I found myself with a lot of time on hands, most of which I spent on various sites like the Kiwi Farms where I basically, in hindsight, took for granted my breather from the hectic pace I would have to follow when my own personal and professional responsibilities increased. Now that I have a lot more to do, I have become painfully aware how much less time I have to mess around.
Now, speaking of wasting time on the Kiwi Farms, I barely get a chance to look at it anymore, and then mostly just to see what nutty news articles their news board (the only reason I log in anymore) has managed to dig up for a quick laugh before I get back to work. Even though I write reviews on video games too, even that is now Serious Time I Don't Have To Waste because that is also a job, and I speak from experiences, writing about playing games makes both the writing and the game playing pretty dull when it's a job you re obligated to perform.
And yes, I'm serious, even a hobby intended to alleviate boredom can be very tedious instead when you are forced to write copy about that hobby. Had I gone back in time and told my child self who once thought being a games reviewer was fun that it would actually be hard work, he'd probably laugh at me, and now, I can understand the reason why.
I also have family I have to take care of and friends whose health and safety I have to watch out for now, and my concern for them tends to occasionally cut into that period called sleeping, which only tends to make me more miserable when I have to get up and face the lions called Responsibility and Hard Work.
The point of all this musing is that I now understand why it seems like time seems less than it was when I was a child, and now I know not to take the free time I do have for granted as much anymore. In a greater sense, given human lifespans are finite and all of us have no idea when the last grain falls from the top of the hourglass of our mortal lives, the older you get, in a way it's very true you do have less time, so it's worth spending what time you do have productively as possible, a lesson I never understood completely when I was younger but now understand to a depressing degree now that I'm older.
And if anyone happens to be wondering if I have pointers, then all I can say is that take my words as a warning to take what time you have to yourself and not let it go to waste, cause at least on this side of the mortal coil, it's all you got, and it would be a shame to waste it on pointless things.
Saturday, February 29, 2020
Coronavirus: Why It's Nothing to Panic Over
I've seen a ton of people going Chicken Little over COVID-19 outside of China, and frankly, it's inane panic I refuse to indulge.
First off, this is not the Dark Ages. Humanity has gotten to the point a nasty strain of influenza is not going to be the death knell of civilization. The Spanish Flu was pretty bad after World War I and killed more people than most battlefields did, but we've gotten a lot better at handling disease since.
I won't deny it's foolish not to see a doctor if you think you contracted it. By all means, seek IMMEDIATE medical attention, but otherwise, don't assume you are at super high risk if you live outside China unless you travel frequently and have a reasonable chance of crossing paths with someone who is from that area or you've spent a lot of time on planes with people who have been to areas where those who caught it are high.
And unlike all the people who are hyperventilating about it being a superweapon or some intentional disease that escape some Chinese biolab, I consider that a steaming load of garbage without actual proof, and given how ineptly this has been handled by them thus far, they'd have to be a lot more competent in having a contingency plan that should've worked a lot sooner for me to believe this was deliberate.
That said, I don't believe it beyond reason information is being suppressed by the Chinese government because they are obviously embarrassed this has made them look weak and it's kneecapped trade from a critical crossroads for commerce. This is a situation where there is more long and short-term gain from honesty, but I don't doubt files are being shredded and mouths are being silenced because China has a tendency to not want to look weak.
However, until I have more evidence, I'm assuming incompetence and arrogance are at play, not malice aforethought.
On the medical side, I have no doubt this is going to be particularly nasty where it originated, but viral outbreaks tend to trend downward the farther they spread, and unless medical organizations the world over prove stunningly inept at the most basic prudence, this will burn itself out.
As for me, I'm fine with acknowledging my mortality, and if something kills me, I'm going to accept it, even if this coronavirus, but I doubt it will be my end. I refuse to just lay down and die for whatever will be my end if I have a choice, and given this can be contained and treated, I have no doubt there is far more smoke than actual fire at the source of this scare.
Until it ends though, I still encourage people be prudent, but I also encourage them not to panic, this will burn itself out, we will all move on with our lives.
First off, this is not the Dark Ages. Humanity has gotten to the point a nasty strain of influenza is not going to be the death knell of civilization. The Spanish Flu was pretty bad after World War I and killed more people than most battlefields did, but we've gotten a lot better at handling disease since.
I won't deny it's foolish not to see a doctor if you think you contracted it. By all means, seek IMMEDIATE medical attention, but otherwise, don't assume you are at super high risk if you live outside China unless you travel frequently and have a reasonable chance of crossing paths with someone who is from that area or you've spent a lot of time on planes with people who have been to areas where those who caught it are high.
And unlike all the people who are hyperventilating about it being a superweapon or some intentional disease that escape some Chinese biolab, I consider that a steaming load of garbage without actual proof, and given how ineptly this has been handled by them thus far, they'd have to be a lot more competent in having a contingency plan that should've worked a lot sooner for me to believe this was deliberate.
That said, I don't believe it beyond reason information is being suppressed by the Chinese government because they are obviously embarrassed this has made them look weak and it's kneecapped trade from a critical crossroads for commerce. This is a situation where there is more long and short-term gain from honesty, but I don't doubt files are being shredded and mouths are being silenced because China has a tendency to not want to look weak.
However, until I have more evidence, I'm assuming incompetence and arrogance are at play, not malice aforethought.
On the medical side, I have no doubt this is going to be particularly nasty where it originated, but viral outbreaks tend to trend downward the farther they spread, and unless medical organizations the world over prove stunningly inept at the most basic prudence, this will burn itself out.
As for me, I'm fine with acknowledging my mortality, and if something kills me, I'm going to accept it, even if this coronavirus, but I doubt it will be my end. I refuse to just lay down and die for whatever will be my end if I have a choice, and given this can be contained and treated, I have no doubt there is far more smoke than actual fire at the source of this scare.
Until it ends though, I still encourage people be prudent, but I also encourage them not to panic, this will burn itself out, we will all move on with our lives.
Friday, February 28, 2020
In praise of my working for CCG, a retrospective
I've written for ChristCenteredGamer for some time now, and given I started around May 2019, am still around Feburary 2020, and have every intention of sticking around as long as I can, I just want to reflect on what I'm thankful for since I started working for them.
First off, working for them was not something I immediately considered. I was aware of them long beforehand of course, and while I liked their work, I never thought I'd consider writing for them, until one day I realized they didn't review a game I had in my Steam Library and figured if no one else was going to write it, I could write it for them. That got the ball rolling to where I am today.
I've written game reviews before, as well as reviews for other media, mostly here on this blog, and, I admit, I have written reviews for some very adult media on this very blog. I'm not ashamed to admit that because I no longer have an interest in doing so. I'm not removing any of what I wrote, I have no intention of denying my past; rather it's a reminder of what I stood for then. What I stand for now is something I hope is more pleasing to both myself and more importantly, to the God whose Son died for me.
ChristCenteredGamer has given me an outlet for several interests of mine. First, I love video games. Second, I like to express my thoughts via writing, and finally, I like the idea of helping others. CCG has given me a way to satisfy all three criteria. Second, I always hated what game journalism became since I saw it was like when I was younger, and now I get do more than preach impotently about it, I get to be part of the solution to the problem I bemoaned.
I will admit some things about working for CCG did initially bother me. While I understood their need for including a "moral score" due to their Christian outlook, coming from a revulsion of writing with an ideological chip on the shoulder, I admit it made me uncomfortable at first, even though the moral score was separate from the score on the game on it's technical merits and was written as it's own section that could be discarded at user preference. With time, I've come to realize the discomfort wasn't just me worrying I'd become what I didn't want to be, but it also had another reason, one I didn't want to admit initially, but I must for reasons of honesty.
It forces me to remind myself that while the ultimate decision to do good or evil remains with me alone, what media I consume is also my decision, and what influences that media has on my moral conduct is something I must consider if I wish to avoid normalizing the temptation to do things I know I shouldn't. Having come to terms with that, I'm grateful now I have to always keep that in mind, I have forsaken a lot of media I used to consume that was quite inappropriate for me morally, and I believe I have been made better off for it.
Some of the games I play for review purposes do force me to revisit that area I decided to leave fallow for my own moral benefit, but I do so now for a better cause: to brave the feral jackals of those moral pitfalls so that I may warn my fellow Christians about what to avoid. Having once lived amongst those jackals at one point, I believe I can use my former past experiences to now serve as warning what to avoid, both for myself and for others who wish to minimize the negative influences of this world upon them.
I'm aware my writing has earned me both friends and enemies, and as I learned, my friends are a loving Christian community who has been there for me in times of hardship, and even more importantly, served as a conscience for me when my own was lacking, and while it shamed me to be found wanting when I was rebuked, I accept that gladly, as I believe I have been kept on a better path in the long run.
As to my enemies, I have had my religion, my family, and myself cursed and scorned by those who have nothing but bad faith and ill will for what I do and what I stand for. So be it. Jesus was cursed and spat on by those he came to help, and he accepted pain and even death for all of humanity despite his faith in us being brought to it's lowest point. If He could endure that, surely I can endure the scorn much as he did: Silently not returning evil with evil, but asking my Heavenly Father to forgive those who hate me, for they do not know what they do.
In fact, I'm proud to have my work in His name mocked and spat on. Stephen never would have never been stoned had he not told those who rejected God's Will what they needed to hear, and Saul never would have shaken off his own sin to become Paul had he not shown the bravery to face death and public hatred to speak the truth and thus start the chain of events that led to Saul being blinded and later brought into the service of the very one he had once persecuted as Paul, his greatest advocate.
I don't know if I will ever have to face my own mortality via those who wish to end my life, but I have been been the target of contemptuous hatred in some corners, and I won't return it, but neither do I fear it. Rather, I merely hope my example (as weak, flawed, and imperfect as it is) brings more Sauls to Pauls.
I won't claim to be a moral giant. If anything, my work at CCG has made me acutely aware of just how little I have to be arrogant about, and how much more I still have no right to look towards Heaven with pride. I doubt even the best work I do for the ministry I serve would make for the humblest offering on the altar of God, I just hope what meager efforts I perform for CCG bring others to Christ for His glory, not my own.
In the meantime, I have no grand ambition. I have no conceit my efforts will ever etch my name into the annals of history, and if future generations never hear of me, given how little I mean compared to God, that would likely be best.
All I hope is that while I here I at least can make some effort to bring glory to God via my writing for ChristCenteredGamer, and even if that means I am to remain in the shadows, I hope that leads others to God's Light.
First off, working for them was not something I immediately considered. I was aware of them long beforehand of course, and while I liked their work, I never thought I'd consider writing for them, until one day I realized they didn't review a game I had in my Steam Library and figured if no one else was going to write it, I could write it for them. That got the ball rolling to where I am today.
