Category Archives: Transhuman News

What do theistic evolution,1 transhumanism,2 Neo-Marxism,3 New Ageism,4 and the prosperity gospel have in commonand what do these common factors have to do with the idea that humans are co-creators with God? The answers run deeper than we might expect. For starters, all these beliefs involve elements that contradict biblical doctrines.5 So they all bear a telltale hallmark of false teachings: the lie, first suggested by the serpent in Genesis 3:1, that Gods Word is not completely true. To different extents, some of these beliefs also share another trademark of many false teachingsa version of the serpents lie that you will be like God (Genesis 3:5).

One way these lies may surface is through the claim that humans are co-creators with God. What does this teaching entail? As we investigate the answer, well encounter multiple names of professing believers. The point is not to critique these individuals personally, but to evaluate their teachings in light of Scripture, as New Testament writers did when naming specific teachers.6 With this caveat in mind, lets look closer at what the co-creator concept means, where it originates, and what kinds of fruit it bears in connection with popular false teachings.7

At its core, the created co-creator concept claims that, as creative beings fashioned in our Creators image, humans are meant to join God in further creating reality. A recent article promoting this concept notes, Scholars have interpreted this [created co-creator] model in different ways, based on the nature of human creative action. This action is seen as either subordinate to divine creation action or the human creative action is truly cooperative with divine creative action8 (emphasis added).

The latter view that humans are co-creators and not just sub-creators9 appears throughout writings by Philip Hefner, a professing Lutheran theologian and seminary professor who introduced the created co-creator concept in his 1993 book, The Human Factor.10 In this book, Hefner taught that God used evolution to create humans as beings who have freedom to further co-create reality in line with Gods purposes. 11 In Hefners words, liberating the process of evolution towards Gods ends becomes the God-given destiny of human beings.12 So, humans job as created co-creators is, in Hefners view, to direct evolution to reach new levels.

How popular has the created co-creator concept become? A quick internet search reveals the ideas significance, with references to humans as co-creators appearing on major Christian websites, in teachings by influential church leaders,13 and in online sermon resources. The term created co-creator also generates hundreds of search results across scholarly articles,14 showing that Hefners phrase circulates in academic as well as popular spheres. Hefner himself has exerted significant academic influence, working 19 years as editor-in-chief of the Zygon Journal of Religion and Sciences,15 serving as the first Director of the Zygon Center for Religion and Science at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago,16 and continuing to be cited by theologians who support using technology to advance human evolution.17

Nor are messages echoing Hefners ideas limited to Protestant circles. Not only has Pope Francis referred to parents as people who participate in the creative power of God himself18 by reproducing offspring,19 but he elsewhere wrote,

Previously, Pope John Paul II also declared,

Clearly, the created co-creator concept is too influential to ignore. Christians must apply biblical critical thinking to this idea, as to any new message. And that begins with checking the message against Gods Word.

Importantly, Scripture nowhere suggests that humans are Gods co-creators. Advocates for the co-creator concept generally cite the Genesis 1:2627 doctrines that (1) God made humans in his image, (2) God gave humans dominion over the earth, and (3) God mandated humans to be fruitful and multiply. But a closer look reveals that none of these doctrines truly support the created co-creator concept.

Acknowledging these points does not mean denying that humans are creative as image-bearers, evident in how we use creations resources to make thingsfrom music and murals to skyscrapers and spacecraftsin ways that animals certainly do not. But, as some advocates for the created co-creator concept readily note, we cannot create the way God does.26 We can only manipulate materials God has already created. (In response, some may suggest that humans who invent new names, words, or sentences are creating ex nihilo.27 However, using our preexisting, God-given faculties for thinking, language, and communication to invent new patterns of symbolic, immaterial information drastically differs from speaking new material realities into existence.)

The Bible consistently reflects this truth that humans play no truly cooperative role as creators with God. For instance, one scholar observed that the Hebrew word for create (, br') appears almost 50 times in Scriptures references to God, but only 4 timesnone of which involve literal creative actsin reference to humans.28 Psalm 100:3 (NKJV) further emphasizes that humans are not creators in Gods sense, declaring, It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves. The verb tense of has made reiterates that God completed creation,29 as the language in Genesis 2:13 repeatedly underscores.

Importantly, completing creation in no way implies that God withdrew from creation.30 God does sustain and direct ongoing processes within his finished creation (like those involved in Gods fashioning specific sunrises or individual babies).31 God does presumably create new materials when performing certain miracles.32 And God will one day create a new heaven and new earth.33 But the Bible remains clear that the worlds creation is not ongoing in the evolutionary sense that co-creation advocates suggest. Ultimately, the view that humans are created co-creators does not come from Gods Word.

So, where does the concept originate? Before answering, a quick caveat is in order: to say a message is false simply because of its origins would be a logical mistake called a genetic fallacy. However, weve already seen the co-creator concept is false because it does not align with Gods Word.34 Investigating the concepts origins will not change its (lack of) truthfulness, but it will reveal how gravely misleading the concept becomes and how it interweaves with other false teachings. With that in mind, lets look closer at the book which popularized the created co-creator concept.35

In The Human Factor, Hefner began with a commitment, not to Gods Word, but to human interpretations of science. He wrote, The program represented in this book accepts that theology as explanation is dead unless it learns to integrate within itself elements of scientific understandings that undergird explanation for our time in history.36

Because observational science does not conflict with Scripture, the scientific understandings which Hefner wants theology to conform with are not scientific facts, but human interpretations of facts based on evolutionary and long-age assumptions. Correspondingly, evolution is Hefners starting point, not only for interpreting major topics such as humanity,37 morality,38 technology,39 and religion,40 but also for reinterpreting biblical doctrines including Gods image,41 original sin,42 the nature of Jesus,43 the cross, atonement, salvation, redemption, justification,44 and grace.45

Before briefly surveying some of these revisions, we need to remember what Gods Word teaches. Scripture plainly reveals that God created humans in his image as distinct from animals46 and called his completed creation very good (Genesis 1:31). Adam, the first human, committed the original sin by rebelling against Gods commands, bringing physical death into creation and spiritual death to all humanity. Only Jesus, as God in human flesh, could graciously atone for sin by dying a physical death on behalf of all humans who place their faith in him. Jesus death and resurrection opened the way for creations original perfection to be restored in the new heaven and earth God will make, where death and suffering will be abolished (Revelation 21:14).

