Magic always comes with a price

And the chaser:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

When weight lifting, power is not gained without a sacrifice. One does not get stronger unless one applies greater stress than the muscles can currently sustain, give those muscles time to heal, and then repeat the process yet again. And again. And again. No pain, no gain, as the old phrase goes, right?

In the TV fantasy drama "Once Upon a Time", the character Rumpelstiltskin was frequently bargaining with the other characters, the title of this post being a common phrase he cited frequently. The other major characters, seeking to change their fates, would often be tempted to use magic, and had to be reminded that such power always came at a price.

In the Japanese "Fullmetal Alchemist" stories, the principal "magic" is called "alchemy", and it works on the principle of "equivalent exchange". To "transmute" something that is into something it is not, a price must be paid, and so certain types of alchemy are forbidden because the costs are simply too great.

The prices we pay to make changes in the world are viewed as negatives by those who do not wish to pay them.

The prices we pay to make changes in the world are the foundation for perspective of those who do.

So many times in fictional stories do we see the characters try to have their cake and eat it too. To defeat the bad guys without violating their own principles. To win the heart of the fair maiden through acts of noble chivalry. To beat the other team through dedication and hard work.

Except that we have a lot of people who don't have perspective, who did not suffer the requisite pain, who did not pay the price, and they believe that because nobody has come to collect by now, that nobody is going to at all. Generations in on these arrogant bargains, whilst the devils we made them with watch the interest rise on such unpaid debts, they're in no rush to collect anytime soon.

These viewpoints are ultimately childish in nature, reflecting a severe immaturity and stagnation of understanding the reality we live in. A world which does not care for us, whether we live or die, whether we are happy or sad, there is but a cold indifference as entropy continues to undo all that is.

IVF has a price.
Contraception has a price.
Abortion has a price.
Divorce has a price.
Denial of genetics has a price.
Gluttony has a price.
Fornication has a price.
"Diversity" has a price.
Indoor plumbing has a price.

Each aspect of "advanced civilization" that materially separates us from the animals of the field comes at a price, and in our arrogance, we have made terrible deals and taunted fate to "do its worst". The only path forward is to pay the bill, or to make the debt disappear by eliminating the one who would seek to be repaid.

Any wonder why there is so much hatred for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? The one who judged the world, and then passed that role of judgment on to Jesus Christ? Ever wonder how atheists and agnostics are never triggered by any faith the way they are by Christianity?

They see the writing on the wall, the debt that they owe God for their rebellion, but believe that if they can eliminate their debts in this life, perhaps they can also find a way to do the same for the next. When Christians preach the Gospel and repentance, they remind everyone that there is only one way such debts can ever be repaid or eliminated. If such a thing is true, they are damned, and so they cling to the hope that Christians are wrong, and are driven passionately to show that there is nothing special, unique, or important about Christianity.

Jesus Christ paid the price so that sinners could be reconciled to God the Father, so that humanity could return to its place and purpose of bringing glory and honor to God through obedience and worship.

Unfortunately, many will arrogantly choose to bear their own burdens, even unto eternal damnation, rather then worship any but themselves and their own power, their own intellect, their own abilities and traits. Do not leave this life guilty of debts that cannot be repaid.

There are no innocents in hell.

Perfect is the enemy of good

I once got into an argument with a friend over the most perfect representation of a circle that we could manifest, because I argued the definition of a circle can't literally be manifested, in that whatever we try to display as a perfect circle is going to be made up of particles which do not perfectly conform to the definition of a circle in their arrangement.

The "point" was that we can still get "close enough" that the differences don't matter, unless the "point" is talking about whether perfection can exist or be manifested in our container of reality.

It's the same with Bible translations to English. The Bible wasn't originally written in English, and so part of the reason there are many different translations is that each translation is trying to address something that the translators thought was missed or reflected inaccurately in some other translation.

Folks also point to the numerous denominations and sects of Christianity, and try to argue that since there are so many, then something must be wrong, because if things were correct in the first place, there'd be no need to have such divisions and distinctions.

But for the same reason that we can't actually create a perfect circle, no human organization meant to bring glory and honor to God out of gratitude and obedience is going to be perfect. And before any Orthodox try to get a word in edgewise, the only way this dynamic does not apply is if those who are part of the church are no longer human, or at least, no longer possess their flesh.

These various examples are all related to the concept of perfection, and how sometimes we are willing to admit that it's logically coherent but not actually "real", and other times we'll act as if anything but perfection is simply unacceptable.

All of these topics revolve around whether perfection is possible, and unfortunately there isn't a lot of agreement on this, in large part because there's really only three options:

1) Nothing can perfect
2) Something can be perfect
3) Everything can be perfect

Basic Christian teaching is aligned with #2. Jesus Christ lived a perfect and sinless life, but the rest of us have all sinned and fallen short. Even in salvation, we are not made perfect in and of ourselves. Christianity rejects #1 because that would undermine the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Christianity also rejects #3 because there are some who are damned to eternity, or simply destroyed, depending on who you talk to.

The problem then with #2 is that people try to put forth whatever they've got as being "more perfect", and that said perfection is supposed to be significant. Rarely does it occur to such people that the scribes and Pharisees which Jesus spoke most contentiously about had that exact same mentality.

The "problem" with such behavior is evidences through a weight lifting analogy. I know that I cannot bench press 1000lbs. Even if I trained really hard, I could not achieve that, for various reasons. That does not mean that if I currently bench only 100lbs, I should not try to bench more, it's just that "more" is calibrated.

Likewise, we should seek out continuous refinement through sanctification, but we will not achieve perfection in this lifetime. That we don't achieve perfection does not make the journey pointless, but it does mean that trying to compare just how unfinished one person is to another isn't all that helpful.

