Bad Arguments Often Used Regarding Moral Issues

These are just some things I've encountered in the past few months I felt like commenting on. I might update or expand on this as time progresses.

Argument #1: Who cares if a person does x if they don't hurt anybody?

The idea here seems to be that, if no physical pain is involved, then there is really nothing bad happening. For example, who cares about same sex marriage if the two individuals in a same sex relationship aren't "hurting anyone"?

Of course, speaking generally, this argument fails because most people might recognize that there are certain immoral acts which do not cause any pain or "hurt" on an individual. A kleptomaniac, for example, doesn't "hurt" anybody, but his stealing of items that aren't his is still a crime and an immoral act. A vandal who does graffiti on the side of a highway bridge doesn't "hurt" anybody, and yet it is still considered wrong.

If we were to likewise apply this across the board, I think we would find that those who make this argument are not consistent. Let's return to our earlier example of same sex marriage. Would those who use this argument to support that likewise use it to support incestuous relationships? After all, if a brother and sister are in love, can't they be accepted by society, since they aren't "hurting anybody"? If a 50-year old man meets with a 15-year old boy and they engage in physical relations that are completely consensual, why should the 50-year old man be arrested and charged with a crime? He isn't "hurting anybody." There are even some today who will argue that in such situations (ie., a 50-year old man engaging in a consensual relationship with a 15-year old boy) there is absolutely nothing wrong as no one is being hurt and it's entirely consensual. Why is such argumentation invalid in this case but not in select others?

The fact is, physical (or even mental) pain does not need to be inflicted for something to be labeled "wrong." Anyone can recognize that some things which are immoral likewise do not inflict physical harm against a person. Furthermore, refusing to apply this reasoning to a similar situation for superficial reasons is simply special pleading.

Argument #2: You shouldn't be concerned with x because it doesn't directly affect you.

This very notion, that something has to directly affect the person before they can declare it good or bad, is simply fallacious. There were many Americans who wanted to get involved in World War II despite the fact that the war, in and of itself, was not directly affecting America the way it was other nations. There were many white Americans not directly affected by the Jim Crow laws, and yet they spoke out against them. There are many in the west today who see atrocities committed in African or Asian countries and yet speak out, despite the fact they are not directly affected by it. A person might hear about the husband of a woman they know who is cheating on her, and - despite the fact they may be able to keep a safe distance from the drama - may choose to call out adultery for the evil that it is.

A person does not have to be directly affected by an issue in order to say it is wrong or immoral. A moral question is not dependent upon the relative distance (literal or metaphorical) to the person pondering the moral question, nor on how the individual issue affects the person making the argument.

In fact, there is much inconsistency in this position, in the sense that the person making it is oftentimes defending an act or world view which likewise doesn't affect them. Hence we are led to conclude that it is all right to pontificate on a subject so long as it is in the positive, but it is not all right if it is in the negative. This presents us a case of special pleading.

Argument #3: You shouldn't be so concerned with x. You should be worried about something like y.

This is the red herring fallacy, where the person attempts to shift the topic to another that might be somewhat but not entirely related. Even if someone might argue that y is indeed worse than x, a dilemma is still present: that y is worse than x does not negate the qualities of x, and hence both are still bad. For example, arguing "rape is not as bad as genocide" does not negate that rape is still bad, and hence bringing genocide into the equation contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Argument #4: Who cares as long as the person is happy?

The idea here is that, if the individual person has reached a subjective level of happiness, what they have done can be perceived to be right and proper, even if just for them..

Of course, a person doesn't have to be a master rhetorician to see just how bad this kind of argumentation is. There are those who get happy causing physical pain. There are those who get happy over seeing someone else suffer. There are those who get happy committing crime. There are some who make horrible life decisions with the excuse that they "just want to do what makes them happy." There are some who suffer from what is known as body identity disorder, where they cannot truly feel happy unless an arm or leg which they believe does not belong is amputated.

Just because an individual thing or action makes a person feel happy does not mean it is automatically right. Happiness should not be made equatable with morally correct.

Argument #5: This person can do whatever they want!

This is the classic "It's a free country!" argument. The reader has probably heard various modes of it. "It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it." "It's my life, I can do anything I want with it." Etc.

