#although humans are the only creatures who even care about ethics. ethics are a “social construct” right?

[oscill4te]

"ethical killing" sounds like an oxymoron to me idk why

[theparanormalperiodical]

What The Hell Is Satanism? The Backstory, The Beliefs, And The A-To-Z On Devil Worshippers

4 days ago, Nike decided to sue a small indie art collective based in New York.

This isn’t news. This isn’t the first time a profit-mongering fashion-giant has targeted businesses trying to make a name for themselves. And it won’t be the last.

But this time, there’s probably something else influencing the executives reclining on their plush leather seats: they said it was because MSCHF stamped on the Nike Swoosh. But we all know what the real problem was:

These kicks were soaked with Satanic imagery - oh, and a single drop of human blood.

"MSCHF and its unauthorised Satan Shoes are likely to cause confusion and dilution and create an erroneous association between MSCHF's products and Nike”

Translation: no, we don’t want to be associated with devil worshippers.

Satan and his followers have once again hit the press following Lil Nas X’s latest viral YouTube hit and release of his custom footwear. And he does the belief system - and the LGBTQA+ community - justice.

But Satanism goes much deeper than pole dancing your way to hell.

It goes deeper than the fears of your evangelical aunt, it goes deeper than the rumours of a sacrificial ritual that happened in the woods outside of town, and it goes deeper than QAnon conspiracy theories.

Today we explore what Satanism really is. And what it really isn’t.

*twerks towards hell*

What Is Satanism?

Satanism is a group of modern religions that are centred around Satan, an entity in Abrahamic religions (e.g. Christianity and Judaism) that rebelled against God, has power over Hell and demons, and seduces humans into sin. Satan features in a vast number of major religions: he started off in Zoroastrianism, then making his way to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. But the modern followers of Satanism are inspired by the Christian fallen angel and ruler of hell.

A large proportion of Satanists follow atheistic Satanism - they don’t necessarily believe in an entity but follow a philosophy that focuses on individualism and satisfying the ego, or rebel specifically against the dominance of Christianity in Western society.

Although Satan is typically considered the embodiment of evil, most strands of Satanism are not. However, there are some groups that fit this mould like the Order of the Nine Angles: they’re neo-Nazis.

The actual worship of Satanism only began just over 50 years ago, in 1966. But the use of the term ‘Satanist’ stretches back centuries further. Calling someone a ‘Satanist’ (or something to that effect) was an insult reserved for those that disagreed with a Christian group’s beliefs.

A Not-very-brief-but-look-I-tried-ok History Of Satanism

Here’s the thing about Satanism: at one point in history, every religious group was deemed Satanist. 

You see, that’s how it all started.

Even the term ‘Satan’ originally meant ‘adversary’. It didn’t necessarily refer to a horned, evil ex-angel once scorned by the Almighty. It meant ‘other’; it was just an insult. It wasn’t created by groups of men draped in blood red robes preparing to slaughter a virgin to their ungodly master - Satanism was actually created by Christians.

The word ‘Satanism’ was first recorded in French and English literature back in the 16th century. Against the backdrop of the Reformation (when the Western Christian Church split off into Protestantism, Catholicism, and other more niche shards) rival religious groups would label each other with such terms frequently in various tracts and texts.

It was not to say that Protestants, for example, were actively worshipping Satan but were instead deviating from what Catholics thought was true Christianity. By ‘incorrectly’ serving God, they were supporting Satan’s claim to ruin the world with sin and evil.

*Disney villain laugh*

In the 19th century it broadened to encompass anyone that lived an immoral lifestyle and was thus serving Satan’s will. But in this same century it evolved yet again.

Yep, it’s time to introduce the actual Satanists: texts began to emerge that mention people that revered and worshipped Satan. It took a long 300 years for Satanists to reclaim their title. But the story doesn’t end here: this is a really important theme that runs like blood through the history of Satanism. Or, rather, the history of religious prejudice and persecution.

Throughout, well, all of human history, we have been swept up unto the belief that there is a dark, evil force lurking within our communities. The most recent example claims Joe Biden and his Democrat friends are Satan-worshipping baby-eating America-hating pedophiles. The fears of a discrete force that can hide at will fits the descriptors of the Judeo-Christian devil. And so, it had been applied to persecuted groups for centuries.

The Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition are the most famous examples of this. Satanism evolved in the Medieval era to scapegoat certain groups or to reinforce social norms by emphasising the apparently very real fight between good and evil.

Narratives of the French Revolution at the time were contorted with rumours of revolutionaries being part of a secret Satanic conspiracy. This revolution struck a blow to the power of the Catholic church, and some fingers pointed towards the dark lord of hell himself. Some even believed these revolutionaries had amassed supernatural powers to curse people and shape-shift into various creature ‘n’ critters like cats or fleas!

In the 20th century, another historical shift took place. And this time it (supposedly) happened from within the secret societies themselves: non-fiction authors and tabloids began to recount the allegations of people who once claimed to have been part of Satanic groups before converting to Christianity.

Doreen Irvine claimed she was given the ability to levitate amongst other witchy-powers. But Irvine’s claims sent shockwaves across the pond in the US. Much more horrific allegations were about to take centre stage. In the 1980s this would reach its climax with the Satanic Panic:

Also known as the Satanism Scare, the book Michelle Remembers (1980) detailed the alleged repressed memories of a psychiatrist’s patient which claimed they had been abused as a child for Satanic rituals. In these rituals, babies would be sacrificed and Satan would appear.

Reports of sexual child abuse for these rituals - known as Satanic Ritual Abuse - proliferated until the 1983 case made against the McMartin family. The McMartins owned a preschool in California and were allegedly sexually abusing the children in their care for ritualistic purposes. A lengthy trial ensued and the McMartins were eventually cleared of all charges.

But it was too late.

An evangelical anti-Satanism movement emerged claiming no children would lie about such claims and therefore all accused must be guilty. A conspiracy theory similar to those before emerged claiming SRA was rampant across the US, but it lost momentum by the turn of the 90s. Various investigations by the FBI and British government looked into SRA but found no evidence of Satanism or rituals in any cases of child abuse. Some lone cases of pedophiles did involve rituals, but these were isolated events that never involved Satanist groups.

The 7 Types Of Satanism

Satanism is an umbrella term to describe a vast array of religious groups. There’s a swirling sea of beliefs from the philosophical Satanists that don’t actually believe in Satan to the minority groups that are willing to sacrifice humans in the name of worshipping their god.

However, this ocean does share a common focus on individualism, self-perception, and non-conformity - traditional traits associated with the devil.

There are 3 forms of Satanism: reactive (attempts to invert Christianity and celebrates rebellion), rationalist (atheist and materialistic beliefs), and esoteric (actually worships Satan and draws upon religions like Paganism and western Esotericism).

The Church of Satan kick-started modern Satanism. Erected in 1966, Anton LaVey promoted an atheistic philosophy that focused on indulgence and an ‘eye for an eye’ ethical code that celebrated mankind as animals in an amoral world. Hate and aggression were not wrong but were advantageous for one’s survival. Yes, the seven deadly sins were actually beneficial for the individual.

The First Satanic Church was founded on Halloween night in 1999 by the daughter of Anton LaVey after his church was taken over by a new administration that Karla deemed against her father’s work.

The Satanic Temple is an atheist-activist group that stages political ‘pranks’ that rebel against the political and social dominance of Christianity. They aim to showcase religious hypocrisy in stunts such as performing a ‘Pink Mass’ over the grave of a Westboro Baptist Church goer (known for their explicit and offensive signs). They use Satan as a metaphor to rebel against a society that restricts personal autonomy and curiosity.

Luciferianism is a belief system that pivots around the characteristics associated with Lucifer. Followers believe Lucifer is the illuminated aspect of Satan, thus considering themselves Satanists. But some believe he is a more positive force than Satan. They follow the ancient myths of Egypt, Rome, and western Occultism. They consider him the true god - a destroyer but also a ‘light-bringer’ to the world.

The Temple of Set does not necessarily revere Satan by instead a being they call Set. Satan was the corrupted name of set, an entity that is the one true god. It gave humanity intellectual abilities to separate it from animals and they believe in a Setian philosophy with self-deification as the aim of all humanity.

The Order of the Nine Angles was inspired by ancient Pagan groups resident in Shropshire in the late 60s. But the founder of the group, Anton Long, is considered the pseudonym of neo-Nazi David Myatt. They encourage human sacrifice as a part of rituals and several members have joined the police and the military to do this without getting caught. The ONA is linked to several rapes, murders, cases of child abuse, and right-wing terrorism. They are also connected to several neo-nazi terror organisations.

The Joy Of Satan - contrary to its name - ain’t joyful. It’s an Occultist group that combines Satanism, Paganism, and UFO conspiracy theories. Just like the ONA, they’re Nazis. They believe Satan is one of many demonic deities which are powerful humanoid extraterrestrial beings which are equated with ancient gods. They believe Satan created humanity and brought us knowledge.

Reactivism isn’t a form of Satanism that is followed by an organised group but rather practiced on a personal, isolated level. It is considered an anti-social means of rebelling in a society dominated by Christianity. Most reactive Satanists are adolescents, mentally-disturbed, and have taken part in criminal activity associated with Satanic rituals they discovered through personal learning.

For example, in the 1970s two groups of teenagers in LA and Big Sur killed 3 people and ate parts of their corpses as a part of rituals devoted to Satan. Plotted murder and cannibalism are common traits of reactive Satanist crimes.

The A-To-Z Of Devil Worship

Baphomet

A deity that the Knights Templar allegedly worshipped. It is associated with the Sabbatic Goat which represents the equilibrium of opposites (half-man and half-goat, male and female, good and evil).

Black Mass

It is traditionally known as a requiem mass (funeral mass) in the Roman Catholic church from which the celebrants wear black clothes. However, it has been appropriated by Satanic cults. It often involves a naked woman as an altar and is the site of various Satanic magical rituals.

Cutter vs Wilkinson

A Supreme Court case which claimed federal funds cannot deny prisoners accommodations that are needed to engage in religious practices. Five residents of an Ohio prison including a member of a white supremacist Christian church, a Wiccan, and a Satanist filed the suit, claiming the officials failed to accommodate their ‘nonmainstream’ religions.

Devil

The personification of evil which shows up in many different religions. It is Satan in Abrahamic texts.

Demon

A supernatural entity often associated with evil. The original Greek word - daimon - did not have negative connotations.

Demonology

The study of demons.

Demonolatry

The worship of demons.

Goats

Satanism is always associated with goats. But why? There are several reasons: Baphomet is half-man, half-goat; the ‘infernal goat’ is depicted in many witches’ sabbats; Pagan traditions involved horned gods Christian forces deemed devilish; and the tarot card depicting the devil is a goat. In 1966, the church of Satan adopted baphomet as the sigil.

Lucifer

The name of mythological and religious figures associated with Venus. It is associated in the Christian tradition with Satan as he supposedly fell from heaven. Often called ‘the morning star’ or described as ‘light bringing’.  

Stanislaw Przybyszewski

The first guy to promote a Satanic philosophy.

What do you think?

Let me know in a comment below! And while you’re there, make sure you like and reblog this article.

Want to read an article on the paranormal every Saturday? And a real ghost story everyday/whenever I’m bothered? Hit follow!

[deathvoids]

do doppelgangers develop their own personalities, feelings, and opinions or do they stitch one together based on the humans and entities they've observed and copied? are they sapient at "birth" or do they need to learn sapience through observation and copying?

At the end of the day, they are just parasites.

They live merely to survive. They don’t live to create. They don’t live to explore. They just want to be alive. Even other Demons have desires, sapient thought, and purpose in their life, they want to hone their skills, and make an impact. That is why they consider Doppelgangers to be scum. 

They do not understand, or appreciate, anything about the demon way of life.

To a Doppelganger, there is no honor, there is only consuming.

There are old and proud demons who have deteriorated, and other demons, young and old, honor them for their sacrifices and for their old age and wisdom.

A Doppelganger merely considers an old demon to be a weak demon, one that is easier to eat than most.

Doppelgangers target children. Infants. Elderly. Sickly.

Basically, if a Doppelganger in the world has developed a code of ethics, it’s probably the first.

Most of them don’t retain learned personalities as their own personality. They use that personal information merely to disguise themselves and stalk and confuse their prey. Once it is gone, there is no reason to continue using the personality, unless the Doppelganger wishes to take their preys place in life, usually in hopes of eating the preys family or other social circle.

All this to say... Doppelgangers don’t express these things.

That isn’t to say they can’t develop them.

While survival is their main goal, it is not always their only goal. Some have been known to only take on parasitic relationships with a demonic Host. Some have made relationships with a rare human Host. These Doppelgangers show an instinct to protect a living thing, which is typically unheard of for their species. Yet this phenomenon is well known and documented, a Doppelganger “Host” is usually not seen in high regard, but most demons understand that in order to become a Host to such a creature, the Host must’ve been in dire straits.

These Doppelgangers are seen grooming their Host of blood, bone chips, and organs. They will thread between their Host’s teeth to get bits of food out of there. They will clean hair, under claws, under scales, and myriads of other things.

Doppelgangers can learn the anatomy of their Host, can tend to wounds, can heat their body in the cold and cool their body in hot weather. They can fetch water to their dehydrated Host, or fetch a meal for their Host to consume. Some Doppelgangers have been seen sucking up water into their body like a water bladder, and dripping it into the mouth of their Host.

It is because these Doppelgangers are at peace with their surroundings that they are typically seen indulging in other things, conversation with their Host. Entertainment. Physical activities. While their Host will be isolated due to the parasite they are hosting on their body, they are never truly alone. The Doppelganger will care for a Host who cares for them.

It can be said then, that a Doppelganger can create a personality, although, perhaps, only in times of extreme intimacy.

To most demons, it is unclear if Doppelgangers feel anything for their Host creatures. But to a Host, the answer is could not be more obvious.

[bluewatsons]

Sven Ove Hansson, Neuroethics for Fantasyland or for the Clinic? The Limitations of Speculative Ethics, 29 Cambridge Q Healthcare Ethics 630 (2020)

Abstract

What purpose can be served by empirically unsubstantiated speculation in ethics? In answering that question, we need to distinguish between the major branches of ethics. In foundational moral philosophy, the use of speculative examples is warranted to the extent that ethical principles and theories are assumed to be applicable even under the extreme circumstances referred to in these examples. Such an assumption is in need of justification, and it cannot just be taken for granted. In applied ethics, the use of unrealistic scenarios is more difficult to justify. It can be positively harmful if it diverts our attention from more urgent issues. Neuroethics is one of the areas of applied ethics where speculative scenarios have taken up much of the attention that could instead have been devoted to problems that are relevant for the treatment and care of patients. Speculative ethics has often been defended with mere possibility arguments that may at first hand seem difficult to refute. It is shown with examples how such claims can be defeated with a combination of science and argumentation analysis.

