“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
I remember when the modern superhero movie genre first exploded into existence. Superhero movies had been around for a long time, of course. Most of them weren’t any good. The original set of Superman movies were okay, and Christopher Reeves was certainly iconic in the role, but to go back and watch them now, they were campy and had horrible special effects. Technology has improved since then and the writing mostly has too. The first Spider-Man movie with Tobey Maguire, though, was the start of the modern age of superhero films. I was a freshman in college, a first-rate nerd, absolutely loved it, and haven’t looked back. There may be a handful I haven’t seen since then, but not more than that. Still, it has been hard to keep up of late because there have been just so many. But as the total has continued to rise, the quality has tended to decline. As much as I hate to say it, one of the most recent superhero movies to release – and an MCU film no less – is a great example. I finally got to watch the Captain Marvel series, The Marvels, the other day. Let’s talk for a few minutes about it.
Let me say right out of the gate here that for all of my thoughts on The Marvels, at least it wasn’t made by Sony. Sony currently owns the rights to all of the Spider-Man characters, and they steadfastly refuse to sell that golden goose to Disney. Instead, they keep trying to create their own Spiderverse by making movies about various Spider-Man supporting cast characters, mostly villains. But they don’t have Disney’s creativity or vision or talent, and so they just keep turning out terrible movies that are making a joke out of so many of the characters. That being said, The Marvels was a pretty large step by Disney and the MCU in that direction.
The movie itself was fun. I’ll give it that. And it’s short. At just over 90 minutes, even if you didn’t like it, you didn’t have to endure it for very long. It was short enough, in fact, that if you saw it in theaters (I watched it from the comfort of my recliner at home), you might have felt a bit cheated as far as the runtime goes as compared with something like The Eternals (reviewed here) that ran on for nearly three hours. Of course, that could be why The Marvels had the lowest box office haul of any MCU movie to date.
The story opens with the villain, Dar-Benn, a Kree enforcer who has stepped into the role once filled by Ronan the Accuser (the villain in the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie). While visiting some alien planet she finds an artifact she had been looking for: a cosmic band. Unfortunately for her, she only finds one of what should have been a set. The other is nowhere to be found…unless you’ve been keeping up with the MCU in which case you know that the other one is in the possession of one Kamala Khan (wonderfully played again by Iman Vellani, who is the absolute heart of the film). It’s the bangle that first unlocked her powers.
What Dar-Benn plans to do with the cosmic band is to use it to tear open holes in space to steal resources from various planets in an attempt to save her own. Sometime after the events of the first Captain Marvel movie, Carol went back to Hala, the Kree home planet, and destroyed the Supreme Intelligence which was basically the equivalent of destroying their god. Ever since, the people had pretty well given up on everything and let their world crumble. Now their sun was somehow going out, their atmosphere was unbreathable, and their oceans were going bad (I think…I never really understood this part). As a result, Dar-Benn was doing everything she could to save her people, but because she blamed Captain Marvel for the situation her people were in – which was pretty fair as it was basically her fault to begin with – she was going to collect the resources she needed from various planets that carried some kind of emotional significance for Captain Marvel. As for how she knew which planets were which, don’t worry about that.
Well, because Ms. Marvel has the other cosmic band and because her powers, Carol’s powers, and Carol’s friend, Monica Rambeau’s powers (which she got because she walked through Scarlet Witch’s hex bubble twice in the Wandavision series) are all light-based (just go with it), this other cosmic band held by Dar-Benn on the other side of the galaxy’s being used the way she is using it has caused some sort of quantum entanglement that makes the three heroes switch places by way of instant teleportation whenever they use their powers. Well, not every single time, but most of the time…you know, when it’s either most or least convenient.
I could keep going to talk about the clowder (look it up) of alien cats who swallowed a whole space station’s worth of workers in order to save them when the station started to fall out of orbit, or the planet where the people spoke in the language of musicals, Kamala’s family’s providing constant comic relief, oh and Nick Fury’s also providing comic relief, but that’ll take too much time. I’ll wrap up the summary here by noting that the good guys win in the end. Also Monica winds up traveling through what she thought was a tear in space to save the planet (she got to make the planet-saving sacrifice instead of Captain Marvel), but which wound up being a multiversal tear where she wound up in the X-Mansion under the care of Beast (who was voiced once again by Kelsey Grammer, much to my delight), an alternate version of her mom who has no idea who she is, and with at least two references to “Charles” for good measure (who is, of course, Charles Xavier, or, Professor X). The mutants are on their way!