Here's the fallacy with this position: that a person has a certain ability to do something does not automatically mean they are above criticism in regards to that action. Let me put it this way: I am perfectly free to go out, get a loan I can't possibly afford for a super expensive car, then go out and purposefully, just for the kicks, total that car in a wreck. I'm perfectly free to do that of my own will...however, someone has just as much right to tell me to my face, "Dude, that had to be the dumbest thing you could have done." Someone else might say to that person, "Leave him alone! He's free to do as he pleases!", but that doesn't deny what the first person said. It neither contradicts the argument that what I did was dumb, nor does it even directly address it.

Responding to an argument with what amounts to "I'll do what I want!" is a response that is common among ten-year olds, but shouldn't be common among adults.

Argument #6: These people didn't ask to be born under this moral code.

Is that so? Did you also know that no one ever asked to be born under any moral code or system of law? I didn't ask to be born under the Constitution - should I consider the Constitution to be irrelevant to what my rights should be? When I moved to Virginia, no one asked me, as I crossed the border, "Are you OK with Virginia's laws? Oh, you aren't? OK, they don't apply to you, then." When a murderer is sent to court, he doesn't get off free simply by telling the judge, "Hey wait, I never got asked to be placed under these rules regarding murder!"

Keep in mind that I am not arguing that a law or moral code is right simply because it exists or it has jurisdiction; I am arguing that it is fallacious to say someone should be free from their obligation or applicability to a law or moral code simply because they've "never been asked."

Your Media Rep

All credits to the original artist.

Joseph, the Shadow of Christ

As with my last post, the following is also from Jonathan Edwards's A History of the Work of Redemption.

The next thing I would observe, is God’s remarkably preserving the family of which Christ was to proceed from perishing by famine, by the instrumentality of Joseph. When there was a seven-years famine approaching, God was pleased, by a wonderful providence, to send Joseph into Egypt, there to provide for Jacob and his family, and to keep the holy seed alive, which otherwise would have perished. Joseph was sent into Egypt for that end, as he observes, Gen. l. 20. “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to save much people alive.” How often had this holy root, that had in it the future branch of righteousness, the glorious Redeemer, been in danger of being destroyed! But God wonderfully preserved it.

This salvation of the house of Israel, by the hand of Joseph, was upon some accounts very much a resemblance of the salvation of Christ. The children of Israel were saved by Joseph their kinsman and brother, from perishing by famine; as he that saves the souls of the spiritual Israel from spiritual famine is their near kinsman, and one that is not ashamed to call them brethren. Joseph was a brother they had hated, sold, and as it were killed; for they had designed to kill him. So Christ is one that we naturally hate, and by our wicked lives, have sold for the vain things of the world, and by our sins have slain. Joseph was first in a state of humiliation; he was a servant, as Christ appeared in the form of a servant; and then was cast into a dungeon, as Christ descended into the grave. When he rose out of the dungeon, he was in a state of great exaltation, at the king’s right hand as his deputy, to reign over all his kingdom, to provide food, to preserve life; and being in this state of exaltation, he dispenses food to his brethren, and so gives them life. So Christ was exalted at God’s right hand to be a Prince and Saviour to his brethren, received gifts for men, even for the rebellious, them that had hated and sold him. [source]

Jonathan Edwards and the Flood

The following is from Jonathan Edwards's A History of the Work of Redemption, and deals with the flood and Noah's ark.

By means of this flood, all the enemies of God’s church, against whom that little handful had no strength, were swept off at once. God took their part, appeared for them against their enemies, and drowned those of whom they had been afraid, in the flood of water, as he drowned the enemies of Israel that pursued them in the Red sea.

Indeed God could have taken other methods to deliver his church: he could have converted all the world instead of drowning it; and so he could have taken another method than drowning the Egyptians in the Red sea. But that is no argument, that the method he did take, was not a method to show his redeeming mercy to them.

