ShupFace

I love role playing games. I’ve just finished Skyrim and I’ve been reflecting on some of my favourite RPG’s.

My top five, in order of release, are:

• Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines
• Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
• Mass Effect
• Red Dead Redemption
• The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

I have feeling that Skyrim is going to get bumped out of the top five by Bioware’s new MMO, Star Wars: The Old Republic.

Other RPG’s I really enjoyed are:

• Mass Effect 2
• Knights of the Old Republic 2
• Dragon Age 1 & 2
• Deus Ex: Human Revolution
• Fallout 3 & New Vegas

Are there any RPG’s that I’ve forgotten or neglected to play? I’m always happy to hear suggestions for good games to play.

It is astonishing to me that someone can write an article attempting to say one thing, but which only served to further convince me of the opposing viewpoint. Bettina Arndt has achieved the astonishing with her damning defense of porn.

In her article Bettina initially tries to claim that porn has no effect on men:

The suggestion that porn changes men’s attitudes to sex is really questionable.

But then she has a bet both ways arguing that any effect porn does have is very small and easy for most men to account for:

Most men are sensible enough to avoid retreating into a sexual fantasy world.

But then, in her article Bettina actually manages to highlight how insidious porn can be in shaping the desires and expectations men have of sex.

One of Bettina’s main arguments in this article is that porn can serve as a solution to lack of sexual activity in a relationship and that women who don’t want to have sex with their partners should “stop banging on about it”. At one point she even describes a woman’s objection to her husband’s porn use as a “hissy fit”. This argument is contradicted by some of the real life experiences she quotes:

MY WIFE doesn’t show much enthusiasm for sex. She will passively let me do things and this annoys me as it is a real turn on to have women really enthusiastic and getting off on giving you pleasure.

Has it occurred to this man that perhaps his wife might enjoy sex more if he paid a little more attention to what brings her pleasure?

Bettina goes on to describe a couple where the woman wants to have sex with her partner, but the man isn’t interested in “girly crap” like foreplay. In other words, he isn’t interested in pleasuring his partner, only himself. So, instead of finding some middle ground he instead turned to pornography where woman are enthusiastic participants, or at least appear to be.

Pornography has clearly shaped this man’s desires and expectations about sex and in the process prevented him from engaging with the reality of sex that includes a sexual partner. Bettina may argue that the situation was complicated by his sexual anxiety and his immature sexual attitudes, but I believe porn has informed and enabled his unhealthy view of sex, contributing to the eventual failure of their relationship.

Not all men are able to treat pornography as the fiction that it is and for these men porn can be hugely destructive. Ultimately though, even if some men are able to distinguish between what they see on a screen and what they do in real life, their thought patterns are still being shaped by the porn they consume.

Bettina concludes by proposing that women change their thinking, apparently to accomodate the fiction of porn which men have substituted for the reality of sex. The title of her book says it all, ‘What Men Want’, because apparently what women want is inconsequential.

Warning: The following post contains spoilers for Deus Ex: Human Revolution

So I just finished Deus Ex and overall I would say my experience was positive. I found the gameplay a little bit repetitive and not very challenging, but the story was engaging so I didn’t mind too much. Deus Ex is an RPG set in a dystopian future where cybernetics are the next big thing, but only for those who can afford it. They have become another means of widening the rift between rich and poor. Unfortunately, at the crucial moment in the story, at the very climax, they seem to have lost the plot.

After playing through the whole game as Adam Jensen, making hundreds of choices, both moral and strategic, you are faced with one last decision. Set before you are four world defining options and you can only pick one. But the sad fact of the matter is, that no matter which option you pick the result is the same: You are rewarded for finishing the game with a monologue from Adam outlining why he made the choice that you chose for him.

That’s it.

I’m not sure I can capture in words how frustrating it was to pour hours into a story and then be robbed of the ending. The real ending is not Adam’s choice, but the ramifications of it. What difference does it make what choice you make if you can’t see the consequences of that choice? Why even make a choice?

Equally frustrating is that after playing through the whole game as Adam Jensen, after investing him with my choices, thoughts and actions, the game concluded with his explanation to me of why he made the choice that he made. Except that he didn’t make that choice, I made it for him. Why give the decision to me, but not allow me the rationale behind that decision? Adam’s monologues far overshadow any effects that my choices throughout the game may have had on the shaping of his character. Instead of the complex, multi-facted Adam I had lived through, he was reduced to one of four cookie-cutter Adam’s.

All of this was magnified by the fact that the decision was literally made with the push of a button. It required no extra effort on my part to conclude the game in each of the four different ways. I could have saved myself the trouble and read the plot synopsis. At least then I wouldn’t be left with this sense of usurped agency. Ultimately, the game might as well have ended the moment I reached the last room. I would rather have one choice, in other words: no choice, than four hollow choices.

I’ve been thinking about why we, as humans, should be obedient to God and there are many reasons. I’ve come to the conclusion that for a Christian the foundation for our obedience is the nature and character of God. But if you’re not a Christian it can seem like God just made a bunch of laws and following them means missing out on all the fun things in life.

