Making Restitution

Restitution is prescribed by Yahweh in the Torah for specific offenses like nonlethal assault without permanent injury (Exodus 21:18-19, 22), theft (Exodus 22:1, 4-9, Leviticus 6:1-5, and Numbers 5:5-7 as will be discussed below), and accidentally eating sacred offerings meant for the Levitical priests (Leviticus 22:14-16).  As there is no longer a Levitical priesthood, this particular obligation could not possibly exist anymore, but the rest can and do according to the Bible (Matthew 5:17-19, for instance).  The nature of restitution along with the sometimes greater repayments mandated in the Bible is the following: it is to give back the lost item or money/something of equal value or make up for harm or lost labor (Exodus 21:18-19) and, when applicable, punish the wrongdoer beyond rectifying the initial misdeed.

When Exodus 22:1 and 4 give different ratios for repayment of stolen animals, the factors of the theft are the reason.  In the first case (22:1), that of someone stealing an animal which is then killed or sold, the owner has little chance or none whatsoever of reclaiming it.  The penalty is thus greater because the impact of the loss is greater or more lasting.  The thief accordingly has to replace the animal and then provide several more.  In the second case (22:4), the stolen animal is found alive in the possession of the thief, and they only have to pay back double.  Here, the very animal that was taken can still be restored to the owner as a pet or creature of labor, so the punitive aspect of the restitution—adding a second animal—is smaller than the ratio of three or four additional animals in verse 1.

What, though, of an instance where the victim has died after the offense, yet before the offender tries to repay them?  A passage from Exodus 21 addresses this to some extent in its commands regarding a negligent owner of an animal that kills someone, despite how the very nature of this sin actually leads to the victim's life being extinguished so that they cannot receive anything as payment.

Exodus 21:28-30—"'If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten.  If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or a woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death.  However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded.'"

Obviously, if a person is killed by a habitually dangerous animal, they are no longer alive to receive compensation for any injury; he or she is dead.  Thus, though the owner of the bull is permitted to give money or property to deliver themself from the otherwise deserved death penalty (as opposed to cases of murder according to Numbers 35:3-31), the victim is not the person whom this restitution would go to.  It would be impossible.  The next closest person would be some sort of immediate family member, a parent or sibling or spouse, and then an extended family member, such as a grandparent or grandchild.  In the absence of any family members, perhaps payment could be made to the governing body, yet this is not the norm in Biblical prescriptions.  The default for restitution is that the victimized man or woman is the one compensated (once again, see Exodus 21:18-19, 22:1, 4-9, and so on).

There is another example which all but directly states that family members receive restitution if the victim dies or is unavailable:

Numbers 5:5-8—"The Lord said to Moses, 'Say to the Israelites: "Any man or woman who wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the Lord is guilty and must confess the sin they have committed.  They must make full restitution for the wrong they have done, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the person they have wronged.  But if that person has no close relative to whom restitution can be made for the wrong, the restitution belongs to the Lord and must be given to the priest, along with the ram with which atonement is made for the wrongdoer."'"

This passage echoes the restitution plus additional payment of one-fifth of the value introduced in Leviticus 5:14-16 and 6:1-5, assigned in the latter specifically to matters of theft by deception or the selfish keeping of lost property.  Again, the base restitution is to return the lost item, replace it, or make up for its value, and in this and other restitution passages, any additional compensation (whether in the form of an animal or money) is the strictly punitive element.  In the context of Leviticus 6:1-5, this is not applicable to cases of assault without permanent injury, which have their own separate ranges of payment.  Now, Numbers 5 goes from prescribing compensation to the victim of the offense, and then it shifts to what to do when there is no close relative to repay.  The unspoken but logically required concept is that the victim would be unable to receive restitution, likely because they are not alive anymore.  In the absence of a living victim to make amends with, the payment next defaults to immediate family members, and then to God or his priestly representatives when the sons of Aaron were still active in their roles.

Plant Substitutes For Non-Kosher Meat

There is a way to still experience food that is like non-kosher meat without violating the commands of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14; yes, other parts of the Torah illuminate a handful of other clarifications about what makes a substance kosher food, but they have to do with the universal condemnation of eating blood or fat, as opposed to the flesh of specific classes of animals being permitted or forbidden.  As for how to experience food that is like what these laws condemn, plant-based substitutes are an option for those who are truly observant of Biblical dietary commands and yet desire alternatives to clean meats like beef, chicken, or venison, or to the unclean meats to be avoided.  Amidst all the legalism of Rabbinic Jewish culture, at least this much is often recognized, despite the heavy reliance on tradition and conscience elsewhere in the same broad community.

Approval by rabbis is not what makes something permissible to eat according to the Bible.  No, it is the actual nature of the food itself—and the inherent epistemological problem of hearsay will always mean that you can never know if a reported scientific or historical thing is true, such as that a package of processed food really was inspected and found to be consistent with the dietary laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  The Torah never says to not eat whatever some alleged authority on Mosaic Law says to avoid, but instead details the exact criteria itself.  Since all kinds of plants are permitted, genuine plant-substitutes for something like pork sausage meat could only be kosher even if the superficial similarity to prohibited foods makes some personally uncomfortable.