In the end, this just wasn’t a good movie. I think that may be the first time I’ve written that. I wasn’t terribly high on Dr. Strange 2 or Thor 4, but those were still both pretty good movies. This one just wasn’t. It was fun. I really did mean that. The humor element was more enjoyable than some Marvel movies. Iman Vellani really did steal the show. Having her youthful optimism going forward in the MCU will be a delight. Beyond that, though, the writing was pretty terrible. The characters were flatter than pancakes. The writers relied almost entirely on the fact that most of the characters had been developed in other properties and didn’t really even try to develop them further. The villain, Dar-Benn, was utterly forgettable, and while her means were certainly villainous, her motivations were almost entirely noble. If anything, the real villain of the story was Captain Marvel herself. It was her vengeful rather than thoughtful actions that started the whole problem in the first place. And while she kind of acknowledges that by the end of the movie, she really doesn’t pay any kind of price for it other than a few bumps and bruises, which, given how powerful Marvel has made her to be, weren’t all that meaningful. And the plot holes. So. Many. Plot holes.
It’s really too bad too, because there was the potential here for something really interesting. The characters’ switching places is what ultimately brought them together, but it felt forced and was never really explained in some kind of a coherent way. I honestly think they brought in Monica Rambeau and Ms. Marvel because they didn’t think another Captain Marvel solo film would be able to stand on its own. But what if they had explored the moral questions surrounding her destruction of the Kree Supreme Intelligence more thoroughly? What if they fleshed out Dar-Benn’s motivations in more detail and made Captain Marvel have to truly reckon with the full consequences of her actions?
One of the things that has made the MCU movies so good is that there is always a point at which the main character’s success really does hang in the balance, where their powers are not enough by themselves to get the job done. Well, Captain Marvel has enough power to re-power a whole star. She went toe-to-toe with Thanos and took a punch with the Power Stone itself and walked away with hardly a scratch. There isn’t a force the MCU has yet introduced that is somehow a threat to her on a power level. Facing true accountability for her actions and having to make amends for costly mistakes she has made would have been a threat her powers couldn’t overcome. Using her powers as a means of repentance, redemption, restoration, and reconciliation could have been a journey that left her profoundly changed for the better. The writers hinted at this, but ultimately decided to include a few more explosions and light beams shooting from fists that somehow closed a hole in the multiverse. There is nothing new under the sun.
It’s sad, really. The MCU has gone from superb movies like Captain America: Winter Soldier to this. Even the first Captain Marvel movie grossed over a billion dollars. That puts it on a list with just fourteen other superhero movies ever. While there was much potential here for a great movie, the writers dropped the ball. Perhaps Kevin Feige has just lost his vision. Phase Four was a mess that no one really liked and did little more than introduce a whole bunch of mostly forgettable characters. Phase Five was supposed to be where things really kicked off, but so far Quantumania was a bust, Guardians 3 was good, but was the end of a story rather than the beginning of a new one, and The Marvels laid a giant, expensive goose egg. As for the streaming side of things, other than possibly Echo which I haven’t yet watched, that’s where all the action has really been. Loki season 2 was outstanding, and What If?… season 2 was a ton of fun.
All the same, no one seems to really have any idea where things are going. We don’t even know yet who the real villain of this trilogy of phases is going to be. It kind of feels like they’re making movies just to make movies because people expect them to make movies. But if they can’t give a clear vision for where they are going (like they had throughout Phases 1-3), or if they keep dropping hints of future projects that never materialize, people are going to stop paying to see them…which means they’ll stop making money…which means eventually they’ll have to stop making movies. As a committed fan, I would hate to see that day arrive, but that’s the path we’re on all the same.
The God revealed in the pages of the Scriptures is a creative God. Just consider all of the endless variety of creation itself. Naturalists have been intentionally cataloguing the various species of creatures on the earth for a few hundred years, and we are still discovering new species no one has ever seen before. And the beauty and variety of all of these different plants and animals is just staggering. Because we were made in His image, we have an almost unlimited potential for creativity ourselves. Humans have constructed some pretty jaw-dropping things. I don’t just mean big ones either. James Tour, a nanobiologist at Rice University makes incredible things that are incredibly small including things like carbon nanotubes that have shown the potential to allow the regrowth of severed nerves which could potentially allow the blind to see again and the lame to walk again.
When we lean into our image-bearing nature, wonder is consistently the result. When we lean into sin, though, the creative juices don’t flow nearly as well. Sin can’t create. It can only work with what already is. It winds up giving us little more than facsimiles of the real things. Now, does this mean that non-Christians are therefore not capable of creativity? Of course not. What a silly notion to even consider. Everyone is made in the image of God and thus bears His spirit of creativity whether they believe in Him or not. But the more fully we lean into sin in our lives, the less creative we will become; the more we will be stuck taking things that already are and rearranging them in different ways. And while we might celebrate that kind of thing as a culture, that’s because we are a decadent people to begin with. Truly new things are a rare treat these days. There is indeed nothing new under the sun. How much better to trust ourselves into the hands of the God who will one day make all things new, and letting Him guide us in unleashing some of that newness on the world around us now.