I've written game reviews before, as well as reviews for other media, mostly here on this blog, and, I admit, I have written reviews for some very adult media on this very blog. I'm not ashamed to admit that because I no longer have an interest in doing so. I'm not removing any of what I wrote, I have no intention of denying my past; rather it's a reminder of what I stood for then. What I stand for now is something I hope is more pleasing to both myself and more importantly, to the God whose Son died for me.
ChristCenteredGamer has given me an outlet for several interests of mine. First, I love video games. Second, I like to express my thoughts via writing, and finally, I like the idea of helping others. CCG has given me a way to satisfy all three criteria. Second, I always hated what game journalism became since I saw it was like when I was younger, and now I get do more than preach impotently about it, I get to be part of the solution to the problem I bemoaned.
I will admit some things about working for CCG did initially bother me. While I understood their need for including a "moral score" due to their Christian outlook, coming from a revulsion of writing with an ideological chip on the shoulder, I admit it made me uncomfortable at first, even though the moral score was separate from the score on the game on it's technical merits and was written as it's own section that could be discarded at user preference. With time, I've come to realize the discomfort wasn't just me worrying I'd become what I didn't want to be, but it also had another reason, one I didn't want to admit initially, but I must for reasons of honesty.
It forces me to remind myself that while the ultimate decision to do good or evil remains with me alone, what media I consume is also my decision, and what influences that media has on my moral conduct is something I must consider if I wish to avoid normalizing the temptation to do things I know I shouldn't. Having come to terms with that, I'm grateful now I have to always keep that in mind, I have forsaken a lot of media I used to consume that was quite inappropriate for me morally, and I believe I have been made better off for it.
Some of the games I play for review purposes do force me to revisit that area I decided to leave fallow for my own moral benefit, but I do so now for a better cause: to brave the feral jackals of those moral pitfalls so that I may warn my fellow Christians about what to avoid. Having once lived amongst those jackals at one point, I believe I can use my former past experiences to now serve as warning what to avoid, both for myself and for others who wish to minimize the negative influences of this world upon them.
I'm aware my writing has earned me both friends and enemies, and as I learned, my friends are a loving Christian community who has been there for me in times of hardship, and even more importantly, served as a conscience for me when my own was lacking, and while it shamed me to be found wanting when I was rebuked, I accept that gladly, as I believe I have been kept on a better path in the long run.
As to my enemies, I have had my religion, my family, and myself cursed and scorned by those who have nothing but bad faith and ill will for what I do and what I stand for. So be it. Jesus was cursed and spat on by those he came to help, and he accepted pain and even death for all of humanity despite his faith in us being brought to it's lowest point. If He could endure that, surely I can endure the scorn much as he did: Silently not returning evil with evil, but asking my Heavenly Father to forgive those who hate me, for they do not know what they do.
In fact, I'm proud to have my work in His name mocked and spat on. Stephen never would have never been stoned had he not told those who rejected God's Will what they needed to hear, and Saul never would have shaken off his own sin to become Paul had he not shown the bravery to face death and public hatred to speak the truth and thus start the chain of events that led to Saul being blinded and later brought into the service of the very one he had once persecuted as Paul, his greatest advocate.
I don't know if I will ever have to face my own mortality via those who wish to end my life, but I have been been the target of contemptuous hatred in some corners, and I won't return it, but neither do I fear it. Rather, I merely hope my example (as weak, flawed, and imperfect as it is) brings more Sauls to Pauls.
I won't claim to be a moral giant. If anything, my work at CCG has made me acutely aware of just how little I have to be arrogant about, and how much more I still have no right to look towards Heaven with pride. I doubt even the best work I do for the ministry I serve would make for the humblest offering on the altar of God, I just hope what meager efforts I perform for CCG bring others to Christ for His glory, not my own.
In the meantime, I have no grand ambition. I have no conceit my efforts will ever etch my name into the annals of history, and if future generations never hear of me, given how little I mean compared to God, that would likely be best.
All I hope is that while I here I at least can make some effort to bring glory to God via my writing for ChristCenteredGamer, and even if that means I am to remain in the shadows, I hope that leads others to God's Light.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
A book review of a book review
One of my primary hobbies is the study of history. Contrary to what some may believe about me, a lot of my interests are of a technical and to some, rather tediously educational nature.
To be specific, I like researching historical archives of various events for amusing or revelatory information.
In this case, I discovered something hilarious when researching Herbert Yardley, an Army Major who did cryptography work for the United States government during the 1910's and 1920's, and who published a book on his experiences called The American Black Chamber.
This text is a nonfiction book written in novel-like prose about Yardley's own experiences in this profession, covering many highlights of his career in the cryptographical fields and challenges he was devoted to during this period. While the book is certainly revealing, his critics at the time claimed he endangered the cryptographic security of the United States by spilling the beans on a lot of the things he did in government service. Yardley defends his work on the grounds of whistleblowing on the poor practices of his day and to make his own government take his profession more seriously.
To be fair to his critics, the Japanese especially panicked after seeing him describe how their mail was read by Yardley and strove to improve the security of their communications, which directly affected the events of World War II. And to be fair to Yardley, the US cryptographic services were a bit laggard in their progress and security measures compared to their European contemporaries at the time of publication.
I became aware of the text after reading the annotated copy on Archive.org with notes by William Friedman, an especially vehement critic of Yardley who also has a notable reputation for the breaking and creation of codes and ciphers for the US government. The work of both men now is largely declassified and easily readable in various archives, but at the time, Friedman hit the ceiling when Yardley, upon dissolution of the American "Black Chamber" for which his book is named, decided to do a tell-all book without getting the green light from his superiors and vetting its contents for censorship of matters still requiring classified effort.
I gave Friedman's annotated copy a read, and honestly, it's quite funny watching the man include footnotes that range between bemused snark to outright calling Yardley a dirty liar and presenting counter-facts to throw shade at Yardley. If you really want to get a good laugh, do a drinking contest every time Friedman goes on a tear about Yardley flat out lying or loses his cool over Yardley using the word commission (in the military sense, Yardley was not able to grant these, he likely meant assigned or delegated), your liver will be shot in half an hour at best.
As for the quality of Yardley's prose versus Friedman's rebuttal footnotes, I found both were approaching things from different angles. Yardley was not so much about explaining as he was trying to entertain, reasonably figuring he was both making a nonfictional text that was more interesting to read and likely doing his former service some favor by obscuring and muddying some of the finer details of his work. Friedman tends to get verbose about these flaws as distortions, inaccuracies, or Yardley simply trying to make himself look good at the expense of others. He also tends to give Yardley a lot of contempt for claiming certain cryptographical matters were far more difficult than they actually were.
Now, both men were in fact recognized as skilled in their fields by third-party observers then and in contemporary day. In fact, both men are part of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame of the United States Armed Forces, so one must take a lot of Friedman's snark and derision with a few grains of salt at times, he really tends to make Yardley look like a middling idiot when Yardley was quite likely competent yet fudging things for the sake of an entertaining read. At the same time, given Yardley did commit what would be considered an act of treason by contemporary standards (and even then was highly suggested to be regarded as such by many of his aghast peers), some of Friedman's contempt comes from understandable anger at secrets of the United States being treated with what he considered casual contempt.
Of course, the annotated copy has some readability issues. Due to the fact it's a photocopy of a book from Friedman's personal collection which was turned over to US government after his death and later released in a declassified state for public consumption, it's best to have a copy of Yardley's original text to do a side by side comparison.
Friedman wrote most of his annotations in the margins, sides, and on the blank portions of the pages, but his copy also blanks out certain information Friedman considered a grave security breach at the time and has some age and weather damage to certain pages on the photocopy.
Finally, it's worth noting that due to the fact the annotated copy was essentially a critique of the whole text, it's available for the public domain while the original text is still under copyright. It also was classified as Friedman's annotations contained information on US cryptographic secrets and Friedman's estate turned it over the US government because he took his security clearance seriously and the US later allowed the annotated copy to become public domain like the rest of Friedman's work. Today, the overwhelming majority of which can be found in declassified NSA collected archives, on archive.org, and various websites for archival of materials relevant to the fields of ciphers and codes.
Overall, I found both Yardley's original book and Friedman's analysis to be quite interesting and revelatory to the cryptology field both men were members of, and it's a fascinating historical record if nothing else.
To be specific, I like researching historical archives of various events for amusing or revelatory information.
In this case, I discovered something hilarious when researching Herbert Yardley, an Army Major who did cryptography work for the United States government during the 1910's and 1920's, and who published a book on his experiences called The American Black Chamber.
This text is a nonfiction book written in novel-like prose about Yardley's own experiences in this profession, covering many highlights of his career in the cryptographical fields and challenges he was devoted to during this period. While the book is certainly revealing, his critics at the time claimed he endangered the cryptographic security of the United States by spilling the beans on a lot of the things he did in government service. Yardley defends his work on the grounds of whistleblowing on the poor practices of his day and to make his own government take his profession more seriously.
To be fair to his critics, the Japanese especially panicked after seeing him describe how their mail was read by Yardley and strove to improve the security of their communications, which directly affected the events of World War II. And to be fair to Yardley, the US cryptographic services were a bit laggard in their progress and security measures compared to their European contemporaries at the time of publication.
I became aware of the text after reading the annotated copy on Archive.org with notes by William Friedman, an especially vehement critic of Yardley who also has a notable reputation for the breaking and creation of codes and ciphers for the US government. The work of both men now is largely declassified and easily readable in various archives, but at the time, Friedman hit the ceiling when Yardley, upon dissolution of the American "Black Chamber" for which his book is named, decided to do a tell-all book without getting the green light from his superiors and vetting its contents for censorship of matters still requiring classified effort.
I gave Friedman's annotated copy a read, and honestly, it's quite funny watching the man include footnotes that range between bemused snark to outright calling Yardley a dirty liar and presenting counter-facts to throw shade at Yardley. If you really want to get a good laugh, do a drinking contest every time Friedman goes on a tear about Yardley flat out lying or loses his cool over Yardley using the word commission (in the military sense, Yardley was not able to grant these, he likely meant assigned or delegated), your liver will be shot in half an hour at best.
As for the quality of Yardley's prose versus Friedman's rebuttal footnotes, I found both were approaching things from different angles. Yardley was not so much about explaining as he was trying to entertain, reasonably figuring he was both making a nonfictional text that was more interesting to read and likely doing his former service some favor by obscuring and muddying some of the finer details of his work. Friedman tends to get verbose about these flaws as distortions, inaccuracies, or Yardley simply trying to make himself look good at the expense of others. He also tends to give Yardley a lot of contempt for claiming certain cryptographical matters were far more difficult than they actually were.