This is a way to legitimately experience food with the texture or taste of what is prohibited, such as but certainly not restricted to pork, without actually violating the obligations outlined in the Bible regarding diet.  The Bible does not prescribe vegetarianism or veganism whatsoever, so there is no duty to only eat what is derived from plants rather than animals, yet there are no categorical limitations on the type of plants or the vegetables, berries, and broader fruits they can bear, only on the insects that might be taken with them.  As long as there are no problems pertaining to this or the addition of blood (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10-14), fat (Leviticus 3:17, 7:22-24), or any restricted type of flesh, plants are not sinful to eat even when fashioned to replace pork sausage.

While eating a land-based animal other than certain bugs like grasshoppers is condemned if it does not both chew its cud and have split hooves, hence why pigs are prohibited (they do not chew their cud), consuming something made to imitate its meat without having the same literal substance is not Biblically immoral.  The same would be true of plant-based substitutes for the meat of unclean creatures that live in water or for unclean birds.  If someone truly rejected any of this, they would be violating another command of the Bible: that of not adding to Yahweh's commands as if they are incomplete (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32).  Processed plants designed to be eaten in the place of non-kosher food is not condemned directly or indirectly.

Fiction Is Not Exempt From Necessary Truths

Without resorting to sheer introspective imaginings, there is a way one can see examples of things that could have been quite different in our physical universe and historical timeline: art/entertainment, and storytelling in particular.  Only logical axioms and other necessary truths are ultimately necessary in themselves (for instance, it could not be the case that nothing is true, as then this would be true).  They could not have been false or different, and so they are the only things that do not depend on anything else and that have supreme foundationality.  Anything else at all lacks their inherent veracity and therefore could have differed in any way consistent with what cannot be false.  Concrete examples of fictional works are unnecessary to realize these things, as helpful as they can be for prompting some people.

Others will not recognize these facts.  People who complain about "scientific inaccuracies" in films, among other mediums, have likely never even considered that there is no logical necessity in the laws of nature persisting exactly as they are in the future or being constant across the whole of the cosmos.  They also might think that scientific matters can actually be proven, as opposed to the logical prerequisites or ramifications of a given scientific concept being proven or some amount of fallible sensory evidence being amassed for a given scientific idea.  It is not just that scientific paradigms and phenomena cannot be proven beyond perceptions, though this is true.  Things like the number of human limbs or the direction in which gravity pulls items on Earth could have been quite different—and the same is true of historical events.

An alternate history where the Black Plague never happened could have been recorded history instead, and fiction could be used to explore this.  World War II only happened because of contingent factors that could have been rather different if political entities had made different decisions or the preceding circumstances were not the same.  In contrast, World War II could have resulted in a more prolonged Nazi presence and a very different world, as portrayed in the game Wolfenstein: Youngblood.  As long as something is logically possible by not contradicting necessary truths, it could be true unless it contradicts some other contingent truth, if one cannot disprove it, and even if it is untrue, it could have been the case.

Like certain fictional characters pretending as if something happening before them is impossible when reason alone proves there is no contradiction in it, some consumers of art might think that a portrayed condition or event is impossible when it is not, although something truly logically impossible could never be depicted anyway precisely because it is impossible, such as with God or a planet both existing and not existing at once.  Also, necessary truths cannot be false even in fiction.  There is no story where it could be true that nothing is true or true that nothing follows or does not follow from a given concept by logical necessity, for then it would follow by necessity from the nature of this supposed fictional reality that logical necessity is false.  Such things are intrinsically true and thus cannot be false even in the whole of fiction.

There is no hypothetically true situation, including one that could have been the case, where logic is false.  This is why the tenets of the ontological argument for God's existence really are only correct concerning the necessary truths of reason and not the existence of a deity that would still be governed by logic, which is true in itself and thus metaphysically independent of God [1].  Characters in fiction might hold the belief that something logically necessary is false or that something logically impossible is true, just like the player of a video game or the reader of a novel, but they could only be wrong.  No escape from logical axioms and other abstract truths stemming from them is possible.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-metaphysics-of-logic-and-god.html

As Guilty As The One Who Consults Him

In a few spots, the Old Testament directly addresses whether someone is guilty for in some way collaborating with or prompting another person to sin, though the former does not actually carry out the actions of the latter.  Ezekiel 14 contains a relevant passage.  A person with a heart bent towards idolatry (towards worshiping idols or gods besides Yahweh) who visits a prophet is said to have the same moral culpability as the prophet they consult, who in this context would in turn be given to some sort of wicked inclination since they too are under divine wrath.  With verses 1-8 establishing that the people seeking prophets are idolatrous and hypocritical for seeking an alleged representative of God anyway, the next verse leads to the declaration in verse 10 that the guilt of these two parties is equivalent.

Ezekiel 14:9-10—"'"And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.  They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him."'"

