Month: October 2022

Book Plunge: The Gaming Mind

What do I think of Alexander Kriss’s book published by The Experiment? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I listened to this book on Audible while I was often out walking. Kind of funny that I was listening to it that way since usually I would be playing Pokemon Go at the same time. Kriss is a psychologist and not only does he write about games, he’s an avid gamer himself, whether it’s a video game or even D&D with his friends.

When he’s with some of his staff at a mental institution, they talk about a patient who’s been administered and the lady bringing him in describes him as “One of those gamer guys.” Kriss, in I am sure a protocol breaking moment, asks “What games does he play?” Most of the people around the table were probably sure that gaming was the kid’s problem. Kriss instead sees it as part of the personality of the person he is dealing with.

Kriss then wants to know what games the person plays and why and often finds clues to how they interact with people in that. I was sure I was going to enjoy this book when I heard the first chapter was called “Me, You, and Silent Hill 2.”. I have never played the Silent Hill games, but I have heard enough about them that I recognized much of what Kriss said.

He talks about also a topic that seems to be popular today of gaming addiction. Sometimes, it seems like it’s an obvious case. What about the lady who never played games at all really and could not stop playing Candy Crush? Most people would try to break the addiction, but Kriss decides to study her more and then they find out why she plays so much, find a much deeper solution, and she now plays the game still, but not to the obsessive length she did before. The underlying issue has been dealt with.

What about the boy who plays Minecraft constantly? As it turns out, Kriss didn’t take his side or his mother’s side, but eventually got to the point where the mother learned to understand what the child was doing in Minecraft and it led to such great conversations that the talks are now called the Minecraft Moments. Had gaming just been seen as a problem, this would never have happened.

Throughout the book, many issues are dealt with such as kids not being social due to video games or anything of that sort. What about the possibility of kids turning violent because of video games? Many of us know that this is really nonsense, but too many still think there’s a lot of truth to it.

As a gamer myself, I saw a lot of valuable insight in this and I’m still mulling over it. Why is it that RPGs tend to be my favorite type of game or why while I played several Mario games growing up, Link was the main hero I gravitated towards? Why is it that even as a Seminarian, gaming is still a major part of my life?

One great aspect of it definitely is the social aspect. I have friends I play Final Fantasy XIV with and when I had my first get together with students here, it involved playing video games. We played some Uno after, but we definitely played video games. These are bonders and as someone on the spectrum, I wonder if I would have made any friends growing up without the connection of games? I even think my being in seminary is a result of that as I see it as a part of the battle of good and evil.

If you are interested in gaming, I recommend that you get this book. If you are a parent of a child and you are concerned, I recommend this as well. Basically, if you love games or love someone who does, this is a great read to get. You can order it here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Are Untruths Lies?

If someone tells something false repeatedly, are they lying? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was watching a video today where the subject was the recent lawsuit against Alex Jones and how he had to pay out for what he said about Sandy Hook. Someone with me who heard me watching it was telling me that what was really bad about Alex Jones was not just what he said but he had lied about it knowing otherwise. I then played a clip where I heard Alex Jones saying Sandy Hook was 100% real. When I asked the person with me where Jones said he lied he said, “You just heard him.”

Unfortunately for the person talking to me, that’s wrong.

This is not to defend Alex Jones at all. He was entirely wrong in what he said about Sandy Hook. It was a horrible thing to say. However, that being said, he was not lying. Why?

Because when he said that Sandy Hook was not real, he said it because he honestly believed that it was not real. If he had thought it was real and yet he was saying it was not real, he would be lying. If he thought it was not real, and was saying it was real, he would be lying.

This also means that someone could even tell you something that is true and at the same time be lying. Suppose you hear about someone being a flat-Earther and you go up to them and ask “Is the Earth flat?” Suppose that this person though is scared by you and is a rather timid person and is scared of an argument and just wants to appease you and says, “Absolutely not. The Earth is round.” This person has just lied to you. It’s not because they told you something untrue. It’s because they were not honest with their words in what they were saying and told you something that was contrary to what they really believe.