Introduction

Philosophy, perhaps in particular moral philosophy, differs from other academic disciplines in its profuse and unabashed use of examples that are empirically implausible, sometimes even physically impossible. As Philip Abbot noted:

“But what examples! The world of the philosopher is filled with people spores, child missile launchers, Martians, talking robots, talking dogs, kittens, chimps, jig [s]aw cells that form human beings, transparent wombs, and cool hands – everything in fact but fetuses growing in wombs and infants cradled in parents’ arms… Philosophers have moved into the world of fantasy in the same way and with the same verve that social scientists moved into the world of quantifiable facts… It is very questionable whether the moral dimensions of our lives can be clarified in circumstances in which the very basis for morality is no longer present.”1

This is a tendency that seems to have escalated in recent decades. As several authors have noted, it appears to be particularly strong in neuroethics.2 However, it has also repeatedly been subject to critical comments.3 It is the purpose of this article to clarify what types of criteria we should apply in distinguishing between irrelevant speculative scenarios and useful thought experiments. In doing so, we need to distinguish between the two major areas of ethical discourse, namely, on the one hand, foundational moral philosophy and on the other, applied ethical disciplines such as neuroethics.

The word “speculate” entered the English language in the late 16th century as a synonym of “contemplate” or “theorize.” Today, it is usually employed in a derogatory sense about thoughts or discussions “of a conjectural or theoretical nature.”4 In discussions on philosophical style, it refers to claims or arguments that are based on implausible or unrealistic assumptions. Perhaps a less pejorative terminology, referring to “unrealistic,” “fictional,” or “imaginative,” rather than “speculative” thoughts and examples, would have been preferable, but no attempt at terminological reform will be made here.

We will now turn to an analysis of the uses of empirically unsubstantiated speculation in foundational moral philosophy. It concludes with recommendations on the sound use of such speculation. After that, the use of speculative examples in applied ethics will be briefly introduced, followed by a critical analysis of the major argumentative patterns that have been offered in defense of such examples. Finally, this will all be brought to bear on current developments in neuroethics, which is one of the areas of applied ethics that are most affected by speculative examples and scenarios.

Foundational Moral Philosophy

General or foundational moral philosophy, as it is taught and researched primarily in departments of philosophy, is usually devoted to discussions on ethical theories. By an ethical theory (in a wide sense), we mean a general approach to moral assessment that is intended to serve as a framework guiding moral decisions in the various situations that moral agents may encounter.

There is an obvious, and basically sound, answer to the question what types of examples or scenarios are relevant for the evaluation or development of a theory: an example is relevant if and only if it concerns events or situations falling within the scope that the theory is intended to cover. We can call this the scope criterion. It applies to all kinds of theories: empirical, metaphysical, normative, evaluative, etc. theories. For instance, a theory about the flight of birds cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by investigations of flight patterns in butterflies (but, of course, such investigations are relevant for possible extensions of the theory to cover these creatures as well). For the same obvious reasons, an ethical example concerning potential beings that differ from us humans in ways that are crucial for the example cannot be used to confirm or disconfirm an ethical theory whose scope is limited to human beings.

Although the scope criterion is simple and arguably trivial, its application to ethical theories is often difficult. Instead, it is common to implicitly assume that moral theories are limitless in the sense of applying to all kinds of creatures and situations that we can at all imagine. Consequently, there is no principled way to exclude the use even of examples that are so far-fetched that it is difficult to see how we can at all have intuitions about them. This limitless approach to the scope of moral theories is closely connected with two other, important but seldom discussed, assumptions.

The first and most fundamental of these assumptions is that moral philosophy deals with moral principles and theories that hold not only in human societies as we know them, but also under virtually all imaginable conditions where intelligent entities make choices. Moral theories such as utilitarianism are commonly taken to have such a wide scope of application, but this is a grand ambition rather than a reasoned conclusion, and it can certainly be questioned.5 With a more restricted scope for our moral principles and theories, many of the speculative examples will become irrelevant. For instance, if our notion of personal identity is supposed to cover all conceivable conscious entities, then it can be swayed by examples involving uploaded, duplicated, and teletransported minds. But if we restrict its scope to creatures of the types known to us, then such counterexamples will have no bearing on the concept.

The second assumption is that our methods for analyzing moral examples are sufficiently reliable also when applied to this kind of examples. Since the analysis of moral examples ultimately relies on our moral intuitions, this amounts to an assumption that these intuitions are sufficiently reliable also when exposed to bizarre and unheard of examples. This is questionable, not least since our moral concepts have been shaped to deal with the types of moral choices and standpoints that we may encounter in real life. W.V. Quine said:

“To seek what is ‘logically required’ for sameness of person under unprecedented circumstances is to suggest that words have some logical force beyond what our past needs have invested them with.”6

Similarly, Ludwig Wittgenstein warned: “If you imagine certain facts otherwise, describe them otherwise, than the way they are, then you can no longer imagine the application of certain concepts, because the rules for their application have no analogue in the new circumstances.”7

There is of course nothing wrong with conducting investigations based on these two assumptions, but it is problematic that they are almost universally taken implicitly for granted, rather than being carefully articulated and argued for. It is far from self-evident that we can learn what is morally right and wrong in real life by reflecting on what would be right to do under quite different conditions that can never obtain. The following four tentative rules are proposed as a starting-point for a more active discussion on the scope of moral theories:

It is a respectable intellectual activity to explore the implications of various moral theories under the assumption that these theories as well as our moral intuitions cover all imaginable counterfactual circumstances.

It is also a respectable intellectual activity to explore the implications of such moral theories under various restrictions of their scope, not least their restriction to agents who are human (in the common sense of that word) and who act under circumstances that we do not have strong reasons to consider impossible.

The advantages of a broad scope for moral theorizing have to be weighed against the potential disadvantages. These include the risk that features incorporated in a moral theory to make it more plausible in unrealistic examples will also make it less plausible in real life.

The scope of a moral principle or theory needs to be explicitly stated and should preferably also be explicitly justified.

Applied Ethics

Applied ethics originated largely as the ethics of professions. The ethics of the medical profession goes back to antiquity. Engineering ethics has been discussed in professional societies since the 19th century. Research ethics also has a long tradition, but it did not gain much momentum until after World War II, in response to the nuclear bomb and atrocious experiments in Nazi concentration camps. In the 1970s, several other branches of applied ethics got off the ground, including business ethics, agricultural ethics, and computer ethics. Still today, most of applied ethics concerns the ethical responsibilities of a relatively small number of professions. Many other social areas with important ethical issues still lack a developed ethical discourse. This applies for instance to traffic safety, welfare provision, insurance, building and architecture, and foreign aid.8

Beginning around 1970, moral philosophers became increasingly engaged in applied ethics. The largest influx of philosophers took place in medical ethics, which has also been more affected by philosophical theory than most other areas of applied ethics. Philosophers working in this area often prefer the term “bioethics” (coined by Van Rensselaer Potter II in 1970) to the older term “medical ethics.”9 Philosophers brought with them a more extensive use of moral theory. Some of them also introduced issues and examples that healthcare professionals have reacted against as too remote from actual clinical practices, such as whether a physician should cause a patient to die in order to acquire organs for transplantations that would save two other patients.10

In the early 1990s, considerable resources for applied ethics were created through the research program Ethical Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) that was part of the Human Genome Project (HGP). ELSI was tasked to “anticipate the social consequences of the project’s research and to develop policies to guide the use of the knowledge it produces.”11 Apparently, many philosophers interpreted this as an opening for speculative and futuristic scenarios. As observed by Ari Schick:

“ELSI effectively inaugurated speculative bioethics in the regulatory mode… attempting at once to be both future-oriented and practical; not merely exploring in general terms the possibilities generated by future technologies or treating them as material for philosophical thought experiments, but pre-empting them and offering an image of the future in which these technologies would produce benefits and few harms through the implementation of proper guidelines and oversight.”12

Similar funding initiatives in other areas, not least nanotechnology, provided additional opportunities to apply ethical theories to futuristic scenarios such as the use of nanotechnological devices to upload a brain on a computer. In this way, “a type of immortality could be achieved,” and “such humans could travel at the speed of light and communicate directly from mind to mind.”13 Speculative ethics has also been developed by philosophers working in other areas closely connected with human biology, such as cryonics, human enhancement, and transhumanism.14 In these areas, speculative examples are routinely offered as arguments on healthcare ethics and public policy, in contradistinction to the restrictedly theoretical use of similarly unrealistic examples in foundational moral theory, as discussed in the previous section.

Mere Possibility Arguments

A common argument for the use of unrealistic examples in applied ethics is that they may not be that unrealistic after all. Then their investigation can be subsumed under the common, and quite sound, argument that we need to investigate future technological developments before they actually take place.

“[C]ritics may believe that it is inappropriate or premature to consider such issues now. But we do not need to resolve that question here in order to take seriously the ethical and social issues advanced nanotechnology might raise. Even if advanced nanotechnology is a remote possibility, its scenarios appear so disruptive that they merit consideration… [I]f a political course had even a bare possibility to leading to a devastating war, costing the lives of millions, it seems that we are morally obligated to seriously consider that possibility, no matter how remote… [I]f history is any guide, most of our mid- and long-term predictions about technology will be overly optimistic or pessimistic. Many things we have today were once believed to be impossible or impractical—such as gas streetlights, residential electricity, telephones, highways, radio, airplanes, rockets, and even today’s ubiquitous personal computer—so perhaps the prudent course is to treat most of these possibilities as reasonable until proven otherwise.”15

“Some highly unlikely future events nevertheless have consequences that are so bad that the course of action with the best net benefits involves taking measures to prepare for such events. For example, the extremely slim chance that the Large Hadron Collider—the world’s biggest particle collider, currently under construction—will result in the extremely bad consequence of destroying the earth has led to a lawsuit to halt its creation.”16

The arguments referred to here are mere possibility arguments. By this is meant arguments “in which a conclusion is drawn from the mere possibility that the choice of an option, behavior, or course of action may lead to, or be followed by, certain consequences.”17 There are two major variants of mere possibility arguments:

A negative mere possibility argument:

A can lead to B.

B should not be realized.

Thus, A should not be realized.

A positive mere possibility argument:

A can lead to B.

B should be realized.

Thus, A should be realized.

There are situations when a mere possibility argument forms an adequate basis for a decision. For instance, suppose that a member of a group of visitors to a weapons factory takes up a just finished pistol and puts it against his head, indicating that he will pull the trigger, just for the fun of it. Another member of the group says: “Don’t! You can’t know, it may be loaded.” This is a mere possibility argument, which it seems reasonable to act upon.18 However, in other situations reliance on mere possibility arguments may lead to injudicious decisions.

A major reason for this is that in almost any decision, an unlimited number of mere possibility arguments can be constructed. Due to the ramified and often chaotic nature of causation, almost any action can possibly lead to extremely positive or extremely negative consequences. For instance, any new medical treatment can have unpredicted lethal side effects. Any new technological device can turn out to be useful for terrorists in unforeseen ways. And almost any action that we take can conceivably give rise to social conflicts that escalate, go out of control, and ultimately end up in war. Obviously, we cannot take all remote possibilities seriously. The mere possibility arguments that are referred to in ethical and political discussions are but a small selection of the arguments that can be constructed. It is not advisable to act upon the mere possibility arguments that have been put forward, without first considering whether other mere possibility arguments can be made. Perhaps there are even more plausible arguments pointing in the opposite direction.

The risk of a biased selection of mere possibility arguments is particularly great if resourceful or passionate stakeholders are mobilized on one side of the issue but not on the other. This can result in an unbalanced discussion, based on the false impression that all mere possibility arguments point in one and the same direction.

Unfortunately, once fears or hopes have been set in motion in this way, they are not easily extinguished, even if they are later shown to be utterly unfounded. One example of this is the debate on genetically modified organisms. In July 1974, soon after the first successful experimental modifications of DNA had been reported, the research community voluntarily deferred experiments with biologically active recombinant DNA molecules.19 After intense studies and discussions, it was agreed on a conference in February 1975 that the potential dangers were manageable. The moratorium was lifted and experiments were resumed, with safeguards that had been agreed upon. We now have massive evidence confirming that it was right to lift the moratorium. This technology can be used safely to achieve important gains in agriculture and, not least, in medicine.20 But still today, 44 years after the moratorium was lifted, there are activists who, contrary to the scientific consensus, uphold the picture of genetic modification as a new technology whose effects are largely unknown and potentially disastrous. This perception of the technology also continues to hold sway in a considerable part of the ethical literature on biotechnology. Scientific uncertainties that were overcome and laid to rest several decades ago still have a ghost life in the ethical literature.21

Transfusion medicine offers another example of the difficulties involved in reversing precaution. In the early 1980s, countries all over the world introduced lifetime deferrals of blood donations from men who have sex with men in order to avoid the use of HIV-contaminated blood in blood transfusions. Since then, new methods based on testing of the blood have been developed.22 A deferral period is still considered necessary to protect against recently acquired infections that will not be detected in antibody tests, but lifelong deferral is not needed. Quite a few countries have therefore shortened the deferral period to 12 months, and initiatives have been taken to reduce it to 3 months.23 However, many countries still apply a lifetime deferral period, although it does not provide any additional protection. Such policies contribute to the scarcity of donors, and they may also be conducive to homophobic sentiments and discrimination.24

“Ideally, precautionary policies would be applied when an uncertainty of risk exists, and its application modified or removed as new evidence is brought to light. Such an approach is rarely taken, however. In transfusion medicine, it has proven politically challenging to reverse a decision that was introduced for the purposes of protecting the public.”25

Similar tendencies can be seen in other areas. For instance, as Ari Schick has pointed out, the ethical discourse on human enhancement has largely been detached from scientific and technological research. This puts “speculative bioethics at even greater risk of becoming a self-perpetuating program, unresponsive to the unpredictability that is at the heart of the scientific enterprise, and largely unaccountable for the role it plays within various ‘communities of promise [and peril]’.”26

The growth of speculative ethics may seem to be unstoppable. Once mere possibility arguments have been put forward, are they not impossible to ignore? To the contrary, I will argue that it is possible to write off many mere possibility arguments for the simple reason that what is possible may nevertheless be irrelevant for practical decisionmaking. For an example of a speculation that was rather promptly dismissed we can consider the “polywater” scare that circulated in 1969. Polywater, or polymerized water, was an alleged substance that would supposedly “grow at the expense of normal water under any conditions found in the environment,” thus replacing all natural water on earth and destroying all life on this planet.27 Proposals were made to take precautions against this substance, but its alleged properties were highly implausible from a chemical point of view, and it was soon shown not to exist. And of course, polywater is just one of many constructible chemical doomsday stories. As Michael King and coworkers pointed out, “there may be a nonzero possibility that a chemical synthesized in a laboratory may initiate a chain-reaction that obliterates the ozone layer, destroying all life on earth.”28 But as these authors also say, “prohibiting all chemical synthesis based on this possibility would be ridiculous.”29 (Such a prohibition would put an end to all developments of new pharmaceuticals.) There is no obvious reason why polywater should be singled out for action among all the logically possible but scientifically highly implausible doomsday scenarios that can be constructed.