In contrast, The Human Factor teaches that death and suffering were necessary parts of an evolutionary process God used to produce humans.47 Because evolutionary origins would make humans continuous with nature, Hefner argues that Gods image applies not only to humans, but also to the entire natural world.48 Having rejected belief in a literal Adam,49 Hefner also rejects belief in literal original sin. Instead, he deems original sin a sensation of guiltiness that humans experience when the evolutionary instincts hardwired into our genes conflict with the demands of life in civilized culture.50

Humans, according to this view, do not need grace for having sinned against God. Instead, Hefner reinterprets grace as Gods acceptance of human initiatives to advance evolution, even when those initiatives seem to fail.51 These evolutionary reinterpretations mean that Jesus did not have to literally come as God in human fleshan idea Hefner calls egregious52to die for humanitys sin debt.53 Instead, Hefner essentially teaches that Jesus died to show how humans can use altruism to advance evolution.54 Hefner summarized,

Clearly, these statements are completely different from, contradictory to, and incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ explicated in Gods Word. Therefore, they qualify as heresya term not to be used lightly. Why would a prominent seminary professor teach such a view, especially in a book released by the official publishing house of a major American Protestant denomination? The sentences which immediately follow the above quote suggest the answer: to be consonant with evolutionary modes of thought.56

These evolution-based heresies are not just a sidebar to the created co-creator concept. Hefner opened his chapter section on Revising Christological Doctrines by stating, This section is the heart of the actual content of the program for the created co-creator. The paradigm set by Jesus, as mythically, ritually, socially, and psychologically sketched here, is proposed as the Christian vision for the created co-creator, the human purpose.57

In other words, Hefners ideas about the goals that humans are meant to accomplish through co-creating rest in the reinterpretations of Jesus quoted above. And these reinterpretations, if accepted, undercut peoples ability to comprehend a saving relationship with Jesus. Hefner acknowledged this consequence, asking, What is the precise relationship between individuals and Jesus? How does one appropriate unto oneself the Jesus paradigm? These are among the many unanswered questions we leave.58

Already, the created co-creator concept stands out as a case study of how attempts to blend Christianity with evolutionary origins stories lead to beliefs that are inconsistent with Scriptureeven to the point of being explicitly heretical. Further illustrating this pattern, Calvin Smith has documented similar evolution-inspired heresies in the theistic evolutionist organization BioLogos.59

Incidentally, BioLogos website includes an article with an author bio advertising that the writer (who elsewhere advocates for Hefners created co-creator concept60) has coauthored a book with Hefner,61 although this does not guarantee BioLogos endorses Hefners ideas. Further overlap, however, is evident in that BioLogos current program manager was deeply involved in the Zygon Center for Religion and Science while attending the seminary where Hefner remains listed as professor emeritus.62

While these connections may be merely circumstantial, a more direct link between BioLogos and co-creator teachings involves Ted Peters, an ardent popularizer of Hefners created co-creator concept and a proponent (as well see below) of certain New Age elements. Peters rallied the created co-creator concept in his book Playing God63 to argue that human germline editing could be considered part of Gods creating the world through human technology.64 Strikingly, the foreword for Playing God was written by Francis Collins, former director of the National Institute of Health and founder of BioLogos. A lengthy BioLogos article also celebrates Peters directly.65

While such connections do not mean BioLogos supports everything Peters or Hefner have written, these areas of overlap reflect the reality that the created co-creator concept rests in a theistic evolutionary view and engenders similarly unorthodox revisions of Scripture.

The created co-creator concept illustrates connections not only between evolution and gospel revisions, but also between evolution and Marxisma link which other resources have documented in depth.

As a reminder of what Marxism entails, Karl Marx viewed history as a story of conflict between oppressed and oppressing classes, represented by exploited workers and wealthy business owners.66 Marx believed such oppression alienated (cut off) humanity from reaching its full potential.67 According to Marx, workers could liberate society by revolting against their oppressorsredeeming humanity from its brokenness and enabling a communist heaven on earth, absent oppression.68

This process would supposedly make humans free to further create themselves by working toward their visions for what the world should become. Echoing these ideas, Marx commented that the entire history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labor,69 and believed that communism would achieve the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) beinga return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development.70

The Marxian aspiration of humans creating themselves (via sociohistorical conditions) by working toward an ultimate vision of utopia significantly overlaps with the view that humans must co-create themselves by working toward an ultimate vision of eschatology. One of the main differences is that the former view is founded on atheistic evolution, and the latter on theistic evolution. In both cases, humans are called to embrace an active role of becoming. As Peters wrote in Playing God, The concept of the human being with which we are working here is not a static one. The definition is not fixed. Rather, we are on the way: we are becoming human.71

Peters asserted that, while the process of becoming human will only be completed at the final resurrection,72 humans meanwhile play a co-creative role in modeling the current world after that future vision. In Peters words, Living today out of a vision of Gods future creates a sense of maladjustment to the present. This maladjustment leads to a proleptic form of ethicsthat is, taking creative and transformative action in the present stimulated by our vision of the future.73

Peters supports such views of human becoming by citing Karl Rahner,74 who helped influence the liberation theology movement.75 Liberation theology relies on Neo-Marxian critical theories, which revise Marxs beliefs about oppression between economic groups to interpret society as being structured around oppression between cultural groups.76 Recently, Peters has also applied such critical theories in an argument that reinterprets Jesus death, claiming (contrary to core biblical doctrines77) that sacrifice does not literally atone for sin.78

Positive citations of other theologians informed by these theories pepper both Playing God79 and The Human Factor.80 In fact, Hefner explicitly states that his views in The Human Factor were influenced by what he called critical thinking,81 which he defined a page earlier in terms of critical theories.82 Hefner linked critical theories directly to the co-creator concept, stating,

Basically, this quote is getting at the idea that, like liberation theologians say Christians must put Marxian-informed conflict theory into practice by working toward liberating oppressed classes, Christians must put the co-creator concept into practice by working toward liberating the process of evolution towards Gods ends.84 Such parallels between the co-creator concept and Marxism do not mean the co-creator concept is Marxism or that all its advocates are Marxists. But the concept is largely consistent with certain Marxist themes and was directly influenced by Neo-Marxian thinking.