In the bible God lays down some basic rules for living, many of which are still considered important today. The secular laws of our land prohibit some behaviors, like killing and stealing, while others are merely socially prohibited, like lying and committing adultery. Frankly, however, there are many other behaviors prohibited by God which are considered perfectly acceptable in our society.

People generally ignore what God has to say about topics which are less obviously destructive, like excessive consumption of alcohol and pre-marital sex. It is not uncommon for God to be thought of as a cosmic kill-joy, who just wants to ruin the party. But I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of God and his laws.

God created us and the universe we live in. He knows us and he knows how we work. When God handed down laws for us it was because he wanted us to know how best to love ourselves, each other and Him. It seems obvious that stealing from someone or committing violent acts against them is harmful to them. But when God tells us not to abuse drugs or alcohol he is trying to protect us from doing harm to ourselves.

Unfortunately, not all sins are as obviously harmful as theft and violence. Having pre-marital sex or getting high can feel good and when something feels good we want to keep doing it. But sin can be like junk food, it tastes good while we’re eating it, but its lasting effects are harmful to us. God has given us many gifts to enjoy in this world and he’s tried to make it clear to us how best to enjoy these gifts so that we don’t hurt ourselves and others.

Not only did God make us, but He loves us. He doesn’t just know what’s best for us, he actually wants what is best for us too. And the first step to living the good life, the one God made us for, is to live it in relationship with Him.

I was reading the bible with Cathrine tonight when we came across a difficult passage in Luke’s gospel:

Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

“Where, Lord?” they asked.

He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”

(Luke 17:20-37)

The first thing to clarify is what exactly were the disciples actually asking? Where what?

Initially, I assumed that the disciples were asking “Where will the people be taken?” If this is case, it is possible Jesus was saying that Christians will be drawn to him in the same way that vultures are drawn to a carcass. This sounds like an unlikely metaphor for Jesus to use, but it is reminiscent of other passages where Jesus talks about Christians eating his flesh. Another point to note is that the word for ‘vulture’ could also be interpreted as ‘eagle’ which does sound a bit more noble.

On the other hand, if the question is instead interpreted as meaning, “Where will these events take place?” then our interpretation of the whole text is significantly different. Our next step is to learn more about the events in question:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.“

(Luke 17:26-30)

The disciples are understandably anxious. Where will this destruction take place? But Jesus says, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather”. Sin is spiritual death and where there is sin, destruction will follow. In Noah’s day, God judged a sinful people by flooding the world with rain from heaven. In Lot’s day, God judged a sinful people by scorching the earth with fire from heaven.

In Jesus’ day he will judge a sinful people once more:

And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great.”

(Rev 19:17-18)

The theology of the Trinity has been progressively debated and clarified by generations of church scholars and theologians for centuries.

It is true that the church as a whole did not make a clear statement of faith regarding the Trinity until the First Council of Nicea, in AD 325. But one must remember that, up until the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine, the Christian church was still widely persecuted. What is truly remarkable is how similar the beliefs of individual Christian churches were despite these limitations.

Paul wrote several letters to the church in Corinth between AD 50-60, two of which made it into the Bible. This line from 2 Corinthians illustrates a primitive understanding of the Trinity:

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

(2 Corinthians 13:14)

By the early third century Tertullian (AD 216) and Hippolytus of Rome (ca. AD 220) were using the word ‘Trinity’ to describe the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In his treatise, Against Praxeas, Tertullian wrote:

And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

In his treatise, Against Noetus, Hippolytus wrote:

The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after he rose from the dead: “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt 28:19) And by this he showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through the Trinity that the Father is glorified.

In AD 325, the Christian convert Emperor Constantine convened an Ecumenical Council in Nicea in present day Turkey. Its main focus was the clarification of the Christological issues surrounding the relationship of Jesus to the Father God, achieved through the first version of the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

As you can see there was not much said about the Holy Spirit or its relationship to the Father and the Son. But this was addressed by the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381 which, in addition to a number of other changes, elaborated on the earlier mention of the Holy Spirit:

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

Some time later a more thorough explanation of Trinitarian theology was erroneously attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria, the famous defender of Nicene theology. This treatise outlined the equality of the three persons of the Trinity, but is thought to have been written nearly a hundred years after Athanasius had died.

It is quite long and repetitive so I won’t quote the whole thing here. If you are interested you can read it in its entirety on wikipedia. These lines however, illustrate a principle that is vital to the doctrine and theology of the Christian faith:

And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

…

So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.

…

And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

I firmly believe in the Holy Trinity. Specifically, I believe in three persons, but only one God, with one singular, divine nature. I believe that, while the specifics of the Trinity is not explicitly addressed in the scripture, there is enough evidence to support the Trinitarian position.

The Jewish faith, and consequently the Christian faith, is strictly monotheistic and the jealous nature of God is outlined numerous times in the Old Testament. The most famous examples of God’s jealous defense of his monotheistic position are the first and second of the ten commandments:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

“You shall have no other gods before me.

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

(Deuteronomy 5:6-10)

But in the New Testament the author John makes an astounding claim about Jesus:

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

…

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John 1:1-2, 14)

According to John, Jesus is God! And he was with God in the beginning, before all creation.