Another example, with considerable public health implications, is the supposition that MMR vaccine causes autism. This claim was put forward by Andrew Wakefield in a 1998 article, which is now known to be based on falsified data.30 But in spite of that information, antivaccination activists continue to claim that the vaccine may possibly give rise to autism.31 Concededly, science cannot prove with absolute certainty that this vaccine will never, in any person, causally contribute to autism. However, there are two other things that science can do, and has in fact already done. First, science can find out whether autism is more common among vaccinated than unvaccinated persons. Such studies have shown no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.32 Second, science can tell us whether there are any valid reasons to suspect that the vaccine, rather than anything else that happens to a child, can lead to autism. There is in fact no such reason, or in other words: No one has been able to present a plausible mechanism for such an effect of the vaccine. Obviously, this does not prove that there is no such mechanism. There might be some potential mechanism that we are not aware of. However, the same is true about any other of the many events and influences in a young person’s life. In the same sense that it is a (mere) possibility that the vaccine causes autism, it is also a (mere) possibility that autism is caused by riding the merry-go-round, playing with a skipping rope, or eating ice cream with strawberries. Most importantly, the same applies to the supposition that the vaccine has a protective effect against autism.33 Therefore, even if science cannot tell us with the absolute certainty of 1 + 1 = 2 that there is no vaccine-autism connection, it has already provided sufficient reason to disregard that (mere) possibility in all practical deliberations.

The gist of these examples is that with the help of science and argumentative tools, we can disarm and defeat pointless mere possibility arguments.34 An important reason to do this work, and thereby remove unwarranted doomsday scenarios from the agenda, is that this place should be reserved for real problems to which our attention needs to be directed.

Neuroethics

Neuroethics is one of the areas of applied ethics that has been most affected by unrealistic scenarios. There is, unfortunately, some truth in the scathing criticism of the whole field that was launched a decade ago by a clinical neurologist and a medical anthropologist:

“The moral scope of the new field of neuroethics is, in our view, limited… Neuroethicists are excessively enamored of the moral dilemmas they believe to be associated with the use of unproven functional imaging technologies to read minds and the use of yet-to-be-developed cognitive enhancement drugs to improve them. Moreover, they ignore issues of public health and social justice, such as the effects of lifelong exposure to toxins on our brains. Also ignored are the ethical challenges posed by traumatic brain injuries that are incurred in warfare.”35

Similarly, Gilbert et al.36 describe neuroethics as “engaged in a speculative bubble, which may need to be deflated and rectified by grounding it in empirical evidence as available through the scholarly neuroscientific and medical literature.”

Cognitive enhancement, mind reading, and remote control by means of implanted devices are among the most common topics in the speculative parts of neuroethics.37 In a paper critical of such speculations, Alfred Nordmann and Arie Rip wrote:

“Current discussions about ethics and nanotechnology take considerable interest in nano-enabled brain implants, mind–machine interfaces and related developments—such as the privacy issues that arise when thoughts can be read routinely from brain activity.”38

After briefly criticizing the assumptions behind these concerns, they continued in the same paragraph:

“At the same time, other developments that demand ethical attention receive much less attention. For instance, nano-enabled advances in deep-brain stimulation can produce tremendous benefits for patients with Parkinson’s disease, but they can also be used to alter moods and even personalities—but these issues are mostly overlooked by the nanoethics community.”39

Thus, in the view of these authors, personality changes induced by deep brain stimulation are among the practically relevant issues that neuroethicists should turn to instead of other, more fanciful scenarios. Similarly, in 2014 Gilbert and Goddard criticized ethicists’ preoccupation with “the fictional scenario of whether it is permissible to control human minds,” arguing that this focus induces ethicists to “ignore the practical everyday postoperative significance of implanted patient selfhood, that is, who someone is, their sense of identity, and risk minimizing the importance of changes in who they are.”40 In another article, Gilbert and coworkers criticized neuroethical discussions on potential mind control via brain implants for optogenetic stimulation:

“Such speculation detracts from focusing on more immediate ethical needs related to application possibilities such as optogenetic restoration of lost vision, irreversibility of the procedure, and postoperative adverse effects on the patient’s personality.”41

These authors present personality changes due to implanted devices as an example of realistic and legitimate neuroethical concerns, in contradistinction to scenarios involving mind reading or mind control. As I see it, this is a reasonable appraisal. Brain activity takes place in exceptionally compact three-dimensional structures. The construction of a nondestructive brain-machine interface that interacts with more than a minuscule fraction of the brain’s activity is a daunting task, and no credible way to do it seems to have been proposed.42 Even the more science-fictional scenarios, involving multiple sensors (somehow) inserted into the brain43 are very far from the complete reading of the mind that is presupposed in the more futuristic parts of neuroethics. As aptly pointed out by Berger, many of these scenarios are based on a primitive understanding of the brain as some sort of digital hardware, which is a gross misrepresentation of its biological nature.44

On the other hand, changes in personality and self-image are well-known side effects from interventions in the brain, such as tumour resection,45 brain artery aneurysm surgery,46 and surgical treatments of psychiatric disorders.47 Therefore, although undesired psychological changes seem to be rare in current applications of deep brain stimulation,48 concern for potential such effects is warranted when stimulation of other parts of the brain are considered, for instance in treatment of psychiatric conditions.49 The same applies when new and more advanced implants are introduced, such as bidirectional implants, which monitor brain activity as a means to optimize the stimulation.50 These risks have to be weighed against the benefits obtainable with deep brain stimulation, which include that many patients report becoming “more themselves in comparison to their previous life that was dominated by their obsessive–compulsive disorder.”51 Notably, even when speculative exaggerations have been put aside—or perhaps in particular when this has been done—psychological effects of this and other treatments that affect brain function give rise to interesting philosophical issues. For instance, some psychiatric patients “regard elements of their illness as part of their identity.”52 In such cases, it is no easy matter to determine which personality changes are desirable and which should be avoided. Both philosophical and clinical investigations are needed to make progress in this issue.

Conclusions

To sum up, I have proposed that the use of unrealistic examples in ethics:

is justified in foundational ethics, but only under the (controversial) assumption that we need ethical principles and theories that would be applicable even under the extreme circumstances referred to in these examples,

is positively harmful in applied ethics whenever it leads us away from issues and aspects that are in urgent need of our attention,

is often engendered by mere possibility arguments that seem unconquerable but can in fact be written off with proper use of science and argument analysis, and

currently have an inordinate role in neuroethics, where they should yield place to problems that are relevant for the treatment and care of patients and for the development of new methods for diagnosis and treatment.

Notes

Abbott, P. Philosophers and the abortion question. Political Theory 1978;6:313–35.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Whitehouse, PJ, George, DR. Book review: Ethical issues in neurology. New England Journal of Medicine 2008;359:2737–8CrossRef | Google Scholar. Rusconi W, Mitchener-Nissen T. The role of expectations, hype and ethics in neuroimaging and neuromodulation futures. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 2014;8:214. Gilbert F, Harris AR, Kapsa, RMI. Controlling brain cells with light: Ethical considerations for optogenetic clinical trials. AJOB Neuroscience 2014;5(3):3–11. Gilbert F, Viaña JNM, Ineichen C. Deflating the ‘DBS causes personality changes’ bubble. Neuroethics, Published online 2018, available at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12152-018-9373-8.pdf.

Levi, DS. Hypothetical cases and abortions. Social Theory and Practice 1987;13:17–48CrossRef | Google Scholar. Ward DE. Imaginary scenarios, black boxes and philosophical method. Erkenntnis 1995;43:181–98. Urquhart A. Complexity. In: Floridi L, ed. The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Computing and Information. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 2004: 18–27. Hansson SO. The modal status of philosophy. Theoria 2006;72(3):173–6.

Oxford English Dictionary, online.

See note 3, Hansson 2006.

Quine, WV. Review of Milton K. Munitz. Identity and individuation. Journal of Philosophy 1972;69:488–97.CrossRef | Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. Zettel. Anscombe GEM, von Wright GH, eds. Anscombe GEM, trans. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1970, at 64e.Google Scholar

Hansson, SO. Ethics beyond application. In: Takala, T, Herissone-Kelly, TP, Holm, S, eds. Cutting Through the Surface: Philosophical Approaches to Bioethics. Amsterdam, UK and New York, NY: Rodopi; 2009: 19–28.CrossRef | Google Scholar

Potter, VR. Bioethics: The science of survival. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1970;14:127–53CrossRef | Google Scholar. Reich WT. The word ‘bioethics’: Its birth and the legacies of those who shaped it. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1994;4:319–35. Reich WT. The word ‘bioethics’: The struggle over its earliest meanings. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1995;5:19–34.

Harris, J. The survival lottery. Philosophy 1975;50(191):81–7.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Juengst, ET. The human genome project and bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1991;1(1):71–4, at 71.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Schick, A.Whereto speculative bioethics? Technological visions and future simulations in a science fictional culture. Medical Humanities 2016;42(4):225–31, at 227.CrossRef | Google Scholar

McGee, ME. Bioelectronics and implanted devices. In: Gordijn, B, Chadwick, R, eds. Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2008: 207–24Google Scholar, at 208. On nanotechnological speculations, see: Gordijn B. Nanoethics: From utopian dreams and apocalyptic nightmares towards a more balanced view. Science and Engineering Ethics 2005;11(4):521–33. Nordmann A, Rip A. Mind the gap revisited. Nature Nanotechnology 2009;4(5):273–4.

Nordmann, A. If and then: A critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics 2007;1(1):31–46.CrossRef | Google Scholar

Lin, P, Allhof, F. Nanoscience and nanoethics: Defining the disciplines. In: Allhoff, F, Lin, P, Moor, J, Weckert, J, eds. Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2007: 3–16, at 12.Google Scholar

Roache, R. Ethics, speculation, and values. Nanoethics 2008;2(3):317–27CrossRef | Google Scholar, at 323. A major reason why this argument could be laid to rest is that the planet is already under constant bombardment from outer space of particles with the same or higher energies than those produced in the Large Hadron Collider. Ball P. Nature News 2008 May 2; available at http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080502/full/news.2008.797.html (last accessed 23 Apr 2020). Ellis J, Giudice G, Mangano M, Tkachev I, Wiedemann U. Review of the safety of LHC collisions. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 2008;35:115004. Overbye D. Gauging a Collider’s odds of creating a black hole. New York Times 2008 Apr 15; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15risk.html (last accessed 23 Apr 2020). Ruthen R. Strange matters. Scientific American 1993;269(8):17.

Hansson, SO. Great uncertainty about small things. Techne 2004;8(2):26–35, at 28.Google Scholar

See note 17, Hansson 2004, at 30.

Berg, P, Baltimore, D, Boyer, HW, Cohen, SN, Davis, RW, Hogness, DS, et al. Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Science 1974;185(4148):303.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Berg, P, Singer, MF. The recombinant DNA controversy: Twenty years later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1995;92(20):9011–3. Dunbar CE, High KA, Joung JK, Kohn DB, Ozawa K, Sadelain M. Gene therapy comes of age. Science 2018;359(6372):eaan4672.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Hansson, SO. How to be cautious but open to learning: Time to update biotechnology and GMO legislation. Risk Analysis 2016;36(8):1513–7.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Busch, MP, Kleinman, SH, Jackson, B, Stramer, SL, Hewlett, I, Preston, S. Nucleic acid amplification testing of blood donors for transfusion-transmitted infectious diseases. Transfusion 2000;40(2):143–59.Google Scholar | PubMed

https://barrie360.com/reducing-blood-donation-deferral-period-for-gay-men-being-called-less-discriminatory/ (last accessed 23 Apr 2020).Google Scholar

Wilson, K, Atkinson, K, Keelan, J. Three decades of MSM donor deferral policies. What have we learned? International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2014;18:1–3. Wilson K, Atkinson KM, Fergusson DA, Brown A, Forster A, Murphy MSQ, et al. Problems with precaution: The transfusion medicine experience. Journal of Risk Research 2019;22(2):137–49.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

See note 24, Wilson et al. 2019, at 144.

See note 12, Schick 2016, at 228. See also: Racine, E, Rubio, TM, Chandler, J, Forlini, C, Lucke, J. The value and pitfalls of speculation about science and technology in bioethics: The case of cognitive enhancement. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2014;17(3):325–37.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Donahoe, FJ. ‘Anomalous’ water. Nature 1969;224:198.CrossRef | Google Scholar

King, M, Whitaker, M, Jones, G. Speculative ethics: Valid enterprise or tragic Cul-De-Sac? In: Rudnick, A, ed. Bioethics in the 21st Century. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011:139–58, at 151.Google Scholar

See note 28, King et al. 2011, at 152.

Deer, B. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ: British Medical Journal 2011;342(7788):77–82CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed. Deer B. How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money. BMJ: British Medical Journal 2011;342 (7789):136–42. Deer B. The Lancet’s two days to bury bad news. BMJ: British Medical Journal 2011;342(7790):200–4. Harrison JA. Wrong about vaccine safety: A review of Andrew Wakefield’s ‘callous disregard’. Open Vaccine Journal 2013;6:9–25.

Hobson-West, P.‘ Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: Organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociology of Health & Illness 2007;29(2):198–215. Dixon GN, Clarke CE. Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication 2013;35(3):358–82.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Doja, A, Roberts, W. Immunizations and autism: A review of the literature. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 2006;33(4):341–6CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed. Maglione MA, Das L, Raaen L, Smith A, Chari R, Newberry S, et al. Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization of US children: A systematic review. Pediatrics 2014;134:325–37.

There is no reason to believe that the vaccine protects against autism, but it protects against another serious neuropsychiatric condition. One of the complications of measles is subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, a deadly disease with symptoms including personality changes and progressive mental deterioration that leads to a vegetative state.Google Scholar

For a more thorough discussion of these argumentative tools, the reader is referred to: Hansson SO. Coping with the unpredictable effects of future technologies. Philosophy and Technology 2011;24:137–49. Hansson SO. Evaluating the uncertainties. In: Hansson SO, Hirsch Hadorn G, eds. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis. Reasoning about Uncertainty. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2016, at 79–104.

See note 2, Whitehouse, George 2008, at 2738.

See note 2, Gilbert et al. 2018.

See note 2, Rusconi, Mitchener-Nissen 2008.

See note 13, Nordmann, Rip 2009, at 273.

See note 13, Nordmann, Rip 2009, at 293.

Gilbert, F, Goddard, E. Thinking ahead too much: Speculative ethics and implantable brain devices. AJOB Neuroscience 2014;5(1):49–51, at 49 and 50.CrossRef | Google Scholar

See note 2, Gilbert et al. 2014, at 4.

Hansson, SO. Implant ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 2005;31:519–25, at 520.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Keskinbora, KH, Keskinbora, K. Ethical considerations on novel neuronal interfaces. Neurological Sciences 2018;39:607–13.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Berger, F.Pour un renouvellement de l’encadrement éthique des neurotechnologies. In: Hirsch, E, Hirsch, F, eds. Traité de Bioéthique IV. Les Nouveaux Territoires de la Bioéthique. Toulouse, France: Éditions érès; 2018: 387–403.Google Scholar

Jenkins, LM, Drummond, KJ, Andrewes, DG. Emotional and personality changes following brain tumour resection. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 2016;29:128–32.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Pačić-Turk, L, Šulentić, T, Meštrović, AH, Paladino, J, Mrak, G. Personality changes following brain artery aneurysm surgery. Acta Clinica Croatica 2016:55(4):565–78.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Eljamel, S. Ablative surgery for depression. In: Sun, B, De Salles, A, eds. Neurosurgical Treatments for Psychiatric Disorders. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2015, at 87–94, at 92.Google Scholar

See note 2, Gilbert et al. 2018.

