Frankenstein? You Certainly Have No Idea

If you want something you've got to stand up for it and ask it, otherwise no matter what a decent person you are, you'll never get it.

Value v. Progress

Quite recently I wrote about how society is not getting better and just now I realized how easily that can be argued--not because it would be wrong but because of the pride society takes in itself.

There is a popular idea that is thought to be new, however it has always been the human approach to its communities: newer societies are better than the old ones (there are views, contrary to this but let us not discuss nostalgia now). It comes from the observation that new orders are set up because the old ones are mended or upgraded. But is it true?

It is, but only in the most technological sense. Society, as a means of something, as a very functional tool evolves into a better means, into something more functional. The structure enables us to do much more things and the new order, the new society can effectively react to many new issues. But it would be a folly to call the advancements good or bad.

Equality for women, the abolition of slavery and child labor, education--these are all huge steps forward but they do not necessarily fall into the category of good or bad because these things are progress and not values. Mind you that in retrospect it is always represented that old times were evil, when the oppressed suffered and died, when in fact the oppressed could sometimes be content and happy and feel satisfied--surely not because of the riches bestowed upon them but although their lives were hard it was not unavoidably a life they wished they never lived.

The difference between progress and value is not transparent because both are highly desirable. Still, they are not the same, although at times they may mix.

Progress is when something is being made. In sociological questions it may be assumed that progress is infinite, as there cannot be an ultimate society. It may be hard to accept, even so, almost impossible to accept because every step is very rewarding and needs to be served as an end in itself. So sometimes we are under the illusion that this or that change in the community will perfect the whole thing. Equality is the eventual goal and when that is achieved, we are done. However it just depicts how short-sighted we may be. Looking at history, putting ourselves in perspective, it seems like the greatest delusion to say that we would finish the work. For the people, who organized themselves into the first society, it must have seemed like agriculture is the greatest human feat, as it brings about a supply never before seen. And then the same happened with every new societal invention, its creators were so touched by their own grandeur that I imagine some of them almost cried. However, looking at those things today we just shrug and call it primitive. Even so, about agriculture we would say it is necessary for human existence but we would never take the extra step of saying agriculture is a value. Certainly it is in economic terms but it does not have a higher, abstract form. It is all about function.

In contrast with progress, value is an end. To be tender toward people, to save somebody, to sacrifice something, these can sometimes serve progress, but they are also satisfactory in themselves. And it also teaches a good lesson about the people of the past: everybody, throughout history, had the potential to live equally valuable lives or fill their lives with equal measures of value, as opposed to the social progress, which goes stage after stage.

So society does not convey an absolute value, however tempting to compliment ourselves with it. Societies can be advanced and complex and functional but goodness or badness remains in the life of the individual.

An Essay Against Calvinism

As a premise to this essay I want to note that I write all this as a Christian, I go to a Baptist church but I was also greatly informed by many of the Catholic Church’s teachings on numerous matters. In this context it is plain to see that I don’t intend to negate the validity of a Calvinist’s faith, however I truly believe that there are some completely mistaken ideas that are either introduced by Calvin himself or held sacred by contemporary Calvinist cells. Connecting to this last sentence I must add that many of my complaints and reflections come from contact with actual Calvinist theologians and from current -- sometimes underground -- publications by them.

First of all I want to present the claims and concepts of the Calvinists that I’m going to argue against. (#1)Out of many articles of teaching they are most boastful of the center of their theology, which they say is God and they contrast it with other denominations’ different focuses -- or at least as they perceive that this contrast can be legitimately made. At the core of their Scripture interpretation lie two crucial elements: (#2)the Predestination “fact” derived from Paul’s letter to the Romans; and (#3)a very broad incorporation of the Old Testament’s teachings. There’s also the doctrine of (#4)“Total Depravity”, which states that men can do only bad things -- meaning all men at all times do only bad things.  And lastly there is (#5)a contradictory stance held by Calvinists on the principle of “Sola Scriptura”.

#1: As it will be explained in the point about Predestination, Calvinists support and try to resolve the internal conflict of their theology by referring to God’s infinite greatness, his infinite power, and the infinite influence of his rulings. They use these attributes of Him to get rid of all logical counterarguments because, quite undeniably, He’s above all human intellect, so we cannot take up a fight against Him in any way, not even dialectically. This comes together with -- again from another point -- the faith that God decides about everything constantly. Predestination to them means that God actively makes unbelieving souls believe, by His own selective choosing. This is always irresistibly happening, but in fact this is the case with all things in the world: God makes everything happen.

