Respect Deserved

I feel, as many others undoubtedly do, that music featured in video games, be it incidental or primary, goes largely unappreciated.

This is not to say that no one enjoys video game music. I certainly do. Some gamers out there would consider themselves video game music enthusiasts. This is instead to say that to the average gamer, the function of music in a video game is purely background noise; the average gamer may be familiar with a few famous themes, most likely able to hum a few lines of it on command, but wouldn't recognize the name of the person that composed it; the average gamer would find it silly for someone to be playing video game music on the piano as serious, standalone pieces.

Think about this. Suppose you were sitting and watching a piano recital. Suppose that, in this recital, talented musicians played beautiful works of classical music, as far back as Bach and as recent as Copland. Suppose that someone then played the theme from Final Fantasy VII by Nobuo Uematsu. Usually, there would be several reactions in the room.

• The gamers would immediately recognize the theme. Many of them would probably find it a bit out of place. "It's video game music."
• Other gamers would recognize it, probably think it felt out of place, but enjoy the experience and appreciate it as serious art. Perhaps they would marvel at the beautiful arrangement.
  
• The non gamers wouldn't recognize the theme. After further inspection, perhaps reading the program notes, they would think to themselves, "Seriously? Video game music?"
• Other non gamers wouldn't recognize the theme, but would appreciate the music as serious art.
  

Many of you reading this will probably recognize this as true. If someone were to get up in a piano recital and play the Super Mario Overworld Theme, it would probably generate laughs, grins, and glances from person to person in the audience. But why? Why do we not get the same reaction when one plays the antiquated and overworked Fur Elise? This piece, arguably Beethoven's most popular work, has been given a death sentence, not only because anyone who's ever played the piano knows how to play some variation of it, but because it's status has been reduced to being a standard annoying cell phone ring tone. It's not viewed as high art by most of the mainstream public anymore, but yet, the reaction is different. And in addition, both of these pieces were written with the intention of being important works of art.

Many non gamers still have the impression that game music hasn't advanced farther than this. That familiar, eight bit theme that repeats over and over. Even if they are aware that the technology has greatly improved for musical creation, they still are not aware of how much the talent and musical prowess has improved, that now, sweeping orchestral fanfares accompany the action on screen that could be easily mistaken as music one might hear in a symphony hall. Why is this the impression that I have experienced?

My guess is that video games still are not considered as a genuine art form by many. This is the opinion of such critics as Roger Ebert, who said the following:

"[I] consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."

"I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

To further illustrate the point that undoubtedly many people have, ask any parent what their kids are doing at any given time. It's essentially guaranteed that they will have a different facial structure and emotional reaction when saying, "They're reading," or "They're watching a movie," then when they say "They're playing video games." Reading is a healthy activity that infuses knowledge. Watching a movie is great because they do it too. Video games, on the other hand, are something that people do when they're bored and have nothing better to do...I wish they would go play outside or something.

These people, including Roger Ebert, are typically ignorant of the very basic ideas of how video games work. For example, Ebert stated that player choice somehow discounts authorial control. Ebert, then, has never experienced games like Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy, or virtually any game with anything resembling an in depth story line. In the example of these two games, the players will find themselves watching cinematic sequences and reading or listening to dialogue just as often as they find themselves actually controlling the character, and the "choices" they make do not ultimately change the outcome of the game to an extent that it removes the rest of the storyline, as he seems to imply. Being entertained by a story is the very nature of role-playing games, and that is what Hideo Kojima prides himself in creating his stealth action saga.

I am not a gamer that believes that my time spent gaming is a "loss of precious hours." What I do and play is valuable to me. Playing video games as a child has shaped my imagination and, of all things, my musical ability. My first inclination to be a composer game from listening to the soundtracks of video games and imagining being the one who wrote the soundtrack to the next Zelda game.

The music in movies is today considered to be valuable music. At the most important award shows celebrating films, such as the Academy Awards or the Golden Globes, awards are given out in recognition of outstanding musical scores. The average Oscar watcher, in fact, may even have an opinion on some of the movies present. "Oh, Atonement had really good music, I hope that one wins." Most movie viewers will notice how integral the score of a film is to it's plot development and emotional impact; suspenseful and horror films are an excellent example of this. Symphony orchestras around the world commonly play music from films, even put on entire concert series's based around them.

Why then are video games put in a different category altogether? Why are there no major award shows on networks like NBC or Fox that celebrate video games, despite the video game industry bringing in just as much revenue as the movie industry? Compared to it's counterpart, it's rather rare to find game music played by symphony orchestras, and when it is, it's primarily in Japan; an exception is the Video Games Live tour. I think it all comes back to the question of worth and artistic value. Most people, especially non-gamers, don't view games as truly important, but rather a hobby that's mostly part of childhood, and even that is wrong: the average American gamer is thirty-three years old.