Now, both men were in fact recognized as skilled in their fields by third-party observers then and in contemporary day. In fact, both men are part of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame of the United States Armed Forces, so one must take a lot of Friedman's snark and derision with a few grains of salt at times, he really tends to make Yardley look like a middling idiot when Yardley was quite likely competent yet fudging things for the sake of an entertaining read. At the same time, given Yardley did commit what would be considered an act of treason by contemporary standards (and even then was highly suggested to be regarded as such by many of his aghast peers), some of Friedman's contempt comes from understandable anger at secrets of the United States being treated with what he considered casual contempt.
Of course, the annotated copy has some readability issues. Due to the fact it's a photocopy of a book from Friedman's personal collection which was turned over to US government after his death and later released in a declassified state for public consumption, it's best to have a copy of Yardley's original text to do a side by side comparison.
Friedman wrote most of his annotations in the margins, sides, and on the blank portions of the pages, but his copy also blanks out certain information Friedman considered a grave security breach at the time and has some age and weather damage to certain pages on the photocopy.
Finally, it's worth noting that due to the fact the annotated copy was essentially a critique of the whole text, it's available for the public domain while the original text is still under copyright. It also was classified as Friedman's annotations contained information on US cryptographic secrets and Friedman's estate turned it over the US government because he took his security clearance seriously and the US later allowed the annotated copy to become public domain like the rest of Friedman's work. Today, the overwhelming majority of which can be found in declassified NSA collected archives, on archive.org, and various websites for archival of materials relevant to the fields of ciphers and codes.
Overall, I found both Yardley's original book and Friedman's analysis to be quite interesting and revelatory to the cryptology field both men were members of, and it's a fascinating historical record if nothing else.
Monday, February 24, 2020
Arguments against certain social and political euphemisms and being honest about them
George Carlin hit the nail on the head concerning certain social and political doubletalk used to argue certain positions, and I'll paraphrase below:
"Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it."
The man was a prophet because there are several topics where this exact problem prevents an honest discussion between people of differing views because one or both have to cloak it in soft language.
I shall cover a few of these topics below.
1. Illegal Immigration
Now, this one is subject to a strange form of doublethink by some parties. While willing to admit to greater or lesser extent the immigrants in question have violated the laws, there are numerous attempts to soften the reality, like
A. Undocumented immigrants.
B. Undocumented citizens.
C. Undocumented aliens.
Now, I find this series of euphemisms is little more than an attempt to not so much conceal the truth as to try and blunt the severity of the impact. If we take any of these titles for those who are not legal immigrants of the country they reside at face value, it sounds like they are legal residents in some capacity, they are just victims of a paperwork snafu.
Regardless of what side of the fence you sit on whether they deserve to exist or not, let's not sugarcoat reality: The "illegal" part is that they did not complete the legally recognized process to be considered a citizen, and thus have broken the law.
So, despite any sympathies anyone may have for their situations or not, the crux of the matter is that they are in contravention of established law on the matter.
Therefore, any honest discussion of the matter, regardless of side, must begin on the premise of how to handle these parties not legal residents of the country they are in.
2. Abortion
Now, this discussion is rife with all sorts of euphemisms. Even the name "abortion" is a softer alternative to what it really is:
Killing something that otherwise could be a fully functional being.
Now, whether you support or oppose abortion, any argument on the topic must begin with that truth in mind. Arguments about when conception begins are pointless in the long run, it's a line drawn in the sand of a much more relevant question and muddies the water on the real question:
"Should we or should we not have the ability to kill something that should be able to become a fully mature being? If so, why? If not, why not?"
Any argument on the abortion question needs to start here and work outwards if anyone wants to have an honest debate on the topic. Pro-life and Pro-choice are also euphemistic misnomers, it's more "Pro-Spare Life" or "Pro-End It Before It Lives A Life".
3. Transgenderism
My favorite, because this one is RIDDLED with euphemistic language. Even the name for it is a euphemism for something much awkwardly but honestly rendered:
"Live Action Role Play Of One Gender Being Another"
When I put it the way I do above, it sounds insulting, but that's what transgenderism is even if we take the parties who are transgender at their word about being another gender as sincere on their parts.
This is because of the following:
1. Humans are the only species sapient enough to not only be aware of our self-identity, but we are also the only species who are sapient enough to want that concept to be a malleable topic or are even able to consider that possibility.
2. True transgenderism is not within genetic possibility for humanity. We cannot turn from one gender to another at will on a genetic level, and any intersex condition is a rare genetic exception, not an invoked norm on a biological level.
3. The transgender community, again assuming we take them all at their word, admit they believe they are correcting something wrong physically so it matches their mental conception of what it should be. Assuming that is correct, then transgenderism begins and ends in the mind.
Now, wherever you sit on the topic, no honest discussion can take place without acknowledging the above and arguing based on the following:
1. Why are hormones and surgeries the FIRST resort for so many people for a condition that we assume in good faith is a belief on the part of the participant is the physical correction of something that does not match mentally? If this is truly trying to correct something where the mind and body don't seem to match, why are so many so sure the body and not the mind needs to change?
And further, what proof is there for why the surgeries and hormones have to be the only valid way to fix the perception issues?
2. Sex-change surgeries are cosmetic surgery and need to be regarded as such because they don't actually change anything on a genetic level. A man who gets a sex-change still retains all the remaining male internal plumbing like the prostate and whatever survives of their genitalia, which is often repurposed to whatever has become their surrogate for actual female genitals. Vice-versa is true for women.
Any argument on this topic needs to acknowledge these surgeries don't change inherent genetics and both sides need to acknowledge that before any honest discussion of this particular topic and its pros and cons can be debated.
3. If we take every transgender at their word, being one is supposed to redress a mental concern, meaning they have a mental illness, because something is wrong with them mentally and this is supposed to be the treatment to redress it.
It's no shame to regard transgenderism as treating the mentally ill because, if we take it at face value, that's exactly what it is, and if both sides are honest, they both need to concur it's based on the presupposition of it being a basis for treatment for mental imbalances that manifest as perception the body and mind do not match the same conceptual self-image.
The crux of this little thesis is that the above-discussed topics (among many others) are subject to a lot of "soft language" to cushion their impact, hide their brutal reality, or otherwise obscure their true motives, and if they are to be discussed openly and honestly, then both sides of their respective arguments for their proposed solutions to these debates should speak frankly and without evasion as to any unpleasant truths.
No true solution can emerge unless those that argue these topics can do that.
"Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it."
The man was a prophet because there are several topics where this exact problem prevents an honest discussion between people of differing views because one or both have to cloak it in soft language.
I shall cover a few of these topics below.
1. Illegal Immigration
Now, this one is subject to a strange form of doublethink by some parties. While willing to admit to greater or lesser extent the immigrants in question have violated the laws, there are numerous attempts to soften the reality, like
A. Undocumented immigrants.
B. Undocumented citizens.
C. Undocumented aliens.
Now, I find this series of euphemisms is little more than an attempt to not so much conceal the truth as to try and blunt the severity of the impact. If we take any of these titles for those who are not legal immigrants of the country they reside at face value, it sounds like they are legal residents in some capacity, they are just victims of a paperwork snafu.
Regardless of what side of the fence you sit on whether they deserve to exist or not, let's not sugarcoat reality: The "illegal" part is that they did not complete the legally recognized process to be considered a citizen, and thus have broken the law.
So, despite any sympathies anyone may have for their situations or not, the crux of the matter is that they are in contravention of established law on the matter.
Therefore, any honest discussion of the matter, regardless of side, must begin on the premise of how to handle these parties not legal residents of the country they are in.
2. Abortion
Now, this discussion is rife with all sorts of euphemisms. Even the name "abortion" is a softer alternative to what it really is:
Killing something that otherwise could be a fully functional being.
Now, whether you support or oppose abortion, any argument on the topic must begin with that truth in mind. Arguments about when conception begins are pointless in the long run, it's a line drawn in the sand of a much more relevant question and muddies the water on the real question:
"Should we or should we not have the ability to kill something that should be able to become a fully mature being? If so, why? If not, why not?"
Any argument on the abortion question needs to start here and work outwards if anyone wants to have an honest debate on the topic. Pro-life and Pro-choice are also euphemistic misnomers, it's more "Pro-Spare Life" or "Pro-End It Before It Lives A Life".
3. Transgenderism
My favorite, because this one is RIDDLED with euphemistic language. Even the name for it is a euphemism for something much awkwardly but honestly rendered:
"Live Action Role Play Of One Gender Being Another"
When I put it the way I do above, it sounds insulting, but that's what transgenderism is even if we take the parties who are transgender at their word about being another gender as sincere on their parts.
This is because of the following:
1. Humans are the only species sapient enough to not only be aware of our self-identity, but we are also the only species who are sapient enough to want that concept to be a malleable topic or are even able to consider that possibility.
2. True transgenderism is not within genetic possibility for humanity. We cannot turn from one gender to another at will on a genetic level, and any intersex condition is a rare genetic exception, not an invoked norm on a biological level.
3. The transgender community, again assuming we take them all at their word, admit they believe they are correcting something wrong physically so it matches their mental conception of what it should be. Assuming that is correct, then transgenderism begins and ends in the mind.
Now, wherever you sit on the topic, no honest discussion can take place without acknowledging the above and arguing based on the following:
1. Why are hormones and surgeries the FIRST resort for so many people for a condition that we assume in good faith is a belief on the part of the participant is the physical correction of something that does not match mentally? If this is truly trying to correct something where the mind and body don't seem to match, why are so many so sure the body and not the mind needs to change?
And further, what proof is there for why the surgeries and hormones have to be the only valid way to fix the perception issues?
2. Sex-change surgeries are cosmetic surgery and need to be regarded as such because they don't actually change anything on a genetic level. A man who gets a sex-change still retains all the remaining male internal plumbing like the prostate and whatever survives of their genitalia, which is often repurposed to whatever has become their surrogate for actual female genitals. Vice-versa is true for women.
Any argument on this topic needs to acknowledge these surgeries don't change inherent genetics and both sides need to acknowledge that before any honest discussion of this particular topic and its pros and cons can be debated.
3. If we take every transgender at their word, being one is supposed to redress a mental concern, meaning they have a mental illness, because something is wrong with them mentally and this is supposed to be the treatment to redress it.
It's no shame to regard transgenderism as treating the mentally ill because, if we take it at face value, that's exactly what it is, and if both sides are honest, they both need to concur it's based on the presupposition of it being a basis for treatment for mental imbalances that manifest as perception the body and mind do not match the same conceptual self-image.