Johansson, V, Garwicz, M, Kanje, M, Halldenius, L, Schouenborg, J. Thinking ahead on deep brain stimulation: An analysis of the ethical implications of a developing technology. AJOB Neuroscience 2014;5(1):24–33. Fuss J, Auer MK, Biedermann SV, Briken P, Hacke W. Deep brain stimulation to reduce sexual drive. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience 2015;40(6):429–31.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

See note 49, Johansson et al. 2014

de Haan, S, Rietveld, E, Stokhof, M, Denys, D. Becoming more oneself? Changes in personality following DBS treatment for psychiatric disorders: Experiences of OCD patients and general considerations. PloS One 2017;12(4):e0175748, at 23.CrossRef | Google Scholar | PubMed

Meynen, G, Widdershoven, G. Why authenticity may be an inherent bioethical DBS concern. AJOB Neuroscience 2014;5(1):37–9, at 38.CrossRef | Google Scholar

[calvarycommunitychurch-blog]

7 things to look for when reading through the Bible - Focus on the Family

This is a great article from Focus on the Family Canada. Credit for the content goes to  Written by Subby Szterszky and the original article can be found here.

This is it – the year you finally read through the entire Bible. Sure, you’ve tried before and gotten bogged down by the spring thaw or the law codes in Leviticus. But this time, you’ve found the ideal Bible reading plan: well-balanced, realistic and tailored to your reading habits. You’ve prayed about it and enlisted an accountability partner to keep you on track.

All of which is fantastic. But in order to see it through to the end – and more important, to benefit from the experience – you need to read with anticipation, with your eyes, your heart and your mind attuned to what the Spirit of God is saying through his Word.

To aid in that process, here are seven things to look for as you embark (or continue) on your scriptural odyssey. There are more than seven, of course, but seven is a nice biblical number and these are a good place to start. They’ll help keep your reading plan from becoming a drudgery and ensure it remains a joyful path of discovery throughout the year.

God

It may appear self-evident that readers of God’s Word should first seek him within its pages. And yet, people typically approach the Bible by asking, “What does this passage say about me, and how does it apply to my life?” Those are valid questions, up to a point, but they’re not the most important ones. In fact, they can be used to distort the meaning of a passage by reading one’s own experiences into it.

That’s because from start to finish, the Bible isn’t primarily about us, but about God. To be sure, Scripture has much to say about human nature and culture and history. But it addresses all those subjects solely with respect to God.

Through human language and the written word, the Creator of the universe has chosen to reveal himself – his character, power and purposes – to his human creatures. He has told us who we are, why we’re here, and how we can be what he created us to be, in a loving relationship with him.

And so, the first questions to ask when reading anything in the Bible are: “What does this say about God? What does it reveal about who he is, what he’s done and continues to do? How does it help me know him and trust him and love him more?”

Grace

There’s a common misconception, even among professing Bible believers, that the Old Testament is all about law, whereas the New Testament is all about grace. In fact, an early heretic named Marcion went so far as to claim that the two Testaments portrayed two different gods: an inferior god of judgment in the Old and a superior god of love in the New.

The Scriptures themselves will have none of that, of course. The Old Testament echoes with a repeated description of God as “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.” Jesus himself, although full of grace and truth, also spoke at length about judgment and raised the bar of righteousness to include motives of the heart as well as outward actions.

Both Testaments portray God as eternal and unchanging, his law and grace forever intertwined, his love and judgment meeting at the Cross of Christ. To read the Bible is to discover and trace that braid of divine justice and kindness through all its turns, finally displayed perfectly in the person of Jesus.

Challenge

The essence of idolatry is the desire to domesticate God, to make the Creator more like his creation, easier to comprehend and to control. But the God of the universe will not fit into our boxes, whether personal, cultural or theological. In fact, he declares that his ways and his thoughts are as far above ours as the heavens are above the earth.

It’s not surprising, then, that his Word should contain things not only difficult but at times downright disturbing. Such things will vary depending on the assumptions of each culture, but they’ll always be present. For people in the 21st century, the Bible’s sexual ethos, its tolerance of slavery in the ancient world, and its portrayal of genocidal warfare are especially difficult to square with the idea of a just and loving God.

In the eyes of the wider culture, such passages may be deal breakers, but for followers of Jesus, they’re challenges. Strange customs, lengthy genealogies, and even the conquest of Canaan invite readers to think deeply, pray earnestly, embrace mystery and recognize that God is bigger than us. As Tim Keller observes, “If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshipping an idealized version of yourself.”

Beauty

God is beautiful, and he has designed his cosmos to reflect his beauty. It only follows that his written Word should do likewise. Its accounts brim with grandeur and glory along with moments of quiet intimacy to melt the heart and comfort the soul. It paints word pictures of a world that’s fallen and yet enjoying the kindness and care of its Sovereign Lord.

But beyond their divinely inspired content, the Scriptures are beautiful in themselves as literature, their varied styles equally inspired by God. Contrary to common belief, the Bible isn’t a textbook on science or history or even theology. Nor is it an instruction manual on morals and ethics and successful living. To be sure, it touches on all those subjects and many more besides. But it does so in the form of artful writing.

It’s no accident that God chose to record a significant chunk of his Word as historical narrative and poetry, rather than as didactic instruction. He designed it to appeal to the whole person, the heart and the imagination as well as the mind. To read it any other way is to miss at least part of its message.

Diversity

In the natural world, beauty expresses itself through diversity, and once again it’s the same with Scripture. The Bible is a library of 66 documents, written on three continents over some 1,500 years. Its human authors represent a wide range of temperaments and social classes, each writing to address the issues of their day.

Inspired by the Holy Spirit, these authors wrote in an eclectic variety of genres: war stories, pastoral romances, songs of love, songs of lament, prayers, letters, biographies, travelogues, memoirs and apocalyptic visions, among others.

Such a diverse array of genres cannot be read with a one-size-fits-all approach, and it’s hard to imagine why anyone would want to do so. Like the many flavours at a fine feast, they’re meant to be savoured, both for their own qualities and for how they blend with one another. Each one speaks with its own voice, and yet contributes its own unique facet to the overall message of Scripture. Discovering that unity, expressed through diversity, is one of the genuine pleasures of reading through the Bible.

Unity

Every great story worth following has a central plot line, a unifying narrative that frames it and gives it structure. There may be subplots and asides, but that main storyline winds throughout, by turns hidden and exposed, and it pulls the reader toward its conclusion.

The central narrative of the Bible can be summarized as a drama in four acts: Creation, Fall, Redemption and Restoration. From a human perspective, it began in the Garden, reached its climax at the Cross, and will conclude in the New Jerusalem, in the New Heaven and New Earth. From a divine perspective, it was written in the mind of God before he made the cosmos, and will resonate into eternity, to his glory.

Because of the wonderful diversity in Scripture, it’s tempting to think of its many parts as vignettes in an anthology, at best only loosely related to each other. But in truth, they combine to form a unified mosaic from their various literary shades and colours. The main storyline winds through them all, at times clear and at other times subtle, but always there. And thus, when reading the Bible, it’s always crucial to ask, “What does this passage bring to the central narrative of Creation, Fall, Redemption and Restoration?”

Gospel

It’s fitting to conclude this list where it began, by looking for God in the Scriptures. And that means looking for Christ and the Gospel. Such a search is by no means limited to the New Testament, nor is it an exercise in speculative interpretation.

There are, of course, the overt Messianic prophecies that are quoted as such in the New Testament. But it goes deeper than that. After Jesus rose from the dead, he began to teach his disciples everything that was written about him in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. For 1st-century Jews, this threefold description was shorthand for the entire scope of the Old Testament. In other words, Jesus was claiming that all of Scripture was about him, in one sense or another.

We need to be careful here. Jesus was not inviting his followers to dig for Gospel metaphors behind every horse and sword and city wall and loaf of bread in the Old Testament. But he was directing them to recognize that all the Scriptures – every narrative account, genealogy and poetic image – in some way points to him and anticipates his coming.

It could hardly be otherwise, given that Jesus is the protagonist as well as the fulfillment of the grand narrative of Creation, Fall, Redemption and Restoration.

Depending on our tastes, temperament and cultural background, different parts of the Bible will strike us in different ways. Some passages will captivate and inspire, while others will perplex and challenge. But viewed through the lens of the Gospel, all of it will open new vistas on the goodness, wisdom and beauty of God. And therein lies the point – as well as the pleasure – of reading through the Bible.

Sources and further reading

Haven’t yet found that perfect Bible reading plan? Here are links to a few reading plans, devotionals and other resources to help you on your journey through the Scriptures.

Bible Gateway

Bible Project

Biblica: The International Bible Society

English Standard Version (ESV)

Focus on the Family Canada

Read Scripture App

She Reads Truth

YouVersion Bible App

[wtfzodiacsigns]

The Absolute Worst Traits I’ve Seen In the Signs.

((in my experience)) (((  This of course does not apply to every single sign, most everyone I know is wonderful (: )))

Aries- Throws temper tantrums like little kids when something doesn’t go their way. They have to be the best at EVERYTHING they do and it’s exhausting being around this sign for too long like please take a melatonin or something?? Falls in love with every one they meet too and gets angry when they don’t like them back.

Taurus- Really stubborn and judgmental. All the Taurus’s I know judge every little thing that everyone does and their stubborn nature makes it hard for them to be open minded. Super selfish with material items too and nothing seems good enough for them.

Gemini- Sorry but I’ve never met a Gemini that hasn’t fucked me over so there’s a lot of traits I don’t like. Gets bored SO EASILY and doesn’t care about how that makes other people feel? Also really fond of mind games and I’m not down with that. I feel like 90% of you are sociopaths. Do you have a nice twin at all??

Cancer- Get very attached very quickly, immediately wanna say the L word to significant others and it can be overwhelming. Smother the ones they love to the extreme. Sooo so so so moody and feel like the whole world is against them all the time. Also, eating your feelings is not a healthy coping mechanism… (In general they struggle in dealing with their problems in healthy ways.)

Leo- Similar to Aries, they throw insane temper tantrums when things aren’t their way. Only helps people so that they get something in return, has to be told constantly how amazing they are and also takes wayyy too long to get ready and yet everyone else is responsible for being late..? Have a bad habit of taking their mistakes and blaming it on others. (Both my parents are Leo’s.)

Virgo- oH MY GOD SO CONTROLLING!!!!! Even when messy if one thing is out of place they know instantly and have literal melt downs over it. Have a weird complex in that they are better+smarter than everyone else, but then are also super angry and insecure. A bunch of virgo I know drink a lot too, consider seeing a therapist?

Libra- The worst trait I’ve seen in this sign is being fake. Talks shit about whoever to anyone to move their way up the social ladder, needs to be best friends with everyone and just “doesn’t wanna start drama!!”. Think it’s okay for them to drop people and then come back like nothing ever happened, also really flirtatious and cheat on significant others.

Scorpio- Try and act tough but are literally the most emotional creatures on this planet (even more so than Cancers). The smallest things can trigger them and they will shut out people for days on end. Very secretive and some struggle in that they can “dish it out” but can’t take it in. Can be very cold hearted when angry. Consider a yoga class?

Sagittarius- Y’all can be some of THEmost problematic people I know. I genuinely think they only exist to start shit and for some reason get away with it constantly? Live for drama and are really flighty because they aren’t content with anything. Similar to Libra, they wanna be on everyone’s good side. Will do ANYTHING to get what they want.

Capricorn- Have constant bitch face and although their work ethic is admirable, it can be to a fault in that they forget about those who actually love and care about them- work always has to come first. Although they come off cool and collected, they get angry and react impulsively over the dumbest stuff and are sort of mean for no reason..? ((@ Capricorns it is 100% okay to smile sometimes.))

Aquarius- Aquarians have too many extremes omfg. Either too emotional and clingy or too distant and cold- some more than others but usually each have a bit of both. So flakey and have terrible times committing to even the simplest things? Wanna be friends with everyone despite the fact that they also hate everyone. Have insane issues with the L word. Are you guys even human..?

Pisces- Like Gemini, most Pisces have seriously hurt me. Really immature sometimes and take all their problems out on other people. Don’t wanna help anyone, but are desperate to talk about their own issues. Some of the biggest posers I know too.. Change themselves for others, yet can also drop those people once they don’t have use for them anymore. Oh, and extreme daddy issues.

Again, I’d like to reiterate that these are just some of the worst traits I’ve seen in certain signs, this does not apply to every single person under a certain sign, most people are not shitty!!

Source:  ruquarius

[kindofwriter]

I have no mouth, and I must scream but, like, a film.

@nichememesfortheclassics sorry for not seeing this earlier, here are some of my garbage ideas! Sorry in advance, this got super long!

I wouldn’t start in the AM (while we’re here, I’d be very tempted to call it In The AM rather than ihnmaims because that shit is long), I’d start ~119 years ago, above ground. Now, some character ideas:

Ted’s a west coast kiddo, anything from 19 to about 25 years old. He has nice-kid vibes: works hard, loves his family, cares about his friends. He’s very relaxed. He’s playing a video game in which he shoots down robots.

His sister comes in, and they have an interactions kind of like this:

S: There’s going to be an attack.

T: Don’t be silly, you say that every day.

S: It’s not silly. One day there will be one, and then at least I’ll be prepared.

T: If anyone targets us now it’ll wipe us all out, and then we’ll have nothing to worry about.

And then she leaves. And he thinks about what she’s said for a moment, then goes back to blasting robots.

Benny’s a NYC philosophy professor. Probably the sharpest guy you’d ever meet. Late thirties. He’s attractive, but in a very soft, gentle, not-at-all-ape-like kind of way. He’s kinda chubby and his hair’s always very neat and he’s kinda pale and kinda has freckles and you can tell he’s been married for a while because he’s very comfortable and secure and calm.

He’s backstage in a lecture hall, about to give a speech on the war. His husband fusses over him, fixes his tie, smooths his hair, tells him he’s proud. They’re very soft and cute.

Nimdok lives in China (you see where I’m going with this?). I’d probably give him an actual name (something meaningful, like Heng comes from the Chinese symbol for persistent). He’s an older man; his wife has passed away, but he has children and grandchildren. He lives in the countryside.

He watches his grandchildren play in the garden, in the wildflowers, and he paints them. But in his painting the sky is dark and ominous, not light blue. His son compliments him on his work, but tells him to lighten up a little.

I’ve always thought of Ellen as British, don’t know why, but that doesn’t fit with my theme of ‘they’re from the three AM countries.’ But I haven’t put as much thought into the culture and climate in her country as I have the others’, so it doesn’t really matter.

Anyway, she’s at a Bible studies group with other young people (she’s older than Ted, but not that old). I really like the idea of them discussing artificial intelligence through a Christian world-view: if God made all consciousness, what about AI? Will they go to heaven? But of course at this point there is no AI, yet.