Both the co-creator concept and Marxism share further significant overlap with another evolution-based belief system: transhumanism.85 As a movement which claims that humans should apply technology to achieve higher levels of human evolution, transhumanism strongly resembles a secular version of the created co-creator concept. Transhumanism, like Marxism, promises redemption through human efforts, insisting that working toward a utopian vision of the future can free humanity from its core grievances.86

Thinkers who seek to blend transhumanism with Christianity often cite Hefners created co-creator concept, claiming that God intends for us to play a creative role in evolving humanity to reach its full potential.87 Such claims fit well with teachings in The Human Factor, which stated, Through the action of its culture, therefore, the human being represents a proposal for the further evolution of the created world. Humans have the potential to actualize a radically new phase of evolution.88

Ultimately, while not every advocate for the co-creator concept supports full-fledged transhumanism,89 the co-creator concept is remarkably consistent with transhumanism and supplies a foundational argument for pro-transhuman theologians.

Strikingly, one of the earliest thinkers recognized for pioneering transhumanist ideas was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (18811955),90 a Jesuit priest, paleontologist, and influential forerunner of the New Age movement.91 As a committed evolutionist, Teilhard de Chardin taught that evolution would, through a process he called planetization,92 propel humanity to an Omega Point of achieving Godlike consciousness.93,94 Hefner not only speaks of having been influenced by Teilhard de Chardin,95 but also reports that he based his biblical interpretive framework on the beliefs of a dedicated Chardinian, N. Max Wilders.96

Peters too has promoted a Chardin-influenced view of an Omega Point,97 and has contributed an article to the website of the Chardinian organization, the Center for Christogenesis.98 Given Peters interest in Teilhard de Chardin, and Teilhard de Chardins influence on the New Age, it may be no shock that Peters has written a book whichdespite advocating for Christian discernmentconcludes, modest dabbling in new age spirituality is probably harmless; it may even be helpful99 (emphasis in original). Adding that the new age vision is a noble and edifying one, Peters praises the movements future-oriented goals as providing the driving power to seek growth, evolution and transformation.100

We see these themes of New Ageism and co-creation united again in the writings of Matthew Fox, a former Dominican priest who became an Episcopal minister after being expelled by the Vatican.101 Fox described humans as co-creators in an ever-unfolding creation in his 1991 book, Creation Spirituality.102 Neo-Marxist undercurrents flow throughout this book as well, as Fox calls his teachings a liberation theology for First World peoples,103 and asserts that creation spirituality empowers marginalized groups to be co-creators of a new historical vision.104 Echoing the serpents lie in Genesis 3:5, Fox also promotes the explicitly New Age teaching that humans can be like God. He wrote, The divinity in us breaks through not only as creators and co-creators but especially as prophets who interfere with injustice while proclaiming freedom for the downtrodden.105

Further confirming the New Age nature of co-creation ideas, former New Age teacher Doreen Virtue wrote that a turning point in her conversion to Christianity was realizing that Scripture teaches we are not co-creators with God. She wrote in her autobiography, For four chapters [in the book of Job], God outlines everything He can do that we cant do. In the most beautifully therapeutic way, reading these chapters burst my illusion that I was a co-creator with God, a common phrase in the New Age106 (emphasis added).

In the same book, Virtue references the overlap between New Age-type movements and forms of prosperity gospel teachings.107 According to these teachings, humans are godlike beings who can call desired statesnamely, healthiness and wealthinessinto existence on our own initiative because God made humans in his image and dwells within believers.108 As Justin Peters has documented, The origins of the prosperity gospel can be traced back directly to the metaphysical cults, like Christian Science, New Age, New Thought, [and] Gnosticism.109 Notably, a post on an official social media account of the well-known prosperity gospel teacher Kenneth Copeland reads, You are a co-creator with God when you speak words of life!110

Given the connections between New Ageism and the co-creator concept, we should not be surprised to find such co-creator language in prosperity teachings rooted in New Ageism.

In the end, we find that theistic evolution, Neo-Marxism, transhumanism, New Ageism, and the prosperity gospel share strikingly deep connections, illustrated in the thinking of theologians who teach that humans are co-creators with God. The created co-creator concept starts with the evolutionary belief that God did not finish creating the world in six days, but left creation open-ended for humans to further advance its evolution. This idea of humans directing evolution to achieve a final vision of liberation fits well within both (Neo-)Marxist and transhumanist worldviews, which themselves are founded on evolutionary thinking. Once spiritualized, this kind of utopic, evolutionary outlook flows naturally into New Age thinking, which often views humans as co-creators. The language of co-creation, in turn, arises in certain prosperity gospel teachings which overlap with New Ageism.

These similarities reflect how diverse unbiblical teachings often share a common root in lies as old as Eden, which whisper that Gods Word is not completely true and that humans can make themselves like God. By rejecting these lies in the perfect light of Scripture, we can rest in our Creators sovereignty, assured that It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves (Psalm 100:3 NKJV).

Follow this link:
Are We Co-Creators with God? - Answers In Genesis

Everything is punk now. Nothing is punk now. As you probably read in my subheading, and have almost definitely noticed as a trend in games, books, and further afield, the -punk suffix can be attached to basically any word now, with complete disregard for the original intention. Frostpunk is just cold? Biopunk replaces cybernetic enhancements of cyberpunk for those of a more biological nature, but rarely discusses the transhuman ideas as its progenitor does. Hermitpunk? I couldnt even tell you. Its some kind of cottagecore alternative for those too proud to admit their affectation for those vibes.

The problem has been spreading to games for a while now, but its been rampant since the lead-up to and release of Cyberpunk 2077. You may have heard of Cloudpunk, a cute game released from 2020. Its a nice game, I enjoyed it, but it appropriates cyberpunk aesthetics and gives them a new name, the name of its in-universe delivery service. It even mentions the word cyberpunk in its marketing, but decided to make up a new term as well. Is it punk? Not really.