Looking back at the account of creation in Genesis we find an interesting verse to support this idea of God’s multiple personages:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

(Genesis 1:26)

God uses the words ‘us’ and ‘our’ indicating that He is not alone in creation.

Many argue that Jesus was a great teacher, perhaps even a prophet, but definitely not God. However, the gospels are clear, Jesus claimed to be God and the Jews of his day considered it blasphemy, a sin punishable by death:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple ground.

(John 8:58-59)

“I and the Father are one.”

Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

(John 10:30-33)

Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

(Matthew 26:62-66)

The third personage of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit and his appearance in the New Testament is  a continuation of his presence from the Old Testament, albeit with a new twist.

Let’s start by returning to Genesis where we find evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence during the creation account:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

(Genesis 1:1-2)

But the New Testament writings reveal something new about the Holy Spirit:

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

(Acts 5:3-4)

We are told that Peter’s rebuke of Ananias was so powerful the man died instantly. So Peter, a man obviously speaking with the power of God, here equates the Holy Spirit with God.

But even more convincingly, Jesus, a man who was in very nature God, exhorted his disciples:

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

(Matthew 28:19)

Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is a foundational principle in the Christian faith and here Jesus tells his disciples to baptise, not simply in the name of God, but in the name of the Trinity.

After all is said and done you might think the bible says very little about the Trinity, which is true. But what it does say is very important.

From the scriptures we know that there is one God. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Three personages, one God.

Today I was minding my own business, watching a video of a fox catching a mouse in snow, guided only by his sense of hearing. When I read this comment:

Think about how silly his ancestors looked the hundreds of millions times they tried this and failed, as evolution carried them on to the precise, amazing hunters they are now. A lot of bloody noses. ;)

This is not the worst misunderstanding of the theory of evolution that I have ever read, but it does include that smug little flourish that I so love to loathe.

This experience prompted me to post an update to twitter:

I can’t decide whether to be amused or annoyed when people have a dig at evolution and it’s obvious they don’t understand the theory at all.

Not long after that I watched this video showing one scholar, Dr Ben Witherington, responding to the criticism of another scholar, Dr Bart Ehrman, by highlighting a fundamental error in the method of analysis that informs his criticism. In short Dr Ben claims that Dr Bart hasn’t taken into account the different genres of the two literary texts he’s comparing.

Although it’s not directly analogous to this scenario, it occurred to me that I hate it just as much, if not more so, when atheists make stupid criticisms and accusations about the bible, theology or the Christian faith in general which demonstrates how little they understand about any of these topics. Worse, I’m not even tempted to be amused, just frustrated, by the intellectual laziness (usually from people who put a premium on their own intelligence).

You may never believe or agree with Christians, but there is an internal logic to what we believe, supported by a weight of theological, philosophical and theosophical scholarship. If you availed yourself of the literature (even a small portion) you might save a lot of time (both yours and mine).

What I think it comes down to is a desire to stump individual Christians rather than a genuine yearning for answers. In short it is intellectual one-up-manship. Not every Christian you meet is smart, quick witted and eloquent enough to answer your questions satisfactorily. But there are brilliant theologians and philosophers who have pondered the questions you are asking and they usually have something interesting to say.

I have noticed lately that my life feels quite full.

I am trying to work, study and produce art, whilst still satisfying my church, sporting and social commitments. And most importantly, I’m getting married! You might think that I’m inefficient with my time or that many people lead busier lives, both of which are true, but this is the busiest my life has been for a long time. And, frankly, it’s the best I’ve ever coped, psychologically, with having a busy life.

Having said that, I still spend a lot of time on the internet. I spend hours keeping up to date with my twitter, tumblr and facebook feeds as well as a number of blogs and webcomics, and one forum. This pattern of consumption is the relic from a period in my life when I didn’t work full time and is, frankly, unsustainable given my desired output.

I’m learning that psychologically, perhaps even more so than physiologically, the maxim is true: “You are what you eat”. And I have been gorging myself on internet junk food, while neglecting to sufficiently exercise my creative muscles.

Consequently, I’m starting to feel intellectually flabby.

A friend and fellow artist, Adrian Clement, recently wrote a post on his, now defunct, tumblr about reducing the number of his online commitments in an effort to focus his energy on a few high priority projects. I’m becoming convinced that I need to employ a similar strategy, albeit aimed at reducing my commitments to consumption rather than production.

With this in mind, I have two goals for 2011:

1. Spend less time consuming and more time producing.
2. Be more discriminating about what I consume.

Hopefully this year I will learn skills and develop habits for maximising my effectiveness and efficiency and I will finally master the art of being busy.

Nictate shared this quote approx 4 hours ago and I really like it:

“I feel it’s a good sign for me personally if I don’t have the words because that’s why I made the movie” - Miranda July

I like this quote a lot. I feel it sums up, quite succinctly, one of the advantages of making art (any kind of art). And it reminded me of something I wrote in art school:

“How can I explain my art when it’s a mass of half-formed ideas and influences and it’s intangible and inarticulate and a part of me? How can I talk about something that I otherwise express through art? How can I talk about what I don’t even really understand?”