The crux of this little thesis is that the above-discussed topics (among many others) are subject to a lot of "soft language" to cushion their impact, hide their brutal reality, or otherwise obscure their true motives, and if they are to be discussed openly and honestly, then both sides of their respective arguments for their proposed solutions to these debates should speak frankly and without evasion as to any unpleasant truths.
No true solution can emerge unless those that argue these topics can do that.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Why I Like to Build Up Others, Not Tear Them Down
I have a policy for my life that may seem odd, but I don't believe I should measure my accomplishments by any negative things I've done. Sounds obvious, but I include all acts of destruction in that definition, and since some things are bad that need destroyed like a termite-infested house that is torn down for being a hazard, it sounds strange that I would not include an act of destruction done for positive and beneficial reasons on my list of accomplishments.
Now, I never tore down a condemned building, that was just an example, but I always have venerated those who create over those who destroy because destruction is easy, both of things and of people.
Not everyone can write a book, but it takes far less effort to burn one. Not every person can talk a suicidal person off a ledge, but it's much easier to drive them to it. And to be more specific, everyone can tear down and demean others, but not everyone can build others up.
As a Christian, I found even the Bible strongly encourages us to consider doing what we can to build others up, and here's some of the logic they use:
(my comments in bold, originals in italics)
The logic for this is simple. One day, we will all be judged for what we've done, and the more time we spent building each other up, the better we will be regarded at that time of judgment.
The logic of this is that uplifting your neighbor is to their benefit, and vice versa if they do the same for you. As something for your benefit can only help, it only makes sense to encourage more statements done for the benefits of others.
This is key to what Jesus wants of us. He was willing to suffer and die for us, so if He could do it for all humanity, we should be able to do so for one another because he was able to suffer for our sake first.
This is why tearing others down is bad. Jesus came to forgive, not condemn, and he did so because in that was our redemption. And if we choose to forgive and expect redemption instead of condemnation, we emulate the same example He showed in regards to giving us mercy. Showing hate and contempt only pushes people away from improving and being redeemed of whatever wrongs they may be guilty of, hence why all should do the opposite.
More on the dark side of tearing others down. People who do that are destroyers of others, they want to see others broken, unredeemed, and unregenerate, and there is no hope in that result. Only by being someone who encourages others is there a promise of a better life here and beyond.
A followup. Those who want to tear down others want to watch them become worse as people because they desire to see the worst in others, which does no good to any of the parties concerned. Only through building up others can we avoid becoming worse in the long run as people.
Someone who truly cares won't wish evil and suffering on you, and those who are as brothers to you are those who don't get their kicks in watching your pain but rather would see you do better.
This is an official Jesus command for us. If we act as he did and love others like he loved us, we show we follow His will, not our own, and since His will is to see us be raised up alongside our fellow man instead of torn down, there is no good reason to not do this.
The crux of why we should bother building up others. God sent his Son to raise us up because he loved us. If God could do that for us, we are not above or unable to do the same in gratitude.
I just want to conclude this by saying I consider every person I build up to raise higher than they stand before I encouraged them to be the things I'm truly proud of, because it's His Will that says I am to uplift others so that I will be uplifted in turn. However, do not do this for praise before Men, but only do this for the praise of He who can uplift all Men, because in the end, that's the only way we can all truly rise and be built up into better people.
Now, I never tore down a condemned building, that was just an example, but I always have venerated those who create over those who destroy because destruction is easy, both of things and of people.
Not everyone can write a book, but it takes far less effort to burn one. Not every person can talk a suicidal person off a ledge, but it's much easier to drive them to it. And to be more specific, everyone can tear down and demean others, but not everyone can build others up.
As a Christian, I found even the Bible strongly encourages us to consider doing what we can to build others up, and here's some of the logic they use:
(my comments in bold, originals in italics)
Hebrews 10:25 ESV
Not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
The logic for this is simple. One day, we will all be judged for what we've done, and the more time we spent building each other up, the better we will be regarded at that time of judgment.
Romans 15:2 ESV
Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.
The logic of this is that uplifting your neighbor is to their benefit, and vice versa if they do the same for you. As something for your benefit can only help, it only makes sense to encourage more statements done for the benefits of others.
Galatians 6:2 ESV
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
This is key to what Jesus wants of us. He was willing to suffer and die for us, so if He could do it for all humanity, we should be able to do so for one another because he was able to suffer for our sake first.
Ephesians 4:31-32 ESV
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
This is why tearing others down is bad. Jesus came to forgive, not condemn, and he did so because in that was our redemption. And if we choose to forgive and expect redemption instead of condemnation, we emulate the same example He showed in regards to giving us mercy. Showing hate and contempt only pushes people away from improving and being redeemed of whatever wrongs they may be guilty of, hence why all should do the opposite.
Proverbs 10:11 ESV
The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence.
More on the dark side of tearing others down. People who do that are destroyers of others, they want to see others broken, unredeemed, and unregenerate, and there is no hope in that result. Only by being someone who encourages others is there a promise of a better life here and beyond.
Proverbs 12:26 ESV
One who is righteous is a guide to his neighbor, but the way of the wicked leads them astray.
A followup. Those who want to tear down others want to watch them become worse as people because they desire to see the worst in others, which does no good to any of the parties concerned. Only through building up others can we avoid becoming worse in the long run as people.
Proverbs 17:17 ESV
A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
Someone who truly cares won't wish evil and suffering on you, and those who are as brothers to you are those who don't get their kicks in watching your pain but rather would see you do better.
John 13:34-35 ESV
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
This is an official Jesus command for us. If we act as he did and love others like he loved us, we show we follow His will, not our own, and since His will is to see us be raised up alongside our fellow man instead of torn down, there is no good reason to not do this.
John 3:16-17 ESV
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
The crux of why we should bother building up others. God sent his Son to raise us up because he loved us. If God could do that for us, we are not above or unable to do the same in gratitude.
I just want to conclude this by saying I consider every person I build up to raise higher than they stand before I encouraged them to be the things I'm truly proud of, because it's His Will that says I am to uplift others so that I will be uplifted in turn. However, do not do this for praise before Men, but only do this for the praise of He who can uplift all Men, because in the end, that's the only way we can all truly rise and be built up into better people.
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Transgenderism: Some things it's outright objectively wrong about as a social and political movement
From the title alone, I'm quite sure this post will raise some hackles. I also admit upfront that I am a practicing Christian, but I will not be bringing my religious beliefs into this article. In fact, to argue against something on religious grounds is to argue based on a moral opinion, and I'm not doing that because this is a matter objective fact can more than argue against just fine.
Now, before I continue, I also want to say I'm an absolute advocate of free will and personal conscience, and it goes both ways. If someone wants to be transgender and has decided of their own free will it's the best choice for them, then so be it, I have no right to complain. However, I reserve the right to regard them as what they are, someone who cosmetically changed their appearance to match a sexual appearance based on another gender, but they still remain the gender they were born as.
In fact, here's objective argument number 1: It is unethical to make someone pretend a person known to be born male is female when their DNA will tell the truth. Personal feelings are irrelevant to the objective facts in this case, especially if you are compelled for legal or medical reasons to tell the truth about someone. Lying is a crime in these cases, and it is universally recognized in all countries that value civil liberty that no human being should be compelled to make a false statement against their will.
Ergo, to humor a transgender person by calling their "preferred pronouns" is just that. There is no legal requirement in the US (where I reside) saying the freedom to express oneself is abrogated for the sake of someone else's personal feelings. In a broader sense, no person anywhere that recognizes the truth is an objective statement of fact can or should be compelled to give a false answer to any matter, there is no legally recognized right to force anyone to say black is white, and if there is one, then that is a violation of a person's right to exercise personal conscience.
Another thing those who push transgenderism say that is false is that children can and should be able to take puberty blocking drugs as a safer alternative to mental and physical harm of not being able to deal with gender dsyphoria.
While I'm not going to argue the finer scientific points because I admit I'm not well versed in them, anyone who knows basic biology knows delaying puberty is unwise. Even if the body later tries to make up the difference, the adolescent period when puberty occurs is very critical to proper development of someone as an adult, and if this interfered with even temporarily, not all the difference can or will be made up, the fact humans are just as subject to entropy and the aging process as any other living being means that it is physically impossible to resume all the functional development of the onset of puberty after a certain point, the person who chose to delay that period will be stunted to some degree developmentally, the only difference is how severe said stunting will be depending on how long the blockers were used.
In a broader sense, any attempt to stop the developing of the human body in some way will have some sort of long-term effect on how that human body develops, this is a basic concept virtually any physician or a layman who can understand the basic concepts of that field would learn in any health class.
Another argument that makes no sense is that becoming transgender is not a sex-based decision, or it is not the primary motive for all people of that nature.
This is objectively not true for several reasons. Any attempt to alter the body to conform to a specific desired sexual set of characteristics is based on human sexuality and it's perception to the party in question and to others. Second, in the event the party in question want to "pass" as that gender, it requires they be able to make another party perceive them as presented in a certain manner. For example, a man wanting to pass as a woman must be able to make unwitting men believe they actually are a woman and/or make women believe they are in the company of another actual woman.
This involves the successful deception of human sexual norms if this is to be completely successful. If a man presenting as a woman wants other men to truly believe they are a woman, then the deception must pass their sexual perceptions of that party attempting to come off as a woman.
Ergo, even if this is not necessarily based on sex as in as a fetish or for purposes of sexual intimacy or arousal, this is still going to involve sexuality as humans are aware of it for the whole concept to work.
Finally, the cutting, mutilation, or surgical manipulation of body parts does not change no matter the reason. If you have a fully functional arm and cut it off, you cut off your arm. If your genitals were normally functioning prior to having them manipulated or altered with surgery, then you did irreparable changes to those genitals. While it's possible to survive such surgical changes, they are not something that needed to be done to a normally functioning body part if the change makes them less functional than before, especially by their irreversible removal or mutilation.
On a related note, getting silicon in your chest does not give you female breasts if you are a man, you are a man with silicon in your chest. A woman getting her breasts hacked off and replaced with a simulation of a male chest does not make her male, just a woman with a simulacrum of a male body but has not stopped being a woman internally.
Basically, surgery to render a perfectly functional body part less functional than what it was is not a corrective surgery, it's a mutilation and should be regarded as such. It's cosmetic mutilation given other names to hide what it really is, but remains a purposeful surgical disfigurement of the original body of the party in question.