Without spoiling my second argument too much, this, in a nutshell, is why they think the focus of their theology is God -- they refer to Him about everything. This is usually put in contrast with how other denominations treat the questions of faith and Christian conduct: all other schools of Christian faith believe there is an active human component in these matters. For example: when somebody is converted to Christian faith a generic Christian will say “He found God”, whereas a Calvinist will make the same assessment through these words “God made him believe”; another illustration is that in generic terms someone would “sin”, in Calvinist terms someone would “not be forced to do good things by God”. I hope this clarifies it: Calvinists do not in fact put God more at the core of their focus than other denominations, they only erase other words from their dictionary*. This trickles down to their theology in a peculiar way, as they find it arrogant of other Christian theology’s to involve positive action and human initiative in their tenets because those are not autonomous, instead made directly by God. Why would anyone mention something else, or explain something through other means than God’s work, when that is all there is? goes their argumentation. 

I find it to be a serious misunderstanding of the contrasted denominations to say about them that they don’t put God at the center of their theology in the same exact way as them. In fact they say the same things with regards to God: He is all-powerful, all-encompassing -- the real difference is what Calvinists think about human beings. In a way they don’t believe in humanity. Not in the way that they don’t praise humanity or believe in its power to save itself, rather they don’t believe in its existence. More on this denial later, back to the point. As I’ve said, these theologies follow the same pattern, all believe there’s no salvation through actions, only through Christ but Calvinists laugh at the idea, when other denominations teach the believers about everyday conduct or talk about the search for purity. And they can’t avoid but laugh, since for them it is futile speech, men can do nothing on their own. Men’s every minute is ruled by God, if they be pure, God made it, if they be bad, God didn’t make them be pure.

This is an important mistake because all of Jesus’ warnings against pride and evilness fade in the shimmering light of denying the need for any Christian to strive to follow the teachings of the Bible -- after all, he’ll follow if God rules it, and he necessarily won’t if God doesn’t, he has no internal agency to act or remain inactive. Probably another point will bring more light on this...

#2: In Romans 8:29-30 Paul talks about how God has known and decided about His own before time to become like His Son. I was paraphrasing because I tried to both encapsulate the part that Calvinists base their teachings on and remain true to the text, not to accidentally bend it toward anything I might unconsciously prefer to be there -- I even tried to utilize the original Greek’s meaning for the most attainable truthfulness. The other bedrock of the Predestinarian Calvinist faith is the first part of the ninth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans.

It is an extremely dubious thing what the Calvinists do: they pose an interpretation of these scriptures and claim it is explicitly the content. I say it’s dubious because somehow non-Calvinists didn’t take up this mental and it’s never really been the canon interpretation. So they rely on one very revered source of the past: Augustine. His turn from Manicheism gave the Christian tradition one of its greatest theologians and philosophers, yet he shouldn’t be named as the one Calvinists will rely on. Augustine first championed the existence of free will, then, arguing against other schools of thought, went on more and more to shrink away from it. In The City of God he introduced the concept of God’s election for His salvation. It was much more moderate than Calvin’s but about near the end of his life, Augustine got to a point, where he, in a way, denounced free will and got to the point Calvin did. The reason he’s not an ideal theologian predecessor is that he never rested at any one state of opinion on the matter of predestination but kept it changing from work to work. Its evident reason is that he was continually arguing against others and in this fashion of reactionism were his interpretations born. Today we’re not having a discussion with the Plageans, there’s no actuality of his works, they should be inspected with a much more contextual approach and more analytically, not accepted as, well, Scripture. I want to note that I don’t intend to discredit Augustine, as there’s absolutely no way for me to do that, as he’s clearly my intellectual superior and I’d be a predestined loser in a sparring match, still, it’s important to see that there’s something forced in the Calvinist approach to legitimize their claims of predestination.

The Calvinist concept of predestination is as follows: God, in his sovereignty, elects certain individuals for salvation. Others He elects not, as everybody is worthy of damnation, which even further glorifies His loving kindness and goodness, since He does elect some by His grace. 

First of all it is crucial to remember that, despite what Calvinists claim, only the Calvinist interpretation of the texts from Romans is the above one. Other denominations and schools of faith never taught that this is the meaning of Paul’s words. Mind you, despite the claim that this is explicitly what he says. This statement of mine must be amended because the Calvinist interpretation isn’t completely dissimilar to others, traditionally Christians have believed that God works in people to help them to get to faith and on their own people wouldn’t be able to find salvation. Even so, this is what the work of the Holy Spirit in us is most often credited for: He helps us to break free from our flesh and eventual death, in order to be resurrected. This I do not argue against. Yet, it’s not identical to the Calvinist version.