Related: The Rings of Power Is Being Sued By A Fanfic Writer

The same goes for Frostpunk, a survival city management game which sees you rule over the last city on Earth. Ive always said theres nothing more punk than ruling over your minions as some kind of monarch or dictator. Herein lies the problem. Words have meaning. You cant just ignore that meaning. Dying Light had a Dieselpunk DLC, which seemingly just added chainsaws. Chainsaws use fuel, sure, but are they punk?

This is where my irk stems from. Words have meanings. I didnt stumble into this article saying that the -punk suffix is elitist or humorous or non-monogamous, because those are different words with different meanings. I think the suffix is misunderstood, meaningless, and sometimes hypocritical, so those are the words I use. Its why, when editing articles on this website, I make sure that writers know that simplistic and simple arent synonyms that you can use interchangeably in order to sound more clever. With -punk naming conventions, it all started innocently enough with cyberpunk.

To know how this term was bastardised, we have to return to its roots. Cyberpunk as a genre was pioneered in the 60s and 70s as a part of New Wave science fiction. Roger Zelazny, Samuel R. Delany, and J. G. Ballard were some of the foremost pioneers, laying the foundations for the likes of William Gibson to follow. The term itself first appeared as the title of a 1983 Bruce Bethke short story published in Amazing Stories, after the author had been experimenting with compound words. The story goes that Bethke made two lists, one of words for technology and one for troublemakers, and assembled combinations from the two. Maybe we could have ended up with a story called technonuisance, and wed now have games called frostnuisance and people ascribing to hermitnuisance ways of life?

The term was popularised by Gardner Dozois, editor of Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, who described many of the above authors as cyberpunks in a Washington Post article. The popularity of William Gibsons 1984 novel Neuromancer massively aided the genre taking off and the term stuck, despite Bethkes assertions that Gibsons work should be categorised as Neuromantic, a play on the novels title and the New Romantic movement in punk music at the time.

All of these novels had a semblance of punk to them. The characters were young upstarts, and the stories detailed anti-establishment movements as dystopian societies had all-but crushed the protagonists. And then steampunk came along. Steampunk was named purely based on the convention of cyberpunk. K. W. Jeter came up with it to describe that pseudo-Victorian style of fantasy fiction. It didnt rise in popularity until a little later, and has since been used to describe novels as far back as Frankenstein and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas. For the most part the label is all aesthetic and no substance, all steam and no punk.

There is a debate raging about steampunk in online communities, as steampunks attempt to reconcile their aesthetic with the punk of the name. While some modern novels in the genre befit that punk spirit by challenging mass production, steampunk communities rebel against the same with handmade goods and crafts, and people often challenge the eras colonialist, sexist, and xenophobic values, the genre is defined by cogs and goggles more than it is its punk roots, especially to a general audience not entrenched in the community. Some writers in the genre eschew the label altogether, opting instead for gaslamp fantasy despite having all the trappings of steampunk. There may be some punk in some steampunk, but it seems retrofitted. People have realised the issues with the genre and are challenging it, rather than defining it. Still, thats more than can be said for other spin-off genres.

While there is great debate about half of steampunks etymological meaning, countless copycats have no debate, and even less punk. At best, the -punk suffix now just denotes some kind of alternate history, but the texts dont have to be anti-establishment or anti-capitalist in their execution. Theres no shouting about the state of the world, the characters just exist in it. The same even extends to some modern cyberpunk the video game Cyberpunk 2077 has you fighting side by side with cops, and has an ending where you stand with a megacorporation.

Ive heard arguments that hermitpunk is rebelling against the hyper-socialisation of the modern world, but I dont buy it. Escape to the wilderness all you want, but thats not a rebellion. At least forestpunk has an air of insurgency about it, as forestpunks protest global warming and deforestation as much as they get away from the grid. Words have meaning, and you should think about that before telling the universe that your new game is a riverpunk sailing adventure. No punk, no party.

Next: Even Warhammer Has A Scalping Problem Now

Follow this link:
Why Is Everything 'Punk' Now? - TheGamer

!

That would be the only appropriate way to initiate this interview with Croatia's Eurovision 2023 representatives, the band Let 3.

Zoran Prodanovi (Prlja), the band's frontman, explains:

"" is like our mantra, it doesn't mean anything specifically. You can simply wake up in the morning and say "", go to bed and say "", eat and say "", you can walk your dog and call it ""...

It features a catharsis energy, it has healing powers to it, adds Damir Martinovi (Mrle), the bass guitarist of Let 3.

We want to use this energy to heal the world from trauma, from hate and from stupidity. The whole idea is to protect the power of love.

It becomes quite obvious that what truly moves Let 3 isn't competition but real causes and quite early in our conversation, Zoran assumes the antiwar nature of the song, an aspect that some censor about "Mama ", their Eurovision entry:

I think artists are always responsible for addressing things that happen around us. We are, in ways, speakers of the world and I don't understand why wouldn't someone address such factor in an event like Eurovision. Why not? I think we have to.

We have to do it in our way and in Let 3's way there's no place for racism, for sexual discriminations or for wars. We're pro transhumanism, against the war and against stupidity and we do send this message through our song and performance.

It wouldn't be faithful to the band's history if it was done in any other way. The band started back in 1987 and even then, they were advocating for women's rights, LGBT+ rights and so much more.

Some things never change. In 1987, our country was the Republic of Yugoslavia that got torn apart and, of course, it wasn't a peaceful separation. There was war. We're not too far from that.

And why is it still important to continue to open mentalities? It's been over 30 years...

We always have something else to say to the world and to bring to people. We do our best in order to make the world a better place and that's our main motive: to fight against stupidity, to fight against hunger, to fight against the stereotype of who is who. We're not against anyone and we're up for everyone, says Zoran.

We need more tolerance, adds Damir.

Nowadays, it may even be more important if we think about the Earth and how we get closer to some kind of a catastrophe. We want to send a message to the world that there will be generations after us and that we should keep our planet clean in order to save lives and not to destroy them.

