#a dialogue with- and grappling of- the mere concept of finality and endings

[ooooo-mcyt]

Scott Smajor (cc) is such a good story teller actually and the common themes he uses in his storylines captivate me. I think we should talk about how good he is at Themes more often. If I wasn't so tired I'd write essays.

[davidmann95]

How'd you like the new Death Metal special (and, more broadly, this week's comics)?

pretenderoftheeast said: Comics this week (12/9/2020)?

Batman: Black and White #1: The first of a platter of anthologies today:

* The Tynion/Moore story is predictably fire.

* JHIII is JHIII. Also he does a really nice surprising story about how Batman’s relating to this moment of the time, but let’s be real, you’re here because JHIII, and be assured he is JHIII as helllll here and it’s great.

* Dini/Kubert plays as the former building a story around accommodating requests by the latter, but that’s not a bad thing, and glad to see Kubert’s kept up the pace since his DK3/Up In The Sky creative rejuvenation.

* Ok I’m a philistine who has no idea what that Emma Rios thing was about but it was certainly pretty.

* Wilson doing Batman is surprisingly disappointing, but Smallwood doing Batman definitely isn’t.

DC’s Very Merry Multiverse: Not a very merry time! I hate to say it given this should be so geared to my interests, but this is the weakest overall effort we’ve gotten from one of DC’s quarterly anthologies in a good long while, at least among those I’ve picked up. Not to say it’s a dud, there are several nifty little stories in here including the much-hyped first appearance of Kid Quick (destined to become the Flash of Future State) and really almost everything here reaches ‘pretty okay’. But for $10, and a creative space that should reach so much more than ‘pretty okay’, I don’t know that this is a justifiable recommendation unless you’re understandably desperate for all the President Superman content you can get your hands on.

Tales of the Dark Multiverse: Flashpoint: I’m surprised I got it too, but the preview grabbed me and in practice it was a fun, mean little high-concept adventure of Reverse Flash being a total cock.

Wonder Woman #768: Credit where it is due, this has been getting a bit better in its closing stretch.

Dark Nights: Death Metal: The Last Stories of the DC Universe: This ruled. Obviously there was the one story folks are most interested in, but almost all of the tales in here lived up to being a ‘final’ story of sorts for their leads.

* The Titans bookenders were pretty nice even if it’s hilarious that their big rallying cry basically amounts to “by god, our book may be shit, but we’re valuable IP so we’ll never be cancelled!”

* Green Lantern is basically an epilogue to Johns’ run sans the baggage of bringing back Johns (that we get in two weeks with Secret Origin and god forgive me I’m so looking forward to that), and definitely one of my favorite efforts from Lemire.

* Wonder Woman’s the stinker in what’s nominally her own event. I can parse the roots of most bad Superman stories one way or another, but I just can’t understand what’s behind most bad Wonder Woman stories beyond that the people handling it simply don’t give a shit.

* Astonishingly, the Green Arrow and Black Canary chapter in here might be my favorite of the bunch? Simone at her best, a really sweet slice of playful, sincere romance about two characters I’m not by default invested in but ended up quite caring for here.

* This Aquaman story is everything I generally hate in Aquaman stuff, a big long maudlin speech about the weight of the world as he swims through a black featureless ocean, except here between the real heart Sebela brings to the script and the mood artist Christopher Mooneyham manages to evoke, it all clicks together.

* The Batman Family story feels like it can’t quite make its pacing work, but it’s still a heartfelt little ode to the theoretical power of the concept.

* Hey, that Mark Waid guy? Turns out he can write him some Superman. It’s not perhaps the total barnburner you might have expected - I imagine he’s saving his biggest hits for later - but it’s a very solid execution of a gangbusters concept, and Manapul steals the show with absolutely sensational, gorgeous scenic Superman imagery. I’mma say 60/40 in favor of them doing a Superman project together on either a main book or Black Label (I know Manapul was supposed to be locked into a creator-owned thing with Scott Snyder but that was ages ago), because this is a paring that’s yielded some immediate results and I imagine everyone knows it. And given my upbringing, nice to see a big, iconic, beautiful Superman story with him rocking the mullet.

Anonymous said: Haha holy shit Crossover is literally Cates taking that page where Spawn meets all the corporate heroes locked up and spinning it out into a series

Anonymous said: Does Crossover #2 hold the crown for the funniest, dumbest, most baffling opening page ever?

Crossover #2: Readers I’m not too big to admit I laughed my ass off at the first page, and at least a little bit for the actual reasons intended. The sense of homaging that Spawn scene in the context of a book about “Gosh, isn’t IP the best folks?”, or Cates’ dialogue...(shall we say) proving why he likes the concept of ellipses enough to name a character after them aside though? That it’s already crossed the line with its central metaphor from “indefensibly insensitive in its ridiculous self-centeredness” to “out-and-out cartoonishly offensive” somehow actually makes it more rather than less palatable; there’s no longer the secondhand embarrassment of waiting to see how bad Cates is going to handle this, it simply is the worst it could possibly be and readers have to accept and perhaps revel in the sight of him stepping on rake after rake. I cannot wait for him to finally give an interview on this book where he explains what the hell he thinks this looks like, and I hope my dad keeps somehow enjoying it forever because I totally wanna see what pit this descends to next.

Penultiman #3: This is absolutely agonizing and probably the most relatable take on a ‘superman’ ever.

Home Sick Pilots #1: A new creator-owned book from Dan Watters (whose big two credits include the stupendous “Afraid of America” with John Paul Leon in the last Batman Secret Files, and the upcoming Future State: Superman/Wonder Woman) and Peter Cannon’s Caspar Wijngaard, this new book set against the backdrop of a Californian high school’s punk scene in 1994 describes itself as “Power Rangers meets The Shining (yes, really)”. The former influence isn’t much in play yet, but thus far this is a book that merges building tension and freewheeling dopey teen bullshit to an extent that’s subtly impressive as hell, and seems likely to proudly take a place among the current horror comic renaissance.