By the deluge the enemies of God’s people were dispossessed of the earth, and the whole earth was given to Noah and his family to possess it in quiet; as God made room for the Israelites in Canaan, by casting out their enemies from before them. And God thus taking the possession of the enemies of the church, and giving it all to his church, was agreeable to that promise of the covenant of grace: Ps. xxxvii. 9-11. “For evil-doers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”

Another thing belonging to the same work, was God’s wonderfully preserving that family of which the Redeemer was to proceed, when all the rest of the world was drowned. God’s drowning the world, and saving Noah and his family, were both reducible to this great work. The saving of Noah and his family belonged to it two ways, viz. as from that family the Redeemer was to proceed, and it was the mystical body of Christ that was there saved. The manner of saving those persons, when all the world besides was so overthrown, was very wonderful. It was a wonderful type of the redemption of Christ, of that redemption that is sealed by the baptism of water, and is so spoken of in the New Testament, as 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. “Which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” That water which washed away the filth of the world, that cleared the world of wicked men, was a type of the blood of Christ, that takes away the sin of the world. That water which delivered Noah and his sons from their enemies, is a type of the blood that delivers God’s church from their sins, their worst enemies. That water which was so plentiful and abundant, that it filled the world, and reached above the tops of the highest mountains, was a type of that blood, which is sufficient for the whole world; sufficient to bury the highest mountains of sin. The ark, that was the refuge and hiding-place of the church in this time of storm and flood, was a type of Christ, the true hiding-place of the church from the storms and floods of God’s wrath. [source]

The Materialistic Limitations of God

Recently I've rediscovered my love for the writings of H.P. Lovecraft, and have - thanks to Kindle versions available online for free - been reading and rereading his entire works of fiction. Lovecraft is famous for his creation of the mollusk-headed god Cthulhu, and there are many who, while not knowing the name of Lovecraft, do know the name of Cthulhu. Lovecraft is considered today one of the greatest writers of the horror genre, and one of the first to really evolve the "cosmic horror" niche. Modern writers like Stephen King and others cite him as inspiration.

He was also, among these things, an atheist. On this subject, I came across this article quoting chunks from a written correspondence between H.P. Lovecraft and three acquaintances. In particular among Lovecraft's acquaintances was a friend named Maurice W. Moe, with whom Lovecraft often sparred in regards to religion. An interesting section to me was near the beginning, in which Lovecraft writes:

The latter conception, of a God who is confined in action to our visible universe, leaves us to speculate as to what God or forces may preside over the rest of creation—or if we adhere to the commandment of Scripture, and believe only in one God, we must assume that the rest of space is godless; that no personal loving father-deity is there to bless his sons and subjects. But then, if this be so, why did the personal all-wise parent select this one particular little universe wherein to exercise his beneficence? I fear that all theism consists mostly of reasoning in circles, and guessing or inventing what we do not know.

If God is omnipotent, then why did he pick out this one little period and world for his experiment with mankind? Or if he is local, then why did he select this locality, when he had an infinity of universes and an infinity of eras to choose from? And why should the fundamental tenets of theology hold him to be all-pervasive? These are monstrous uncomfortable questions for a pious man to answer, and yet the orthodox clergy continue to assert a complete understanding of all these things, brushing inquiry aside either by sophistry and mysticism, or by evasion and sanctified horror.

It seems that Lovecraft's contention is this: does the limitation of God's personal work present a limitation on God Himself? In other words, why would God create such a spectacular universe if He only intended to interact with a small part of it? What was the thinking process in such an endeavor? Why, in the great expansive universe, is religion in general so geocentric?

Those most familiar with Lovecraft's work would know that this thought process is present in his stories. Characters often interact with creatures, spirits, or gods that cross time and space. For example, in a 1919 short story entitled Beyond the Wall of Sleep, the narrator, working at an insane asylum, discovers that a patient there has become a "prison" for a star-like entity that belongs, as it itself explains, to a race of "roamers of vast spaces and travellers in many ages," adding: "Next year I may be dwelling in the dark Egypt which you call ancient, or in the cruel empire of Tsan-Chan which is to come three thousand years hence" (source). The entity likewise states: "We shall meet again—perhaps in the shining mists of Orion’s Sword, perhaps on a bleak plateau in prehistoric Asia. Perhaps in unremembered dreams tonight; perhaps in some other form an aeon hence, when the solar system shall have been swept away" (ibid). In Lovecraft's universe, the idea of a "godless" galaxy was not an issue, as every corner of time and space had some form of deity or spiritual force. It was interesting, therefore, to read this line of thinking from Mr. Lovecraft outside of his fictional works, and I thought it was worth giving a response, just for the sake of discussion.

