Someone once said that the best argument is a holy life.
Starring Robert Downey Jr.
The movie needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There is some nudity, but if you blink you will likely miss it. I am aware that a movie cannot really function as an argument against a theological position, but since popular culture has been slamming the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, and the Scottish Reformation for decades, I figured it’s time for payback. The movie begins with the narrator describing the Puritan rule as bleak, but the new rule of Charles II as one of science, exploration, and sensuality. The narrator thought this was a good thing.
I suppose many males are thirteen year olds at heart, so the prospect of getting drunk and debauching the newest whore at court probably sounds like a good idea. I don’t agree with a lot of what Doug Wilson has said on the family, but he hit the nail on the head on some of these issues: women want a strong men to lead them and, to use Elisabeth Elliot’s words, let her be a woman. Getting plastered and whoring at court prevents all of this. C. S. Lewis said “First things, first.” He meant that if put the proper things first: God, virtue, etc., you would be enabled to enjoy secondary goods: alcohol, marital passion, etc.
But we don’t even need to get abstract and theological to make the point. We can solve this by simply looking at the appearances. Modesty makes one more attractive. It’s hard to look radiant in the face when one’s outfit turns the gaze from the face. I refer the reader to this site for some accurate historical representations.
As for the gentlemen, which group looks more manly?
Or this guy, whom modern, secular historiography champions?
I rest my case.