Warhammer 40,000: Marneus Calgar #3: Ok again I don’t have any experience with this franchise but you’d better believe that cultural osmosis was enough that I popped for BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

King in Black: Namor #1: Kurt Busiek’s return to Marvel...sucks? Such is the power of Knull I guess even if he doesn’t manifest within the actual story here, this is a complete nothing of a comic and I’m not tuning in for issue #2.

Avengers #39: Eh, I’m not liking Aaron Avengers when it gets remotely serious nearly as much as when he’s doing stuff like having them finally help Blade with all those vampires or Captain America assisting with the delivery of an exploding space-baby in the back of a muscle car.

Anonymous said: That new Guardians of the Galaxy was something else. What do you think the odds are that Comic Books, with a decade or two of hindsight, recognizes Ewing as one of the best to ever do it?

Guardians of the Galaxy #9: I lack much context here beyond recalling from an interview that this is Ewing’s way of grappling with the ideas from Steve Englehart’s original unrealized vision of Star-Lord’s character arc, but wherever it stems from this is a hell of a comic.

S.W.O.R.D. #1: This is everything I’ve wanted from the non-Hickman X-books since the moment HoXPoX ended, and so much more, and also it is basically hilarious that Ewing is all but explicitly using his clout to force Marvel to let him to Ultimates3 under a currently cancellation-proof banner. Most importantly of all, Ewing has already mastered the subtle art of writing not merely Magneto, but the infinitely superior Jonathan Hickman Magneto. And good lord Schiti and Gracia, I already knew they were top-tier but these pages’d make a grown man cry.

[rutilation]

Well Cairn, going off established precedent, you have to start by slowly accruing some highly symbolic gemstone prosthetics.  Just pretend that this is part seven of jojo and start competing with Phos to see who can obtain the most religiously significant body parts.  Whoever has the most by the time the seventh meteor hits wins!

So about this chapter…

The part of this chapter that really merits discussion is one I kind of have trouble parsing—so much so I ended up rewriting this essay a couple times. Neither Cairngorm nor Aechmea are very forthright characters, which means you have to chase after subtext in order to guess at what’s really being communicated, and this chapter seems to really lean into that approach to dialogue.  Which is to say, I’m kind of unsure of my interpretation of this chapter.  But if I just throw in the towel now out of fear of misinterpreting my favorite problematic rock, then Ichikawa wins, and I can’t let her and her vaguely menacing self-portrait get the better of me.

At the start of the second half of the chapter, Cairn seems quite content, but the longer the (rather one-sided) conversation goes on, the more distressed they become.  While it’s not made explicit what’s upsetting them, my take is that Aechmea’s attitude in this scene makes it harder for Cairngorm to manage their cognitive dissonance toward him.  I’ve mentioned several times before that a number of things Cairngorm says and does indicate that they realize that Aechmea is shady and perhaps not operating in their best interest, but they don’t want to admit that to themselves.  As long as Aechmea remains ambiguous, they can pretend that everything’s fine.  I think that Cairn’s steadily increasing dismay over the course of the chapter is because pretty much everything Aechmea says here threatens to clarify those ambiguities, and said ambiguities resolve themselves in a way that Cairn isn’t terribly pleased with.  Let’s take it from the top.

First, let’s address the initial stretch of the conversation.  Aechmea implies that he doesn’t actually see any value in the gender roles he’s been encouraging Cairn to adopt, seeing them instead as simplistic tools to keep the other Lunarians occupied—mere bread and circuses.  But while Cairn may not understand the implications of said gender roles, the fact that they made Cairn feel special and loved was enough to make them invested in the whole concept.  So, for Aechmea to imply that it was all an act designed to provide fleeting, cheap entertainment for the other Lunarians probably feels like a slap in the face to Cairn.

In the same breath, he gently tells Cairn that he plans on isolating them in a compound on the most remote of the six moons, and that that’s his idea of granting Cairn freedom. This makes it completely clear that what Cairn said to him in chapter 71 went in one ear and out the other: Cairn wants to finally have agency and can’t abide doing nothing while everyone else is struggling, and Aechmea responds by making a drastic decision about their life without their input, one which will cut them off from the conflict they want to help resolve.  As one might expect, Cairn doesn’t seem happy to hear this.

This next section of the conversation in which Aechmea tells them he’s loved them before they came to the moon also follows the pattern of being full of understated subtext that I apparently require two weeks to untangle and draw a conclusion from.  It’s seems clear from their distraught expression, trembling, and the fact that they incredulously bring it up again a few minutes later that what Aechmea is saying upsets them.  If I had to wager a guess, it’s because the implications are concerning regardless of whether or not Aechmea’s words are true.  His claim is ludicrous and Cairn doesn’t want to believe that he’d try to feed them a bald-faced lie, but if he’s not lying then the implications are equally unsettling.  I think Cairngorm is most comfortable believing that their meeting with Aechmea was a happy accident, because the alternative is that he was romancing them all while hiding ulterior motives.  (Not that it really needs to be reiterated at this point, but these pages make my skin crawl, especially when you look back on Phos’s first day on the moon—with Aechmea trying to butter them up by them by telling them how special they are.)

Anyway, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Aechmea’s statement wasn’t complete bullshit, and that he had some sort of interest in Cairngorm before meeting them. The fact that he kept their old arm indicates that there’s something to what he said, as does the fact that he feels the need to distract Cairn with creepy makeouts when they try and press him for answers on this topic a few pages later.  There are a couple of ways I could see it going, so I’m going to go on a tangent for a minute, and try to speculate on what might have piqued Aechmea’s interest in Cairn.  I don’t feel that predicting future plot-events is really my forte, but sometimes I can’t resist trying to decipher a good puzzle.