The Nexus 
“Everyone is made in the image of God and thus bears His spirit of creativity whether they believe in Him or not. “
Aah, the arrogance. Isn’t indoctrination wonderful?
“Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone.”
LikeLike
Is the idea that everyone has the potential for great creativity and beauty somehow a threatening one to you? I don’t know, that seems like a pretty good idea to teach kids to me.
But, if you paint all religion with the broad brush of its all being a threat while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge even data-driven evidence of the good it accomplishes both on an individual basis as well as a communal basis, I guess I can see it.
Busy afternoon here. I’ll be back in touch once the week gets started.
LikeLike
Threatening? Not in the least. What an odd thing to say.
The fact you assert All made in God’s image is without any basis in evidence, is arrogant and simply risible.
Weighing any positives of religion against the harm it has caused over the millenia and continues to do so is a no-brainer
Our species would be so much better off without religion.
I challenge you to name a single benefit entrenched in the foundational tenets of Christianity, let alone the myriad other religions and their supernatural rubbish.
LikeLike
Well, you were the one who said, “Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone.” Usually if you’re having to issue a warning like that, it’s because of some kind of a perceived threat. I was trying to piece together exactly what the threat might have been.
As for the arrogance, you’ll have to help me see where that was. We’ve already talked about the evidence and philosophical arguments that help to establish the Christian worldview. I’m operating on the basis of that’s being true. You vigorously disagree, which you are of course entitled to do, but my simply asserting a truth claim that rests on a tacit assumption of previously discussed evidence and argument doesn’t strike me as a terribly arrogant thing to do, even from your position. Foolish, perhaps (although I of course disagree), but not especially arrogant. You seem to be leaning over in the direction of a view called scientism which holds that only scientific knowledge can really count as knowledge. I would recommend taking a closer look at that one to make sure you don’t drift too much in that direction. As far as worldview positions go, that one’s self-defeating.
As for your challenge, in addition to Thomas’ insightful reply, I would point you to the doctrine I’m espousing here, that all people are made in the image of God and are thus possessed of an inestimable value that should be honored and protected by the rest of the society. If you are a fan of the concept of universal human rights, that concept has its roots planted firmly and deeply in that foundational tenet of Christianity. As for other religions and their contributions to the world, I’m not interested in defending them nor do I have any need of that. All religions are not the same. They should each be evaluated on the basis of their individual truth claims and impact.
LikeLike
You do realize, of course, that line is from Brick in the Wall, Pink Floyd?
relevance being the religious indoctrination of children.
The arrogance expressed on your assertion that humans are made in the image of YHWH.
The HGP tends to refute such nonsense.
You will have to quote me on where your human rights claim is a foundational tenet of Christianity.
If you are alluding to the Golden Rule, there are examples that precede your religion.
The foundational tenet of Christianity is the unsubstantiated claim that Jesus is the Messiah, son of God, God etc…
You can look to the Nicene Creed for more.
LikeLike
I’ve never actually listened to Pink Floyd, so, no, I missed that one.
The HGP doesn’t have the first thing to do with our creation in the image of God. You’re talking about two totally different things there.
I didn’t say human rights is a foundation tenet of Christianity. I feel like you’re not really listening to me. I said that the foundation Christian tenet that human beings were all made equally in the image of God is the foundation of the idea of universal human rights.
LikeLike
You are asserting we are created rather than evolved?
LikeLike
As we have talked about before, I think the best understanding of the available evidence is that an intelligent designer of some kind was behind the origin of life (and the creation of the world for that matter). Philosophically speaking, I think the best explanation of the identity of that designer is the Christian God. So, yes, I think all the creatures in the world were created. Have some evolved some beyond their original creation? Of course. That’s demonstrable. Do we have evidence of one species transforming into another? No, we don’t. And, yes, I’ve spent a fair bit of time studying that question.
LikeLike
There is no available evidence to even hint at an intelligent designer, so that is one straw man that will not fly.
When you write transforming into another species please you give an example?
LikeLike
No, there’s a fair bit of evidence pointing in that direction, as we have already talked about. You simply categorically reject it.
I’m sorry, I assumed you knew what speciation is. It’s the theory that over a sufficient number of years, one species of animals gradually evolved to the point that it could be referred to as a separate and distinct species.
LikeLike
Yes, I know what the term is, Jonathan, thank you very much, I asked for an example.
I presume you have one that readily comes to mind?
LikeLike
How about apes to humans as the old trope goes? Darwin’s entire tree of life is based on the idea of speciation. I’m not sure why you’re asking for examples unless you have some point you think is a “gotcha” to drop on down the path here.
LikeLike
As you say, “old trope”.
Immediately you show your lack of understanding of evolution.