The reason why predestination isn’t an interpretation that Christians traditionally believed is that salvation has been connected to Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross, His resurrection, and faith in it. Even though Paul doesn’t speak of any of these things in these verses. His mention of the Pharaoh, of the Jews and Gentiles, seem to show God’s workings on Earth. Especially so, since in these cases there was no Gospel, at the time of Moses the Jews didn’t have a concept of any afterlife or salvation, yet they were elected. If this election means election for salvation, then God’s saving works used to be happening completely without the sacrificial death of His Son, which I think is blasphemy. If we make the step as to say chronology is irrelevant from the point of view of God, there still seems to be a problem with Evangelization: if people were saved unknowingly, why does the Bible put an emphasis on the spreading of the Good News? Why does it matter? The question of afterlife for people before Christ’s time is quite mysterious for us but the Calvinist answer is outright contradictory, to say the least. It seems that Paul could possibly mean something other than God would choose on His own accord to save some and damn others, and like most Christians believe, there likely is a reality on the part of human initiative with regards to faith, even if not achieved completely alone.

Now there are Calvinist responses to these:

Predetermination is argued against because it seems illogical, whereas it seems so only because humans are much lesser beings and what constitutes logic**? Human constructions, whereas God’s great works far exceed those. He wills what He wills, that is His sovereignty and we are not to understand it but to abide by it and make ourselves subjects to it.

This is problematic only because predetermination seems to reflect solely the Calvinist vision, and I suspect they refer to God’s sovereignty only in order to prove themselves, as His rulings are indeed inarguable. Traditionally this isn’t the interpretation, logically it isn’t the interpretation, there is no reason to accept it, other than Calvin and Augustine said it and that falls into the category of tradition, which proves weaker than the entire Christian tradition; whereas if someone claims to have come to the same conclusion about predetermination, they used their logic, which is again overruled by sounder logic.

God is great, in fact He is the greatest in existence. It is arrogant to assume He needs our assent, that is, our initiative, our, so called, faith, in order to save us. If He wills to save someone, He cannot be stopped with any obstacle and if He wills not to save someone, those cannot somehow get into salvation.

My answer to this is that God’s irresistible greatness is made evident in His work of Salvation through Christ. That cannot be undone by anyone or anything, it is done forever. It is superfluous to go as far as to assume He must decide for us. This is, of course, assuming that it is possible for humans to autonomously believe. I will explain this later but it is a crucial question because Calvinism tends to express its stance not dissimilar to disbelief in human existence. So the problem with the Calvinist argument is that they believe non-Calvinists think God needs us to repent, on our own, is because He couldn’t otherwise save us and that makes Him look incapable of overcoming our will. And yes, evidently He can harden and soften people, but were it the case that people could decide to believe or disbelief, He could let them. God’s all-powerful work is that we can be saved and if we believe there’s no circumstance that can take us out of salvation -- simply, Calvinists reject the notion of free will.

#3: Now it is universally true that for sound doctrine it is necessary to incorporate the entirety of the Bible, that is, including both Testaments. Why Calvinists differ from other Christians in their doing so is that they look at it normatively (not differing from all schools of faith, as fundamentalist interpretations usually follow the same pattern). This is problematic because in the New Testament it becomes quite evident that Gentiles are not required to conform to old Hebrew rules and patterns and in the light of the Gospel the Old Testament’s essence seems to be revealed to be something completely beyond normative texts: it is a narrative gradually moving toward the final revelation, which is Christ as the Son of God and as the Savior. Paul also talks about the role of the Law in the Christian life, and in addition to this, many texts of the Old Testament, especially the ones concerning normative parts, philologically seem dubious, as in attributing rules and laws to Moses whereas they were created much later. This makes it questionable in the context of usefulness as normative texts and it seems just more likely that they are included in canon for other reasons, namely for context, or helping to create the image of Christ throughout the Old Testament. Now this is not as elaborate as the previous arguments but I hope I have at least made this argument at least an inspiration for understanding the underlying problem with this trait of the Calvinist faith.

#4: Calvin introduced the concept of Total Depravity in Institutes. It’s based on several verses from the Bible and he concludes that all men at all times are doing evil things and they cannot help but do that.

I will present three counterarguments to this, the first one I consider a weaker one, the second one I consider a more powerful one, and the third as an auxiliary one.