Why bring this up? Often in the worlds of politics and religion, which often do coincide together, it’s easy to have the word lie thrown around carelessly. We are not only accusing someone of having their facts wrong when they say this, but we are also accusing them of an immoral action. If just saying something that was wrong was a lie, then any time that a kid puts down the wrong answer on a math test, then he is guilty of lying.

In order to show a lie, one must show that a person said X is the case, when they really thought non-X was the case, or vice-versa. Often, I prefer to think not so much about lies that are commonly told, but myths that are commonly told. For instance, it is a myth that Columbus sailed to prove that the world was round. Everyone believed that it was. Many of us were taught otherwise in school, but that doesn’t mean our teachers necessarily lied. They could have passed on something they thought was true as well. It just means people collectively bought into a myth.

Be careful with the term lie, regardless of what you think of the person. I have plenty of people who are my intellectual opponents, but I do not call them liars lightly. That is not just making a statement about what is said, but about the character of the person saying it and should not be done lightly.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Are Untruths Lies?

If someone tells something false repeatedly, are they lying? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was watching a video today where the subject was the recent lawsuit against Alex Jones and how he had to pay out for what he said about Sandy Hook. Someone with me who heard me watching it was telling me that what was really bad about Alex Jones was not just what he said but he had lied about it knowing otherwise. I then played a clip where I heard Alex Jones saying Sandy Hook was 100% real. When I asked the person with me where Jones said he lied he said, “You just heard him.”

Unfortunately for the person talking to me, that’s wrong.

This is not to defend Alex Jones at all. He was entirely wrong in what he said about Sandy Hook. It was a horrible thing to say. However, that being said, he was not lying. Why?

Because when he said that Sandy Hook was not real, he said it because he honestly believed that it was not real. If he had thought it was real and yet he was saying it was not real, he would be lying. If he thought it was not real, and was saying it was real, he would be lying.

This also means that someone could even tell you something that is true and at the same time be lying. Suppose you hear about someone being a flat-Earther and you go up to them and ask “Is the Earth flat?” Suppose that this person though is scared by you and is a rather timid person and is scared of an argument and just wants to appease you and says, “Absolutely not. The Earth is round.” This person has just lied to you. It’s not because they told you something untrue. It’s because they were not honest with their words in what they were saying and told you something that was contrary to what they really believe.

Why bring this up? Often in the worlds of politics and religion, which often do coincide together, it’s easy to have the word lie thrown around carelessly. We are not only accusing someone of having their facts wrong when they say this, but we are also accusing them of an immoral action. If just saying something that was wrong was a lie, then any time that a kid puts down the wrong answer on a math test, then he is guilty of lying.

In order to show a lie, one must show that a person said X is the case, when they really thought non-X was the case, or vice-versa. Often, I prefer to think not so much about lies that are commonly told, but myths that are commonly told. For instance, it is a myth that Columbus sailed to prove that the world was round. Everyone believed that it was. Many of us were taught otherwise in school, but that doesn’t mean our teachers necessarily lied. They could have passed on something they thought was true as well. It just means people collectively bought into a myth.

Be careful with the term lie, regardless of what you think of the person. I have plenty of people who are my intellectual opponents, but I do not call them liars lightly. That is not just making a statement about what is said, but about the character of the person saying it and should not be done lightly.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Pets and Food

How does feeding your pet teach you about God? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Have I told you about my cat lately? If you read my blog regularly or see me on Facebook, you know that I adore my cat, Shiro, pictured above. One of my great joys in coming home to my apartment at the end of a day of school or work is getting to see Shiro.

I try to call my folks once a day on my Echo and sometimes as I sit on my loveseat, Shiro jumps up on the arm of the loveseat and my folks get to see both of their boys. When he does this, he’s usually nuzzling me to no end giving me constant kitty kisses, as I call them. This can even be after his food machine has already gone off.

Nowadays also, when I get into bed, I do some Kindle reading, but usually Shiro finds his way right up next to me and lies down right next to me. When it’s time to go to bed, he jumps down. Still, the way the boy seems to follow me everywhere is quite adorable.

As I indicated earlier, Shiro has a food machine. It goes off at 8 AM and 8 PM so I don’t have to be around to feed him, but I do have to refill it every other day. There are plenty of times that Shiro is loving to me, but there are also times that it’s right before his food goes off and I know what he’s wanting. After all, as soon as that machine goes off, it’s off to the races.