Because God enticing the condemned prophet is included in the quoted verses above, to briefly summarize since this topic is not the primary focus here, even prophesying true things on behalf of false gods is still egregious because of the motivation behind it (Deuteronomy 13:1-5), so if God told someone accurate things which they then proclaim as if on behalf of other gods, they would still sin.  And nowhere does Ezekiel 14 say that God forces any prophet to sin (either through false prophecy or declarations in the name of other gods) in the illogical Calvinistic sense—which would make God the real and sole "offender" and not the human puppet.  As for how some translations besides the NIV (shown above) say God deceives the prophet, that is for another post.  However, it is clear that, one way or another, God says the one who pursues advice from a wayward prophet (of either kind) is equally in the wrong along with the prophet.

Someone who consults a false/falsely motivated prophet cannot be innocent if they have no regard for the veracity of the response they receive or for the veracity of the reasons for giving the response.  If that person merely hopes to be told exactly what he or she wants to hear or wants to be true, or if they seek to oppose Yahweh, then they, despite not delivering the false prophecy, have encouraged or provoked the false prophet to do something which is evil (Deuteronomy 13:1-5, 18:20-22).  Both are guilty.  Being slightly further removed from the direct action of either making false predictions in the name of God or speaking as if for other gods does not absolve the one who consults the other.

There are significant ramifications of this matter for other sins.  One of these sins is communicating with the dead.  Obviously, if mediumship is sinful (as attested to in verses like Leviticus 20:6, 27, and Deuteronomy 18:9-12), then asking someone else to communicate with the dead or to try to would have to be sinful as well.  Complicity in an evil behavior still requires that even a party who does not directly do the thing in question errs.  The Torah does not have to say this for it to be both true (as logic dictates) and knowable apart from its acknowledgement.

The man or woman who consults a medium, as does King Saul in 1 Samuel 28, is in a particular sense just as guilty as the man or woman who attempts or succeeds in contacting the dead.  In that instance at least, the medium might only be acting because of the other party's request.  The client wants them to perform an action that is so vile it is a capital sin.  1 Chronicles 10:13-14 actually retells Saul's death at his own hands in 1 Samuel 31:5-6 as God putting him to death because of his evils, among them that he approached the witch of Endor for an immoral form of guidance.  Though Saul does not himself rouse the spirit of the prophet Samuel from the sheer unconsciousness of Sheol (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, etc.), he is necessarily guilty of partaking in something that, Biblically, should not be done.

Also of relevance, steering someone towards worshiping a false god, or anything which is either nonexistent or not divine, is itself a capital sin no less than actively worshiping another god.  Compare Deuteronomy 13:6-10 with Deuteronomy 17:2-5.  Deuteronomy 13 absolutely addresses the same sort of topic that Ezekiel 14:9-10 does concerning the guilt of consulting someone or enticing them to do something vile.  Working with an evildoer by encouraging their wrongs is in some ways as wicked as whatever the other person is doing.  May no one feel safe in being slightly removed from a sin as if they could prompt someone else to commit a misdeed without also being guilty for the outcome, or for their own sin in this encouragement whether or not the other person proceeds in accordance with it.

Typical Conservative Hypocrisy

What a hypocrite someone must be to believe in freedom of belief and expression and that anyone who disputes this on any level is a snowflake while believing that someone else's actions should be amended due to the former person's petty subjective offense.  American conservatives, including and especially evangelical "Christian conservatives," some of whom have grown increasingly emboldened by the return to power of a certain fool, almost invariably are such people.  Absolutely, as they might emphasize, feelings are irrelevant to facts; no one's feelings make anything true except that they are experiencing certain feelings.  Yet they do not mean the necessary truths rationalism stands on, as opposed to the likes of hearsay news reports, and they embrace utterly illogical ideas about everything from individual philosophical issues they treat as primarily political, rather than logical and moral (diversity, for instance).  In many ways, they do not even live consistently with their own real or professed beliefs, such as when it comes to personal freedom.

No one has the freedom to do anything logically impossible, since those things are inherently incapable of occurring no matter what.  So, conservatism's alleged tenet of freedom of belief is already incorrect.  Though some ideas are logically impossible, it is still possible for people like conservatives to still believe things that are logically false, but it is erroneous and asinine to do so—either by believing something that is demonstrably untrue or anything that is assumed, whether it is true or not.  A fully rational person would not have such beliefs.  And even if it is possible to do something, that does not make it morally permissible if good and evil exist.  Clearly, personal freedom is only valid within very exact parameters as it is.  It is never the highest part of reality or utterly unconfined.  Conservatives tend to not even really want freedom, however—not freedom for other people, that is, or more specifically, for people they dislike.  And there are all sorts of idiotic reasons they might dislike someone.

In the same breath, plenty of American conservatives might 1) chastise other people for saying or doing almost anything at all that does not involve promoting guns, conservative political philosophy/theology, and so on, even when their opponent's stance is not rooted in actual emotionalism, and then 2) react with extreme emotionalistic uproar over entirely baseless things.  Depending on the conservative, this could include such atrocities as black people (or God forbid, people from one of the many other races relatively ignored in America besides white and black!) appearing in prominent film and television roles, someone visibly showing basically any tattoo at all at their job, men having long hair, or women dying their hair blue.  Encountering a man with a mild personality or a woman who wants to be a national leader could send them into a rabid frenzy, "triggering" an onslaught of delusional statements about the supposed legitimacy of stereotypes.  Oh, how enjoyable it can be to set their own exaggerated terms against them!