Everyone connected to Phos is of interest to him, including Cairngorm.  Several pivotal moments in Phos’s development have happened in front of the Lunarians, (I’m specifically thinking of the drama with Ventricosus and Phos’s gold arms.)  It’s quite possible that Aechmea took an interest in the fact that one of the seemingly static gems was rapidly changing, and I think this line in chapter 54 alludes to this.  As a result, he predicted that Phos’s path would cross his sooner or later, and didn’t dust their captured partners.  I’ve said before that it is really suspicious that he happened to have a “fake” piece of Antarc on his person when Phos got to the moon.  Even if it was artificial, there was no reason for him to have it made in the first place or for him to be carting it around unless he already had Phos on the brain. The fact that he apparently kept Cairngorm’s original arm makes me think that that piece of Antarc may not have been artificial at all, and that maybe he didn’t dust Antarc, Ghost, or Phos’s head in order to have some leverage over Phos later.

Another possibility is that he took interest in Ghost and Cairn’s unique condition on account of those mysterious gem experiments that he was running before Phos got to the moon.  Since he was apparently trying (and failing) to create new gems by combing pieces of shattered gems with synthetic material, the fact that there was a gem who was a complete person despite being essentially a thin sheet of quartz may have been of interest to them.  The main reason I think this might hold some weight is because the Lunarians were rather particular about nabbing Ghost instead of Caringorm in chapter 37.  By the end of the fight, Cairn was completely wrecked, and the Lunarians could have easily taken them both before the other gems made it to the vessel.  But instead, they pushed Cairn off as soon as they had collected Ghost.  To compound this, they don’t usually try to sheer off the gems’ bodies in layers; they just try and shatter them.  Which makes me think that they were specifically trying to get Ghost in this scene and leave Cairn behind, and that Aechmea later decided to keep their arm on a whim along with the pieces of Ghost.  If this ends up being the case, then that begs the question of how the Lunarians could possibly know that Cairn and Ghost are two separate people; it’s not really something they could observe at a distance, especially since Cairn apparently rarely had control of their body.  If this ends up being the route this subplot takes, you guys on team Obsidian-is-a-Lunarian-spy may be able to add this to your pile of evidence.

Following this is the triumphant return of the Highly Symbolic Arm, the importance of which I’ve been harping on for a while now.  It’s also at this point in the conversation that Cairn is most visibly distressed.  I’m of two minds regarding what this sequence is communicating. They are clearly quite opposed to reattaching their original arm at the expense of their replacement, but it’s not clear which replacement they’re holding onto.  It’s possible that this is the same replacement arm they’ve had since their introduction, but it’s also possible that they got rid of that arm the night they came to the moon—it is after all a physical representation of their involvement in Phos/Ghost/Lapis three-ring circus.  This page in chapter 69 would seem to imply the latter.  That being said, Ichikawa has already established that Cairn’s replacement arm acts finicky whenever it has to be reattached—so it’s also possible that they still have the same arm they did before; the sequence of events is hazy enough that it could be read either way.

Needless to say, the sentiment behind Cairn being almost violently opposed to getting rid of their replacement arm changes significantly depending on whether or not that’s the arm Phos gave up their head to save, or an arm Aechmea gave them when they arrived on the moon.  At the moment, I really can’t say one way or another.  But I’m pretty sure this isn’t the last we’ve heard of Cairn’s left arm, so for now I’m content to wait and see.

All that being said, I think the emotion behind the action is clear: desperation.  Whether that arm is one that Cairn associates with Phos or Aechmea, they are clearly desperate to cling to the connection it represents.  Keeping in mind that just about everything Aechmea says in the chapter up to this point drives a wedge between himself and Cairn, I think that in this moment Cairn is forced to grapple with the idea of being truly alone, and out of all the characters, they’re the most ill-equipped to deal with that. I think I touched on this in my essay focused on them, but to reiterate: in spite of their desire for autonomy, Cairn cannot seem to envision themselves outside of another’s shadow.  Whether they’re acting like Antarc for Phos or like an anime-waifu for Aechmea, they’re never really acting like themselves—whoever that might be.  This is a bit of a tangent, but the way they’ve conceived of themselves in relation to Ghost is also kind of off-putting.  They referred to Ghost as their “other self” in chapter 67, and if you’ve gotten the official translation of volume 6, you can see that they also refer to Ghost in similar terms in chapter 38.  This has a rather concerning implication about their self-image or lack thereof. 

The point is, they find a sense of stability and self-worth in tailoring themselves to the desires of others, and they see reattaching their original arm and discarding the replacement and everything it represents as tantamount to abandoning the (terrible) coping mechanism that’s keeping them somewhat functional.

Which makes this a very ironic moment for them to decide that they want to disappear along with Aechmea.  I don’t know a whole lot about Buddhism, but I do know that one is supposed to let go of all attachments in order to attain nirvana.  But in this scene, Cairn is conceiving of nirvana as a means to an end in order remain forever attached to Aechmea (and in the short term: relevant enough to his interests to avoid being banished to the farthest moon.)

The way I see it, if and when Cairn becomes enlightened enough to have any hope of disappearing, they’ll probably have grown past the desire to follow Aechmea off a cliff like a lemming in the first place.  So I don’t see them getting what they want any time soon. What I am concerned about is the pattern of self-destructive behavior that lies behind this.  While reading this chapter, it struck me that whenever Cairn is presented with a stressful or upsetting situation with no obvious solution, their first instinct is to—as Aechmea so succinctly put it—relinquish themselves.  When a poor decision on their part ended with Phos losing their head, they wanted to give up their own head.  When Phos didn’t wake up, they wanted to throw themselves into the ice floes. When Phos ends up devastated in chapter 67, they want to renounce their own personhood and pretend to be Antarc.  This chapter also follows the same pattern: when faced with the upsetting possibility that Aechmea wants to set them aside like a toy he’s grown tired of, Cairn panics and responds with the most self-destructive possible solution to their problem.  I think that until this underlying malaise is actually dealt with, they’re just going to keep circling back to the same “solution” over and over.  It doesn’t matter so much that Cairn is currently about as enlightened as a cornflake; when the chips are down, they probably won’t let that stop them from essentially trying to kill themselves once again.