You asserted that evolution involves one species changing into another so I presumed you had a handful of example on hand?
All I asked for was one.
Was the ape example your go to?
LikeLike
No, evolution involves change over time. Speciation is the theory that over enough time, by the accumulation of multiple evolutionary changes in a population, a species diverges into more than one distinct species. But you already knew all of that. Once again Darwin’s tree is rooted, so to speak, on the theory of speciation. Look up whatever examples you feel like you need.
LikeLike
I want you to give me an example.
Unfortunately you already offered that rather silly ape example so now I am wondering if you are not simply parroting the Creationist spiel you grew up with?
Come now Jonathan, give us an example or three. How hard can it be?
LikeLike
Not particularly, I’m just honestly not interested in playing this particular game when I already can guess your perspective and not only don’t agree with it because of my understanding of the available evidence, but am not particularly threatened by it.
LikeLike
But you are rejecting the evolutionary evidence then suggesting I do not know what speciation is.
Why would you make a claim, which I presume you are in a position to support, and then run away?
How about the Galapagas finches?
Thats a good example. Do you reject this?
LikeLike
I didn’t run away from it, I just wasn’t interested in debating the point further.
Those are actually a rather classic example of why Darwin’s claims are pretty overblown. At the end of the transitions from thicker, shorter beaks to longer, thinner beaks depending on the weather and environmental conditions, the birds were all still finches. They weren’t different species. What’s more, the change wasn’t unidirectional which also undercuts Darwin’s understanding of evolution as going in a single direction forward. Using that kind of microevolutionary variation within a single species to make the leap to trying to argue for a jump from, say, an invertebrate animal to a vertebrate animal given sufficient time fails. There’s plenty of evidence of the kind of evolutionary change the finches experienced. There isn’t any for the larger transition.
LikeLike
Unfortunately you are showing your lack of understandinv of speciation in the broader sence.
So what do you consider a larger transition? Give an example.
LikeLike
Wait, do you not consider an invertebrate animal gradually becoming vertebrate over time and with the accumulation of a sufficient number of evolutionary changes an example of speciation? Do you classify vertebrates as the same species as invertebrates? If you’re waiting to play, “Gotcha” again, I’m not particularly interested in playing ball. The concept of species is pretty hotly debated among biologists. Darwinian biologists have to use a definition of species that can label something like the Galapagos finches different species in order to fit within the framework Darwin was creating. But evidence shows that species can shift back and forth over time. That definition of species is variable and depends on condition. That kind of speciation is demonstrable and I am perfectly willing to accept. But, Darwin’s theory also holds that fish gradually became squirrels over a sufficient amount of time. The first single-celled organism (and, by the way, Darwinism can’t explain how that got here in the first place) gradually speciated into all of the various flora and fauna we have in the world today. That’s the kind of speciation I’m talking about.
LikeLike
So you reject the notion that land based animals originally came from the sea.
Fair enough.
Where do you assert land based animals, dinosaurs for example, originated?
LikeLike
You already know my answer to that. They were created. Just like every other animal. How exactly that process unfolded, I don’t know. But, I find creation to be a better explanation for the sudden and dramatic appearance of a ton of different animal body plans than that we just haven’t yet found the fossil evidence of the transitional forms that will allow us to explain that on strictly Darwinian terms. The faith of Darwin’s followers is strong. It’s at least as strong as the faith of Christians. It’s just pointed in a different direction.
LikeLike
“But, I find creation to be a better explanation for the sudden and dramatic appearance of a ton of different animal body plans…. ”
Sudden?
LikeLike
From the standpoint of geological history, yes, incredibly sudden. As compared with the amount of time Darwin’s theory would require for the emergence of new body plans, the five- to ten-million year span of time when many of these body plans appear in the fossil record is like the blink of an eye.
LikeLike
So you reject the fact some dinosaurs evolved into birds?
How do you account for the vestigial limbs found on whales?
LikeLike
Homologous appendages like that are hardly evidence for the kind of speciation you are arguing for. For such homology in different species like vestigial limbs to be evidence of a common ancestor, they would have to come from the same genetic source. They very often don’t from the creatures we have been able to actually analyze and gain data on today. You can make guesses about creatures in the past, but the actual genetic evidence for homology as an argument for Darwin’s theory doesn’t support it. You would be taking up a position rooted in faith.
And, no, I don’t believe some dinosaurs evolved into birds. When you delve into the technical literature, the case that was once thought to be strong has fallen on pretty hard times as more and more information has been gained, especially in the realm of genetics.
LikeLike
Reuben’s research is promising, and if it proves to be a de facto open and shut case you think this is a slam dunk for Creation?
So, are you asserting the ancestors of whales were not once land animals?
Interesting you mention genetics. Do you accept the evidence from the Human Genome Project?
