Calling a Woman a “Skank”: The Spectacular Spider-Man

The_Spectacular_Spider-Man_Vol_2_16Although never directly stated, an important subject in The Spectacular Spider-Man Vol. 2 No. 16 is whether or not a woman should dress modestly in public.1 The Insect Queen wears revealing clothing: a low-cut black dress that exposes more than half of her breasts.2 In response, Spider-Man calls her a “skank.”3 One theme in the story is that if a woman wears clothing that violates public standards of modesty, people have the right to call her a stigmatizing name.

For Christians, dressing modesty in public is a virtue. 1 Timothy 2:9 says, “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety…”4 It is also a virtue for Muslims. The Quran 24:31 says, “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms…”5

For Christians and Muslims, dressing immodestly in public is a sin because whether the woman intended it or not, it can cause men to experience greater sexual temptation, e.g., to commit adultery or have pre-marital sex. Men, having free will, are responsible for how they choose to respond to their sexual desires. Nonetheless, a woman who wears revealing clothing is responsible for increasing men’s sexual attraction to her.

One reason women (and men) wear revealing clothing in public is it increases their self-esteem. If you have a beautiful body, and people look at you and respond positively, you will naturally feel good about yourself. However, when deciding what clothes to wear, it is important to consider how your clothes might affect other people.

Throughout history, women who dress immodestly have been called stigmatizing names, e.g., a slut or whore. Calling someone a stigmatizing name is a form of social pressure, so they will conform to a certain standard of right and wrong. The resulting feelings of guilt and/or shame become a deterrent against committing the stigmatized behavior again. Thus, for good or ill, the stigmatization of women who wear immodest clothing is a means of social control, reinforcing traditional values on modesty.

In The Spectacular Spider-Man Vol. 2 No. 16, the Insect Queen does not dress modestly. Spider-Man stigmatizes her for how she dresses, and also for kissing him against his will. He says, “You have the right to remain skanky. Anything skanky you do will be held against you by the court of public opinion.”6 Urban Dictionary defines skanky as “looking cheap, dirty and nasty. Also acting slutty.”7 Spider-Man is saying that when a woman dresses or behaves like the Insect Queen, she has the right to do so, but people also have the right to follow his example, and form a negative judgment of her. However, the comic was published in 2004; it is now 2017, and times have changed.

In making fun of the Insect Queen for her clothing and behavior, Spider-Man is politically incorrect. In the “court of public opinion”, he would be accused of slut shaming.8 In America today, it is considered offensive to call a woman a skank, even if in reality, she dresses like one. Furthermore, with decreased public shaming of women for what they wear, it has become more common for women to wear extremely risqué clothing, especially among celebrities.9 Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your moral viewpoint on modesty.


  1. Marie Jackson, “Modest dressing: Why the cover-up?”, BBC News, June 29, 2017,
  2. Paul Jenkins, The Spectacular Spider-Man No. 16 (Marvel Comics: August, 2004), 2, 4, 18.
  3. Jenkins, Spectacular Spider-Man, 5.
  4. 1 Timothy 2:9 (New International Version).
  5. Quran 24:31 (Yusuf Ali).
  6. Jenkins, Spectacular Spider-Man, 15.
  7. Urban Dictionary, s.v. “skanky,” accessed June 23, 2017,
  8. JR Thorpe, “The Long-Term Effects Of Slut-Shaming,” Bustle, June 22, 2017,
  9. Natalie Matthews, “See the Evolution of the Naked Dress in 36 Photos,” Elle, July 26, 2015,

Three Traits of Judgmental People


A judgmental person is like a porcupine. If you get too close, you could get hurt. Judgmental people have three common traits: They are overly critical, they show no respect for the person they are critical of, and they justify what they say because they believe it is true. People can become judgmental due to their pride, their hurt and anger at being wronged, and a lack of love for others. Three ways to overcome being judgmental include self-reflection, forgiveness, and seeing the whole person.

