Starbucks vs UK Uncut

Today, activists of the group 'UK Uncut' protested at Starbucks cafes across the nation over the companies choice not to pay corporation tax for the last three years. They attempted to turn branches into creches, refuges and homeless shelters to raise awareness of the effect the Coalition's cuts are having on women in society. Whilst it has been popular to jump on the bandwagon against Starbucks and join these protests, I will argue that UK Uncut should not have held this protest today for economic and moral reasons.

Firstly, let it be clearly said: Starbucks has committed no crime. They are not being prosecuted, and have done nothing illegal. Like any modern day multinational organisation, they were trying to maximise their profit margin by taking advantage of the 'coffee bean maneuver' and EU legislation on royalty payments. They exploited a tax loophole enforced by European Union acts, and as such the UK government, whether it be the Labour or Conservative-Liberal Coalition have been powerless to overhaul it and bring Starbucks into line. They have not 'avoided' paying tax, as they were under no obligation to do so by law.

With that in mind, why is there such turmoil at Starbucks? Well, whilst Starbucks has a responsibility to its shareholders, it also has a responsibility to the communities it operates within, which includes the UK. The British government secures the rights of Starbucks and its employees, such as its right to security from aggressive behaviour. Thus, it is completely unacceptable on a moral ground that Starbucks did not contribute something back to the British economy.

In response to pressure, Starbucks has now changed its policy on the matter, agreeing to pay £20m over the next two years. Surely that is the matter solved: Starbucks recognise now that what they did was morally reprehensible and as a recognition of that they will make recompense by paying a large sum of money to the government. But for UK Uncut, this is just "a desperate attempt to deflect public pressure", and unhappy at this prime example of capitalism gone wrong, they protested.

I think this extended boycott of Starbucks can only be bad. Firstly, who will really pay for this? The answer is the people who took the risk to work for Starbucks. Protests mean empty cafes: BBC political correspondent Ben Geoghegan said the Starbucks "flagship" store had been "virtually empty" due to the actions of UK Uncut. This means a drop in the revenue Starbucks will accumulate. When the CEO is working out how to handle the continued losses a boycott will bring, they will not take the cut out of their own money, or the investment they make in goods. Rather, it will come out of employee wages, potentially leading to redundancies. This happens in companies all around the world: damage to business hits hardest the people at the bottom. Thus, this continued action by UK Uncut may lead to a weaker Starbucks, which will force them to remove employees. This seems hardly consistent with UK Uncut's desire for a stronger economy and caring for the welfare of the hardworking person, but there you go.

Secondly, whilst I could understand this protest if Starbucks had still not agreed to pay money to the government, but in light of the fact they have agreed to pay £20m, what was the point? What more can you ask of Starbucks to do? Protests usually have some aim in mind, some goal which pressure will achieve. This protest seemed silly in light of Starbucks repentance, for ulterior motives or not. The UK Uncut spokeswoman claimed it was to raise awareness of tax evasion and that the government should be clamping down on it. However, as previously mentioned, Starbucks did not 'avoid' tax, and the Coalition could not force them to give money due to EU legislation, which no one country could overturn (indeed, most of the UK Uncut supporters in my experience are pro-Europe, and yet they blame the Conservatives for tax evasion...). It seems to me they had little moral justification for targeting Starbucks in such a manner.

At the heart of this discussion is really the issue of the deficit and debt: whose is it, and who should pay for it? There seems to be a myth that government debt and spending is not connected to normal people, as it is an abstract entity far away, and as such, it is unreasonable to expect the normal folk to take cuts in spending. But as with all myths, it is largely fictitious. What is meant by government spending is we, as a national community, have elected representatives to spend our money for us, on security, health, education etc. This, in itself, is a good thing: it allows for infrastructures to develop which benefit all people. So when the government spends money on a new school to be built, what that means is someone spent some of your money on a school being built. The problem is that the 'British Welfare State' has caused our spending to increase, so much so the government have overspent our money, and now we owe our debtors back. As we, as a collective spent that money, we, as a collective, should all contribute. If that means cuts to how much we spend, then whether it is tuition fees or policing or education, we must take responsibility for what we as a society did and repay the money we owe.

The argument UK Uncut primarily make is that we should tax the rich more than the poor, as they can afford to be taxed more than others. They argue this is fairer, and as such, we can maintain higher amounts of spending. This, like so many benevolent and well intentioned ideas, relies on a fallacy. It depends on the notion that government owns all things, and that government 'gives' tax breaks to people, as opposed to people 'paying less' tax. Thus, as government is really responsible for all the money people make, they should take far more from the rich than the poor.

I agree with UK Uncut that the rich should pay more than less rich folk toward the economic crisis in this country, as they can handle it more. However, that does not exempt everyone else. Just because the government is now able to tax undisclosed Swiss bank accounts due to a recent treaty does not mean you or I should stop contributing to the repayment and attempt to decrease our spending deficit. The middle classes, more than the rich or the poor, probably spent more combined on national projects, such as the expansion of the NHS, and we owe ourselves as moral citizens to take part of the cut. The relevance to Starbucks is that UK Uncut seems to believe clamping down on 'tax evasion' (which Starbucks did not do, I hasten to add) solves the problem. And to their credit, they rightly argue that those who are richer have a responsibility to those less fortunate to pay the tax they are legally obliged to pay. But it doesn't nearly cover the amount of money needed to stabilise the economy, and we guilty citizens, who enjoyed excess beyond our means, should help to pay it back.

In conclusion, UK Uncut did something wrong today: they protested against a franchise who repented for their inappropriate behaviour, and their actions will lead to harder working conditions for employees, possibly even redundancies. Whether or not you are convinced by my broader economic arguments for nationwide austerity, the fact UK Uncut's actions will lead to economic hardship for Starbucks staff, for an unmerited reason, seems an act of poor choice. This is a shame, as most member of UK Uncut have the best of intentions. I sincerely hope in the future they consider their actions more wisely.

New Album

Kieran and I have created an album called the EW Sessions. Would very much appreciate it if you would all have a listen at:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/103458693/Kieran%20Bentley%20%26%20Nathan%20Hood%20-%20The%20EW%20Sessions.zip

See the video of Satisfaction here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wr86cUgqkw&feature=youtu.be

Thanks guys :)

Is dating a friend's ex wrong?

Affection is a fickle thing. If it was based on rational considerations, so many problems would dissipate and people would conduct less turbulent lives. As it is not, sexual lust and emotional communion drive men and women into situations they soon rue and regret. The discovered adultery, the office romance or senior junior relationship are all classic situations which, if the participants had been putting social standing, career security and their own well beings first, they probably would not have committed to them. However, raw passion, ecstatic emotions and hungry desires are compelling forces. It is in this cauldron of everlasting turmoil with delinquent tendencies attempting to overpower the logical results of what limited cognitive capacities I posses. My mind of late has been preoccupied with fanciful thoughts for a young woman, with admirable qualities. They are not strong like that of a 'crush', but nevertheless some attraction exists. Unfortunately, this person is no ordinary female: she is an ex of a friend of mine. Social convention demands abstinence from such an engagement, but should that be discarded for the possibility of personal pleasure and fulfillment?

The first ruminations I have on this issue is that any potential advance on the woman in question would be harmful. It could damage my relationship with my friend. When someone disentangles themselves from an intimate relationship with another person, the last individual they want to be hanging around is there companion who has decided to try their shot with this person. Relations would be tense, and a rift can create because of a girl you have decided to date. Furthermore, as social standards demand I do not ask out this woman, other people would find my actions distasteful, damaging my reputation. The same may be true for her. And there are no shortage of potential partners. Wagering on this one specimen is just too big a risk to maintain the social web of harmony and high rank among peers, which sadly, determines oppurtunities and the quality of enjoyment one can have in their life.