LikeLike
So then, when it comes to this Reuben’s research, would it be right to say that you have…faith…in a particular outcome? There’s been plenty of promising research in this regard before and it has heretofore not yet panned out. Look at me being the skeptic now, and you being the person of faith. Fun times! Let’s switch roles more often like this :~)
I’m asserting that whales and land animals were created independently of one another as the best fossil and genetic evidence available currently suggests.
And on the HGP, go ahead and jump to your point.
LikeLike
Faith? Don’t be silly now, Jonathan.
If the evidence firmly supports his theory then that will be amazing and opens up whole new areas of fascinating research.
The best fossil evidence?
You have a link to a paleotologist / site that supports your assertion?
Do you accept or reject the HGP?
(Forget if we covered this before?)
LikeLike
Oh good, so then you’re ready to accept that Darwin’s theory at least in terms of his larger claims of speciation is merely an unproven assertion and at least claim a thorough-going agnosticism on the question of how life arrived in the place we know it today. Are you also ready to acknowledge that any and all arguments on the matter that go beyond that agnosticism are rooted more in philosophy than science?
You’re welcome to check out Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt. He documents all of that awfully thoroughly.
We’ve covered the HGP several times already. If you’ve got a point to make that’s relevant to what we’re talking about now, I’d prefer if you would just make it.
LikeLike
No. If birds became therapods how does this trash evolution?
Meyer is a disingenious Creationist twat.
The evidence from the HGP proved Adam and Eve could not possibly have existed.
LikeLike
I didn’t say evolution. I said the kind of large-scale speciation we’re talking about. Those are different things.
No, Meyer is a thoroughly researched scholar with whose work you happen to disagree. His depth of knowledge of the subjects he covers tends to be pretty triggering for his critics as well. Have you ever actually read any of his work for yourself? I’m not interested in getting back into that particular discussion, though.
How did the HGP prove that? I studied it when I was in college and haven’t honestly paid too much attention to it since.
LikeLike
Evolution encompasses all aspects of speciation. That you reject the bits that don’t gel with your Creationist outlook in no way diminishes the evidence.
Meyer is a disingenious arse.
Nope. Never read anything. Listened to a video for about twenty minutes he did with a couple of other IDers. Forget their names.
I have read/listened to a number of critics of his work and had it any merit it would be taught in schools.
Many theologians reject his assertions.
Considering his somewhat disingenious approach, I am surprised you give him the time of day.
HGP
Because evidence shows there never was a bottlensck resulting in a single breeding pair of humans as per the Bible tale.
I am surprised you are unfamiliar with this?
LikeLike
Nope, I am glad to accept all the parts of evolution that have strong evidence to support them.
So, you’ve given Meyer about 20 minutes’ worth of serious engagement and then listened to a whole bunch of people who already think like you trash him? Which theologians reject his assertions? And as I have said before, I’ve listened to him quite a lot, actually read all of his books, and gotten to talk with him personally. He may be many things, but disingenuous is not one of them.
And on the HGP, I had heard that. Given just how complex life really is, though, and given the fact that so far secular biologists literally have no idea how even the first single-celled organism could possibly have come into existence, the argument that this just happened to take place multiple times and in multiple locations and for evolution that led to the formation of what we call Homo Sapiens to happen at about the same pace and in the same ways in all of these different locations has always struck me as one that takes an incredible amount of faith to maintain. The information problem alone for this theory is staggeringly massive to overcome.
LikeLike
The Theory of Evolution is the most comprehensive evidence based scientific theory there is.
To assert you simply don’t accept it is as telling as it is risible.
If all you can do is utter Goddidit from the sidelines you should never be surprised if you are summarily ignored and dismissed.
On Meyer.
Who rejects ID?
The Catholic Church for one.
HGP.
Not faith. Evidence.
The origins of life are unknown.
LikeLike
Oh? And what are they?
Parts of Darwin’s theory are absolutely demonstrable and are easily accepted. Parts still lack evidence. I am able to distinguish between those parts and accept or reject accordingly.
You may or may not be surprised to learn that I have many, many disagreements with the Catholic Church. That’s one of them.
There is a genetic map. It is wonderful and has and will continue to give us all kinds of important information. How exactly that genetic map came to be, though, is not something scientists know if you go far enough back. We simply don’t have the samples for further study. Assumptions must be made. Those are guided by the evidence, yes, but they are also determined by philosophical positions and commitments and are not bias neutral in that regard. You are once again leaning over in the direction of scientism and betraying your overall dearth of understanding in philosophy.
LikeLike
And you simply hand wave away any suggestion for you to provide evidence to demonstrate Goddidit.
In the meantime, science will roll on while you shout the odds from the sidelines.
LikeLike
The origins of life may be considered unknown, but you put great faith in the fact that the mechanism is a natural one. That’s a worldview/philosophical decision, not a scientific one.