Firstly, through empirical inspection it is quite visible it’s untrue. Not only in the sense that not all people are doing the most vial crimes imaginable at all times but also seen in how sometimes people perform completely innocent acts. There’s familial love and care, which isn’t universal but at least general and usually observable. To this can come a counterargument of selfishness. People can perform seemingly innocent acts but be, in their spirits, totally depraved while doing so. Selfishness is widely accepted as a manifestation of sinful nature and when a mother takes care of her child, she wants gratification, she wants some subtle pleasure in return. This is understandable and eerily similar to Kant’s moral criteria of the categorical imperative. Still, many idealists, who aren’t Christians, show self-sacrifice for the sake of a good cause, without any hope or desire to be remembered or praised for their achievement. It is a rare, noble behavior, but nonetheless observable. Of course, what is empirical evidence, when a man can be deceived, or can misunderstand what’s before his eyes? This is why it’s a weak argument, when dealing with higher things than base natural science.

Secondly, Calvin seems utterly and irreverently selective with regards to his choosing of Bible verses. From the time of Noah, when everybody was evil, yet a man truly just before God existed, through the Psalms, which describe evil and good people, to Paul, who was quoting the Psalmist, everywhere in the Bible there is a dichotomy of Good and Evil persons. It’s very important when dealing with this matter. Even outside of the community of generally accepted believers there seems to be, at least portrayed, gracious characters in the Bible and contrary to a selection of decontextualized verses, the Bible never categorically claims that people would be inherently incapable of doing anything but evil. In fact, it would be futile to call anybody to do good or resist evil, were it impossible for them. While sinfulness in nature is apparent, its totality is Calvin’s invention. Other schools of faith teach the doctrine of deprivation in the way that all men are sinful and cannot achieve salvation, therefore are in need of God’s mercy, realized in Christ and His work of salvation.

The reason I find need for an auxiliary argument is that with total deprivation comes the incredible doctrine of human-denial. The ultimate response to any criticism about total deprivation is that men can do only wrong and God can make them do good, when He decides so. He does that for the sake of His own children’s benefit. This means that humans are bound to take the course of evil, unless by God they are bound to do good. The horror in it is that for anything to be alive it must have agency, it must be autonomous but if we are truly not doing things on our own accord, as we cannot possibly alter our will to decide between good or bad, we are not in fact real agents, we are not in fact alive (in terms of soul or spirit). Also, this claim is self contradictory, as if men were incapable of doing anything good, the evil they do would not be their own responsibility. For, are we responsible for things we don’t decide to do? Are we responsible for things we are forced to do? This can’t be a true state, as God is just and righteous, He isn’t condemning people if they are not responsible but they are. In Romans 9 we see a seemingly similar line of argument, only that applies to the election and that has already been discussed above.

#5: The principle of “Sola Scriptura” is that faith is based solely on the Scripture. Yet, this is, illustrated by my previous arguments, far from realized in the Calvinist system. They have their own inventions, their own interpretations and they cling to it and often choose to change the scripture to fit to their doctrines. There are visibly higher authorities than the Scripture among Calvinists and not only Jean Calvin himself -- but he certainly is --, but Councils and texts declaring doctrines. Of course, many denominations utilize extra-biblical sources to base their rituals and modes of teaching on, what separates the Calvinists is the hypocritical nature of it. While a church may have an influential tradition, it is possible to remain true to the Scripture, theologians only have to know which is which; in contrast with the Calvinist way, where tradition and authority is said to be the Scripture or its only right interpretation.

In conclusion to this essay I’d like to add a few notes. Most importantly the reason behind writing this is twofold: on the one side I find a few great errors in Calvinism, especially the kind I encounter through certain theologians and their influence, and I am worried it would spread (evidently more and more people are impressed by it); and on the other side I haven’t seen any denomination in my life be as actively critical and hostile toward other churches as the Calvinists, and it’s important to see that the ones who call the Catholics non-Christians and non-Calvinists as lessers, do in fact comprise the greatest sect in Christianity. These last few words might seem very harsh and I only half-mean them but in light of the above arguments I find myself strongly leaning away from them. Ultimately, I mean no harm, I intend not to hurt any Calvinist’s feelings, I’d be thrilled to continue it as a conversation on faith, and, most importantly, I don’t think Calvinists can’t be saved by God because of their mistakes.

Before commenting consider the following: this is not a scholarly work; I have written it truly as a Christian, don’t try to mix into this essay any other religion or atheism.

NOTES:

*In James there is a lot said about acts and while they’re still no way of salvation, he points out they are necessarily part of a living faith. It is for this reason that non-Calvinists typically mention good acts and even include it in their teachings, since, according to James, a good conduct is inevitably paired with faith. (I wonder if Calvinists are ever puzzled by James’ words.)