As an addendum, one could apply this to a vasectomy or some other operation to render genitalia infertile, and it would be true in those cases as well that the end result is to remove the function of those body parts to some degree, so even for those who are not transgender but have a surgery to render them infertile in some manner would be subject to similar logic of reducing the natural function they were originally in possession of.
The key difference, though, is that there can be legitimate health reasons like cancer to excise fertility while still leaving the genitals more or less intact, but if that is not the case, then it is merely cosmetic mutilation.
There are other arguments one can make that can be based entirely on things provable by objective fact anyone with a knowledge of human physiology and psychology can argue, but as the above should show, while I'm still not going to stand in the way of anyone who makes an informed decision to become transgender, neither will I pretend objective fact is anything other than what it is, and if they are truly making that decision with open eyes and a clear conscience, they will have to make that decision knowing those truths do not change for them in any event.
Now, before I continue, I also want to say I'm an absolute advocate of free will and personal conscience, and it goes both ways. If someone wants to be transgender and has decided of their own free will it's the best choice for them, then so be it, I have no right to complain. However, I reserve the right to regard them as what they are, someone who cosmetically changed their appearance to match a sexual appearance based on another gender, but they still remain the gender they were born as.
In fact, here's objective argument number 1: It is unethical to make someone pretend a person known to be born male is female when their DNA will tell the truth. Personal feelings are irrelevant to the objective facts in this case, especially if you are compelled for legal or medical reasons to tell the truth about someone. Lying is a crime in these cases, and it is universally recognized in all countries that value civil liberty that no human being should be compelled to make a false statement against their will.
Ergo, to humor a transgender person by calling their "preferred pronouns" is just that. There is no legal requirement in the US (where I reside) saying the freedom to express oneself is abrogated for the sake of someone else's personal feelings. In a broader sense, no person anywhere that recognizes the truth is an objective statement of fact can or should be compelled to give a false answer to any matter, there is no legally recognized right to force anyone to say black is white, and if there is one, then that is a violation of a person's right to exercise personal conscience.
Another thing those who push transgenderism say that is false is that children can and should be able to take puberty blocking drugs as a safer alternative to mental and physical harm of not being able to deal with gender dsyphoria.
While I'm not going to argue the finer scientific points because I admit I'm not well versed in them, anyone who knows basic biology knows delaying puberty is unwise. Even if the body later tries to make up the difference, the adolescent period when puberty occurs is very critical to proper development of someone as an adult, and if this interfered with even temporarily, not all the difference can or will be made up, the fact humans are just as subject to entropy and the aging process as any other living being means that it is physically impossible to resume all the functional development of the onset of puberty after a certain point, the person who chose to delay that period will be stunted to some degree developmentally, the only difference is how severe said stunting will be depending on how long the blockers were used.
In a broader sense, any attempt to stop the developing of the human body in some way will have some sort of long-term effect on how that human body develops, this is a basic concept virtually any physician or a layman who can understand the basic concepts of that field would learn in any health class.
Another argument that makes no sense is that becoming transgender is not a sex-based decision, or it is not the primary motive for all people of that nature.
This is objectively not true for several reasons. Any attempt to alter the body to conform to a specific desired sexual set of characteristics is based on human sexuality and it's perception to the party in question and to others. Second, in the event the party in question want to "pass" as that gender, it requires they be able to make another party perceive them as presented in a certain manner. For example, a man wanting to pass as a woman must be able to make unwitting men believe they actually are a woman and/or make women believe they are in the company of another actual woman.
This involves the successful deception of human sexual norms if this is to be completely successful. If a man presenting as a woman wants other men to truly believe they are a woman, then the deception must pass their sexual perceptions of that party attempting to come off as a woman.
Ergo, even if this is not necessarily based on sex as in as a fetish or for purposes of sexual intimacy or arousal, this is still going to involve sexuality as humans are aware of it for the whole concept to work.
Finally, the cutting, mutilation, or surgical manipulation of body parts does not change no matter the reason. If you have a fully functional arm and cut it off, you cut off your arm. If your genitals were normally functioning prior to having them manipulated or altered with surgery, then you did irreparable changes to those genitals. While it's possible to survive such surgical changes, they are not something that needed to be done to a normally functioning body part if the change makes them less functional than before, especially by their irreversible removal or mutilation.
On a related note, getting silicon in your chest does not give you female breasts if you are a man, you are a man with silicon in your chest. A woman getting her breasts hacked off and replaced with a simulation of a male chest does not make her male, just a woman with a simulacrum of a male body but has not stopped being a woman internally.
Basically, surgery to render a perfectly functional body part less functional than what it was is not a corrective surgery, it's a mutilation and should be regarded as such. It's cosmetic mutilation given other names to hide what it really is, but remains a purposeful surgical disfigurement of the original body of the party in question.
As an addendum, one could apply this to a vasectomy or some other operation to render genitalia infertile, and it would be true in those cases as well that the end result is to remove the function of those body parts to some degree, so even for those who are not transgender but have a surgery to render them infertile in some manner would be subject to similar logic of reducing the natural function they were originally in possession of.
The key difference, though, is that there can be legitimate health reasons like cancer to excise fertility while still leaving the genitals more or less intact, but if that is not the case, then it is merely cosmetic mutilation.
There are other arguments one can make that can be based entirely on things provable by objective fact anyone with a knowledge of human physiology and psychology can argue, but as the above should show, while I'm still not going to stand in the way of anyone who makes an informed decision to become transgender, neither will I pretend objective fact is anything other than what it is, and if they are truly making that decision with open eyes and a clear conscience, they will have to make that decision knowing those truths do not change for them in any event.
Girls Frontline: The game that has continued to pleasantly surprise me
Awhile back, I reviewed Girls Frontline for ChristCenteredGamer, and while I gave it good review even then, that series has continued to surprise and amaze me.
For one, I'm an amateur gun nerd. Not exactly the kind of guy you'll find haunting gun forums, but I can appreciate firearms lore, and Girls Frontline manages to sneak in a ton of that.
The community for it is pretty awesome. It's one of the better gaming communities, the main subreddit is a pretty chill place patronized by the developers at times, and speaking of the developers, they maintain a very warm relationship with the fans.
The game is produced by a Chinese developer, and while a lot of Chinese game developers and companies tend to have a bad reputation in some circles, Mica continues to surprise me by making a game where you do NOT have to spend a dime to have fun and I usually don't, though you are free to do that is whaling for costumes and other cool swag is your thing.
Another thing I like is how the developers are very generous as apologies for any mistakes on their part. They once made screwups so bad over a period of several days they fell all over themselves apologizing for and fixing promptly I was almost willing to hand back the horde of free game resources they gave players as an apology. Not that that would have been possible, but their willingness to admit fault for making problems for gamers that need to be fixed is worthy of emulation by everyone in the gaming industry.
Another pleasant surprise is that despite the cutesy "anthropomorphized guns as android girls" premise, the gameplay is some deep strategy for a mobile game. How you set up combat teams, what gear you give them, and how you set up their support is critical if you really want to master the game, and the developers keep adding need things that add more strategy goodness to the game. Recently, English players got HOCs (Heavy Artillery Companies), and they serve a fun addition as fire support for regular combat teams that can be very good for defense missions and whaling on armored enemy teams if you plan it right.
I also am pleased to note the developers admitted awhile back they never expected this game to be as successful as it has been, but since it's printed money for the longest time, they have spent lots of time adding to a game they admitted was once going to be far less ambitious than it is now, they even are remaking the sequel they planned for it because they decided they were going to ignore any limits on their reaching for the stars. Personally, I'm glad they did, because it's been a fun ride.
Just wanted to end this post by saying I'm proud to say I'm a Shikikan (aka Commander) for this game, and I look forward to giving it a whirl every day because this wild ride has been fun and I still want to see where Mica can take me next with it,
For one, I'm an amateur gun nerd. Not exactly the kind of guy you'll find haunting gun forums, but I can appreciate firearms lore, and Girls Frontline manages to sneak in a ton of that.
The community for it is pretty awesome. It's one of the better gaming communities, the main subreddit is a pretty chill place patronized by the developers at times, and speaking of the developers, they maintain a very warm relationship with the fans.
The game is produced by a Chinese developer, and while a lot of Chinese game developers and companies tend to have a bad reputation in some circles, Mica continues to surprise me by making a game where you do NOT have to spend a dime to have fun and I usually don't, though you are free to do that is whaling for costumes and other cool swag is your thing.
Another thing I like is how the developers are very generous as apologies for any mistakes on their part. They once made screwups so bad over a period of several days they fell all over themselves apologizing for and fixing promptly I was almost willing to hand back the horde of free game resources they gave players as an apology. Not that that would have been possible, but their willingness to admit fault for making problems for gamers that need to be fixed is worthy of emulation by everyone in the gaming industry.
Another pleasant surprise is that despite the cutesy "anthropomorphized guns as android girls" premise, the gameplay is some deep strategy for a mobile game. How you set up combat teams, what gear you give them, and how you set up their support is critical if you really want to master the game, and the developers keep adding need things that add more strategy goodness to the game. Recently, English players got HOCs (Heavy Artillery Companies), and they serve a fun addition as fire support for regular combat teams that can be very good for defense missions and whaling on armored enemy teams if you plan it right.
I also am pleased to note the developers admitted awhile back they never expected this game to be as successful as it has been, but since it's printed money for the longest time, they have spent lots of time adding to a game they admitted was once going to be far less ambitious than it is now, they even are remaking the sequel they planned for it because they decided they were going to ignore any limits on their reaching for the stars. Personally, I'm glad they did, because it's been a fun ride.
Just wanted to end this post by saying I'm proud to say I'm a Shikikan (aka Commander) for this game, and I look forward to giving it a whirl every day because this wild ride has been fun and I still want to see where Mica can take me next with it,
Saturday, February 15, 2020
Why I don't consider myself an activist anymore
This is something of a reflection article, but since it's content are relevant to my current day activity, one I feel necessary for anyone who has doubts about me.
First off, when I say I no longer consider myself an activist, I mean I no longer consider myself an active participant any any political or social drama. I say that not out of cowardice, I will still take a stand on anything I deem to be a firm moral principle, but when it comes to being on the front lines of drama, I prefer to refrain these days.
Now, I was on the pro-GamerGate side of that little debate back when it was actually relevant. I don't apologize for it, and I don't regret my involvement. I do admit some of the decisions I made then were unwise to some extent, and perhaps I shouldn't have been so naive in some ways, but what's done is done, all I can do is keep those moments in mind for future reference.
I also have taken a step back from drama both on the Internet and real life in general, but mostly because these days, I just don't feel like getting worked up over too much. Politics will continue to be terrible in some way, social causes come and go, but I have only one life to live, and I prefer to spend the majority of that life doing more productive things than hyperventilating about topics that will be irrelevant when I'm dead and gone.