And how funny that science exists because of the Christian worldview, yet so many believe it can be sustained for long by another one.
LikeLike
I make no pronouncement one or another, because there is currently no evidence so please don’t put words in my mouth.
As the Christian religion dominated most aspects of life at this time in history it is not surprising it’s proponents were in the thick of things on the scientific front.
However, the basis of Christianity is supernaturalism which, ultimately, is in direct opposition of the scientific method.
When the primary foundational tenet of supernaturalism supplants the scientific method you can claim your victory.
Meantime, your efforts at point scoring come across as smug.
LikeLike
I certainly don’t aim for smugness, just historical accuracy and philosophical consistency. It was their belief in the supernatural that framed out and guided their efforts. Specifically, it was their belief in the Christian God that led them to do what they did. Without that belief framework in place, they never would have done it. Don’t take my word for it, though, take their own words.
And I’ll do my best to refrain from putting words in your mouth. It remains, though, that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is as essential to the continued coherence of your worldview as a supernatural one is to mine. Thus, both of us must operate on our respective assumptions which is ultimately a position of faith. I’m willing to acknowledge that.
LikeLike
As I stated, the Christian religion dominated life back then so it is hardly surprising the scientists of the day pursued science with the Christian God at the heart of it all. Expressing Non-belief or atheism was not a healthy life choice to adopt back then.
I am perfectly okay with whatever turns out to be the origin behind life, and if the answer is revealed in my lifetime I’ll respond according to the evidence. Until then I will never make unfounded pronouncements based on an indoctrinated supernatural worldview.
You might want to give this serious consideration when moving forward.
And please, for the last time don’t ever use the farking term ‘faith’ when projecting your views on to mine.
LikeLike
It was the worldview of Christianity that allowed for the development of modern science, not simply the existence of the religion. The one is not the happenstance of the other. The connection is direct, not incidental.
LikeLike
Of course you have mo interest in ( defending) other religions.
This is how religious indoctrination works, and leads nicely to the line I quoted from Pink Floyd.
LikeLike
Why would I have interest in defending other religions? I’m a Christian, not a Buddhist. You made the charge that all religion is bad. I don’t look at all religions as a unified block like you do because their respective truth claims are pretty wildly divergent when you actually take the time to understand them. I think folks should have the right to practice the religion of their choosing because of my commitment to a robust concept of religious liberty (something else Christianity gave the world, by the way), but that doesn’t mean I am going to defend their various truth claims as justified.
LikeLike
I bracketted the word defend for a reason.
The emphasis being your lack of interest.
LikeLike
I have interest in understanding other religions. I’ve devoted a fair bit of time to that end. I’m just not interested in defending them.
LikeLike
I never said you were interested in their defense. That would be silly on the face of it. I thought I explained this?
Have you managed to understand other religions, or do you see them solely through the Christian Worldview and all the inherent bias this will naturally carry?
LikeLike
My bias has certainly been there just as yours has been. I actually have, though, taken time to look at the differing truth claims of several different religions and taken them to the best of my ability on their own merits. I’ve had dialogues and conversations with people from other religious movements and let them explain in the most positive terms they could what they believe and why. I have respect for many of these different traditions and understand what might attract them to it. I simply think their truth claims do not ultimately measure up with reality when examined carefully.
LikeLike
Of course I have bias and it is important to be aware of this so as not to allow such bias to influence one’s perspective where it might compromise evidence.
And this is why your bias is blind to the lack of evidence for your religious, faith based claims, none of which measure up with evidence/ reality.
LikeLike
Nope, there’s still plenty of evidence. You simply choose to reject or otherwise interpret it.
LikeLike
Give an example of the evidence you claim to possess that measures up to reality?
LikeLike
Already done that. Not interested in retreading ground we’ve already covered.
LikeLike
Is this your personal take or would it be regarded as evidence that measures up to reality by someone like Ehrman for example?
LikeLike
Ehrman’s opinion on the matter really doesn’t interest me. His will be about the same as yours, I suspect.
LikeLike
Except Ehrman is a qualified and highly educated scholar.
Is there any secular scholar who would consider your evidence measures up to reality?
LikeLike
Are there any Christian scholars who would give the same latitude to the claims you are making?
LikeLike
Dominic Crossan, probably.
LikeLike
I’d give him about as much latitude as I would Ehrman. At least Ehrman is honest enough to have openly embraced atheism rather than going all the way except actually acknowledging it. From what I know of his work, Tom Holland is someone who’s perspective I would consider. I would also add Rodney Stark to that list, but he became a believer before he died, so I guess he counts as a voice on my side now.
LikeLike
Ehrman is agnostic To my knowledge he has he has never openly stated he is atheist.