Firstly, we read the objection "we...believe only in one God, we must assume that the rest of space is godless; that no personal loving father-deity is there to bless his sons and subjects." This objection tells us that if there is one God, who focuses on earth, then "the rest of space is godless," as there is "no personal loving father-deity...there to bless his sons and subjects," as God has, for whatever reason, limited Himself to earth. However, this presupposes that by God's giving direct revelation to one part of His creation, God limits Himself to that part of His creation. We are to believe that if God gives particular attention to one planet, then all the rest are forsaken.

However, there is a fallacy behind the very idea that giving special attention to one part of our focus while giving general attention to the rest means those under the general attention are completely forsaken. Let me present a scenario: a mother has two children, one with Down Syndrome, the other mentally healthy. She is going to be giving special attention to the child with Down Syndrome, but the general motherly attention owed to the child without Down Syndrome. In this case, it would be erroneous and cruel to suppose that, because she gives special attention to the child with Down Syndrome and general attention to the other, she must either hate or completely ignore the other child. In like manner, that God gives special attention towards the Earth and its inhabitants does not mean God has completely forsaken the rest of the universe.

Such thinking as proposed in this first argument also ignores a few important elements from the Christian perspective:

1) All the universe exists by the supreme will of God. The universe cannot be "godless" if we know that it is sourced to God itself (Gen 1:14-19; Psa 8:3, 33:6, 136:5-9; Isa 42:5; John 1:3; Heb 1:10, 11:3; Rev 4:11) and performs its daily actions by the will of God (Job 9:7; Psa 147:4). Obviously we are not proposing that God has marionette strings and is guiding the planets along - there are rational and scientific explanations for the method by which the planets revolve and stars do what they do. Science does not contradict the sovereignty of God over creation; it merely reveals the natural means by which He performs it. Neither is this a case of "the god of the gaps" as so many wrongfully call it, for we are not saying that God is a God of Planets, nor (as we outlined before) that the planets revolve because God is actively doing so in the same manner I would push a stalled car down the road. Rather, we are arguing that the source of a planet's existence - as well as the source of all physics and science behind its planetary motion - is sourced to God. I know that lightning does not strike the earth because God is up in the clouds chucking lightning bolts at people - all the same, I know that lightning does not strike, be it through natural means, except by God's will.

2) All the universe is a sign of God's existence. Of this scripture speaks plainly: the heavens are said to "declare the glory of God" (Psa 19:1); the prophet Isaiah asks, "Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these?" (Isa 40:26); the apostle Paul writes that God's "eternal power" and "divine nature" are perceived "in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:20), and I have no doubt the blessed apostle would include the stars and planets within this passage. Contrary to the idea that the universe sans Earth is considered godless, scripture sees the universe as a sign that the universe is anything but godless, and in fact is a sign of a Divine Creator.

When one thinks about it, the very notion that the rest of space is "godless" seems to imply God can create a universe too big for even Him, which is similar to the conundrum as to whether or not God can create a rock so big even He can't lift it up. God is not limited to planets, nor to moments in space itself. The fallacy here may be in equating, as I outlined earlier, God giving one kind of attention to a part of His creation does not mean He has forsaken the rest of His creation. This just simply isn't true - God is not limited by the scope of His own creation.

In fact, the prophet Jonah had an even more close-minded view of God's scope than earth versus the universe, as he believed God's control only extended so far as the holy land of Israel. Hence the reluctant prophet, not desiring to preach to Nineveh (Jon 1:1-2), left Israel to escape the call (Jon 1:3). His hypothesis proved utterly false, as God came to his boat and caused the storm that would unfold the rest of the story. In Jonah's mind, the fact that God, at that time, was giving special attention to Israel, that must mean that the rest of the world is godless. This wasn't true - wherever one of God's people went, He was there. In like manner, if mankind were to ever reach a state of scientific development that he would be able to reach out and colonize on other planets - perhaps even the most distant galaxies - I have no doubt that God would be able to have the gospel spread among the stars, and to save men even on the utmost limits of creation itself.