I do have to say another reason I don't wish to be active in those arenas is because, I admit it here, I have been doxed. I've already admitted my real name is Daniel Cullen, and to my knowledge, some people have managed to figure out some details about me beyond that and my date of birth. Some is rather on the mark, some is so hilariously wrong I'm still giggling at the research fail, but whatever, I have no anonymity anymore, no skin off my nose.
Honestly, I figured that was gonna evaporate around the time I confessed my name to the Internet. The fact my anon shield is gone doesn't really make me lose sleep, quite the opposite. Now I won't have to worry some poor soul will be faildoxed as me and harassed by utter psychos who need to quit acting like spastics over internet slapfight nonsense.
That said, that's not a reason why I don't get involved in activism for the most part. I'm not ashamed to put my name on causes I believe in, and if I were to be held at gunpoint and told to recant those causes or die, then I'd just tell whoever was going to shoot me to make sure their weapon was loaded and in proper working order.
However, another actual reason I don't get involved is I don't have the time. I have family I take care of, work I have to do, and I'm not getting any younger and my energy is already not as much as it was in my twenties, and I'm not wasting it on things I don't have to.
For those who are still active in some social and political causes, I do want to give them a thumbs up for gutting it out. Besides, if something is of enough conviction to you that you will expend time and effort advocating for it, then more power to you,whatever the cause may be.
As for me, I'm just taking a step back and letting those with more zeal than me have their fun, my time doing that is generally over.
First off, when I say I no longer consider myself an activist, I mean I no longer consider myself an active participant any any political or social drama. I say that not out of cowardice, I will still take a stand on anything I deem to be a firm moral principle, but when it comes to being on the front lines of drama, I prefer to refrain these days.
Now, I was on the pro-GamerGate side of that little debate back when it was actually relevant. I don't apologize for it, and I don't regret my involvement. I do admit some of the decisions I made then were unwise to some extent, and perhaps I shouldn't have been so naive in some ways, but what's done is done, all I can do is keep those moments in mind for future reference.
I also have taken a step back from drama both on the Internet and real life in general, but mostly because these days, I just don't feel like getting worked up over too much. Politics will continue to be terrible in some way, social causes come and go, but I have only one life to live, and I prefer to spend the majority of that life doing more productive things than hyperventilating about topics that will be irrelevant when I'm dead and gone.
I do have to say another reason I don't wish to be active in those arenas is because, I admit it here, I have been doxed. I've already admitted my real name is Daniel Cullen, and to my knowledge, some people have managed to figure out some details about me beyond that and my date of birth. Some is rather on the mark, some is so hilariously wrong I'm still giggling at the research fail, but whatever, I have no anonymity anymore, no skin off my nose.
Honestly, I figured that was gonna evaporate around the time I confessed my name to the Internet. The fact my anon shield is gone doesn't really make me lose sleep, quite the opposite. Now I won't have to worry some poor soul will be faildoxed as me and harassed by utter psychos who need to quit acting like spastics over internet slapfight nonsense.
That said, that's not a reason why I don't get involved in activism for the most part. I'm not ashamed to put my name on causes I believe in, and if I were to be held at gunpoint and told to recant those causes or die, then I'd just tell whoever was going to shoot me to make sure their weapon was loaded and in proper working order.
However, another actual reason I don't get involved is I don't have the time. I have family I take care of, work I have to do, and I'm not getting any younger and my energy is already not as much as it was in my twenties, and I'm not wasting it on things I don't have to.
For those who are still active in some social and political causes, I do want to give them a thumbs up for gutting it out. Besides, if something is of enough conviction to you that you will expend time and effort advocating for it, then more power to you,whatever the cause may be.
As for me, I'm just taking a step back and letting those with more zeal than me have their fun, my time doing that is generally over.
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy Book Review
I recently finished "The Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze, and being a history fan, I thought it was a great book.
Unlike many books that examine Nazi Germany, this one examines it from a primarily economic lens, and while it does not discount the political and social aspects of the Nazi regime, it argues that while they were key elements, they all had a cooperative effect with economic motives and vice versa.
One of the main points it argues is that economics was key to setting the stage for Hitler's rise to power, the impetus of his platform while in power, and had a sizable degree of influence on his fall from it, and the Third Reich was also far more in pawn to its economic limitations than most give it credit.
The author spends a fair majority of the time going into profound detail at every stage of the interwar and WWII period covering all the economic factors that underpinned the German economic backdrop and how that influenced Nazi policies, which, as the author displays with lots of charts, graphs, and cited figures, was a very considerable underpinning.
Adam Tooze does tend to paint a fairly cynical and pessimistic picture of the Nazi regime economically, and one would be understandably incredulous on first reading. I was at first, but the evidence cited suggests that the Nazi regime danced on the knife edge of economic disaster not only because of it's racial politics and militaristic focus leaving it's national earnings far less than expected; it is also argued that it also had as much to do with the limitations of the German economic base both before and after Hitler's rise. In other words, Hitler's regime did far better than anticipated in many ways, yet was still crippled economically because of many factors of economic import that did not change since the end of World War I.
Tooze also goes into considerable detail about the various figures who had a sizable impact on the financial background of the Nazi regime, and how their influence led to key shifts in not only economic policy; their influence had critical influence on the main causes of both the Nazi ascent and it's decline.
Overall, it's not an easy book to get into if you do not follow the subjects of European history and economics, but if you do, it provides an indepth look at an underexplored aspect of the Nazis many other historians tend to give less attention than I personally believe deserves more of.
Unlike many books that examine Nazi Germany, this one examines it from a primarily economic lens, and while it does not discount the political and social aspects of the Nazi regime, it argues that while they were key elements, they all had a cooperative effect with economic motives and vice versa.
One of the main points it argues is that economics was key to setting the stage for Hitler's rise to power, the impetus of his platform while in power, and had a sizable degree of influence on his fall from it, and the Third Reich was also far more in pawn to its economic limitations than most give it credit.
The author spends a fair majority of the time going into profound detail at every stage of the interwar and WWII period covering all the economic factors that underpinned the German economic backdrop and how that influenced Nazi policies, which, as the author displays with lots of charts, graphs, and cited figures, was a very considerable underpinning.
Adam Tooze does tend to paint a fairly cynical and pessimistic picture of the Nazi regime economically, and one would be understandably incredulous on first reading. I was at first, but the evidence cited suggests that the Nazi regime danced on the knife edge of economic disaster not only because of it's racial politics and militaristic focus leaving it's national earnings far less than expected; it is also argued that it also had as much to do with the limitations of the German economic base both before and after Hitler's rise. In other words, Hitler's regime did far better than anticipated in many ways, yet was still crippled economically because of many factors of economic import that did not change since the end of World War I.
Tooze also goes into considerable detail about the various figures who had a sizable impact on the financial background of the Nazi regime, and how their influence led to key shifts in not only economic policy; their influence had critical influence on the main causes of both the Nazi ascent and it's decline.
Overall, it's not an easy book to get into if you do not follow the subjects of European history and economics, but if you do, it provides an indepth look at an underexplored aspect of the Nazis many other historians tend to give less attention than I personally believe deserves more of.
Friday, February 7, 2020
Ezekiel Chapter 23: The Meaning Behind That Shocking Language and the Whole Metaphor Involving Prostitution
Now, warning before I go further: This is going to be a breakdown of one of the most sexually explicit and vile sounding parts of the Bible. I am referring to that infamous chapter of Ezekiel where there is a story of two prostitutes (who were stand-ins for Israel and Judah, the two wings of God's chosen people post splitting after the reign of King Solomon) and they are described with all sorts of language doing things that are obscene and the whole thing comes off so crass it's going from PG to NC-17 on the rating scale compared to most other parts of the Bible.
I'm using the New English translation version of this Bible chapter, courtesy of The SWORD Project.
(My comments will be in bold, the original verses cited will be in italics)
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, there were two women who were daughters of the same mother. 3 They engaged in prostitution in Egypt; in their youth they engaged in prostitution. Their breasts were squeezed there; lovers fondled their virgin nipples there. 4 Oholah was the name of the older and Oholibah the name of her younger sister. They became mine, and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria and Oholibah is Jerusalem.
Right off the bat, the language dips into "um wow, pretty racy for the Bible territory", but this is intentional: First off, the female characters in this metaphor of a story are basically described as prostitutes and the dirty language is to leave no doubt it's a depraved business to whore yourself.
There is also a history lesson in this metaphor. This refer to when the Israelite people were in Egypt before being liberated up to the point they split into two kingdoms post-King Solomon, the verses even identify Samaria (capital of Israel, the northern half) and Jerusalem (capital of Judah, the southern half)
5 "Oholah engaged in prostitution while she was mine. She lusted after her lovers, the Assyrians - warriors 6 clothed in blue, governors and officials, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding on horses. 7 She bestowed her sexual favors on them; all of them were the choicest young men of Assyria. She defiled herself with all whom she desired - with all their idols. 8 She did not abandon the prostitution she had practiced in Egypt; for in her youth men had sex with her, fondled her virgin breasts, and ravished her. 9 Therefore I handed her over to her lovers, the Assyrians for whom she lusted. 10 They exposed her nakedness, seized her sons and daughters, and killed her with the sword. She became notorious among women, and they executed judgments against her.
This is basically a rather vulgar sounding Cliff Notes version of how the northern half of the chosen people of God nigh immediately forsook God and kept running with prostituting themselves to foreign idols instead of the Lord. Idol worship is deliberately equal to to being a whore in this metaphor, as the male being referred to as having been married to the women in the metaphor is God.
Basically, God is describing how Israel was unfaithful to him in jilted husband lingo and these verses end with him remarking how he let the Assyrians finish off Israel for good.
11 "Her sister Oholibah watched this, but she became more corrupt in her lust than her sister had been, and her acts of prostitution were more numerous than those of her sister. 12 She lusted after the Assyrians - governors and officials, warriors in full armor, horsemen riding on horses, all of them desirable young men. 13 I saw that she was defiled; both of them followed the same path. 14 But she increased her prostitution. She saw men carved on the wall, images of the Chaldeans carved in bright red, 15 wearing belts on their waists and flowing turbans on their heads, all of them looking like officers, the image of Babylonians whose native land is Chaldea. 16 When she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 The Babylonians crawled into bed with her. They defiled her with their lust; after she was defiled by them, she became disgusted with them. 18 When she lustfully exposed her nakedness, I was disgusted with her, just as I had been disgusted with her sister. 19 Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. 20 She lusted after their genitals - as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions. 21 This is how you assessed the obscene conduct of your youth, when the Egyptians fondled your nipples and squeezed your young breasts.