LikeLike
Then agnostic. In any event, he’s honest about his rejection of Christianity. I respect him for that. Crossan basically took the same position in terms of reducing Jesus to a bare shell of the historic Christian position on Him (and based on standards that were overwhelmingly subjective), but was never really honest about it.
LikeLike
Perhaps you simply don’t like his understanding?
I imagine he doesn’t care for yours’ that much either?
At least his background seems to cover pretty much all the relevant areas and he’s not some ignorant wannabe apologist like Strobel.
LikeLike
Your still-puzzling-to-me disdain for Stobel aside, yes, I disagree rather profoundly with Crossan’s approach to the New Testament. And, you’re probably right. I don’t suspect he shares many of my views on the relevant matters.
LikeLike
Go read someone else’s take down of Strobel. There are numerous reviews of his book/s
I simply can’t be arsed to expend any energy on one such as him.
LikeLike
That you disagree with his views doesn’t surprise me. Of course you do, or you’d share them. That you have such disdain for him personally (and others of his ilk) is what I find a great deal more humorous. I’m content to just leave you to stew in your disdain.
LikeLike
I give him no thought whatsoever except when indoctrinated believers like to wave his name about as the poster boy for conversion.
LikeLike
I mean, in terms of our conversation, you mentioned his name before I even thought to bring him up way back when we were just getting started…
LikeLike
You mentioned Wallace and that twit is regularly mentioned in the same breath as Strobel when it comes to Gen-u-whine born again conversions.
🤦
As I suggested, if your interested, read a few critical reviews of his book Case for Christ.
LikeLike
I’m grateful for the tip. I nonetheless remain thoroughly amused by your disdain.
LikeLike
I wish I could say I was amused by your indoctrination. Pity, perhaps?
LikeLike
Sure, if you want to label your feelings that way, that’s fine.
LikeLike
Could you think of something more appropriate?
LikeLike
Nope. You are free to label your feelings however you’d like. You don’t need my input or approval.
LikeLike
Then pity it shall be.
LikeLike
Sounds like a plan. I do appreciate that, by the way, given that I think the pity comes out of a sincere concern for my well-being along with that of my family. I still don’t agree with you, but I appreciate the concern all the same.
LikeLike
Well your religious entrenchment is linked to your career/ employment
and while you could go back to teaching simply recognizing and acknowledging your beliefs have no basis in evidence would still be a difficult pill to swallow.
It would be nice to know your children have walked away from supernaturalism and embraced reality.
LikeLike
And I would be equally thrilled to hear of your children having an encounter with God and embracing the Christian faith.
LikeLike
*Shudder*. What a thoroughly revolting thought.
LikeLike
On that, you and I are agreed, if from different directions.
LikeLike
In Matthew 22 Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment. Jesus replied: “`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.And the second is like it Love your neighbor as yourself”
Surely you would concur whether you believe in God or not if we all agreed to love our neighbors as ourselves the world would be a better place. And to me this is the foundation of the Christian religion. Does every Christian practice it? Sadly, no. But that doesn’t make it any less meaningful to true believers and a good standard to try and achieve each day in your life.
I have seen several instances where others have accused Christians of evil and atrocities through the years. We live in the South, where at one time our country fought a Civil War over slavery. Over half a million Americans died in this war. But just because my ancestors fought in a war that was based on human suffrage doesn’t make me a racist. In this same light to me it doesn’t seem fair to judge a religion by the past deeds of others. The BTK serial killer was a deacon in his church. On that logic all deacons have the tendency to be serial killers. I hope not. I’ve been a deacon for 23 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the same token Stalin was a monster who just happened to be an atheist.
One of the problems with religion is its use of doctrine/ Holy books ( sic) to justify its actions based on the supposed inspired words of a deity.
Your example of the US Civil War is a good example where the right to own slaves, based on Scripture, was the major underlying cause.
Once that little spat was done and dusted all that remained was segregation and naked racism. How nice for the “colored folk” ( not) ?
Your love thy neighbour example which is in essence the Golden Rule is not unique to the character Jesus of Nazareth and the Egyptians had a version that dated as far back as around 600 BCE
Therefore, one does not need Christianity to be a good neighbour, and this most certainly is not the foundational tenet of Christianity.
LikeLike
Thomas will have his own questions in response, I suspect, but I’m curious: In your view, what is the foundational tenet of Christianity?
And as far as Stalin goes, the trouble with the view you’ve expressed there is that atheism does not have any philosophical grounds on which his actions can be objectively condemned. You yourself argued before that morality is merely a product of evolution. That means it is necessarily subjective. The most you can say about someone like Stalin is that you don’t like what he did. Christianity, on the other hand, has such an objective basis. Where Christians have been guilty of awful things in the past, it is typically other Christians who are the first in line to say, “Hey, that’s not right, and let me show you from the Scriptures why it’s not.” Christianity has this self-correcting mechanism built into it.