It was back to the busiest Saturday of this Eurovision season, 11 February, that Croatia decided that Let 3 should represent the nation with their antiwar song, "Mama ". The choice was unanimous between the professional jury and the televote which culminated in a landslide with more than 100 points separating the two first places in Dora 2023.

Related storyMama ! Let 3 win Dora 2023 in Croatia

After their victory, Croatia rose in the bookmakers rankings and saw a surge in its chances of winning Eurovision 2023. The nation, which hasn't qualified for the final since 2017, is now likely to make it from semi-final 1 and the Eurovision spirit is more alive than ever:

On one hand, we're very proud of having achieved that but, on the other hand, there's pressure... We don't care if we flop, comments Zoran.

There are big expectations this year in Croatia but for years, there wasn't, Damir adds.

Zoran continues:

Suddenly everybody knows everything about Eurovision and reads everything about it and even listens to all the songs... It's like football.

We're meeting with the two members of Let 3 the day before their performance at Madrid's PrePartyES. It's almost lunch time and the band arrived to the Spanish capital at 23:00 of the previous night. How can they keep up with such a crazy agenda?

It's too much airplane time, says Damir.

Yes and waiting in the airport isn't great but it's part of the game, you have to be ready... Well, it's faster than walking, jokes Zoran.

When speaking of the experience so far, the band seem to be surprised by the reception they've been getting from the community:

We didn't expect it, honestly. It was our first time in Warsaw (for the Polish Eurovision pre-party) and when we got on stage, it was a mess... In a good way, we couldn't believe it. Everybody was singing, dancing, clapping... It was great!

Few predicted Let 3 would win Dora 2023 and the victory came as a surprise for the band members:

We had no intentions to compete in Dora or to win it. We eventually did it because Dora is a good opportunity in Croatia to have the focus of the audience on yourself and to pass your message across to a good amount of people.

Why didn't you expect to win?

That doesn't mean we didn't believe in ourselves. We just didn't really care if we won or not but we had a great performance and now we have a chance to send our message to a even bigger audience which is beautiful.

That brings up another question related to ageism. In current times, many international stars are faced with ageism and with prejudice given their age. But not Let 3. The band claims that after Dora they were introduced to new generations that seem to enjoy their music:

In Croatia, all that's happening with "Mama " and Eurovision made a lot of younger people come to our shows and a lot of people send us supporting messages which is nice. I think it means we're still fresh with our style.

For many viewers, 9 May will be the first time they'll hear of Let 3. How does the band describe their sound?

Psychedelic Trash is the best way to do it, says Damir.

We're a powerful band and simplifying, I'd say we're a rock band but we always make experiments with our sounds. We are open to every influence around us, styles, new technologies and so on. Sometimes we mix folk music with electronic music, metal, house music or even farts, Zoran jokes.

We like to change and we never repeat ourselves.

Back in the day, Let 3 actually "shot" themselves live on stage and released an album titled "Neuveno" that didn't have any recordings on it.

We have very good performances and we're a mix of music, words, costumes, choreographies, videos and much more. Every part is important and if you pull a piece out, it will no longer work.

Shortly after their visit to Poland and Israel for both pre-parties, the band presented their electric golden tractor suggesting that they intend to travel to Liverpool by road and teleportation, all thanks to their creation but also to transhumanism, a movement that advocates the use of current technologies to improve human capabilities.

When I ask about the preprarations for Eurovision 2023, that's part of their answer:

The main part of the preparations has been the creation of the golden tractor which will be our mean of transportation to Liverpool, says Damir.

The tractor is a symbol of transhumanism. It doesn't rely on fossil fuels and uses renewable sources of energy that don't pollute the environment. Technology and humans came to a point where we can use all of this to rule out hunger, evil and stupidity.

The tractor will be in Liverpool but how about the remaining part of the staging?

There won't be massive changes from our national selection. We will just have to adapt to the bigger stage, clarifies Zoran.

Facebook: @let3music Instagram: @let_3 YouTube: @let3oac Spotify: Let 3Twitter: @Let3Mrle TikTok: @let3.mrle

Those who don't speak Croatian, and even if the band is certain the message of the song is clear, shouldn't have to worry about not understanding the meaning behind the entry.

Its antiwar connection becomes even more evident with the performance as in the middle of it, the band members fall on the floor representing the drop of a bomb and clearer becomes with the arrival of sky rockets in the end that feature a nice extra thing: fireworks. All of this is expected to be brought to Liverpool.

All eyes are on Let 3 and the expectations are high especially in their home country but regardless of what happens, the band is proud of their journey so far and that's their main focus:

We're not going to Eurovision focused on winning. We'll do the best we can and we will put on the best show we can put on. If we do it right, we'll get a good result but that's not the most important part for us. We're already very happy with all that's happening.

Let 3 will take the Liverpool Arena stage to perform "Mama " in semi-final 1 on 9 May.

Here is the original post:
Let 3 from Croatia: "We want to heal the world from hate and stupidity" - Eurovisionworld

AMSTERDAM Eva Vlaardingerbroek, a popular Dutch legal philosopher and political commentator who has become well-known in recent years for her criticism of increasingly prominent social ideologies in contemporary Western society, will be received into the Catholic Church along with her father on Sunday.

Born to a Catholic mother and Protestant father, Vlaardingerbroek, 26, was brought up a Christian, but it was the COVID-19 pandemic that fully awakened her to the reality of the spiritual battle the world is facing, and a realization that the Catholic faith is the most powerful weapon against the moral relativism of today.

In this April 19 email interview with the Register, Vlaardingerbroek shares more about her journey to the faith, how in her experience evil supernatural forces ramp up their opposition when one speaks about ones love for Christ, but how this also shows the need to be uncompromising and courageous in opposing the grave evils of our time, whether they be gender ideology, radical feminism or transhumanism.

Vlaardingerbroek said, If we dont take our enemies seriously enough, and we dont even dare speak up for Christ, after all he has done for us, how do we expect to win?

Eva, could you tell us a little about your upbringing? Were your parents and family religious and did they influence you either for or against becoming a Catholic?