Why, they might loudly preach about small government and then try to use large amounts of government resources to demonize or hurt other people for no reason but to satisfy their whims and assumptions.  As they emotionalistically lash out at a great multitude of logical facts or Biblically innocent things, they might rush to call even people who rationally point out legitimate problems, including their own errors, "snowflakes."  Who tends to be the greater "snowflake," though?  Conservatives or liberals?  Obviously, there is a distinction between hypocritical people and their ideologies (which in some cases could still be true, a separate matter altogether), but even then, conservatism is still false because truth is not about conserving traditions or societal frameworks.  It is grounded first in logical axioms and then by extension in other necessary truths.

I care (very) little to nothing about almost anyone's sensitivities.  This is due to my wholehearted embrace of genuine rationalism, not because I am conservative.  I am far from conservative, as any genuinely rational person would be.  Not being conservative does not make someone rational, though; only holding to the inherent truth of logical axioms and broader rationalism without making assumptions can.  But unlike American conservatives, I do not pretend like my subjective preferences or inclinations in any way reflect objective reality except that it is objectively true that they are my preferences and inclinations.  American conservatism has the thin facade of promoting freedom for all, but what its proponents often do is really just treat many people who are not ideologically or personally like them as lesser beings despite their conservatism itself being philosophically false anyway, looking down on them in fallacious outrage as if their conscience and whims have any philosophical authority.

Game Review—Apsulov: End Of Gods (PS4)

"Everyone took it.  The blood that came through the roots... They just drank it.  With no regard to their own well being, or ethics, or reason."

—Dr. Yang

Apsulov: End Of Gods is not the longest game, with there in fact being a trophy awarded for completing the game in under two hours (you can take much longer and still not obtain everything).  Its uniqueness and aesthetic triumphs outweigh the brevity one way or another.  An indie game which merges a science fiction corporate catastrophe with Norse paganism, it released in 2019 during the surging popularity of Norse mythology in mainstream entertainment while possessing a very distinct artistic identity.  Brutal in tone, visually strong, and unique among many indie games in a similar space, Apsulov is largely a masterpiece from its category of gaming.

Production Values

Besides a sprinkling of visual glitches, like part of a wall and the floor disappearing while crouched in a passageway, the graphical quality is superb for an indie game.  A recurring evidence of this besides the excellent use of colors (green is prominent for its connection to Loki and Helheim) and the smooth animations for environments and characters is that the text on small miscellaneous items, like cans and snack packaging, is distinctly legible.  Clear wording on materials and walls is a testament to the indie title's graphical clarity and attention to detail on the part of the developers.  Many longtime gamers have probably seen scores of items where the text was just presented as obscure pixelation.  Not so here!

And whether intentionally or not, there are some distinct parallels to the 2016 Doom reboot of all games in one cutscene in particular, something to be of focus in a separate post about the subject of artistic influence and facts like how parallels do not necessitate inspiration.  In the cutscenes, the aforementioned one included, and in the gameplay, Alice's limbs are visible, which does add a layer of visual immersion.  What of the voice acting?  That of human characters is adequate, but what really shines is Loki's voice both in dialogue and delivery, all of which flawlessly pairs with his extreme malevolence.  Also of particular excellence is the use of music in the direct leadup to the final fight of the game—the soundtrack is utilized to help establish the significant urgency and finality of what lies ahead.

Gameplay

Apsulov is somewhat a "walking simulator," as some pejoratively call games where you walk from one place to another with, among other things, little to no combat.  Eventually, there is a means of protecting yourself and actively killing enemies.  It just will not be available at first.  Until that point, you do walk about as protagonist Alice while vulnerable to the handful of flayed people who chase you upon sight.  They do not, however, pursue you unrelentingly.  In fact, run to the next room or even the other end of a large area, and they might not even keep following you at all.  If it was not for this, a certain early part of the game would be very hard to complete since it involves inputting a code while standing in place.

Some of the enemies roam in dark environments, though, even the humanoid figures without skin wearing a skull with antlers.  How do you avoid physical or visual contact?  In the opening of the story, you are told how to trigger a special sight mechanic tied to pagan magic and key plot details that come to light later on.  You cannot constantly rely on this sight.  Its meter much recharge after depletion, forcing the player to either more patiently approach some segments or, if they so choose, charge ahead blindly to quickly get through an area.  When you obtain a technologically enhanced arm that can fire energy projectiles, charging ahead is no longer as risky.  Beware, though: you only have a limited number of energy discharges before you must refill the weapon with a finite amount of ammunition on hand or at fixed stations.