On the Golden Rule, you are absolutely right that the basic idea wasn’t unique to Jesus. Jesus’ formulation of it, however, was. In every expression of the idea before then it was a passive idea. Don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you. Jesus flipped it around and made it active. This fits with His broadly moral vision of taking an active role in advancing the good of the kingdom of God. This was something unique.
LikeLike
The foundational tenet of Christianity is the belief and acceptance that the character Jesus of Nazareth is Yahweh incarnate.
Re Stalin:
So? Just because I am a atheist doesn’t mean I cannot condemn Stalin’s actions. That trope is so worn as to be thread bare and does not dignify a longer response.
Aristotle iteration is active so, no, again, there is nothing new about what Jesus is claimed to have said.
LikeLike
You call it a trope, but philosophically speaking, it’s still an accurate statement. I didn’t say you can’t condemn Stalin’s actions, I said that you do not have any kind of an objective rationale for doing so. This is indeed a major flaw in the secular worldview that has led many people to embrace Christianity over the years. We inherently recognize that some actions are objectively wrong (like Stalin’s). Atheism can’t philosophically account for that. Christianity can’t.
LikeLike
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period. Do you have a mental block over this?
LikeLike
But that lack of belief leads to philosophical conclusions that form the basis of a worldview. And those philosophical conclusions don’t have the means of objectively declaring any actions to be morally wrong.
LikeLike
Yawn…. Here we go again.
It truly is so tedious that I simply cannot be bothered to respond.
Besides, a client is due shortly so I shall go grab a coffee rather than indulge any more of your nonsense at this juncture.
T’ra, Jonathan.
LikeLike
If you say so…enjoy the rest of your day!
LikeLike
Aristotle iteration is active so, no, again, there is nothing new about what Jesus is claimed to have said.
It seems to me if there is no afterlife there would be no reason for the Golden Rule. All for one and one for one. It’s one thing to occasionally do the Golden Rule, another to try and live it.
A Pig and a Chicken are walking down the road. The Chicken says: “Hey Pig, I was thinking we should open a restaurant!” Pig replies: “Hmm, maybe, what would we call it?” The Chicken responds: “How about ‘ham-n-eggs’?” The Pig thinks for a moment and says: “No thanks. I’d be committed, but you’d only be involved.”
Christianity is committed to the Golden Rule, not just when it suits our schedule.
LikeLike
@Thomas.
Based on the behaviour of most Christians I have interacted with I would suggest they aren’t genuinely committed at all.
However, there are more than a few that should be. Or at least held over for observation.
LikeLike
Point taken. Sound like you’re hanging around with the wrong Christians. Luckily enough you have Jonathan and myself as your new Christian role models. You’re welcome. ; )
LikeLike
In actual fact, most Christians fall into this bracket. It is merely the degree of hypocrisy on display that varies.
LikeLike
You’re not totally wrong. Fortunately, Christianity has a built-in acknowledgement of this and a means for dealing with it in house (not that we even always get that right…).
LikeLike
That’s kind of a blanket statement. Unless you know or have met all Christians.
I don’t normally use blanket statements. I’m old enough to know that generalizations show ignorance. There is no one on Earth who can speak with 100% accuracy on any subject, much less what resides in a person’s soul. I found out long ago that when I do generalize a group or subject I ultimately end up being proved wrong.
This would be like saying all atheists are brain dead. We both know that’s not the case.
LikeLike
The history of Christianity is evidence enough.
You have no evidence of ‘souls’.
LikeLike
You say there are no souls but I’m guessing Herk Harvey would not agree. In 1962 Harvey directed a movie that was way ahead of it’s time. Filmed on a shoestring budget, it has become a cult classic over the years, a movie that many modern horror directors say influenced them into making cinematography their life’s calling.
That film, of course, was Carnival of Souls. Without souls that movie would not have been possible. So there.
I’m no scientist, philosopher or theologian so it would be fruitless for me to try and sway your opinion on the evidence of souls. But from reading your posts I’m pretty sure if I was any of the above and a Noble prize winner in my field I still wouldn’t have any chance of persuading you so I guess it’s probably for the best.
LikeLike
“… evidence of souls.”
Now there is a contradiction of terms.
LikeLike
Suspend your judgements until you’ve seen it. Lol.
LikeLike
Oh, I’m sure the film was fun.
But evidence of souls? No.
Although there is evidence of ars’oles.
LikeLike
Heh. I see what you did there.
LikeLike
Just curious - what are your thoughts on Pascal’s Wager?
LikeLike
I have no thoughts on Pascal’s Wager.
LikeLike
No thoughts as in you haven’t heard of it, or no thoughts as in you disregard it?
LikeLike