I was born in Amsterdam in 1996 and my younger brother and I were raised in a smaller city not too far from there. Both my mother and father are Christians and work in the classical music industry. My mother is a Catholic; my father, up until today (he and I will both be received on April 23) was a Protestant so I was introduced to both faiths. Although I never experienced a clash of faith between my mother and my father growing up, I did notice the differences when I saw my extended family at birthday parties. The reason for that is probably that my grandfather (my fathers father) is an incredibly devout (now retired) reformed pastor and Old Testament theologian.

Although I would definitely say I was raised Christian and had the privilege of growing up listening to the most wonderful Catholic music on a daily basis, I never felt that my parents pressured me to go to church or pray. Nothing was ever imposed on me. If anything looking back I wish my parents had maybe pushed me a bit more when it came to practicing my faith. Because although I had periods in my life where I wasnt very occupied with the church, I have always believed in God, for as long as I can remember.

I was baptized in the Protestant church and attended the Protestant church for years as a child, till my father decided to join my mother at Mass about 15 years ago. He decided to join her, because he was fed up with how politicized (leftist) our Protestant church had become. I joined them but, like every teenager, I felt like I didnt belong (in a general sense), so I also felt like I didnt belong at Mass, since I wasnt officially a Catholic and started going to church less frequently.

Again, although I never questioned my belief in Christ, as a student my attitude didnt change much. If anything, I often cherry picked when it came to both faiths and never really made a conscious effort to decide whether I wanted to be a Protestant or a Catholic. My faith sadly didnt play a very central role in my life.

What personally drew you to the Catholic faith, and when did you realize that the Catholic Church is the one true faith founded by Christ?

During the final days of my studies and at the start of my career in politics, I experienced a lot of backlash for my conservative political views. I quickly became rather used to the feeling of being canceled for speaking uncomfortable truths, but something I think for many of us fundamentally changed during the pandemic. Going against the establishments narrative didnt just get you canceled socially, it got you canceled legally this time around.

During that time, I wholeheartedly realized that we arent just fighting a political fight (right vs. left), but that we are dealing with a spiritual fight (good vs. evil). The speed at which people were ready to condemn those of us who didnt follow the science and the speed at which our governments abolished our constitutional rights, was a true wake-up call to me. Evil wasnt something that only existed during certain times (of war) in history. It opened my eyes to the fact that evil is very much alive and that sadly a lot of people can be seduced by it very, very quickly.

I started noticing that when I argued against vaccine mandates, for example, a solely utilitarian argument didnt suffice to me. I didnt want to argue about whether the vaccine was stopping transmissions and whether it was justified for the government to force it on us for medical reasons. I wanted to take a moral stance. And the only moral stance that seemed right to me was that I was created in the image of God, that my body is a temple and that my (bodily) rights were endowed upon me by my Creator and therefore are inalienable. My rights were not given to me by the government, who could and would, clearly take them away from me anytime, but they were given to me by my Creator, by God.

So thats exactly what I started saying in the public debate. I openly started involving my faith in my political commentary and I decided immediately that I would never compromise on that again. I experienced what happens when you come out and speak about your love for Christ: The evil forces in the world become louder, because there is nothing they hate more than testimony, but the good forces in my life are also a hundred times stronger and I became stronger. It made me think about my faith. I quickly realized the time of cherry picking should be over, but I didnt know which church I should join, so I decided to take my time. Spending some time in America, I went to a lot of non-denominational churches where I met the most wonderful, devout Christians Id ever met. But in those big convention center churches, something was missing. And then I found professor Peter Kreefts speeches on YouTube. I watched his content for hours on end till I stumbled on his video called Seven Reasons Why Everyone Should Become a Catholic. I watched it, and I simply couldnt argue with what he said. Everything made sense. From the fact that Christ himself founded the Church, to the importance of the saints, to the real miracle of the Eucharist. I knew I had to make a choice.

And during last years Christmas Mass, thats exactly what I did. I felt in my heart that I wanted to be a Catholic. When I came home from Mass I received a Merry Christmas message from my dear friend and fellow fighter Father Benedict Kiely, whom I had met at the National Conservatism Conference in Brussels a year earlier. He wished me a Merry Christmas and asked me when I was going to become a Catholic. There is no such thing as coincidence and the rest is history.

What elements of Catholicism particularly attracted you?

Transubstantiation was key to me. As a Protestant I rejected the concept, I never felt like I could rationalize that, so I went with the its symbolic argument. But when you look at Scripture, at what Jesus Himself said, hes crystal clear. Its not symbolic at all. And even though I cant rationalize it, I believe it; because if Christ said it is so, it is so. So then there is no other choice but to become a Catholic.

The Netherlands like all Benelux countries has a rich Catholic heritage but seems almost all lost to secularism, which has dominated politics and society. How did you navigate your way through such prevailing modernism and liberalism to find the Catholic faith?

The most powerful weapon against the leftist relativism is the Catholic faith. What is better at a time where people say, anything goes than to say No? There is such a thing as beauty, there is such a thing as Good, and there is such a thing as the Truth. He is the Truth, the Way and the Life. And that will never change. Catholic doctrine remains the same, no matter who is the Pope or what turmoil the Church goes through as an institution. The doctrine has and always will withstand the test of time, because he himself founded the Church.

How does the Gospel, and Catholic teaching in particular, give you hope and meaning in life and in your work as a political commentator?

I try to make sure all of my views align with my faith. I might get it wrong in the eyes of some, but to me its the essence. Its the driving force behind my activism, because as a Catholic I dont want to sit still, faith is also about good deeds after all.

Of course, there is always room for improvement, but I make it my mission to stand up for conservative values, freedom and peoples rights. I make it my mission to stand up for ordinary people who are deemed invisible by the establishment. It pains me to see how people struggle in our society and are branded as deplorables by our global elites. Thats not what Christ teaches us.

Politically and socially speaking, I think we live in incredibly dark times. An upside down world, where people call men women, women men; a world where people call evil good and good evil, as described in Isaiah 5:20. But I trust in God, and I know that the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Nothing gives me more hope than that. Good will win because Christ has already conquered death and set us free. Therefore, I fear God more than I fear man.