No matter how much you can defend yourself at a given time, the game will take you through varying locations which reveal more of the lore and deepen the harsh thematic atmosphere.  For example, you pass by the enormous shields of the Valkyries in one area.  Without them making an appearance, the sheer size of their shields and the macabre atmosphere of the game work together to reinforce the vulnerability and mystery of the setting.  A voice log mentioning that the Valkyries escort fallen warriors to their afterlife in Valhalla dances around the more pressing matter: what happens to the other people who die in a story where the Norse myths are supposed to be mere shadows of how ghastly the real beings and events were?  You see what is supposed to await them later.  In another case, you come across Thor's hammer, a massive instrument that generates enough electrical energy to power the entire facility.  Thor's voice is heard in a postgame cutscene with only dialogue and a black screen with subtitles as he discusses getting his hammer now that Fimbulwinter is here, the great winter preceding Ragnarok—the end of the Nine Realms.

Speaking of the afterlife, though Alice visits Helheim as part of the plot, she goes to a small afterlife area with a series of walled bariers and an open center upon getting killed by an enemy in ordinary gameplay.  This plane has a unique mechanic where the player must guide Alice to move orbs into place while being stalked by a spirit (Loki).  If successful, this will return her to life on Midgard—she is still alive in the afterlife, of course, or she else would no longer exist.  But during a scripted scene, the player sees her die in first-person and must later revisit the same area on Earth, where Alice's former body is still visible.

Story

A woman wakes up in a sparsely lit chamber with medical technology above her and a voice speaking to her through the machine, saying something about her not remembering her own history if she selects the wrong rune from the walls after an invasive procedure grants her a special sight ability.  The robotic voice speaks in increasingly hostile and dismissive manner until she escapes through the floor, finding ominous voice logs evidencing that it is 2027 and that the Borr Corporation has done something that led to devastation for the outside world.  As it turns out, the corporation uncovered the tree connecting the Nine Realms, and Loki has orchestrated the deaths—or worse—of the personnel on site.

Intellectual Content

Why did I say that Loki has orchestrated something worse than the deaths of Borr Corporation personnel?  Well, Loki makes promises of immortality to those who drink blood that comes through the roots of the World Tree, but once they drink it, he has their skin removed and leaves them to wallow in their pain and regret.  Perhaps they do not really live forever, as not even the gods are supposed to have eternal life once Ragnarok snuffs them out.  Either way, what Loki does is worse than simply killing these people, and it is tied to their drinking of blood.  This act is not inherently connected with paganism of any kind (as I have seen an adherent of Rabbinic Judaism fallaciously assert), but eating blood is a rather grave sin on Judeo-Christianity (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 3:17, 7:26-27, 17:10-14, 19:26, Deuteronomy 12:16, 23-25, 15:23, Ezekiel 33:25).

A researcher with an apparent gravitation towards the metaphysical and epistemological errors of naturalism was wary of Loki's promise and decided to escape once others drank the blood, as evidenced by a voice log in which he says the people who drank it showed no regard for ethics.  It is unusual for a seemingly very secular scientist to think there are ethical problems with drinking the blood other than spreading some sort of health risk, but even then, devastating pragmatic consequences do not automatically mean good and evil exist or that an action is evil if they do.  This researcher is not the only person who expresses unease with what is uncovered as the Borr Corporation tries to harness the power of the Norse "gods".  Dr. Sara Andersson, for instance, voices her rightful concern about the nature of Loki, especially since a major theme of the game is that the stories of Norse pseudo-deities are tamer than the real events they were derived from.

Loki's murderous deception that led to Baldur's death in the tales is said to have been punished with the death of his sons and daughters, the disfigurement of his face, and his confinement underground with acid dripping onto his face, this confinement supposedly lasting "forever".  The Loki of Apsulov is indeed incredibly evil, but the torture someone says he was subjected to, which he does escape from, is far morally and amorally worse than any act of mere immoral killing.  Ragnarok would eventually end his suffering by virtue of releasing him from his torturous confinement, of course, and perhaps the destruction various audio logs or characters say is occurring on Earth's surface is part of Ragnarok (if in this version of events, part of Ragnarok occurs before Fimbulwinter).  Yet, the idea that murder deserves eternal torture instead of many tortures far short of the eternal sort deserving death is incapable of being true.  Not even the cruelest beings could deserve endless torment.

Perhaps because malevolence was already his personal nature, perhaps because of bitterness after his prolonged imprisonment and torture, or perhaps for both reasons, Loki is highly malicious after his escape.  In the game, Alice encounters those who drank his blood only to find themselves remaining alive after their skin has been removed, and he is verbally and physically aggressive towards her until the end of the game.  Loki's proposed pact between "gods" in the ending, which he says cannot be broken, is really in all likelihood a ploy to save his life in the moment.  As a trickster entity, it would be entirely in character for him to only be lying to Alice.  Still, the player gets to decide to take his offer and co-rule the universe with him or bring him to a seemingly total end.  The game, here and elsewhere, only emphasizes how these "gods" and "goddesses" are created, mortal beings even according to their own stories.