However, the crucial question is not what the results are of an action, but why would a person resent their friend having intimate relations with their ex? This alone can determine whether I have wronged him deontologically, whether my actions are worthy of condemnation. Problematically, there is no determined answer. Each person has their own position on this delicate issue. I happen to think the main issue is one of loyalty. That person became emotionally (and perhaps physically) attatched to your friend. They shared things with them, opened up their lives to this person. This is private territory. When you go into a relationship with a friends ex, you violate that area of their life which was private from you. Moreover, people, men in particular are programmed to get very defensive over people they have had a bond with. i terms of evolution, the male who prevents other males from partnering his mate will be more likely to pass on his genes. This cements itself in this situation.

This is rationalistic thought. But as Sigmund Freud remarked 'romantic love is not logical. It’s highly illogical and all emotion.' Affection is not founded on moral principles, but instinct and desire. It was the great philosopher Nietzsche (pictured below) who questioned the reasoning behind discarding the fulfilment of our deepest wishes and desires in favour of the etiquette and standards of the community we live in. He argued that to truly become Ubermensch (supermen) we must try to achieve our aims, throwing off the shackles of tradition and religion, which creates a slave morality. Whilst I do not entirely agree with the logic of Nietzsche, defining ourselves and actions in response to our most fundamental desires is appetising. Most conventions have a sound justification, such as paying taxes, providing reparations for those you have hurt and queuing. However, not dating a friend's ex does not nearly have the same moral strength behind it. Sacrificing my potential happiness for the judgement of others is not an ideal a person should aspire too. So a strong counter-argument can be made against the traditional stance.

Luckily, I can abstain from such a dichotomy, as I am moving house next week to Berwick-upon-Tweed, and will be attending Edinburgh University. For those who want a resolution to this ethical dilemma, I shall depart leaving the following suppositions. Suppose you believe that a person should be free to act how they want (within the law). Furthermore, you believe a person does not commit a bad action by engaging sexual encounters outside of monogamous relationships. As such, it is clear that the results and effects of intimate bonding should not hinder one's attempts to engage in them, whether tradition and social values approve of them. Following this through, as you do not perceive relationships as being defined by the creation of a loyal wife and husband, why should the man who wants to date his friends ex be condemned as immoral? If, on the other hand, you believe relationships have moral restrictions, then putting your friendship first appears the right course of action. If, in particular, you believe in putting others first, like the followers of Christ, then you will definitely seek to forfeit your desires for your friend. Unfortunately, I, along with most of the human race, have irrational tendencies, and whilst the rationality of ethics can determine a man's mind, it cannot alter his emotional outcry in the fluctuating wilderness that is love.

Romance and the Erotic

Humans are social creatures. We enjoy and thrive in relationships with others, maximising are own happiness by connecting with people who share similar interests, aims and outlooks on life. Most folk aim to have a particular partner, an individual who the are more intimately related to than any other human being. This is what drives many people; the search for their 'other half'. Intertwined with this is a mission to attain pleasure, particularly through the senses. As such, a fine line is drawn on the sexual nature of dating between a union of two people and a fulfillment of animal urges. I fear that the youth of 21st Century Britain are too concerned with the physical aspects and joys of life, thus leading to an over sexualised culture which forces men and women to define themselves and their ways of living by their bedroom activity. This in turn has created an environment where sex is the foundations of relationships, the badge of honour among peers and the ultimate reality. In this article, I aim to demonstrate why I believe such a worldview is detrimental to humanity and the virtuous life.

The reasons why a society may be built on sex are obvious. Patricia Churchland, a philosopher in America, claims the majority of human activity can be summarised by the four F's: Feeding, Fleeing, Fighting and Reproducing. The search for sex is integral to most creatures, and we humans are no exception. As far as pleasure goes, it provides some of the best. It is powerful, raw and back to basics. It thrills, excites, and is memorable. A whole industry has been made out of it, connecting potential partners, aiding the event itself and other such items to support it. Furthermore, music, art and literature has always been permeated by references to the romantic, feeding into fashion and other products. Adverts are filled with attractive people, films with the erotic and entertainment incorporating this most mysterious of activities. It dominates are way of life, with companies, celebrities and friends pointing our desires in the direction of the sensual and sexual. With the 'death of God' (Nietzsche), the abandonment of Christianity and the liberalisation of British culture, the traditional relationship has been usurped by the will to just find physical pleasure wherever possible, particulary romance. People say that we are a secular society: I disagree, because most people seem to worship the ideals and actions of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, beauty, lust and pleasure.

Sex has always been an essential part of human culture. However, for many centuries, Britain had been dominated by other concepts and ideas, such as the divine. With the advent of atheism, the romantic passions of the youth have flourished, becoming an open, normal part of life. Whilst there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sensual pleasure, over indulgence and application, which are promoted by this culture, are dangerous. There are three reasons for this: the well being of the individual and community, the responsibility of each human being and the damage it does to our 'function'.

The life associated with the hedonistic worldview is sex, drugs and rock n roll. Drink and illegal substances go hand in hand with the culture pursuing physical pleasure. When one goes clubbing, one is surrounded by alcohol and dealers, all there to help the 'experience'. It is these places where sex is also an easy option. Whilst sex is not directly connected to the taking of harmful substances, the attitude towards senusal fulfillment is enhanced by the taking of such things. These products are, despite what many will say, detrimental to the well being of people and the community. Nearly half of all violent crimes are caused by over consumption of alcohol. Smoking can cause lung, oral, uterine, liver, kidney, bladder, stomach and cervical cancer, among other problems. Both are highly addictive and force a dependency upon them. They are integral to the hedonists outlook on life, along with a primordial focus on sex. So whilst the pursuit of sex as an ultimate end is not in itself the reason why alcohol and drugs damage people and lives, the culture which promotes physical pleasure is the root of all three.

Furthermore, unprotected sex can have devastating consequences. STIs can be caught, including life rendering diseases such as HIV and AIDS. Other infections are rather unpleasant, and can be quite painful. More drastically, unplanned pregnancies can be caused, potentially shattering a young woman's life through forcing her to raise a child or go through the horrific process of abortion. Neither are ideal. It is just a fact that if people live in a society which encourages a focus on sex, they will be more likely to catch STI's and create unplanned pregnancies, both which should be avoided as far as possible. As such, this hedonistic drive for sex as the foundation of relationships and human activity is harmful.

Secondly, this attitude has molded an atmosphere which promotes avoiding responsibility. In the past, if a man and a woman had a sexual relationship, society expected them to care for each other, think of their partner's well being and take the blame for any negative results of such an affair. However, now that you can sleep with strangers at the flick of a button, there is no need to feel responsible for your actions. The idea that you can get laid with different people as a casual, no strings attached connection implies one does not need to remember nor bare the results of any of the ensuing consequences. If your partner catches an STI from you, what difference does it make? It was only a one time thing anyway. If your partner has to split up with her long term boyfriend, why should you feel guilt about that? You were just two strangers looking for pleasure. If you impregnate her by accident, why should you pay for a mistake? Indeed, with the number of absent fathers rising, it seems apparent this is the mind set of many people in the UK. Unfortunately, the most damage is done to the children, who by rights deserve parents who take full responsibility for creating them. However, seeking for pleasure makes sex an impersonal act, which damages and impacts on relationships, communities and most importantly, children. The lack of emotional connection removes responsibility, key for a philanthropic and well run country. As such, the hedonists view should be abandoned.

Finally, the quest for sensual pleasure can damage our ability to perform our 'function'. This is what Plato (pictured below), perhaps the greatest philosopher of all time, believed. He thought we each had an ability, or purpose, which it was the object of our lives to try and get the best out of. This would require us to restrain our desires to dominate and for pleasure; the man who allows his lust for women to dominate his life will not focus on refining his skill, and thus will be less able than if he had restrained such an urge. Knowledge is architectonic: it orders our actions in a way which will best achieve our function. This, for Plato, is the virtuous life. I am inclined to agree. If a person does not refrain his love of sex or dreams of power, he will not reflect and try to improve his skills nor work hard at refining his abilities. Only if one is totally dedicated to this task can it be achieved. This is the role of knowledge: it helps us know what is good for fulfilling our 'techne'. But if we allow pleasure, not knowledge, to govern how we act, our skills and purposes will not be brought out to their greatest degree, and thus our talents are wasted. The culture which claims a pursuit of sex should dominate the soul can only be to the detriment of our ability to perform our function: it leads to an unbalanced way of action, a disrespect for hard work and focus on improving ourselves as individuals. Employers consistently complain that young people lack the skills necessary for jobs, and it appears to me the radical over sexualisation of British people may be part of it. Thus, this over baring need for sexual activity is harmful to our very purposes and talents, and thus should be abandoned.

In the past, many people have complained that I am trying to impose my morality on them. They complain that I do not have the authority to challenge their actions, that I have no right to infringe or lampoon their desires and I am just a 'moral monster'. However, if they were about to be raped, and I was a bystander willing to help the victim, would they complain if I imposed my morality on the attacker? The point is that it is very easy to relativise morality when it is 'out there', but when it directly affects you, it is quite easy to determine what is right and wrong. As the sexual directive of British society effects not only me but people I hold very close and care about, it is only right I voice my concern and try to persuade others of the dangers they may enter in to. The objectivity of morality is not a major issue here: it is whether my description of it is accurate, which I believe it is.

To conclude, the culture young British people grow up in is one which is directed towards sex and the erotic. This undermines those traditional and good institutions like marriage, love, families. In a previous article, I said I was in love with a girl. However, her hedonistic views, which destroyed her sense of responsibility and working hard at what she excelled at, blew away the enchantment of emotional affection I had been under. And she is not alone. Many share such sentiments among my contemporaries. I have not argued that as a response to this we abolish sex or anything like that: there is nothing wrong with the act by itself. However, the over emphasis on it, the fact it is the foundation of many people's aims and aspirations and its close boundary to transcendent relationships can make it a dangerous and harmful force. I believe it is right the government secure the rights of life, liberty and estate, entailing we should allow those who indulge in lustful pleasure trips to do so. Rather, because it harms the well being of the individual and community, destroys the concept of responsibility and damages our ability to perform our unique function, we should encourage people to reject the hedonistic, sensual seeking worldview our society promotes.

Do we have Souls?

In recent times, when the word soul is mentioned in an intellectual arena, the proponent is laughed out the room. The prevailing naturalism of pop philosophy, combined with the substance monism that pervades academics is a powerful combination which drives out any talk of a part of you which is immaterial and yet connected to a physical body. With religious overtones reminding us of a bygone age when Christianity ruled the waves, the soul is an unhelpful and potentially dangerous concept to those like Dawkins and Dennett, who believe everything is made of matter. If a strong argument could be brought forward to demonstrate that a soul, or something like a soul, exists, then it is clear that materialism, and thus, most forms of naturalism are false. In this article, I want to illustrate why I believe in the existence of the soul.

As there are many different formulations and variations of what the word soul means, I shall define it in the following way: the essential and immaterial part of a person. This is the view that Plato, most Christian theologians of the first millennium AD and Descartes, along with many others, have taken. Indeed, even the Aristotelian Aquinas held this, whilst emphasising that union with a body was the natural state of the soul. This definition is open to a wide variety of religions, and does not require a set of doctrines to be true, such as God's existence, for its own truth. By essential, I mean the part of a person which they need to exist in order for their own existence, and by immaterial something which is non-physical is substance or cause.

A few months ago, my friend Ben 'Headboy' Hampson and I went to see Professor Richard Swinburne of Oxford University give a lecture on an argument to demonstrate the truth of the idea that soul's exist (pictured below). The following extract is taken from the handout he provided, which outlines the argument.

Definitions:

Metaphysical necessity is the strongest kind of necessity, metaphysical impossibility is the strongest kind of impossibility, metaphysical possibility is the weakest kind of possibility. A sentence s is logically necessary (impossible) iff s is metaphysically necessary (impossible) and discoverable to be so a priori. s is logically possible iff it is not discoverable a priori to be metaphysically impossible. I shall understand these definitions as: s is logically necessary iff its negation (the sentence not-s) entails a contradiction, logically impossible iff it entails a contradiction, logically possible iff it does not entail a contradiction. It is often fairly obvious whether some sentence is logically possible, this can be shown by showing that the sentence is fairly obviously entailed by a fairly obviously logically possible sentence (or conjunction of sentences); and that involves showing this by plausible thought experiments.

A rigid designator is a word which designates the same thing (substance, property, or whatever), whatever properties that thing gains or loses, so long as that thing continues to exist. An informative (rigid) designator is a designator such that anyone who knows what the designator means (that is, has linguistic knowledge of how to use it) knows a set of conditions necessary and sufficient for a thing to be the designated thing. To know these conditions is to be able (when favourably positioned, faculties in working order, and not subject to illusion) to recognise where it applies and where it does not, and to be able to make simple inferences from its application.

I argue that:
s is metaphysically necessary (impossible, possible) iff s is logically necessary (impossible, possible) when informative designators are substituted for co-referring uninformative designators. Various thought experiments show it to be logically possible that I survive operations in which parts of my brain are transplanted, I lose much of my memory etc.- especially if we suppose that I have continuity of experience (overlapping conscious events) during crucial parts of the operations. 'I' or 'Richard Swinburne', as used by me, and 'I' or your proper name as used by you, are informative designators. So each of us can know that sentences asserting that they survive and sentences asserting that they do not survive such operations are metaphysically possible; and so that survival is metaphysically possible. Other thought experiments show that it is metaphysically possible that a person can continue to exist in a totally new body, or without any body at all. Hence the 'simpe theory' of personal identity: the continuing identity of a person over time is an ultimate brute fact, independent of any continuities of physical matter (e.g. brain) or properties (e.g. memory or character).

Given the Principle of the Identity of Composites (a substance of the same parts having the same properties (including past-related properties) arranged in the same way is (of logical necessity) the same substance as any other such substance), it can only be logically and so metaphysically possible both that I survive a certain operation and that I don't survive it, if I already have a non-physical part (my soul) which is necessary for my existence. Given that it is metaphysically possible that I become disembodied, that part is sufficient for my existence. The simple theory entails that each embodied human consists of two parts - body (non-essential) and soul (essential).

If you struggled to follow that, imagine sitting through an hour and a half of Swinburne talking! As it is abundantly clear some explanation is needed, the following part of the article will be dedicated to such a task.

It was Saul Kripke (pictured below), the American genius, who is to be credited with the idea of a rigid designator. It is a term to characterise an expression which has the same reference in every possible world in which it has reference at all. Names and natural-kind terms are rigid designators, whereas most definite descriptions are flaccid designators. Thus, whereas 'the inventor of bifocals' is non-rigid, designating Benjamin Franklin in the actual world and all other possible states of affairs is a term which can only be given to the person who is Benjamin Franklin. This is important for our concept of what the identity of an object or substance is: it is a set of properties which that object or substance has in any state of affairs it exists in. For example, to identify an object as God, it must be essentially omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, otherwise you are not referring to God. So what we are asking here is what part of the human person is required for that person to be that person, and not some other designated thing.

Most people think that what defines the informative designator 'I' is a collection of material particles which form a body. This the position held by atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and A C Grayling. But let us embark on a thought experiment. Imagine you go to bed, your body is the same, and you have a nice dream about meeting Mario and driving his kart. The next day you wake up, but instead of your body being human, you are now like Yoshi, with green skin, webbed toes and a tail. You see your old body lying on the floor. You panic, scream, and then realise Yoshi is so cool you don't mind looking like him. The point of this scenario is that if you and your body were identical (that is, what makes you is your composition of particles) then this scenario would be logically impossible, as you would not be able to inhabit another body. However, there seems nothing contradictory about this thought experiment: whilst it may be a bit silly, there is nothing inherently incoherent about you inhabiting another body. We see it in fiction all the time. This entails that your body is not identical with the properties which need to be in existence for you to exist. But that entails that what makes you you is non-physical.

But if it is not your body which is the set of properties which makes you you, what is? For Descartes, and  more recently Swinburne, this is what we call a soul: an immaterial substance which is independent of the body (for the body is not required for the rigid designator 'Nathan Hood' to apply to an object in a possible world). What this entails is a bare, immaterial essential nature, which is what is referred to when we say 'I' or 'Mr/s X'. Of course, a downside of this is that the descriptions of a soul religious people like to give i.e. fully functioning cognitive faculties etc. can not be evidence by this argument. The kind of soul which has a meaningful relationship with God post-death is not what is entailed by this argument. However, the fact that we are essentially immaterial is a large step forward for this conception of the soul, and gives a philosophical proof that monistic and naturalistic accounts of human identity are flawed, as thought experiments demonstrate. This is a conclusion which flies in the face of modern thought, and hopefully shall challenge you to think about what it means to be 'you' and whether you have a soul.

To summarise the argument put forward by Swinburne for the existence of the soul: it is possible my body is not required for my existence: if my body is not required for my existence, then it follows that what designates me is immaterial: the essential, immaterial part of me is my soul. This is a complex and hard argument to understand, which I appreciate. However, all I hope is that it challenges you to think harder about these issues and that you can see there is rationality and thus intellectual credibility in believing people have souls.

Women in the Church

Christianity has always been dominated by men. It was a man who started it, twelve men who spread it, men who have shaped it and men who are remembered for it. Women are a minority in the history of the Church. The great theologians, philosophers, thinkers, saints and clergy have largely been men, with feminists usually attacking the church for its masculine outlook on life. Whilst the Roman Catholic tradition still bars female participation in leading the church, Protestant denominations are now becoming more accepting of women in positions of authority and gravitas within the religious community. However, now that we allow a small number of women to contribute, do we pretend the problem has gone away of under representation? Does the Church still have a 'misodginistic' way of operating? Should this be changed? A friend asked me if I would take a look at this subject area, and so in this article I shall be asking are women given less opportunities than men in the Church and what should be done about it.

Being the product of ancient Judaism, a patriarchal society, Christianty inevitably contained male bias. In Israel in the early period the man was absolute ruler of the extended family; if a husband died, the widow was given to the nearest brother (Deuteronomy 25: 5-10). Women had no powers, could make no decisions, though they could sometimes engage in inspired trickery (Genesis 27 and 31). The subordination of women was maintained during the monarchical period; divorce was exclusively open to a husband, and a woman's adultery was, according to the law, a capital offence (Leviticus 20: 10). Women were not entitled to own property and were kept in state of impurity - e.g. during and after menstruation and after childbirth (the length of purdah was doubled if a baby was female). In practice, however, a measure of humanity possibly prevailed, and women were not excluded from worship ceremonies (Deuteronomy 16: 13-14). Women are to be honoured as parents equally with men (Exodus 20: 12). Women did hold positions of power: Jezebel the Queen (1 Kings 21: 7), the prophets Miriam, Deborah and the Wise Women (2 Samuel 20: 16-22). However, after the exile, more restrictions were placed on women. They could no longer participate with the men in worship, but were relegated to the outer court of the Second Temple. Their testimony was valid in law courts, and they could not teach the Torah. By the time of the New Testament, it is assumed women could divorce their husbands (Mark 10: 12) but many men still gave thanks to God they were not born a woman (Tosfta Berakot, 7: 18).

Women play a large part in Jesus' ministry and life. The birth of Christ gives Mary an important role in the scheme of salvation, and women are also prominent in the resurrection narratives: it is they who receive the first revelation that Jesus has been raised. Between the birth and resurrection there are notable healing miracles for women - the distressing case of menorrhagia (Mark 5: 24-34) and the Gentile Syro-Phoenician girl (Mark 7: 24-30). Women annoint Jesus (e.g. Luke 7: 36-50) and Mary and Martha along with their brother Lazarus are loved by Jesus (John 11: 5). Jesus' relationship with women is in accord with his teaching that the kingdom of God implies a new community of love which embraces all mankind (Luke 13: 10-17). People are welcomed by Jesus irrespective of race, status, or gender, and those who are called to leadership are chosen on the basis of God's gracious spirit not on accidents of birth.

Whilst the Church has been slow and reluctant to incorporate the true evaluation of women (Galatians 3: 28) into its institutions and rituals, in recent years it has progressed, with many denominations offering the opportunities for female clergy and bishoprics, giving them an equal platform to men. However, whilst the situation has improved and adopted Christ's teachings more fully, are women still under represented in Church services? As women will make up on average about half a congregation, should half the leadership be women? Would this be more faithful to Jesus views on gender?

Taking the Church of England as my prime example, the body of the community is about half men and half women. However, the leadership is predominantly male. There are no women bishops. The clergy at most services are male, and the team of volunteers who help organise groups and services are usually male. Women do get involved, but more often than not it will be a man giving the sermon, a man leading the music, a man conducting projects for the church. Whilst the oppurtunity is there, it seems like there is still a pervading attitude that leadership is for men, and background help is for women.

I do not claim to understand the causes for this state of affairs. The real question is, how do we, as people following Christ, respond? My own opinion is as follows: whilst there is not equal representation of women in the church as men, that is not an issue. Following Jesus is not a democracy; you don't vote on which commands you like, which sacraments to perform, which doctrines to uphold. Rather, it is about submitting yourself to the eternal love and truth. Now God endows each person with a particular set of skills and functions which, if they focus on Him, can flourish into a service for the Kingdom of God. This means not all people are destined for Church leadership. Some will be carpenters, fisherman, manufacturers etc. Others lawyers, doctors, scientists. Only a few will lead the Lord's flock. It does not matter what gender they are, nor race nor status. Rather, it is by God's choice alone. If God allocates such positions to more men than women, that is fine: what should be certain is that if a woman has been selected to lead, the opportunity should be open. All the Church can do is keep the door open, it is up to God to pick who goes through it.

In this respect, denominations such as the United Reformed Church, Church of Scotland and Methodists are already implementing true evaluation of women. I just hope that the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans and Orthodox traditions will follow suit. I hope Bishop Chartres is listening.

To summarise, women have been marginalised by Christianity, despite its founder and object of worship coming to save all and loves everyone equally. This stems from its patriarchal roots, which have somewhat mellowed over time in Protestant churches. The proportion of men to women in Church leadership is a red herring: whilst liberal thought makes us think we need equal representation, we should rather focus on providing the opportunity for those called by God to perform such duties, regardless of gender. If this can be done, Christ's kingdom will be extended greatly.

Batman, Spiderman and Violence (Spoilers)

The Dark Knight Rises and The Amazing Spiderman are the two major superhero films this year. Appealing to all ages, the comic book heroes of Batman and Spiderman have become iconic figures in popular culture. They stand up for what is right, defeat dangerous opponents and are involved with various beautiful women. No wonder a lot of boys and girls look up to such characters as role models, allowing their identities to be shaped by the core messages of the plots and stories they read and see at the cinema. In this article, I want to analyse one key theme of all superhero fiction, the problem of violence, and its interaction and portrayal in these two latest films.

The real driving force of any superhero is the desire to see justice done. In a world where crime is rampant and innocent people suffer, a character like Batman tries to use his special skills and resources to benefit others. He does this by using his advanced fighting skills to contain and catch wrongdoers, thus limiting the amount of injustice for others. This resonates with our deepest desires, as we all want to live in a fair world, where the people that are 'good' are rewarded for it, and the people who are 'bad' are punished. This selfless act to help others less able to thwart unjust acts is the basis of our affection and love of superheroes, and as such there overarching aim is to applauded.

However, Batman and Spiderman's desire  for justice is always tainted by their quest for vengeance. Bruce Wayne becomes a superhero in response to his parent's violent death. This nearly leads him to kill their murderer. Likewise, in The Amazing Spiderman, Peter Parker only becomes a superhero in response to his uncle's violent death. He then goes on a hunt to track down the criminal responsible, probably with the intention of beating and killing him. In both cases, their drive for justice is shrouded in a desire for vengeance, which is epistemic of most superheroes.

This in turn leads to their preferred method of distributing justice: violence. Continually, Spiderman and Batman beat the hell out of crooks, round up robbers and aid the police against supervillains, like Lizard or Bane. Their superpowers, such as being able to crawl up walls, and their access to advanced technology, like the Batmobile, make it all the more easier to overpower their adversaries and distribute justice accordingly. It would appear that both heroes believe that violence is the solution to the problem of violence, and so far there has not been a villain capable of halting their mission for vengeance.

However, note that neither hero never solves the problem. There is always a new wave of violence, a new villain rises up and no matter how many thugs Spiderman and Batman defeat, their will always be more. The reason for this is that violence feeds on itself. Whilst it may be a temporary act to hold it back, fighting violence with violence will only give rise to a new cycle of violence. This can be seen in the parallels both Batman and Spiderman have with their respective villains, Bane and Lizard. Batman and Bane are not opposites, but are more like reflections of each other. They are both disguised figures, exiles from the league of shadows and are violent. Similarly, Spiderman and Lizard are both hybrid species, law breakers and are violent. Now there is a relative difference, in that both Bane and Lizard are insanely violent, with an motivation which will lead to harming others, whereas Batman and Spiderman are trying to contain them. But they both engage in the same type of struggle, one of violence.

The attempt to solve the problem of violence with violence will only lead to an escalation in the force used. This point was brought out well at the end of Batman Begins, when Lieutenant Gordon is talking to Batman about potential new threats:

'We start carrying semi-automatic weapons, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armour piercing rounds... and if your wearing a mask, jumping off rooftops... take this guy. Armed robbery, double homicide, gotta taste for the theatrical. Leaves a calling card (Joker calling card).'


The resulting escalation leads to the Joker, a man of no rules, bringing Gotham to its knees and destroying the good man who is Harvey Dent, Gotham's brightest hope for justice. Batman didn't solve the problem by terrorising the 'mob'. He just made it worse.

We see this all the time in the real world. In the past ten years, US and British forces have been involved in conflicts all around the world, most notably Iraq and Afghanistan, to help provide a just society for the people living their. This was done by attempting to depose Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, seeing them as unjust rulers. However, at the time of invasion, it appeared that politicians and generals thought that a military assault would solve the problems in these regions, which after they would go and help someone else out, just like a superhero. Instead, violent terrorism still pervades in these countries, with a number of bombings taking place in Iraq only a few days ago. These western powers, like the characters of Batman and Spiderman, never really solved the problem, they just, at best, held it back temporarily.

Where these characters and nations have gone wrong is thinking fighting violence on its own terms will solve the problem of violence absolutely. This is where Christianity needs to be brought in. Jesus, like Spiderman and Batman, is also trying to solve the problem of violence and implement a just world. He too is taking on hate, suffering and the most powerful weapon of violence, death. His approach is not to fight violence on its own terms, but by taking the worst it can do on the cross and taking it away by the divine mercy of God. Whilst Jesus is crucified he says 'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing' (Luke 23:34). This is an amazing statement, as Jesus is perfectly innocent, yet does not give into vengeance and ask God to smite them all. The triumph of forgiveness over sin, violence and death is only possible with the sacrifice of the Messiah, and Jesus' subsequent resurrection was the final defeat of violence and death. It is an assurance that no matter how bad the injustice is on earth, death is not the end, and man will be made accountable for his acceptance or rejection of mercy. Rising from the dead destroys the most powerful weapon of violence, for death is no longer the end. Jesus, in his suffering, truly solves the problem of violence through forgiveness, and that is where Batman and Spiderman go wrong.

I want to make clear I am not calling for pacifism. The world requires force, militarilies and violence to secure the natural rights of life, liberty and estate for every individual. Without it, anarchy would ensue. However, violence is never the final solution, it can only be a temporary measure to hold back the tide of injustice. What we really need are peaceful, well thought out solutions which act in everyone's best interest. Forgiveness is key to this cycle. An illustration from history will help: after the first world war, Britain, France and the USA held a conference at Versailles to decide how they were going to deal with Germany, the losers of the war. They decided to punish them, forcing them to pay large reparations, stripping them of a military, giving parts of their lands, such as Alsace and Lorraine, to other nations and making them accept guilt for the war. This had a devastating effect on Germany, leading to hyperinflation, widespread unemployment and anger at the state the once mighty country was in. This was a major factor in the rise of the radical political party called the Nazis, who were led by Adolf Hitler. He subsequently gained power and implemented a dictatorship over Germany, remilitarised her and followed a foreign policy which would provoke the second world war. He was also responsible for the Holocaust, the genocide of six million Jews in concentration camps. The point is, a forgiving and positive treaty at Versailles could have prevented this further horrific cycle of violence. However, the desire for vengeance and a perception that the destruction of the first world war had solved the problems at hand tainted a noble quest for justice. If only the world was a bit more like Jesus, and less like Batman, that we may see the problem of violence solved.


In conclusion, whilst superheroes have good intentions and ideals regarding the distribution of justice, they ultimately fail to implement such concepts because they fight violence with violence, which feeds on itself. Superheroes and villains are just mirror images of each other, and thus neither Spiderman nor Batman can deal absolutely with violence. However, Jesus had a completely different approach: rather than blasting violence away, he absorbed it too its highest degree and forgave. This is what we should consider when trying to bring about a just world, not force. 


I encourage you all to join with me in sending your best wishes for the shooting victims in Aurora. May our thoughts and prayers be with them.

Soul Survivor: Why I Won't Be Going

Soul Survivor is an organisation which 'Soul Survivor runs events to help people get to know and follow Jesus better.' It is one of the annual events of the church I attend to embark on one of these trips, camping in a muddy field worshipping God and listening to powerful sermons. Many of my friends find a renewed sense of vibrancy and trust in their relationship with Jesus after such events, and find the Christian community there wonderful. For a number of weeks now, people have persistently asked why I have decided not to attend such an event. In this article, I shall argue that the lax approach to spiritual gifts this charismatic movement has shall provide a dangerous precedence among Christians, leaning towards a purely existential approach to the Gospel without intellectual engagement, and thus my refusal to go is justified.

Firstly, I want to emphasise that Soul Survivor does a lot of good work for young Christians. Whilst it may share its name with a Rolling Stones song about worshipping the devil, the events held by Soul Survivor do encourage re-dedication to Christ. They help the relationships people have with God to be renewed, embrace vibrant, enthusiastic living for Jesus and really enliven people's faith. In a way, they are like going to the petrol station: if you faith is waning in its practical application, Soul Survivor will fill your tank up and you will be re-energised to follow Jesus. The existential side of the events is fantastic, encapsulating what it means to build faith, hope and love with the Lord in our personal lives. As Martin Luther believed, justification unites the sinner to Christ, and Soul Survivor brings that out wonderfully.

However, these existential concerns seem to overpower the need for intellectual rigour in the Church. The leaders and founders of Soul Survivor, in particular Mike Pilavachi, are charismatics, and as such are heavily devoted to the persuasion of others that the 'Charismata', better known as the spiritual gifts, should be more readily sought out by Christians in pursuit of God. Whilst I am not a Cessationist, that is, someone who believes the spiritual gifts were no longer needed after the Bible was put together, I do think a degree of investigation and intellectual scrutiny should be used when someone claims to be using a spiritual gift, which Mike Pilavachi and others do not.

Spiritual Gifts are defined by the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible in the following passage: 'Endowments given by the Spirit. All Christians should show the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5: 22-3) but the gifts bestowed by the spirit are adapted to each individual, and are listed by Paul in Romans 12: 6-8 and in 1 Corinthians 12: 8-10, 28-30. They comprise gifts of speech, both coherent utterance and also the unintelligible speaking in tongues (though some present might have the complementary gift of interpretation); gifts of service and administration; and gifts of healing. A further gift mentioned by Paul is apostleship, which builds up the Church by leadership and pastoral care. In later epistles (Ephesians 4: 11 and 1 Peter 4: 10-11) the gift of speaking in tongues is omitted, possibly because experience taught the Church that words understood by all were preferable to sounds intelligible only to God (1 Corinthians 14: 1-5).

Now at this point, I want to introduce the idea of revelation. This is defined as:
(S) M reveals A to N by means of K
 An example might be:
(S) God reveals something about Himself to Fred by means of Tongues
So we can see, spiritual gifts are a means of revelation for God.

Unlike most religions, revelation is the corner stone of Christianity, along with Judaism and Islam. As such, all three recognise that it is vital to establish the which revelations are genuine and which are not, for how we follow God, and thus ultimately are salvation, could depend upon it. Whilst the initial revelations to ancient people are fascinating, and are essential to establishing the truth of each religion, for the purposes of this article I will just focus on the credentials of modern revelation, and how the Christian religion assesses the truth claims of purported religious experiences.

William Alston, a famous Christian philosopher of the 20th Century and the father of reformed epistemology, noted that the way we provide justification for trusting experiences is not via arguments and experiments but by what is called a 'doxastic practice', a belief forming mechanism. What it does is it takes inputs (such as sense data) and turns them into outputs (beliefs about the external world). Each practise has its own set of criteria for what is a valid input. For example, the doxastic practises for sensory experience would determine that valid inputs are those which are logically coherent and consistent with are other sensory beliefs. If a belief is formed of valid inputs, the practise bestows prima facie justification on the belief. That is, we are justified in holding that belief until proven otherwise. Alston's point is that both are normal experiences and religious ones use this process, and so both types of belief's are valid until proven otherwise. To deny religious experience the same status as sensory experience is a double standard, for they both use the doxastic practise for epistemic justification. Therefore, as the Christian doxastic practise has the same status as an equal status to sensory practise (which we all trust) if we can establish which claims of revelation are true, we are initially justified in believing them, which could greatly effect the decisions we make and the lives we lead.

Thus, trusting a modern revelation, via the spiritual gifts, requires us to use the Christian doxastic practise in assessing whether it is a valid input. This means that when someone claims to have a spiritual gift, the evidence or experience put forward must be subjected to the criteria of a valid input. If it does not meet the expected norm, the Christian religion rejects this instance as a true example of the gift. For an illustration, lets look at the gift of prophecy.

Someone who has the gift of prophecy is by definition a prophet. A prophet is neither a soothsayer, nor a fortune teller. Rather, a prophet is someone who 'shows us the face of God, and in so doing he shows us the path we must take' (Pope Benedict XVI). This distinguishes a prophet from society, religion and institutions: he represents the word of God alone. There are a number of criteria the Bible states for determining who is a prophet, although they are not applicable in all cases. They are:

*Being inspired to fortell future events (Deuteronomy 18:18, 22 and Jeremiah 28:1-17)
*Miracles, signs and wonders wrought by the prophet are further authentication (Deuteronomy 34: 9-12)
*The prophecy (A) corresponds with God's word (1 Kings 22:17 and 1 John 4: 1-3)
*The prophet lives a God-fearing life (Jeremiah 23:9-18 and 2 Peter 2:1-2, 13-18)

St. Thomas Aquinas also provided further criteria, which distinguish between the person who has had a potential revelation and those who have the gift of prophecy:

*A prophet must reveal information which 'transcends human knowledge.' If this was not the case, we could just work out using our cognitive faculties the truth of what the prophet says, and thus God would not be required for us to learn this truth. As prophecy is the revelation of unknown information (such as future events), it cannot just be that which we could work out via reason.
*Second, the prophet must have an understanding of what he or she has received. He gives the example of pagan rulers in the Bible (Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar) who received revelation in dreams and visions but who were not prophets because they did not grasp the revelation.
*Third, the prophet must not mistake the symbol for the symbolised. If he did, we would not know what is real or false, metaphor and literal in God's revelation.
*Fourth, the prophet must perceive the revelation as though through demonstration.
*Fifth, the prophet must be able to communicate the revelation in an expressible way.
*Sixth, and most importantly, nothing false can come under prophecy.

These criteria have long been accepted by major theologians and philosophers for centuries, including titans such as John Locke, Wolfhart Pannenberg and John Paul II. As such, I think it is reasonable to take them as the doxastic practise within Christianity which validates whether an act of prophecy is an input, and confirm who has the gift of prophecy.

My problem with Soul Survivor is that they abandon the criteria for revelation, thus allowing nearly anything to count as a spiritual gift, religious experience or miracle. Take prophecy. Mike Pilavachi of Soul Survivor tells a story of practising prophecy. He was very nervous and felt very nonspiritual. He decided he would be more holy before the day so he could hear from God clearly. In fact, he forgot about the day which came around suddenly. On the day, in the room, in front of a couple, he listened as his friend who had a gift of prophecy gave words to the couple. Then came Mike's turn. However, the only thing he could hear or see in his head was Abba singing 'Dancing Queen'. He hoped the ground would swallow him up or that Jesus would return. Neither happened so he duly gave his 'word'. 'In the words of Abba, you can dance, you can dance, having the time of your lives.' There was a silence and then giggles from the couple. 'Do you want to know why we're laughing?' asked the woman. Mike, nervously agreed. 'Well, I started running a dance class at church a couple of weeks ago and I was wondering whether I should carry on with it' came the reply.

When we apply the criteria for prophecy, it does not seem like a valid input. We can't test the verifiable nature of this case, as Mike neither offers a prediction nor a miraculous sign. We cannot tell whether it is in God's interest for the dance group to continue, and it does not evidently correspond to God's word. What Mike said neither transcends human knowledge nor was understood by him, and as far as we can tell he did not perceive the revelation as though through demonstration. It seems like this claim of prophecy is weak. Now I do not disagree that God may have inspired this man to say these words at a certain time to help this couple make a decision. What I do dispute is the epistemic justification for holding such a belief. And this is not just limited to prophecy. All the miraculous gifts are opened up by the Soul Survivor brand, so that if it vaguely seems to meet with the conceptions of revelation then that passes for a genuine experience of God. This is unbiblical to the highest degree.

The Early Church Fathers recognised that Christianity is a religion which is based on its truth, and that this truth could be demonstrated by argument and reason. If our love is not grounded in truth, what use is it? Abandoning intellectual engagement with religious experience and revelation allows almost anything, from a flickering eye to the effects of drugs, as reliable guides to our interaction with God. This is dangerous, for it allows false prophets and demonic revelations to cloud human judgement and distracts us from the path to God. Only by imposing criteria which are founded in prior revelation can we be sure prima facie what we have is revealed truth, and not some demonic deception. I cannot stress the importance of this enough: if we start accepting false revelations, spiritual gifts and religious experiences, ultimately are relationship with God will suffer through our false preconceptions, beliefs and ideas, no matter how good the intentions are. It is this which divides miracle from hoax, interaction with the divine from imagination and spiritual gift from mental phenomena. It is only by this that the early church was able to decide clear, absolute doctrine and not ambiguous, clouded views, which would be the dangerous result of the views Soul Survivor endorses. Indeed, it is these sorts of anti-rational views which allowed gnostics, arians and other sects to develop. Due to the prevailing danger such a position holds, I feel my stand against this by not attending is justified, despite the existential benefits of going.

In conclusion, I won't go to Soul Survivor as it sacrifices the intellectual integrity of Christianity for existential concerns. I can see why: if you allow almost anything to be a revelatory instance, then everyone can feel included and a developed relationship with Jesus. However, the danger this poses is that we allow ourselves, group hysteria and false experiences to shape our Christian beliefs, and in doing so jeopardise our conception, and thus relationship, with God. Never forget that if you are a Christian, it is not because you feel existentially good about it, but because you think it is true. Truth is of the utmost importance. For Jesus himself is the eternal Logos, word and reason. He is the Truth, and to allow false experiences to taint our faith is to abandon him. Therefore, as one who realises that the foundations of what I believe were created by men like St. Irenaeus, St Athanasius and St Augustine, pioneers of sound doctrine and an uncompromising value of the truth, I cannot attend Soul Survivor. For those who do go, I hope your faith is renewed and you walk with Jesus, in the truth. Just be wary of the falsities one may be led into by the dominating rejection of the Christian doxastic practise at such an event.

'Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.' 1 John 3:18

P.S. I recently wrote a blog post essentially rejecting the whole premise of this one, which you can read here
http://ratio-et-fide.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/speaking-in-tongues-how-i-went-from.html

Is Jesus a Myth?

Christianity is a religion which either triumphs or falls on its historical accuracy. It makes the radical claim that God, in the person of Jesus, entered history. For a Christian, the Gospels give us the best account of who the divine is, through the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus. Thus, a debate between believers and sceptics has ensued as to how much we can truly know about the historical figure of Christ. However, some have argued that in fact the whole of Christianity is a fraud, which finds its origins not in history but in pagan myths. By demonstrating the parallels the story of Jesus shares with other deities, people like Robert Price, Dorothy Murdock and even Christopher Hitchens have sought to show that the Gospels make no historical claims, and are just mythically inspired literature. Indeed, the film Zeitgeist proposed this as the truth. I will argue that any such arguments are replete with poor reasoning and they do not hold up to close scrutiny.

The claim is that biblical narratives of Christ's life and teachings are mythological in origin and bare no relation to historical accounts. This often known as the copycat theory. To support this claim, proponents often supply a list of parallels between pagan religions and Christianity. The movie Zeitgeist gives the following examples:

'Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born saviour. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptised by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled around with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God's Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.'

'Attis, of Phrygia, born of a virgin Nana on December the 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after three days, resurrected. Krishna, of India, born of the virgin Devaki with a star in the east signaling his coming, performed miracles with his disciples, and upon his death was resurrected. Dionysus of Greece, born of a virgin of December the 25th, was a travelling teacher who performed miracles such as turning water into wine, he was referred to as the King of Kings, God's only Begotten Son... and upon his death, was resurrected. Mithra, of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had twelve disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for three days and thus resurrected.'

At first glance, this looks like a devastating attack on Christianity's claim to be rooted in history. After all, these other pagan religions seem to make the same claims about their Gods. However, to assess the argument put forward, we will have to engage with the primary sources, actual and original texts, where these myths came from. The biggest fallacy the copycat proponent makes is that of terminology. They specifically use Christian terminology, such as born of a virgin, crucified and resurrection, when describing pagan myths. However, such lexicon involves assertions without evidence and are ripped out of context, or are obtained from post-first century texts. A few examples will suffice.

Zeitgeist argues that Horus was born of a virgin. From the primary sources available, Horus was either: 1) the result of intercourse between Isis and Osiris in their mother's womb 2) concieved by Isis's sexual intercourse with Osiris's dead body 3) Isis is impregnated by Osiris after his death and after a loss of his genitalia 4) Isis is impregnated by a flash of lightening. This is nothing like the virgin birth of Jesus, where no physical agent or force impregnates Mary.

Likewise, Attis is conceived when Zeus spilled his sperm on a mountain side which grew into a pomegranate tree. When Nana, mother of Attis, was sitting under the tree, a fruit fell into her lap and this made her pregnant with Zeus' child. Devaki, the mother of Krishna, has seven children before Krishna. Semele, the mother of Dionysius, conceived him via sexual intercourse with Zeus. None of these supposed parallels are anything like the 'virginal' conception that scripture claims of Jesus.

Does the copycat theory do any better on the allegation that the crucifixion originates in pagan myths? Not at all. Krishna was killed from an arrow shot in the foot. Attis, due to jealousy, castrated himself, fled into the wilderness and died. Depending which source you read, Horus either: 1) did not die 2) was stung by a scorpion 3) had his death conflated with Osiris's. Mithra just doesn't die. None of these bare much resemblance to the death of Jesus, who died by crucifixion.

How about resurrection? Again, the term is falsely applied. Horus was revived by magical incantations by another God. Post-death, Attis turned into a pine tree. Most of the claims of resurrection were written many years after the first-century sources for Christianity, such as the Gospels and Paul's letters. A second century source informs us of the resurrection of Adonis. The appearence of Krishna's resurrection only emerge in the sixth century! Again, the prior resurrections are nothing like the distinctly Jewish nature of Jesus's return to life.

Another fallacy these arguments make is the nonbiblical fallacy. This is where a parallel is made about Jesus's life which is not even in the Gospel accounts. For example, it is often claimed that Jesus shares his birth date, the 25th December, with other deities. However, nowhere in the bible does it say he was born on this day. This results from the selective reading and lack of engagement proponents of the Jesus-myth have to do.

A further flaw in the copycat theory is that it it commits the difference fallacy. It makes an overemphasis on supposed similarities, whilst ignoring the large number of relevant differences. The variations between Christianity and pagan religions are enormous. For example, whereas all mystery religions believe in a birth-death-rebirth cycle, Christianity is linear, with history culminating in God's transformation of creation into His kingdom. Another point is that in pagan mystery sects, doctrine is unimportant, for they emphasise feeling and emotion over belief. By contrast, Christianity's heart and soul lies in the creeds and doctrinces. This is why the Romans so highly persecuted them, for they held there was only one God.

Finally, and most importantly, the pagan myths we have investigated have little to ground their stories in history. By contrast, the story of Jesus includes many historical dates, places, people and events. For example, Luke 3:1-2 reads:

'In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar - when Pontius Pilate was governer of Judeag, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene - during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.'