**Logic is often associated with humans, as inherently flawed, just like them, whereas in reality logic is the formalization of the paths to right conclusions. In this way it’s easy to see logic can’t be blamed, as it, by nature, cannot err. Where there’s failure in the conclusions, there’s a lack of sound logic. It’s a little bit beside the point, that’s why it’s a note, nevertheless, I thought it important to remind us all that logic is never the culprit, it’s not human-like in any way, it is a precise way of formulation, much like language is a way of expression, yet we -- while language is often unable to fully express something -- don’t make it the Big Bad and reason of false ideas.

***”schools of faith” is a phrase here, referring exclusively to Christian theological teachings and nothing of other religions, nor pseudo-Christian ones

Optimism, Pessimism, Perspective and the Question of Society and Art

Recently I experienced an emotional antinomy in regards of how current technology and social media affect art.

My first observation was that it multiplies the art outlets and creates a vast stock of memorabilia about artists for the ages to come. How nice would it be to read Fitzgerald’s tumblr posts.

The second observation was that the increased outlets and the conservation of everything brings about a horrific picture about our age. As cheap horror flicks went down the sewers a hundred years ago and then disintegrated from human remembering, we cannot anticipate today’s trash to just disappear because it will haunt the internet forever.

But just today I woke up with a realization that alleviated my passionate opinions. I remembered that people read and watch and touch what they choose to. The internet does not change the people fundamentally, it is exactly the other way around. However the current society wishes to shape the world of art, it is not a danger on the bigger arc of things. The case has never been changed, not even slightly, dumb people have always been into dumb things and smart people have always been into smart things. Any alternation that has ever happened happened in the individual’s life. We, as persons, and not as society, move forward. It is because of each individual’s limited time on earth: we start from nil and run as fast as we can to get the farthest possible but it does not affect society, as it survives the individual. Unless people can somehow learn to give birth to children with a refined sense of society in their heads, society will not become smarter or dumber, just a mass of us.

That’s an ediety knot. You might run into that sooner or later. Somewhere.

#thisisasneakpeek

Work today

And it's been another day! (I took this phrase from POPS, which is an incredible YouTube series... just sayin') So yeah, I've been revising, grammatically, my book-to-be, which is funny cuz' this normally happens after getting a publisher. Yeah, I suck. But I'm past the half-line and the hardest part is behind me. I know I'm not a big name and not the best guy to pick to be an author of children's stories but I still live in my kid-self's magical dreamworld, so I couldn't get myself do anything else. 'Kay, maybe I lied because I enjoy practically everything and maybe next year I'm gonna start my studies as a mechanical engineer (farthest thing from any literature). BUT enough talk, cuz' it's getting out of control and it's nothing but self-obsessed, self-endearing blogging :P LOL I'm a little harsh but I consider it as a healthy sense of criticism over myself ;)

THEND (The + End = ThEnd)

Zelda and F Scott Fitzgerald

[X]

Spring-sickness and Nostalgia

It’s May 2015. When have the days passed me by? Last time I looked out the window it was two years ago and it was a today. Wasn’t 2013 the future just enough?

I have a friend, who likes to refer to the 1920′s, as a good age and I guess I feel it, too, but it’s always just an intellectual longing to something currently romanticized. At the same time there exists a predominant nostalgia in me, which is personal. I have lost a very good time, when I was healthier than now, fresher, more beautiful.

My spring is always about losing time. I have a favorite interval in my past, which I’d love to bring back--not because I wasted it away but because I couldn’t hold on to it. Spring is also like that: it’s romantic, it’s crisp and it gives me a warm feeling about life but at the same time, I can’t hold on to it.

I’m not talking about fear of change. The idea is changing for worse. Not the possibility but the actual thing. Summer’s a nice season but it is not as appealing to me as spring. It has to do with my taste, so it doesn’t necessarily apply to you but what does is that everything around you is constantly disappearing. And it’s an irrecoverable state.

Packing

Fate now come, Dis App was ready in his dispositions and intentions. But a journey, he understood, depends on many things.

Sustenance and garments. Some money for emergencies and some for leisure.

And even the common, directionless man will tell you that when fate calls you cannot rely on the promise of happy returns. But Dis App, being strong and resolute, did not also anticipate failure.

Should he never return, there would still be a future for him. In sweet Far Away.

What should he bring into his life, finally starting? Probably not cheap furniture or utensils. But not even things so far his greatest treasures. Fate can’t offer less than the gray past. In fact it can only bring him to possess more.

But, Dis App thought, maybe a watch beside the essentials. Yes, it was a birthday present. And it is perhaps of no brand and the gilding is fake but the leather smells genuine. It is the most elegant thing of the so far. 

And maybe he doesn’t have to absolutely kill himself.