Well that was harrowing to write, but with all the melodrama out of the way, let’s delve into the real meat of this chapter. 

We know that gems don’t have teeth or tongues, but I’ve also wondered for the longest time…do gems have nostrils?  This shot from the anime makes it seem as if Phos does not have nostrils, but it’s hard to tell when everything is so stylized.

Thankfully, best boy Barbata has given us the answer.  Here we can see that light is pouring out of the orifices on their heads, but conspicuously, there is no light coming from their noses; ergo, gems don’t have nostrils.  No nostrils allowed in fanart from now on you guys, it’s now officially as much of a faux pas as drawing them with pores or teeth.

[standtoreason93]

Street Tactics – Part 1

By Greg Koukl

The tactical game plan I often speak of is a powerful strategy, but it has a modest liability; there is a speed bump I want to help you navigate.

I outline the plan itself in detail in the book Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions.[i] It’s a formidable tool to keep you in the driver’s seat of otherwise difficult or discomfiting conversations with skeptics and challengers—yet in a safe, genial, and amazingly effective way.

Using tactics has transformed my ability to make a difference for Christ. Simply put, the key to maneuvering effectively in spiritual conversations with others is to use questions. Carefully placed queries are the core of the tactical game plan. I call the plan “Columbo” after the iconic Lt. Columbo of a bygone TV era who was amazingly successful using the same approach.

The final stage of the plan, though, has a limitation.

The first two steps of the 3-step plan are simplicity itself, of course, allowing you to make tremendous headway in a conversation even when you have zero insight into the challenge you’re facing and no skill at verbal maneuvering.

Step one has a single purpose. Your goal is not to preach the gospel or to give evidence for Christianity or even to mention Jesus. All you want to do at this point is get the lay of the land. You need a clear picture of what you’re up against.

To find out what you’re facing, what the other person believes, or what his precise objections are, focus at the outset on one task and one task only: gathering information. Ask clarification questions in a gentle, curious, probing way (“I’m confused a little by what you said. Can you clear this up for me? What did you mean by that?”)

Step two builds on the information you gathered with the first step. Once you have clarity on what a person believes, you then want to know why he believes it. I call this reversing the burden of proof since it’s your friend’s responsibility (“burden”) to provide reasons (“proof”) for the claim he’s just clarified in response to your initial question. It’s not your job to refute it—at least not at first. Initially, it’s his job to defend it.

Notice that at this stage of the game plan you haven’t taken on any risk since you haven’t advanced your own view in any way. You’re simply using questions to ease into the shallow end of the pool, so to speak. No pressure; no worries. So far, so good.

The final step is the trickier one.[ii]

The Speed Bump

The third step of the game plan is a bit more challenging since you will not be using questions passively to gain information of some sort (either your friend’s ideas or his reasons for them). Instead, you will be using questions actively to give information of a specific kind­—in this case, to point out a weakness or a flaw in the other person’s view.

Which brings us to the speed bump. The final maneuver of the game plan requires three things you may not have: one, insight into the weakness or flaw; two, insight into what questions to use to exploit the liability; and three, a basic blueprint in your mind of how you will direct the initial moves of the unfolding conversation—your opening query, your friend’s likely response, and your next couple of moves.

This final phase takes you into the deeper end of the pool, and that is what I want to help you with. In the next few issues of Solid Ground, I’m going to give you a primer on what I call “Street Tactics.” I use this phrase because this last step in our strategy is usually where the verbal sparring begins.

First, I will introduce a standard challenge you’re likely to face “on the street.” Then I’ll go into some detail on how the challenge falters. Finally, I will provide mini-dialogues showing the questions I would personally use to initiate and prosecute my critique. I’ll follow up, in some cases, with variations that will help you respond to possible turns the talk might take as the conversation unfolds.

These mini-dialogues are not complete conversations, of course. My goal isn’t to give you a rigid script. Rather, I want to provide ways of getting you started on a specific challenge so you can move forward effectively in a friendly and disarming fashion.

Certain questions (rendered in bold in the dialogues below) are key, though, especially the initial ones, since they provide a launching pad to get you started. I suggest that you memorize them or at least have the gist of their substance clear in your mind. I want you to have these opening moves at the ready so you can immediately take the initiative, going on the offensive yet in an inoffensive way.

Usually, my first questions are designed to give me valuable information that sets the stage for what follows (Columbo #1). Further questions may probe the rationale for a person’s belief (Columbo #2). The key to Street Tactics, though, is using carefully selected queries to expose an objection’s flaws and thus disarm it (Columbo #3).

Let’s tackle our first challenge, arguably one of the toughest a Christian has to face—the problem of evil.

The Problem with the Problem of Evil

Answering the challenge of suffering and evil is a constant task for Christians, and understandably so. There is one thing every person knows, no matter where he lives or when he lives. Everyone knows the world is broken. Things are not the way they’re supposed to be. That’s the complaint. But there’s a problem with this protest most critics don’t consider.

Contrary to popular belief, the problem of evil is not a good argument against God. It’s actually one of the best arguments for God. The “problem” with the problem of evil is that if God does not exist, there can be no real evil to object to. Here’s why.

Put most simply, in order for the world not to be the way it’s supposed to be (the problem of evil), there needs to be a way the world is supposed to be (perfectly good). Pretty basic.

Three significant concerns undercut the atheist’s challenge at this point.

Here is the first. In a strange way, the atheist is skewered by his own objection. The problem of evil—the challenge of one’s worldview accounting for the existence of staggering human misery and stunning moral depravity—is not merely a Christian problem; it is a human problem. Getting rid of God doesn’t get rid of the perplexing complaint. Everyone has to grapple with it—even atheists.

So how do atheists answer their own protest—the charge of an incurable worldview contradiction—when it’s turned back on them? They can’t. What could it possibly mean for them to say that the world is not the way it’s supposed to be? Their materialist worldview provides no resources to account for the existence of genuine evil.