This is the part that is most often cited when people remark on this chapter of the Bible, especially the part where male endowments are described being as large as the endowments of donkeys and horses. To a non-Christian, this might sound like some back-handed compliment of a sort on the size of their male adornments, but that's not the point. The point is that the men Judah (the woman these verses refer to) is whoring themselves to are being directly compared to having sex with animals, as that was a crime God had a "kill on sight" rule for because bestiality was especially disgusting in his eyes. As applied to this metaphor for idolatry being directly equivalent to prostitution, this is more jilted husband lingo by God saying this woman was so unfaithful to him it was not only the humiliation of being cuckolded, it was like watching himself be cucked by his wife having sex with animals
Basically, God took Judah doubling down on what caused Israel's fall to ruin really personally and felt even more deeply hurt and betrayed they chose foreign idols over him, hence the angry husband lingo mentioned above.
It's also a history lesson on how after Israel fell, while Judah held out for awhile before they too were destroyed, it was their destruction by their dealing with the Babylonians that was the last straw for God.
22 "Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the sovereign LORD says: Look here, I am about to stir up against you the lovers with whom you were disgusted; I will bring them against you from every side: 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, Pekod, Shoa, and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, desirable young men, all of them governors and officials, officers and nobles, all of them riding on horses. 24 They will attack you with weapons, chariots, wagons, and with a huge army; they will array themselves against you on every side with large shields, small shields, and helmets. I will assign them the task of judgment; they will punish you according to their laws. 25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in rage. They will cut off your nose and your ears, and your survivors will die by the sword. They will seize your sons and daughters, and your survivors will be consumed by fire. 26 They will strip your clothes off you and take away your beautiful jewelry. 27 So I will put an end to your obscene conduct and your prostitution which you have practiced in the land of Egypt. You will not seek their help or remember Egypt anymore.
These verses are basically God saying "I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF BEING CHEATED ON BY THOSE WHO FORSAKE ME FOR THE WORSHIP OF OTHER GODS!"
28 "For this is what the sovereign LORD says: Look here, I am about to deliver you over to those whom you hate, to those with whom you were disgusted. 29 They will treat you with hatred, take away all you have labored for, and leave you naked and bare. Your nakedness will be exposed, just as when you engaged in prostitution and obscene conduct. 30 I will do these things to you because you engaged in prostitution with the nations, polluting yourself with their idols. 31 You have followed the ways of your sister, so I will place her cup of judgment in your hand. 32 "This is what the sovereign LORD says: "You will drink your sister's deep and wide cup; you will be scorned and derided, for it holds a great deal. 33 You will be overcome by drunkenness and sorrow. The cup of your sister Samaria is a cup of horror and desolation. 34 You will drain it dry, gnaw its pieces, and tear out your breasts, for I have spoken, declares the sovereign LORD.
This is the followup, directly addressing how Judah was an even more unfaithful wife to God and how it will come back to haunt her worse than what happened to Israel for their own unfaithfulness to worship of God.
35 "Therefore this is what the sovereign LORD says: Because you have forgotten me and completely disregarded me, you must bear now the punishment for your obscene conduct and prostitution."
We are getting to the part where God starts laying out how he's angry and he wants it known that the people he chose abandoned him for idol worship and prostituted themselves before foreign gods instead of being faithful to Him, and now, they will pay for it.
36 The LORD said to me: "Son of man, are you willing to pronounce judgment on Oholah and Oholibah? Then declare to them their abominable deeds! 37 For they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They have committed adultery with their idols, and their sons, whom they bore to me, they have passed through the fire as food to their idols. 38 Moreover, they have done this to me: In the very same day they desecrated my sanctuary and profaned my Sabbaths. 39 On the same day they slaughtered their sons for their idols, they came to my sanctuary to desecrate it. This is what they have done in the middle of my house.
God is super mad here, ticking off how when the unfaithful to him worship idols they did all sorts of sick things like burning their own children alive, turning his house of worship into a frat house for all sorts of things he said not to do, and like anyone who comes home to the house they left others to manage and finds it defiled, he's pretty steamed at the mess that was left.
40 "They even sent for men from far away; when the messenger arrived, those men set out. For them you bathed, painted your eyes, and decorated yourself with jewelry. 41 You sat on a magnificent couch, with a table arranged in front of it where you placed my incense and my olive oil. 42 The sound of a carefree crowd accompanied her, including all kinds of men; even Sabeans were brought from the desert. The sisters put bracelets on their wrists and beautiful crowns on their heads. 43 Then I said about the one worn out by adultery, 'Now they will commit immoral acts with her.' 44 They had sex with her as one does with a prostitute. In this way they had sex with Oholah and Oholibah, promiscuous women. 45 But upright men will punish them appropriately for their adultery and bloodshed, because they are adulteresses and blood is on their hands.
This is God basically saying "You, Isreal and Judah, you went so far out of your way to be unfaithful to me you whored yourself to every other god but me, despite knowing the consequences, and for jilting the one who loved you and yet was given betrayal after betrayal, you will be turned over to those who will reward your unfaithfulness with the sword.
46 "For this is what the sovereign LORD says: Bring up an army against them and subject them to terror and plunder. 47 That army will pelt them with stones and slash them with their swords; they will kill their sons and daughters and burn their houses. 48 I will put an end to the obscene conduct in the land; all the women will learn a lesson from this and not engage in obscene conduct. 49 They will repay you for your obscene conduct, and you will be punished for idol worship. Then you will know that I am the sovereign LORD."
And God sums up nicely how he's going to make the penalty paid for forsaking him so high that his people will NEVER think idol worship is a good idea, and if he has to let them be destroyed and killed in droves like happened in the final days of Israel and Judah, so be it, so long as they learn God is NEVER to be cheated on by way of idol worship EVER AGAIN.
Given what happened post-Babylonian invasion, it's pretty safe to say the message sunk in and stuck that God was not going to be treated like a faithful man forsaken by unfaithful wives ever again.
I'm using the New English translation version of this Bible chapter, courtesy of The SWORD Project.
(My comments will be in bold, the original verses cited will be in italics)
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, there were two women who were daughters of the same mother. 3 They engaged in prostitution in Egypt; in their youth they engaged in prostitution. Their breasts were squeezed there; lovers fondled their virgin nipples there. 4 Oholah was the name of the older and Oholibah the name of her younger sister. They became mine, and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria and Oholibah is Jerusalem.
Right off the bat, the language dips into "um wow, pretty racy for the Bible territory", but this is intentional: First off, the female characters in this metaphor of a story are basically described as prostitutes and the dirty language is to leave no doubt it's a depraved business to whore yourself.
There is also a history lesson in this metaphor. This refer to when the Israelite people were in Egypt before being liberated up to the point they split into two kingdoms post-King Solomon, the verses even identify Samaria (capital of Israel, the northern half) and Jerusalem (capital of Judah, the southern half)
5 "Oholah engaged in prostitution while she was mine. She lusted after her lovers, the Assyrians - warriors 6 clothed in blue, governors and officials, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding on horses. 7 She bestowed her sexual favors on them; all of them were the choicest young men of Assyria. She defiled herself with all whom she desired - with all their idols. 8 She did not abandon the prostitution she had practiced in Egypt; for in her youth men had sex with her, fondled her virgin breasts, and ravished her. 9 Therefore I handed her over to her lovers, the Assyrians for whom she lusted. 10 They exposed her nakedness, seized her sons and daughters, and killed her with the sword. She became notorious among women, and they executed judgments against her.
This is basically a rather vulgar sounding Cliff Notes version of how the northern half of the chosen people of God nigh immediately forsook God and kept running with prostituting themselves to foreign idols instead of the Lord. Idol worship is deliberately equal to to being a whore in this metaphor, as the male being referred to as having been married to the women in the metaphor is God.
Basically, God is describing how Israel was unfaithful to him in jilted husband lingo and these verses end with him remarking how he let the Assyrians finish off Israel for good.
11 "Her sister Oholibah watched this, but she became more corrupt in her lust than her sister had been, and her acts of prostitution were more numerous than those of her sister. 12 She lusted after the Assyrians - governors and officials, warriors in full armor, horsemen riding on horses, all of them desirable young men. 13 I saw that she was defiled; both of them followed the same path. 14 But she increased her prostitution. She saw men carved on the wall, images of the Chaldeans carved in bright red, 15 wearing belts on their waists and flowing turbans on their heads, all of them looking like officers, the image of Babylonians whose native land is Chaldea. 16 When she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 The Babylonians crawled into bed with her. They defiled her with their lust; after she was defiled by them, she became disgusted with them. 18 When she lustfully exposed her nakedness, I was disgusted with her, just as I had been disgusted with her sister. 19 Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. 20 She lusted after their genitals - as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions. 21 This is how you assessed the obscene conduct of your youth, when the Egyptians fondled your nipples and squeezed your young breasts.
This is the part that is most often cited when people remark on this chapter of the Bible, especially the part where male endowments are described being as large as the endowments of donkeys and horses. To a non-Christian, this might sound like some back-handed compliment of a sort on the size of their male adornments, but that's not the point. The point is that the men Judah (the woman these verses refer to) is whoring themselves to are being directly compared to having sex with animals, as that was a crime God had a "kill on sight" rule for because bestiality was especially disgusting in his eyes. As applied to this metaphor for idolatry being directly equivalent to prostitution, this is more jilted husband lingo by God saying this woman was so unfaithful to him it was not only the humiliation of being cuckolded, it was like watching himself be cucked by his wife having sex with animals
Basically, God took Judah doubling down on what caused Israel's fall to ruin really personally and felt even more deeply hurt and betrayed they chose foreign idols over him, hence the angry husband lingo mentioned above.
It's also a history lesson on how after Israel fell, while Judah held out for awhile before they too were destroyed, it was their destruction by their dealing with the Babylonians that was the last straw for God.
22 "Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the sovereign LORD says: Look here, I am about to stir up against you the lovers with whom you were disgusted; I will bring them against you from every side: 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, Pekod, Shoa, and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, desirable young men, all of them governors and officials, officers and nobles, all of them riding on horses. 24 They will attack you with weapons, chariots, wagons, and with a huge army; they will array themselves against you on every side with large shields, small shields, and helmets. I will assign them the task of judgment; they will punish you according to their laws. 25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in rage. They will cut off your nose and your ears, and your survivors will die by the sword. They will seize your sons and daughters, and your survivors will be consumed by fire. 26 They will strip your clothes off you and take away your beautiful jewelry. 27 So I will put an end to your obscene conduct and your prostitution which you have practiced in the land of Egypt. You will not seek their help or remember Egypt anymore.