Psalm 104:27 tells us that the animals look to God for their food. That idea of dependence is something incredible to think about. If you have an indoor pet, you know this is true. An outdoor pet could possibly go out and hunt everything they eat, but in some communities even this could be a challenge.

For Shiro, he is definitely dependent on me. If I did not feed him, he would starve. I provide his food, his water, and his litter box, and on top of that I am the one person he trusts to give him attention. After all, I lived with my parents for nearly a couple of years and their chance of petting him was a hit and a miss. Sometimes he did, but many times he would still run from them.

Psalm 104:27 says that all the animals look to God for food. These are the animals that can even hunt and don’t rely on humans at all. God is responsible for the environment they live in in which they find food. I do realize that there are questions about animals eating other animals, but that is for another post.

What can we learn? The animals are meant to teach us something about ourselves. Every time I feed Shiro and see him coming to me expectantly wondering when he gets to eat, I can think of how I approach God the same way. My own meals, even though I go buy them at a store normally, come from him as well. Do I give thanks accordingly or am I living with an idea of self-sufficiency?

Technically, I’m not that. No one is. Take the richest CEO you can out there. His money comes from somewhere still. For me, I have a part-time job at the seminary and I have an active Patreon for those who want to support me and this ministry. I’m thankful for all of them. I enjoy my job and new supporters are always a blessing and encouragement and motivate me to work harder here and give me more hope.

By the way, thankfulness is serious business. Romans 1 tells us one of the problems with sinful humanity is that they did not acknowledge God nor give thanks to Him. If we do not give thanks for small blessings anyway, why should we expect God to give us more?

Right now, I’m sure Shiro is at home and probably sleeping somewhere. He’ll be fine to see me when I get home, but will still sleep some more. Later in the day, he’ll be happy to get his food and be happy as well to have me pet him some. Will I show thankfulness to the one who provides for me as well?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: All One In Christ

What do I think of Edward Feser’s book published by Ignatius Press? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Edward Feser is one of my favorite writers and this time he has taken up his pen to deal with Critical Race Theory. This might be surprising for a philosopher to write about, but at the same time, a philosopher is quite good at pointing out all the problems in logic that proponents of CRT use. While Feser does write from a Catholic perspective on responding to racism and CRT from that position, Protestants and Orthodox will greatly benefit from this work as well.

Feser starts with defining his terms and making a defense of the value and uniqueness of every human being out there regardless of their race. He looks at the stance that the church has taken historically on issues in relation to race as well. This then builds up easily into looking at slavery which he does next.

In this section, he talks about the way the church handled slavery in the past and how they saw it as an evil. Does this mean that all Catholics everywhere lived this way? No. Does this mean the Church has always been innocent in everything? No. If there was a weakness overall here, I would like to have seen him critique writers like Hector Avalos who has pointed out statements that one could think lend to the idea of the church having problems with racist attitudes in the past.

From here, he critiques Critical Race Theory, CRT for short, and looks especially at writers like DiAngelo and Kendi. If you worry that you will not understand because you are not a philosopher and do not speak in these academic terms, don’t worry about that. Feser writes just for a layman here and when he talks about a logical fallacy, he not only explains what the fallacy is, but he also tells why it is a fallacy. This book is definitely friendly to the person who is a layman in the area.

He also looks at the sociological critiques of CRT and here he relies, rightly and heavily, on writers like Thomas Sowell. For instance, the huge overwhelming majority of human beings in prison in America are men. Since this is a disparity, does this mean that the justice department is sexist against men? Not at all. It just means more men commit these kinds of crimes.

He says that colonialism is wrong, but also that on the other hand, when many people came to colonize, they also brought with them technological advances that even after the colonials were gone, those who were left behind benefitted. He also shows that even when a people have been a minority in a population, they have often had a sizable influence on that population because they take their culture with them often. Germans, for example, wherever they go, they tend to make the best beer. In this, he also looks at immigration pointing out that a country should welcome immigrants, but also do so reasonably in a way they can provide for them and there is no evil in a country having a border and defending it.