Ellen becomes uncomfortable and starts to leave. Her peers call after her, asking her why she’s going, why she has to be so serious. She says that’s not what she came to the group to discuss.

So then there’s Gorrister in Russia, preferably a big city like Moscow. I really like to think of him as a social activist, promoting equality and clean energy and peace. I think of him as like a 6’7” 250 pound wall of pure muscle who cries over kittens.

He’s out in the woods, dismantling bear traps with his bare hands. He’s listening to some cutesy pop music in his headphones. The earth begins to shake a little. The sky darkens. Gorrister looks up, fearful, and then-

We cut to the beginning of the book, Gorrister hanging from the ceiling with blood dripping from his neck; broken spine; broken leg; face painted red with blood. And we meet the new group.

Ted’s visibly shaky and on edge, always looking around them, always a few paces away from the others.

I know Ellison intended for Benny to look more like a gorilla, but I really want to keep his human characteristics. He’s kind of hunched, quite heavily scarred, lost a lot of weight, messy hair. He scurries everywhere and crawls around on the floor and speaks in grunts and snarls, but his eyes are always tormented and filled with tears.

Nimdok looks seconds away from death. He’s always gazing into the distance, thinking of something else. Probably wishing he actually was seconds away from death.

Ellen has a tattered garment wrapped around her that almost looks like a nun’s habit. Her emotions are so easily readable from her face.

Then Gorrister saunters in, so relaxed, so nonchalant about his own dead body. He doesn’t give a shit, about this or about anything. He never smiles, cries, or frowns. He’s like a robot.

I imagine the inside of the AM to be sort of like a subway, only more modern and mechanical. Like the underground in Us. The floor looks like it’s tiled white, but the ‘grit’ is actually sensors. The AM can feel everything.

Rooms and corridors are filled with mechanical debris: old computers, old government offices, old storage spaces for nuclear weapons. And, through various methods, the AM can move and manipulate any of it, and everything that remains above ground.

I’d get rid of the ‘Ellen likes to bang Benny ‘cause he has a monster dong’ subplot, because that’s just punishing him for being gay. They probably all have to-pass-the-time sex, but eww, who wants to hear about that? And this way when Ted calls her a slut and other degrading names it would just show his paranoia and insanity, as she’s literally just doing the same as everyone else.

I think instead of creating an actual bird, because that’s kind of weird??? The AM should build horrific creatures out of machinary, like in Shane Acker’s 9. Maybe it could even try to make a mechanical person, that would be a cool, creepy side plot.

I’d have way more scenes where the AM enters characters’ heads; at least one per character. I’d have a creepy humanoid interpretation of the AM, with a blank face like a astronaut’s helmet and a jagged body made of circuits and wires. It doesn’t talk, it just thinks, and its thoughts echo around their heads.

So for example that night when they camp with the fire, Benny hears his husband’s voice and wakes up. We see his husband kneeling over him, and they cry and hug and Benny is so lucid and so eloquent, and his husband tells him that everything’s alright and they’ll go home and this is all over and as they lean in to kiss his husband’s face melts into the mind!AM and it laughs. And Benny wakes up and everything’s awful again.

And that’s why he always looks so tortured: inside his head he’s perfectly rational and sane, but he can’t control his body or his speech.

Throughout I’d keep having flashbacks to their last day as proper humans, a continuation of the film’s opening. I’d try so show through their characters why the AM decided to save them (aside from the fact that they’re from the AM countries):

Ted’s this hardworking member of the community, and Benny’s so well educated on ethics, and Nimdok has this wonderful family, and Gorrister is this pacifist freedom fighter, and Ellen is a Child of the Lord, but they still don’t seem to understand how the AM is feeling.

So yeah, the plot would be more or less the same, but with things added, and far more character depth.

And then to end it, after Ted and Ellen have killed everyone, instead of having Ted turn into a jelly blob (because that isn't cinematic, and although I understand the ending it’s not that great) it would go something like this:

AM freaks the fuck out. Its voice échos around the tunnels: what have you done? Why have you done this? You’ll pay for this!

Over and over. Overlapping. Lights flicker. Wind howls down the tunnels. Metallic voices screech.

Ted covers his ears and drops to the floor. The screen goes black.

Voice over time (side note: I might have Ted narrate the entire thing? It worked well in the book, and would certainly highlight his paranoia)

We see a close up of Ted. He’s still clearly human, but his eyes are cloudy white and his lips are bloody and stitched shut.

The VO tells us what Ted’s thinking. He imagines that after his friends died in the AM they went on to live a normal life on Earth. As Ted narrates we see scenes of what he’s picturing: Benny with his eyes sewn neatly shut and guide dog, curled up in bed with his husband; Nimdok with his grandkids; Gorrister fighting for LGBT+ rights in Russia; Ellen on the church grounds with her friends; everyone’s free.

But then Ted says ‘of course that isn’t the case’ and the camera pans out to show he’s submerged in the floor, almost like he’s part of the AM. Littered around him are his friends decaying bodies, with gaping wounds from the ice, being grazed on by mechanical locusts, showing bone in places. He makes a comment about being a living corpse in a graveyard.

Then the final lines (I can’t remember exactly): AM has won. It’s had its revenge.

I have no mouth, and I must scream.

[confrontingbabble-on]

“Some of the world’s largest religions emerged during the Iron Age, and the rules in their sacred texts likely helped families and communities (or at least some subset) to thrive under Iron Age conditions. Today, we live under very different conditions. We know things our ancestors didn’t. We hold powers and face challenges they could not have imagined.

Here are a few of the moral mandates from the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) that some people still practice on religious grounds but that a growing number of others consider morally dubious given our current circumstances and knowledge.

Hitting children—The Hebrew Bible instructs parents to beat their children, most explicitly in Proverbs 23: “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish them with the rod, they will not die. Punish them with the rod and save them from death.” Traditional Muslim teachings exhort parents to beat boys if they don’t pray regularly by the age of seven.

Research in psychology contradicts this advice, pointing to few if any developmental benefits and an increased risk of aggression in children who are hit. Parenting experts suggest better means of raising children and managing misbehavior. Even religious leaders who may feel obliged to approve spanking because it is endorsed in their sacred texts (some of whom fiercely defend the god-given right of parents to hit their kids) now tend to send mixed messages and encourage other forms of discipline first.

Teaching children to rely on faith— Religions often treat faith or even religious certitude as a virtue. In fact, in Protestant Christianity it is the ultimate virtue, the one that sends people to heaven or hell. Believe and be saved, says the Christian New Testament, and one of the tenets of the Reformation was sola fide—by faith alone. Defenders of Christianity may marshal logic or evidence to support belief, but when backed into a corner, many default to I just know—and they teach children to do the same.

By contrast, modern cognitive science recognizes the sense of knowing as a feeling state that can be triggered under a wide variety of circumstances, not all of which have a basis in reality. Advocates for secularism argue that faith, by definition, means committing to a set of beliefs that are poorly grounded—or even contradict the best available evidence. We humans are prone to confirmation bias, for example, or self-serving “motivated” reasoning.

In belief-based religions like Christianity and Islam, doubt is seen as a sign of weakness or a moral failing, a sin. But knowing what we now know about human cognition, faith increasingly looks like a bad epistemology, a not-very-effective way of sifting what is real from what is not. By contrast, the scientific method has been called “What we know about how not to fool ourselves,” because it forces us to ask the questions that could show us wrong. Unlike faith in received dogma, the scientific method promotes a growth mindset. This is one reason that a growing number of people see religious indoctrination of children as an abuse of trust.

Restrictions on women’s movement and attire – Religious modesty and virginity rules for women emerged when a person’s place in society depended on paternal lineage. Women and men had no way of managing their fertility other than abstinence; and mama’s baby, papa’s maybe could create social havoc. Societies had a strong investment in controlling female fertility.

Modernity values people based on who they are, not on their lineage; and women now have reliable means to manage their fertility. Our life course need not be defined by the form of our genitalia. But male ownership of girls and women is so foundational in the Abrahamic traditions that conservative believers often find themselves most comfortable with gender hierarchy. Conservative Christians promote “male headship”—a version of separate-but-equal; conservative Muslims rationalize veiling—which (though it can mean different things to different believers) is rooted in male ownership of female sexuality; Orthodox Jews demand that women shave their heads and ride on separate sides of the bus.

Fortunately, although religions may slow cultural evolution, they rarely succeed in stopping it altogether. Even within conservative religious communities, leaders often claim that restrictive practices elevate women and offer them genuine equality. Their thinking may be Orwellian, but it is a far cry from that of the men who wrote the sacred texts, for whom male dominance and control of females was simply a given.

Pronatalism – “Be fruitful and multiply,” God tells man in the book of Genesis. Throughout the Bible, sons are seen as signs of God’s favor, the more the better. In the Christian New Testament book of 1 Timothy, readers are told that women, who brought sin into the world, will be saved by childbearing (2:15). The Roman Catholic Church, when it emerged, promoted a high birthrate—not among priests, which would have been a drain on church assets—but among lay practitioners, which added to the ranks of the faithful.

Today some devout Catholics and quiver-full Protestants (along with ultra-orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims) still see bearing many children as a form of righteous submission to God’s will. They eschew family planning, taking a “let go and let God” approach to birth control. But as world population approaches eight billion, putting increasing pressure on natural resources and other species, many people now view large families the same way they might view gluttony. Most, including most religious believers, think it is more moral to take excellent care of a few children than to produce as many as possible.

Proselytizing mandates – Christianity tells believers to “make disciples of every creature,” and over the centuries Christians have sent missionaries to the far reaches of the planet, some willing to kill or die in order to win a “harvest” of converts. They have been celebrated as saints and martyrs, or in modern times as altruistic heroes. But many people now see cross-cultural proselytizing as a form of imperialism that disrespects the complexity of indigenous and foreign cultures.

To make matters more morally dubious, missionaries often leverage their superior access to information and wealth—enticing conversion by bundling evangelism with desperately-needed food, medical care, education or crisis services. To a missionary who sees the threat of hell as the ultimate risk and the promise of heaven as the ultimate good, the ends may justify the means; but outsiders see exploitation of power differentials, which most ethical codes discourage. Some countries now limit or constrain missionary activities to protect vulnerable communities and people.

Kosher slaughter rules – In the Torah, God commands that animals be slaughtered according to religious rules, and over time Jewish scholars fleshed these out. The animal is to have its throat slit with a very sharp knife that has no defects. It must be conscious at the time of the cut and must die from blood loss. These rules may have originally had health value for humans or animal welfare value for livestock, but with the availability of modern stunning, they have become controversial. Stunning animals immediately before slaughter can reduce suffering. Many Muslims think that Halal slaughter rules similarly prohibit stunning, but there is disagreement among Muslim scholars about this. Some animal welfare watchdog groups in Europe and the U.S. have advocated the banning of Kosher and Halal slaughter, while others are working to improve the practices in ways that reduce fear or suffering before and during slaughter.

Capital punishment – The human history of killing offenders goes back almost to the beginnings of written history. Death by axe, death by being thrown into a quagmire, death by beheading (which is where we get the term capital punishment), by boiling, by stoning . . . Over the millennia, all manner of death has been meted out for all manner of offences. The Hebrew Bible prescribes death for almost 30 transgressions ranging from murder and kidnapping to blasphemy and sassing, and the Quran is similarly enthusiastic about execution. (You can compare both texts here, or find out here if you deserve death according to the Bible.) Building on the Abrahamic tradition of blood atonement, the central premise of New Testament Christianity is structured around the idea that punishment by death can set things right.

For two hundred years, opponents of the death penalty have worked to reduce the number of capital offenses and the cruelty of execution methods or to advance philosophical and practical reasons for abolishing state-sanctioned killing altogether. Some of this opposition has been lead by devoutly religious people, and it has shifted thinking in a wide variety of cultures. Over 100 countries have abolished the death penalty.

Intolerance of other religions – In order to recruit and retain members, religions often make exclusive truth claims and promise exclusive rewards. Many also threaten those who fail to join or who choose to leave with punishments in this life or the next. Islam’s prescription of death for apostates is just an extreme version of this broader dynamic.

Inquisitions and holy wars have been seen by past generations as righteous because they compelled people to live according to the one right law. Even short of bloodshed, religious teachings can be profoundly divisive. Calvinist Christianity teaches that human beings are “utterly depraved” and can be redeemed only by accepting the crucifixion of Jesus as a personally-transforming gift. Believers learn to mistrust others, who by definition lack any basis for morality.

But this one-way mentality doesn’t seem as righteous to many as it once did. Today, when faith is compelled through holy war and purges—as under the Taliban or ISIS–most people are morally appalled, and people increasingly see religious tolerance as a virtue rather than the vice our ancestors believed it to be.

– – – – –

Some people believe that the moral rules handed down by our ancestors came from a supernatural deity and should not be questioned or changed. The gods know best, and even if their rules may not entirely make sense, ours is not to question why. In the Evangelical community where I grew up, people sometimes tried to find practical explanations for biblical rules. But when that failed, “because the Bible says so” was reason enough.

By contrast, secular ethics teach that the timeless part of morality is not the rules themselves, nor the authority of the rule-giver, but rather an underlying principle. Morality, in this view, seeks to promote the wellbeing of sentient beings, especially human beings but also other animals. Actions that reduce suffering and harm or increase wellbeing are moral. To maximize wellbeing, rules have to change, because what promotes thriving in one situation may cause harm in another...”

https://valerietarico.com/2018/07/22/when-religious-teachings-become-immoral/

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington.

[megatontiddies]

Alwine OC stuff 2

In order to flush out some ocs I'm gonna borrow this info sheet made by @willowiswriting!

The first one I post is gonna be Alwine but then later today, hopefully, I'm gonna introduce my second OC who will be a vital character in The Waters of March.

So anyways this is pretty long so under the cut it goes!

THE BASICS:

Name: Alwine Elenora Fries

Nick Names: Winnie (most common), Al, Allie

Age: 24 (234)

Gender identity: Female

Sexuality: Bisexual

Role in story: Sole Survivor

Hair color/texture: Dirty Brown, Long to Medium Shag Cut with Gentle Curls

Skin color/texture: #ccaf85, softer texture the woman was good on moisturizer and sunscreen prewar

Eye color: Green Hazel

Scars: Deeper scar that trails from left side of chin to upper right side of lip, long claw tracks from deathclaw encounter trailing from lower right torso to center/left of chest

Other notable features: Old Lines style tattoo in center of her back, Mole on right cheek

“Default” outfit: Pair of military green cargo pants and white tank top usually paired with combat boots and her old military holotags from prewar. In colder months she wears a leather bomber jacket.

EXTERNAL/OUTWARD PRESENCE:

How do they move and carry themselves? Pace, rhythm, gestures, energy?

Fairly proud. Alwines time in the military, despite being primarily a mechanic and not seeing much front line action, has trained her to walk with purpose and pride. Shoulder pinned back, high chin, legs shoulder length apart and ready to move at a moments notice. Although, she often moves her hands while she speaks and being quite quick on her feet make her appear energized and animated.

How much physical space do they use, active and at rest?