Of course, times will change. In fact, times are already changing. Video games are on the road to eventually being accepted as important works of art rather than simply things people do when they're bored. For example, the Eminence Symphony Orchestra was created for the purpose of playing video game music last year. And with that new respect, just as in the movie industry, will come a wide respect for video game music. No longer will the idea that video game music is merely drone and mechanical noises be so inexplicably widespread. Composers like Martin O'Donnell will be given honors just like Hans Zimmer. People will go to concerts by the ESO even if they aren't gamers. Video game soundtracks will be available on iTunes far more readily than they are now. But until that day comes, video game music will continue to go on largely unappreciated, a comedy of sorts, the lowest of art.

"For over ten years or so game music has developed into a very large market. However in countries outside of Japan I think game music is still a potential growth market that has not yet developed to the extent that we are seeing in Japan." - Nobuo Uematsu
Patrick Dunnevant

Xbox Live and Christianity

I had a rather disheartening conversation while playing a game on Xbox Live, and I feel like sharing it with you.

I was playing a game called Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which I consider to be the most well crafted first person shooter video game of all time. It takes the Call of Duty series, games known for being shooting games set in the time period of World War II, into a modern conflict with terrorists and Russians. But I suppose this isn't the point. I was playing online with about twelve other people, most of them guys but a few girls too, from all over the country. One of them, who's gamer tag was something along the lines of "Man Down [with a number after it]" started to talk a great deal of trash, saying really disrespectful things and slurs all over the place. And, as is typical with guys like this, he sounded like his voice had only recently begun to change.

At one point, he randomly made a "your mom" joke, and so at this point, I felt it necessary to jump in.

P-Dunn: "Dude, are you like five years old or something?"
Man Down: "I'm actually fourteen. What, how old are you?"
P-Dunn: "I'm nineteen."

He apparently didn't hear my response, so he continued.

Man Down: "What, you don't want to answer? It's okay. I won't rape you."
P-Dunn: "Did you not hear me? I said I was nineteen."
Man Down: "No, I didn't. Oh."

That was the extent of the conversation for a while. We didn't speak again until the end of the game. But that wasn't enough for him.

The game ended with my team winning. During the thirty-second pause that occurs in between games, he apparently went and read my profile, and proceeded to read it to everyone else in the party.

Man Down: "'Christianity and Music essentially describe me. I'm a music major and an atheist debater.' Wow, I guess that makes you the biggest douche bag ever, then."

This caught the attention of the other guys in the room, who grumbled things like, "That's not nice," or "Dude, shut up." To no avail:

Man Down: "So you're nothing without your religion and music, then?"
P-Dunn: "Probably not."
Man Down: "So I guess that means you probably hate gay people, and black people, and Jews, right?"
P-Dunn: "No, of course not. Why would you say that?"
Man Down: "Well, because Christians usually do."

Every time I hear something like this, I cringe, both inside and out. It saddens me so much.

Why is it that Christianity is continually given negative labels? Why is Christianity known more for what it disapproves of then what it affirms? Why isn't Christianity known for followers that love their neighbors as they love themselves, help the poor, or give to charity more than others? Why instead is Christianity known for followers who are racist, anti-Semetic homophobes?

I think that Christians need to realize that this is exactly some members of the outside world views us, and we need to keep that in mind in the way we act. When we do things like crusade against marriage amendments, we are labeled as homophobic prudes rather than people who care about affirming traditional marriage. And then, in more extreme examples, when people let their children die instead of giving them proper medical care, the religion is labeled as a bunch of anti-scientific nuts. Is it fair? Of course it isn't. But it's something we have to live with. It's something we must work to counteract.

"The greatest thing a man can do for his Heavenly Father is to be kind to some of His other children." - Henry Drummond
Patrick Dunnevant

Community Hymn Sing Experience

This past Sunday, I had the opportunity to once again sing in the Schermerhorn Symphony Center in Nashville, TN with the Belmont University Chamber Singers. This time, however, we were not accompanied by the rest of Belmont's musical ensembles, and we were not broadcasted on TV. This time, we performed with the Nashville Symphony, and such acts as Amy Grant, Melinda Doolittle (not unlike last time), Travis Cottrell, Bill Gaither, and the Out for Souls gospel choir. Our role was to sing one of our pieces, "Now is the Cool of the Day," and lead the audience in singing "Fairest Lord Jesus," a cappella.

This should be a fairly short entry, because I merely want to describe what the experience of singing on stage in such an environment was like.

We went on stage a few numbers after the intermission. The entire place was packed (we did two sold-out concerts) and we stood on the very edge of the stage, so the closest audience members were mere feet from me. We didn't have enough from for Dr. E to stand in front of us; he merely conducted from the side. When it was time to sing Fairest Lord Jesus, we opened up our music and sang through the verse the first time on merely a "nu" sound (not "Ni," as he frequently reminded us). It was interesting to see the audience's reaction to hearing that melody. They all immediately knew what it was that we were singing.