Definitely worth pointing out is the damage fatherlessness has had. The black community has been hit hardest by this with the Asian community getting hit least of all. Fatherlessness damages a society which in turn damages an economy and all of this traces back to the sexual revolution, but obviously, one cannot speak against that!

Finally, he points out the damage that has been done by CRT. If anything, emphasizing race more actually makes race more of an issue and tends to lead to more racism. Morgan Freeman one time said one of the best treatments of racism would be to stop talking about it. I entirely concur.

Also, this book is short so you can read it easily, and you should. Go out and get this whether you are Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. You’ll be glad you did.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Words To The One Struggling With Porn

Is some of our advice just trite? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I saw him on a site I’m on making a post. He was scared he would be alone forever and sometimes gave in to the lust of the eyes. Is there any Scripture that can help when the temptation comes up?

The first thing I want to say here will sound shocking to some Christians, but that’s just that having a bunch of Bible verses will not work.  Am I denying power in Scripture? No, but I am saying that Scripture comes in as part of a worldview and needs to be understood from that worldview. This is why if you’re in a debate, just throwing out a Scripture won’t settle an issue the huge majority of the time because every Scripture is to be interpreted and will be in a context.

The view taken of Scripture that you just need verses is actually treating Scripture like it’s a magic book. If you just state the Scripture in temptation, it will dispel the temptation. If you use Scripture, you need to study the Scripture in-depth and have a whole theology worked out already. You need a worldview on how you see sex and marriage if you want to overcome pornography.

Second was someone who said that if you have Jesus, you’re never alone. I get what someone is saying when they say this and it’s meant to be encouraging, but it just doesn’t work. Even in the garden it was said it was not good for man to be alone, and this is when it was just Him and God. God made us for companionship. Even Jesus as He walked this Earth had friends with Him.

If you want to be married and love someone, then saying you have Jesus will not meet that desire. Of course, none of this is meant to down Jesus, but this is something we wouldn’t say in most any other circumstance. Just consider how it sounds in the following.

“Yes. I know you’ve been trying to have a child for a long time and it isn’t happening, but you do have Jesus.”

“Yes. I know that you don’t have money coming in and you have bills that you can’t pay, but you have Jesus.”

“Yes. I know that you’re hungry and you have nothing to eat, but you have Jesus.”

None of these meet the desires of the people involved. The intent I have no doubt is good to say this, but the receiving of it is quite painful to some people. Not only are the desires of their heart being pushed aside, but it can also tempt them to think that they’re ungrateful for what they do have.

So to get to some more practical suggestions, I encouraged this man to get some good software like Covenant Eyes or XXXChurch that can help block out pornography sites. Get some good friends that can hold him accountable and will do so. Get involved in a group like Celebrate Recovery. Get counseling.

I also pointed out that really, pornography does not make you a man, but if anything it makes you less than a man. After all, if you want to see a nude female body, before, you would need to go out and woo a woman and impress her. Even if it wasn’t all the way to marriage, it required some work and sacrifice and risk on your part. Today? Nah. Just make a few clicks on a computer or phone. You can get to see a woman, physically respond, and then feel like a man without any work required.

Unfortunately, the path of least resistance becomes the one we naturally take. Why do a risky thing when you can do a safe one? Another sad part also is that many guys who have done this wind up struggling with ED.

So what do you do? Get a few dating apps on your devices and work on meeting women. Go out to social events. I’m making it a point to go to them more often to get to meet people. That requires that I step out of my comfort zone, but it is worth it. Last night I went to a public event and I stayed long enough for the social gathering which involved sitting at tables having a meal, which for me on the spectrum is extremely unsettling for me, and yet I did it. I left after that because I needed to get a shower and fix dinner, but I did it.

Then, I told him to pray. We could pray for one another. Do I struggle with porn? By the grace of God, no, but I have my own struggles and I know that plenty of people do struggle with porn. They need to be shown love and at the same time guided to repentance.

Ultimately, as I said, one needs a worldview of sex and marriage. Then Scripture will be much more effective. It will fit into a whole worldview that you have already.