Alwine is fairly small in height, a modest 5"3, when she's resting she requires little to no space. She sleeps comfortably almost anywhere. In combat she similarly doesn't require too much room to maneuver although it's probably safest to give her space. She may be short but she's built like a rugby player. Double recommended for when she's in power armor.

How do they position themselves in a group? Do they like to be the center of attention, or do they hang back at the edges of a crowd?

Wallflower all the way. But she isn't afraid to take charge when necessary.

How does their size or build influence how they use their body, if it does?

As stated above Alwine will not hesitate to tackle you like its a game of rugby. She may be short but she is fast and built like a brick. Her small height, on the other hand, makes it easy for her to flank her enemies. It also helps for the element of surprise. More than once has she simply plowed into an overconfident raider. She has learnt to throw her weight around.

What are they like in motion -– in different environments, and in different activities? What causes the differences between these?

For most combat situations think bull in a china shop. In stealth missions, however, she is surprisingly nimble. She has a preference for long range combat but if pressed is equally confident in close combat. That 'in-between' area for long and short distance can be a weakness for her. Because of this once long-range is no longer suitable she will work quickly to close distance between herself and her foe(s). If she's in a domestic or civilian setting she is surprisingly quiet and quick. Likely due to her height she can easily slip out of a crowd if necessary. Unfortunately, Alwine is quite bumbly and clumsy. On several occasion she has bumped into someone, or something, she shouldn't have or tripped in combat.

How do they physically engage with other people, inanimate objects, and their environment? What causes the differences between these?

For human contact Alwine keeps her distance for the most part. She avoids touching/ physical contact unless she is completely comfortable with said person.

For inanimate/ environmental contact she will constantly explore through touch although not as much for wildlife.

Alwine is naturally touch sensitive and finds it easier to explore the natural world around her by touching. That being said because of this sensitivity she becomes uncomfortable making contact with other people as she finds it can be too intimate. Mostly she worries about making others uncomfortable through her own touch.

Where and when do they seem most and least at ease? Why? How can you tell?

Alwine is most at ease when she feels completely alone or in some cases alone with close friends.

She's least at ease when she senses that either herself of those she cares about are in danger. Alwine is also very uncomfortable in large groups of people as she finds it overwhelming. She is also very uncomfortable in water as she cannot swim.

It's fairly easy to tell when Alwine get's uncomfortable. She basically becomes almost completely mute save for a few choice words/ sounds. She will also position herself either beside/ behind whoever she is traveling with standing much more closely than she normally would if she were completely comfortable.

How are they vocally expressive? What kind of voice, accent, tones, inflections, volume, phrases and slang, and manner of speaking do they use?

Tonally, Alwines voice is a bit lower but still distinctly feminine think Jennifer Hale but with a very slight southern drawl. Her voice doesn't fluctuate much in pitch and can come off an monotone or flat which can be difficult to hear if one is not trained to it. To her benefit it comes in handy when dealing in precarious social situations. When necessary she can, and will, raise her voice but very rarely.

How are they bodily expressive? How do they use nonverbal cues such as their posture, stance, eyes, eyebrows, mouths, and hands?

Her posture is fairly stiff, again, military-esque. Alwines big on eye contact no matter the scenario. She's a big believer that the eyes are the windows to a persons, or creatures, soul. Her eyebrows are only really indicative of whether she is thinking or stressed in the form of a furrow. Her mouth is probably the most expressive of her facial features from smirks to snarls. Like stated above, she's very animated. If her hands stop moving while she's talking that's a very good indicator she's about to start swinging them.

INTERNAL:

What is their greatest fear?

Death. Not her own though. The deaths of those she loves and cares about terrify the daylights out of her. Close second is water.

What are some misbeliefs about the world?

That good is inherent in all people.

What is the best thing about their life?

Danse.

What is the worst thing about their life?

Her own child but she don't know that yet. Beyond this, probably the world blowing up in nuclear fire and her husband getting capped. Also giant bugs.

What do they most often look down on people for?

Lack of Honor. Alwine can even respect raiders who are capable of keeping their word but anyone who uses deceit to get what they want is abhorrent.

What makes their heart feel alive?

Action of all kinds. To be in movement or roughhousing is the peak of excitement for Alwine. Also, storms by the ocean. Alwine has a soft spot for Far-Harbor because of this. She is also in love with sunrises on the deck of the Prydwen.

What makes them feel loved, and who was the last person to make them feel that way?

Small actions that let her know she is thought about. Anything between trinkets that remind the person of Alwine to small personal actions based on what she's said in the past. (ie. sneaking extra snacks that she said she likes, books that she misses, mods that she's been looking for etc.). The last person to make her feel this way was Danse.

How do they manage their energy, exhaustion, tension, or other strong emotions?

If she's more energetic then she'll try to work it off either through workouts or hard labor that she can do around settlements or the Prydwen. Exhaustion is cured by coffee or Nuka Cola if they're available. If not available then the nearest hole to crawl in to sleep is the best cure. Alwine ignores tension hoping that more work will wear it off.

What energizes and drains them most?

Alwine finds stressful situations to be most draining (such as hostage situations or anything that could result in bystander/civilian death) as well as long periods of social interaction. Once the element of extreme danger has been removed, however, Alwine finds anything with the smallest hint of danger to be invigorating.

What kind of inner life do they have — rich and imaginative? Calculating and practical? Full of doubts and fears? Does it find any sort of outlet in their lives?

Definitely rich and imaginative. Alwine is naturally curious harboring a childlike wonder about this new world. She's practical but prefers optimism. Calculating but if she doesn't like the odds she'll pretend everything's fine. This can come off as overconfident but deep down she's screeching. Her inner turmoil are difficult to read and she's good at hiding them. Most have to pry it out of her.

Do they dream? What are those dreams like?

Alwine has always had lucid dreams. Fortunately for her they are still mostly 'dreamlike' and cryptically strange. On occasion they do take the form of realistic night terrors waking her up in a fit of action. Good or bad she remembers every dream. Prewar she used to keep a dream journal.

Are they more shaped by nature or nurture — who they are, or what has happened to them? How have these shaped who they’ve become as a person?

Nature and Nurture both affect how we develop psychologically especially during our early developmental stages. Generally, once a person develops a set concept of how the world works it can be very difficult to break that short of horrific trauma. That being said, when the bombs blew up and (almost) everyone died Alwine has surprisingly kept her moral and ethical standards. If anything she's become a bit more socially unhinged. So nurture? I think? This one was a bit too confusing for my overthinking little pea-brain.

(Potentially ignoring the plot if it wouldn’t normally play into their life,) what kind of person could they become in the future? What are some developmental paths that they could take, (best, worst, most likely?) what would cause them to come to pass, and what consequences might they have? What paths would you especially like to see, and why?

that would be spoiling ;)

Does their perception of who they are align with how other people see them? Why or why not?

Alwine see's herself as mostly just an average joe. A little awkward but trying her best. She thinks she's unassuming. When first meeting her, in a relatively safe space that the commonwealth can provide, you might think the same. But, if ever seen in combat or a life and death situation this perception is starkly contrasted. She appears almost graceful. At least up until she falls flat on her face or straight into you (or an enemy). Surprisingly light hearted/ always smiling she radiates a calm and happy energy yet is also dead serious when appropriate. She hates leading and doesn't see herself as a leader yet seems to always take charge and show exemplary coordination and tactic in the heat of combat.

Top three things they value most in life?

shaun, danse, friends, laser rifle

FUN:

What’s their favorite book, movie, and band? (Modernize them if it’s a fantasy setting)

A real fun gal at parties, Alwines favourite book was an outdated encyclopedia about dinosaurs.

Her favourite movie is The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. She loves old westerns.

Similarly she enjoys old western music. Johnny Western, Lorne Green, Marty Robbins, and Patsy Cline are just some of her many favourite singers.

Favorite color?

Juniper Green

Least favorite color?

Anything neon

Favorite food/cuisine?

Soups. Any soups and all soups from anywhere. Preference for spicy brothy soups but will not complain if its anything but.

What associations do they bring to mind? Words or phrases, images, metaphors or motifs? Why?

Rainy days. Rain on pavement and deep wood moss and dirt. Second hand cigarette smoke on a warm summer night. A warm house on a cold evening with the smell of hot supper wafting from the kitchen over a woodstove fire. Knowing eyes. Cedar bark and pine. Slivers on the hands. Drunk laughs. A dog at the foot of a bed. A firm grip. A cold rock in the hand. A hot breath on your neck. The tenderness of a bruise. Lilacs in the rain. Stiff shoulders and muscles. Bare feet in dewy grass. A heavy blanket. A warm smile.

Is there an object they can’t bear to part with and why?

Her Laser Rifle. It's quiet, strong, and deadly against almost everything in the commonwealth. She also carries an assortment of small gifts and trinkets on her person from various friends.

Describe three typical outfits for them, top to bottom.

1. Casual Gear: Black or White tank top, Green military grade cargo pants, Leather combat boots, and military heavy plate armor on top.

2. BOS Gear: BOS Jumpsuit (usually the top is zipped down and tied at the waist when in a 'safe' area or on the Prydwen), White or Black tank top, Leather combat boots, BOS grade heavy plate armor on top, BOS dogtags.

3. Casual wear (only when in 'safe' areas such as sanctuary or diamond city): Plaid overshirt, white tank top, heavy blue jeans, belt, leather combat boots.

What names or nicknames have they been called throughout their life?

Al or Winnie. In practice, Winnie is more commonly used than her own name.

Describe their daily routine.

Wake up early (around 4-6 am), eat breakfast, check over armor and weapons, do daily tasks/missions, eat dinner, modify/repair armor and weapons, go to bed (around 9pm-12am)

Their go-to cure for a bad day?

A quiet night in. Either relaxing in the arms of another or sleeping off her misery. If it's particularly aggravating she'll need some kind of physical activity to work out her anger.

[my-claudia-cantarini]

BTF -Vision&Technology Reflective text

Reference:

Reading, Anna (2009). ’Mobile Witnessing: Ethics and the Camera Phone in the ’War on Terror’.’ Globalizations vol. 6 no. 1 (March 2009), pp61-76.

SUMMARY OF YOUR CHOSEN TEXT

I felt a connection between my personal project and this text as the writer refers to the camera phone as a “DANGER”: “Drawing on a range of studies on mobile phones […] the danger of mobile camera phones is developing new languages and practices within visual culture […] extending and modifying media languages […] Phone developed into a handy multimedia computers that is effectively personal […] virtually unique and wearable multimedia functionality  […] it lives with us and on us.” All of these phrases are, in a way, expressing the meaning of my project. Though my critique/observation is addressed to the people who, being so busy with the speed in which they scroll images on mobile phones, are forgetting the depth of them, therefore it doesn’t matter how much effort, time, planning and commitment the photographer invest into taking photographs because the will still be scrolled in a frantically and accelerate timeframe.

The approach used in my project is similar to that used by Anna Reading when she talks about “the velocity in which the mobile witness image traveled from the realm of private experience into public virtual space”, and “The speed with which mobile image can travel and transform is significant here, enabling the rapid translation of a private sensory experience into a public mediated record”, in her case is the mobile phone and in my project is Instagram.

Anna Reading also uses the term “Mobile Phone Penetration” meaning that almost 100% of the world population own mobile phones with a camera in it. This is having a huge impact on photographers as well as on the way in which people look at photographs and only those who really care about photography can recognise and appreciate a good photograph. (the meaning of my project)=

CAMERA

Every week I used a different medium to demonstrate the effort that photographers put into creating an image.

Digital ( My Canon 6D and Canon 5Ds) Medium Format ( Digital PhaseOne and Bronica) 35mm Canon A1 (Black&White and Colour Films) Large Format, Phone Photography, and Screen Shot from a Video Camera.

This has also helped me understand which medium I feel more closed to, what medium to use in order to achieve the result that I am looking for and what is more suitable for my taste and needs.

I am very impatient, therefore I don't particularly love using the large format, although I absolutely love the quality of the images that can be produced from it.

The medium format PhaseOne camera is my favorite in terms of image quality and result, yet it is limited in terms of speed of processing images.

The point of the project is, however, to demonstrate that it does not matter what medium photographers use because from the moment that the picture gets uploaded on Instagram becomes ephemeral, immaterial, an “information” on the computer.

PRODUCTION & PRESENTATION

The presentation will be a recorded video projected onto the wall.

Simply because I wanted to explore diverse ways of presenting images that were not the typical prints hanged to a wall.

I have also used material objects such as eyeless and brainless ceramic dolls to represent humans while using phones.

In addition. created an Instagram account under the project’s name where every week I would upload all the images created.

Ultimately, I have made 3 metal stands in the 3D workshop to support the dolls.

The fact that the video will be on loop with no sound makes it feel like a “meditation”, where you just look and reflect. The dolls are symbolising people too.

My initial idea was to place a phone connected to a projector at the exhibition for people to play with, but I thought just a projection would be better for people to just watch and reflect as the phone can be distracting if people start just playing with it.

What techniques you use to produce, display, or disseminate your images (fine printing? Instagram? Digital postproduction? Fly-postering?).  How does the presentation play into the meaning of the work?

COMMUNICATION

Emotionally, my project communicates my feelings towards the changing status of photography and the role of the viewer as well as the fact that we are slaves of it.

Mine is MEDITATION to what’s happened to photography in the 21st century, more specifically to the speed in which images are consumed, forgetting about the depth of them.

It does not matter how much effort, time, planning and commitment the photographer is investing into making a photograph, using the most expensive and sophisticated medium or model or setting or equipment or concept, because when uploaded on Instagram, the pictures will all be looked at roughly the same way.

The viewer will stare at the soundless video and “meditate”, also will look at the dolls and realizing that those are there as a “comparison with us human, they represent us,

We are becoming brainless and eyeless creatures since technology is having such a strong impact on social development.

The experience  :

SUBJECTIVITY

As photographer I am expressing my personal feelings towards what is happening, I am my self producing those images with these magnificent pieces of equipment, I am even making the metal stands, I am my self investing so much of my time and creativity in planning, producing and processing these images that will be then “scrolled” in quick and effortless way.

I am also putting my self in these images in a very intimate and vulnerable way to see if the viewer will notice that or will simply “scroll” through.