We are saved through him, no matter what happens here on earth. I try to remember that what people think of me on this earth is of no importance, compared to what God thinks of me. He and the Truth is what leads me in my political endeavors.

Youve frequently spoken out against globalism and its detrimental effect on the Netherlands, most visibly seen in the Dutch farmers protests but also in other areas such as the authoritarian COVID-19 response and the Great Reset. How can Catholics alert others to the dangers of these trends in an effective way that also gives people hope for the future?

In my speech Reject Globalism: Embrace God at the National Conservatism Conference in Brussels in 2022, which can be seen on YouTube, I spoke about what I think Christians should do in the fight against globalism and transhumanism extensively.

I said: We are fighting such a large evil, that we can only win with him on our side. And we have him on our side. But if we spend our energy on hiding him, why would He be there for us?

And I mean that. The main message is: You have to speak out. We will have to recognize that we are dealing with an evil ideology that is fundamentally opposed to everything we, as Catholics stand for, if we want to stand a fighting chance.

The problem is that many Christians fall for the pretty words the globalists use to sell us their plans. Whether its climate change, COVID or transhumanism, they present their solutions under the guise of equality and noble pretexts, but in fact, if you look at what theyre really proposing, it always comes down to the fact that these people want to play God. And the solutions they offer vaccine passports, transhumanism, saving the planet always feed off of peoples fear of death. Which, sadly, if you believe this life on earth is all there is, is not a strange thing to be afraid of.

So what I believe needs to be done is that Christians, especially Catholics, openly reject any type of cultural or religious relativism. The narrative of you can have your truth and I have mine, is I think exactly what the devil wants people to say.

Of course, you can have your opinion and I can have mine, but there is such a thing as the Truth: Christ is the Truth, the Way and the Life. If we truly believe that we should say it. Out loud. Morality based on secular values is like a house without a foundation. The house can look nice from the outside, it can be built by nice, well-meaning people, but it wont last.

If we dont take our enemies seriously enough and we dont even dare speak up for Christ, after all he has done for us, how do we expect to win?

.

Youve often also criticized feminism. How damaging is it to society in your view, and do you see this and other contemporary social ills (gender ideology, same-sex marriage etc.) as part of the spiritual battle you describe, one most effectively fought as a practicing Catholic?

The gender ideology and feminism are probably the most damaging ideologies that there are for women (and man for that matter) because it stops people from getting married, starting families and becoming truly happy and fulfilling their (moral) duty.

My generation has been told we shouldnt get married or have kids, because its all just an oppressive social construct created by the patriarchy to keep you down. And on top of that, having children is bad for the climate too, so just dont bother. And on top of that, were told that we can sleep around as much as we want and if you do get pregnant, you can have an abortion, because its your body, your choice.

It honestly and truly is the work of the devil. No less. And hes sadly been gaining ground. I find it hard nowadays to meet people my age who havent been completely indoctrinated with the woke ideology. Most of my contemporaries truly believe that your feelings or how you identify is the indicator of your gender.

And again, the only solution I see to this problem is to be ruthlessly uncompromising. God created Adam and Eve, not 73 different genders. Thats Man trying to be his own little god, which has never worked and will never work. And we know it. My generation is absolutely miserable. So the best thing we can do as Catholics is tell people there is an alternative that you can follow. Because there is and he has a name: Jesus Christ.

More here:
Prominent Dutch Philosopher and Convert Charts Her Path to the Catholic Church - National Catholic Register

mile Torres spends a lot of their time thinking about the end of the world as we know it and how to avoid it. To some, this kind of theorizing and strategizing might seem like a grand exercise in anxiety spiraling or perhaps even hubris. But for Torres, studying the last of things, in their case, the last of humanity, is their lifes work. It is essential, they argue, to consider how we might end.

Existential ethics, they explain, is my term for questions about whether our extinction would be right or wrong to bring about if it happened.

This might not seem like the best way to think about the future of human life on Earth. In fact, it is pretty fatalistic on the surface. But take a beat and Torres philosophy of the future is less nihilistic than it might seem. Instead, it might offer a blueprint for a better way to think about the future that doesnt neatly fall into the big competing thought camps of climate doom, human or machine-led annihilation, or more optimistic longtermism.

My approach is to take the future seriously, they explain to Inverse. But what that means is a little counterintuitive. When we think about the future, we tend to either think in the very short term (whats for lunch?) or the very long term (the year 30,000 C.E.). Put in these terms, to secure a better future for humans, the long-term mindset is appealing: Prioritizing future generations means putting challenging issues, like climate change, artificial intelligence, and global inequality ahead of immediate needs, like hunger or shelter. Maximizing human potential, as envisaged by prominent longtermists like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, is the driving force behind the push to put more humans in space and break technological boundaries. But Torres is more concerned with the indiscernible middle-to-long term.

And, they argue, spending more time thinking about the future in this way could help us live better here and now and avoid catastrophe.

Trying to anticipate the future is like driving on a winding road at night. You can see whats in front of you, and things in the distance ultimately come into view as you move forward. But beyond that, you cant know, they say.

They worry this kind of thinking overlooks present-day problems and could even be used to justify harmful actions if they might benefit future generations.

To understand the best way to think about what comes next, Inverse contributor and tech journalist Becca Caddy spoke to philosopher and eschatologist mile Torres about the future and the inspiration for their upcoming book, Human Extinction: A History of the Science and Ethics of Annihilation, which is due out in July.

INVERSE: First up, what is eschatology? What do you spend your time thinking about?

Over the past 15 years, my work has focused on global catastrophic and existential risks. I try to understand them and devise strategies for minimizing them.

But Im an eschatologist more than anything else, and eschatology literally translates as the study of last things, so I think a lot about human extinction.

mile Torres is a philosopher and scientist who studies human extinction.

Lets talk about long-term thinking. Youve written about your concerns with longtermism in the past. How do you feel about it now?

Im very opposed to it. I think its a deeply problematic view and the philosophical foundations are pretty tenuous. I worry that if people take it seriously and believe in longtermism, it could be used to justify extreme actions, including violence, while giving wealthy people in the Global North yet another reason to ignore the plight of people in the Global South.