May God be with you if you struggle with porn and may you find repentance and deliverance.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge For Fun: Mollie McQueen Is Not Getting Divorced

What do I think of Lacey London’s book published by SSO Publishing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m looking through my emails with Kindle books on sale and I see this one with the book Mollie McQueen Is Not Getting Divorced and read the description about a lady who after another sexless night with her husband decides she’s 30 and wants to move on with her life so she’ll get a divorce and about how a journey starts from there. The price is free, so you can’t beat that, but I am a student at a seminary with books to read otherwise, even though I still do get in fun reading. Will I or won’t I?

Eventually, I decide I will and start to read a chapter a day. As I get into the book, I sometimes am tempted to break that rule. I want to go through more to find out what is going to happen in the story. I had bought the book originally to also see what a more secular perspective might have to say. There is nothing explicitly Christian in the book, but at the same time nothing explicitly non-Christian really, and the book is not filled with profanity and incessant dirty talk. Descriptions are rather tame.

Not only that, but I did wonder if there could be some secret Christianity in there due to one of the main good characters in the book who is a voice of wisdom being named Evangelina. That’s certainly not a common name to have. Something that makes me hesitant to say that is that the book is from a British author and I know that Christianity is a minority position there. Still, there are some devout Christians over there. (N.T. Wright anyone?)

Anyway, I don’t want to give spoilers since this is really a great book to read and part of a series. (Yes. I’ve already got the next one in the series.) However, as Mollie goes through her journey, she does start to learn a lot about marriage and much of the marriage advice in the book is incredibly solid.  This is a book that admits that marriage is hard and also that marriage is worth it. It also does what it can to dispel the idea that marriage can be absolutely perfect as all marriages have flaws.

What is most helpful is as Mollie goes through her journey, she had originally started complaining about her husband Max and all the things that he needed to change. As she goes through her life and her path to divorce, she comes to realize that she’s quite the guilty party as well. She starts actually learning to see things from Max’s perspective and how to better communicate with him.

I wound up actually telling my therapist that I’m reading this book and sent a link to him as he is helping me work through and process my own divorce. It’s the kind of book that if I was doing marriage counseling or even pre-marital counseling for a couple, I could have them read this book and see what they think about it. There’s good advice and Mollie is a very engaging character and not only that, it’s just fun.

If you want to get the book, you can do so here. On Kindle, it looks like at this moment, the first one is still free.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

What is a bigot?

What does it mean if someone is called a bigot? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

According to dictionary.com, the following is what is meant by a bigot.

A bigot is “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”

Nowadays, a bigot is seen more often as anyone who disagrees with a belief or doesn’t accept it. The irony is that so many people who are using this term are the ones who are the bigots themselves. Someone who is a bigot is so utterly intolerant that they are not open to changing their mind.

There are some beliefs in my life I would say I do not think I could possibly be wrong on and this even if I have no easy way of verification. I consider it absolutely certain that my parents are my biological parents. I have never done a test and I have never had to. I have accepted their word and lifestyle and the surrounding testimony of the community I grew up in. It’s possible everyone around me is involved in a massive conspiracy, but this is not likely and not something worth considering.

That being said, if you wanted to offer evidence to the contrary, I would be open to it. I would be skeptical, but I have no reason to not listen at all. Note that that is something important. I would be very unlikely to change my mind, but if the evidence was good enough, I would.

I get concerned when I meet people who say that they are Christian and that they will never change their mind. Now I certainly hope that they don’t, but I don’t want you to be in it in such a way that if there was ever given absolutely evidence to the contrary that you would still say, “Nope. Not changing my mind.” As a devout Christian, I have no real concerns I will ever find such evidence, but I also know that I don’t know everything.

If that seems problematic to you, keep in mind that if you do evangelism, you are asking people to do just that. You are asking them to change their mind and whole worldview entirely based on the evidence that you present to them. Why should they need to be open but you don’t? Because your belief is true?  They think the exact same thing about their belief.

In debates today, such as issues like homosexuality and abortion, many who are more conservative are often called bigots. The idea implicitly is that this is a done debate and there’s really no need to listen to the other side. If that is what you think, then that is actually being utterly intolerant of a creed different from yours which makes you the bigot in that case.