Hel herself—whom Alice is actually a reincarnation of—is said to have been killed on her throne in Helheim as Loki's daughter in part of his punishment for bringing about the death of Baldur (which would itself could possibly not be just because one person is involuntarily punished as part of their family member's penalty), and her skeleton remains on that enormous throne in Helheim as seen later.  That is two "divine" entities who are supposed to have died already!  Alice herself is a partial recreation of Hel with human stature, a far cry from a legitimate god/goddess (an uncaused cause).  She had a beginning, and the being she is somewhat a reincarnation/clone of had both a beginning and an end.  It is implied that Hel had no afterlife in the meantime.  Or if she did, Alice had forgotten by the start of the game.  These entities are far from uncaused causes that cannot be killed by mortal beings as with the Biblical Yahweh.

Conclusion

Apsulov capitalizes extraordinarily well on the horror of Scandinavian paganism (that is not to say that Judeo-Christianity does not involve horror of its own! [1]) and on the bleakness of a corporate endeavor that seemingly initiates Norse eschatological disaster.  Referencing the Edda by name, the game excellently broadens its worldbuilding by mentioning pagan beings not depicted onscreen and setting up a potential sequel with the onset of Fimbulwinter.  It does not have an incredible amount of diversity in the gameplay since most of the playthrough is spent walking around or finding items, but being a fairly short game helps prevent this from becoming a major flaw.  So does visiting multiple distinct worlds from the Nine Realms.  Even if you do not particularly appreciate games with a lot of walking, the tone, story, and the superbly handled darkness of Loki make this a great indie title.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/07/cosmic-horror-in-bible.html

Out Of Egypt: A Messianic Prophecy Or A Christological Parallel?

Statements from the Old Testament which the New Testament applies to Jesus are seldom as blatantly relevant as some will assert from a distance.  At the same time, the New Testament does not necessarily claim Jesus has distinctly predictive connection to every Old Testament verse referenced.  One example is how Matthew 2 brings up Hosea 11:1.  In Hosea, God's son is said to leave Egypt; in Matthew, Jesus, God's Son, is said to go to Egypt and come out right before Hosea 11:1 is quoted.  Here is what the Old Testament selection says:

Hosea 11:1-2—"'When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.  But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.  They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.'"

The "son" here is treated as collective Israel, the group of people that God does bring out of Egypt in the book of Exodus in an event referenced many times throughout the subsequent books of the Torah and the prophetic books.  And the following words like those of verse 2 only reinforce that God is speaking of literal historical Israelites, whom he says then sacrificed to the Baals.  Does Jesus sacrifice to the Baals after leaving Egypt?  No, and if the gospels said he did, this would absolutely contradict the idea that Jesus is utterly sinless at all points in his life (something that is not emphasized nearly as much as some Christians act).

What does Matthew say when it references how God called his son out of Egypt and ascribes a fulfillment of this to Christ?

Matthew 2:13-15—"When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream.  'Get up,' he said, 'take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt.  Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.'

So he got up, took the child and his mother in the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod.  And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I called my son.'"

Nowhere does Matthew claim that Jesus entering and leaving Egypt is the main or exclusive fulfillment of Hosea 11.  In a very specific way, yes, the content of Hosea 11:1 could be "fulfilled" by Jesus even as the words of Hosea are clearly about the people of Israel coming out of Egypt during the Exodus, with no hint of any sort of Christological or messianic application whatsoever.  Parallels do not mean the original concept or statement was really about Jesus in a primary sense—or at all.

This happens in the gospel accounts frequently.  These New Testament books cite an Old Testament passage, such as from Hosea or Psalms, and comment on how it is relevant to the situation of Jesus as a parallel.  But often, they never actually claim that the Old Testament verse in question was some Christological prophecy, whether obvious or subtle.  If you read the Old Testament without making assumptions, it would never even seem like many such passages cited in the New Testament have anything to do with a singular Messiah figure.  Then, why have alleged prophecies about Christ become characterized as incredibly clear or pivotal in circles like that of evangelicals?

Certain people who identify as Christians, parroting the assumptions they foolishly chose to inherit from others or desperate to find a multitude of stark prophetic connections between the Old Testament and the Jesus of the gospels, act like the entire possibility and/or evidential probability of Christianity being true depend on whether every single one of these Old Testament parallels with Jesus is actually a fulfilled prophecy.  When masses of assumption-driven Christians or pseudo-Christians embrace this hollow philosophical idea, it becomes held up as if it is far more central and accurate than it really is.

Hosea does not specifically predict that Jesus would go to Egypt in the time of the gospels and later come out of that land.  Upon reading the verse cited by Matthew 2:15, this really should be apparent.  Like Isaiah 7 with the virgin birth prophecy, Hosea 11:1 speaks of something separate from Jesus that happens to parallel what the gospels say about Jesus in an important way.  In no way does the New Testament citation about God calling his son out of Egypt strictly contradict Hosea.

Swearing Falsely By God's Name

Using the word "God", in reference to a particular deity like Yahweh, or "god", in reference to an unnamed being from a specific metaphysical category, in a manner like "Oh my god" or Goddamnit" cannot be using God's name in vain/misusing his name because these words are not a name, but a title for a specific kind of being.  This is already clear from what a name is and is not.  As for whether or not such language is blasphemous, Leviticus 24:11 clarifies that cursing Yahweh (whatever name or title one uses, this would apply as long as it is maliciously intended) is what constitutes blasphemy, which is quite different from uttering slang like "Oh my god" out of frustration, shock, or awe, especially if one is not even intending a reference to the Biblical God.