Some people will accuse you of being judgmental if you criticize them. However, the word judgmental is defined as “having or displaying an excessively critical point of view.”1 The first trait of a judgmental person is they criticize too much.

No one can handle being criticized all the time. It puts a strain on a relationship because the person being criticized feels unloved. Further, when someone is too critical, it is human nature not to like them. A judgmental person repels others, and will have a hard time forming long-term relationships.

Judgmental people are offensive not only because of their words, but also their tone. They will speak to (or about) a person with hatred, contempt, or disrespect. Instead of speaking calmly and rationally, they can be highly emotional—hurling insults, or using profanity.

A judgmental person will often justify the harsh things they say because they believe it is the truth. However, the truth should not be used as a weapon to hurt someone, or destroy their self-worth.

Every human being has value and worth simply because they are human, not because they are good or bad, a success or a failure. A judgmental person often bases an individual’s worth as a human being on their character traits, or some other criteria. They are unable to separate a person from their actions, to recognize that everyone has equal worth as a human being.

Judgmental people will act like they are superior to you. People who believe they are superior have illusions about themselves. They see themselves as more than they are. In looking down on others, they have an ego problem: a heart filled with pride.

In addition to pride, a person can become judgmental when they are angry at being wronged by someone. Hurt and wounded inside, their heart can grow cold, and they harshly judge the person who mistreated them.

Whatever the root cause, a judgmental person has a heart that lacks love and respect for other people. The danger in being judgmental, is that once you feel hatred, contempt, or disrespect for one human being, it becomes easier to transfer these feelings to another.

One way to stop being judgmental is through self-reflection, by recognizing that we have faults of our own. The more we self-reflect, and realize our own shortcomings, the easier it is to love and accept people as they are.

Another way to stop being judgmental is to forgive the person who wronged us. Forgiveness doesn’t change what the person has done, but it will set us free inside, so we can let go of being hurt, angry, or offended.

A third way to stop being judgmental is to open our eyes and see the whole person. A judgmental person will often hyper-focus on someone’s negative traits, making them blind to their positive qualities. If we can see the whole person, it is much easier to love them.

Instead of being judgmental, we need to be selective in our criticism. When a person does something we believe is wrong, we have two alternatives: say nothing at all, or speak the truth in love. Sometimes it is better to say nothing, to overlook people’s minor flaws and shortcomings. The more you criticize others, the more you will be criticized, and the less likely people will listen to you.

Nonetheless, there are times when we have a duty to speak. For instance, if a person is hurting someone else, it is right and just to speak the truth to make them stop. We may even have to be bold and direct. However, before we correct someone, we should show them love and respect. When a person feels loved and respected, they are more likely to listen to us when we tell them the truth.


  1. Oxford Dictionaries, s.v. “Judgmental,” accessed October 27, 2016,

Why the Devil is the Destroying Angel

Lucifer_Liege_Luc_ViatourOne mystery in the Bible is the identity of the destroying angel. In the Book of Exodus, Moses said, “the Lord will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you.”1 The “destroyer” is the Hebrew word shachath, and it is a verb, not a noun.2 Even if the verse is mistranslated, the destroying angel was still there because the verb “allow” suggests that someone other than the Lord killed the firstborn. By examining verses from both the Old and New Testament, the identity of the destroyer is revealed: He is the Devil.

Everything that God is, the Devil is not. God created the Devil as the archangel Lucifer,3 but he rebelled and was cast out of heaven along with many other angels.4 His destructive nature is revealed in the Book of Isaiah: The Lord God says, “I have created the waster to destroy.”5 God is a creator, but the Devil and his fallen angels are destroyers. In the Book of Revelation, the locusts “had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.”6 Apollyon is either the Devil or another demon. The Greek word for Apollyon is Apolluón, and it means destroyer.7 In the Gospel of John, Jesus contrasted Himself with the Devil when he said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.”8 Unlike Christ who brings life, the Devil wants to bring death and destruction upon humanity.