These verses are basically God saying "I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF BEING CHEATED ON BY THOSE WHO FORSAKE ME FOR THE WORSHIP OF OTHER GODS!"
28 "For this is what the sovereign LORD says: Look here, I am about to deliver you over to those whom you hate, to those with whom you were disgusted. 29 They will treat you with hatred, take away all you have labored for, and leave you naked and bare. Your nakedness will be exposed, just as when you engaged in prostitution and obscene conduct. 30 I will do these things to you because you engaged in prostitution with the nations, polluting yourself with their idols. 31 You have followed the ways of your sister, so I will place her cup of judgment in your hand. 32 "This is what the sovereign LORD says: "You will drink your sister's deep and wide cup; you will be scorned and derided, for it holds a great deal. 33 You will be overcome by drunkenness and sorrow. The cup of your sister Samaria is a cup of horror and desolation. 34 You will drain it dry, gnaw its pieces, and tear out your breasts, for I have spoken, declares the sovereign LORD.
This is the followup, directly addressing how Judah was an even more unfaithful wife to God and how it will come back to haunt her worse than what happened to Israel for their own unfaithfulness to worship of God.
35 "Therefore this is what the sovereign LORD says: Because you have forgotten me and completely disregarded me, you must bear now the punishment for your obscene conduct and prostitution."
We are getting to the part where God starts laying out how he's angry and he wants it known that the people he chose abandoned him for idol worship and prostituted themselves before foreign gods instead of being faithful to Him, and now, they will pay for it.
36 The LORD said to me: "Son of man, are you willing to pronounce judgment on Oholah and Oholibah? Then declare to them their abominable deeds! 37 For they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands. They have committed adultery with their idols, and their sons, whom they bore to me, they have passed through the fire as food to their idols. 38 Moreover, they have done this to me: In the very same day they desecrated my sanctuary and profaned my Sabbaths. 39 On the same day they slaughtered their sons for their idols, they came to my sanctuary to desecrate it. This is what they have done in the middle of my house.
God is super mad here, ticking off how when the unfaithful to him worship idols they did all sorts of sick things like burning their own children alive, turning his house of worship into a frat house for all sorts of things he said not to do, and like anyone who comes home to the house they left others to manage and finds it defiled, he's pretty steamed at the mess that was left.
40 "They even sent for men from far away; when the messenger arrived, those men set out. For them you bathed, painted your eyes, and decorated yourself with jewelry. 41 You sat on a magnificent couch, with a table arranged in front of it where you placed my incense and my olive oil. 42 The sound of a carefree crowd accompanied her, including all kinds of men; even Sabeans were brought from the desert. The sisters put bracelets on their wrists and beautiful crowns on their heads. 43 Then I said about the one worn out by adultery, 'Now they will commit immoral acts with her.' 44 They had sex with her as one does with a prostitute. In this way they had sex with Oholah and Oholibah, promiscuous women. 45 But upright men will punish them appropriately for their adultery and bloodshed, because they are adulteresses and blood is on their hands.
This is God basically saying "You, Isreal and Judah, you went so far out of your way to be unfaithful to me you whored yourself to every other god but me, despite knowing the consequences, and for jilting the one who loved you and yet was given betrayal after betrayal, you will be turned over to those who will reward your unfaithfulness with the sword.
46 "For this is what the sovereign LORD says: Bring up an army against them and subject them to terror and plunder. 47 That army will pelt them with stones and slash them with their swords; they will kill their sons and daughters and burn their houses. 48 I will put an end to the obscene conduct in the land; all the women will learn a lesson from this and not engage in obscene conduct. 49 They will repay you for your obscene conduct, and you will be punished for idol worship. Then you will know that I am the sovereign LORD."
And God sums up nicely how he's going to make the penalty paid for forsaking him so high that his people will NEVER think idol worship is a good idea, and if he has to let them be destroyed and killed in droves like happened in the final days of Israel and Judah, so be it, so long as they learn God is NEVER to be cheated on by way of idol worship EVER AGAIN.
Given what happened post-Babylonian invasion, it's pretty safe to say the message sunk in and stuck that God was not going to be treated like a faithful man forsaken by unfaithful wives ever again.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
On arguments and tactics used against Christians and what Christians should do about it
If you read the Gospels, one recurring theme that was constantly used against Jesus was his enemies trying to use his own words against, trying to reveal him a traitor to own morals, and otherwise trying to make him the bad guy because they hated what he stood for.
In modern day, not much has changed. Even if you are like me and live in a fairly free country to be a Christian, you will encounter much the same scorn and hatred from those who will treat you with contempt for your faith, and here' some of the most common ways this manifests.
1. Trying to use you own morals against you.
A common tactic those who hate Christians will use is trying to hold you to your morals and mercilessly trying to make you look like a stupid hypocrite for not living up to them 24/7.
This is dishonest for several reasons, here's some quotes from scripture on why that's the case.
As the above clearly shows, no one can be BE righteous 24/7, anyone trying to hold another human being to that standard is being a hypocrite themselves, especially if they curse God and treat him with contempt yet try to use your faith in God against you.
That said, I still consider it worth it, because at the end of the day, you are the one who has to ask yourself: Do I seek the favor of those who curse me, or the favor of the one who loves me regardless? Do I seek to be praised by those who would betray me if they found it to their convenience at a later date, or do I seek to be loved by someone who will never abandon me?
If you can answer in the latter instead of the former, in which the former has no lasting hope while the latter has unending hope, then congratulations, your sacrifice will be rewarded, because at the end of your days as you approach the time of your death on this Earth, you can be proud of what you did here, and when you make it to your reward, all the suffering will be compensated by eternal laurels worth more than any praise from the temporal bonds of this mortal coil.
Call me insane, stupid, crazy, whatever. Curse me, curse my blood-kin, slander my friends, It makes no difference.
Because the way I see it, there are two choices: Grovel like a worm before those who spit on you anyway, or put faith in someone who won't do that.
Personally, I believe true dignity is only possible with the latter option.
In modern day, not much has changed. Even if you are like me and live in a fairly free country to be a Christian, you will encounter much the same scorn and hatred from those who will treat you with contempt for your faith, and here' some of the most common ways this manifests.
1. Trying to use you own morals against you.
A common tactic those who hate Christians will use is trying to hold you to your morals and mercilessly trying to make you look like a stupid hypocrite for not living up to them 24/7.
This is dishonest for several reasons, here's some quotes from scripture on why that's the case.
Romans 3:9-20 English Standard Version (ESV)
No One Is Righteous
If you encounter this, my advice is to disregard whatever those who do this say. Those who spit venom have no business trying to call you a viper as well. So long as you refrain from returning the venom, the true vipers will be judged by God, and so long as you do not get on the ground with the snakes that spit venom at you, you will not be counted among their number when the time of judgment is at hand.
2. Trying to accuse you being a holy-roller Bible-Beater
Now, this accusation can having a grain of truth to it if you make a point of being cruel and abrasive about being a Christian. Me, I don't make a habit of that and in fact despise Bible-beating. It's counterproductive towards spread the Word. After all, would you want to read a Book that someone smashes against your face and calls you bad for not reading it?
However, if you act like the sinner in the below parable, this accusation against you is utterly worthless
As the above shows, the tax collector (the sinner) admits straight up he doesn't deserve to look up in pride, it's because he knows he's fallen, he doesn't need to be told that, he readily acknowledges it, and for that humility, he was ultimately more righteous.
2. Trying to accuse you being a holy-roller Bible-Beater
Now, this accusation can having a grain of truth to it if you make a point of being cruel and abrasive about being a Christian. Me, I don't make a habit of that and in fact despise Bible-beating. It's counterproductive towards spread the Word. After all, would you want to read a Book that someone smashes against your face and calls you bad for not reading it?
However, if you act like the sinner in the below parable, this accusation against you is utterly worthless
Luke 18:9-14 New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
I've been subject IRL to self-righteous types who make clear they hate what I believe yet will tell me I think I'm better than them. I'll be blunt: I'm the farthest thing from righteous no matter how hard I try.
In real life, I rarely look upwards because I live every day with the guilt of my sins and I know without the assistance of the sacrifice of Jesus, those sins are chains that bind me to death and eternal perdition. Without help beyond myself, I remain eternally damned and my grave will be my final resting place on this Earth before going to an even worse reward without admitting I'm an unregenerate sinner who needs to beseech an Almighty God for forgiveness.
If you can do the same, then while your assurance of salvation is something between you and the Lord, you can at least live with the knowledge you have humbled yourself before the Lord and need not fear the jibes and sneers of self-righteous men, because in your willingness to be humble before the true judge of good and evil, your redemption is more than possible.
3. Those who hate you will treat you like garbage because of your belief
This is not so much an argument or tactic, rather a general warning to anyone who believes in God: You will be treated like dirt by those who hate what you believe and whom you bow before.
I personally, despite living in a country where my freedom of religion is protected, I have still been subject to the vilest slander and libel possible to my name. My family has been assailed with slurs so cruel they would be blood insults worthy of bloodletting in ancient times, and I have been wracked with anguish more than once over how those who hate me get visceral joy out of watching me suffer rage over their wicked behavior.
And I guarantee every Christian will, to some degree, experience the same.
That said, here's some words of wisdom from the Bible on that subject:
Matthew 10:22
I'm not going to mince words: Believing in God means you accept to suffer as his Son did. Wicked men will scorn you, your beliefs will be assailed as lies, your character will be defamed, you will be spat upon and derided before your peers, and you be treated as lower than dirt by those who see your willingness to not retaliate as a weakness to exploit instead of willingness to suffer in silence as did Jesus.
That said, I still consider it worth it, because at the end of the day, you are the one who has to ask yourself: Do I seek the favor of those who curse me, or the favor of the one who loves me regardless? Do I seek to be praised by those who would betray me if they found it to their convenience at a later date, or do I seek to be loved by someone who will never abandon me?
If you can answer in the latter instead of the former, in which the former has no lasting hope while the latter has unending hope, then congratulations, your sacrifice will be rewarded, because at the end of your days as you approach the time of your death on this Earth, you can be proud of what you did here, and when you make it to your reward, all the suffering will be compensated by eternal laurels worth more than any praise from the temporal bonds of this mortal coil.
Call me insane, stupid, crazy, whatever. Curse me, curse my blood-kin, slander my friends, It makes no difference.
Because the way I see it, there are two choices: Grovel like a worm before those who spit on you anyway, or put faith in someone who won't do that.
Personally, I believe true dignity is only possible with the latter option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)