Another verse in Leviticus specifies that misusing God's name is not about saying such a phrase, which does not inherently involve any sort of actual name at all—in the same way that "Oh my chief executive officer" or "Oh my prime minister" when used as slang/profanity are not slanderous or malicious phrases on its own.  In Leviticus 19:12, the Bible says not to swear falsely by God's name and thus profane the name of God.  Now, this is not speaking of profanity or substitutions for it when it uses terms like swear and profane.  It is contrarily talking about taking insincere or sinful oaths in the name of God, which can slander his reputation.  Empty promises or erroneous statements made as if they represent God's nature is to distort the truth, and this is what misuses the "name," or reputation, of Yahweh in a general sense.

Broadly misusing God's name in the aforementioned way (Exodus 20:7, Deuteronomy 5:11) and blaspheming God, whatever wording one uses and irrespective of if an actual name is used (Leviticus 24:11, 15-16), are not the same.  God is not a name, though it can be used like one.  Cursing God is not the same as calling him by any name at all and is not the same as uttering "Oh my God" or any similar phrase.  Cursing God's (Yahweh's) reputation as opposed to God himself more directly, which Leviticus 24:16 partially addresses, would be a subset of misusing his name, but, again, this does not mean what many alleged Christians assume, and it is the only misuse of God's name that is a capital sin—one that deserves the premature death of execution.

Words mean whatever is intended by them, and it is logically possible for a Christian or non-Christian to say "Oh my god" without malice towards, slander of, or other misuse of God's literal name or his reputation.  This is not cursing God's name, for it is not a bitter or disrespectful statement made towards Yahweh in itself.  The swearing falsely of Leviticus 19:12 is likewise not at all the same as cursing God or his name (mentioned in 24:11-16), as in his character or reputation, even if not one of the literal names for him like Yahweh, Jehovah, and so on.  Evangelicals in their legalism are so caught up in non sequiturs, red herrings, and their own asinine customs that all of this is likely to never enter their mind even to be dismissed on the basis of assumptions.

Ways To Protect Yourself In The Workplace

The workplace, especially in countries like America or India, is often fraught with perils for a worker who does not stand up for himself or herself—and also workers who do.  Exploitation is frequently an integral, intentional part of the social construct of business operations, from undercompensation to unpaid labor to gratuitous verbal belittling.  Oh, some of the people practicing it or benefiting from exploitation might not think it is irrational or unjust or dehumanizing, but they intentionally do things that objectively are exploitative independent of whether morality exists.  They are simply classist, egoistic, and often quite hypocritical, such as by making lower-level workers commute to a physical office while the managers and executives laze around remotely.  In other words, the philosophies of business held to by such figures are thoroughly irrationalistic.  Disregard for logical truths and moral obligations for the sake of subjective gratification, assumptions about the nature of reality, and selfish gain is inherently irrational!  Since so many people will likely face employers who do not know or care about these things, it is vital to protect oneself in the workplace when it is achievable.

The very technology so much of business now depends upon can be wielded for these ends, for starters.  If you get fired and the company leadership needs to hide evidence of their stupidity, incompetence, or malice, they can delete or prevent you from accessing messages sent over company-related platforms.  There are thankfully simple ways to proactively work around this.  On your own personal device, not a work phone or computer, take screenshots of relevant messages on third-party applications or websites like Microsoft Teams; BCC your personal email address when emailing payroll about errors, your manager about contradictory or otherwise asinine expectations, and so on.  If an employer or a manager verbally makes a particularly stupid or harmful comment or gives irrational instructions, there is always the option, though it might stir up strife, of sending them an email to "confirm" their stances or key policies for future reference, with one's own personal email address blindly copied.  

If they reply to yield or recant, then it is documented, and even if they do not reply, there is still documentation.  The company can absolutely lie about records they say they do not have, delete emails from their workplace server, and revoke your access to third party platforms provided by the organization, but this does not impact anything you took personal screenshots of, forwarded to yourself, or blind carbon copied yourself on.  Thus, you can retain evidence of employer demands and assertions in written form.  This does not mean they will admit to anything they truly have said (this does not logically follow, and I have experienced this treatment from an employer firsthand), but it does allow the employee to keep track of the evidence regardless.  

More than quietly ensuring you have written or visual evidence of certain statements, there are ways to express defiance or manipulation as an employee without getting fired.  And if your employer is in spite of their stupidity too shy or non-confrontational to fiercely argue with you or fire you, take advantage of this, which is not the same as taking advantage of them in sense of Biblically mistreating them!  The same is applicable if they genuinely need you due to how crucial your role is or how crucial you are in the role.  You can rely on the relative security provided by their unwillingness to fire you or their need to keep you as a worker by becoming more bold or aggressive in your firmness.  This enables you to exhibit a greater degree of ferocity or rigidness without as much risk of losing the job.  Just remember that there is no such thing as absolutely certain job security because, for one reason or another, there is no logical necessity in you maintaining your job for another moment.