If you read certain passages in the Bible literally, you might conclude that the Lord God is a destroyer like the Devil. However, as James Macknight explains, “Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.”9 In Exodus, the Lord gave Moses instructions concerning the Passover: “And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.”10 Read literally, this verse says that it is the Lord who will “strike” the firstborn of Egypt dead. The verse, however, is an idiom. According to Jackson, “It is fairly well known among advanced Bible students that there is a common idiom (figure of speech) in sacred literature, by which God is said to actively do that which, in reality, he merely allows…”11 While many verses in the Bible can be read literally, reading every verse literally will result in a wrong understanding of the nature of God.

God’s nature is that He is fair and just. He brings forth justice on the Earth by working through human beings who do what is just. Tim Keller states, “The Hebrew word for ‘justice,’ mishpat, occurs in its various forms more than 200 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. … But mishpat means more than just the punishment of wrongdoing. It also means giving people their rights.”12 In the Book of Exodus, Pharaoh denied the Israelites their right to be free and kept them in slavery. This was an act of injustice, but the punishment—the killing of the firstborn of Egypt—was not fair or just. The firstborn received the death penalty for the sins of Pharaoh. To punish someone for another person’s actions is not justice; it is an act of evil.

God’s perfect will is that no one would do what is evil; however, His permissive will is “what He allows.”13 He allows human beings to choose good or evil, and He allows the Devil to do evil, tempting14 and deceiving15 human beings. God allowed the Devil to kill the firstborn so that Pharaoh would set Israel free from slavery. The Lord brought nine plagues upon Egypt, yet Pharaoh rejected the plea of Moses to “Let My people go!”16 Consequently, the Lord permitted a tenth plague. This was the only way that Pharaoh would relent, and Israel, the Lord’s “firstborn son”17, was set free with more than 600,000 adult males leaving Egypt.18  

God allowed the Devil to kill the firstborn of Egypt to fulfill His plan and purpose for Israel. Further, events in the Old Testament often foreshadow what happens in the New Testament. The deaths of the firstborn of Egypt foreshadows the crucifixion of Christ, “the firstborn of all creation.”19 God allowed His only Son to be crucified, but He did not directly cause His death. The Devil killed the Son of God by working through Judas, the Pharisees, and the Roman authorities. Jesus, who was guilty of no crime, died on the cross, an act of injustice. Just as the deaths of the firstborn of Egypt resulted in the Israelites being set free, Christ’s death and resurrection redeemed all of mankind.


  1. Exodus 12:23 (New King James Version).
  2. Strong’s Hebrew, s.v. “Shachath,” accessed November 6, 2015,
  3. Isaiah 14:12 (New King James Version).
  4. Revelation 12:9 (New King James Version).
  5. Isaiah 54:16 (King James Version).
  6. Revelation 9:11 (New King James Version).
  7. Strong’s Greek, s.v. “Apolluón,” accessed November 6, 2015,
  8. John 10:10 (New American Standard Version).
  9. James MacKnight, A new literal translation from the original Greek, of all the apostolical epistles (London: Thomas Turnbull, 1809), 79.
  10. Exodus 12:13 (New King James Version).
  11. Wayne Jackson, ” Does God Send Delusions? Can a Person Harden Himself Beyond Hope?” Christian Courier, accessed November 7, 2015,
  12. Tim Keller, “What Is Biblical Justice?” Relevant, August 23, 2012,
  13. Emily Stimpson, “Discerning God’s positive and permissive will,” OSV Newsweekly, June 13, 2012,
  14. Matthew 4:1 (New International Version).
  15. Revelation 12:9 (New American Standard Version).
  16. Exodus 9:1 (New King James Version).
  17. Exodus 4:22 (English Standard Version).
  18. Numbers 1:45-46 (New King James Version).
  19. Colossians 1:15 (English Standard Version).