Secondly, we have the question: "why did the personal all-wise parent select this one particular little universe wherein to exercise his beneficence?"; as well as "why did he pick out this one little period and world for his experiment with mankind?"; and finally "why did he select this locality, when he had an infinity of universes and an infinity of eras to choose from?" Again, all fair questions to ask, but when we ask the question of why we must seek to resolve the question of motive. To ask why with no interest in resolving motive is about as sensible as asking why a man bought a 2012 Kia Rio5 with all the possible car models on the world, and then concluding from this question that the man must not exist at all.

It might be interesting to point out, first and foremost, that our planet - at the time of this writing - is practically the only planet in the known universe which can sustain life, and this is because Earth meets all the necessary requirements for this. The rate of rotation, the distance from the sun, the atmosphere, and many other factors key into this. For certain there are planets out there which are close to being able to support life, or have the possibility of supporting life, but Earth is the only planet on which all requirements are met and which we know for a fact these requirements have given us life. In any case, God could not provide the same form of attention He gives to Earth to other planets such as Jupiter, Neptune, or Mercury for obvious reasons: there's no reason to do so. None of the stars on Orion's Belt could provide sustenance for humans, nor could any "dwarf planet" like Pluto. That God would choose Earth to create mankind and show it benevolence is hence, in many ways, a logical step, given He could not do it on any other planet.

Yet many might make the logical contention that God did not happen across the planets, but rather was the creator of them, and so we might ask: "why did God design only one planet upon which to have the climax of His creation, which is mankind?" Again, a fair question, one that might be flatly answered by stating that it was God's will. While this might sound like a cop out response when taken in isolation from the rest of this post, it is not when one considers the focus on the creation of Earth. This was where the climax of God's creation occurred, and where God focused his special revelation. This was the methodology by which God ordained that His glory would be seen, both in the past, present and the future.

Thirdly, we are asked: "why should the fundamental tenets of theology hold him to be all-pervasive?" I would argue because by necessity a god who created the universe would have to be all-pervasive. If God created all matter as we know it, and began what we know by our limited measurement as time, then God would have be outside the natural, material world. God would, by necessity, have to exist outside of time, space and matter - and yet He is likewise the creator and initiator of it all. What I mean by this is that God is the Great Initiator of all we know: it was He who began the roll of history; it was He who made the first matter; it was He who brought about all things into existence. In order for all this existence to come into being, something outside of that existence would have to...well...exist.

Let me put it this way: an automotive designer does not initially exist as part of the car he designs. Before even the idea of that car comes into being, something outside of that car has to exist. It is from the creativity and the will of that automotive designer that the car's design, purpose and existence comes into being. However, the automotive designer does not morph himself into that car, or suddenly cease to exist because that car of his now exists, nor is the designer compelled to stay inside that car and never leave it. The car may be limited by the designer, but the designer is not limited by the car. In like manner, time, matter and all existence exists because of God, according to His design and purpose, and hence He is, by necessity, outside of such limitations. If this is the case, then God is indeed "all-pervasive."

Double Standards and "Education"

Sometime ago I was watching an atheist's video on YouTube describing how one can come to morality sans religious beliefs. One statement made was that we could improve a person's view on the world through education. As I was pondering on this over the past few weeks, I suddenly came to a realization: there is a double standard for many when it comes to acts of evil and what they call "education."

Whenever some evil is committed in the name of a religion, it is almost always attributed to religion as a vague idea in the most prime example of a broad brush sense (which I've shown before as completely fallacious). However, if people are doing wrong in secular circles, we are told that they just need a better education. I do not consider either viewpoint to be entirely wrong, but I believe that the application of both is inconsistent. Permit me to explain.