It gets worse for the atheist, though, since he faces a second hurdle.

When someone protests that bad things happen, there are two ways to understand this complaint that need to be distinguished from each other but rarely are: a relativist’s way or an objectivist’s way. Here’s what I mean.

On the one hand, those who have a relativistic impulse are quick to describe moral judgments as mere personal matters. That’s the “don’t push your morality on me” crowd. “I have my morality; you have yours,” they say.

Here’s the rub. If they stick to their relativism, then the problem of evil vanishes since the word “bad” simply refers to an event or an action the relativist doesn’t happen to like. Good and evil are reduced to personal preference. Who’s to judge? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, after all.

This is not what the objector has in mind, of course, when he raises his grievance against Christianity. He means something else. In that moment, his complaint is about real, objective evil—evil “out there, in the world”—ergo his challenge.

So which is it? Does he mean things happen he doesn’t like (relativism), or does he mean things happen that are actually bad (objectivism) regardless if people like them or not? He can’t have it both ways—both his convenient relativism and his favorite objectivist complaint against God—since they conflict. Most skeptics, though, have never considered this clash within their own worldview. [iii]

If the atheist surrenders his relativism to rescue his protest, though, a final obstacle assails him, arguably the most daunting.

As we’ve seen, the complaint about evil itself requires transcendent, universal laws that govern the world—objective morality—in order for real evil to exist as a violation of those laws. Transcendent moral laws require a transcendent lawmaker—God. Saying the world is “supposed” to be a certain way requires a “sposer,” so to speak—someone who intended the world to be much better than it is.

Think about this comment: “I read in the newspaper that writers don’t exist. The article seemed convincing. What’s your opinion?”

You see the problem immediately, of course. Without writers, there would be no articles in newspapers to deny the existence of writers in the first place. The second—the newspaper article—depends on the first—the writer. The claim self-destructs.[iv]

In a similar way, if there is no God, then there is no transcendent moral lawmaker. If no lawmaker, then no universal moral laws we’re all obligated to obey. If no moral laws, then no broken laws. If no broken laws, then no problem of evil. Simply put, then, if there is no God, there can be no evil (or good, for that matter).

Yet there is a problem of evil (we all know this), so there must be broken laws, so there must be laws, so there must be a transcendent law maker, so there must be a God.

Now that the problems with the atheist’s challenge are clear in our minds, here is the strategic thinking that will guide our tactical response: Before we answer the atheist’s concern about God and evil, he needs to show that the challenge itself is coherent—that the very concept of evil is intelligible in a world without God.

Philosophers call this the “grounding problem,” the difficulty of asserting morality when there is no basis for (“grounding”) or source of morality to account for it. As I have written elsewhere, “Atheism cannot even make sense of the notion of a ‘broken’ world to begin with, so the problem of evil turns out to be just as lethal for atheists as it appears to be for theism.”[v]

In sum, then, there are three hurdles for the atheist who raises the problem of evil against theism:

A worldview problem: Making sense of evil in the world is a problem that plagues atheists, too, yet their materialism provides no way to resolve the difficulty since they cannot explain the existence of evil from within their worldview.

A relativism problem: If there is a genuine problem of evil, then moral relativism is false because objective evil exists.

A grounding problem: Atheism cannot explain the source of the very moral obligations that are necessary for there to be a problem of evil in the first place.

Our strategy on the street will be to exploit these problems using questions. Note, though, that in this case we will not be answering the atheist’s challenge directly by showing how evil is compatible with a good, powerful God. That more complex issue is difficult to untangle quickly, so we will sidestep it for the moment.[vi]

Instead, our strategy will be to press the skeptic on the incoherence and inconsistency of his challenge.

Evil in the Street

Now that we know the flaws in this objection, we can look at the best tactical ways to expose them when someone raises the problem of evil against theism in conversation.

I find it’s always best if I’m prepared with a move to get me going right out of the gate. Here’s my standard opening question regarding the challenge of evil: “What, exactly, is the problem?” [Columbo 1] The query may seem like an empty one (the problem seems obvious), but it accomplishes two tactically significant objectives.

First, this question immediately buys me time—if only a moment or two—so I can collect my thoughts and strategize my next moves. Second, it’s always to my advantage to have a challenger spell out his concern in precise terms since it removes ambiguities for both of us by pressing for precision about an objection.

Here’s my second move: “So you believe in evil then?” [Columbo 1][vii]

Again, this seems like a restatement of the obvious, but it confirms an important detail in the conversation, plus it provides a smooth bridge to any of the dialogue strategies below.

The Worldview Problem

“So you believe in evil then?”

“Yes, of course I do. That’s my objection.”

“So as an atheist, how does your worldview account for the existence of evil? How would you answer your own question, given the concern you pose?” [Columbo 3]

“What do you mean?”

“Well, there’s evil in the world, right?”

“Of course.”

“As a theist, I think evil happens when someone violates a perfect standard of good, when things deviate from how they’re supposed to be. That makes complete sense to most people, and it fits my own worldview perfectly. But how does atheism make sense of that?” [Columbo 3]

“I don’t get what you mean.”

“Well, the rules have to be real before they can be violated to cause the evil you’re objecting to, right? And, on your view, they’d have to be physical to be real. But moral rules aren’t physical. So how do you solve that problem?”

*  *  *  *

“So you believe some standard of good has been violated, resulting in evil.”

“That’s it.”

“Well, you’re an atheist, right?”

“Sure.”

“And you don’t believe in God or in anything outside the physical world. Is that right?”

“Right.”

“Are the moral laws you’re talking about physical or nonphysical?”

“I’m not sure what you mean.”

“Well, on your view, if the broken moral rules causing evil are not physical, then they don’t exist and there can’t be a problem of evil. But if they do exist, they must be physical—have physical shape and weight, extend in space, be governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, etc. So which is it?” [Columbo 3]

The Relativism Problem

“So you do believe in evil then?”