When we came in again, and Dr. E cued the audience to join us in singing, it was absolutely magical. The entire place began to sing in sync, and from where we were standing, the sound was resonating at us from literally all directions. There was something incredible about singing such a beautiful hymn in the presence of God with nearly two thousand other people, a cappella, in such a beautiful building that has such magnificent acoustics and reverberation space. I really can't describe it, and I feel like other members of the choir felt the same way, just by looking at their faces.

It was a really cool experience, and I just wanted to share it with you.

A Defense of Marriage

Contrary to what you first thought upon reading the title, this is NOT an article about homosexuality. If you want one of those, scroll down a bit. This article is about something completely different, something that is more relevant to me for several reasons. The first reason is because I’m a straight man; the second, because I’m a straight man who is looking to get married one day; and the third, because I’m very interested in sex, but not until that day.

Those who know me know that I frequently engage atheists in debate. It has become a passion of mine to debate nonbelievers on the existence of God, the viability of morality in atheism, the resurrection of Jesus, and the reliability of the Gospels. But just the other day, I engaged in a debate about a topic that I never thought I would ever debate: promiscuity vs. monogamous sex. My opponent was advocating a “transparent and responsible” form of promiscuous sex, and I was defending saving sex for marriage. Needless to say, it was stimulating enough (pardon the pun) to inspire me to write an article about my thoughts on the subject.

I entered into a Facebook topic called “Can Christians have fun too?” and the author was asking what people would miss out on because of being a Christian. Someone said “premarital sex,” and I posted the following in response:

“Well, that's certainly no biggie. Yes, baby, I want you to give yourself fully to me, but I don't want to make a real, lasting commitment to you. I just want to get naked and bang you. That's so romantic, isn't it?”

My opponent was an atheist from Atlanta who calls himself Snotti Prince St. Cyr. He has messaged me before about my debates with other atheists that he observed. Of course, the discussion did not get very far, since he repeatedly would assert that my articles on Brain Is Ignorant had many problems, but refused to name a single one and demonstrate why, in fact, it was a problem. Either way, he discovered my post and saw fit to make a response to it. This led to a considerable discussion.

First, I shall lay out my terms. Some of these are hotly debated topics, especially amongst Christian circles, and so I must be clear about this.

1. There are two different types of sex: sexual intercourse and non-penetrative sex, which is also called “outercourse.”
2. Sexual intercourse is what most people speak of, and I will be speaking of in this article, when they talk about “having sex,” meaning penetration of the vagina with a penis. This also includes anal sex, and debatably includes oral sex. The reason some include oral sex as part of intercourse is that you can receive and transmit STI’s through oral sex fairly easily.
3. Outercourse is any sexual activity that does not involve genital-to-genital penetration, but typically involves genital stimulation.
4. My opinion on the issue is that someone who engages in the first type of sex, known as “sexual intercourse,” which includes vaginal penetration, anal sex, and oral sex, is no longer a “virgin”^[1] in the emotional sense. Others may disagree with this stance, and that’s perfectly fine with me, because in this case, it's not clearly defined. For further information on what it means to be a virgin, see the footnote.
   

Now that all of the terms have been laid out, let's get into more specifics.

This is a debate about promiscuity vs. sex in marriage. First off, promiscuity is a type of sexual lifestyle that involves having sex with many partners, usually without any long term commitment. It is in fact the type of sexual activity that the majority of Americans seem to practice. According to a 2004 study, the median number for sexual partners that a male has in his lifetime is eight, whereas the median for a woman is three. Only twelve percent of men restrict themselves to one partner, whereas only twenty-five percent of women do. Snotti Prince St. Cyr said that he advocated a "transparent and responsible" form of promiscuity. I inquired as to what this was, to which he stated:

I would deem a "transparent and responsible" form of promiscuity as a variation of promiscuity in which people openly express their understandings of sex and their agendas, in hopes of establishing a sense of comfort and trustworthiness within their partners.

People seem to think that the denotation of "promiscuity" rules out the "responsible" constituent, but this isn't necessarily true. Conversely, any connotation(s) of "promiscuity" that are engendered doesn't/don't necessarily have to rule out responsibility.

He stated this last part in response to me saying that in my opinion, the very meaning of the word "promiscuity" connotes a total lack of responsibility. It seems like he agrees with me here to some extent, seeing as he didn't as much respond to me as say, "That's not necessarily true."

This, I think, fails as a valuable method of sexual activity. For one, how can one have any sort of "trustworthiness" with someone they have only known for a relatively short time? This problem is magnified greatly if sex with with someone you met in a bar or at a party that night. Trust is the product of a long series of events. It's not just something that appears immediately because you explain your motives.

My position is that promiscuity is incredibly irresponsible for the following reasons.