Let us take a horrible situation, such as a group of people physically attacking a homosexual. Obviously, this is wrong - even Christians believe so. If you know a homosexual, you witness to them - you don't kill or harm them. Let us say these people even do it because they "think homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God." Most people would write this off as simply being another example of how religion is evil and move on. However, here is where the "apply more education" argument can likewise be made, for those individuals are acting contrary to what their religion teaches, not in accordance to it (again, refer to my previously linked post). They could be taught the biblical way to approach homosexuality in general and homosexuals in general. Placed in a proper church, they could receive discipleship in this regard. If they refuse this discipleship and education - or continue to act contrary to it - then the fault is on them as individuals, and it is they alone who are in the wrong, not the group to which they claim to belong.

Some might move that this distortion of religious belief is still sourced to religious belief in general, and hence religious beliefs in toto should be banned. However, such a position is not consistent when held up with more secular or scientific understandings. For example, the distortions of evolution have led to evils such as social Darwinism, while concepts such as genetics or the "human gene pool" has led to programs such as eugenics, and greater evils such as the Holocaust. It is certain that those who staunchly support evolution as a theory or genetics as a science would ever agree that, since some have distorted evolution or genetics for evil, we should throw both out the window, let alone that we should throw science in toto out the window; yet many of these same people will, people some have done evil in the name of a religious faith, we should throw religion in toto out the window.

Education is, of course, a wonderful and important part of our society. There is a great danger, however, in either setting it to too low a standard or raising it to too high a pedestal. We should not belittle the idea that being more educated in anything is counterproductive, just as we cannot think that "throwing education at the problem" will automatically solve a social dilemma. Some of the cruelest men in history were also the most educated, and often used their education either to perform great evil or to come to evil ideologies. Evil can be used from either a religious or secular foundation because evil is, first and foremost, an equal opportunity employer.

Theology Fanboys: A Rant

If there is one thing that is a major stumbling block for me, it's fanboys. Ugh...fanboys. Just writing that word leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Some of my readers may not be familiar with the term "fanboy." One of the definitions offered by the Urban Dictionary reads:

An extreme fan or follower of a particular medium or concept, whether it be sports, television, film directors, video games (the most common usage), etc.

Known for a complete lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus. Usually argue with circular logic that they refuse to acknowledge. Arguments or debates with such are usually futile. Every flaw is spun into semi-virtues and everything else, blown to comedic, complimentary proportions. [source]

The most common usage for the word "fanboy" generally revolves around science fiction universes, superheroes, anime, and video games.

For example: Star Wars. Some people just like Star Wars because it's entertaining; others like it because it's a fascinating universe from which to draw inspiration. Both of these are perfectly legitimate reasons to enjoy it. Yet there are those out there who will defend any criticism of the saga to the death. If you say something objective like, "You know, I didn't like Episode II all that much - the acting and pacing was just poorly done," they will react violently and defend against every small point you make. What's more, they'll attempt to turn it against you as if your dislike of something is a personal fault. Even if you say something reasonably harmless like "I don't hate it, I just dislike x, y and z," they'll react as if you just said "I really despise that movie and hope everyone involved in it and their immediate family dies." They might not even respond to your argument at all - they might throw a cliche, tired argument out that avoids everything and simply say something shallow like, "You just don't get the art!" Most of the time it's not even worth speaking to these people, because even if you clearly demonstrate your point to be valid or their arguments to be fallacious, they will nonetheless continue on with their shallow reasoning, much like the emperor adorned with his "new clothes" continuing the parade.

As suggested before, fanboys can be in many circles, not just science fiction or comic books. As one ventures into the realm of theology, they may find that, indeed, there are fanboys there as well. I might divide these into two groups:

Firstly, there are the cultic fanboys. These are the ones who basically equate disagreement with a minister or a ministry with disagreement with God Himself. This is pretty self-explanatory, I think.

Secondly, there are the passive-aggressive fanboys, who from now on shall be referred to as PAFs. Why do I call them passive-aggressive fanboys? These are the typical fanboys in denial. That is, they will often open up their responses with, "I don't think this ministry/this minister is infallible, but..." and proceed to treat the person as infallible. PAFs may deny that they are upholding a person or ministry as equal with the word of God so as to avoid falling into the trap of cultic fanboys, and yet their attitude and inability to accept any legitimate criticism says otherwise. A PAF may even argue "I'm not necessarily supporting this individual, but..." and proceed to not only support the person or ministry, but to support them to the death. Just like the PAFs mentioned before, such PAFs will refuse to listen to reason or give direct responses to your arguments, and holding discussions with them will end up simply debating in circles.