“Yes, of course. That’s my objection.”

“What do you mean by ‘evil’? How would you define it?” [Columbo 1]

“Well, I think it’s a matter of opinion.”

“So there are no universal rules governing all people at all times in all places?”

“Of course not. It’s all relative.”

“Now I’m confused. It sounds like you’re asking how God could allow so much evil in the world when there is no real evil. How would you fix that?” [Columbo 3]

“But I do believe in evil. That’s my complaint.”

“But you just told me everything’s relative, that there’s no absolute standard. So then evil would just be a violation of your personal opinions.”

“Right. It’s what I personally believe is wrong.”

“So you’re asking me how can there be a God who allows things to happen that you don’t like? Why is that a good objection against God? What am I missing here?” [Columbo 3]

*  *  *  *

“When you object to evil, are you saying that certain things bother you emotionally? Or are you saying that certain actions are wrong in themselves regardless of how you feel, and that’s what makes God’s existence unlikely?”

“I’m not sure what you’re getting at.”

“Let me put it another way. Is rape wrong?” [Columbo 3]

“Of course it is.”

“Now, do you mean it’s wrong regardless of what a person or a society thinks, or is it only wrong from your perspective?”

“It’s wrong for me.” [relativism]

“Then I don’t understand your complaint. You don’t think God exists because some things happen that are wrong for you? How is that a problem?”

The Grounding Problem

“So you believe in evil then?”

“Yes, of course.”

“You’re an atheist, though, so I don’t understand your question.”

“What do you mean?”

“If there is no God, how can there be any evil in the world?” [Columbo 3]

“I don’t get your point.” [Be prepared for people to be confused about the grounding concern.]

“Well, when you talk about evil, you’re basically saying some kind of moral rule has been broken, that the person doing evil has broken that rule. Right?”

“I guess so.”

“Then who made those moral rules?” [Columbo 3]

*  *  *  *

“What exactly is the problem?”

“It’s obvious. Bad things happen. If there really was a good God, like you say, then He wouldn’t allow all that bad stuff.”

“I’m not sure I understand what you mean by ‘bad.’ Can you help me out?” [Columbo 1]

“You know, things like rape, torture, murder—that sort of thing.”

“You just gave me examples of evil. But why would you label those things evil and not call, say, kindness or heroism evil? You must have some standard in mind. Where do you get the standard that distinguishes good from evil?” [Columbo 3]

*  *  *  *

“Is there a speed limit on the street by your house?” [This question is meant to set up Columbo 3, below.]

“Of course.”

“If you exceeded the speed limit, would you be breaking the law?”

“Sure.”

“Where did that law come from?” [Columbo 3]

“The sign is right there. It’s obvious. Anyone can read it.” [Here he’s confused how he knows the law with the source of the law itself—a common mistake. Your question is about the second, not the first.]

“Sorry. I’m not asking if you can see the sign. I’m asking you where the sign came from. What if I made the sign? [relativism] Would you be obligated to obey that sign?”

“Of course not. Individual people don’t set the speed limits. The government does.”

“I agree completely. So what governing authority makes the laws of the universe that are violated when people do evil things?” [Columbo 3]

“I’m not following you.” [This confusion is common.]

“Well, you’re saying that people are breaking the speed limit of the universe, so to speak—the problem of evil. If there are no real speed limits, then there is no real evil. I’m just asking where the speed limits come from. Any idea?” [Columbo 3]

That’s Street Tactics—maneuvering in tough conversations by using a plan with specific questions meant to expose a weakness or a flaw in someone’s view. It’s easier than you think if you follow the steps.

First, get a clear take on your friend’s view. Make sure you understand it. If there are any ambiguities, use your first Columbo question, “What do you mean by that?” (or some variation), to clear them up.

Second, reflect on the challenge or do some research to zero in on its weaknesses or its failings. Most of the maneuvers in Part 2 of the Tactics book are meant to help you find flaws and exploit them.

Third, chart a course for your conversation—as I have done for you in the examples above—using a mixture of questions (especially clarification questions) to keep your friend engaged while you move forward to expose the liabilities you’ve discovered. Be sure to have the first couple of moves clear in your mind—even memorized—so when the challenge comes up, you’ll have your first question at the ready. This single bit of prep will save you lots of stress.

At first you’ll need to plan ahead and practice a bit by doing a conversation dry run, of sorts. As you employ these principles, though, the process will become almost second nature—a kind of mental “muscle memory.” You’ll be able to move ahead easily in conversations that used to be daunting and discomfiting, staying securely in the driver’s seat on a productive route—all without speed bumps.

__________________________

[i] See Gregory Koukl, Tactics—A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019).

[ii] If you’re not familiar with the basic game plan, the first five chapters of Tactics will get you completely up to speed. It’s good to have that foundation in place before you attempt the slightly more advanced step, Street Tactics. Be sure to get the expanded 2nd edition of Tactics, though.

[iii] In Tactics, I call this particular version of self-refutation “Sibling Rivalry Suicide.” Keep in mind that not all atheists are relativists, or materialists, for that matter. The vast majority are, though.

[iv] In Tactics, I call this error “Infanticide Suicide.”

[v] Gregory Koukl, The Story of Reality (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 87. I go on to explain why the problem is not lethal for theists at all, since there are additional factors that decisively nullify the objection.

[vi] I engage that question thoroughly in The Story of Reality, chapter 14.

[vii] Notice, by the way, the persistent use of clarification questions (Columbo 1) both to confirm important information and to keep the conversation moving forward in a friendly, interactive way.

[benperorsolo]

Guide to Admitting you Love Her/Letters ofc

thanks, doll <3

let’s tackle the big one first (probably do Guide in a separate post):

Letters from an Apologist:

What inspired you to write the fic this way?