Yesterday, I wrote about charges like homophobia. What was rightly said in a comment on my Facebook is that this is a way of just shutting down debate. That’s entirely correct. The problem is that means that you really don’t care to know if you’re wrong on an issue if you go that route. Now I have no problem if you think it’s highly unlikely that you are wrong. All that’s recommended is to listen to the other side.

If someone opposes XYZ, it’s good to always ask why they oppose it. It’s easy to say something like “Republicans just want to see poor people die!” or “Democrats just only want to spread sinfulness!” Now both of those could be true, but you don’t know someone’s reason for opposing something until you ask them. I saw someone share something today about Republicans voting against a certain act. I wanted to look and see why they did so and find it in their own words. Too many articles I wrote were on the other side saying “Republicans hate XYZ!” I kept looking and found reasons that on the surface at least left me thinking, “That makes sense.” If I wanted to argue they were right, I would want to look more, but I at least decided I should see what was said first.

Ultimately, if you think it highly unlike you are wrong, that’s one thing, and that’s fine, but still listen to see what your opponent has to say and if it’s something new and you consider it important to your thinking, look into it. If you are convinced that you cannot possibly be wrong, then you are just a dogmatist and essentially you’re holding to a religious creed of sorts. If I meet someone who does not think they can be wrong in anything, I wonder why I should think they are right in anything. Ironically, as was said about, such a person is truly a bigot.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

On Charges Like Homophobia

Does it really make a difference to say such claims? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I wrote about the failure of the movie Bros. One claim brought up by Billy Eichner who was behind the movie was that it failed because of homophobia. I could talk about just that claim today, but there are plenty of others.

Let’s go back in time and consider Hillary Clinton’s “Basket of Deplorables” quote. She had said that half of Trump supporters could be placed in this basket. How did she describe these people? “They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.”

The sad thing is sometimes, techniques like this work. People get scared because they don’t want to be labeled this way and seen this way. Nowadays, the same people that used to tell us about how totes awesome tolerance was, are the ones that will go scouring through someone’s Twitter history and seeing if just one time a decade ago they said something mildly offensive to ruin their lives.

For my part, when I hear the claim about racism, sexism, or even a counterpart such as white supremacist, I tend to disregard it immediately. Why? Because I have heard it so many times that I just can’t take it seriously. It has become a story of the boy who cried wolf.

Homophobia is a particularly odd one to me. Consider if I came up to you and said “So have you given any thought lately to having sex with your mother?” Now if you act repulsed at that, could I go and say “Oh! You must be an incestophobe!” (My spell check is saying that word is not real, but give it time.) Are we going to move soon from an age where we talk more about pedophobes than we do about pedophiles? (The former is a word that doesn’t exist yet in spell check, but I suspect it could be there within a decade.)

If anything, consider that you are accusing someone of having a phobia, which is a mental condition, and your reply is to make fun of them for it? Phobias are incredibly serious things when they are real that can severely limit someone’s life. Somehow, many more often on the left have chosen to use this term regularly.

Tolerance is no longer totes awesome.

Disagreement with a position doesn’t mean that you are afraid of it, unless we want to say every non-Christian is a Christophobe. If anything, you could have a positive attitude towards something and still choose to avoid it. Consider someone who is recovering from addiction. You can find plenty of people in an Alcoholics Anonymous group who somewhere would likely still love to have alcohol. They’re not alcoholphobes either. They just know it’s not good for them and they have to avoid it because the effects of it on them are not good.

Right now, looking at racism, I live in a city where it is very much a melting pot of various cultures. At many of the businesses around here, I am a minority. Does this cause me any trouble? Nope. I’m still a Christian and everyone around me is still in the image of God.

Another problem with the approach of crying something like racism or homophobe is that it really doesn’t require you actually listen to the other person. If you did not, for example, want Obama to be president, it is possible it could be because you are a racist, but it could also be because of other reasons, such as you didn’t like his policies and approach.

If someone is called a homophobe, it could be they find homosexuality disgusting, but it could also be that they have a view of the family that doesn’t allow for that. They think, and I agree, that a man-woman monogamous unit is the foundation of a society and raising up the next generation. Now someone like myself could be wrong on that, but just throwing out homophobe doesn’t allow us to even discuss the issue.