To cite a few passages:

Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. - Matthew 13:3-8 (NKJV)

Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice. - Philippians 1:15-18 (NKJV)

“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance. - Luke 15:4-7 (NKJV)

We are to try, and that we will not achieve perfection is not a reason to not try, and we are even empowered by God to walk in obedience and to be refined over time.

Do not focus on the distinctive, the things we know are going to be wrong or incomplete or incorrect, because we're dealing with humans, and humans are imperfect.

This does not mean calling a square a circle, but it does mean that if we end up with an ellipse or a poorly rendered raster graphic, that we do not take up arms to "Burn the heretic, kill the mutant, purge the unclean."

Have grace and good will towards those who preach the Gospel, who guide people towards repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ, even if imperfectly. God cares more about the people they seek to reach than the rituals and traditions of those who are already saved.

Conspiracy theory

I love that video, because it encapsulates the reason the "for or against" dynamic is so infuriating, especially when there is a false dichotomy and both "sides" only exist to distract people from what's really going on.

An example of this is "neo-conservative" media.

A controlled opposition of sorts, they're fond of playing to a false dichotomy to try and corral people into one of two positions on a topic that creates a win-win scenario for the manipulators, while often destroying the very people that think they're just aligning with "their side".

Free Trade is one topic where, for the longest time, many believed that it was a necessary component for international trade, for the economic health of a nation in dealing with other nations. The logic was at least superficially sound, but more and more voices are starting to question the "acceptable narrative" that was supposed to exist on "the right", and not for the same reasons or with the same reactions as those on "the left".

Another example of this phenomenon is with conspiracy theorists.

So certain are they of the particular arrangement of actual events according to what they understand, that when folks express doubt or criticism as to the foundational claims for their theory, the usual response is defensive, to presume that such overtly hostile agents are clearly working for the "other side", and that only ideological lockstep with their position is necessary to show that you aren't. The terms are polarizing and force a binary, a false dichotomy, and just like with "Free Trade", the truth and reality of the circumstances doesn't tend to fall into one of the formerly defined "sides".

Such "for me or against me" arguments work, at least for a time, while the conversation can be kept going. In the heat of emotion, it can be easy to sustain the most ridiculous positions on a topic, because we're being driven by emotion and ego, instead of rationality and logic.

While it can happen to anyone, how do we reduce the probability that we'll slip up like this?

Public school systems do not teach critical thinking. Critical thinking strives for objective analysis in order to make a judgment. Objectivity is a concept which has been under assault for more than a century by postmodern philosophy. This has led to an intellectual stagnation, if not degradation, where criticism and questioning is not interpreted as being part of the process to discover truth, but is treated as if it is a distraction from truth.

That is not objective analysis.

When folks are convinced that they have all the truth necessary to draw the line in the sand, and that folks who are detracting from the position they've taken are "the enemy", when it may very well be that the criticism and input from such parties can actually strengthen the existing position by them contributing truth that they had discovered into the process, they're denying that there is any further objective analysis required.

On that thought process, all truth has been discovered, period, end of discussion.

This process, of putting forth a hypothesis, gathering data, and then seeing where the data affirms or denies the claims of the hypothesis, is how Western Civilization grew to the place of prominence that it did, because the objectivity required prevented personal pride from getting in the way of truth.

We always find that, once we understand something, more questions arise, every single time. We have never gotten to "the end" of knowledge.

When we adhere to truth, when we genuinely understand and know what we're talking about, we then don't have to be afraid of new data. We don't need to be afraid of "new" truth being discovered, because what is found that we didn't know about won't contradict what we've already discovered to be true.

By the nature of reality, we can't have simultaneous and yet mutually exclusive truths.

There can't be a married bachelor. We can't count the corners of a circle.

So if a claim comes along which seems to undermine a formerly understood truth, this shouldn't scare us, unless the "truth" we discovered before was not the totality of the phenomenon that we were analyzing. In that case, the truth that comes along will still be able to account for our previous position and understandings, to explain how they really functioned, in addition to expanding that understanding to account for what had previously been missed or not seen.

It's a process that's occurred time and time again, why do we think it would stop now?

This type of information should be welcomed, because it would enhance our ability to really understand what is going on, instead of getting defensive and trying to argue that an incomplete view of truth is really "all we need". Claims should withstand scrutiny, and when people are averse to any sort of feedback, it speaks to an inherent weakness in understanding how understanding is built.

Sure, there are folks who will seek to exploit this to their favor, to poison the well or to mislead or misdirect or to try and derail the entire process. But these people are easy to spot, if you're being objective, because their aim is not to grow an existing body of knowledge, but to tear it down, or to try and place themselves in the center of truth, as a mouthpiece for truth.

We need to be able to determine what type of response is appropriate and then act, instead of just relying on instinct. This is referred to as an "OODA" loop, Observe Orient Decide Act. We need to be better about making the right choice, not just making one at all, if we want victory. We can't just be predictable puppets, led astray by our predictability, we need to be able to determine the right course of action and then act quickly and decisively, whatever that ends up being, not falling into the intellectual traps that have been set for us.

Don't get caught up reacting to what someone else says you need to react to. Don't let them define the terms for action, or inaction. You need to understand the scope of options available to you and why you'd pick one over another, and when you pick one, know that as soon as you've acted on a choice that the circumstances have changed and the OODA loop process starts all over again.

It's tempting to fall into a pattern of "for me or against", not because it's wrong, but because it is easy, and pursuing the easy path is what got us to where we are in the first place.

We can't break a cycle by repeating it. We can't move on if we're just doing the same thing we did before with new labels, a new lexicon, but the same delusions and ignorance as before.