Let's now examine how an agreement avoiding fanboyism could play out between two brothers in Christ:

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "Ah, I can understand that. I personally think he did an OK job, but then again I'm a sucker for that kind of thing."

See, wasn't that pleasant? Now let's see it through the lens of a cultic fanboy:

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "You're such a Pharisee. Don't you know how many people God saved with that book? You need to rethink your position, or you will face severe judgment for your attitude."

Wow, that went downhill quickly. Now let's look at it through the lens of a PAF.

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "What do you mean you couldn't get into the analogies?"
Christian B: "I dunno, just not my thing is all. The delivery was like a kid's book to me."
Christian A: "Christ used analogies. Are you saying his work was bad?"
Christian B: "No, not at all, I just mean the way Bunyan used them, I couldn't get into it."
Christian A: "Could you get into the parables? What's wrong with you."
Christian B: "Nothing's wrong with me! I'm just saying Pilgrim's Progress wasn't my cup of tea is all."
Christian A: "Bunyan is a well respected author. Who are you?"

All right, that's starting to get painful. I think I've clarified my position, any way. Now, least I cause anyone to stumble by confusing fanboyism with simple defense of a topic, let's review this situation again, but through the lens of someone attempting to defend John Bunyan but not in a fanboy-like way.

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "Really? I think they're pretty well done. I like them."
Christian B: "It just reads like a kid's book to me, I suppose."
Christian A: "Well, keep in mind Bunyan was trying to convey something child-like, so that even the layman could understand what he was trying to convey. However, if you don't care for that kind of use of analogy, I might suggest Bunyan's more straight theological work. They're work reading, and might be more up your alley."

See? Christian A defended Bunyan, but didn't treat Christian B's opinion like it was the result of some great personal fault. Now, just for good measure, let's see an example where accusing the other person of being a fanboy is actually itself wrong.

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "Yeah I did. It was the dumbest, stupidest, stinkiest thing I've ever read."
Christian A: "Uh...well I mean, Bunyan's not perfect, but I didn't think it was that bad..."
Christian B: "Quit being such a Bunyan fanboy!"

In this example we see where accusing someone of fanboyism is actually incorrect. Having an appreciation for something - even to a high degree - does not by itself make you fanboy. The reader might refer back to my original example with Star Wars: some like it, maybe even love it, for specific reasons that are perfectly legitimate, but do not sink to the level of fanboyism. Merely liking something does not equate to being a fanboy of it.

At this point I think I'm starting to have too much fun with the topic. End of rant.

Joyce Meyer: Jesus Suffered in Hell

In the often painful pseudo-social world known as Facebook, it makes me wince to see Christians - mostly women - quoting Joyce Meyer. The universe of "Christian personalities" is not unlike the various personalities in the world itself, and every "niche" has to be filled, I suppose. Meyer obviously tries to fill in the specific "niche" for women, and because she's a female pastor (which already violates 1 Timothy 2:12) that targets women, women naturally flock to her.

This is a dangerous and misguided act, and for two simple reasons:

1) She's a member of the Word of Faith heresy. To my knowledge She has yet to repent of this, and maintains fellowship with fellow arch-heretics Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, the Crouch family, T.D. Jakes, and many others over at Trinity Broadcast Network, a Christian television station in name only. Is this really the kind of spiritual food we want to be feeding ourselves? Even if Joyce Meyer says some good things, "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (1 Cor 5:6). She preaches a false gospel and shares fellowship with those who likewise preach a false gospel - Q.E.D.

2) She believes that after Jesus died he was tortured in hell. She claims this from personal revelation. Don't believe me? Here's an audio that covers this, quoting her books and playing audio tapes with her own voice.

The Joy from Sound Theology

Peanuts is copyright Charles Schulz

Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, by MacArthur

The following is from Grace to You's website, featuring a sermon by John MacArthur. It touches on many such blasphemies in this day and age, especially from Hyper-Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal circles.

The Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit