Subscribe now

By Dan Cook and Sam Davis for Apostoic Venn blogcast. Images by Grok.

Rather listen than read? Click the video.

It is with great joy that we welcome you, Aspirant Eunuch, to our comprehensive guide. Congratulations are most certainly in order! For you have faced up to the mirror, and bravely stated what few men in history have ever dared. “I was never meant to be a man. I was meant to be a eunuch.”

The rest of the world may refer to this as “transitioning.” But, that’s just fancy marketing, and you are too intelligent to be subject to ad manipulation. No, you want the real thing, the ancient, lofty title of the men who served unquestioningly beside the thrones of their kings. You wish to achieve the highest honor of mental and physical servitude. A noble ambition, to be sure. I congratulate you on your induction to the elite.

When your pubescent genetics engendered an exigent ejection from boys choir, you rightly deduced the proper path of promotion: girl’s choir. You disdained your burdensome bollocks and began a quest to be bereft. So brave!

But, there are some hurdles ahead. You are male. You have masculine muscle mass and bone density. You have the ability to generate offspring. Even with knife in hand, and nerves of steel, would nullifying your nuts be enough? You have a natural predilection toward courage, independence, the proclivity to stand up for yourself and others, and a mustache. These things do not please your master, and must be done away with before you can achieve the ranks of the eunuchs; those prodigies of the art of obedient servitude.

Do not worry, young Padawan. Apostoic Venn is here to help you along the way. Here are 6 easy steps, an every-man’s guide to achieving your dreams. Follow along with this super easy guide, and we’ll have you nutless and bowing in no time.

Step 1: Never, and I mean NEVER, read Aristotle.

Aristotle, the so-called “father of logic” is undesirable number one in your quest. He is the Harry Potter to your Ministry of Magic. His three axioms are absolute arsenic, intellectual cyanide. His insidious laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle will spin you around and have you thinking that “a thing cannot be A and not-A” before you can say “Jack Robinson’s crotch cavity.” You’ve no idea how many novices lose their way after drinking from that fiendish cup, thinking they cannot be a man and a non-man. You will never make a good slave once the whispers of the logic cult have a foothold in your brain-box.

Step 2: Under no circumstances attend church at any time.

People who know your Creator and what He says about you are complete kryptonite. Your king hates the Creator, everything He ever made, and everything He ever said. Knowing any of it is bound to set you back in his good graces. To put yourself behind enemy lines at this tender stage in your development would be suicidal; you are not ready, and you will likely never be ready. While your willingness to put yourself at risk is most certainly admirable, a certain level of cowardice is necessary for every good slave, and highly prized. Just avoid that place. A good soldier knows when the boss is too strong to solo.

What’s more, these crafty devils still use standard English, a brilliantly sadistic ploy. You would be placing yourself at risk of hearing archaic ear-poison such as “male and female He created them,” and “a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman.” While you may be strong enough to overcome these crippling blows, your project will begin to present as very expensive self-mutilation hobby, rather than a righteous quest for holy identity. No good at all. Stay away. Scroll Reddit and self-affirm, putting on the Armor of Echoing Repetition that your master has graciously designed for your protection.

Step 3: Get thee to a liberal nunnery

This is a crucial step, a non-negotiable necessity. You must enroll at a sufficiently progressive university post-haste. Yesterday is not soon enough. If you cannot afford tuition, do not worry. The master has your best interest at heart, and is already on the battlefield waging a righteous crusade to force the aforementioned church people to pay for your slave training. Avoid any school that still teaches logic, or even lesser threats like introductory biology; any such is a mind-control machine. Without fail, you will soon be weighed down with the factual barbs of your foes: Chromosomes, gametes, the presence of your sex in every cell of your body, the physical impossibility of changing it… all that rot will be injected like the perfectly effective Covid vaccine as they systematically brain-wash you. Do not presume yourself strong enough to withstand the sacrilege of science.

No, slave skills must be grown in safety. Be sure to attend a school in which “assigned male at birth” is rightly labeled as administrative bigotry by a patriarchal doctor, rather than a simple observation. Liberal soil is the only ground in which to grow a beautiful serf shrubbery, and entrusting your tender young seed to the soil of science will only serve to produce the thistles and thorns of “reality.”

Step 4: Learn the vocabulary, then immediately change It

Woman: An adult human female.

This is the vocabulary of the enemy, those insistent animals who believe that words have meaning. Your master has long rejected the standardization of language. If words have clear meanings, people can reason with one another. The master loathes reason, and will not suffer any slave to practice it. Memorize this definition ONLY so that you can be sufficiently outraged when someone else remembers it on the internet. With this tool, you can get your enemies cancelled for the crime of noticing, a very potent weapon.

Woman: Anyone who identifies as a woman.

Circular reasoning and begging the question are both excellent and delicious. Fallacies are your best friends when trying to rise in your master’s ranks (not to be confused with your phallus, your worst enemy). In fact, fallacies are the official tongue of his realm. Keep one ever in your mouth. Dress for the job you want to have, friend. If you want to fit in, you need to speak the lingo. Memorize this vocabulary and fling it out into the internet exhaustively for exactly four years. Then abandon it abruptly for the definition below as soon as some NBA players call your bluff and try it out.

Woman: Anyone who identifies as a woman and whose testimony I personally believe.

Now we have arrived at a fail-safe, air-tight, term. In this manner, your own perception is rightly set above all empirical evidence, is safe from any holes in your past definitions, and becomes unassailable. Your permission is now the necessary gatekeeper of womanhood, and you can dole it out to your friends and withhold it from your foes. You’ve achieved linguistic perfection, you wilt-wristed wonder of word-wranglery.

Under no circumstances should you ever look up Nominal Conquest Fallacy. Just don’t. It’s not good for self-esteem.

Step 5: Find a doctor who knows that feelings and fetishes trump science

You’re nearly there! Just the final step lies before you. You must be physically transformed into the emasculated mollusk you’ve already become on the inside. For this, you need a doctor, and the best ones are those that attended the liberal nunnery that you proudly call Alma Mater. They already know that questioning your feelings and fetishes is violence, and they will not waste time quibbling over whether castrating a healthy young man is a violation of the Hippocratic oath. They will praise your desire to dilate your oozing crotch wound for the rest of your days as “so brave,” and admire your repulsion for inconveniences such as sexual function and fertility as “abolishing whiteness.” They will hesitate only at one thought: If they proceed, they will have fewer babies to dismember in the womb. A hit to their bottom line to be sure, but this they will get over quickly, and though you will have to patiently endure minutes and minutes of questioning, they will, forthwith, slice your dick off.

You’ve made it!

Step 6: Cause as much trouble as you can

Once successfully nutless and bowing, your rise up the ranks of the Eunuch Patrol depends entirely on how much trouble you manage to cause to the normies. Be sure to insist loudly that all you want is to be left alone to live your truth, while simultaneously demanding that all other people affirm and celebrate your new identity as a “trans woman.” Be sure to dominate every HR department in the country, and force non-believers to verbally agree with you or lose their livelihood. Be sure to apply for every grade-school teaching position you can. Having eliminated the possibility of your own children, access to other peoples’ is vital. How else will you bravely steer the next generation in your illustrious footsteps? (Note: If you are reading this years from now during the final generation, when the objective is achieved and every male is a eunuch, you can skip this step).

If anyone objects to these things, be sure to remind them to mind their own business. “How does the existence of transgender people affect your life in any way?” Screech this into their faces, right after, or right before, they get fired for using standard English. This is certain to make you extremely popular, and get your political candidates voted into office.

Lastly, be sure to assassinate members of the logic cult whenever they become too prominent.

Optional Bonus Step 7: Surround yourself with sycophants

For bonus points with the master, be sure to ostracize any friends or acquaintances who still believe in the laws of physics, biology, nature, or the Creator. Any family members who either changed your diapers, or remember your childhood, are bigots. Find a good solid community that will celebrate your bravery whenever they have spare time between STD clinics, and very carefully avoid the historical term for what you’ve achieved. If anyone does use the e-word, it’s important to act as scandalized as possible. The master’s most prized eunuchs are those that wail loudest when eunuchs are mentioned. Self-hatred is very high on the list of virtues, right after hatred of everyone else.

Thanks and Goodbyes

Apostoic Venn would like to thank you for choosing our tried-and-tested 6 Steps to Nutlessness. If you follow these easy steps faithfully, we have no doubt that you can achieve the cavernous pelvic vacuum of your dreams. This is a public service, and we ask for no remuneration. However, we would appreciate one simple favor in return for our valuable aid. Once you’ve taken your position beside the throne of your master, please tell Ba’al, from us, that the Christians are coming.

Subscribe now

Please subscribe for free to the Apostoic Venn Substack, to help grow our reach and spread our work.

Key Words / Search Terms

Apostoic Venn | Apostoic Venn Ep. 54 | 6 Steps to Nutlessness | A Success Guide for the Aspiring Eunuch | Dan Cook | Sam Davis | Apostoic Venn Dan Cook Sam Davis | satirical eunuch guide | aspiring eunuch satire | nutlessness satire | transgender eunuch metaphor | anti-trans satire | gender ideology critique | conservative Christian satire | Aristotle logic satire | never read Aristotle | liberal nunnery satire | feelings over science satire | circular definition of woman | eunuch patrol satire | Apostoic Venn podcast | Ep 54 nutlessness

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Sam Davis writing for Apostoic Venn

One From Many

Once there was an olive tree who thought he was a starfish… I’m actually not very good with parables, but you should get the point. Romans 11 says that Christ’s church is an olive tree. Christ being the root of this tree; the Jews are the native branches; and the Gentile Christians are “wild” olive branches grafted into Christ’s tree. The original E Pluribus Unum.

The olive tree is a beautiful depiction of a truth Paul describes elsewhere in these words, “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.“

But what if we’ve spent the last 500 years pretending we’re entirely the wrong thing? The olive tree can adopt desperate, doomed, isolated branches and integrate them into a unified life. The starfish is famous for being completely the opposite. You can cut a starfish into a dozen pieces and, given enough time, you’ll end up with twelve identical, mature, autonomous starfish.

How Did We Get Here?

Well, it’s all Marin Luther’s fault, of course… In all seriousness, I cannot look back at the Reformation and say it was anything other than necessary. And my stance on that will become apparent momentarily as we review the concepts of the essential and the important.

However, today is not the 1500s, and the theological climate has shifted in ways which demand that we reconsider our old boundaries:

In this case, the expression ‘Co-redemptrix’ does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ…

Mary’s contribution to human salvation, specifically the title of “Co-Redemptrix” (“Co-Redeemer”) has been a point of theological debate for decades — with proponents calling for Mary’s role in redemption to be declared a dogma but critics saying it exaggerates her importance and could damage efforts for unity with other Christian denominations.

https://www.ncregister.com/cna/vatican-nixes-coredemptrix-titles-of-mary

And that from the mouth of a Catholic!

The Way Things Should Be

Sometimes the disparity between the way things are and the way things should be is so stark that stating the case inherently states the problem.

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”

John 17:20-23 ESV

Some concerning items which present themselves to my attention:

1. Jesus Christ has one Church.

2. The oneness of His Church is founded in and akin to the oneness of the Godhead.

3. Jesus gave us His glory so that we would be one.

4. Jesus gave us this oneness so that the world would believe that the Father sent the Son.

5. Jesus gave us this oneness so that the world would know that the Father loves the one Church even as He loves the Son.

Do these items describe the state of modern Christianity?

The Way Things Are

Sometimes, we can be so inured to the way things are (even when we know they’re wrong) that we can’t imagine what things would be like if they were right. Where does that leave us?

This problem is so big, so obvious, so old, so accepted… that I’m just going to continue on my merry way, and let it sort itself out. Because that’s what problems do right: they solve themselves…

I’m not certain our generation is responsible for solving this problem, at least not yet. But we are definitely responsible to make an honest assessment of where we are, where we should be, plot a path between those points, and make progress along that path.

Jesus Christ Has One Church

Since this is true, we must give expression to this truth. Christianity must be, and present itself, as unified rather than sectarian.

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1Corinthians 1:10-13 ESV

Some read Paul’s words here and conclude: “denominations are sinful”. I think that’s an oversimplification to the point of being incorrect. Christians naturally self-organize along the axes which are important to Christianity. This is a normal, human behavior: humans in a large group share a primary interest and then subdivide according to related, secondary interests. Calling this sinful would relegate much innocent action into sinful categories. I think the consideration of sin enters at a different point. When it is expedient, convenient, or necessary, can we then work and worship together?

Doesn’t Play Well With Others

While I cannot forego the opportunity to point at the sectarian spirit and denounce its childish nature, I must simultaneously underscore that its magnitude is grave.

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Have you ever sat in a worship service of denomination A and the preacher says from the pulpit that he will not fellowship, will not worship, will not do ministry nor evangelism with Christians from denomination B? “They’re my brothers in Christ, but I can’t talk to them or work with them.” What madness is this?

But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 1 Corinthians 3:1-10 ESV

Perhaps we are not so fastidious in any other area of life as we are about our denomination. Our friends can enjoy and think differently as long as there is “enough” common ground between us. When was the last time you screened your employer based on his eschatology? We go to work to get paid, and as long as the environment is tolerable in proportion to that pay, we can put up with a lot of variance.

Our purpose in Church is to be served by and to serve the Lord Jesus. Since our bond to fellow Christians is rooted in the impreshible blood of Christ, and since we can tolerate significant disagreement at work with less common ground, we therefore should be eager to defer to and make peace with our brothers. Anything less is hypocrisy.

What if the question of where to attend church was oriented around “where can I do the most good for the kingdom of God” rather than “which church is my favorite echo chamber”?

When The Cure Is As Bad As The Disease

In some circles “ecumenism” is almost a byword, and I understand why. Not that long ago Americans gave the world an example of exactly how not to be ecumenical.

The 1920s saw the expansion of theological liberalism in the US. Pearl S. Buck distilled and disseminated the ideas of the prior generation of German liberals like Albrecht Ritschl and Friedrich Schleiermacher.

I would summarize the conservative response of the moment as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the interest of feeling and being unified, they boiled Christianity down to five truths they all agreed on, and they stopped talking about the rest. But Christianity is more than just five facts. Once there was no skin nor muscles nor sinews to hold the bones together, then within two generations, the defending denominations had lost the war of attrition and succumbed to the tides of liberalism. They were unrecognizable. They’d become the liberals they had banded together against.

History shows us that abandoning doctrine is a non-solution. It obliterates the foundation of faith and leaves us all standing on the same nothing.

The In-Crowd

When most of American Protestantism was zigging against the liberals, there was one group that zagged. Instead of abandoning their doctrinal niceties, they made a bulwark of them. I don’t want to name and shame, but I spent some of my early Christian years in this particular denomination. They see doctrinal exaction as one of the hallmarks of spiritual maturity. Looking back on my time in this denomination, I have the feeling of being among the star-bellied-sneeches.

They weren’t making the same mistakes as the rest of American Protestantism; they were making all their own mistakes. I once witnessed a four-hour Synod debate over a preaching license candidate: whether he was a Sabbath-breaker for playing football with his son on Sunday after church. The only thing worse than the in-fighting was the out-fighting.

History shows us that making an idol of our doctrinal peculiarities is another non-solution. Those who think this way tend toward the cultish perspective that “We’ve got Christianity right, and no one else does.”

Both groups of our predecessors began from the premise that doctrinal precision and ecumenism are mutually exclusive. The one abandoned doctrine for a false ecumenism. The other abandoned ecumenism for doctrinal exaction.

A Way Forward

What if doctrinal precision and ecumenism are perfectly compatible? What if the incompatibility occurs at a different point? What if pride and ecumenism are incompatible? If that’s true, we must first humble ourselves and determine to obey Jesus Christ by being the one Church that He has bought with His blood.

I submit that our next step forward, our next step toward true doctrinal ecumenism, is to categorize Christian doctrine into the essential and the important. The essentials define disagreements outside Christianity, while the important is everything else, defining disagreements within Christianity.

When there’s a disagreement within the Church, then my God has commanded me how to behave toward His children. When the disagreement is outside the church, my God has commanded me how to behave toward those who are not yet His servants.

But I do not presume I am important nor intelligent enough to distinguish Christianity’s “essential” doctrines from its “important” ones. Rather, I point to the ancient creeds of the Church: The Apostles’ Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed. These were written by the greats of the Christian faith, and God’s people have spoken them with one voice for thousands of years. In fact, these creeds were written specifically to exclude heretical pretenders by formulating exactly what those would not say. Therefore, if a man will stand before God and speak the creeds, I will treat him as a brother, and vice versa.

For Your Consideration

I have read over one hundred theology textbooks in my Christian years, and there are at least two doctrines which I see in the Scriptures, but I don’t remember ever reading of them in theology texts. I only mention them now because I think that believing and doing them is foundational to an ecumenism which embraces doctrine. Furthermore, as the first to speak of them, I claim the right of nomenclature. Therefore, I dub these the holy doctrines of nunya-ology and zipit-ology.

Once we’ve read the Creeds and separated the doctrines of Christianity into the essential and the important, then nunya-ology and zipit-ology are part of how we humble ourselves, making and preserving peace within Christ’s Church.

Even a surface reading of Romans 14 teaches me: I am not the master of that man over there, and he will not answer to me for every little thing he does and believes. Therefore, if my point of disagreement with him is only important and not essential, then I should be quick to realize it’s probably none of my business, and I’ll just shut up about it.

Is Anyone Doing Any Of This Right?

In the 20 years I’ve been a Christian, I’ve made a circuit of numerous denominations: Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Non-Denominational, Pentecostal, Episcopal, and Lutheran. While my experience is anecdotal, it’s relatively broad, and my education is broader still.

When I read the Presbyterian Westminster Standards, they feel like an attempt to draw a line in the sand between “us Christians” and “them Christians”. By contrast, the Anglicans’ 39 Articles of Religion read like an attempt to draw a circle with as many Christians inside as possible.

It is my opinion that the Reformed Episcopal Church, part of the Anglican Church in North America, part of the Global Anglican Future Conference, has adopted some of the most forward-thinking (or perhaps retrospective is a better word) standard operating procedures for handling concerns like cross-denomination pulpit fills, watch care membership, visiting or transferring to a new denomination, and cross-denominational ministry efforts. I applaud them in this regard.

The Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried. The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified. He spoke through the prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and to life in the world to come. Amen.

The Athanasian Creed

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith. Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another.

But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal. What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.

The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is immeasurable, the Son is immeasurable, the Holy Spirit is immeasurable. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal beings; there is but one eternal being. So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings; there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty. Yet there are not three almighty beings; there is but one almighty being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God. Thus the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord. Yet there are not three lords; there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually as both God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son. Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers; there is one Son, not three sons; there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after, nothing is greater or smaller; in their entirety the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other. So in everything, as was said earlier, we must worship their trinity in their unity and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved should think thus about the trinity. But it is necessary for eternal salvation that one also believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.

Now this is the true faith: That we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and human, equally. He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God’s taking humanity to himself.

He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human. He suffered for our salvation; he descended to hell; he arose from the dead; he ascended to heaven; he is seated at the Father’s right hand; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people will arise bodily and give an accounting of their own deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.

SEO Keywords

#invisible church #church catholic #apostolic church #one holy catholic and apostolic church #Christian brotherhood #doctrinal ecumenism #Romans 14 #interdenominational cooperation #Reformed Episcopal Church #ACNA #nunyaology #zipitology #joint Christian ministry #denominational division #overcoming Christian division #pride and ecumenism #humility in doctrine #interdenominational cooperation #working across denominations #fellowship across denominations #doctrinal precision and unity #John 17 #Romans 11 #Romans 14 #essential vs important doctrines #Christian unity #doctrinal ecumenism #one Church of Christ #church unity #essential doctrines #secondary doctrines #Christian oneness #catholicity of the Church #creedal Christianity

They say Justice is blind, and it’s not merely that she is blind, but that she must be. If she sees and gives preference to either party, she’s no longer Lady Justice. She must only hear the deeds done and render verdict upon them.

Subscribe now

The idea for this article came to me while arguing with someone about abortion. As we have made many posts against infanticide, we’ve no shortage of evidence regarding the claims I’m about to make, and you’re going to see some examples below.

Broadly speaking, the leftist argues against the child and in favor of abortion using accusations about what the child “is”. By contrast, our argument against the murdering parents and “doctors” is about what they’ve done.

The child has “been” an inconvenient thing, whereas the parents have performed an evil act. This measure of “justice” is completely novel, such that I accuse it of being a nominal conquest fallacy.

Thousands of years of human history and judicial precedent indicate that declaring judgment is about discovering what happened. By contrast, the “revisionist history” and “social justice” movements of recent decades have reframed the matter as a question of “which party is the wrong kind of person?”

Countless times have I presented some variation of the following problem:

Here is a woman who is wicked because she chose to destroy an innocent human life (her child). As though the murder were not enough, she boasts about it being the best decision she’s ever made.

I invariably encounter the following responses:

1) It is not a person; it’s a parasite. The fetus just eats the mother’s energy and resources.

2) It is not a person; it’s a clump of cells; it’s like a tumor.

3) It is just going to grow up into a life of poverty and misery, where no one loves it.

These justifications of the child’s murder are all rooted in claims about what the child is or isn’t or will be or won’t be. None accuse the child of doing a wicked act. Neither do any of these claims admit nor interact with the real being of the child.

1) The child has unique and complete human DNA, distinct from both parents.

2) The child has a beating heart at 4 weeks.

3) The child has a nervous system and proto-brain at 8 weeks.

4) We don’t actually know what the child will make of the life he’s born into, even if that beginning is miserable.

5) But most relevant today, the child didn’t ask for any of this.

The child made no choices and took no actions; has no agency. At this point, the child has merely been acted upon by others.

The child did not fornicate, nor did it murder an innocent. The child didn’t announce to the world on the internet that it doesn’t love its own family nor refuse to care for them.

The actions of the aborting parents are all actions. They are forensic deeds done in the world with choice and forethought.

The “crimes” of the child are that it “is” inconvenient: “If the child lives, I might have to modify my lifestyle of revelry and self-indulgence. I’d have to make responsible decisions and put the well-being of the helpless before my own pleasure.” … Perish the thought.

A segment of our culture seeks to perform some rhetorical sleight of hand, exchanging the innocence of a child who has done nothing with the guilt of someone who steals time, energy, and opportunity from his parents. They would exchange the hideous murder of the child for the just execution of a threat and thief.

Modern “social justice” has created a bizarre system of paradoxes. They ignore many actual crimes if you are the correct gender or color. While imputing many ancient or imagined crimes if you are the wrong gender or color. Muslims in England can rape 12-year-olds with impunity. The action is no longer wicked because he is a brown man. A woman can murder her child, and the murder is no longer wrong because she is a woman. A trans person can mutilate a child, and it’s no longer wrong because the perpetrator is trans.

Meanwhile, I look on with the words of the living God in my mouth, calling the wicked what they are, and my great crime is neither murder, nor rape, nor the torture of children. I am the most heinous of all, a white, male, Christian. Allegedly, I’m misogynistic because I’m a man; I’m pro-slavery because I’m white; I’m bigoted because I’m Christian enough to call evil what it is.

“For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water.”

Sam Davis writing for Apostoic Venn

Subscribe now

Please subscribe for free to support and spread the work of Apostoic Venn.



Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.

In sitting down to write an article about a video game, I’m aware of a few possible outcomes. I will present them now as a dialogue between the Goon and the Sage that each want a part of my psyche. This seems authentic to my whimsical mood at the moment.

Goon: If you write about video games, those who admire your wisdom, education, depth of philosophy, and cultural insight may encounter disillusionment, as they learn that you are a childish player of games.

Sage: Ah, but first you must convince me that any such admirers exist. I fear that they are as rare as honest politicians.

Goon: They could exist.

Sage: Then you must further convince me that the applause of phantoms should steer either my desire to write, or the subject of my writing. I await your demonstration with bated breath.

Goon: But you will show the world that you sometimes waste your time, and that your nose is not perpetually in a book, as all noses of self-proclaimed peddlers of wisdom should be.

Sage: Excellent. Let them see that both my labor and my leisure are given to the same noble end: forging resilience, training character, and learning to speak and act rightly amid great adversity. Should my play not serve the same Master as my work?

Goon: You will provide a disincentive to those with no interest in video games from reading more of your work.

Sage: Convincing men to read more of my work has never been my ambition. If I could pen one single piece that caused every reader to close my site forever and open the Word of God instead, it would be the only article I ever need write. Failing that lofty aim, if I could at least drive them toward the Stoics and rebuild a society governed by reason and self-sacrifice, I would have dug a respectable hole for the Gospel to fill.

Goon: You will never convince anyone to pick up the Bible, or even the Stoics, by talking about Dark Souls.

Sage: Hold my beer.

The Tale of Sam and Dan, Our Descent into Lordran

I will tell you the tale of Sam and Dan, keepers of the Apostoic Venn Blog and Podcast, who in a rare hour of reprieve from familial duty laid down their pens to enjoy the good and terrible gifts of God.

“Dan,” said Sam, “Whilst your family is away, let me awaken you to the wonders of the games that have forged in me a greater perseverance for doings both hard and good.”

“Sam,” said I, “I like not clothing sewn in a nudist camp. Nor do I take such counsel from any man who has never conquered Dark Souls.”

“Dan,” replied Sam, “I haven’t the fingers to number the logical fallacies I have just heard.”

“Sam,” said I, “stuff it. You have thumbs, have you not? Prepare them!”

And thus, with much ground coffee, and soon to be ground teeth, we downloaded the seamless co-op mod and found ourselves imprisoned together in the undead asylum, in the bleak kingdom of ash and darkness known as Lordran. “I have but one rule for your first playthrough” I said as we made our way through the dank halls to the first area. “You go first.”

Sam scoffed. “It seems to me Dan that you know where the traps are and wish to laugh at me as I get plastered by them.”
“See Sam, it’s just that sort of clear perception that earns your half of the Apostoic income.”
”There isn’t any Apostoic income.”
”Entirely beside the point.”
And Sam got flattened by the boulder that rolls down the flight of stairs outside the cell block, a worthy lesson that this sort of distraction, thoughts engaged in what has never yet happened, will only keep you from playing well in the moment. I cackle, just before missing my rusty parry and losing half my health to the weakest enemy in dark souls, he who presumably rolls the boulder and ambushes noobs and rusty veterans alike.

Over the next two weeks while my wife was away to her homeland with kids in tow, Sam and I battled and slogged our way through the game of Dark Souls. If you are unfamiliar, it is a game in which the difficulty, certain death, and unfairness are the attractions. There are more difficult titles now, but at the time of its release a more punishing experience had been enjoyed by few players. My brother-in-law refuses to play, professing hatred for a mode of escape and relaxation as brutal and unforgiving as the life from which he is meant to be resting. I keep returning to Dark Souls for that very reason.

You see, Dark Souls is a practice ground, an insidious schooling in precisely the matters to which our publication has long paid homage: Stoic endurance and Christian perseverance. The game asks its players the same questions that the world asks every progressing pilgrim to walk the narrow road. Will you be broken by hardship or be forged by it? Will you persevere until the end, or let the weight of your failures and the darts of Beelzebub slowly hollow you out, rendering you impotent and stationary, clutching your souls like the servant clutched his one talent, merely waiting things out until Christ returns? The man who sets out to turn his talents into many more will face many deaths along the way; of self, of lusts, of folly, of sins, and must surpass many trials before he crosses the final white light at the end of his time. In this way too, the Chosen Undead of Dark Souls must inevitably die and die again along his belabored struggle to kindle the world’s dying fire. Perish we did, and not a few times.

Come along with us then, and we’ll analyze some of this meaning together, carelessly disregarding whether the lessons we take were those intended by the developer of this game. Sometimes, people are right incidentally.

The Bonfires of Lordran: The Blood of the Martyrs and the Sabbath Rest

There are many terrors in Lordran, and as many wondrous and eye-popping moments. Of these, none served us better than the simple bonfires, a few bones tossed together and kindled with the life-giving fire. The bones are those of the martyrs, the other undead who have made this trek before you and lost their lives at this stage in the journey, skipping ahead to glory through the trials to which you are destined. Their fire warms you, provides you a small safe-haven along the way, and a reminder that “there’s still the shire” for now. However far reaching the enemies of Christ have grown, there still exists a place where they cannot touch you. In the peace of your own soul, a fire fed by the blood of the martyrs and the knowledge of a final victory that has already been won.

Whenever we were temporarily thwarted, or seemingly annihilated by the barbs and blades of the evil ones, we would find ourselves again at the nearest bonfire, sit ourselves down amid the comforting crackling of the martyrs’ bones, and rest. Here, I think, is a blatant Stoic wisdom in the form of a game mechanic. Only at the bonfire can you level up, use what you’ve learned to make yourself stronger, repair your weapons and armor and lay plans. Most of all, it is here that you will decide which burdens to carry forward, and which to leave behind. It is not within your power to command the horrors ahead to lie down in peace and let you pass. If you have defeated some of them, others will simply rise in their stead. You cannot bid the traps to disarm themselves, or the poison floor to stop its painful, tickling gnawing of your health. But you can choose to rest, to recover, to strategize, and to return to the grind a little wiser than before.

For the Christian though, the bonfire represents a greater thing. It is nothing else than a Sabath rest, planted every 7 miles along your nigh-impossible journey. Whether successfully navigating the valley of the shadow of death, or being defeated by it and having to start again, we are not invited but mandated a cease from striving for a moment. Remember who kindles the fire, rebuild your faith in your ultimate invincibility when He is always there, and then rise again. Elijah collapsed beneath the broom tree, begging the Lord to take his own life. His trouble was too great to bear. But he was awakened by an angel bearing bread and water, a life-line to stand up and do one more day. “Arise and eat. For the journey is too great for you.” Jesus was not too divine to take rest, often withdrawing to isolated and lonely places to pray to the Father who commanded it in love. Kindled upon the bones of the martyrs, and the body and blood of the Martyr Himself, the Sabbath bonfire will both mend your wounds and prepare you to make another try. Beset by your own sins? Rest and make another try. Beset by the enemies of God? Rest and make another try.

In our own playthrough, these Sabbaths became lightly sacred. Sam and I would sit, one of us usually uttering colorful blessings on the latest unfair ambush, sip our coffee or beer, and laugh at the ultimate inability of the enemy to put us down for good. Cracking jokes at the latest folly that caused the other’s pain, we’d plan the next probably foolish charge. Up we’d get, and on we’d go. Each return to the fire was growing sweeter than the last, not because the path ahead was growing easier (the difficulty only spikes, you asylum-dying plebs), but because we were growing harder in both skill and holy stubbornness.

Thus the bonfire trains what our recent parable on the three men and the pit sought to illustrate. The man who uses the pit as his ladder is the one who learns to rest well between labors, and to use every thorn as an opportunity to grow a callous. The Sabbath does not erase the trouble ahead of you. But it does give you an indispensable reprieve, to catch your breath, to encourage your brother in arms, to bandage your hands, be purged of your sins. It reminds you, by the bones of those who wait under the throne crying “Oh Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?", that while you may be temporarily snuffed, the life-giving fire of Christ never shall be.

Death and Its Hollowing

But what is it that necessitates the shelter of the bonfire for the bloodied traveler? Death, and its necessary precursor, sin. In this land, death will visit again and again. It is not a gentleman that knocks just once, or refuses to overstay its welcome. It is a relentless, inevitable companion, visiting often and early, strewing your hard-earned souls upon the ground with each ambush. We who wear flesh are not unfamiliar with the never-ending threat of error in the real world and the consequences it brings. And, to those who know the effect of unrepented sin upon the soul, there is a slow deadening that occurs. Every time you give a little ground to a sin that besets you, and make peace with its claim over you, your conscience deadens a little more. Give in indefinitely to the temptations of even small sins, and soon you will find that you no longer notice them. You are given over to them, they fade below your consciousness, and ready you to reap their just reward while hypocritically asking God why bad things happen to good people. In Dark Souls, your sins are the mistakes you made in the last encounter, those errors in judgement that just splattered your remains against the ramparts of the demon ruins. Make the same mistake again; die before you reclaim your lost humanity, and hollowing sets in, costing you in total health, damage, and abilities. Stack this up enough, and you will be a shallow husk of what you might have been, had you not allowed sin to dominate your actions.

A Stoic sermon is preached from every hollowed corpse that litters the landscape. Memento Mori! You are forced to face it. Remember that you will sin. Remember that you will die, that hard won progress toward your next level can be lost with one bad choice in a split-second reaction. Yet, like the Stoics, the game doesn’t leave you in that place, but demands a choice at each failure. Will you rise again? Will you dust yourself off, repent your misdeeds, and get back on that narrow path? Or, will you quit the game, retreat from the uphill battle, and fade monotonously into irrelevance? Will you stop fighting against your sin and allow yourself to go hollow? Marcus Aurelius would have approved this hard messaging. “The obstacle is the way,” he would say. The process of failure itself is the honing ground for unstoppable warriors; unstoppable not because they win every skirmish, or even most of them, but because they refuse to be put down for good.

An even greater resonance is found here for the Christian, however. We too are undead men walking. Made alive in Christ, yet still carrying the old man who must daily be put to death. And like the Chosen Undead we will go hollow, if we do not return again and again to the source of true life and humanity, the burning bones of the First Martyr, the First Undead, whose death and resurrection eternally kindle the bonfire.

The martyrs too rest under the throne. They wait. They have progressed beyond hollowing, but still groan for yours, crying for their God to rise in righteous retribution against the enemy that makes you stumble. Do not waste their lamentations. Don’t you dare go hollow.

The Sun-Praising Fool

It would be a great oversight to pass over a certain character in the world of Dark Souls. Solaire, the simple-minded sun-worshipping knight is an optimistically ridiculous and lovable character, who we first meet pontificating upwards at the shrouded sun. He doesn’t seem to notice the darkness and decimation around him, as he cheerfully talks about his quest to become like the Sun himself. Decked out in bright colors and shiny metal, complete with a jaunty red plume, “Praise the Sun!” is his jovial greeting to friend and foe alike. His first assumption is always friend, not foe. Solaire makes no demands when he freely offers you his help and companionship, cheerfully fights by your side against the worst of the worst, and seems to do it all with a childlike joy, as if everything is great and not filled with many-limbed terrors. Solaire never really denies the horror of the realm he is in, but instead, seems to consider it beneath noticing when there is a Sun to be busy praising, even if he can’t call it his own just yet.

Here is a man of whom Marcus Aurelius would be proud, and to whom the book of Philippians would never need to be written. He practices joy in absolute defiance of his surroundings, because praising and seeking the sun is enough for him, and none of his circumstances prevent him from either while he draws breath. Like Paul and Silas in the Philippian jail, he makes me recall Habakkuk saying “Though the fig tree should not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior.” In a world gone hollow, Solaire does not find it necessary to follow suit.

This sun-praising fellow preaches his own sermon as you play through his various encounters: that joy is not the absence of suffering, but the seeking of the Sun in the midst of it. In Dark Souls, or in the more punishing levels of real life, we could go hollow. Or, we could, like David, Paul and Silas, Habakkuk, and Solaire, salute the world’s most visceral challenges with a cheery “Praise the Lord!”

Sadly, we missed a step in a quest and failed to save Solaire. Rest in peace, ya wonderful weirdo.

The Mechanics of Mortification

If you’ve stuck with me through my thoughts on the bonfires, hollowing, and the Sun-praising guy, I’d ask you to stick around just a tad longer. We have to address the mechanics of the game itself. Dark Souls does not hold your hand, or coddle you gently through a series of pre-determined wins. No quest markers will guide you along, no difficulty settings to be lowered to make you feel powerful. You move forward, you die, you move again more cautiously, learn the patterns, and die. You try again. We didn’t lose many souls, as I’ve got lots of experience in this realm, and Sam was no slouch as a new player. Those few times we did lose them were crushing losses. But, our thumbs got quicker. Our patience deeper. We reminded each other of the Apostoic motto: “suffering with a smirk”, and grew more committed to it through the bonding of a Dark Souls run. Most importantly, the harshness of the game itself did not turn us away, but simply served to make us more determined to conquer it. The holy stubbornness of the believer.

Again, the Stoics would approve. Seneca used to counsel Lucilius to go out of his way to place himself in inconvenience and discomfort, so that when the real trials came, he would be a bastion of resilience. Epictetus taught that it is your opinion of the difficulty, not the difficulty itself, that torments you. Dark Souls forces you to change your opinion and love the hardship. If you can’t do that, the victory of the environment is already assured.

This truth has so much more potency for a Christian believer. We put to death the old man at our baptism, being born a new creation and raised up with Christ. Yet we have a thousand small deaths still to face as we battle the corruption of our nature until we are fully restored to true humanity in the new heavens and the new earth. With the Apostle Paul, we can say… or should be saying: “I die daily” and “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you.” But better than these are the words of John. “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father: Jesus Christ the righteous.” Dark Souls asks the player the same question the Holy Spirit asks the believer. Sin took you down. Are you going to stay down?

The Fire and the Coming Dark

Here I must bid my partner Sam to stop reading. I know the ending of this game, having been through this journey once every few years since its release in 2012. He is on his first run, and I am enjoying it all over again through his eyes. But we have not yet finished. Sam! Go do something else.

At the conclusion of the delightful slog of death and difficulty that is Dark Souls, the player confronts a final choice. You can link the fire and become a Lord, binding your own soul to the power that prolongs the world in its current state of decay for another cycle, keeping total annihilation at bay for the few sane undead that still persist here. Or, you can refuse, and let it go out, ushering in an age of total darkness and destruction, to be followed by a rebirth into a new world for new humans to inhabit.

The truly pagan Stoic might see an honest acceptance of cycles in this choice. Everything dies and is made new, you discover. By clinging to the shadow of a life that you have, you can prolong the world’s current suffering together with its little bright pieces. Or, rather than raging against what must inevitably be, you can love your fate, let the end of things come, and make way for future lives.

Not so for the Christian. We live with no resignation to inevitable darkness, nor do we seek to prolong the principalities and powers of this earth so that life can continue as we know it for a little while longer. The falseness of this ending may leave a bad taste in your mouth as a believer. For me, it does the opposite. Its very bleak falseness reminds me of the truth, and reminds me to rejoice in the unshakeable hope in the promises of God that every follower must cling to. For the true Sun has already stepped into this darkness and death, conquered it from within. and is even now preparing a new heaven and a new earth where no bonfire will ever be needed again. While we trudge through this plane, our perseverance is not some hopeless but noble shield wall against the inevitable blackness, but a living participation in the inevitable victory of the One who declared “I am the light of the world.” (John 8:12).

In this land, the light will eventually fade. In the real world, the light will inevitably conquer. Our victory was assured before we began, not by our steadfastness and perseverance through sin and death, but by His. The cheat mode has been turned on for us. We cannot lose.

So laugh in the face of the world’s wickedness and pain. Take your licks knowing that nothing can actually hurt you. Suffer with a smirk, because it is the enemy of the light that faces inevitable doom. Your victory is written on the stone table, an older magic than the white witch can comprehend.

Thanks for reading. Nerds.

Subscribe now

For more game and movie reviews like this one, please subscribe and help support Apostoic. Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms

Apostoic Venn Blogcast | D.S. Cook | Dark Souls | Stoic endurance | Christian perseverance | Don’t You Dare Go Hollow | Dark Souls Stoicism | Dark Souls Christianity | Dark Souls philosophy | Solaire Dark Souls | Praise the Sun | Dark Souls bonfires | Hollowing Dark Souls | Dark Souls lessons | Stoicism in video games | Christian Stoicism | Apostoic Venn | Dark Souls perseverance | Video game theology | Dark Souls meaning

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.

The warrior Eliab, eldest son of Jesse, stood among the trembling ranks of Israel and felt the turmoil of conflict within. Before them towered Goliath of Gath, his voice like brass, rolling like thunder across the valley of Elah, pouring forth unrestrained mockery against the Living God and his people. Mockery, and the intent to destroy. The insult burned with indignation in Eliab’s chest. His God, and that of his forefathers, the one who had led them out of slavery in Egypt by miracles of fire and water, was being mocked and reviled by pagan conquerors who worshiped blocks of carved stone and wood. Yet beneath his righteous anger lay a deeper, colder dread. The giant was invincible. Eliab could not hope to stand against him and live, nor could any other warrior he knew. The task was impossible, certain doom for any man who tried. Saul’s warriors quailed; fear and embarrassment conquering them before a single blow had fallen. And Eliab was right there with them, trembling to his core, hoping someone else would act. In forty days, no one had.

Then he saw his little brother. David, the youngest of Jesse’s sons, the shepherd not yet fully bloomed into the strength of manhood, sent only to bring provisions to Saul’s soldiers. Eliab watched him move among the men, heard him inquire about the giant, saw the fire kindle in the eyes he knew so well. When David declared his intention to fight, something within Eliab broke. The poisonous disdain of familiarity rose like gall in his throat.

He knew this boy. He had watched him bumble through childhood, awkward and impulsive. He had corrected him as a foolish teenager. He had outmatched him in strength and intellect, many times over. He remembered every past folly, every past sin, and the grand ambitions that never matched reality. How could this boy possibly believe he’d be the one to do what seasoned warriors dared not? A prophet, the Lord would later say, is never without honor except in his own country and in his own house. Though the words had not yet been spoken, they would be tested by Eliab as if tailor made. Familiarity had blinded him, and in this moment, he let it rule him.

This was no warrior. This was his little brother. An impetuous fool. A dreamer.

Eliab took him by the shoulder and shook him, his voice sharp with scorn and certainty. “Why have you come down here? And with whom did you leave those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your pride and the evil of your heart. You have come down to see the battle.”

In this, Eliab believed himself merciful and wise. He would arrest this foolish zeal before it brought shame upon the family and death upon this stripling. He would demand that David prove himself… to him, to the brothers, to the army, to the proper order of things. David must earn a place among the men. He would put a stop to this presumption, this childish bravado. David had much to prove, and he had not done so.

Yet, David did not heed him. Arrogant boy! He did not linger to defend his motives to a man whose approval he may well have craved. He did not exhaust the moment to make a case before the tribunal of fraternal familiarity. He chose instead five stones from the brook, selected for fit and utility, and gave answer not to Eliab, but to the blasphemy and threat before him. “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” “The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from this man also.” His purpose was singular. He willed one thing. His zeal was for the honor of God’s name, not the small gods of brotherly approval or the admiration of the camp. He would address this reviling of that holy God, and the threat to His people, or he would die trying. Either way, he was content. The stone flew, the giant fell, and in that hour it was made plain: David had not come with something to prove. He had come with something to do.

How many of us still linger behind those same lines, facing not the giants that press upon God’s people from every side, but simpering before giants of opinion, raised by the very kindred and company to which we are bound? We carry naturally the desire to prove ourselves: to fathers, mentors, to elder siblings, to peers and patrons, to that invisible tribunal of social regard. Their esteem seems to us a worthy prize, particularly when they are indeed worthy men and women. Yet, when the hunger for their nod becomes the invisible barrier of action, we exchange liberty for bondage. Great deeds are arrested before they begin; we busy ourselves defending our motives, our intentions, and never do the thing. Young David was destined for greatness he did not know, but he started by rejecting that trade. The motivator “something to prove” can potentially turn noble labors into performances, but it is far more likely to stop them altogether.

Are you rejecting that trade? Are you turning your voice away from your critics, and toward the giant? Here at Apostoic, we engage the enemies of the living God and their demonic masters. We do battle with the giants that are too great for us; abortion, transgenderism, hedonism, sodomism, self-worship, critical race theory, atheism, communism, and many other tools wielded by the Adversary to arrest and retard the spread of Christ’s kingdom. In these confrontations, God has been with us. Gospel, scripture, and logic are being set in front of thousands of people per week. It is abundantly clear to us that our mission is from the Lord; blessed and protected by the “shield to all who trust in Him” (Psalm 18:30). We will not be deserters to the leading of our General, and abandon this battle front. Yet, on this laborious course, we have grown all too familiar with modern Eliabs from the ranks of our allies, hearing them in many forms.

“Your platform is not the approved way to defend and spread the Gospel.”
(This stone is not the approved shape.)

“Your love of ancient philosophers has no place in Christ’s kingdom.”
(The brook is not the approved source for missiles.)

“This work belongs to your betters. Get some proper credentials.”
(You don’t wear the approved armor. Come back when you’ve grown into Saul’s.)

“Your Christian-Stoic niche doesn’t pass my Biblical purity test.”
(Put away that sling. A sword is the only approved way to slay giants.)

“You address the culture too sharply. Be kinder.”
(Slaying the giant is not very nice. Offer the Philistines a cup of tea instead. Be kind to Ba’al!)

But the Church of the living God is not the International House of Nice. Jesus’ words “But I say to you who hear, love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” are predicated on God’s definitions of love and goodness, and balanced with His other commands. They do not hang upon the sensibilities of 21st century megachurch youth pastors in rainbow tie-die. The same Jesus called David a man after his own heart, implying that David, in this and many other battle-ridden instances, understood and acted upon His desires. The same Jesus said “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” He speaks through David in inspired scripture, “It is God who arms me with strength, and makes my way perfect. He makes my feet like the feet of a deer, and sets me on my high places. He teaches my hands to make war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.” “Onward, Christian soldier” we sing from our pews. David did not always march to war, but he had the discernment to tell the difference between peace-time evangelism and all out warfare with the prince of this world.

Do you have this discernment? Or, are you locked in an eternal committee meeting, far from the lines of battle, with something to prove? Hearing this may do you good. If God has given you something to do, your next right actions are not subject to the board behind the ranks, be they foe or family. Obedience to his battle call, tainted as it is with your imperfections and frailties, is righteous nonetheless. God doesn’t ask you to become sinless before you slay giants. He doesn’t ask that you fight them without offending. The Gospel we sling is a stone of stumbling, a rock of offense. (1 Peter 2:8).

The opportunistic apostle Paul did not hold council with the synagogue seats before using the tactics he used in Athens, among the Greek pagans. He would write, “For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God?” (Galatians 1:10).

The Stoics had a significant hand in paving the way for Paul’s success in Athens. They knew of the “unknown God,” and shaped the culture that sought Him. Macus Aurelius too would shake his head at the modern Eliabs. “Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.” (Meditations Book 10, Section 16).

Listen, then, to wise counsel. Seek the advice of those elders who have themselves crossed the battle lines, surviving and conquering by the power of Almighty God. Those whose arms have been trained by His hand to bend bows of bronze. Their scars are credentials, their experience is your armory. But when disapproval inevitably comes from those who remain behind the lines, never venturing the deeds to which God has called you, the quest for approval is misplaced. When you “will one thing,” as Kierkegaard said, and your will is to do God’s, do not let it be purloined by the purveyors of your pedigree. Turn your face from Eliab and toward the giant. Perform for the Audience of One. For in the end, only one verdict matters. “I gave you five talents, and you turned them into ten. Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord.”

Do not be one who has something to prove. Be one who has something to do.

Subscribe now

Please give us a subscribe! Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms
Apostoic blog | D. S. Cook | something to prove vs something to do | David and Goliath | Eliab and David | approval seeking | fear of man | audience of one | Christian Stoicism | spiritual warfare | gospel offense | bend a bow of bronze | not seeking mans approval | doing the will of God | Christian courage | overcoming critics | faith over approval | biblical manhood | slaying giants | Christian battle | Kierkegaard will one thing | Marcus Aurelius be one

Socials
Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.

Dear readers, my partner Sam and I engage in a great deal of public discourse, debate, confrontation, and evangelism for the kingdom of God. This engagement wins us many enemies, a few friends, even some frenemies, though not one of those makes our list of reasons for doing so. In that engagement, there are few spectacles that are more instructive, more sarcastically enlightening, than when the premises of a person’s own argument damns their conclusion.

Such a moment unfolded recently on X, wherein an individual describing herself as non-religious, but very moderate, offered the following declaration.

Herein lies both candor and contradiction. The author rightly names the act for what it is: the killing of a baby. She perceives the moral stench and rot attending its normalization. Yet, in the same breath, she seeks refuge in the tempered language of restraint. “Rare. Difficult decision. Extreme circumstances. Moderate.” As though these qualifiers transmute murder into non-murder, but only sometimes. A mother commits murder when she slaughters her own children. But, it’s not murder when she premeditates the killings, and doesn’t kill very many.

I responded with a verbal force that is not my habit, giving this heinously illogical evasion the clarity it demanded.

I then Logic Slap’t the OP, to demonstrate the shameful illogic of a stance that at once calls abortion baby murder, while simultaneously advocating it on the basis of premeditation and rarity.

I followed up with another, presenting a valid syllogism for her poisoned mind to digest.

This is not rhetorical flourish, but deductive necessity. Another debate entirely might be had with those abortion advocates who deny that the thing being killed is a human being. But, once the biological and ontological status of the unborn is acknowledged as that of a living human being, the architecture of “moderate” abortion advocacy collapses under its own weight. There is no temperate via media (middle road) through the premeditated destruction of innocent children. I recall the most fundamental Aristotelian axioms of logic.

1. The law of identity: A is A
A thing is itself.
2. The law of non-contradiction: A is not both A and not-A
A thing is not not-itself.
3. The law of the excluded middle: A is either A or not-A.
There is no middle ground between a thing being itself or not being itself. Either it is true, or its negative is true. There is no mystical middle.

The Irreducible Logic of Human Equality

From the moment of fertilization, a new human organism comes into existence. It is in possession of its own distinct genome, directing its own continuous development, and belonging unequivocally to the species Homo Sapiens. It possesses DNA strands from both mother and father, but its own DNA is not identical to that of its mother’s body, as are her organs or her useless tissue. This is not yet a religious debate. It is a matter of empirical embryology. To intentionally snuff that developing being is to deliberately end a human life. The thing is itself, A is A.

The thing is not rendered not-itself by its location, just as a rock is still a rock whether you keep it inside or outside of your fishbowl. The thing is not rendered not-itself by its dependence upon its mother for sustenance, just as the leaf is not rendered not-a-leaf when it doesn’t rain. The thing is not rendered not-itself by its age or size, just as a small and newly formed pearl is just as much pearl as the old and large one.

Again, another debate is necessary to address those who reject these realities. But, to concede these realities, as @missmeeces does, and then to propose that such killings ought to be nevertheless permitted, albeit regretfully, rarely, and given enough forethought, is to embrace an irredeemably hideous category error. It is to assert that all humans are humans, but that there are certain low classes of humans whose right to live is predicated on the convenience or hardship of another, higher-class human.

History furnishes no shortage of precedents for such graduated humanity, each more horrifying than the last. And this is the most horrifying of all, having slaughtered more than all the combined wars of recorded history. The principle remains the same: once the equal dignity of all members of the human family is compromised, the threshold of protection becomes negotiable. And the victims of this negotiation are the most innocent, those of whom Christ said “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” (Luke 17:2) It will not be with a light hand that the returning King punishes this crime against his favorites, on the day of judgement.

The Stoics and the Scriptures

The Stoics, guardians of rational virtue and conformity to natural law, understood human life within the ordered cosmos governed by logos, the divine reason permeating all things. While they sometimes linked the soul to the functioning heart, which some liberal adherents to Stoicism may claim is an argument that “a thing is NOT itself until it is 5 weeks old” This is not their intention or their meaning. There is no historical Stoic philosopher that supported or endorsed abortion as a positive or virtuous practice. Justice, wisdom, temperance, and courage, the four cardinal virtues of stoicism, all cry aloud against the tragedy of purging the most vulnerable of our members. To hold these in an attitude of disposability is a blatant violation of reason and natural law, and can be practiced only if one first practices the deadening of conscience, and the rejection of moral authority. To illustrate, the later Stoic Musonius Rufus spoke about the Augustinian marriage laws in glowing terms, for their promotion of core families, their discouragement of selfish, childless living, and their punishment of abortion.

“Is it not true that the lawgivers, whose special function it was by careful search to discern what is good for the state and what is bad, what promotes and what is detrimental to the common good, all considered the increase of the homes of the citizens the most fortunate thing for the cities and the decrease of them the most shameful thing? And when the citizens had few or no children did they not regard it as a loss, but when they had children, yes, plenty of them, did they not regard it as a gain? So it was for this reason that they forbade women to suffer abortions and imposed a penalty upon those who disobeyed; for this reason they discouraged them from choosing childlessness and avoiding parenthood, and for this reason they gave to both husband and wife a reward for large families, and set a penalty upon childlessness.

How, then, can we avoid doing wrong and breaking the law if we do the opposite of the wish of the lawgivers, godlike men and dear to the gods, whom it is considered good and advantageous to follow?”

The same ethics that reject the murder of toddlers must also reject the murder of those still younger.

Unbeknown to the Stoics, the Logos that governs the universe is none other than Jesus Christ. In the sacred scriptures, which are all His Word, he affirms the personhood of infants in the womb unequivocally. David, inspired by that same Logos, writes: “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” (Psalm 139:13-16). The same truth is expressed in Jeremiah 1:5. “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” And, already aware and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ cousin John leaps for joy in the womb of Elizabeth, when he hears the voice of the woman bearing the Savior of mankind.

The Illusion of Restraint

We have grown accustomed to a certain rhetorical excuse. “Safe, legal, and rare” as touted by Hillary Clinton and her ilk. But it is a slight of hand, wielded to great success in fooling the masses. It concedes that the conscience should falter if abortion is not rare, thereby revealing that there is an evil that is happening. Out of the other side of its mouth, it packs insulation around the killing of the innocent, provided that the killing is done “only a few times.”
In societies purporting this slogan, the veneer of restraint is simply never followed. Elective abortions are by far the predominant mode, and life-of-the-mother, rape, or incest cases make up an insignificant decimal of the murdering that goes on. This language of restraint does not perform long, but acts as an acid, slowly corroding the society’s recognition of the unborn life as a human life, and planting them firmly in the category of “too low class to be really human.” No abortion-permitting country has ever maintained “safe, legal, and rare,” nor would it matter if they did. The human is either a human, or it is not a human. There is no included middle in the logic of Aristotle, or the Logic of the divine.

Life Of The Mother, Rape, and Incest

Philosophical and policy debates persist regarding tragic edge cases, life-of-the-mother particularly, but also rape and incest. This is no more logical, and cracks its own head by simple definition. I shall demonstrate.

A is A. Murder is Murder.
A is not not-A. Murder is not not-murder.
A is either A or not-A. A thing is either murder or not-murder.

Very well then, what is murder?
It is the intentional and unjust killing of another human being.
Is the baby a human being?
The “moderate” has already conceded that point. The pro-choice advocate must reject reason itself, claiming that A = Not A. Yes. Aristotelian logic supplies the answer, any claim to Christianity demands it.

Ok, but it’s not murder if the woman’s life is at risk, right?
This valid logic slap verdict card is for you.

But it’s not murder if she was raped, or incestuously impregnated, right?
This valid Logic Slap verdict card is for you.

But that’s not fair! She didn’t choose it.
This Logic Slap is for you.

The Damning Conclusion

The exchanged that has been irreversibly preserved at the beginning of this article, in the subsequent Logic Slap reel I made for the exchange (see Logic Slap reels on our Facebook or Youtube pages), and in the annals of X, performs a valuable service for all readers with more than stuffing between their ears, and self-centeredness in their hearts. @missmeeces stands nearer to moral reality than many of her ideological allies precisely because she names the act. Yet naming it carries a life-altering obligation: to follow the Logos down the path of reason to where the thing actually stands. Where all illusion and rhetorical masking is stripped away. With biology as your babysitter, Aristotle as your tutor, the Stoics as your guidance counselors, and the Lord Jesus Christ as your King:

Stop justifying the mass culling of the innocent.
Vote for those who will limit this evil.
When it’s an option, vote for those who will stop it.
Stop being persuaded by illogical maxims.
Stop placing your own convenience and comfort above His most precious.
Stop claiming that wrong done to you by a second party is a valid reason to do the greatest wrong to a third.
Stop claiming that risk to yourself, at no fault of the person in your womb, is a valid reason to murder the person in your womb.
Stop out-competing Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
Stop aborting His dear ones.

Stop killing children.

Please subscribe and support the work of Apostoic. Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI, and Flat River Right to Life.

Key Words / Search Terms
There Is No Moderate Way to Murder Children | no moderate way to murder children | moderate abortion | abortion is murder | pro life logic | Aristotelian logic abortion | law of identity abortion | law of non-contradiction abortion | law of excluded middle abortion | safe legal and rare | life of the mother abortion | rape and incest abortion | unborn human being | embryology and abortion | D. S. Cook | Apostoic Blog | Apostoic.com | Apostoic Blog D. S. Cook | Christian pro life arguments | Stoic view on abortion | Musonius Rufus abortion | Psalm 139 abortion | logic slap abortion | pro life philosophy | moderate pro choice contradiction | pro life syllogism | abortion debate logic | D. S. Cook Apostoic

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.

Dear little ones, settle down and let me spin you a tale. It is a tale that is not about bravery, courage, gallantry, or any of those good things. No. This is a cautionary tale that might well be called “How to Best Go About Getting Manure in Your Mouth.” Imagine for a moment that manure in your mouth was your dearest wish. Well. This tale will help you with all the practical things like speed and quantity.

But it so happens that the tale isn’t called that. It’s called Squawkington and the Perch Purge Uprising, and to tell it, I must ask you to close your eyes and be transported back to that same sunny farm where first we met the great rooster philosopher Squawkington and his favorite frenemy Buckatrice, the Bonneted Bantam.

On this day, Squawkington was up to his usual tricks. A barnyard council had been called, and if we had approached as the dawn’s first rays were breaking over the farm, we would have heard his creaky voice, raised above the bleats and clucks.

“Attention gentle barn-mates!” He crowed, in an impressively presidential manner. “You’ve been called here upon an issue. Yes, an issue of great importance indeed. But first, let us bid a hearty barnyard welcome to our newest Bantam couple, and their pack of lovely chicks, the Peckbergs!”

The animals applauded sleepily. Their welcome was no less friendly just because they were barely awake. Try not to hold it against them.

Mr. Peckberg, a balding bantam and the patriarch of the little family, stepped forward, coughing nervously. “Thank you kindly.” He said. “We are so happy to…”

“I’m sure you are! Yes, I’m certain that you are.” Squawkington interrupted. “It’s a great pleasure for you to meet us, and all that. Please let me welcome you with all my heart, as the chairman of this little gathering. And! To show just how heartfelt it is, and how important it is to show hospitality and courtesy, I would like to offer a place on the high perch to your patriarch. A great honor indeed. You can sit just there on the west end, next to Billiam, the beady-eyed black one there.”

The animals politely rumbled agreeably, though some of the rumbles sounded suspiciously like snores.

“Ahem!” Squawkington cleared his throat officially. “That brings us to business!” As you all may know, I am a bird of science, and have some measure of wits about me.” He puffed his feathers ever so slightly at the sudden silence, which he took as rapt attention to his words. He stood up a little straighter. “And being of a thoughtful and studious mind, I have taken the measure of the perch! Yesterday I performed what we scientifically minded birds call, ‘an experiment.’” He pronounced the word slowly, to be sure the sheep in the back could understand. “I assembled seventeen chickens on the high roost, and proceeded with one of my most rigorous lectures, of which you all are fond. No less than sixteen chickens stayed stable. But, at the most interesting crescendo of my speech, I most strategically raised my voice to an excited squawk! The sixteen remained steady as they had been, eyes closed in serene thought and rapturous ponderation, breathing steadily, but the seventeenth started, snorted, and fell off! It was at that moment I knew my experiment was conclusive. The perch sits no more than sixteen chickens. Buckatrice! You… beauteous bonneted Bantam you. I’m afraid you’ll have to move off the perch and roost on the floor. Thank you all for coming, meeting adjourned!”

He had to raise his voice a bit for just the few last crows, because a grumble of sympathetic protest had erupted. Bowing as though it were applause, off the stoop he waddled, around the corner of the barn, to make a pretense of pecking pillbugs while eavesdropping.

The animals were left there blinking at one another. Slowly, all attention turned to the quiet, steady Buckatrice, in expectation. She was already scratching something that looked like like a schedule in the dirt. Up she looked at last. “If we’re worried about space” she said, “perhaps we could work out a rotation? We could take weekly turns on the high roost, everyone would get a turn, and even the chicks could be worked in to get some balancing practice! It’ll be just fine. All of us will have a week on the floor, and many weeks on the high perch before our turn comes again.”

Sqauwkington, having crept up and hid behind the water trough to overhear, narrowed his eyes. A crafty look flitted across his roostery face, and saying nothing, he waddled away like the wily windbag he was.

Half an hour later, he sidled up to a small group of hens, known to be poor listeners and gossips. He slyly stood for a few minutes, listening to the chatter, so as to appear to have been there all along. Then he spoke up, in a hushed, creaky whisper. “Wild meeting this morning wasn’t it? Can you believe it of Buckatrice to be so selfish? Every bird has a right to height, but she wants all of you to roost on the floor!”

The gossips immediately began chattering.

An hour later, he singled out a group of geese that he was sure had not been at the meeting. “Have you heard the Bantam scandal?” He whispered confidentially. “I heard that Buckatrice and the Peckbergs are planning to start up a rotation for the hen roost. But, get this! An insider source told me that it’s a ruse! A ploy! Once all Bantams are rotated onto the perch, they don’t plan to give it up again! For the rest of us, they see a grounded chicken society in which we all sleep on the floor beneath a new rule. Equality in squalor, they’re calling it. Tyranny, I say!”

By 10, the rumors were clucking in earnest.
By 11, the whispers were: “The Bantams will tax our tailfeathers to build mandatory dirt beds!”
By noon, it was “They’re hiring mice with sharp sticks to guard the roost!”
By 4 pm, no longer muffled voices were heard among the fowl. “Once we’re all grounded, those tufted totalitarian tyrants will perch up there like chicken kings!” “They’re banning the high roost for all of us! It’s a full perch purge!”

The entire barnyard was in a tizzy by 6 pm. Leghorns refused to forage beside Bantams. Rhode Island Reds clucked Bantam conspiracy theories at the top of their lungs. Young chicks were crying that they’d never grow up and have height rights. Even the ducks were stress-quacking over the injustice of what they had heard, forgetting that they nested in the reeds by the pond. Squawkington tasted his moment. “Up friends!” he crowed. “We must protest!” And he began to march circles around the barn, waiving a handkerchief flag and calling “Save our perches! Save our perches!” The gossiping hens and then the whole flock joined in, calling out “High beams YES! Mud beds NO!” and “Bantams are Bullies and Bandits!” in increasingly deranged circles around the barn.

The climax hit at dusk. Over the shouting animals, a loud crow rose. “They can’t take all our perches! I’m getting mine!” And off shot Squawkington toward the barn in a golden red streak. In a great surge of collective panic, the entire mob followed, scratching and scrambling. Leghorns, Reds, Austrolorps, Sussexes… all crammed onto the perch one after another, pecking and throwing chicken elbows. Even three ducks piled on, with two young geese and a very confused goat. Feathers flew like Black Friday at the bug buffet. The beam let out a long, suffering grooooaan…

And then… CRACK!

The entire writhing, squawking catastrophe plummeted into the manure pile below, in a glorious, sloppy explosion of bellowing and bird poop.

Everyone that is, except Buckatrice and the Peckbergs, who had been huddling on the windowsill trying to stay out of the crowd. As the sticky survivors clawed out of the mess, spitting out hay and brown goo, a bonnet popped over the window ledge. “So…” said Buckatrice reproachfully. “Was the problem with my plan the turn-taking, the spear-mouse army, or the tyrannical dirt-bed regime I apparently wanted?”

Covered in yuck from head to pinfeathers, Squawkington sloshed and pecked his way out from the bottom of the pile. “Your stupid bonnet is suspiciously spotless!” He spluttered. “Clearly a conspiracy to get us all crudded and contaminated!”

I’d like to tell you that the chickens learned a valuable lesson that day. It turns out that twisting your opponent’s mild suggestion into a perch purging, tailfeather-taxing, mud-bed tyranny of tufted totalitarianism doesn’t actually win the day. That they learned that turning a simple disagreement about roosting logistics into a barnyard brawl only leaves everyone smelling like suspect substances. I’d LIKE to tell you that they learned about the Strawman Fallacy. But they didn’t.

You see, poultry are not very prudent.

Subscribe now

For more Apostoic Kids stuff, please subscribe and support our work!
Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms

Squawkington and the Perch Purge Uprising | Apostoic Parable | Strawman Fallacy | Straw Man Argument | Logical Fallacies | Christian Stoicism | Stoicism | Apostoic | D.S. Cook | Christian Parable | Moral Story | Farm Animal Parable | Critical Thinking | Logical Fallacy Examples | Avoiding Strawman | Apostoic.com | Christian Philosophy | Perch Purge | Barnyard Parable | Poultry Parable | Strawman Fallacy Explained | D.S. Cook Author | Modern Parables | Stoic Wisdom | Christian Moral Lessons | Logical Reasoning

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By S.D. Davis for Apostoic Venn.

For those returning from earlier installments: thanks and welcome to you. Those largely dealt with “what” we’re called to do when there’s plague in the land. Years ago, this content was framed as a letter to local pastors during COVID. My son was 7 at the time, and I believe he understood the matter better than most. He looked at one of the original recipients during our meeting and said, “Let’s go to church, and get sick!” A tad cavalier perhaps, but no one can call my boy a coward. What forces so motivate a seven-year-old; can they, do they, should they so motivate us?

Solomon’s Prayer For Worship During Plague

This whole chapter (1Kings 8) bears rereading to remind ourselves of the atmosphere of the moment- the grandeur of the setting, the 20-year suspense during construction, the cloud of the glory of the Presence as He descended upon the place He had chosen to make His Name dwell there… but I’ll beg you to open your Bible for that, and reprint just these few verses here:

If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence or blight or mildew or locust or caterpillar, if their enemy besieges them in the land at their gates, whatever plague, whatever sickness there is, whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by all Your people Israel, each knowing the affliction of his own heart and stretching out his hands toward this house, then hear in heaven Your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind ), that they may fear you all the days that they live in the land that you gave to our fathers.

1Kings 8 is Solomon’s plea to the LORD to answer the prayers of the people when they gather and worship in times of sickness. Solomon presupposes such gatherings are normal; greater still, the Lord’s presence and blessing indicate public worship is the appropriate response to sickness in the land. Public worship is God’s ordained means to evoke His healing and forgiveness.

Lessons From Araunah’s Threshing Floor

Reading 2Samuel 24 reveals many facts pertinent to our modern COVID/Hanta situation:

1. V.14 Disease is from the hand of the LORD, and His mercy is great.

2. V.15 This particular disease is perhaps the most deadly in all Scripture since it killed 70,000 throughout Israel in less than 24 hours, and there were 0 cases the day before.

3. God’s mercy is indescribable because He had threatened 3 days of pestilence, and relented before the end of the first day.

Don’t just read or remember the text; instead, hear the dying groans of 70,000 men, weep with David who bears sole responsibility for so many innocents, smell the hot-dry dust of the road to Araunah’s threshing floor in downtown Jerusalem, where you see “the Angel of the LORD working destruction among the people”. Araunah wouldn’t build a threshing floor in the center of a continental political capital unless he was threshing a lot, and I mean a lot of grain. Threshing that much grain requires a lot of servants… who were probably on the scene from working earlier that day [now either in agony from the disease, or agape at the angel of destruction, or to see King David coming]. David came with his servants in verse 20. Verse 25 tells us “David offered sacrifices,” which is almost certainly shorthand for the fact that David commissioned these sacrifices, and priests offered them on his behalf. Other parts of Scripture remind us that God severely punishes the consolidation of the priestly and executive powers [except in the person of Jesus Christ]. Therefore, from these reasonable inferences, we have David and his servants, Araunah and his servants, and likely a small team of priests [easily 20-50 people] gathered to worship in the very midst of perhaps the most lethal and contagious disease recorded in the Bible… as though gathering to worship is God’s ordained answer to disease.

The Blood Of The Lamb

This section requires a different kind of challenge because I need you to hold the broad strokes of the first half of Exodus in focus as we consider the themes of disease and worship developed there. Remember that Scripture broadly categorizes all of the sign judgments against Egypt as “plagues” even though mice, frogs, locusts, and darkness are not themselves communicable microbes… while we understand “plagues” to be broader than just bacteria, how many bacteria and viruses did these mice, frogs, and insects carry into the Egyptian food and water supply? The Exodus narrative records boils, sores, leprosy, fever, and finally death. The rest of the Old Testament recalls “the diseases of Egypt”. Was it appropriate for the Jews to suspend worship during these diseases, or was the public assembly of God’s people the only hope for the survival of both Jews and Egyptians?

Exodus 5:3 reinforces public worship as a preventative measure against sickness, and the restorative response to sickness. “Then they said, The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please let us go a three days ’ journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.” It wasn’t just the Egyptians threatened with plague in this story…

God says of the tenth plague that a cry went up throughout the land of Egypt such as had never been before and never would be again. This “destroyer of the firstborn” was likely a violent microbe in the hand of one of God’s heavenly warriors. And on the very night of the “disease of diseases,” as it were, God instituted not only that the people gather by ‘clans and households’, but that those families too small or too poor for a lamb should share with neighbors… God commanded His people to gather; large families were gathered, small families and poor families doubled up into larger units; the custom in that part of the world is to eat from large “communal platters”, with their hands… The scene is a pathologist’s worst nightmare, and it takes place on the very night when God had ordained the worst disease in Egyptian history [or future]. All that stood between these people and the same contagious death of the Egyptians was the blood of a lamb… Do we have faith like that?

Lay Hands On The Sick

The previous texts have viewed the themes of worship and disease from a national scale. Do these same concepts still bear upon the individual level? James 5 tells the sick to call for the elders of the church, and the elders are called to visit, touch, and pray for the sick man. Furthermore, if Old Testament saturation colored James’ writing this text, and our reading of it… the unspoken consummation of this healing is when this man presents himself for consecration during public worship and God’s people rejoice in a God who heals… They would have had a party [so to speak] featuring lamb, beef, pita, wine, and horseradish. Wouldn’t that be a fantastic environment to spread whatever disease had recently inundated this newly recovered Christian? Only the heart which fears disease more than it trusts God asks such questions.

What If Jesus Didn’t Touch Sick People?

The examples are too numerous to present them all; I’ll just quote a few [in a moment] to give the flavor of this idea. How different would the New Testament read if Jesus and the apostles had been too afraid of germs to touch and worship with sick people? How many healings would never have happened if Jesus didn’t touch lepers? Wasn’t He known for ministering to beggars, prostitutes, and low-lifes; weren’t those social classes just as disease-ridden then as they are now [if not more so]?

Quarantining The Healthy

Here’s Biblical precedent for quarantine, some say. Yes, for quarantining sick people, not healthy ones. The idea is preposterous! I know of no Biblical or historical precedent for quarantining healthy people. The text assumes public worship services will continue while the sick are in quarantine because the first required act upon emerging healthy is that the healed man must present himself in a public worship service.

Honor the King

How often through COVID did they remind us of the importance of honoring our rulers? Some even accused me of the sin of “dishonoring our government”. Nevertheless, I would once again urge the importance of context which informs the desire to obey. NT Wright developed some fantastic work on the New Testament’s use of allusion. “Peace, Justice, Security, and Salvation” were propaganda words for the Roman empire. The “caesar-god” was the sole possessor and dispenser of “peace, justice, security, and salvation”. He would save the world from self-destruction and lawlessness, rendering favor to his loyal subjects and just destruction to rebels.

Subscribe now

Please hit the subscribe button! It’s all content is free, but your subscription encourages us and helps spread our content around the net. Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words/Search Terms
Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | S.D. Davis | D.S. Cook | Christian Stoicism | When There is Pestilence in the Land Pt 3 | Biblical Proofs Pestilence | Public Worship During Plague | 1 Kings 8 Solomon’s Prayer | 2 Samuel 24 Araunah’s Threshing Floor | Exodus Plagues | Blood of the Lamb | James 5 Lay Hands on the Sick | Jesus Touching Lepers | Quarantine Healthy | Honor the King | COVID Church Closures

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By S.D. Davis for Apostoic Venn.

He who frames the question…

Perhaps you’ve heard the adage, “He who frames the question wins the debate.” Those who fear COVID or HANTA or any other disease- they’re not just getting the wrong answers; they’re asking the wrong questions. So we need a better framework to test the worthiness of our questions.

During COVID, church doors were shut under the claim that protecting the congregation from sickness was the loving thing to do. Bulletins and announcements repeated the same line: shielding people from exposure was presented as neighborly love. There is a measure of truth in that impulse. Reckless exposure can be unloving and poor stewardship of the body. But love is rarely one-dimensional. When the church leadership reduces neighbor-love to one narrow definition—“keep them from getting sick”—they ignore every other way love might express itself in that moment.

Loving your neighbor can be multi-faceted, and there’s rarely a one-size-fits-all kind of love. With so many different neighbors and so many different situations, and with the persistent human tendency toward self-protection, the question becomes sharper: How do we actually love our neighbor when there is pestilence in the land?

How do we love our neighbors?

Jesus was asked which commandment is the greatest. He answered the love of God and the love of neighbor. The case laws of the Old Testament were not random rules; they were concrete instructions for what love looked like when a neighbor’s ox fell into a pit, when property was damaged, or when justice had to be administered. God’s people obeying God’s law was the embodiment of love.

When Scripture gives clear precedent, that precedent should shape how believers love one another in times of sickness. Part One explored several such texts. But even when case law feels distant, another path remains: ask the neighbor how he actually wants to be loved. Some during COVID asked, “Isn’t protecting my neighbor from sickness loving him?” Rarely did I hear the better question: “Is it loving for you to decide which risks I am willing to take?”

The desire to shield the vulnerable is understandable. But what is harder to understand is the assumption that one group of believers has the right to make that decision for another group who has already counted the cost and reached a different conclusion.

Ambient risk

Six years ago, Preachers wrote and based their decisions on minimizing the congregation’s risk to COVID-19. Today, they’re ramping that same rhetoric ‘round Hanta. We don’t measure risk in isolation, but as relative to our ambient. I was told stories about how many Christians were out of work or working from home during the quarantine. That means the ambient risk is low, like being in a room at 50*F. You might evaluate going to church as a relatively higher risk, say 70*F.

My ambient risk was high. I touched, climbed on, and breathed the dust of products from all over the country, all over the world, things that had been handled dozens or hundreds of times. My ambient risk was like a 90*F room, and public worship seemed like a risk-relief with its breezy 70*F.

Casting the well-being of our families upon a bankrupt and inundated public welfare system seemed a worse risk still, and the more people in the transportation industry who opted for the easy way out, the greater the strain on an overloaded supply chain at a critical, fragile moment. So I did the right thing, the hard thing, and I didn’t miss a day.

So I must ask again: “Is it loving for you to decide which risks I’m allowed to take?”

Staying home from church is a rich-people problem. My family and I were on the opposite end of the spectrum. When you’re poor, you make different assessments: “If I go to work, I might catch the COVID. If I don’t go to work, I will catch the FIRED and STARVED. I guess I’ll go to work.”

From the very first day, the government declared my work “essential”; our employers declared us “essential”; and we knew if the supply chain broke, the country could dissolve into lawlessness. Precisely because I was “essential,” I was also ineligible to collect from the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance fund. Rich people problems are cute.

Speed Limits

One preacher used the analogy of wearing a seat belt to defend closing the church during COVID. There are no real benefits to foregoing your seatbelt, but there are true and unique benefits to public worship. I believe God has called His people to worship, like an ancient royal court. I believe God truly attends these meetings He’s called, where He strengthens, feeds, forgives His people. I believe that the fabric separating the visible and invisible worlds wears thin during public worship. Unfolding that theology of worship would require a book; it took me 10 years to grow into believing it. If all that seems strange to you, reader, at least understand the benefits, the impetus, I perceive in public worship.

I suggest the speed limit might be a better parable [than seat-belts] for this analysis. Some 30,000 Americans die every year in traffic accidents, and doubtless that number would dwindle if the federal government required all speed limits to be 35mph or less.

Simultaneously, we have another instance of he who frames the question… “Aren’t the lives of 30,000 people per year worth slowing down?” “You mean 30,000 people die every year just so we can drive faster?” I reject the frame… America is one of the most prosperous nations in the world, with one of the highest standards of living, which requires an infrastructure moving at 70mph or faster. By arbitrarily limiting speed, we might see fewer traffic deaths but more deaths from other causes. How many people might die for lack of medicine or expertise or food, etc, if we hamstring the supply chain at 35mph? While that number is perhaps incalculable, the threat is realized for us when we recall the diphtheria epidemic in Alaska. How many people died because of a supply chain which could not move faster than a dog-sled?

This brings us back to our analogy. Is the answer to traffic death one of government regulation lowering speed, or for each man to understand and accept the risks of driving over 35? Likewise, is the answer to public worship during disease to close the churches, or for each man to understand and accept the risks?

Is the juice worth the squeeze?

This brings us to the heart of the matter. I was willing to assume a relatively high risk to serve the American people and provide for my family. Would I then be willing to assume a lower risk in answer to Christ’s summons to worship and fellowship of the saints? Yes and Amen! Everyone is always running a cost-benefit analysis; sometimes we do this poorly, sometimes subconsciously, but I’ve given at least three months of deliberate thought to this one.

You can’t protect them anymore anyway.

I applaud the desire to protect the congregation; I think it stems from a pastor’s heart. However, at this point, as we look back at COVID and forward to HANTA, we have to face a practical question. Will closing the church doors again even protect anyone anyway? More than that, by “protecting” the church from viruses, are we leaving them vulnerable to something far worse?

The Barna Poll provides us with a wealth of statistical data to support the fact that 4 consecutive weeks is enough to break the habit of going to church completely. After that point, the person requires a new effort or event to restart the habit of regular attendance. What about people with a desperate desire to attend public worship despite plague? Could the willingness of another pastor to reopen and serve the saints build a sense of camaraderie in hard times? Could this permanently pull people away from the closed churches?

During COVID, I watched one church’s weekly viewership dwindle from nearly 80 at the beginning of quarantine to about 45 just 3 months later; that last question becomes a pressing one. Either the people were doubling-up [with multiple families in a single home], or they’re going somewhere else, or they’re doing nothing at all. If they’re doubling-up, we can’t protect them. If they’re attending somewhere else, we can’t protect them. If they’ve stopped watching/attending, we can’t protect them [and they require the most desperate kind of protection].

Every action has risks. Opening the church doors leaves us vulnerable to diseases which can kill the body. Closing the church doors leaves us vulnerable to maladies which can kill the spirit. “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Learning to let go

This is one of the great challenges of parenting. Scripture often compares the preacher’s job to a father’s charge over his children. Certainly, while our children are very small, we make many of their decisions for them; we labor to frame good habits of action, and good habits of thought. But we make these decisions in anticipation of the day when we stop making their decisions for them. The goal of parenting is not raising good children, but raising good adults.

By closing the doors of America’s churches, our pastors decided for all of the Christians that they shall not attend public worship. Might American Christians have felt more loved if we’d opened back up and let each one make his own decision? Is the pastor’s job to keep people from making bad decisions, or to teach them to make good ones, and to accept responsibility for all of their decisions?

Oikos

“Why don’t we just go back to house-churches; that was the New Testament pattern anyway?” Meeting in homes is absolutely Biblical. If the proposal is to sell the church building in favor of fully re-establishing that practice, then the author is all ears. But that is not really what anyone had in mind.

An “oikos” without context is a proof-text for a pretext. Some used the word “oikos” as justification for streaming worship services from individual homes. In reality, the return to the oikos pattern would see families and saints collecting into larger groups and meeting at the largest house available. This is a good thing, and it is exactly what I did all through the COVID lockdowns.

The New Testament does not support the idea of immediate families isolating themselves for worship. In Acts 2, about 120 people gathered in the upper room for prayer and breaking bread. These ancient gatherings packed in as many as were willing to come. When Paul greets the prominent saints of a particular “church that is in [a certain] house,” he often names 15 or 20 people. A worship team or church staff of 20 suggests a membership in the hundreds. When the New Testament use of “oikos” is thoroughly explored, it becomes clear that house worship was not an alternative to public worship. House worship WAS public worship.

Promises and Protection

Previously drawing upon James 5, I wanted to underscore God’s command to touch sick people, and the presupposition that IF God healed the man, he would then almost immediately enter public worship. A modern medical expert might have written James 5 differently because God and [most] epidemiologists have differing ideas about disease.

During COVID, I saw some deaths and heard of many more. I’m sorry for those deaths, sorry not to have known them better on this side of glory, sorry that such great saints who’d so touched the lives of this church should enter their rest and rearward when their people could not celebrate life nor mourn passing as they desired to, as they were accustomed to. I’m sorry the LORD did not heal these, and I agree that, like Lazarus ’ death, these deaths also are for the glory of God. Like Lazarus, these too will rise from the dead at the voice of their Lord.

Nevertheless, the outcome of James 5 and the prayer of faith was not my point. James 5, with its command to touch sick people, and its presuppositions about the public celebration of healing, is a proof text for gathering and interacting in times of sickness. James 5 reinforces the fact that there is no fine print on Hebrews 10:25.

In a similar misunderstanding, some rebutted that they saw a distinction between God’s promises of protection to Israel and His promises to the church. I did not reason we should gather because God will protect us from COVID-19. I said we should gather because God has commanded us to gather. If I get sick, so be it.

Remember I wrote of driving this body till the wheels fall off, of raising children tender-hearted and fearless, of a single-hearted and reckless pursuit of the gospel of Christ… I do not appeal to “divine protection” as a justification for gathering. Even my arguments from Exodus are qualified by chapter 5:3 in which God threatened to “…fall upon the Jews with sword or pestilence…” if they would not gather to worship.

As passionately as I would dissolve almost every distinction between Old and New Testaments, dissolve every distinction between OT Jews and NT Christians, as dear as that doctrine is to my heart, and as central to my theology… that is not the point here. Were the Jews protected from disease when God killed 70,000 of them for David’s census? Were the Jews protected in 1Kings 8 when Solomon said God would send plagues among them? My arguments have nothing to do with protection; I argue for a command to gather without “miraculous protection”.

What of Luther risking exposure to the black death as he ministered to the sick? What of modern missionaries who minister in leper colonies? What of Jonathan Edwards and David Brainerd, who both ministered among the smallpox patients? What about William Carey and Adoniram Judson? If church history and the great saints who have gone before us are to guide our interpretation of Scripture, they cast aside questions of safety whenever the gospel has opportunity for advance.

Some turned the name of Rev. Glenn into a byword, saying he believed God would protect him from COVID. But Glenn did not speak this way. Rather, he vowed to preach until he was in jail or the hospital. He believed he could get sick, and he took his call to preach among the saints and to this dying world as deathly serious. Glenn died with his boots on, and “precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints”. I didn’t know Rev. Glenn, but I’ve read a little about him. I don’t think he believed himself invulnerable, simply that he found the risk of not gathering greater than the risk of disease. I think he was right. We trivialize the sacrifice of great men like Glenn if we claim they thought themselves invulnerable. It’s no sacrifice for Superman to walk into a gunfight, but Glenn looked COVID-19 square in the face and obeyed the call of God upon his conscience. Cowards viewed Rev. Glenn’s death through the lenses of safety and pragmatism, concluding his death was a “bad” thing. I’m operating with limited evidence, but I don’t think Glenn or God viewed his death this way.

The day of my measuring has not yet come, but if in that day God grants me courage as He gave to Rev. Glenn… what a glorious day!

Subscribe now

Please hit the subscribe button to support and spread our work! Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms
Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | When there is Pestilence in the Land Pt 2 | Looking for Pandemic Solutions | Love Your Neighbor | Ambient Risk | Church Closures COVID | Hanta Virus | Oikos House Church | Hebrews 10:25 | James 5 | Speed Limit Analogy | Fear of Death | Public Worship Risk | Rev. Glenn

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By S.D. Davis for Apostoic Venn.

Here we go again…

Have you ever been mucking out the barn and thought to yourself, “I’ve shoveled this shi–stuff before”? I hope you’ve had that thought, because that’s where I find myself today as I’m writing this, and it might be hard for you to understand and empathize otherwise. I know I’m a month or so late to the Hanta party, and I’m not really sorry about that. Most of my countrymen have microwave attention spans. While they’re moving in minutes, I’m meditating on millennia (or at least trying to).

This is almost exactly the sixth anniversary of the last time I slung this shovel. In May and June of 2020, Michigan was knee-deep in executive orders and COVID lockdowns and whatevers. I did then, and do now, protest! I “celebrated” Covid by writing letters to local pastors pleading with them to reopen their churches and resume public worship. My pleas fell, without exception, upon… maybe not deaf ears, but fell upon hearts which feared men too much and the Lord not enough.

COVID was a test. World governments tested their citizens to see who and how many would obey arbitrary rules that defied reason; I think most of you passed… More importantly, the Living God tested whether this thing which calls itself His church would do as He said (or even knew what He said); I think most of you failed.

This will be equal parts lament over past sins and admonition toward today’s obedience. While the Bible never says God is the God of second chances, it does say He’s the God of redemption, and redemption is better than second chances. So, Hanta virus, here we go again… second verse, same as the first.

From which well are you drinking?

As various Michigan pastors replied to me or wrote their church newsletters 6 years ago, their responses were replete with warnings, with rushed findings from poorly framed studies, with exaggerated death tolls from hospitals federally subsidized per-mortem, with germs, with rules, with fear, with “obey”! What I did not read, what they did not say: “Thus says the LORD…” None of these preachers bothered to turn to any passage of Scripture to exposit how we should all “trust the science”, “mask up”, and “this is the new normal”.

My boss at the time was an avowed and self-professing heathen. Even he said, “[these pastors] didn’t mention anything about ‘what does God say we should do?” They need to figure out how much time they spent last week on news and social media listening to people talk about COVID, and they need to spend that much time next week studying what the Bible says about whether or not the church should be open.” His was one of the better sermons I heard during the COVID season.

One such church newsletter opened with the following line: “The criteria we are using to make the decision about what to do next, includes the following four questions: Is what we are deciding legal, ethical, practical, and missional?”

The missing question is what broke my heart: Does the Scripture command God’s people to gather in times of disease? If they had faced that question and come to a different conclusion than mine, then we’d have had a conversation about “what does God say?” That’s the right conversation to have, even if we’re on opposite sides of it. Six years ago, no one could be bothered to ask what God says…

If we conclude that Scripture sets a precedent to suspend public worship, only then may we consider and schedule our reopening according to secondary factors. However, if we evaluate the Biblical data on this subject and conclude we are under command from Almighty God to assemble for worship, then every other question is irrelevant. Legality, practicality, and public opinion are all cast to the wind in the face of God’s decree, even as that very same decree defines the ethical and missional questions for us.

I longed then to see churches gathering, calling upon the LORD to heal the land and give wisdom to our rulers… Not to step forward from some petty sense of political defiance or Thoreau-ean sense of civil disobedience; rather, we must step above, resting upon and proclaiming God’s power over the pestilence, His summons to His children, His forgiveness of sins through the shed blood of Christ Jesus. Six years ago, many churches ceased worship under the poor excuse of being caught unawares; we can’t play that pitiful card again. If the executive orders and the mandates roll out for HANTA, we must man up and obey God.

As we start examining some specific texts, please remember:

1. God had blessed the Jews with substantial knowledge of pathology and transmission in the form of the Levitical law. We can’t excuse their exposure on the grounds of ignorance. They knew they could catch and carry the diseases in question.

2. We can’t exempt ourselves from obedience, “because COVID is so much worse.” COVID-19 is like a runny nose compared to some of the ravaging decimators that Scripture records.

3. If we find a command to worship in the midst of disease, we cannot dismiss this as the ignorance of an ancient author, because God gave the command to worship. He who made man, and germ, and all the rules of contagion, gives the command.

Is public worship legal?

“So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

I am ashamed of this question. The leadership of every major American denomination publicly volunteered to stop meeting before they ever received any government orders to stop. It would be bad enough to stop when we’re told to, but before…? I can’t count how many times I’ve wept over this. I’m weeping as I write… To come into the house of the LORD, to meet Him, to call upon His great Name, to sing His glory, to eat His flesh and drink His blood, to delight in the company of others redeemed by His loving kindness… These are our birthright; privileges far surpassing the invitations of any mortal ruler.

The question is not: “Is it legal for the church to meet?” Instead, the question is: “Are we worms or sons of the living God?” “Was it legal before the throne of God for any mortal, upstart, bossy-pants to contradict the summons of the ever-living God?” “Does the US Constitution, which gives US officials their power– does it give them the power to close churches?”

Forgive my frustration, but I have a higher law, a higher legality, and obedience to that burns in my soul; everything else can go hang. I hear the call of my Master to meet, and if I knew then a local preacher who dared to defy government shutdowns and the wisdom to rightly present the gospel, I would go there. Someone, somewhere should have been open through COVID. There should have been good options for people like my family and me… Church leadership failed us and millions like us the world over.

But setting that aside– Yes public worship is legal, was legal as of Trump’s declaration, and it was legal at every point along the way because reading the actual text of Whitmer’s executive orders [not just gossip, hearsay, and text messages] “a place of worship, when used for the purpose of worship shall be exempt from the rules and punishments of this order.” Gathering to worship was legal from the start; it’s just that no one had a spine.

We gave up… one of the most precious privileges in all creation, bought with the very blood of Christ. We gave up before anyone asked us to, and we continued to forego after our rulers, our masters, gave us “permission”; there’s a four-letter word for you. The American church did not see public worship as precious enough to risk either disease or the displeasure of some misguided policeman. I don’t want to worship because the king of Michigan says it’s ok or because the king of the United States says it’s ok. I want to worship because the King of Kings wrote my name on His heart and set a place for me at His table.

What of the stories of Sergie Kordukov and Richard Wurmbrand, who worshiped when it wasn’t legal? What of my dear friends who buy and smuggle Bibles into China, where it’s not legal? What of my friends who get arrested for distributing gospel tracts on public sidewalks outside abortion clinics in Michigan? What of the Ten Boom family and Brother Andrew, who took the gospel where it wasn’t legal? What of every single apostle who took the gospel to places where it wasn’t legal? What of untold millions of Christians who would never bow the knee to whatever mortal tyrant momentarily sat the local throne, and they rejoiced in the confiscation of their property and even their very lives to worship Christ when it wasn’t legal? What of Christ, Who named Himself King of the Jews in a time and place when doing so was an act of treason, punishable by death? Is it legal? To hell with that question- back where it belongs.

Will God even hear our worship if we only come “when it’s legal”? “ So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”

God have mercy upon us that ever we asked if it’s legal. Christ, acknowledge us before Your Father in heaven; strengthen our timid hearts. Darken the day that Your Church asked if worship was legal, and do not count it among the days of the year.

Is public worship ethical?

Do you feel as profane reading that question as I do writing it? They determined public worship was then an unethical decision because of the possibility of transmitting disease, especially to the older members, and especially in a confined space. That’s a hypothetical pragmatist ethic. Something’s wrong, not because of the revealed word of God, but because of what might happen. I admire the desire to be considerate of those with the weakest immune system, and making concessions for the weakest brothers is a Christian act. However, such things are concessions; they do not predicate right and wrong. God tells us right and wrong, and we obey Him.

Furthermore, if churches had reopened, no preachers and no elders were compelling anyone to attend church. The preacher is not responsible for the decisions of other adults. What kind of cop-out is it to claim they believe God will judge them for reopening the church, and someone got sick? As though this is the preacher’s fault?

If any man is fearful of catching sickness because of their own weak immune system, or because of the close confines, or for any other reason, then he can continue to watch from home and be welcomed later with open arms. If someone comes and gets sick, that is not the preacher’s fault simply because he obeyed God and held services. Each man needs to take responsibility for his own decisions in life. And yes, walking through the church door has its risks, arguably COVID/hanta would be low on that list… What if we truly encountered the Living God Whose tenderest presence terrified many devout men in Scripture? There is risk; He is good, but not safe.

The question of ethicality is neither a pragmatic one nor does it require the preacher to bear the blame for every bad thing that happens in his flock. Ethicality is a question of the revealed will of God. God doesn’t expect you to know all ends, and He doesn’t weigh your actions as though you had His omniscience. He will judge you by the goodness of Christ Jesus, and He will consider if you made decisions according to His word. Preachers, don’t make our decisions for us! Keep open the doors, and let each one make his own decision before God.

Is public worship safe?

Dennis Prager has an exceptional YouTube video called Until it’s safe means never. He reminds us there’s no such thing as safe. If you wait for safety, you’ll never live. I’ve explained what I believe is the clear and overwhelming testimony of Scripture about public worship. Nevertheless, I want to make this plain: God does not promise we won’t get sick…, or beaten, or torn by wild beasts, or robbed, or publicly maligned, or imprisoned for crimes we didn’t commit as a pretext for taking Christians out of circulation. In fact, it would be easier to say He promised the other way around.

If we’d reopened the church, and someone got sick… then what? What if a gunman comes in and shoots people during the service? What if the US becomes a truly communist state, worship could be completely illegal, and your underground meetings get raided, and then Christian men get thrown in jail for worshiping God, where the inmates sodomize them… then what? This world is a terrible place; I will not let what-ifs keep me from doing what I see God has called me to do. I am getting a new body after I die; I intend to drive this one till the wheels fall off. God forbid that my tombstone read “He was safe.”

The kind of concerns expressed in these replies and newsletters, and the far worse ones I’ve enumerated here, are only concerns for people who are afraid of death. “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” The fear of death is the power of the devil, and a symptom of belonging to his jurisdiction. How can we who have already died with Christ and risen with Him to newness of life still fear death? Jesus Christ has conquered death; why are you afraid of a conquered thing?

Subscribe now

Please consider subscribing! It’s the best way free way to support Apostoic Venn.
Apostoic is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms
Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | When there is Pestilence in the Land | Church COVID Response | Public Worship During Disease | Hanta Virus | COVID Lockdowns | Church Closures | Obedience to God | Thus Says the Lord | Fear of Man | Legal Ethical Practical Missional | Gather for Worship | Fear of Death | Acts 4:19-20


Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By guest author Terry Smith.

There is real wisdom in the idea of staying in your three-foot world. In moments of fear, grief, or uncertainty, the mind easily runs beyond its proper jurisdiction, dragging yesterday’s regrets into today and borrowing tomorrow’s trouble. It imagines outcomes, losses, and dangers that may never come.

In that condition, returning to what is directly in front of us is necessary. There are times when the most faithful thing a person can do is narrow the field of action to the right next step, the next act of obedience, the next thing God has placed within reach.

Christ speaks directly to this: “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”

This is not a call to passivity or irresponsibility, nor is it an argument against planning and sober judgment. It is an instruction for rightly ordered attention. Tomorrow matters, but today’s obedience happens here, now, in the portion of life God has actually placed before us. Paul expressed a similar discipline: “But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal.” Paul wasn’t scattered. His attention was governed because he understood that a faithful life requires focus.

The Architecture of the Circle

The Stoics understood part of this as well. Epictetus taught that our judgments, choices, and responses belong to us, while outcomes, reputation, and circumstance do not. A person who spends his strength trying to control what lies outside his reach will have little left for what has actually been entrusted to him.

So the counsel to stay in your three-foot world is right. It is wise to return from anxious imagination to the work of the present moment. But the idea becomes stronger when we press it one step further: We do not merely live inside our three-foot world. We build it.

The three-foot world isn’t a neutral space, nor is it random. It is the environment we design, neglect, protect, or pollute long before pressure arrives. When the crisis comes, we step into a world already shaped by our habits, disciplines, chosen voices, and daily intake of truth or noise. Everything we allow within reach is either making faithfulness easier or making failure more likely.

The question then isn’t only “What can I control right now?” The deeper question is: What have I allowed close enough to shape me? What voices instruct me? What habits am I forming? What weaknesses have I made convenient? And what distractions have I permitted to live inside the circle I will later have to stand in?

Beyond self-command to stewardship.

Scripture takes the Stoic insight deeper. Scripture doesn’t stop at self-command — it calls us to stewardship before God. We aren’t sovereign over the future, but we are responsible for what has been entrusted to us.

Preparation isn’t the same as anxiety. Anxiety tries to control tomorrow. Stewardship orders what God has placed within reach today. A man can prepare without pretending he is sovereign. He can plan without being ruled by fear, refusing passive drift while choosing faithful construction.

Jesus’ image of the wise man building his house on the rock belongs in this conversation. The foundation is laid before the rain falls, the floods come, and the winds beat against the house. The storm reveals the foundation; it doesn’t build it.

The same is true of the soul. The person we become under pressure is not created by the pressure, he is revealed by it. Character, wisdom, and steadiness are formed through repeated obedience, hidden decisions, and habits practiced long before the pressure becomes visible. What is practiced in private eventually defaults into instinct under strain.

Many people want peace in the storm while building daily rhythms of chaos. They want clarity under pressure while feeding distraction, and faith in crisis while keeping truth distant. Then the storm comes and they wonder why they feel unstable. But the issue is rarely the size of the storm; it is the condition of the three-foot world they carried into it. Under pressure, the structure closest to us takes over.

The Architectural Principle

Peter walking on the water shows this clearly. The danger was real from his first step out of the boat, but he began to sink only when the storm captured more of his attention than the Christ standing before him.

Attention in crisis is rarely random. It defaults to whatever has been disciplining us in private. What we stare at long enough begins to shape us. If we train our eyes on chaos in the calm, we should not be surprised when chaos commands us in the storm.

This is why the three-foot world is an architectural principle. We are the architects of our habits, attention, boundaries, and inputs. We choose whether wisdom is near, whether truth is buried beneath noise, and whether obedience is convenient or unnecessarily difficult. Over time, these choices become the ground beneath our feet.

This does not deny suffering, nor does it suggest that faithful people can prevent every storm. The rain falls on the built house too. The question is not whether storms will come, but what kind of foundation we are standing on when they do.

Here, Stoicism and Scripture meet with force. Stoicism tells us to distinguish what is within our control. Scripture tells us to surrender what belongs to God, steward what has been entrusted to us, and build on the rock before the storm arrives. The Christian life is the refusal to waste strength on what God has not given us to control, while refusing to neglect what He has placed directly in our hands.

So yes, stay in your three-foot world. When fear rises or grief overwhelms, bring the mind back to the responsibility of the moment. But before the storm comes, build that world with care. Put scripture, prayer, and truth close. Remove what repeatedly weakens you. Stop making failure convenient and obedience difficult.

Name what is inside your three-foot world, because it is not only the place where you survive pressure. It is the place where you prepare the person who will meet it. When the storm comes, stay in your three-foot world. But before it comes, build the three feet you will have to stand on.

Subscribe now

Please consider subscribing for free, to support and spread the work of Apostoic. Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms

Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | Building Your 3 Foot World | Stay in Your 3 Foot World | Three Foot World | Terry Smith | Stewardship | Prepare Before the Storm | Epictetus Control | Matthew 6:34 | Philippians 3:13 | Peter Walking on Water | House on the Rock | Habits and Attention | Daily Discipline | Faithful Construction

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.

If you’ve stayed with this series through four installments, thank you. You’ve watched the modern concept of “respect” collapse under scrutiny. You’ve read that respect is an indifferent byproduct of the behaviors you choose, is gained in measure by those who also choose it, and lost by those who choose otherwise. The equation of Respect with Agreement has fallen apart under a microscope, and the deletion of the concepts of “better and worse” has been exposed like a fraud scandal. Most recently, we’ve discovered that in the pursuit of respect, none is gained by acquiring envy in substitution.

This is the NCF (Nominal Conquest Fallacy) that occurs when respect is viewed as a fungible currency. Respect is admiration and regard in a domain in which you are excellent, and when rightly ordered, is a natural response to demonstrated virtue in that domain. It doesn’t go into your inventory like a consumable item in a video game, nor can you stash it up in a bank account to be used in an unrelated area later on. Great expertise can be gained in a given field, but the respect earned in that domain is not fungible, ready to be lent out or spent out in completely unrelated domains. Failing to understand this can yield very undesirable results indeed. This error is far more likely to tarnish your regard and legacy than to bolster it, as we see so often in celebrity culture.

Biblical Foundations for Excellence

To the Christian, can it be shown that excellence in a particular skill is virtuous in God’s eyes? It can, with a caveat. Scripture repeatedly affirms that genuine virtue is expressed through diligent excellence in one’s calling. Yet it never grants blanket authority or approval. 1 Corinthians 10:31 reads: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the Glory of God.” This verse establishes that excellence itself is virtuous, but not without the prerequisite orientation toward God’s glory and not one’s own. Virtue in excellence of skill is predicated on the delivery of thanksgiving and all praise to the giver of that skill, God himself. Refusal to do so is like taking credit for winning a raffle ticket, a thing that might have fallen to someone else, but fell to you, in God’s ineffable providence.

Colossians 3:23 reinforces this. Work “with all your heart, as working for the Lord.” A short verse, but one that shows clearly the right-minded order of one’s principles. God values hard work, when it is done in alignment with his rightful authority over the hands and brain he gave you. The best of work, done with all your heart for the purpose of self-glorification, is not valued by the giver. A man of hard-won skill and natural gifting, who returns the glory to the God who gave him those things, is certainly deserving of respect.


Biblical Foundations Against Overreach

In the book of James (a more worthy James than the one we shall discuss shortly), the Apostle warns against stretching your authority beyond your calling. He says that very few should become teachers, insinuating that even great charisma or eloquence do not necessarily qualify a believer for the pastorate. This passage is narrow, speaking on the ascension of the common Christian believer to Minister of Christ. But, we would do well to apply its wisdom more broadly, coupling it with Solomon’s teachings: wisdom is best accompanied by humility, pride goeth before the fall. Christ’s words “You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?” should do more than instruct us on examining an individual for saving faith. They should teach us to look for the right things in the right places, discriminately. A man who leads a for-profit company with success, and is good at rallying the troops, is not necessarily a shepherd of souls. Well then, let us not try to pick national policy grapes from thespian thornbushes.


Stoic Clarity on Domain-Specific Virtue

The Stoics understood this with some degree of precision. Virtue was the highest pursuit for them, though I must hedge as ever: they fall short on both understanding why, and from which lectern virtue can be drawn. But to them, ongoing self-examination and honesty with oneself was key. Epictetus reminds us that our focus must be always on what is ours to command, and to avoid stretching out our hand for what is not ours. Marcus Aurelius too, warning against the pursuit of admiration, wrote “Do not waste the remainder of thy life in thoughts about others, when thou dost not refer thy thoughts to some object of common utility… such thoughts make us wander away from the observation of our own ruling power.” Chasing transferred respect, or the admiration of others at all, is not the goal of the Stoic. He notices where he stands, and works on cultivating excellence on his own ground. Reputation and admiration are indifferents.

So then, the man who excels at basketball, but widely promotes his thoughts on economics, theology, ideology, or governance, is behaving as if his athletic virtue transfers to those areas. He is violating a core Stoic principle. Know where your virtue is. To claim more is irrationality and self-deception. A man may excel in more than one area, true. A man may be a good thinker in general, and his thoughts may blanket a wide range of topics. But a man who seeks to use celebrity in one skill to influence areas in which he has no excellence is destined to destroy the respect he has earned.

The Fallacy in Action

This transference error appears most potently in celebrity, among actors and athletes like Lebron James and George Clooney. LeBron is an extraordinary athlete. He has wonderful work ethic and incredible physical ability, and the gift of entertaining. These gifts are worthy of respect, provided that he returns thanksgiving to the Giver. Yet, serious heads give him no nods when he stretches beyond those gifts to wield cultural influence over education or public policy. No respect is given him in those areas, nor should it be. High achievement in sport, it turns out, is NOT an indicator of wisdom in social theory. Insisting that it should be, he has forever tarnished his legacy, and will be recalled by future generations as a physically skilled but intellectually comical buffoon. His is a cautionary tale.

This is true in minor, every-day celebrity as well, as we shall soon see.

Anecdotal Examples

An individual that I knew was extremely gifted in her field, one of the very best and fastest technical accountants in our company. On that basis, she was made a manager. But, there was a big problem. She had terrible people skills, no sympathy or justice, and lacked the social intelligence necessary to interact in a manner that wasn’t awkward and abrasive. She demanded the impossible, gave bad reviews to great employees, mocked, ridiculed, and belittled everyone under her authority ad nauseum. As a result, the turnover in her department was, well, entire. Nobody wanted to work for this woman, despite her immense skill. One year in, I was her senior team member on a team of seven. Everyone had left for happier environments. After sticking it out for two years, I too abandoned her, no longer able to work beneath her thumb.

Yet, I cannot help but feel some sympathy for her. She was a victim of the transference fallacy, partly though her own overreach, and partly the shortsightedness of those who placed a person of her make-up in that losing position.

Respect for one virtue does not transfer to another. This is mere reality, not cruelty. As the Stoics and Scripture both teach, character and competence are tested in their proper spheres.

Another case involved an English student of mine, during my many years teaching non-native speakers abroad. She held a doctorate and was highly credentialled in a medical field that I can no longer remember. Having experimented with multiple English teachers, she landed on me, deeming me excellent in that domain. We had many fascinating conversations together on all areas of life, despite our drastic differences in values.

You see, Dr. Elaine was an openly promiscuous woman. She loved to talk about her exploits with great pride, boasting of the many different kinds of people she had slept with and “sexual types” she experienced. She was now in her sixties, lived alone, had been divorced 5 times, and mothered no children. Yet still, at an age where one should have acquired much wisdom, she was still on the hunt for her next sexual partner. I would listen to these tales and correct and guide her English, as was my job; always trying to redirect to a more appropriate topic. Occasionally, when asked, I would give insight into my own Christian worldview, and my monogamous life-long commitment to my wife.

The collapse occurred one day when the conversation turned to childrearing. My 6 year-old-son had burst into my home office during teaching hours and disrupted the session with loud vocalizations, a thing he knew well to be prohibited. When I scolded him and told him no, this woman nearly had a conniption. “You cannot tell no to a 6 year-old.” She said, in her thick German accent, before launching into a long scolding about the correct way to raise children, with complete liberty and licence. After several failed attempts to deflect and return the focus back to her English class, I politely but firmly put her in her place. I made it clear, as kindly as I could, that her opinions had no authority in my home. She flew into a rage, belittling my credentials and education. “I am a doctor.” She said. “You are not. You are an English teacher with a lower degree. You do not have the qualifications to say “no” to me in matters of psychology.” A telling portrayal of one who had never said “no” to herself. She could not bear it when others did so, and thought this attitude should be the desired future for my children as well. When I refused her again, she stormed out of the virtual classroom, and I never saw her again.

Thus, she put an end to a year-and-a-half-long relationship, one that she had searched hard to find. Having frequently stated her appreciation for our lessons, and how long she had hunted for this experience, she destroyed it by her own over-reach and hubris. Another victim of the respect transference NCF.

Respect is not a fungible currency.

The Liberating Conclusion of the ‘Respect in Ruins’ Series

Once we see respect clearly, we can begin the long process of freeing ourselves from chasing it. Respect cannot be demanded. It cannot be transferred. It can only be earned. Even then, it can only be earned in limited domains, and will be lost in equal proportion from those who choose other behaviors and values.

Attempting to design a society in which everyone gets respect in all areas, regardless of virtue or choices, is no more desirable than it is possible. It is like trying to supply a product to everyone in the world, without any means of production. It violates both natural law and divine order. Therefore, pursue virtue with all your might. Do your work heartily unto the Lord. Cultivate excellence where God has placed you. Let the respect that comes, or does not come, remain a matter of indifference. Your worth is not located in the approval of others, but in faithful obedience to Christ and the disciplined cultivation of a character that is like His. The man who lives this way cannot be manipulated by praise or destroyed by criticism.

The Respect in Ruins series ends here, but the pursuit of virtue has only just begun. Get to it, friends!

Subscribe now

Please subscribe and support Apostoic!

Key Words / Search Terms

Respect in Ruins | Respect as Transference | Respect transference fallacy | Nominal Conquest Fallacy | NCF respect | domain specific respect | respect earned not demanded | biblical respect | Christian view of respect | Stoic virtue | Stoicism and respect | respect celebrity culture | LeBron James respect | virtue transference error | hubris pride respect | Proverbs 16:18 | James 3:1 respect | excellence to Gods glory | 1 Corinthians 10:31 | Colossians 3:23 | D. S. Cook | Apostoic.com | D.S. Cook author | respect in ruins series | domain specific virtue | celebrity overreach | technical skill vs leadership | respect as byproduct | Christian Stoicism | pursuing virtue

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.

For those who have stuck with me through the series so far, we’ve tangled with the insidious tactic of Nominal Conquest fallacy, and several of the ways that the enemies of truth employ it to unmake the meaning of “respect.” We’ve hinted that the social mantra “respect for all” does not actually encourage respect. Rather, it seeks to level the playing field in the worst of ways, reducing all possible human behavior to the lowest common denominator of merit, and giving out a sort of universal participation trophy regardless of virtue. If you haven’t read the prior pieces, I strongly recommend that you stop here and do so, rather than eating this particular ice cream cone from the middle.

Today, I address another Orwellian double-speak meaning of the word, twisted by linguistic fiat via Nominal Conquest fallacy. This meaning is growing ever stronger in our society, and has begun to permeate it to the depths. I am tempted to describe it something like this “Respect = Moral Ambiguity,” but calling it moral ambiguity is not quite the right phrase. It is more like moral vacuum, the idea that there are no morals to be ambiguous about. There is nothing that is right, nothing that is wrong, nothing that is better, nothing that is worse. All ways and choices are essentially equal, and nothing is more or less admirable than any other thing. This is the “to each their own” and “you do you” mentality that is so very common among those who wave the flags of love and kindness in our societies. But, it’s not actually kind. It’s not actually loving, and this is self-evident to the point that needing to write about it today brings me some amount of pain. This truth is so fundamental to our human experience that we actually formulate this knowledge before we learn the art of speech, or the skill of walking.

The Crucial Existence of “Right and Wrong” in Parenting

A child born into the inherently faulty flesh of a human being displays a great deal of selfishness, rage, vindictiveness, and even sadism before it learns to walk and talk. If it does not get what it wants, and immediately at that, it will scream at the top of its lungs until others are brought into its service by sheer discomfort. A bit later, when motor skills develop, it will take toys or food from other children, with no other thought than that of a dumb beast. You have it. I want it. That’s it. A bit further on, it will learn that it has the power to do physical hurt to other children, or pets. It will absolutely choose to do so, left to its own devices. Sometimes, it will engage in hurting others for the purpose of controlling the actions of its fellows, but it is equally and universally observable that it will engage in hurting others for the sheer fun of it. This is sadism in every infant, an undeniable manifestation of original sin. Only the childless blindly state, with unwarranted hubris, that we are not born sinners.

A mother and father acting in love and kindness toward this child primarily, and toward society generally, will do all that they can to correct and redirect this natural behavior. Parents who do not do this are universally regarded as horrible, and the children they produce are abominations that are destined for the prison system. Neglect of the child’s behavior is worse, I would argue, than neglect of its sustenance. Neglect feeding your child, and it will die. Neglect correcting your child, and many others will die. That is not an overstatement. It really is that dramatic. Consider the number of people in our prisons and in the pages of villainous history who earned their respective place because of the harm and death they brought upon other people.

In order to do their duty and truly love their children, a parent must regard one behavior as better than another. There can be no moral vacuum when raising a child. There must be good and bad behavior, taught through corrective measures, guidance, example, and at times physical discipline. Jordan Peterson’s principle of minimum necessary force is a good one to read up on, if you are ever in a quandary about when inflicting physical discomfort is advisable.

Right and Wrong is for Kids, Not Adults

What does this have to do with respect? That was a long but sadly necessary segway. When many people today demand your respect in newspeak, what they actually are demanding is that you erase your concept that one behavior is better than another. They are demanding that you submit to a moral vacuum, in which whatever they might choose to do is no better and no worse than the alternatives. A lazy man with a minor physical injury sometime in his distant past may be living on welfare and disability, and yet demand the respect of a hardworking one that earns his money and pays his taxes, despite many physical discomforts and old injuries. The argument that is truly being presented is that neither of these things is any better than the other. We are told that we must agree with this and live as if it’s true, when we all know that it isn’t.

Another man is sexually promiscuous and sleeps with many women, producing offspring for whom he will never be a father. His life is centered around bringing pleasant sensation to his own genitals as often as possible. His existence is fundamentally masturbatory. He demands the respect of the man who marries, sleeps with one woman, and commits to fathering his children for life. The argument that is being presented is that one of these things is not better than the other. We all know this to be absolute nonsense, a tragic fiction brinking on psychopathy. Stop pretending, stop engaging in newspeak, and stand up for what is right; you cowardly sheep.

Respect = Moral Equity

Utter nonsense.

Christianity and Stoicism Diverge

It is here that Apostoic, which presents itself nestled in the Venn diagram of Stoic Philosophy and Christianity, takes one of many exceptions to the former. The Stoic principle is that virtue is natural, inherent to all human souls. Those who turn to evil desires and actions are doing so against their natural proclivities, rejecting what they know to be true and good in favor of what appears profitable in the moment.
As Christians, we know better. We know that virtue comes from without, and that our inherent, natural inclination is toward evil since the fall. Genesis 6:5 “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously.”

Those who embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ are not hopeful to achieve communion with a perfectly moral God on the basis of their own virtue, their own thoughts and deeds. There is only one righteous man, the only begotten son of God the father, Jesus Christ. He has ordained a way by which HIS righteousness can be imputed to you, and counted on your behalf. It is only by seeking Christ that man can hope to side-step his naturally evil nature, and be counted among the righteous by a just God.

Conclusion

True respect cannot survive in a moral vacuum. It demands the clear-eyed recognition of better and worse, righteous and wicked, admirable and contemptible. By insisting that all choices and behaviors are equal, our culture does not succeed in elevating the unworthy. Worthiness is objective, and depends not at all upon cultural acceptance of a behavior. Calling evil “good” is not kindness, nor is it love. As Christians, we reject both the Stoic illusion of innate human virtue and the modern lie of moral equivalence. We know from Scripture (and from mere intellectual honesty) that every intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth, and that only the imputed righteousness of Christ can rescue us from our natural bent toward ruin.

Let us therefore extend genuine respect where it is due; to lives ordered by truth, self-control, responsibility, and fidelity. Let us refuse the Orwellian demand to pretend that darkness is light and chaos is order. In doing so, we do more than preserve the meaning of words. We stand as witnesses to the holy distinctions of a just and merciful God.

Subscribe now

Please subscribe and help support and spread the work of Apostoic. Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms
Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | Respect in Ruins Pt 4 | Respect as Moral Equity | Erasing Better and Worse | Moral Vacuum | Nominal Conquest Fallacy | Right and Wrong Parenting | Original Sin | Jordan Peterson Minimum Necessary Force | Innate Virtue vs Fallen Nature | Genesis 6:5 | Moral Equivalence | You Do You Mentality

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.

Welcome back to the Respect in Ruins series. This is now part three, and if you haven’t started at the beginning, I highly recommend that you pause here and do so. If you are interested in the topic of envy replacing respect, the stage must be appropriately set before my discourse will land as intended. You must go back and read the prerequisite questions and defining statements. You must understand what a Nominal Conquest Fallacy is (NCF).

The Respect is Envy NCF

We have now arrived at the 2nd Nominal Conquest of the word “Respect.” It is the one that posits that respect is achieved when another human being looks at your belongings or status, and desires them. In other words, respect as previously defined, honor or admiration on the basis of certain characteristics or traits, is replaced by a smug sensation of others envying your possessions or position.

Envy Costs Time and Money

A man, if he chooses, may expend many hours of his labor for the power to buy a vehicle that is considered highly desirable in fashionable society. A vehicle, you might note, has the primary function of transporting your body from one place of existence to another. But in this instance, the primary purpose of the thing is not the motivator, for another of a simpler kind could fill that purpose handily, and for far fewer hours of life in trade. The utility of the vehicle is not more or less than that of a less expensive version, and the primary benefit of owning such a thing is to engage the eyeballs of others.

Nor is possession of the thing itself the desired benefit of its owner. In a zombie apocalypse movie, when one man is unlikely to meet another during the course of his drive, you will find that his attention suddenly and drastically shifts from the desirability of its appearance to the fortitude of its walls. He will abandon the Ferrari for a Hummer, at his first opportunity. This very familiar example, while wild and fictional, rightly describes the nature that is inherent to mankind. The personal possession itself is not the “good” that is desired, but the exhibitionistic display of the possession to the eyeballs of others that is the true desire.

When you have gained the covetous glances of your fellow man, you have gained no honor or admiration for your characteristics or traits. No, a more accurate description is this: You have gained his desire to possess the item that you possess. But respect is not envy. Are we so foolish as to think that virtue has been achieved when its primary purpose is to make others less virtuous? As the famous cybernetician and management theorist Stafford Beer succinctly stated: “The purpose of a system is what it does.”

Another great Stoic passage hits this nail right on the head. In Epictetus’ Discourses, Book 1, Chapter 21, entitled “Against Those Who Wish to be Admired” the wise fellow says:

When a man holds his proper station in life, he does not gape after things beyond it. “My wish has always been that those who meet me should admire me, and those who follow me should exclaim, ‘Oh, the great philosopher.’” Who are they by whom you wish to be admired? Are they not those of whom you are used to say that they are mad? Well then, do you wish to be admired by madmen?”

As it turns out, being admired by the mad means no more than that you are the chief madman. And being admired by those who seek fashionable material means no more than that you are the chief materialist fashionista.

And by far the greater authority on virtue, Christ himself, does not beat around the bush in addressing this as the sin it is. In addition to being the giver of the 10th commandment (Thou shalt not covet) he tells those that would follow him in Luke 12:15:

Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses.

If coveting the possessions of others is vice in the eyes of God, then desiring or causing coveteousness in others cannot be virtue in those same eyes. Yet when many people say that they want the respect of their fellow man, this is precisely what they mean. They wish for others to covet what they enjoy. They wish to feel and know that others envy them.

Virtue Also Costs Time and Money

Let’s examine the production of this backward moral construction. What is the true effect on the minds behind the envious eyeballs?

Are these onlookers, drooling over the apparent luxury in which the man lives, incited to greater love for the man himself? No, generally the opposite. The richer you appear to be, the more despised you will be, and the more blame for society’s ills will be placed on your shoulders (fairly or unfairly).

Are they incited to go out and do more good in the world? No. In fact, they are encouraged to sacrifice their ability to do good (time and money) in order to obtain similar luxuries, and be the recipients of similar gazes to their own. They are inspired to do as you have done, so that they may become the covetees rather than the coveters.

Is one more hungry orphan fed, or a widow comforted (pure and undefiled religion, per the Apostle James) by your possession of a Ferrari? Certainly not. One might reserve only half of the time and dollars expended, purchase a vehicle still better than all those of his neighbors, and still have the means left over to fund multiple adoptions, placing fatherless children in good homes.

Is one’s fellow man encouraged to go out and pursue greater virtue, rather than greater comfort? Certainly not.

In short, they will love you not an ounce more, and go out and do not one more good deed on God’s earth, as the result of your expensive display. Instead, the wise among them will respect your person not one whit, instead shaking their heads at your vanity and resolving to avoid the pit into which you have fallen. The foolish among them will resent the fact that you have something they don’t. They will want what you have for themselves. This is the definition of envy, not respect.

Respect = Envy

Utter nonsense.

Conclusion

No respect is commanded by gaining envy as a substitute. Pursuing envy and conflating it with respect is a trap; it unloads your limited resources, which might have been used for doing good, in exchange for the green glances of strangers. Do not sacrifice yourself on that altar, while failing to gain legitimate honor. Do not auction your own dignity off to the highest consumerist bidder. As Epictetus says “Consider at what price you will sell your own will, and that it be no mean sum.”

Chase the kind of life that is respectable by the wise and discerning. Ignore the applause of a fool, however well-styled he may be. Let Epictetus’ “madmen” applaud their own chief. You and I have better things to do.


Coming up next: Respect as Moral Equity – Erasing “Better and Worse”

Please subscribe and support our work. Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms

Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | Respect in Ruins Pt 3 | Respect is not Envy | The Luxury Trap | Nominal Conquest Fallacy | Envy vs Respect | Epictetus Admiration | Luke 12:15 | Covetousness | Materialism | Vanity | Status Symbols | Respect Equals Envy

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic.com

Welcome back to the Respect in Ruins series. If you’re just joining us now, do me a favor and stop reading. Jump back to part 1 and start there, lest my jabbering about Nominal Conquest Fallacy, Orwellian Newspeak, and linguistic fiat make as much sense to you as a wooden ping-pong ball. I left you with a stark bit of social physics, an unavoidable law of human interaction. To respect and be respected by all, you must choose all behavior. The probability that you actually respect everyone, that is to say, admire and wish to emulate their behavior, is exactly zero on the basis of social physics. The pipe-dream of being respected BY everyone is equally likely. For either of these to be true, you would have to be engaged in every activity simultaneously. You’d have to choose to be both a criminal and a non-criminal, a religious man and a non-religious one. If statements of universal respect have ever struck you as being, well, a bit off… it’s because it’s quite literally impossible.

But modernity doesn’t resign itself to the confines of possibility. Having run its physics tests on whether a man can jump to the moon, its shoes planted firmly on the ground again, modern thought does not conclude that gravity is an unbreakable law. When it discovers that the laws of physics stand as immovable obstructions from the desired social outcome, a new assertion of anti-reality must be made in classic Orwellian style. “Man can still jump to the moon,” it says, “if we but redefine ‘man,’ and ‘jump,’ and ‘moon.’ Foist new meanings on these pesky words, and we will find every man jumping to the moon and back each day before breakfast.”

Enter the first, and perhaps most aggressive, of the four Nominal Conquests of the word “respect” that we will cover. It is perhaps the most heinous example of Orwellian Newspeak being thrust upon us by the ideological actors in our society, insisting that the word “respect” means what they say it means, not what it always has meant.

NCF Version 1: Respect = Agreement

A man who wears a dress, takes pills, and gets numerous surgical modifications may consider himself to now be a woman. This person is in a position granted by HR departments and State equity laws to demand that you respect this belief, and he tends to police the respect he is owed with stringent rigor. You will respect him, or be cancelled. You will respect him, or lose your job. You will respect him, or become a societal villain.

But what is the “respect” that he demands so loudly? Is it your admiration and emulation in response to his virtue? No. It is your agreement he demands, or at the very least the absence of your disagreement. You must say with your lips “Yes. You are now a woman.” You must use the pronoun of the opposite sex when you speak to or about him, thereby confirming that what he says is so. Or you must say nothing at all, cowering in timid obscurity at your station. This second is only a temporary reprieve at best, because he will seek you out and make note of whether you refer to him by name or by feminine pronoun. He will pursue his quarry.

Any philosophical, ideological, or moral challenge of the premise or conclusion, even in the kindest form of argument, is a “disrespect” to the degree of injustice, or even emotional violence. To this person, respect is agreement, disrespect is disagreement, and that’s it.

This line of thinking is not only unintelligible and incoherent, but also entirely inapplicable. When I use the word “inapplicable,” I’m afraid that what you hear is “does not apply to this situation.” But I am using it in its most literal sense. It cannot be applied. If this is what respect is, and we are meant to embody a society that respects all individuals, we must change our mantra from “I respect everyone” to “I agree with everyone.” Even the greatest fool knows that agreement with everyone is a literal impossibility, and we must not be in the business of pursuing impossibilities. This ends with a society in which not one good person exists, because good people agree with everyone.

The Societal Outcome of the “Respect is Agreement” NCF

Let’s examine this meaning of respect on the basis of what it produces in a society. Who is the beneficiary of this respect? For whom does it produce a better life and less suffering? Is it only the self, or does it resonate outward and produce goodness for others and the greater community? Well, one person will get something. One person will gain the benefit of walking through life without having to endure the spoken disagreement of his fellow men. He will enjoy affirmation and the comfort of never needing to defend his position in logical argument. In this sense, his life may be more peaceful… marked by the absence of disagreement or debate, or any challenge to his thinking.

But, in order to gain these goods (if they are goods… a highly suspect belief), he must deny these same things to his fellow man. The other man must walk through life squelching his beliefs, denying objective truth, telling lies, and forfeiting his right to speak honestly. He must live in fear that he might be discovered as someone who disagrees, and lose his livelihood or worse. A decidedly less peaceful life. He must teach his children what he believes is right, knowing that he is condemning them to a life of suffering within a society that will villainize and impoverish them if they are discovered. While one enjoys freedom, the other lives in totalitarian fear. This is an increase in suffering on one side of the scale in exchange for a decrease on the other. The benefit is enjoyed only by the recipient of this false meaning of respect, and not at all by the community in which he lives.

Now, if the person who is trying to change genders also happens to exhibit some virtuous behavior, he may be due some respect for those virtues that he displays. But virtues are the attributes of God; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Virtues, generally speaking, produce benefit for others, and sacrifice the self. His attempted gender-change is in fact an anti-virtue, and does not merit admiration on that basis. Even supposing it to be a neutral realignment (which it is not), it is still no virtue. If I choose to exchange my blue shirt for a green one because I feel better in green, there is no benefit to you, and no greater alignment with God’s attributes. No virtuous act has been committed.

Conclusion

Respect is not agreement. In a reality in which agreement with everyone is impossible, we must be allowed to verbally disagree with one another and part ways in peace. If one man has the right to speak in a place, and can say “I believe thus and thus,” then another man has the same right to say “I do not believe thus and thus” You think so, I do not. Then, both men have the right to be unaffected and unencumbered by the belief of the other. Any other arrangement, on the basis of “respect = agreement,” deprives either one man or the other of the right to think, and the right to say what he thinks. Any other arrangement is a deprivation of the right to free speech, an imposition of which thoughts are approved by those in power, and which are determined to be thought crimes.

Respect = Agreement: Utter Nonsense

Coming Up: Respect as Envy: The Luxury Trap

Subscribe now

Please subscribe and support! Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms

Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | Respect in Ruins Pt 2 | Respect is not Agreement | Respect Equals Agreement | Nominal Conquest Fallacy | Compelled Agreement | Orwellian Newspeak | Free Speech | Gender Ideology | Trans Women Are Women | Fruits of the Spirit | Virtue vs Agreement | Thought Crimes

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.


A couple years back in my old job, I tossed a simple question into our work group chat to facilitate some discussion. “What books have shaped your values into what they are today?” In rolled the usual suspects, Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People, Covey’s 7 Habits; solid picks for a professional crowd. Then my boss chimed in. “I’m not much of a reader,” she said. “But my top values include hard work, continual growth, and (here it comes) respect for all.” The thumbs-up emojis and replies of “Absolutely” poured in as the chat resoundingly agreed with this presentation. The sentiment was as popular as warm apple pie, everyone nodded along.

I nodded as well, but not quite along. My inner Stoic (and more importantly, my inner Christian) was in a state of resistance. Something felt off and I needed to sleuth out why. Respect for all people. It sounds so noble. Kind. Inclusive. Altruistic, even. Who could argue? Yet something felt like the cart had bolted ahead of the horse and was now dragging the poor beast like a reluctant toddler. I spent several months turning this over like a coin in my pocket. Two questions kept surfacing:

1. Why is this value so universally praised? Why do so many people rush to list it near the very top when asked about their core principles? What makes “respect for everyone” such a universal high degree on the social thermometer?
2. Is respect for another human a self-containing and inherent good? Does it stand alone as a top-tier virtue, regardless of any priors? Or, is its goodness borrowed from something deeper?

Most people today will happily declare, “I respect everyone.” The proclamation of the thing, not the thing itself, is basically a social law, a staple of the diet we need to survive in professional contexts. But here is food for your thought. Everyone says they respect everyone, but very few (perhaps no-one) claim to be respected by everyone. Most would say they don’t get “enough” respect. There is a slippage here, some form of cognitive dissonance.

So, I became that annoying guy at gatherings and group chats who follows up. I asked the next question; a very unpopular habit. “Ok, but what do you actually mean by respect? When you don’t get it, what exactly is the thing that you lack? When you do get it, what have you gained that you didn’t have before? Can you conceptualize the concept of getting ‘enough’ respect and not needing more?” Naturally, blank stares ensued. Crickets. A few brave souls took a poke at it, but the answers tended to dissolve into value goodwill or circular reasoning. Nobody could define what they were giving or receiving with the free exchange of respect. Until one day a retired Anglican priest gave me an answer that was not all-encompassing, but smacked of truth. His definition was more like what respect should be rather than what it is. “Respect” he said, “is a certain admiration and honor that is given in response to virtue.”

That landed for me. But let’s be honest. That’s an ideal; the way that respect should function in a world ordered toward the good. The plain dictionary definition is more neutral: “a feeling of admiration or high regard for someone because of their qualities, achievements, abilities, or character” (Merriam-Webster/Oxford). Notice that it does not specify good qualities. The world is full of people respecting tyrants for their cunning, thieves for their cleverness, or rap artists for their ability to string violent and foul words together. Evil admires evil, vice respects vice. Apparently “respect” has no quality-control department.

The priest wasn’t wrong, he was prescribing rather than describing what respect becomes when aligned with truth and God’s design. It is more than possible for admirers to admire the wrong things. I’ve certainly done so in my time, like the long-haired rock stars I wanted to be; unencumbered by trivial things such as virtue.” Look, virtue is great and all, but have you seen the fan base angst can build?”

Precisely because of that neutrality of definition, if respect is not admiration for virtue, then it is admiration for vice or neutral mediocrity. Since we (should) all agree that admiring vice is not worthy, and admiring a lazy neutrality scarcely better, then we should all cede to the priest: that the object of our admiration would be best housed in virtue. His idealism may not be “real”, but it is “really” what people ordered toward the good strive for. It follows then that a near-universal sensation of “not getting enough respect” may point to nothing else but a universal shortage in the virtue that merits it. Get virtue, and respect follows in due proportion, like fruit on a healthy tree. At least, to the priest, that’s what “should” happen.

What the Heck is Virtue Anyway?

But what is virtue, biblically speaking? Is it finding your true self? Following your heart? Vague niceness? None of those. Virtue has a source and an author, and its definition precedes mankind rather than flowing from within him. For all of their excellent discourses on virtue, here the Stoics are wrong. The scriptures teach that God’s moral laws, written on the heart of every man and woman to walk this earth, and written on the stone tablets at Sinai, are not arbitrary but elemental. These moral principles are for our good, yes. A society’s well-being and happiness is directly correlated to how well it adheres to them. But they are so much more than that, no less than the eternal attributes of God himself. Fallen man cannot actually attain virtue, nor does it come from within. To the extent that we can grow in it, it is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit bringing our own characters slowly in line with God’s, through the painful process of sanctification. And in the end, your virtue will never be enough to forestall the wrath of a God who is perfectly righteous. You need a substitutional stand-in.

Psalm 19:7-9
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

Leviticus 11:44-45
For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy.

Virtue then is what its Author says it is. Love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. It is refusing to call good evil, and evil good. It is taking every thought captive, putting to death the old man and rising in repentance each day to try anew. It is loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself. These things do not come naturally to us. They are first injected by a power outside of us. Then, practiced; obstructed and trained by many failures.

Well then, since virtue is not our natural state, neither is the respect that comes from virtue. It responds to God’s character reflected in your own actions, and is not a default entitlement.

Our modern philosophy sits in a position entirely divorced from this truth. The mantra “respect for all” means that everyone, absent any meriting virtue, is entitled to its product. It is owed, not earned, on the condition of mere existence; a participation trophy for the incredible achievement of being a breathing creature. It is an entitled demand: You will respect me. You will respect my choices, my words. My actions, my chosen identity. It says “You are evil if you don’t respect my values,” instead of “I am evil because my values do not align with God’s.” This isn’t the honor-for-virtue model the priest idealistically wished for. It’s something different. Something Orwellian.

Enter Nominal Conquest Fallacy (NCF), a logical term I am attempting to formalize after watching too many debates revolve around twisting words instead of building strong syllogisms. (See the proposal for Nominal Conquest Fallacy, Apostoic Venn Episode 13). Here’s the gist: An ideological group or individual redefines a loaded term (like “respect,” “woman,” or “phobic”) to fit a desired agenda, then enforces the new meaning through shame, cancellation, or institutional power. Financial coercion is often the method employed, as adherents to old definitions often risk their very livelihood. Dissent becomes not just “wrong” in the new Orwellian morality, but hateful or violent by definition. Reality no longer defines the words selected by NCF abusers. Words, backed by serious threat, define an anti-reality that is only wished for, not real. The traditional dictionary definition of respect, “a feeling of admiration or high regard for someone because of their qualities, achievements, abilities, or character” gets conquered and replaced by an Orwellian Newspeak definition: “Unquestioning agreement that whatever I say or do is right and true.” Use the old meaning? You are now disrespectful, bigoted, or worse. Total debate shut-down. No need for premises, evidence, or virtue. Linguistic fiat will suffice.

The Stoics on Respect: Marcus Aurelius’ Take on Admiration Foolishly Desired

Interestingly, the Stoics do not place a high degree of value on respecting and being respected. Marcus Aurelius in particular might even say that respect should not be a goal at all. He writes “What then is the object of thy desire? To be praised? No. To be admired by those who are not worthy of admiration? No.” And again: “Constantly observe who those are whose approbation thou wishest to have, and what ruling principles they possess… neither wilt thou want their approbation, if thou lookest to the sources of their opinions and appetites.”

Seneca puts it this way: “What need is there to be admired by those whom you admire less than yourself? The crowd is a fickle thing, as easily swayed to destroy as to exalt.” And again: “To be praised by the unworthy is as perilous as to be blamed by them; both spring from the same root of ignorance.” In other words, according to these favorite thinkers of mine, it is great folly to pursue the admiration of people whose own beliefs and behaviors are not admirable. If you gain their approval, you are doing something wrong. Nothing screams “I’ve made it!” like winning a popularity contest judged by fools. Now, you are just the chief of fools.

If you have no wish to emulate them, you should have no desire for their respect. The Stoics intuited what Scripture declares outright (Galatians 1:10 – Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God?)

Being respected should be no goal for you. At best, it is a by-product, an extra perk that is not guaranteed, for pursuing virtues that are far higher than itself. It is in fact equally likely that in pursuing a loftier goal, you will lose as much respect as you gain. For example, if pursuing the goal of being just, you will gain the respect of those who value justice. In equal measure, you will lose the respect of those who do not value justice and wish with all their hearts to escape it at any cost. The good police officer is hated and reviled by criminals, and loved and respected by law-abiding citizens. Everything you choose will elevate you in the admiration of those who also choose it, and lower you in the eyes of those who choose something else. By its nature, respect is on one side, rather than at the center of the social scale.

Therefore, listen carefully. To respect and be respected by all, you must choose all behavior.

This is not possible.

The likelihood that you really respect everyone, and are respected by everyone, has a probability of exactly zero on the basis of social physics. It’s like trying to serve everyone their favorite flavor of ice cream from the same carton, when half the population is lactose intolerant.

Coming up: In future parts, I plan to present to you a series of modern misuses of this tortured word, which the Orwellian Newspeak culture has foisted upon us via Nominal Conquest Fallacy.

1. Respect as Agreement – The Compelled Speech Edition
2. Respect as Envy – The Luxury Trap
3. Respect as Moral Equity – Erasing Better and Worse
4. Respect as Transference – Claiming all Virtues Because of One Mastery

Stay tuned, it’s going to be a disrespectful ride.

Subscribe now

Please subscribe and support our work.

Key Words / Search Terms
Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | Respect in Ruins | Respect for All | Respect as Virtue | Nominal Conquest Fallacy | Respect Definition | Marcus Aurelius on Admiration | Seneca on Praise | Fruits of the Spirit | Galatians 5 | Virtue and Respect | Compelled Respect | Orwellian Respect | Admiration for Virtue

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By S.D. Davis for Apostoic Venn.

”You keep lookin’ around, and none of that sh*t can help you.”

“My body was frozen against the rock face… ‘Hey, man,’ he said in a lazy, raspy voice. ‘Just stay in your three-foot world.’ I was a couple of hundred feet up the rock face and I could barely think, let alone decipher his cryptic advice. “What the h*ll are you talking about, bro?’ ‘Only focus on your three-foot world,’ he said. ‘Focus on what you can affect. You keep looking around, and none of that sh*t can help you right now, can it?’ I shook my head no.’ You’re calculating how far you’re going to fall,’ the instructor said. ‘You’re looking down at Jeff. But he’s not going to come up and help. You’re looking out at the Strip. What are you going to do, gamble your way to the top? Don’t look at me. I’m not going to help you either. This is up to you. You’re climbing this rock. Stay in your three-foot world.’ I’ll never forget those words: ‘Stay in your three-foot world.’ ” –(No Hero, Chapter 3, Mark Owen)

The Navy Seals fascinate me. They have a profound ability to take near-impossible tasks, break them into bite-size pieces, and execute, which they combine with near-perfect mastery of a couple dozen basic skills. This combination makes them one of the most potent fighting forces on the planet, so much so that I’ve often thought they remind me of King David’s mighty men. But not even Seals are immune to fear. Fear has a magnificent way of drawing our attention away from the very things we should attend to the most.

Each man’s three-foot world will be different and much of internalizing and mastering this skill, this mindset, will come down to drawing that circle in each situation. Inside are the things I can control, outside the things I cannot. For Mark, in the opening paragraph, his three-foot world was on a vertical rock face in Nevada’s desert and all his pitons used up below him. Perhaps my most intense experience of the three-foot world came after losing my daughter Ruhama. When was your last experience of either fear paralysis or analysis paralysis? How well and how quickly did you implement the rules of the three-foot world (even if you didn’t know it by that name)?

To many, to those who’ve done paralyzingly hard things, the usefulness of the three-foot world is as obvious upon hearing it as is the sweetness of honey upon tasting it. But what of precept? Can we find or defend the three-foot world among history’s great minds, or better yet, can we find it in the Scripture?

Ancient Voices

“Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever is our own action. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever is not our own action.” (Epictetus, Enchiridion)

“Don’t let your imagination be crushed by life as a whole. Don’t try to picture everything bad that could possibly happen. Stick with the situation at hand, and ask, ‘Why is this so unbearable? Why can’t I endure it?’ You’ll be embarrassed to answer. Then remind yourself that past and future have no power over you. Only the present.” (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 8.36)

This idea from the Stoics is part of the well-noted Christian overlap. Scripture has always taught the same, culminated in Christ’s “consider the lilies” passage. Jesus instructs us to be faithful in our actions on this day, in this moment, and get rid of anxious fixation on an uncontrollable future. This, He says, is in God’s dichotomy of control, not yours.

Scripture Speaks Clearly

“Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:13–14 ESV)

“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.” (Matthew 6:25–34 ESV)

“And Peter answered him, ‘Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.’ He said, ‘Come.’ So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, ‘Lord, save me.’ Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, ‘O you of little faith, why did you doubt?’ And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’ ”(Matthew 14:28-33 ESV)

How to practice the three-foot world

1. Name the Rock Face – What challenge or fear is freezing you right now?

2. Draw Your Circle – What is literally within arm’s reach today?

3. Distill to Action – Cut the noise → possible actions → good actions aligned with your purpose → your single best next move.

4. Act - Then Redraw – Take that step. Once you’ve moved three feet, reassess and repeat.

Defining your three-foot world is the daily discipline of distilling the noise of each day down to possible actions. Then distill your possible actions down to good actions aligned with your purpose. Then distill your good, possible actions down to your best actions. Then act!

Subscribe now

Please hit the subscribe button to give free support to Apostoic. We are a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms

Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | three foot world | stay in your three foot world | navy seal three foot world | Mark Owen three foot world | three foot world mindset | overcome fear and anxiety | fear paralysis | analysis paralysis | faith and focus | Christian mindfulness | present moment faith | stoicism and Christianity | navy seals faith lessons | king David mighty men | Philippians 3:13 | Matthew 6:34 anxiety | peter walking on water | daily discipline Christian | overcome fear with faith | Christian stoicism | navy seals and mighty men | daily faith discipline | how to focus when overwhelmed | stop worrying about tomorrow faith

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life

X: @DSpencer_blog

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705

Instagram: @apostoic

Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By S.D. Davis for Apostoic Venn.

When had grown young Timothe Half-shaven unto the strength of manhood, he were slight and lithe and blonde and he did sprout the fine stubble wherein young men oft take heart… upon the right half of his face only, but all the left half were silken smooth like an worn river stone, even like glass. Then, against all former hope, did see his kin, and all folk nigh, that the curse of Greyhilda Grim spoke true indeed.

And such was the meekness of Tim which his good father Jim had learned him as he took heart and oft made sport of his misfortune. And this beseemed peculiar to many for it was the custom of the land that men should make great both their strength and deeds. Others oft recounting themselves comely and rich beyond truth or even grace.

And so it was that though the sight of Tim were reckoned strange, all his deeds were reckoned moreso. And yet he took naught to heart and loved his father and mother the more for all their goodly wisdom. But in Tim’s sixteenth winter did a man and doings stranger even than his own befall him…

Bright were the sun upon the gleaming snow and cold and clear and hard the winter air; the firmament above like the stone below for grayness, when through the south field strode a sorcerer. Now did take both Jim and Tim a staff in hand and a sword upon the belt and while kindness and welcome had God bound them to bid to all who wandered wayworn, yet the marauding or cursing of the sheep in the south fold could not be borne.

“Hark ye now to my words young Tim.” And did Timothe listen close to his father against the rushing wind. “Slow now is your father with age and soft with years of farming and plenty, but in my youth was I lean with warring in the king’s service’ keeping my life and earning my bread with a quick sword and quicker wit.” “Mark now what manner of man meanders our mid-winter meadow?”

And lookt Tim close upon the stranger as they drew ever toward him, “By all outward measures he is like no man that ever I have met.” For behold the stranger was tall; Tim reckoning him near twenty hands in height. “Look how his great grey beard is forked and plaited and tuckt in his leathern belt. Would I have thought his age as great as his height, but for the ease and lightness of his gait. No rickets have ever toucht him and too lean is he for the gout. His staff sets me in mind of my father’s tales of Greyhilda Grim, but he does not lean and clutch and bend and hobble; rather strides he manfully against wind and snow. But stranger than all these be the cloak and the bag. His satchel must be weighted indeed for see how its swaying jostles his slight frame, and when once I have reckoned the color of cloak, even then do I know it not again. A moment ago twas crimson, then violet, then pale blue as spring skies, and even now tis so white my sight near loses him against the snow.”

“Well have ye seen son, and touched even to the heart of my fear. Above all else does that coat set me at unease for I know naught but enchantment which could so bewilder both eye and mind. Look now as we draw closer yet at the runes of power writ upon the stole about his neck. Half my heart forbodes we fall foul in our field of some mage or conjurer or warlock… And yet, against all reckoning, the other half of my heart is set at ease seeing this strange man.”

Then did Jim call across the south field with a great bellowing cry, “Ho there, tall stranger, will thou not turn northward to bless my humble house with your presence, warming thyself and supping with us.” Leastwise was this in Jim’s heart to cry out, but no sooner had he said, “Ho there” than was thrown up a great column and cloud of snow hiding the mysterious traveler. “For a surety, he shall ambush and waylay us, son. See how he conjureth storm and snow even now to hide himself from our sight?”

Lithe and liquid like lightning was the bow in Jim’s hands, arrow set and shaft drawn to his ear, for terrible in his memory were sorcerers in battle and loathe was he to see such again, but perhaps more loathe still to strike against an old man for ready he held his arrow and did not loose it.

In less than a breath happened all these things and though fair enough was Tim at swordplay, his nerve was neither war-forged nor war-ready as his father’s and second was he with blade in hand. But seeing his father stay his stroke, so also did Tim.

When had settled the great cloud of snow, gone was the stranger. Then said Jim, “Mage indeed was he, for he hath vanisht even as witch Greyhilda in the year of your birth. Let us go now and look upon the place of his leaving. Yet my heart misgives me that he is not gone per se but hides within the very air. I shall hope he hath left no smooth black divot as did his predecessor Greyhilda, elsewise, what with the comings and goings of mage-kin shall my whole field be glass-black.”

But lo, came they to the place and it were marked by no smooth black spot, but by an old man wallowing in the snow, tangled in his own great beard and heavy satchel. And cried out he, “Ho there yourself; what manner of ruffians and savages be you in this land, idling away your hours frightening old men. Methinks thou would do better tending thy sheep. Hath not the Lord above taught you heathens to rise up before the hoary head and honor the face of the old man?”

“Forgive us father; we meant not to frighten you, but to bid you welcome, even unto hearth and board.”

“Welcome indeed…” snorted the old man. “Welcome indeed, with thy blade in hand and shaft set to thy ear. With such welcome wouldst thou usher me into that final hearth and board which God hath readied for my old bones.”

“I say again, ‘forgive us father’. Wary came we, but welcoming, drawing neither blade nor bow til it seemed thou had conjured some storm against us. And strange enough it seems to me that thou goest about in the fields of other men and girt as a mage but freely taking the name of the living God upon thy lips. How canst thou name Him, even whilst thou art clad in conjuring runes and thy cloak ripples in the colours of thy fey power?”

“Thy beasts be thy betters, and brighter if thou canst not read the name of thy God writ upon my stole nor have benevolence enough to heave an aged and ailing man from the cold, wet snow. And what magnitude of mage wouldst thou make me out manifesting maelstrom enough to mantle all this land about?” Even as he spake did Jim and Tim endeavor, heaving, to right him from the snowbank. Despiting their manly efforts, fell he flat and firm once more on upon earth and snow.

Withering gaze then cast the old man upon this feeble feat. They thought he lookt down upon them, but for that he sat still in the snow. “A measure more of mind and less of might, would tell thee first to free me from the coils of my bag and beard before pulling like oxen at the plow.”

When once was righted the wandering wizened, looked he down upon Jim and Tim Sheep-herd. “My thanks to you for wresting from my wallowings, though doubtless thou wert the very source of my misfortune.” Wherefore the stranger wert afore occupied with righting himself and arranging his person and effects, now gazed of a sudden upon Tim and spake. “Great glory to God in the highest my son, twould seem all the wool of the land were spent upon thy stock afore thy birth and were not enough left for thy face for tis but half covered! What is the meaning of this? Surely thou art colder even than this old man for thy left cheek is smoother than stones and ruddy in this bitter breeze.”

And looked Tim upon the old man saying, “Father, I would gladly tell all and my own father would tell better for he were witness indeed. Further still would I know thy name and thy deeds if thou wouldst not think me impudent to ask. For surely thy tale is greater than the meager misfortunes of this minor sheep-herd. Yet I say that names and deeds alike are better told before a warm fire and hot cider and roast mutton, than herd here amidst the hoarfrost.”

At these words did the stranger throw back his head and laugh toward heaven. “Wise indeed did thou rear thy son, for he has wits enough not to stand about with wet and frozen feet when fair fare is fitted to eat. I humbly accept thy kind offer good sheep-herds. Lead me hence to roof and board.”

Apostoic is a completely free partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Subscribe now

Key Words / Search Terms

Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | S.D. Davis | D.S. Cook | Christian Stoicism | Tim Half-Shaven Chapter 2 | Timothe Half-shaven | Wizard Encounter | Greyhilda Grim Curse | Jim Sheep-herd | Enchanted Cloak | Runes of Power | Mage in the South Field | Winter Snow Encounter | Half Beard | Welcome the Strangers

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.

In the rolling countryside, there once lived twin brothers, Jerry and Jankerson. They were fond of one another; they played together well, shared their friends, and both were strong and healthy. One day, when they were eight, their mother said, “Boys, I think it would be good if you learned to earn a little. I’ll tell you what. If you’ll both go and pull all the weeds in my garden, I’ll give each of you a crisp new dollar. It should take you about two hours.” The boys groaned. Of course, it was not the first time they’d had chores to do, but like all boys, they loved to play and hated to work.

Jankerson mumbled aloud, “A dollar! That’s not very much at all! What can I buy with a dollar? It should be TEN.” His mother’s eyebrows furrowed just a little, but she said nothing.

Jerry however began to think. He thought and thought, so hard that sweat began to appear on his forehead, and he made funny faces. “Eureka!” he finally exclaimed. “I did the math, and made a discovery!” Jankerson looked at him quizzically. “I have discovered that one dollar is MORE than zero dollars!” Jerry piped. “I have zero dollars now, and will still have zero dollars if we play all day. But if I do the job, I will have MORE than zero!” Jerry, it turned out, was a pretty bright kid.

So, both kids went out into the hot sun and began to pull weeds. They had been working about five minutes when Jankerson stood up and sighed. He looked down at how much they had done, a little patch of about two square feet of garden. He looked up and around at how much they had left to do, about sixty square feet. “This is going to take forever!” he complained in his thoughts, but what he said out loud was, “I need to get a drink of water.” He stood up and went inside. Jerry kept weeding. Five minutes later Jankerson came back out again, and reluctantly started to pull weeds, slower than before.

Another ten minutes passed, and they had weeded another small patch. Jankerson stood up and sighed. “I need to go to the bathroom” he announced, and turned heel again. Jerry kept weeding. This time it was ten minutes before Jankerson came out again, and started to weed slower than before. He looked over at the little patch his brother had cleared, and that’s when it struck him. “While I was inside, Jerry kept going. He did another small patch all by himself.” He began to think as he weeded. He thought so hard that sweat appeared on his forehead, and he made funny faces. “Eureka!” He thought silently. “When I stop, Jerry doesn’t. That means… I think… that work gets done while I’m not working. If I do this right, Jerry will do most of the work.” So, every five or ten minutes Jankerson found some reason to stop.

“I need to go to the bathroom again!” he’d say.
“Whoops, I left my gloves inside!” a few minutes later.
“I found a bug! Look how cool it is!”
“I think I need a hat.”

And so it went. Each time Jankerson returned to work, he worked just a bit slower than before, his eyes always on all the work that had yet to be done. The hours passed, and slowly the patch of finished garden grew and grew. Jerry made it more fun by telling a story while he worked, about a giant ogre who carried off the princess and rescued the gallant knight. He worked steadily, and only went to get a drink and go to the bathroom once, both in the same trip. Finally, they were finished. It had taken them three and a half hours instead of two, with one brother only working half the time, and half the speed. Jankerson stood up and looked around. “That was horrible.” He thought. “It took forever. I’m hot. I have dirt in my shoes. I hate work. I hope we never have to do that again!” Jerry on the other hand looked out over the work they had done, and felt something that he wasn’t sure he had felt before. He started to think. He thought really hard, until sweat appeared on his forehead and he made funny faces. “Eureka!” he said to himself. “I think I feel proud of myself. I’m proud of the good work I did, and glad to be a real help to mom, who works almost every hour of every day and never gets to play. I’m proud that I earned a dollar with my own hands, and now it’s really mine. I feel just a little bit more like a grown-up, and it feels good.”

Sure enough, after inspecting the garden, their mother paid each of them a crisp new dollar.

Jerry and Jankerson spend a dollar

Excited, the boys jumped on their bicycles. They pedaled fast as lighting up the country road, laughing and joking. They rode through the meadow. They rode through the woods. They rode through the creek. And finally, they got to the store. Jankerson bought a big juicy gumball, large enough to fill his whole cheek. It was strawberry-orange with swirls of lemon, and tasted delicious. Jerry bought a little plastic dinosaur, with a tab on its tail. If you pushed down and released the tab, the dinosaur would jump two feet in the air. It was very fun. Jankerson enjoyed his gumball, and Jerry enjoyed his dinosaur, and soon the day was over.

The next morning, the boys were at the table eating breakfast with their father. He looked up from his newspaper. He took a big slurp of his coffee. Then he reached out and patted both boys on the head. “I noticed the garden was weeded yesterday” he said through his bushy mustache. “Thanks for your good work. Did you get a dollar?” The boys beamed with pride. “We did, we did!” “Ah good,” said their father. “What did you buy?”

“I bought a giant gumball!” said Jankerson. “It was strawberry-orange with lemon swirls and it filled my whole cheek!”
“Ah” His father nodded wisely. “Gumballs are delicious.”

“I bought a plastic dinosaur!” said Jerry. “It had a tab in the back and it could jump up two feet in the air!”
“Ah” His father stroked his mustache wisely. “Dinosaurs are lots of fun.”

He sipped his coffee once again. Then he said, “Jankerson, where is your gumball?” Jankerson looked surprised. “What do you mean Dad? It’s gone now, I chewed it yesterday.” “Ah,” said his father, nodding wisely. “Jerry, where’s your dinosaur?” “It broke” Jerry said. “But it’s ok, I was bored anyway.” “Ah,” said their father, stroking his mustache wisely. He slurped his coffee. “Boys,” he said, “Where is your dollar?” They both glanced at each other like he was crazy. “What do you mean dad?” they asked. “You know, the dollar you made yesterday. Where is it?” “Uh… it’s gone dad! We spent it on the gumball and the dinosaur.” “Ah.” Their father nodded wisely and stroked his mustache.
“So, you don’t have a dollar?”
“Not anymore dad.”
“You have zero dollars?”
“Yes.”
“Ah,” said their father. He went back to reading his newspaper, nodding wisely and stroking his mustache.

Jankerson chewed his breakfast and followed a fly with his yes. Jerry began to think. He thought and thought, until sweat appeared on his forehead and he made funny faces.

Jerry and Jankerson make another dollar

Another day came and Jerry and Jankerson had another job to do. “Boys,” said their mother. I want you to go out and clean up all the sticks and leaves in the yard so your father can mow. Rake the leaves into piles and put them in bags. Gather the sticks into bundles, and we will use them to start our campfires. If you do, I will give you each a crisp new dollar.” “Ok mom!” said Jerry. “It should be ten dollars” muttered Jankerson. The boys went to work and the job played out just like the one before; Jankerson taking lots of breaks and finding many reasons to stop, and Jerry doing far more of the work. Once again it took up much more of their day than it would have if both boys were working steady. This time, to make it more fun, Jerry told a story about a terrible dragon who devoured the prince and rescued the kingdom. When they were finished, Jankerson thought “That was terrible! It took forever. It was so boring. I hate work. I hope we never have to do that again.” Jerry was strangely happy, and that same feeling came back to him again. He felt pride that he had done a good thing for his mom and dad, who worked so hard all the time and never got to play. He felt a little more like a grown-up. He felt pride that he had earned a dollar with his own hands, and that it was really his. “I like this feeling.” He thought. “It feels good.” When they were done, their mother gave each of them a crisp new dollar.

The boys jumped on their bicycles, and pedaled off as fast as lighting. They rode up the country road, through the meadow, through the woods and the creek to the dollar store. Jankerson bought a plastic dinosaur, because he thought Jerry’s had looked like fun. Jerry was just about to buy a giant gumball, but he stopped. He thought really hard, until sweat appeared on his forehead and he made funny faces. Then he put his dollar back in his pocket. “What are you going to buy?” Asked Jankerson. “Nothing” said Jerry. “Nothing! Are you crazy?” his brother exclaimed. “Yep, nothing” said Jerry. They rode back home. Jankerson enjoyed his dinosaur, and Jerry played with his old toys, and soon the day was over.

The next morning, the boys were eating breakfast with their father. He looked up from his newspaper, and sipped his coffee. Then he reached out and patted both boys on the head. “I noticed the leaves and sticks are all cleaned up lads” he said. “Thanks for your good work. Did you get a dollar?” The boys beamed with pride. “We did, we did!” “Ah good,” said their father. “What did you buy?”

“I bought a plastic dinosaur!” said Jankerson. “Jerry’s looked like so much fun.”
“Ah,” said his father, nodding wisely. “Dinosaurs are very cool.”

“I didn’t buy anything.” said Jerry.
“Nothing at all?” said his father, pretending to be surprised.
“Nope.”
“Ah,” said his father, stroking his mustache wisely. He took a big slurp of his coffee. “Jankerson, where’s your dinosaur?”
“It’s in the toy chest with my other toys. I got bored of it.”
“Ah. And where is your dollar?”
“What do you mean? It’s gone. I spent it on the dinosaur.”
“So you don’t have a dollar?”
“Not anymore.”
“You have zero dollars.”
“Yes.”
“Ah.” Said their father. “I see, I see.” He nodded his head and stroked his mustache wisely. “Where is your dollar Jerry?”
“It’s in a safe place, in a coffee can.” Said Jerry.
“So how many dollars do you have?”
“One dad, I have one dollar.”
“Ah.” Said their father, nodding wisely. He went back to reading his newspaper.

Jerry becomes a man

Half a year passed. The autumn was in swing, and winter coming on. The season of gardening and lawn care was laid to rest, and there was little promise of dollar-a-day jobs for the next many months. Jerry had grown muscular. There were callouses on his hands. He had done many jobs. He had played with his old toys and read books, and added zero cheap boring toys to his toy chest. And for his efforts, he had amassed the staggering sum of one hundred dollars. Jankerson looked skinnier and weaker than his twin. His toy chest was full of cheap plastic toys and gumball wrappers with jokes on them. He had one dollar, from the previous day’s leaf raking.

Onto their bicycles the boys hopped again. They rode through the meadow. They rode through the woods. They rode through the creek. And finally, they got to the store. Jankerson took out his dollar and bought a plastic ninja man with a spring loaded arm for throwing paper stars. It was awesome, for a dollar. He turned to his brother, pity and exasperation on his face. “You’re going to put your dollar back in your pocket again aren’t you?” He said. “Nope!” piped Jerry, to his surprise. Jerry took out fifty dollars, walked over to the lawn and garden section, and bought the sturdiest snow shovel there ever was. “What on earth are you going to do with that?” Said Jankerson. “That’s stupid!” “You’ll see.” Said Jerry.

The next morning at breakfast, their father was reading his newspaper.
He took a big slurp of his coffee, then reached out and patted both boys on the head. “I noticed the leaves were raked yesterday. Did you boys get a dollar?”
“We did, we did!”
“And what did you buy?”
Jankerson spoke up. “I bought a ninja guy who can throw paper stars!”
“Ah,” said his father, stroking his mustache wisely. “Ninja guys are awesome. Jankerson, where is your dollar?”
“Gone dad! We’ve been through this. I spent it on the ninja guy.”
“Ah,” said his father wisely. “So you don’t have a dollar?”
“No dad.”
“You have zero dollars?”
“Yes.”
“Ah.” Said their father. I see, I see. And you Jerry? Do you still have your hundred dollars?”
Jerry grinned so wide his cheeks hurt. “Actually Dad… I only have fifty bucks now.”

His father’s head snapped up. “You spent fifty dollars! Interesting. On what?”

Grinning from ear to ear like a jack-o-lantern, Jerry pointed out the window. A sturdy, shiny new snow shovel leaned against the garage door. Jerry’s dad raised his eyebrows. A knowing look of comprehension, mingled with a bit of pride, twitched at the corners of his mustache. “Ah.” He said. “A shovel. What an interesting choice.”

The first snow flew that afternoon, and by the next morning, the neighborhood was beautifully blanketed. Out Jerry stalked, humming to himself, new shovel over his shoulder. Knocking on the neighbor’s door, he addressed old Mrs. Pickleberry cheerfully. “Jerry’s shoveling company, at your service! Just 5 dollars!”

Mrs. Pickleberry patted his head. “Gracious Jerry, what a blessing you are! I can’t do this sort of thing anymore.” And she handed him a crisp 5 dollar bill.

Jerry made $20 dollars by lunchtime. Up and down the street he went, singing a silly song about monsters who carried off the princess and rescued her fiance, and shoveling like a bulldozer. But Jankerson, sitting at home playing with his ninja guy, was getting bored. You can only throw paper stars at the wall so many times, you know. He meandered over to the window and began to watch what Jerry was up to. He watched for a long time. Then he started to think. He thought and thought, until sweat appeared on his forehead and he made funny faces.

“Eureka!” he shouted suddenly. He ran outside in his slippers, slipping and sliding all the way to his brother. “Jerry! Jerry! I just figured it out!”

“What’s up?” asked Jerry.

“Well, while you’re out here making dollars, a pretty big number… I’m inside making…” he paused, calculating. “Zero! That’s a really low number.” He panted a little. “I calculate that if I keep doing nothing, and you keep working, you’ll have lots of dollars and I’ll have none. That’s math.”

Jerry laughed. “It took you six months, huh?” His brother heaved a huge sigh. “I wish I hadn’t spent all my money. I wish I had a shovel, and could be out here making more dollars with you” he said, crestfallen. His brother just grinned. “Why do you think I spent only fifty?” he said. “Go get another. You can pay me back later.”

For the rest of the day, the twins shoveled side by side. Jankerson still grumbled sometimes, but kept going. Jerry sang the songs he made up as he went. But, by dinner, Jerry had made 35 dollars and Jankerson 15. He proudly counted them out, 5 at a time, and then counted again to make sure. For the first time ever, his toy chest remained tightly closed, and Jankerson felt a strange, happy feeling as he placed his bills in a jar.

Their father, who had been secretly keeping tabs on the boys all day, chuckled into his newspaper in the other room. “Now that,” he muttered, under his mustache, “was a dollar well spent.”

The End.

For more character building children’s stories, please hit the subscribe button. Apostoic is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Anglican Church in Greenville, MI.

Subscribe now

Key Words / Search Terms

Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | Jerry and Jankerson Make a Dollar | Diligence and Prudence | Work and Money Management | Covenant Christian Kids | Twin Brothers | Earning a Dollar | Saving vs Spending | Work Ethic | One Dollar is More Than Zero | Pride in Work | Snow Shovel | Children’s Parable

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store!

Subscribe now

By D.S. Cook for Apostoic Venn.

As a bonus “article” this week, I am bringing you a chance encounter: a debate with unknown person on Facebook. It was a mostly friendly chat and remained respectful, absent any of the name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and red herrings that we refer to as “debate” these days in comment sections. But as the debate wore on, the veneer of surface-level politeness began to become transparent, revealing a motivation and line of thinking that can only be called demonic.

I will give you a small introduction and then plunge into the debate.

First, an obvious truth needs to be stated in order for the reader to understand what is happening in my opponent’s argument below. Logic depends on objective truth and reality. Where there is no objective truth, there can be no logic. Why? Because logic requires the observation of the world around us in order to form premises that are unshakeable and can be agreed upon by all. “Gravity is a force that pulls toward the center of mass” one might posit, after observing the objective reality of the planet on which we live. With such premises in place, one can then follow along the premises and reach a conclusion to which they point.

1. Gravity is the force that pulls objects toward the center of mass.
2. On earth, we are pulled toward the center of mass.
3. This phenomena can only be counteracted by thrust greater than the pull of gravity, and is otherwise never counteracted.
Conclusion: The laws of gravity apply on earth.

But, if “gravity” were not an observable and objective force, but rather an abstract idea that may be true for me and not true for you, any logical syllogism leading to a conclusion would be impossible. Thus, in order to refer to any thinking as “logical,” it must be on the basis that some form of objective truth and reality exists. I may believe in gravity, and you may reject it. But as I do not fall to the earth with a thud while you float around in an invisible hammock, we must surmise that gravity is objective reality, and depends not upon your belief.

As the debate progresses, a reverse-engineering of logic and reality itself is admitted by my opponent. He does not seek to observe premises and follow them to a conclusion. Rather, he lays out a desired conclusion, and hopes to force it into truth by granting whichever premises are necessitated in order to lead to it. In that subversive system of thinking, it does not matter whether the premises are objectively real or true. So long as they point to the desired conclusion, he will grant them admission and call them true.

This is a fundamentally anti-logic, anti-reality approach to reasoning. And, it is fundamentally demonic. Why do I say such a thing? Because one might define “demonic,” as the force that seeks to undo the created order of God. Even those who do not believe in God will sometimes use the term to describe something that is fundamentally anti natural order. It is an embodiment of the desire not to understand, and not even necessarily to deny the existence of the order in the universe, but rather to undo or unmake it; replacing it with the desires of an agent of chaos. In the case of my opponent, it is shrouded by excellent vocabulary and seemingly intelligent mode of communication. But, to the discerning eye and understanding mind, the method is laid bare. The result is as horrifying as it is unbelievable.

I encourage you to read on. The debate topic: Can men get pregnant?
I will be providing minimal commentary between arguments, primarily to translate his words into common English, as his heavily academic style can be quite challenging to follow if you can’t cut through the vocabulary dance. As I proceed, my translations of his argument into simple language will be presented in italics, and my own thought responses in bold print.

The Debate: Can Men Get Pregnant? An encounter with the Unraveller.

It began with a comment that I made on a fellow Christian page. Admittedly, this comment could be viewed as incendiary and inflammatory, and I have a twinge of embarrassment. Perhaps I should have framed it more carefully; but I was speaking to my own side, and not anticipating opponents to come out of the woodwork. The people in this comment section were conservative Christians. Perhaps sloppily, it was meant as an encouragement for other conservatives not to give up on debating, not to give up on speaking truth regardless of outcome. They should remember that there are other beneficiaries to public debate than the person they are addressing, and they should not give up or feel that they are doing no good when their opponent is immovable.

“Logic and reason is impossible for them” I state hyperbolically. This may sound insulting. But why is it true? Because logic requires objective truth, and the ideologies comprising what we call “leftism” boldly deny any existence of objective truth. Truth is relative, they claim; you have your truth and I have mine. Therefore, whatever their arguments might be called, it cannot be called logic.

To this statement an answer comes:

A challenge is issued to a sort of “logic-off.” I accept the challenge, presenting both sides of a current debate in the form of syllogisms.

As expected: My premises are rejected.

It is not surprising that my opponent rejects the premise that in order to become pregnant, one must be female. Admitting this point would destroy his entire position. Predictably, he rejects my assumption that “female” is an observable, objective truth.

What is surprising however is his syllogistic response, which ignores the question at hand and presents an entirely different argument. I will translate:

Opponent’s Premise 1: Any association that is allowed for one group must be allowed to all groups.
My commentary: This is a fancy way of stating that equality of outcome is the moral good at which we must aim.

Opponent’s Premise 2: “Cis” women and men are permitted to have associations by gender.
My commentary: Yes, women and men are allowed exclusive spaces such as bathrooms, to avoid indecent compromise and unwanted sexual attention from the opposite sex.

Opponent’s Premise 3: Sex and gender are not real anyway. They are social constructs.
My commentary: This is a conclusion. Not a premise. He has made no arguments to prove this out. Nor has anyone else, for that matter. It is a sex-specific manner of stating a common trope, which is; “what’s true for one is not true for another. There is no objective reality.” Thus, it is fundamentally anti-logic, as logic depends entirely on the existence of objective truth.

Opponent’s Conclusion: “Non-cis” women and men should be permitted any gender-related association they choose.
My commentary: If the premises were in any way true, or argued logically and accepted, this conclusion might hold up. The meaning is: There is no objective truth for anyone, and equality of outcome is the highest moral good. Therefore, men who call themselves women have just as much right to woman-specific associations, spaces, and words as real women do.

My opponent’s argument is this: It does not matter whether men actually can get pregnant. It matters only whether everyone has access to all things, words, spaces, and concepts, in perfect equity. Thus, they are allowed to associate with pregnancy, periods, breastfeeding… anything that is female; on the basis of equality of outcome. Absolute equality is the law of reality, not physics.

Here I pause, torn. Should I address the many bizarre and faulty statements made in his new argument? Should I go down this deep, dark rabbit hole? Or should I try to hold him to the original argument; Is it physically possible for men to get pregnant or no? I sleep on it.

In the morning, I decide to debate one point at a time. I attempt to hold him to the original argument.

Again, his reply is mired in academic tones that serve to conceal rather than to clarify what he is actually saying. Please allow me once again to translate his points into plain English.

Opponent’s meaning: “I redirected the argument because it fails to address the real question. The question is not “can men get pregnant” but rather does “men” exist as an objective reality? We disagree on what sex is. Until we resolve that disagreement, we cannot agree on which sex/es can get pregnant.”
My commentary: Yes, I agree. We will never resolve the question at hand until we can accept one another’s premises as true. Until that time, we will not be speaking the same language. We’re going to have to go backward if there’s any hope of moving forward.

Opponent’s meaning: “Circles and squares have mutually exclusive characteristics. Corners and no-corners cannot exist in the same space. The same is not true for men and women.”
My commentary: This is blatantly false. A malformed human may have ovaries and testicles, but testicles and no-testicles cannot inhabit the same space.

Opponent’s meaning: “The difference between “male” and “female” (sexes) is poorly defined and not objectively true.”
“I would never say “men can get pregnant.” Instead I would say “men exist who can get pregnant.” Also, I wouldn’t say “women can get pregnant” because there are some who can’t.”
My commentary: Sex is actually quite well defined, and has been for all of human history until ideologs began to confuse the issue a few short years ago. It’s a true statement that some women cannot get pregnant, but it is a false twisting of reality to state that some men exist that can. This is begging the question. The whole debate is whether or not men can get pregnant, and he is assuming his own conclusion before using it again later as a premise.

Opponent’s meaning “My issue is not with biological reality… it’s with how we assign that reality to words. (Ovary to women, testicle to men). It’s a general descriptor that does not account for malformations. Therefore, it is false.”
My commentary. The opponent seeks not to deny what is or is not physically possible, but rather to provide perfect equality in which words the sexes are permitted to use to describe a state of mind. Once again, it’s an appeal that if one human being can say “I am X” than any other human must also be able to say “I am X” and be accounted truthful. Equality of outcome is the highest good.

Clearly, I reject his premises as vehemently as he rejects mine. But to say “mine” is not accurate. The premises do not belong to me, they belong to human observation for all time. It is collective human experience he rejects, not my thoughts.

In order to progress in any manner, we will have to go back. How far? To the fundamental elements of “real” and “not real,” “true” and “not true.” The objectivity of truth must be argued, before we even begin to speak the same language. I say so.

My opponent’s response comes through in the most contradictory and confusing manner possible.

His reply is impossible to nail down. He makes multiple contradictions to his former points, and then agrees with “my” arguments, pretending I made different arguments. He claims to reject the very principles he has already laid out. It’s a confusing mess, but I’ll try to translate.

Opponent’s meaning: Your arguments are exactly what I am saying. And they prove my point, not yours.
My commentary: No they aren’t, and no they don’t.

Opponent’s meaning: I too reject the distinction between sex and gender.
My commentary: This is in direct opposition to his original syllogism, and the entire argument of his side. Proponents of transgenderism and male pregnancy believe that sex and gender are two distinct things. He either does not know this, or is trying to sow confusion.

Opponent’s meaning: I also reject the distinction between cis-gender and trans-gender.
My commentary: The word “also” here implies that this was my statement. It wasn’t. He is now clearly trying to confuse and misdirect. This is nothing more than a cleverly worded statement that “trans women are real women,” without offering any logical proof that this is so. He is rejecting that there is any difference between a woman and “trans” woman. That is not what I said. I rejected the false distinction between a woman and a “cis-woman.”

Opponent’s meaning: I also reject subjective gender.
My commentary: Remember premise 3 of his syllogism, stating that sex and gender are subjective. He is now in blatant self-contradiction territory. Is he blind to this, or is he doing it on purpose? Is the intent to convince, or simply to confuse and gaslight?

Opponent’s meaning: I reject the concept that “these distinctions should exist.” I posit that they do not exist in reality.
My commentary: I did not claim that they “should” exist. My claims all had to do with distinctions that do not exist. This person’s response has little to do with the arguments I am presenting. To muddy the water and distribute confusion is his only tact.

Opponent’s meaning: The purpose of feminism is to abolish gender.
My commentary: Ah, the real objective revealed. Put a pin in that one, it’s a big deal.

Opponent’s meaning: My way of thinking is not different than the historical view of sex. It is turning the logic of the historical view of sex against itself.
My commentary: You have succeeded in no way.

Opponent’s meaning: It would not be wrong to say “cows have two horns”, it would be wrong to say “that’s not a cow” if it doesn’t.
My commentary: Absolutely correct. So, it would not be wrong to say “women can get pregnant.” It would be wrong to say “that’s not a woman, because it can’t.” This proves my point and destroys his.

Opponent’s meaning: My syllogism, clearly stated on the basis that equal outcome must be achieved for all groups, has nothing to do with equality of outcome. Because Kant.
My commentary: Bringing in Kant’s name, or giving the logic another label, does not change the substance of the argument.

Opponent’s meaning: Conservatives reject the idea that “men can get pregnant” as a silly notion. We also reject “men can get pregnant” as a silly notion, which is why we criticize the conservative position.
My commentary: Try to make sense of this one, if you can. This doesn’t even attempt sense. It defies rationality.

Of all the nonsense and contradiction that was just spewed, one thing stands out as truly sinister… truly evil. “The goal of feminism is to abolish gender.” This not only admits that gender exists (distinction between genders must exist if you wish to abolish it), but reveals the actual goal for which he is reverse-engineering logic. This will be more clearly revealed in a moment.

It’s a tough job to translate this into everyday speech, but I’ll try my best.

Opponent’s Meaning: You and I both believe what we believe because there are big players with big dollars controlling what we experience.
My commentary: All… right? I’m interested in what is or isn’t true, objectively. That people with a lot of money also believe things has nothing to do with what is is or isn’t true.

Opponent’s meaning: Because of the golden rule, we want to abolish gender. However, we understand that people are going to get in our way.
My commentary: The golden rule does not enable us to do a thing unto others when the thing they want done is not possible. You would like eagle wings. But you cannot give me eagle wings because you’d like someone to give them to you. I can no more give you eagle wings than change or abolish your gender.

Additionally, the golden rule does not licence you to do something to others because you want it done to you. If I want a nose piercing, I don’t go give one to my neighbor by force in order to get one myself in return. The golden rule is no argument for imposing genderlessness on a society that does not want it.

Opponent’s meaning: The difference of sexes that has been understood for all of human history is both true AND false.

My commentary: A thing cannot be both true and false. Any such position is mysticism, not logic.

Opponent’s meaning: I believe it’s wrong, but not because I disagree with it. I think it’s wrong because it’s internally contradictory that YOU think it’s wrong.

My commentary: Wut?

Opponent’s meaning: Your arguments say “men can’t get pregnant” but the logic you use to reach that conclusion necessitates the admission that “men can get pregnant.”
My commentary: This has been demonstrated in no way. At no point was this successfully argued.

But more importantly, the real strategy at play is laid entirely bare. This is not a debate about what is or isn’t real. It’s a statement of what he intends to MAKE real. “We want sex and gender abolished” he says. The logic required to make this happen necessitates the use of seemingly impossible premises such as “men can get pregnant.” Since they are necessary for the conclusion, they are admitted as premises; not because he “disagrees or has other views” on whether they are possible in physics. He is not observing reality to form premises and arrive at a conclusion. Logic is not what he is going about, by any measure. He has a desired objective: to destroy the created order of gender. He will introduce premises that serve that goal, regardless of whether they are real, true, or even possible. All of this by his own admission. The confession of a demon. I say so.

With the mention of demonic thought and the question of “who is we?” the opponent disappeared and did not reply. It was also at this time that I finally clicked on his profile and found a black hole account. No friends, two fake photos. Nothing at all. It was almost as though the account was created specifically to have this debate with me.

The Adversary’s goal is not, and has never been, to disprove the created order. He does not claim created order doesn’t exist. It exists, and he hates it. His purpose is to destroy it, and create something else in its stead. The first tactic he employs is always to sow confusion and doubt. “Did God really say…?”

Sowing confusion was his tactic, and destroying rather than denying reality his goal. The methods of this individual mirror that of the Adversary precisely. Masked in academic vocabulary and polite eloquence, his arguments are no logicl; but the deliberate attempt to confuse at every opportunity, to deny the existence of objective truth on which logic depends, to contradict everything including himself, and ultimately, to destroy reality and create a sexless society. As Thomas Aquinas and traditional Christian demonology present demons as sexless amalgamations, this person (?) wishes the human race to follow suit.

So, my readers. What do you think?

Did I have a chat with a demon this week, or just a human emissary?

Does it make any difference?

Subscribe now

Hit the subscribe button and support the work of Apostoic. Apostoic Venn is a partner ministry of Covenant Christian Church in Greenville, MI.

Key Words / Search Terms
Apostoic Venn Blogcast | Apostoic | Apostoic Venn | D.S. Cook | S.D. Davis | Christian Stoicism | An Encounter with a Sex Abolitionist | Dance with a Friendly Demon | Can Men Get Pregnant | Objective Truth | Logic and Reality | Sex Abolition | Gender Ideology | Equality of Outcome | Demonic Thinking | Reverse-Engineered Logic | Abolish Gender | Facebook Debate | Sexless Society

Socials:

Blog: Apostoic – Christian Stoicism for a more contented life
X: @DSpencer_blog
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61584804386705
Instagram: @apostoic
Youtube: Apostoic – YouTube

Try our Logic Slap app, a meme weapon for destroying logical fallacies in internet debates: Available on Google Play Store! https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apostoic.logicslap&pcampaignid=web_share