I started thinking about the basic scenario for Letters literally the second I stepped out of the theater after watching TFA. I started writing it on Christmas Eve 2015, so a little under a week after that. (What I’m saying is that Letters is my receipts that I’ve been a Ben Solo redemption ho since it was possible for me to be one.) I started the fic because I’d been fantasizing about Ben and Leia repairing their relationship after the war, and imagining various scenes between them. The formative one that actually got me to start writing was just a single image of Ben and Leia walking together in the forests of D’Qar, and I worked backwards from there to imagine how I could take Ben from Point A as he was in TFA to Point B, my forest vision, in a realistic way.

What scene did you first put down?

Like you, I write in order, so the first scene I wrote is the first scene in the fic— the one where Kylo is in his quarters on the Finalizer, and Han’s ghost is mercilessly haunting him a la Macbeth and Banquo.

What’s your favorite line of narration?

Probably from Chapter 16, after Ben makes the choice to be Ben again and the name is used for the first time in reference to him in the narration:

Ben —and this name is not painless either, but it is a different sort of pain, and Ben thinks the question might always have been not how to be free of it but how to choose the kind he could best live with, the kind he could not live without— freezes, breathing hard. 

4: What’s your favorite line of dialogue?

Any between Ben and Leia is usually up there, but this exchange from Chapter 11:

“What should I say?” Kylo says. He wants to push her hands away, and ruin something. Someone’s belongings, someone’s life. “That if I’d never been born, you might have been happy?”

It’s as though he’s slapped her.

“You are my happiness,” she says, and her voice is choked. Her fingers splay against his collarbones; so near his heart. Not quite touching. Never quite there. “You’re my boy.”

A suffocating sound rumbles deep in his throat.

“I killed your husband,“ he tries to shout. His voice cracks into a whisper, a hiss. “I cannot be your happiness.”

Her face grows pale. “You did,” she says softly. “You took away the only man I’d ever loved. You did.”

He can feel her pulse points through her fingertips, slow in its sorrow, deep in its grief. It was always Leia who stayed behind. Leia, who did not run, who did not cower, but left the wellspring of her heartache in her innermost secret place, where she could visit its still waters and choose when to be consumed.

Such a quiet sufferer, she. Such a gift.

“I don’t know if I can forgive you for that,” she says quietly. It washes over Kylo like a balm. “I am…trying.”

“Don’t,” Kylo says. He swallows. “Don’t forgive me.”

Leia smiles weakly, cups his cheek in her free hand. He hasn’t been touched so often since he was a small boy. “My pup,” she says. “That isn’t how this galaxy works.”

What part was hardest to write?

Writing Ben’s POV in general. I don’t mean to say he’s a difficult character to write, per se, because I love writing Ben-POV, but in a fic of this nature there’s the issue that Ben is so deeply clung to his delusions that it’s difficult trying to get some point across in my writing if Ben himself would not admit to it. This was harder when Ben was still written as Kylo, because at least with Ben-as-Ben there’s a certain level of clearheadedness about his own motivations that comes with stripping away the entire artifice that the Kylo Ren persona is. But at the same time, whereas Ben-as-Kylo overestimates his righteousness, Ben-as-Ben underestimates it, and is just constantly beating himself up over everything, even things that weren’t his fault.

What makes this fic special or different from all your other fics?

It’s the longest fic (or any piece of writing) I’ve ever written, for one. 

Where did the title come from?

It’s a pun on the dual meaning of the word ‘apologist’. The first definition is of one who defends a faith, a cause, or an institution, especially when it is under attack or criticism. This first definition applies to Kylo as he is in the first part of the story, when he is still under the thrall of the First Order and the Dark Side and so acts as his own apologist for his evil deeds in the face of his family’s desperate attempts to sway him from his cause.

The second definition of ‘apologist’ is, of course, someone who apologizes. This is Ben in the second half of the story, after he’s renounced his cause and must begin the painstaking path of reconciliation with those he’s wronged, as well as his family and, ultimately, himself.

So, he goes from being an apologist to an apologist. 

Did any real people or events inspire any part of it?

Not explicitly, but I’ve based large amounts of Ben’s mentality on my friends who have suffered from mental illness and abuse, as well as Ben’s family’s attempts at reaching him on my own interactions with those friends.

Were there any alternate versions of this fic?

Nope. It’s like the kitchen sink fic for all my general redemption headcanons.

Why did you choose this pairing for this particular story?

No pairings. The reason why I went with no pairings is due to my absolute hatred of redemption arcs which have romantic love as their impetus. Rephrasing slightly– I think it’s too easy to write redemption arcs wrong when they involve romantic love. The impetus of a true redemption must always be the person in need of redemption themselves. Other people can and indeed should help them, but at the end of the day it must be an internal decision. Romantic love makes it too easy for x character to ‘reform’ just because they like the warm fuzzy feeling y character gives them, or, even worse, solely because character y told them to, making character y their sole reason for goodness. It’s really gross, and I hate it, and if you’re going to look at stories which did romantic redemptive love right (say Pride and Prejudice and Beauty and the Beast) the love ultimately displayed is not romantic love but agape love– selfless love in which they expect nothing in return. And that makes all the difference.

What do you like best about this fic?

I’m really pleased with the overwhelming positive response I’ve gotten to this fic. It’s the first multichapter fic I’ve ever written. I’ve gotten so many incredible comments from readers who identify with Ben and his struggles with guilt, mental illness, and family dysfunction– and I’ve in general been glad to have represented these things in such a way that those who have struggled with those issues have been able to use my fic as some small form of solace and catharsis. And then of course there are the general readers who are pleased with my handling of Ben and an attempts at a realistic redemption arc. Since that was what I set out to do, that’s the greatest compliment. 

What do you like least about this fic?

As with all of my writing, I know I get a little (a lot) purple prosey sometimes. I semiregularly go through published chapters on ao3 and try to weed out whatever bullshit I thought was a good idea when the chapter was first published. There’s also the fact that Letters is more or less an unplanned fic, so I feel like some chapters are more extraneous than others and could have been cut– yet there’s just enough character development in them that I feel unable to just take them out altogether. This is the part I regret about fanfiction being largely a post-as-you-write process instead of being able to finish it and edit it as a whole.