1. Firstly, promiscuity as it is commonly practiced doesn't do anything to stop the spread of STI's, and in fact furthers it. It seems as though Snotti was trying to advocate a more responsible form where protection was used, but even in these cases, condoms aren't universally effective at preventing STI's. I think if tomorrow, everyone stopped being promiscuous and began to save themselves for marriage (a tall order, to be sure), the percentage of STI's in the world would rapidly decrease. And why wouldn't it? If everyone only had one sex partner in their entire lives, how would they get an STI?
2. Sex as a result of promiscuity is not based on love, but more lust. Lust is much different from love in that it is a selfish emotion which seeks primarily for instant self-gratification. And lust is also a destructive emotion; if left unchecked, it can dramatically take control of someone's life. In any case, when people go to bars to get laid, are they seeking to make a lasting commitment to someone, or are they seeking a moment's pleasure? The answer is obvious. And because it is based on lust and not love, it cheapens the value of sex. Sex is the deepest form of emotional bond you can have with someone else, and it is wasted in this case on someone that you may not have known for very long.
3. Promiscuity does not prepare someone adequately for entering into a binding relationship. If one is going to eventually pursue a marriage relationship, how in the world are they going to be adequately prepared to only have sex with one person for the rest of their life if they spent their life before then having sex with lots of different people? I can't think of a valid example where splurging was great practice for conserving.
   

Why does this matter? Because sex is incredibly important. Without it, in fact, none of us would exist at all. And because it's so important, to treat it lightly is irresponsible and causes a great deal of negative consequences and emotional baggage down the road.

So why is waiting for marriage so great?

1. Religiously, it's the way God intended it to be. And thus, sex outside of a marriage relationship, is in a sense, theft. A woman who calls herself Teallaura on the TheologyWeb forum put it this way: "When we marry, our bodies are no longer our own but belong to our spouses in terms of our sexuality. By having premarital sex we've given away something that is rightfully our spouses - something we cannot regain to give to the spouse."
2. Sex is the deepest form of physical and emotional bond that you can make with a person. The Bible goes so far as to say that "the two become one flesh" in the process. Marriage is the deepest form of legal and committal bonds that you can make with a person. Since marriage is the culmination of types of commitments, does it not make sense that we should save the culmination of intimacy for the culmination of commitment?
3. Sex in a marriage relationship, ideally, is based on love. Love is something that is not selfishly based, and has the best interest of the other at heart. When you cultivate something like that in a marriage relationship, one is ideally making something with a joint effort in mind, and there is a great deal of trust and comfort in this process because the two parties have committed themselves wholly to each other.
   
4. If both partners wait to have sex until their married, then they are both experiencing something new together that is both emotionally and physically overwhelming. Though I can't be sure myself, I feel as though this would be much more rewarding and much more of a special experience than if I'd already given myself to someone else before my wedding night.
   

The only negative outcome of restricting sex to one partner in marriage that I can think of is that you could get bored with that partner and want something new and exciting. I have no experience in this, obviously, so I can't say that is right or wrong based on my knowledge. But another T-Web'er who calls themself ChosenOne66 gave this analogy out of experience. Sex in a marriage relationship is not like having one record and listening to it over and over and over until you're sick of it. Sex in a marriage relationship is like learning to play a musical instrument. The more committed you are to learning how to play (and practicing often), the more enjoyment you will get out of it.

So here I am: one of the apparent twelve percent of men who aims to only have one sex partner for my entire life.

Concerning those who disagree: I do not mean to come off as having a "holier-than-thou" approach. But if you happen to disagree with my reasoning, I'd like to understand why. It will do nothing for you to call me a prude or ridicule me, as has happened before, if you can't demonstrate it to be so.

"True love does wait. Such love will embrace you with awe and honor. No matter how far and alone you had to walk to find it." - Rahab, TheologyWeb
Patrick Dunnevant

^[1] The definition of what constitutes a virgin is very hotly debated; the traditional Catholic definition was that any intended sexual pleasure at all resulted in a loss of virginity, whereas some believe that only vaginal penetration results in a loss of virginity. There are also multiple types of virginity to discuss, which must be defined.

1. Physical virginity
1. In females, if the hymen is unbroken, they are physically still virgins. This was the method used as early as Leviticus to determine whether brides were virgins on their wedding nights. If one goes strictly by this definition, only vaginal penetration results in a loss of virginity.
2. "Emotional" virginity
1. This is the kind of virginity that most people discuss. Virginity in this case is lost by committing a certain sex act, which depending on your personal take might not involve breaking physical virginity.
   

I don't think there's a concrete line here. It's up for interpretation. What's your opinion, and why?

Christianity and Homosexuality

This essay has the capability to offend some people, but that will only happen if you do not read it with the perspective of gaining knowledge. To be honest, the people that will be offended are most likely not who you are expecting them to be, given the state of the current relationship between Christianity (usually evangelical) and Homosexuality. So to kick things off on a slightly lighter note, I'd like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. I hope everyone had a relaxing, enjoyable, and enriching holiday.

Facebook has a new feature provided by ABC News where they pose poll questions about issues in the upcoming elections. The questions range from what the focus in the War on Terror should be to whether marijuana should be legalized. Each question has a message board for people to discuss and debate the question.