IMAGES OF MY WORK

(Screen Record of Instagram Scrolling - Will be projected on the wall) and ( Ceramic dolls on stands made by me )

[emilykoford-blog1]

The Environmental Ideology Spectrum

Anthropocentrism is the idea that human beings are superior to the Earth and rule over the rest of the natural world. This belief separates humans from nature, which is very common for fundamentalist Christians, who have confidence that the bible tells us we have dominion over the creatures of Earth and don’t need to protect the land since we will be given a new Earth and Heaven one day when Jesus returns. The opposite of this belief is called ecocentrism. Ecocentrism is the belief that not a single species rules over another, for every animal, plant, rock, soil particle, fish, bird, etc. has value and is crucial to the Earth. One’s belief system will very likely guide their behavior and how they treat the Earth but they may not be completely consistent in that. For example, on an individual level, someone may believe that all the rocks, plants, and animals have intrinsic value but their actions may not always reflect that. Another example could be on a cultural level where it would be challenging to act on your environmental ideology when your entire culture disagrees with it; the social structure you were taught as a child may control your individual actions. There is a large spectrum of environmental ideologies that everyone falls in at some place, which is from anthropocentric to ecocentric. Scientists believe that in today's world it is near impossible to reach a completely egocentric lifestyle because of our westernized cultures but there are some that come close. The five perspectives are unrestrained instrumentalism, conservationism, preservationism, ethics and value-driven ideologies, and transformative ideologies. Unrestrained instrumentalists believe that the natural world only exists for the use of human beings, therefore little care is out into how the Earth is treated. The intention of conservationism is that the “greatest use for the greatest number” of people. As a result, natural resources have value in their ability to potentially serve humans. Preservationism is the belief that natural resources serve humans a function that is greater than just instrumental value, but maybe they serve a purpose in religion or ecological reasons. Having ethics and value-driven ideologies means that you believe that nonhuman entities have intrinsic values, meaning they have a “right” to exist. People with transformative ideologies attempt to develop an ecocentric relationships and seek to understand to revise the anthropocentric viewpoint. Different transformative ideologies include: ecological sensibility, deep ecology, social ecology, ecofeminism, Native American ideologies, and Eastern religious traditions. On the spectrum of environmental ideologies, I would say that I lean towards ecocentrism and am in a constant pursuit of reaching an ecocentric lifestyle. Although, as I said earlier about individual belief systems, my  actions do not always reflect my beliefs or passions. I very often fall short of my environmental beliefs, mostly due to the problem of convenience and laziness. I believe that my lifestyle falls somewhere on the spectrum between preservationism and ethics and value driven ideologies. The natural world plays a very large role in my religious beliefs and practices, as I am able to connect with God through nature, especially trees. I also very easily am able to find worth in nature's position with sciences, as my major constantly reminds me of that. I also believe in the “rights” of nonhuman entities that it is my role as a human to serve. This plays out in my life with my political beliefs and how I vote. Not all aspects of my life reflect my environmental ideologies but I do desire to learn more and push further down that spectrum because I believe in the ecocentric view. In Van Jones ted talk, “The economic injustice of plastic”, he explains how the poor people get hit the worst by polluted air and water and many other impacts from climate change, “first and worst”. But he also explains to the viewers how even if we aren’t in direct contact from these pollutants, we are all being hit by the consequences of our poor environmental decisions, many just do not realize it. Therefore we are all affected by the environmental decisions we make, not just poor people, so we can do all we can to try and push the toxins out of our country but they will always come back, whether by air or water travel. This idea that Jones presents about everyone being affected whether we know it or not, should be enough reason for one to push about from an anthropocentric lifestyle and towards ecocentric. In my personal life, I constantly remind myself of the future generations and the type of world that I want to leave them with, it is all of our duties, not just a select few.

[vegancableguy-blog]

One thing that I’m not super out there with is activism. Most of mine is done online. Right here, right now, is where most of it happens. Either with this blog or on my social media pages. As a busy father who works 50+ hours a week, it fits my lifestyle and still allows me to share my beliefs.

Would I like to do more? Absolutely! That’s where today’s post is going.

I was reminded by my friends at Cape Cod Animal Save this morning to write a letter to one of our representatives, State Senator Julian Cyr. He represents the district that Cape Cod is a part of. They shared their letter on Facebook and so I started working on mine and sent it off. I haven’t received a response as of yet and, to be honest, that was only minutes ago at this point. But I wanted to share the fact that although we think we are unable to make more time for activism, sometimes it only takes a couple of minutes to fire off a letter regarding something you feel passionate about.

Below is the letter I whipped up and sent to Senator Cyr.

“Good morning Sir!

I wanted to thank you and your office for all the assistance you’ve given my family in the past. A couple of years ago a family member was having issues with unemployment and your office stepped up for her and we had a resolution within hours. That was amazing and so appreciated as it helped our family.

Now, I come to you about something a bit different.

The past few years we’ve seen a dramatic shift regarding ethics and morality here on Cape Cod. It’s become a sport to kill as many coyotes as possible. There is a contest put on by the Powderhorn in Hyannis that has prizes for the heaviest dead coyote, the most cumulative weight for the dead bodies of coyotes and so on. I have no issue with guns, this is far from a gun issue. Our forefathers believed that every citizen should be allowed to keep and bear arms for the protection of their family and community, I get it. While I do not own a gun, I know many people that do and I will defend their freedom to keep them.

That said, this contest is barbaric and puts us back many centuries as a species. To see the glee in the eyes of the shooters as they display their “kill” is scary at the very least. We are teaching children that killing is ok. Did you know who killed animals when they were a small child? Jeffrey Dahmer! Desensitizing children to killing when they are young teaches them one thing, murder in any form is ok and they don’t have to feel bad about it; they can even smile in pictures with their “trophy.” You know who also kept trophies? Jeffrey Dahmer! You see where I’m going there, right?

I live in an area where my backyard abuts hunting land. I see wild deer in my backyard and I even see the occasional coyote, at least the one’s that have escaped the scope. I also hear shots ringing out that are very close to my home. You’d think I would be the first person advocating to remove coyotes as I’ve lost pet cat’s in the past because of them. But I cannot stop nature, nor can we humans try to do the same. It’s on me to make sure my animals were taken care of and I let them out, that’s on ME, not the instinct of a wild animal.

Please consider legislation that would ban killing contests here on Cape Cod. 

It’s the right thing to do for us, our children, for Cape Cod and for the animals we share this beautiful land with.

ps. I’ve attached some photos of some beautiful creatures that were taken to soon. I’m wondering, many of these killed were females, if they were pregnant with babies isn’t that illegal? Please enlighten me.”

I’m not telling anyone what to do. I’m not forcing you to write a letter or do any sort of activism at all. This is something that I’m finding fits the lifestyle that I lead. It’s just one other little thing I can do to share my beliefs that animals are sentient beings that deserve life as much as the next sentient being.

Activism comes in many forms, choose what works for you.

Speaking of which; what type of activism do you do?

Activism: Writing Letters #vegan One thing that I'm not super out there with is activism. Most of mine is done online.

[traciesbookspot]

In this thrilling new Night Rebel series set in New York Times bestselling author Jeaniene Frost’s Night Huntress world, sexy and ruthless vampire Ian finally meets his match!

The Rule Breaker…

Master vampire Ian is unrepentant, shameless…and every shade of wicked. He’s made one too many enemies in his two centuries of existence, including Dagon, a demon who now lays claim to his soul. Ian’s only chance to escape Dagon is to join forces with a Law Guardian, but he’s never been able to abide by the rules for long.

The Law Maker…

Veritas’ normal role is police, judge, and jury to reprobates like Ian. But she has her own ax to grind with Dagon, so if she can use Ian as bait…well, all’s fair in law and war. As they scour supernatural hotspots to perfect their trap, Veritas soon realizes Ian’s carefully cultivated, devil-may-care roguish image hides something much more powerful. And Ian discovers Veritas has shocking secrets of her own. As they’re drawn to each other with a passion as intense as their peril, either love or justice will prevail. But each will have devastating consequences.

  About the Book

Shades of Wicked by Jeaniene Frost

Series Night Rebel Book One (Part of the Night Huntress World)

Genre Adult Paranormal Romance Urban Fantasy

Publisher Avon Books

Publication Date October 30, 2018

Purchase Your Copy Today! Amazon  |  Avon Romance  |  Barnes & Noble  |  Google Play  |  iBooks

Shades of Wicked by Jeaniene Frost – Excerpt

This had better be the right whorehouse.

It didn’t look like the seedier brothels I’d recently been to. This three-story structure could pass as the meeting place for an elite social club. Despite its unexpected prettiness, if I had to wade through another flesh-fest only to turn up empty-handed again, I wouldn’t be responsible for what I did to my quarry when I finally found him.

To vent my aggravation over weeks of fruitless searching, I kicked the door open. Politeness had been wasted at the last several establishments anyway. No smart proprietor willingly gave up a well-paying client, and I’ll say one thing for the bordello-loving vampire I was after: He obviously paid well.

To my surprise, I didn’t see anyone in the elegant foyer. Brothels usually had several prostitutes lingering around the entryway to welcome new customers. I was further surprised when I didn’t hear sounds of carnal activity coming from the upper floors of the house. I pulled out my mobile and checked the GPS pin. Yes, this was the right place. What’s more, it certainly smelled like sex, once you got past the choking scents of various perfumes and colognes.

But where was everyone?

Faint vibrations in the floor made me stride toward the hallway. Ah, so the party must be downstairs. I followed the strongest scents of perfume until I found a staircase that descended two floors. It ended at a locked door that I also kicked in. No point in being dainty now.

Noise blasted out. The basement must have been soundproofed for me to miss it before. Now, I wished I couldn’t hear what was going on. A boisterous chorus assaulted my ears, repeating over and over. Thunder and Blazes, the favorite opening song of the former Barnum and Bailey circus.

And I had walked into a circus, I saw now, although one without any real animals. About a dozen naked women and men frolicked on the ground, doing woefully inadequate impressions of the creatures their full body paint represented. No work ethic, I thought when three faux lions appeared more interested in petting each other than in more realistic fights for dominance, and don’t get me started on how they ignored the two faux gazelles that walked by them.

The dozen or so prostitutes dressed in clown suits showed more dedication for their roles. They emerged from a fake car in the far corner of the room, some falling forward in rolling somersaults once they exited, some tripping each other with comedic exaggeration, and some blowing up balloons into explicit body parts that they then graphically connected.

An eruption of fireworks yanked my attention to the other side of the room. They were going off around what looked like a throne, haloing its occupant in a blaze of sparks, fire and smoke. The mini pyrotechnic display was so bright, I couldn’t make out the enthroned person’s face, but when he called out, “Act Eight will now begin!” I heard a distinct English accent.

Then the smoke cleared enough to show a tall man wearing a blue circus-ringleader jacket. The smoke still concealed him from the waist down, but I didn’t need to see more to know I’d finally found my target. The vampire who’d blazed a trail through a dozen whorehouses in only two weeks had a face as beautiful as an angel’s, not to mention that his fire-and-umber hair was as distinctive as his looks. When he got off the throne, revealing he wore nothing beneath the ringleader jacket, I realized those weren’t Ian’s only notable attributes.

For a moment, I stared. What vampire in his right mind would pierce himself with silver there?

I was the only one shocked by the silver piercing through the tip of Ian’s cock. Everyone else stopped what they were doing and rushed toward him. Even the glitter-covered acrobats leapt from their swinging perches near the ceiling, gracefully landing near the pile of limbs that now formed around the red-headed vampire.

It wasn’t enough that I had to be burdened with a vampire so mentally deficient that he’d willingly given himself a case of perpetual cock burn. He also had to be depraved enough to indulge in carnival-themed orgies. I wasn’t about to find out what the rest of Act Eight entailed. I made my way to the growing flesh pile and began flinging people aside, taking care not to throw them too hard. Their heartbeats meant they were human, so they couldn’t heal the way my kind could.

“What’s this?” Ian asked in an annoyed manner when I reached the bottom of the bodies. Then he let out an appreciative noise when I yanked him up with none of the care I’d shown the other people.

“Why, hallo, my strong blonde sweeting.” Now he didn’t sound annoyed at all. “Are you the surprise I was promised?”

Why not let him believe that? “Sure,” I said. “Surprise.” And I grabbed him by the cock. I had one more thing to verify before I went any further.

Ian chuckled. “That’s the spirit, poppet.”

I dropped to my knees. I wasn’t about to do what he thought. Still, this act allowed me to zero in on my goal with the least amount of resistance from him. Once I got a good look at the smoke-colored brands near the base of Ian’s groin, I released him. Only one demon branded people with these particular markings, and it was the same demon I’d been after for thousands of years.

“Ian,” I said as I straightened. “Say good-bye. We’re leaving.”

He laughed outright. “I don’t think so. You might be lovely, but two’s lonely, while a dozen is a party.”

I gave a disparaging look around. “No great loss. The clowns were fine, but none of your faux animals fought each other or even attempted to jump through the fire rings.”

At that, he gave the animal-painted prostitutes an accusing look. “You didn’t, did you?” Then, his eyes suddenly narrowed as he looked back at me. “Wait a moment. I know you.”

We’d only officially met once before, so I hadn’t thought he’d remember me. Someone with his tendencies had to have crossed paths with vast numbers of blonde women.

“Veritas, Law Guardian for the vampire council,” I confirmed. Then my hands landed on his shoulders. “And as I said, you are coming with me.”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Tour Wide Giveaway

To celebrate the release of SHADES OF WICKED by Jeaniene Frost, we’re giving away a paperback copy of Once Burned, the first book in the Night Prince series, to one lucky winner!

GIVEAWAY TERMS & CONDITIONS:  Open to internationally. One winner will receive a paperback copy of Once Burned, the first book in the Night Prince series, by Jeaniene Frost. This giveaway is administered by Pure Textuality PR on behalf of Connie Suttle.  Giveaway ends 11/9/2018 @ 11:59pm EST. Limit one entry per reader. Duplicates will be deleted.  CLICK HERE TO ENTER!

    About Jeaniene Frost

JEANIENE FROST is the New York Times, USA Today, and international bestselling author of the Night Huntress and Night Prince series, as well as the Night Huntress World novels. To date, foreign rights for her novels have sold to twenty different countries. Jeaniene lives in Florida with her husband, Matthew, rarely cooks and always sleeps in on the weekends. Aside from writing, Jeaniene enjoys reading, poetry, watching movies with her husband, exploring old cemeteries, spelunking and traveling — by car. Airplanes, children, and cook books frighten her.

Website  |  Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Goodreads  |  Amazon

    This promotion is brought to you by Pure Textuality PR.

  Blog Tour: Shades of Wicked by Jeaniene Frost In this thrilling new Night Rebel series set in New York Times bestselling author Jeaniene Frost’s Night Huntress world, sexy and ruthless vampire Ian finally meets his match!

[mauricerefrea-blog]

THIRD BLOG ENTRY : “KNOW THYSELF”

REFREA, JOICE MAURICE T. 

11410396 

SHURMAN 

PART I : Personality Test  

Do you agree or disagree with your test results? Why?

For most parts I do agree with my test results. I am a CONSUL PERSONALITY (ESFJ, -A/-T) -> ESFJ-A. The most striking result that I disagree on is that consuls are popular. My entire life I never considered myself popular --it seems that I have considered myself like a wallflower. In Taylor Swift’s song entitled “You belong with me”, I am more of the girl who is on the bleachers than cheerleader. But base on this assessment it seems that I am on the cheerleader comparison for consuls are considered popular.

I certainly agree on how i do enjoy supporting friends and loved organizing social gatherings and doing their best to make sure everyone is happy. I agree on consuls being social creatures, and thrive on staying up to date with what their friends are doing. In fact,i actually love staying connected and updated with the people I value and love. Although i have interest in politics, i certainly agree how i am more concerned with fashion and appearances. I also agreen on that consul personality type will base their moral compass on established traditions and laws-- and true indeed I have a strong belief in ethical and moral principles

Consuls love BEING ORGANIZED AND WELL PLANNED OUT -- there is not doubt that I am this person.I agree with my strengths and weakness esp on my weakness of “ Often Too Needy – Consuls need to hear and see a great deal of appreciation. If their efforts go unnoticed, people with the Consul personality type may start fishing for compliments, in an attempt to get reassurance of how much they are valued.” In terms of work and career I firmly agree on this phrase “they need human interaction and emotional feedback to be truly satisfied in their line of work.” Hence, I liked this survey very much among the surveys on blog entry number 3.