These two verses offer a specific time and place in history which we can use to validate historical events. No such material is found in pagan stories. A few places and geographical locations may be mentioned, but most events have no date and nearly all the participants are gods. A comparison with the New Testament dates, locations, places and people will show the gulf there is between Christianity and pagan myths in regards to historical grounding.  This is because pagan myths are cosmic epics, which reference earth infrequently. Whilst I am not arguing the New Testament is reliable, the marked difference in historical emphasis is a clear indication it's origins are not found in pagan myths. Metzger states:

'Unlike the deities of the Mysteries, who were nebulous figures of an imaginary past, the Divine being who the Christian worshipped as Lord was known as a real Person on earth only a short time before the earlies documents of the New Testament were written.'

Thus, it is the historicity of Jesus's life, teachings and deeds which make Christianity truly anti-pagan.

To conclude, the claim that the story of Jesus is a myth is a weak argument, relying on false application of terminology, highly selective reading and choosing to ignore the prominence of historicity in the Gospels as compared to pagan myths. The parallels are most of the time not even parallels. However, I think the final refutation of the theory should be left to Adolf von Harnack:

'We must reject the comparative mythology which finds causal connection between everything and everything else, which tears down solid barriers, bridges chasms as though it were child's play, and spins combinations from superficial similarities... By such methods one can turn Christ into a sun god in the twinkling of an eye, or transform the Apostles into the twelve months; in connection with Christ's nativity one can bring up the legends attending the birth of every conceivable god or one can catch all sorts of mythological doves to keep company with the baptismal dove; and find any number of celebrated asses to follow the ass on which Jesus rode into Jerusalem; and thus with the magic wand of 'comparative religion' triumphantly eliminate every spontaneous trait in any religion.'

Bibliography

Challenging the Zeitgeist Movie Mark Foreman

Does the Story of Jesus Mimic Pagan Mystery Stories Mary Jo Sharp

Concerning Isis and Osiris Plutarch

Book of the Dead Translation by Wallace

The Mythic Image Joseph Campbell

The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief Rodney Stark

The Mysteries of Mithras Roger Beck

Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity Bruce Metzger

Wissenschaft und Leben Adolf von Harnack

Does Following Jesus Equal Following Rules?

One of the most important questions a Christian could ask is 'what does it mean to follow Christ?' As the object of our faith, it is essential we work out what it means to devote our lives to him. Recently, I attended a church meeting where the sermon offered the view that following Jesus is not the same as adhering to a set of rules as is commonly thought, but is primarily focused on encouraging a relationship with God. However, I think this argument has created a false dichotomy, for it attempts to portray following Jesus as either consisting of rules and regulations or a loving bond of fellowship. I will argue the two are heavily intertwined in bringing the believer to God, with both being synonymous in the enterprise of union with Christ.

The sermon was advertised as advancing the following position:

'This one will see us tackle one of the BIGGEST myths about faith in God - that following Jesus is the same as following a bunch of stupid rules.'

According to the preacher, following Jesus is about having a relationship of love and devotion with him. This happens through a 'life of grace', which God has offered to us by sacrificing Jesus on the cross to pay for our sins. This in turn allows us to embrace a loving relationship with him. But to love someone means you do things for them because you want to do them. We as Christians are expected to 'change our lives' because we want to follow the Lord's commands. For as Jesus himself says, 'If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching'. (John 14:23) This relationship will be founded on the two greatest commandments, summarised as loving God and your fellow man. This results in a 'changed life', where one follows God's commands not out of fear but out of love. Therefore, following Jesus isn't just about obeying commands, but is primarily a relationship with the divine. The argument of the sermon that a relationship with God is key to following Christ, not the rules and regulations you find in the Bible.

I agree that fundamentally that the essence of Christianity is not an assent to a set of propositions nor a set of moral codes, but is a full commitment and devotion, with one's heart and soul virtually consumed by a deep reverence and love of God. As the Jewish philosopher Maimonides wrote:

'What is proper love of God? It is the love of the Lord with a great and very strong love so that one's soul shall be tied to the love of the Lord, and one should be continually enraptured by it, like a lovesick individual.'

The question we need to ask is by what means do we achieve this state of mind? Belief in God may be obtained by compelling arguments and credible evidence, but love of God cannot be planted in the heart by the methodological rules of knowledge acquisition. One cannot force themselves to bare certain sentiments? So how can we build a relationship of love with God?

The sagacious Hillel hinted at the answer who, as the famous story goes, was approached by someone demanding to be taught the whole Law while standing on one foot. Hillel agreed and told the man in one sentence, 'Whatever is hateful to you do not do it to your fellow human.' Hillel's fascinating precis of the Law raises many issues. One of them is in Leviticus 19:18, 'You all love your fellow human as yourself.' Why did he change the wording of the scriptures? Hillel realised that one cannot be commanded to have certain sentiments; I could be ordered to act or refrain from doing something, but I cannot be ordered to love someone I happen to dislike. Therefore, to love God and thus build a relationship with him, we have to begin with the behaviour that is always associated with such a sentiment, which is embodied in the eternal rules and regulations of the Old and New Testaments. For desirable behaviour is assumed to generate desirable feelings.

The twelfth-century poet-philosopher Judah Halevi was quite explicit on this point, 'Man can reach God only by doing His commands.' (Cuzari 2:46). Good thoughts, intentions and even prayers can be too fleeting and insubstantial on their own, whereas physical acts are concrete; when one has trained oneself to act in accordance with the rules and regulations of Christianity and actual behaviour closely resembles of those who truly possess love of God, then one has provided proper grounds on which fervent fellowship with Jesus may grow. This theory may be compared with what is called today 'Behaviour Modification'. This therapy induces feelings through adopting certain patterns of behaviour. On the more extreme end of this view it is not merely possible but essential to try to fulfil the relevant rules and regulations set out by Jesus to achieve a genuine relationship with God. Thus, to argue that following Jesus is either attempting to uphold rules or having a  relationship is a false dichotomy, for to create sentiments of love and exaltation for Jesus, one must try to exhibit the behaviour associated with such emotions to allow them to flourish, encapsulated in the laws set out by God. Therefore, whilst the main principle of the sermon that to follow Christ is to engage in a relationship with him is correct, to separate this from the ethical and moral system of commands, orders and rules of the bible is to undermine the formers enterprise, and thus endangering a relationship with God.

I think in essence the preacher at hand and I agree on a lot. She affirmed the position that we should follow Jesus by loving him and loving our neighbours. Moreover, she would also accept that to love God requires a devotion and trust in his word, which entails acting in a way that pleases him. However, to claim that following Jesus is having a relationship with God and not following 'a bunch of stupid rules' misses the point entirely: the former requires the latter to flourish. The two are intertwined, they harmonise together. This alone would explain why God bothered to inspire books such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus: if the two greatest commands told by Jesus are all there is to following him, we would not need such texts to inform us of eternal rules and regulations which we can follow to help us build a platform where love and similar sentiments can grow. Having a relationship with Christ is embodied in the commands and teachings of the bible.

To conclude, this article is not a contumacious jibe at a sermon out of pride, jealousy or any other vice. Rather, I have written this article because I strongly believe a clarification of the truth, which must be a primary factor in any discussion, was required after that sermon, despite the risk of undermining the positive effects it may have had. The attempts to present the view that following Jesus is following rules and regulations as at odds with the idea that being a Christian is foremost a relationship with God is false. Rather, the commands we are given allow us to perform behaviour which provides a foundation for which the sentiments required for a meaningful relationship can be built. Thus, to follow Jesus is to both have a relationship with God and follow rules and regulations, for the two are integral parts of the same enterprise.

Bibliography
Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Teshuvah
Shabbat 31b
A Central Theistic Argument George Schlesinger