The Ancient Practice of Blood Revenge: Underworld (2003)

underworld_ver2_xlgBlood feud is “avenging the killing of kin by the taking of the life of the slayer by the victim’s kin.”1 In the opening credits of Len Wiseman’s Underworld (2003) we learn of a centuries-old blood feud between vampires and lycans. The war between the vampires and lycans parallels the practice of blood feud in ancient history. A blood feud based on a single murder could lead to a war between two tribes or clans with each side wanting to exterminate the other.

Blood feud, or blood revenge, is an “immemorial custom.”2 If a member of a tribe was murdered by someone from another tribe, a surviving member of the victim’s family (the blood avenger) was obligated to hunt down and kill the murderer. Once the slayer was killed, the feud was supposed to end. However, it could often lead to war “because every man killed began a new request for revenge.”3 Also, if the blood avenger could not kill the slayer, “war would be waged by the one tribe against the other.”4 In ancient Israel, blood feuds that led to war “were the order of the day among the neighboring peoples of the time.”5

In Underworld, the war between the vampires and lycans began when Viktor (Billy Nighy) ordered the death of his daughter Sonja (Jázmin Dammak) who was the bride of the lycan Lucian (Michael Sheen). Sonja’s execution started a war that lasted for six centuries. Instead of Lucian seeking blood revenge against Viktor alone, the entire lycan clan went to war with the vampires.

The desire for blood revenge was common in the Old Testament. In the Book of Samuel, Joab killed Abner “for the blood of Asahel his brother.”6 Although no one had the right under the law of Moses to seek blood revenge, it was an accepted part of the culture, and cities of refuge were established to protect a slayer who killed a man unintentionally.7 If two witnesses testified that the slayer was guilty of intentionally killing someone, the elders were to “hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die.”8 When the elders handed a guilty slayer over to an avenger, blood revenge was not an act of murder, but the means of capital punishment.9

In Underworld, when the vampires and lycans kill each other, it is not considered murder, but an act of war. As a death dealer, Selene (Kate Beckinsale) must “hunt [the lycans] down and kill them off one by one.” Kraven (Shane Brolly) says the lycans have been hunted “to the brink of extinction.” The death dealers have a similar mandate as Joshua when he attacked Jericho: “They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old.”10

Under modern rules of war, killing unarmed civilians is a war crime, and exterminating an entire tribe is an act of genocide. However, 3,000 years ago, because of the cultural practice of blood revenge, if a tribe was attacked, the surviving sons, once they grew old enough to fight, would be obligated to go to war against the tribe that killed their fathers. This is why, in certain battles, the Israelites killed everyone. Like the vampires in Underworld, they did so out of self-preservation: to prevent a cycle of bloodshed that could last for generations. In Underworld, the blood feud between the vampires and lycans is like an Old Testament war.

Blood revenge is a barbaric form of justice. Without a fair trial and proof of guilt, it could result in an innocent person being killed. Today, we recognize that it is the role of the state to imprison (or execute) a murderer. However, in ancient history to seek blood revenge for a murder was a cultural norm. It is also a cultural norm for the vampires and lycans in Underworld. In the climax of the film, Selene slays Viktor, an act of blood revenge for the murder of her parents. For Selene, killing Victor is not murder; it is justice.


  1. Pamela Barmash, “Blood Feud and State Control: Differing Legal Institutions for the Remedy of Homicide During the Second and First Millennia B.C.E.,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 63, no. 3 (July 2004): 185.
  2. Walter M. Patton, “Blood Revenge in Arabia and Israel,” The American Journal of Theology 5, no. 4 (Oct. 1901): 703.
  3. Patton, “Blood Revenge,” 708.
  4. Patton, “Blood Revenge,” 707.
  5. James Frederick McCury, “The Moral Evolution of the Old Testament,” The American Journal of Theology 1, no. 3 (July 1897): 685.
  6. 2 Samuel 3:27 (New American Standard Version).
  7. Numbers 35:11-12.
  8. Deuteronomy 19:12 (New American Standard Version).
  9. Numbers 35:19.
  10. Joshua 6:21 (New American Standard Version).