The question that I recently participated in was, "What should the federal government do about same sex couples that want to be married?" As I'm writing this, the option, "It should be allowed and treated the same as a marriage between a man and a woman," is winning by a long shot at 60%. The strong opposition answer of, "It should not be allowed, and civil unions should not be granted," is at a lowly 14%. I answered with the former, with this explanation: Each religious institution or place where marriages normally occur should decide if they will marry same-sex couples or not. There should be no prohibition if they choose to or choose not to by the government.

And yet, I'm a Christian. Yes, ladies and gentleman of the world. I do not discriminate because of my faith. I'm about to get into why I do not.

I ventured into the debate forum and checked out some of the topics. I found one topic that, unsurprisingly, had turned into a Biblical debate about Homosexuality. This was unsurprising, since it was started with the title, "So I'm a christian and I believe in gay marriage." In it, I found some stances made by my fellow Christians which were sorely misinformed. So in this essay, I would like to address some of the claims of Christians regarding why homosexuals cannot be Christians, and why homosexuals cannot get married. When they do this, they do so against reason, and really in spite of their own scripture.

Just so we are clear, I'd like to put my stance out right now.

1. Any person having lustful desires for a person of their own gender is sinning. (Romans 1:26-28)
2. Any person having lustful desires for a person of another gender is also sinning. (Matthew 5:28)

Here is my main argument against laws banning gay marriage.

1. If marriage was still a purely religious idea, and we were run under a theocratic government, banning gay marriage would make complete sense.
2. However, marriage is now available outside of the church, and we have laws that prohibit one religion to be valued over another because of the Constitution.
3. Making a law based purely on religion is against the Constitution.
4. The only legitimate reason to make a law against gay marriage is religion.
5. Therefore, a law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.
   

Premise 4 needs to be defended. Some Christians give other, non-religious reasons to ban gay marriage. However, in my opinion, they all fall flat because they are sorely ineffective. Here's one of the most frequent:

"Gay marriage is wrong because they can't have children."

This, of course, assumes that the sole purpose of marriage is making children. I'm not sure any married couple will tell you that the only reason they got married was so they could have children together. Furthermore, if we were to take this idea to it's full extent, we would have to prohibit several other groups of people from getting married:

1. Senior citizens
2. People who are infertile, either from birth or from other circumstances
   
3. People who don't even want children
   

These people don't want to get married because of the possibility of having children. They want to get married because they love each other and want to make that deep commitment. That's what marriage is about.

"Gay marriage is wrong because it's not natural."

Well, that's interesting. This argument says that anything that is not natural is wrong. So let's also take this to it's full extent. Television, computers, the internet, your Xbox, and the very Bible you read each day is not "natural" either. They are all made by humans using machinery that was also made by humans. And yet, if you were to burn a leaf of cannabis and inhale the smoke that is expelled from it, it would be natural, seeing as it uses two natural forces (a plant, and fire). However, that doesn't make Xbox "bad" and smoking cannabis "good." Come to think of it, marriage itself isn't even "natural," especially the construct that we are using today. So marriage itself, according to people who make this argument, should be forbidden because it is not natural.

Well, perhaps it's "traditional," that we should be talking about. But this is much worse. Slavery was traditional for literally thousands of years. Less than a hundred years ago, women couldn't even vote, and that just was the way things were.

The Gator GSA made a list called "12 Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society." It's written with their tongues firmly sewn into their cheeks, but I think it gives a very good overview of the "naturalistic" arguments against gay marriage. You're sure to find it if you Google it.

So what is a valid argument against gay marriage? Well, in my mind, since homosexuality is a sin, and since we shouldn't be promoting sin, we should not allow gay marriage. I think using religion is a logically valid argument against gay marriage. But in a democratic society, this does not work.

Suppose an Islamic lobbyist group in Congress wanted to pass a law that required all women to cover their faces using a niqāb. This would be supported by the following verse in the Qur'an.

"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed..." (Qur'an 33:59)

Many Christians would object to this. I certainly would. I am not Muslim, and therefore, I shouldn't be required to follow the laws of Islam. And yet, some Christians want to make gay people, many of whom are not Christians, follow the laws of Christianity. This is just as invalid. Though I may not personally approve the concept of gay marriage, making a law based on a disapproval that stems from my religious beliefs is simply wrong.

This explains my choice in the poll. There should be no law provided by the United States government that says two consenting adults cannot be married. Thus, each place where marriage is provided should decide whether they want to award marriages to homosexuals. Grove Avenue Baptist Church may not allow homosexual marriage. However, Derbyshire Baptist Church, about a minute up the road, could allow homosexual marriage. It should be a private, not a public decision, but in any case, the government should not deny any church's decision to allow it.

Now, onto the second, and most likely more important part of this essay. Can people who are gay be Christians? My answer is yes.

A fellow in the Facebook group I was talking about earlier named Aaron Brown, who appears to be a high school senior, made the following claim:

If you are a Christian and you slip into sin, that doesnt unChrist-ian-ify you.