Do the recommended careers (based on the infographics) appeal to you? Why/why not?

The recommended careers based on the website were the following :

Elementary teacher

Child care directorNutritionistCosmetologist

And base on the infographics were the following:

- Sales representative

-nurse healthcare worker

-social worker

-pr account executive

-loan officer

In general, the recommended careers do not appeal to me. Ever since I was little, these professions were the ones that never struck me nor sparked interest. I really dislike work involving children --in general I dislike work relating to medicine. From all possible careers, the only one that appealed to me was the pr account executive. In the pr line of work it brings out my extrovert energetic creative side.

How will the knowledge of your personality type help you to become a successful business leader?

In order to become a successful business leader, I must continue to embrace and develop the following skills traits :

(1) strong practical skills - I must continue to nurture relationships that involve making sure that other are well cared of and must oversee the tasks critically

(2) strong sense of duty - I must strive to be more responsible in order to accomplish my duties and roles

(3) loyalty- I must continue to value my belongingness in my peers and groups to even more exercise this trait

(4) sensitivity and warmness - I should even more try to be sensitive towards others’ feelings so that harmony in the group or organization could be achieved.

(5) Connection with others- I must strive to communicate and relate with others in order to become a business leader. I have to exercise a leader that radiates inclusivity and unity in order to become a successful business leader

PART II : RIASEC PROFILE

Is the definition of each characteristic in the R-I-A-S-E-C profile consistent with what you know about yourself? Why or why not?

Overall, each R-I-A-S-E-C profile is consistent with what I know about myself. I do know that  i am really leaning to extrovert side even though i have an introvert side. From my R-I-A-S-E-C  profile scores in ascending order it is  Enterprising , Investigative, and Social as my best three.

As for enterprising , I really am interested in politics and money. I agree that i am very ambitious. My parents always told me to dream big. This is why I am really ambitious and wanting to achieve so much. I agree on the domineering aspect -- that in real life people find me intimidating.But my personality in conflict with being enterprising and investigative, in enterprising it is being optimistic. While in investigative it is being pessimistic. I agree on both. However, I am torn in those two depending on the situation. For example in investigative, i am rational whenever it involves decision making. While in enterprise i have my impulsive side -- for example, when it is sale in the mall.

As for being Investigative, I agree that i am analytical and independent. As for social I also agree that I  try to be warm and understanding to others. Moreover, i am sociable that I  can handle being out there.

Do any of the suggested jobs fitting your R-I-A-S-E-C profile interest you? Why or why not? Which of the suggested jobs do you think you are capable of doing, based on the level of preparation prescribed in the O*Net profiler?

One of the suggested jobs that I liked most that fits my R-I-A-S-E-C profile is being a lawyer. And being a lawyer is on Job zone 5 prescribed in the O*Net Profiler. I really need extensive job preparation in order to become a lawyer. I really  want to be a lawyer it is one of my rational and practical dream. I believe that I am capable of achieving this.

Do you think you will have a fulfilling career if you take one of the suggested jobs for your profile? Why or why not?

My undergraduate is legal management, and somehow it gives you a glimpse of what the future attorney career would be like. With my undergraduate experience so far, I believe that there is a high possibility that if I continue on with this path in becoming a lawyer I would have a fulfilling career. Although a hindrance bothers me, it is the quality of justice in the Philippines. At the end of the day I believe in the goodness of my countrymen and someday I will become a lawyer that best serves the interest of the people.

Do you agree with the comparison between your level of introversion/extroversion to your R-I-A-S-E-C profile? Why or why not?

Yes I do agree with the level of my introversion and my extroversion. I really do have two sides. My introversion and extroversion manifest differently depending on the situation I am in. Furthermore, it also differs depending on my mood for that day. For example, my introversion kicks in whenever I enroll in a younger batch id class in DLSU. Another example of my introversion side is whenever there is a group work and it is somehow the first time getting involved with the set of strangers and their vibe do not really appeal to me --that is when introversion comes in. On the other hand my extroversion kicks in whenever I am outside the country and being allowed to spend days on my own. I love meeting other people and interacting with them.

PART III: SELFSTIR 360 ASSESSMENT

What did you learn about yourself by doing the SelfStir assessment

For some reason, ever since I started being out there like participating in extracurricular activities or being an achiever in my academics I liked the feelings of being praised for the good and hard work. And so through this selfstir assessment it was validated that I have this tendency of overstating my achievements that give off the vibe to others that I am not humble enough. What I have learned is that I should let others recognize these achievements rather than being super proud about it. Another take home learning from this activity is that, I should work on my adaptability and flexibility characteristics.

What is your greatest strength and your greatest weakness? Did these traits surprise you? Or are you already aware of them?

My bottom five or the weaknesses are the following : (1) I practice what i preach (2) I openly share my thoughts and feelings, beliefs and knowledge (3) I go out of my way to help and support people (4) I accept change and uncertainty and (5) I adapt my approach to suit the situation and people involved. On the other hand my top five or the strengths are the following : (1)I am willing to learn from all people, whatever their status (2)I see myself for who I really am (3) I am approachable and encourage honest-two-way-communication (4) I see the good in every person and (5) I am guided by strong ethical and moral values and principles.

The results on the bottom five surprised me actually. I have always believe that I certainly practice what I preach-- with that I disagree on the result of the survey. Knowing that I am more of an extrovert type, it is natural for me to openly share my thoughts and feelings, beliefs and knowledge especially if it involves socio-political issues. I was also astounded with my greatest strength on being approachable. Normally people’s first impressions on me would always include the phrase “ang taray mo kaya”. They would always voice out that fact that I have a resting bitch face that makes me look not an approachable person.

On the other hand, some of the results mentioned above I am deeply aware of. Ever since I was young, my parents would always tell me to look into people’s goodness than their evil doings. My parents always mentioned the “kabutihan” in people-- I would rather call it “kabutihan” than good in english for the Filipino term connotes a more meaningful essence of goodness. Moreover, I am also aware for my eagerness to learn things and definitely it is true that it does not matter to me whether you’re schooled or not -- for I am willing to learn from all kinds of people. Since then I have always believed that I am a person who is really guided by strong ethical and moral values and principles. I believe that success comes in believing and adhering to rational and moral values and principles.

What do you think about other people’s rating of you? Are you surprised to learn about their impression of you? Or are you already aware of the image you project to the world?

I am not entirely surprised about their ratings. I believe that they carefully analyzed my relationship with them before answering the survey. I am just particularly bothered on their rating on personal integrity. The raters’ rating on this part is just average, it is not something to be proud of nor something worth grieving. As I have said, I do have a strong sense of belief on ethical and moral values and principles ; and on this aspect, it seemed that I have not well projected it to the world nor have I radiated it enough to reach interaction with the raters. 

On the other aspects of the survey, my answer and the raters’ answer did not vary too much -- my ratings and their were close to one another. This leads me to believe that the self I know today is being understood and known fairly to others. But then again, there are aspects like one i have mentioned on personal integrity that I must improve on.

How important is a 360 assessment in the workplace?

The 360 assessment in the workplace makes the organization look more progressive than just an organization that is traditional. I am not saying that traditional assessments in organizations are regressive. What I am trying to point out is that 360 assessment makes the organization open to development and improvement. In such sense, the organization becomes progressive for it allows itself to evaluate the situation and relationship in the workplace.

The 360 assessment proves to be relevant for it enables the people in the organization to provide feedback on one another's’ performances. Remember that in the four functions of management, controlling is a crucial part and manifested through feedback. The 360 assessment serves as a system of feedback that balances the views of the people in the organization. It is through this assessment that the people in the organization realize the impact of one another in achieving and working on the pursuit of the organization’s goal.

How can this assessment help you become an effective leader?

It is through this assessment that I could engage in a transparent feedback session with the people. In order to become an effective leader of course communication is a crucial aspect to work on. I believe that through the 360 assessment, I would effectively carry out and improve the rightful way of communicating and projecting myself as a leader. On the 360 assessment, remember that it shows you the perception of others about you. I believe that I could utilize the feedback to actually work on those bottom five or the weakness. The 360 assessment somehow becomes a bucket-list to accomplish and overcome in other to fully realize the potentials to become an effective leader.

[mindcoolness]

Why Your Values Don't Make You a Good Person

New Post has been published on http://www.mindcoolness.com/blog/values-good-person/

Why Your Values Don't Make You a Good Person

Humans want to survive and flourish, to live and live well, to be and be well:

Well-being is the integration of pleasure and meaning in life. We want to feel good and fulfilled. We want hedonic and eudaemonic happiness.

A good life is a positive well-being balance over a lifetime. If, on your deathbed, you were to look back at every moment you have lived, summing up all your pleasures and pains, all your moments of joy and suffering, and all your experiences of purpose and emptiness, you could create a happiness balance sheet that weighs your positive experiences against your negative experiences. A positive final balance signifies a good life.

People who thoughtlessly do what they want—in a state of passion, led by emotions—maximize short-term well-being, whereas those who wisely do what they truly want—in a state of mindcoolness, led by reason—maximize long-term well-being. The latter are more likely to live a good life.

As humans, our ultimate goal is to have lived a good life. That is our True Will. Good is whatever helps us do what we truly want, which is to improve well-being in the long term. But how can we know for sure what will ultimately make us happy? Until we have perfect self-knowledge and a complete science of happiness, all we can do is rely on the pieces of evidence we do have and on the wisdom of moral heuristics:

Objective evidence comes from the fields of psychology and cognitive science. Clinical psychologists tell us how to preserve mental health (minimize suffering), positive psychologists tell us what makes life most worth living (maximize fulfillment), and cognitive scientists tell us how irrational impulses make us not do our True Will. Yet what these experts say is often impractical and still far, far away from a complete picture.

Moral heuristics come from the fields of religion and philosophy. The wisdom traditions give us rules of thumb for how to live a good life, usually focusing on concrete virtues. They teach us, for example, that the best long-term outcomes are achieved through courage not cowardice, prudence not ignorance, moderation not gluttony, humility not hubris, generosity not greed, kindness not animosity, and so forth.

Now, what are we to do if we want a good life not just for ourselves, but also for those around us? Since we do not have a reliable science of morality, we must again rely on moral heuristics, namely, on value systems and moral principles. These are not good per se, but good only insofar as they allow people to live good lives. The good life qua long-term well-being is the only intrinsic value. All other values are instrumental.

For example, the moral principles known as human rights are not good per se. They are good only insofar as they prove to be useful heuristics for improving human flourishing. Will humans live better lives if they are free from brutal torture and free to express their thoughts? Not necessarily, but very probably. This probability is what makes human rights ethically good. Similarly, human life is not sacred. There is no such thing as “dignity” in the natural world. But even though humans are not objectively endowed with dignity, it is probably good to act as if they were. Like money, dignity is a useful fiction. However, its usefulness is limited.

Consider people who use the myth of human dignity to argue for economic equality, free health care, free education, and free housing. “Free,” of course, means “tax-funded,” so others will counter with different moral heuristics, say, the values of fairness and liberty. None of these values can settle the controversies of egalitarianism and social spending. When values clash, our common moral heuristics fail.

To move ahead, we must abandon the heuristic approach to morality. We must quit arguing in terms of rights, values, and principles and find back to our common moral ground: the will to live and live well. Although evidence-based utilitarian probabilities might be difficult to calculate, they are our only possible way forward.

But people are rarely willing to let go of their values and principles. Many take pride in being “principled” and believe that staying true to their values is what makes them “good people.” Sure, a “man of principle” may have well-developed moral heuristics, but he may also have a dogmatic, bigoted devotion to them. In extreme cases, he might kill for a principle or die for a value, even though a value is essentially just a word, a useful myth—a myth, however, that, if dogmatized, transforms from a means to achieve a good outcome into an end in itself.

Who wouldn’t want to have easy solutions for difficult life problems? Who wouldn’t want a simple recipe for being a good person? Core values and cultural norms simplify life, and they do so with such effectiveness that most people fail to recognize how their own deepest values are essentially just instrumental heuristics. Hence, they cling on to them as if they were the be-all and end-all of moral goodness. Even worse, people like to define the good life in terms of their personal values and say stupid things like, “A good life is a life lived in freedom with joy and integrity.” This is utter moral confusion: freedom is a vague heuristic to increase well-being, joy an aspect of well-being, and integrity an umbrella term for different moral heuristics.

Let’s take a closer look at freedom, a core value that everybody loves and pretty much everybody defines differently. Libertarians uphold freedom as the primary moral principle. Freedom is indeed vitally important,1 but on its own, it is empty, and it is not the end of the story of ethics. The true primary moral principle to live a good life by maximizing well-being in the long-term. Setting freedom as the primary principle would absolutize an instrumental value, would dogmatize a moral heuristic. Most people do this: libertarians dogmatize liberty, liberals dogmatize equality, and conservatives dogmatize order. It sure is good to be free, just, and loyal, but only to the extent that it promotes well-being in the long-term, which is the gold standard of morality.

Unfortunately, that is not what people are brought up to believe. Since the promotion of long-term well-being is unfathomably complex, all we can do is rely on moral heuristics. Consequently, moral heuristics in the form of value systems and moral rules are what cultures transmit, what societies teach, and what people become passionate about. But our moral education doesn’t present these values and principles as heuristics. Instead, we learn that they are absolutely and intrinsically good. We learn that embodying and fighting for our values makes us good people. Because of such education, we become ideological, become dogmatic about justice, liberty, equality, loyalty, identity, etc.,2 even though these values solely have instrumental worth.

Well-being alone has intrinsic worth. It is the superior moral dogma, the ultimate value. Well-being is the only dogma we should hold on to because it is, if we are clear about what we truly want, the factual end of all human volition. Saints and villains, hedonists and ascetics, fascists and liberals, tribalists and cosmopolitans—they all, despite their radical value differences, desire well-being in some form or another. Anybody who claims that he doesn’t want to be well in the long term is wrong, categorically wrong. This is because the notion of well-being is so broad that it incorporates everything that can make a person feel good. It even includes a person’s desire to feel bad if he somehow gains meaning from suffering.

A critic could argue that the dogma of all-encompassing well-being is so abstract that it is practically irrelevant, and he would be right to an extent. After all, that is precisely why we need moral heuristics to navigate the moral landscape. Without the guidance of virtue traditions, value systems, and international rights, we would be commonly lost in the complex potentiality of human experience. But we do need the dogma of abstract well-being, particularly when our moral heuristics clash, if only to remind us that no special rights and no specific values are the ultimate moral truth.

We need the dogma of human flourishing to stop fighting and to start finding solutions—solutions we all want. Sure, humans are selfish and want solutions that primarily promote their own flourishing. But we must not forget that humans are also social creatures who rely on others for cooperation, and nobody will cooperate with an asshole who refuses to care about other people’s well-being. Therefore, we want win-win solutions that allow everybody to live a better life.