What music did you listen to, if any, to get in the mood for writing this story? Or if you didn’t listen to anything, what do you think readers should listen to to accompany us while reading?

As of now, my apologist playlist on Spotify has 78 songs. I plan to actually put the playlist up on playmoss after Letters is done. Anything by Radical Face, The Oh Hellos, Mumford & Sons, or Bastille tends to get me in the mood. Regretful banjos, yo.

When actually writing, I love listening to the soundtrack of The Village (yes, that M Knight Shyamalan movie). The Gravel Road and the appropriately titled Will You Help Me? are some of the best from that soundtrack. Anything with aggressive violin and sorrowful piano is so Ben to me.

Is there anything you wanted readers to learn from reading this fic?

There is no such thing as having gone too far. Becoming a person again is hard, but other people want to help you. Let them. There is courage in kindness. There is bravery in compassion.

What did you learn from writing this fic?

A lot. As I jokingly said to a friend today, I love Star Wars because it basically allows me to grapple with Christianity IN SPAAACE. I’m endlessly fascinated by the concepts of sin, grace, and redemption, and the practical implications of believing in them. They’re the cornerstone of the Christian faith, after all. I’ve read a lot of books that handle these themes due to my desire to wrestle with them in Letters: Mere Christianity, A Grief Observed, Silence, The Power of Myth, etc etc. 

[margarette5178-blog]

I love Writing About Ethereum News

Before I go away this part of the dialogue, I wish to make a comment in regards to the "mining" exercise in Bitcoin. We could not need something like this creepy Santa Claus expertise, but one thing comparable outlined over a restricted area for a given application could be good. • Paper. The code of each GCC coin could be printed and saved identical to fiat-money or valuable metals. Chances are you'll entry your account data by clicking on your username at the highest right, the place you possibly can change your foreign money denomination show, shade theme, dashboard format, and access different account/safety and site choice settings. You may follow publications, that are began by editors for a neighborhood of readers and have posts written by many users. I believed it is best to check, and began writing on June thirteenth. After writing, it has been almost 3 months. I also suppose concerning the potential profitability of a topic before writing.

The expertise can be being examined for applications in lots of different industries. Being first to market, there are lots of exchanges for Bitcoin trade all around the world. Sometimes, there are legal guidelines which prevent you from shopping for something from a selected nation. Traders in gold bullion, casual collectors, know-how manufacturers, and those valuing its magnificence, are all holding a chunk of the pie. Typically these offerings contain the chance for individual traders to change forex similar to U.S. The founding father of a outstanding Bitcoin exchange firm has been arrested and charged with running an illegal scheme to sell the digital foreign money to customers trafficking narcotics on the now-defunct drug website Silk Highway, prosecutors said Monday. Everyone knows the definition of foreign money. Writer: cardvdpoppychen Maybe you realize the fact that a Mini Cartier V8 telephones to be the whet accessory even at an outdated age! Hope that you simply head is filled with more limitless concepts, I do know that mine is.

While I nonetheless hold my Bitcoin and enjoy the rollercoaster experience it is giving all of us, fiat-denominated cryptos may be more appealing to the crypto newcomers. With a purpose to make his or her cash back, the brand new recruit should recruit extra people beneath him or her, each of whom will also have to invest. With all the talk within the media about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, many individuals are wondering just what these new computer traded currencies are. - There are 10,000s of Bitcoin nodes running on the planet. This varies all year long as there are instances when there may be much less competitors amongst advertisers akin to during school holidays, so the advertisers would pay much less throughout these low times. #Sponsor for a year! The platform will create opportunities for investing into funds of the fastest rising tech firms world wide with low entry thresholds for the typical person to entry.

BitBull finally whittled down its investment opportunities to seven of the 135 hedge funds. They're merely circumstances of external forces grappling with an unprecedented New bitcoin News technology. When you place your euros into a Fidor financial institution you do not abruptly convert them to "20 fidors", they are nonetheless Euros in a rigid 1:1 alternate fee. The South Korean change Upbit has been buying and selling some notable volumes over the past few weeks and has become one in every of the biggest exchanges worldwide. Korbit, the third greatest bitcoin and cryptocurrency trade within the South Korean market after Bithu.. Cryptocurrency is available in quite a number of varieties. Nonetheless, I wish to emphasize that. Nevertheless, as a result of it is a global market, they even have larger probability to fail. Either means, they've already lost management, humanity wins as power and management rightly returns to the folks. Some may actually really feel the risks out weigh the advantages, while other folks might actually feel they can’t or won’t make sufficient to assist their relations. They need to HODL no matter what and that is assured to make them trillionaires, they believe, they usually impose this perception on all the members of their group. Given the inventory market’s potential to have prevented a major correction for over two full years, it appears seemingly 2018 will bring some type of fairness market pullback leaving buyers yearning for alternative assets.

Moore mentioned he had anticipated mining revenue to "decelerate meaningfully" starting in the fourth quarter, however increased Ethereum prices have propped up demand. Ethereum and now Counterparty are leading on this entrance right now. Proper now only about 1% of the inhabitants is confident in conducting regular transactions with Bitcoin. The elemental cause for the disputes among bitcoin developers, miners, and buyers is the query of how to scale bitcoin with a purpose to accommodate extra transactions. Learn why investors can't trade inventory in toy retailer Toys 'R' Us. In a single day Lightcoin led the way with a definitive breakout, and is now approximately 20% increased than it was yesterday! Remember that at the top of the day, your purpose is to develop your variety of Bitcoins, or to increase the FIAT value of your portfolio. This propping up is the tip for the worth of the dollar. At this time, video sport arcades require a single coin for each game that would keep the player's digital character alive till they get defeated by an AI opponent or see by means of the end of the tests. ) - see my different post about easy methods to read candlestick charts.