If you "are gay"-- whatever that means-- then you cant become a Christian unless you stop "being gay".

So in Aaron's mind, as well as the minds of many other Christians I know, one cannot be a Christian unless they stop being a homosexual.

However, I ask these Christians to refer to the Bible verses that I posted at the beginning of the essay. Yes, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. But Jesus also says, very plainly and uncompromisingly, that if you look at someone with lust, you are not just lusting, but you are committing adultery with that person in your heart. Adultery is a sin as well, according to the Bible. So I ask these folks to explain to me why they consider themselves to be Christians if they continue to lust after other people. Or lie. Or have hate in their hearts for others, which Jesus said was committing murder in your hearts. Or disobey their parents.

Some people may say that a homosexual lust is worse than a heterosexual lust. But doesn't the Bible also say that if you break one of the commandments, you might as well have broken all of them? That's James 2:10. In God's eyes, a sin is a sin.

Who among us as Christians immediately stopped sinning when they became a Christian? Are there any adults out there who have been Christians for a great deal of time that can name a point in their lives were all temptation to sin just stopped? No. We are all tempted to sin, and we all fall short of the glory of God each and every day, almost without fail. And yet, we are still washed from that sin. That's what Paul said, in fact. He said that homosexuals, adulterers, drunkards, and lots of other people in the Corinthian church would not enter the kingdom of God. And he says that's what they were: but they were washed, sanctified, and justified by Jesus Christ, who forgives all sin. And besides, Jesus strongly criticized people who looked at others sin and judged them, but forgot their own sin. He called them hypocrites (Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:40-42).

If anything at all, I think that Christianity needs to direct its focus somewhere else, like Darfur, or at poverty, or at war, or at racism, rather than trying to eliminate equal rights. It doesn't really further the Gospel of Christ, does it?

Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands? ~Ernest Gaines
Patrick Dunnevant

Life According to Calvin and Hobbes

I am confident in saying that nearly everyone at one time or another has had some sort of toy or stuffed animal that they treasured and played with. These toys were real to us, not just playthings, and we treated them as such. I remember that my sister and I would play with two stuffed monkeys that we won at Kings Dominion, whom we named Abu and Khe. They were not simply creations of man, they were living creatures with their own personalities. We have all felt that way about certain things, have we not?

"Calvin and Hobbes," a comic strip illustrated by Bill Watterson, conveys this part of my childhood with such intelligence and care that, to this day, his philosophical points of life simply blow me away. The strip ran for ten years, from 1985 to 1995, and was and always will be one of the most beloved and respected comic strips ever to grace the funny papers. And it's entire premise is the fact that when we are alone with the toys we cherish, they come to life and are totally real to us.

I feel like this needs to be mentioned also. Bill Watterson, a private man who essentially went into hiding after he stopped writing the strip, uniquely refused to let his ideas be merchandised, because to him it seemed to "violate the spirit of the strip, contradict its message, and take me away from the work I loved."^[1] Where you see thousands of Garfield and Peanuts products on everything from suction-cup cats to coffee mugs, the only Calvin and Hobbes merchandise you see are bootlegs, nothing official. This is highly respectable of him.

Recently, I discovered something that I've always wanted to have: a Calvin and Hobbes search engine. This tool, located here, allows you to type in any word, and it will search to find Calvin and Hobbes strips that contain that word. So in this essay, I will show you what life is like according to Calvin and Hobbes, analyzing his opinions of certain hot topics and include some of my favorite strips of all time. If you are unconvinced that this is perhaps the greatest comic strip ever written after reading this essay, then I have failed you.

If you click the image, you can see it full size. This will help you read it if you can't see it already.

Religion

Speaking of hot topics, what topic is more controversial than religion these days? So what does Calvin feel about God? Does he believe in God? Bill Watterson wasn't a member of any organized religion^[2], so what about his creation? There are actually several strips that address this issue.


This is the earliest reference to religion that I can find. The fundamental question is explicitly asked by Hobbes, and Calvin answers with a humorous, though admittedly positive answer.


This strip was used by the website "Positive Atheism" to suggest that Calvin and Hobbes is an atheistic comic strip. I feel as though this is highly invalid, however, since Calvin sincerely believes in Santa Clause, and is often terrified that he hasn't been good enough and will get a lump of coal as Christmas begins to approach.


This one's just a classic. And oh, so true. I am a firm believer that God has a sense of humor.


It's amazing how Calvin and Hobbes discuss deep issues while flying down a hill on a sled, careening towards certain injury and death. It's often that they make their most profound points either while sledding, while walking in the woods enjoying nature, or while riding in his wagon.

Lastly, I think this insight about religion and pop culture from Calvin's dad is brilliant:

Politics and the Media

Calvin seems to be a politically oriented person to some respect. He frequently approaches his dad as follows to inform him he's not doing well with his political position as "Dad":

But how does Calvin feel about the political process in general, and how the media portrays politics and the news? Calvin is a six year old, so how does all of this effect him?