Every time something like this is said, what is no longer being discussed is the issue, but rather the person. For someone who receives this charge, defending yourself is not really the way to go, at least primarily. That distracts from the issue. What really needs to be discussed is the belief in question.

So for those of us who have heard this, the ideal goal is really to just not pay attention to this unless there’s serious evidence behind it. For those who do use this kind of claim, really try something better. You might be further convincing the choir, but you really just cause the rest of us to roll our eyes and not take you seriously.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Failure of Bros

Is this due to “homophobia”? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’ve seen on YouTube today a lot of talk about the failure of a movie called Bros. If you haven’t heard of this movie, it’s supposed to be a romantic comedy, but the lovers in this are a pair of men. This was the first of its kind and its fail was tremendous.

Billy Eichner, who is behind the movie, has sadly taken the lower path in handling this. Instead of looking at himself and looking at his movie and seeing why it is no one went to see it, he is instead blaming the audience. Why did it fail? It is because YOU must be a homophobe.

However, if that is the case, then even assuming everyone who saw the movie in America is gay, a lot of them even didn’t see it, so does that mean someone in the homosexual community is a homophobe? Eichner has also been on Twitter sending out regular tweets about this. Little tip here. If you want your audience to listen to you, it’s probably not a good idea to call them homophobes and anything else at the same time.

Well here are a lot of reasons most people didn’t go see this movie.

First, romcoms are normally meant for women. For the most part, men do not go to see romcoms unless their girlfriends or wives insist on it. Men would rather see an action flick of some kind. They want to see some fights, car chases, shootings, and something getting blown up. If they do go see a romcom, they want to at least see a beautiful woman in that movie.

A gay romcom has neither. No straight guy I know of wants to see two dudes getting it on together. Add in there are supposedly multiple orgies in this and we’re even less interested.

While men will go see action flicks wanting to be the man in the films, women go see romcoms because for the most part, they want to be romanced. They like the love story and it’s their kind of fairy tale. They are not interested in seeing two dudes either.

If you’re wanting men to go see your film, don’t make it a romcom.

Second, people don’t want to see something if they think they’re being preached to. Most people do not go to church for entertainment value and there’s a reason we’ve called a long message we don’t want to hear a sermon. There’s a reason we refer to a negative onslaught of what we ought to do as preaching. When people see a system they don’t want regularly put in their face, they lose interest. It’s the whole “Go woke, go broke.”

Consider how it is in superhero comics. Most people I know wouldn’t really care too much if someone wanted to make a gay superhero. What they don’t want is to take a traditional superhero who has never shown any inkling of being gay and then turning them gay to appeal to diversity. People go to comics for entertainment. They don’t go for politics.

Third, yes, a lot of people don’t agree with homosexuality, including myself, but it doesn’t do anything to call us all homophobes any more than calling non-Christians Christophobes is going to get them to repent or seriously examine Christianity. Instead of having any debate on the topic, instead, it is easier to just shout an insult at someone. It doesn’t help your side any.

That means when we go see a movie, we don’t want to see an orgy with a bunch of guys in it. That might appeal to the homosexual community, but not to heterosexual community. We also don’t care for a movie that tells us that we had a good run. You don’t tell us our time is done and then respond negatively when we choose to not show interest in you.

Ultimately, if people don’t like your work, no matter how passionate you are about it, you need to look to yourself. You will never have something that pleases everyone, but I have to do the same thing here. If people aren’t interacting with my content or taking it seriously, I have to look at myself mostly. Now there’s no harm in looking at my audience and asking what they want. I wrote about divorce for quite awhile, for instance, because I saw views were up on my blog when I did that. Give the people what they want.

If someone isn’t interested in my content, I can ask what I can do to make it interesting to them. I could look at my writing style or website presentation or anything else. The first place to start if someone doesn’t like my work is always with me. It is not with the audience.

So Billy, take a look at yourself. How passionate you are about the work doesn’t matter a bit. I can be super-passionate about selling overcoats, but it won’t work if I’m talking to people in the Middle East most likely. I can be super passionate about pork products, but it won’t work with Muslims or Orthodox Jews. Passion doesn’t equal success. Having a good product or service and then knowing your audience well and what they want does.

We just don’t want Bros. Time to accept that and move on.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)