What do you believe are the core problems with long-term thinking?

The key idea behind longtermism is that there could be enormous amounts of value in the future and that whatever that value is, we ought to maximize it. So lets say theres one unit and two units of happiness which I know is a weird way to talk about things, but thats how the longtermists sometimes frame it two units of happiness is twice as good, right?

So to maximize the total amount of value in the universe, you shouldnt focus on making the people who currently exist better off. Instead, if you increase the human population, you could also increase and further maximize the total amount of value.

Longtermisms supporters include figures like Elon Musk.

So theyre very keen on us all making babies? Or does it go beyond that?

Its all about creating the largest population possible. So we must go into space and build planet-sized computers to create virtual reality worlds. You can cram more people, digital people, into these virtual-reality worlds than you could on exoplanets. In the longtermist view, we must do something like this.

It makes me think of the way many of the wealthiest people in the world seem desperate to recreate the futures imagined in problematic sci-fi novels. But beyond that, whats the problem?

With this thinking, if something presents a blockade, or a risk to the creation of this future, you suddenly have a pretty good argument for why violence might be justified.

Many historical cases of utopian ideologies had the same structure of reasoning. The idea that utopia is just beyond the horizon, but youre standing in my way. I believe the features of past utopian ideologies that made them so dangerous are right there at the core of longtermism.

This means Im genuinely worried that there will be a true believer in longtermism who finds themselves in an apocalyptic moment, facing a hypothetical existential catastrophe that they believe is about to happen. An existential catastrophe or existential risk is basically what longtermists call any event that would prevent us from realizing this future value, this maximizing potential.

You could imagine somebody in a situation where a catastrophe is about to happen. In their eyes, they need to avoid that at all costs. Maybe that means violence. Maybe that even means genocide. I dont think this is hyperbolic. History provides examples of exactly this sort of reasoning.

The terms potential and value often come up in longtermist thinking. But who decides what those words mean?

Many longtermists are hesitant to provide details about what fulfilling our long-term potential means. Obviously a big focus is on reducing existential risk. They see that as a priority for us as a species. Some people then suggest we enter a stage of reflection, where we sit around and consider what we want our fundamental values to be.

One of the big plans is to think about the big plans?

Yes. Its a bizarre and implausible nonstarter. Some longtermists make it sound like well just figure out these fundamental values.

Although some fundamental values are undecided, there are next steps longtermists do agree on, right? Many seem keen to colonize space.

Ultimately, space expansionism and transhumanism are at the core, and many longtermists are explicit about that. Its ridiculous they dont consider other conceptions of what our potential might be or involve.

Does happiness not factor in at all?

Its all based on this capitalistic notion of going out, plundering, subjugating nature, extracting resources and maximizing, maximizing, maximizing.

The SpaceX Starship rocket is designed to ferry humans to Mars to set up long-term habitats there.

Do you think imagining the distant future is a pointless exercise?

I think what the future could be is just inscrutable to us. We have no idea what the world will look like in 1,000 years. Trying to anticipate the future is like driving on a winding road at night. You can see whats in front of you, and things in the distance ultimately come into view as you move forward. But beyond that, you cant know.

My approach is to take the future seriously. To understand that our ability to anticipate what the future will look like is highly limited. And that the track record for predicting the future could be better. There have been many comical and completely ridiculous mistakes.

We generally dont seem all that great at predicting the future. Is there a best way to think about the future?

There needs to be more serious thought about the future. Some of thats built into our institutions, like quarterly reports and election cycles. These things make it difficult for us to look further ahead. So I do think we need to pivot more toward the future. But making bold claims about the world in a trillion years is ridiculous.

These are timescales our brains werent designed to comprehend.

I think longtermism has recently become a popular talking point because it gives people a framework to think about whats coming next and their place and purpose in the future. I wonder if thats appealing because the future seems frightening to so many right now. How should people think about their futures instead?

You dont need to think about the future by casting your eyes on the very distant temporal horizon. You should care about the future and the long-term future of humanity and Earth, but dont be a longtermist.

The long-term view I would advocate for is focused on a century or a millennial from now. A timescale thats relevant for the planet, climate change, nuclear waste, and all sorts of issues that environmentalists have been discussing.

We should also question the fundamental commitments of longtermism, like maximizing value. There are all kinds of other potential responses to value that arent this kind of perfunctory maximization. Maybe things that are valuable should be cherished, preserved, loved, and cared for, rather than just maximized.

A participant in an April 2023 demonstration by the climate protection group Extinction Rebellion.

As someone who literally thinks about the end of the world, are you worried about the future?

Im frightened about climate change and very concerned about AI especially the possibility of deep fakes and large language models. Theres enormous potential to propagate disinformation and misinformation.

But although I think theres momentum pushing us toward futures that should inspire a degree of fear, theyre not inevitable.

Thats comforting. In what ways do you think things arent inevitably screwed up?

Part of the reason AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is a goal of DeepMind, OpenAI, and other companies is because they think AGI might be the vehicle to utopia. Thats why the goal has been to develop AGI as soon as possible. But now the rate of progress has accelerated, theyre backing off and thinking, Holy shit, I dont know if were ready to develop these really advanced, powerful technologies.

Theyre now putting pressure on OpenAI to slow things down. Although I doubt it will work, its not a completely hopeless situation. I feel like theres a moral duty to do whatever you can even if the situation looks bleak. Im trying to do my part by raising awareness of some of these concerns, especially around AI, encouraging people to protest however they can.

What makes you feel hopeful about the future? And what would you say to people who dont feel hopeful about tomorrow?

Im heartened by the fact many smart, amazing young people are leading global movements to raise awareness about climate change. To pressure the government and political leaders to actually implement meaningful climate mitigation policies, and could imagine something similar with respect to AI.

The fact these kids are so motivated and effective at organizing, it gives me hope. If I could say one thing to young people, it would be, Thanks for your brilliant, inspiring activism.

The rest is here:
Is There a Best Way to Think About the Future of Earth? - Inverse