Does this accurately capture our news organizations today, or what? All we here on the news today are stories that contain sound bites, scandals, sob stories, antics, and emotional confrontation. It's rare to hear anything positive these days, because happy stories don't sell: it's the tragedy and the danger that everyone cares about.

Several strips comment on the graphic violence often portrayed in the media, and how it may affect our young children.


And of course, Calvin doesn't believe he's watching enough of it.


And, of course, here's an interesting take on a very important societal issue: self-image, and how the mass media distorts it.


Education

One of the things Calvin detests is going to school. Who doesn't at his age? It's his least favorite part of the day, easily. And yet, often times school will lead to thrilling adventures...or at least important points about our education system.


This is our education system in a nutshell. In all honesty, I can't remember much of what I learned in high school, at least academically concerned. None of that is relevant to what I want to do as a career. I have a basic understanding of a lot of things, but most of it I've forgotten. I took three years of Spanish, and all I can remember is how to say what I'm currently wearing and how to make small talk. This won't help me.



This is Calvin's work ethic in a nutshell. He doesn't want to work to achieve anything, but he wants everything. There are several other strips devoted to this concept.


Amen, brother. Amen.

Philosophies of Life

Calvin and Hobbes are both named for philosophers (John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes, respectively) and so it seems fitting that they often make important philosophical points on how life works, and how it affects them. Many times, Calvin asks the question of, "What's the purpose in life?" or, "Why am I here?" And it is often answered in various ways, some profound, and some humorous.





Who can forget this classic:

But I think the most profound statement about life Calvin ever makes comes from one of Watterson's real life experiences.

Here's what Bill Watterson said about this strip in his 10th Anniversary book:

"Drawing is a way for me to muse about the nature of things, and I sketched a dead bird I found with reflections similar to Calvin's. Not many Sunday strips begin with a first panel like this, and I wondered if readers would find it offensive. In fact, I received several moving letters from people who had found the strip meaningful. Sharing with people, I'm always impressed by how they share back."

Comic strips, I've found, are so much more than just entertainment. If it's a good strip written by a master like Watterson, they minister to us. They teach us valuable lessons about life in ways that we wouldn't expect. Calvin and Hobbes does these over and over again. It is truly a gem amongst the ordinary that we observe in the newspapers today.

With that, I will leave you with some other great strips that I found, but don't necessarily go in these categories.

Perhaps my favorite strip of all time:

This is just so genius. I laughed out loud when I found this strip again.



These strips are both testament to how well Calvin and Hobbes is actually drawn. This strip is a full blown work of art. Watterson certainly considered comics to be a valid art form.

I hope you enjoyed these strips, and I hope it inspires you to take a closer look at a comic strip that I simply adore above all others.

Patrick Dunnevant

^[1] From interview, located here.
^[2] From interview, located here.

The Incompatibility of Bible Contradictions and Fiction

Here's something rare on this blog. I don't believe I have written a religious piece for this blog ever. But this literally just occurred to me, and I feel as though I have to write it down before I forget it.

Atheists, or critics of the Bible and primarily the Gospel accounts, really love to make the following claims, usually simultaneously:

• The Gospels contain contradictions, and
  
• The Gospels are fictitious.

In this essay, I aim to demonstrate that both of these cannot simultaneously be true, for they are in contradiction to the other. Let's address the first.

• The Gospels contain contradictions.
  

This statement is used to discredit the Gospels quite often. According to critics, if the Bible contains contradictions, it is obviously not God's word, and if it isn't God's word, then it's just like every other holy book which is not God's word. Of course, this logic is absurd, because even if the Bible isn't God's word, that doesn't eliminate the Bible from being true. I am not here to make a judgment in this essay about what I believe about divine inspiration, and if you really want to know what I feel about it, you can check my other blog. Let's continue. Despite this, this argument is used because it shows apparently they can't even get basic details right. Some of the contradictions used by critics are the number of angels at the tomb, differences between the genealogies of Jesus, when Jesus killed off the fig tree, who bought the Potter's Field, etc.

• The Gospels are fictitious.

This is used by skeptics even more. The Gospels were invented, and they are not true. If this argument is correct, then by definition, Jesus did not actually rise from the dead, and lo, Christianity is false. This is often the trump card used by atheists, and it's more of a "hurl the elephant" than a real argument. It is easily asserted, but not easily proven, and thus, it constitutes what I call a sound bite argument.

Here's where the two ideas contradict. If the Gospels were written as fiction, then they must have been written in cooperation. For how else could all four of the Gospels contain the same events and statements of Jesus if they were invented independently? It would be mindbogglingly improbable for two people who were inventing a guy named Jesus up to both decide that he fed five thousand people with a few loaves and fish without talking to one another about it...Much less four different independent people. The feeding of the five thousand is the only miracle, other than the resurrection, that is recorded in all four Gospels.

Someone who's keen might have already figured out the contradiction.

If they were written in cooperation, how is it possible that they have contradictions in them? If they were written together, the authors would have had to have been incredibly stupid in order to contradict each other. To illustrate this, I have designed a satirical screenplay.

Midday, A.D. 70. Four bearded Caucasian men are sitting around a wooden table in a small house. The tables are dusty and creaking as they write on long scrolls of parchment. Some various chit chat is going on between them. Matthew taps his glass with his utencil and a high pitched "ding" sounds.

MATTHEW: So Peter is the one that's going to deny Jesus, okay?

MARK: I guess so. I like Peter, but he is a pretty weak individual, so it makes sense.

LUKE: Then it's settled. And hey, let's set a timetable on it so we can make it seem like it's even more embarrassing for Peter.

MATTHEW: Good call. How about before the cock crows?

Luke and John nod and murmur sounds that indicate agreement. They begin to scribble.

MARK: Well, how many times should the cock crow? You know, I think we should make it two times.

The three others stop writing for a moment and look at Mark questioningly. A few seconds of silence.

JOHN: All right, Mark. You write that the cock has to crow twice. The rest of us will just say the cock has to crow.

MATTHEW: Sounds good.

More silence and scribbling.

MARK: Oh...Hmm. Maybe I should say that the cock crows after Peter denies him once, and then later as well.

JOHN: Well, that presents a problem. I just said that the crows after he denies him three times.

MATTHEW: Oh well. Nobody cares anyway. Mark, just write whatever you want.

Mark shrugs.

MATTHEW: Anyway...So guys, let's start on the resurrection.

LUKE (excitedly): Oh boy, my favorite part!

Murmurs of ascent.

MATTHEW: So I was thinking that we should say that he rose on the third day. I figure that gives us enough time to convince people that he actually died.

MARK (nodding): Yeah, good idea. (Beat) Well wait, is it three days and three nights, or just three days?

MATTHEW: I think it should be three days and nights.

MARK: Well, I disagree. It should just be three days.

LUKE: Guys, it's okay. No need to get heated about such a trivial thing. Just write whatever you want. It doesn't matter.

JOHN: Yeah, nobody will care.

Of course, it's satirical. But I feel like it illustrates a few points.

1. Either the contradictions were intentionally written, or they were written by mistake.
2. Contradictions being intentionally written doesn't make any sense at all. There is no reason that makes any sense for the Gospel authors purposefully writing different things.
   
3. Contradictions being written by mistake also doesn't make any sense at all. This would either show incredible carelessness, unreasonable carelessness in fact.
   

So let's make sense of this. How can this issue be resolved? By merely positing that the Gospels are independent. Each author wrote from a base of experience, and wrote his own personal take on the issue based on how he would have remembered it, or how the eyewitnesses he interviewed remembered it.

But then, that rules out them being written as fiction.

"But wait, P-Dunn! You're forgetting the theory of Markan priority! Mark wrote it initially, and the other Gospels used Mark as a source!" No, this doesn't solve the problem one bit. The issue is still exactly the same, just minus one author. In fact, this makes the situation even worse. The other authors must have written in collaboration, deliberately not writing the same thing or doing it carelessly, and they were doing it based on something that was already written as a guideline! That makes it all the more unbelievable. In addition, some would have decided to write other miracles that aren't featured in Mark, while others would have chosen to ignore those ideas.

"But Mark wrote his as fiction!" Well, that must be argued, not merely asserted. Mark is not an example of mythology or a literary genre that could be considered straight up fiction. Mark is an example of a Greco-Roman bioi. It's a biography, and it contains historical claims that have been confirmed. There is no reason for us to assume that it is fiction.

Let's put all of this in argument form.

1. The Gospels contain contradictions.
2. The Gospels are fictitious.
1. If the Gospels are fictitious, then they were either written separately or together.
2. If they were written separately, there is no explanation for the similarities between the stories.
3. If the Gospels are fictitious, they must have been written together.
1. If the Gospels were written fictitiously in collaboration, the contradictions we find between the stories are either as a result of deliberate insertion or error.
2. Deliberate insertion defies any logical sense for obvious reasons.
   
3. Error defies any logical sense, since they were written together, eliminating the possibility of error.
4. Therefore, the Gospels are not fictitious.
1. The Gospels are based on actual experiences.
2. The Gospels were written independently.
3. The Gospels each have different takes on certain issues, leading to perceived contradictions.
   

Note: If you want answers to any of the alleged contradictions that I happened to feature in this essay, you should visit Tekton Apologetics Ministries, which has answers to all of them.

So skeptics, if you want to argue with me about the Gospels, do not assert that the Gospels are fiction while spontaneously asserting that the Gospels contain contradictions. You are speaking nonsense.

Speaking of Tekton...

"You might be a fundamentalist atheist if when a Christian's interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a "plain" reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation." - J.P. Holding
Patrick Dunnevant