The reluctant employer's personality could change or they could do something uncharacteristic by terminating your employment unexpectedly, but at least you will have done what you could to enjoy yourself more or push back against their delusions of they do end up firing you.  It is just that some employers might be reluctant to outright fire workers because they do not want to pay unemployment, and so they instead might try to increase the employee's workplace pressure until they resign of their own volition.  Without being irrational or evil, one can likewise lash out at them, except not for fallacious or emotionalistic reasons, and toy with them.  Whether it is because they do not want to pay unemployment or are not assertive enough to fire you (however stupid it might be to do so on any given level), they might simply put up with it, and you can indulge in some individualistic expression as you manipulate or mock them more openly.

Thankfully, there are various effective ways to protect yourself or even combatively respond to irrationalistic employers in a self-benefitting, empowering, sadistic manner—without incurring as much risk as some might think.  It is possible to utilize the likes of technology and verbal forcefulness, without ever believing in anything erroneous or fallacious or acting immorally, to serve one's own interests rather than just an employer's and to direct harshness towards the (probably) many irrational people in the workplace.  Make yourself a valuable worker to enrich yourself and your family or to give yourself more flexibility in overtly denouncing stupidity in any form it comes in.  All the obstacles in the workplace and in American culture to accumulating wealth nonsinfully do not have to stop you from figuratively striking at stupid coworkers or "superiors" and enjoying the manipulation of ideologically lesser people.

William Lane Craig's Misunderstanding Of Divine Hatred

This is not the first time I have written about something Christian apologist William Lane Craig gets wrong about logic, general metaphysics and epistemology, or Christian theology.  In a clip posted to YouTube [1], he compares the Judeo-Christian God to Allah, the deity of Islam that is supposed to be the same God as that of Judeo-Christianity.  Craig says that there is only a small handful of, as he calls them, "poetic" verses in Psalms saying God hates people, which he then says are outweighed by the verses affirming God's love for sinners.  Moving on to Islam, he claims correctly that Allah is said to not love those who do not love him and do what is righteous.  Yet Biblical theology is severely misrepresented here.

In Leviticus 20:23, God himself insists he hates the Canaanites for sins like the ones addressed in chapters 18 and 20.  Is God engaging in poetic exaggeration, using language in a basically misleading manner to emphasize his displeasure?  It would appear not.  The words of Leviticus and any other part of the Bible never say or imply this, and there is no logical reason why God must or should not hate any person, no matter what they believe or do.  Why would a rational, righteous being not deeply hate someone who neither cares for necessary truth and morality nor repents if they do err?  Throughout Psalms (5:5-6, 11:5), Proverbs (3:31-32, 6:16-19, 11:20), and other places in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 18:9-12, 22:5, 25:13-16, Hosea 9:15, Malachi 1:2-3), it is in fact reiterated that God hates some people.  For the sake of conciseness, I need only to show a small selection from the many examples below.  See the other verses listed in this paragraph for many more instances of this.  Craig is very, very wrong when he asserts that there are "almost no passages in which it says that God hates sinners."  He could only be assuming.

Leviticus 20:23—"'"You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you.  Because they did all these things, I abhorred them."'"

Deuteronomy 25:13-16—"Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light.  Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small.  You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.  For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly."

Psalm 5:5-6—"The arrogant cannot stand in your presence.  You hate all who do wrong; you destroy those who tell lies.  The bloodthirsty and deceitful you, Lord, detest."

No matter how "literally" they claim to interpret the Bible, even if they really only mean this in some ultimately invalid way, a great many people in the broader American church would probably be horrified or puzzled if they stumbled upon these verses or similar ones.  Yes, the New Testament does say with express clarity that God loves even currently unsaved sinners in a handful of key verses.  However, it is likely that anyone who thinks Yahweh does not hate people almost certainly treats the New Testament as the starting point of the Bible (not the Old Testament which the New Testament must be consistent with in order to be true), hears/reads that God loves unsaved humanity, and then, if they ever encounter verses like Psalm 5:5 in the first place, ignores the logical fact that it is possible and perhaps even morally good to both hate and love someone at the same time.  So they think God used to hate people but changed in the New Testament era or, as Craig asserts, any verse about God hating someone is merely poetic and not literal in its forcefulness.  They allow discomfort with the Old Testament and their stubborn irrationality to keep them from seeing what is really very stark.

The verses which directly present God as loving Gentiles, not merely Jews, and even the wicked and those who have not committed to him are every bit as straightforward as those which say God hates certain people:

Deuteronomy 10:17-18—"For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.  He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing."

John 3:16—"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Romans 5:8—"But God shows his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

It is plain that Yahweh both hates and loves certain people, yet the explicit references to him hating unrepentant sinners are seemingly far more numerous than the statements that actually say with any directness that he loves the general unsaved.  I have never seen this acknowledged by anyone else who did not fall into the error of either thinking that the Biblical God simply does not really hate anyone or that he hates some people without also loving them.  The Bible rather obviously says both, though many do not seem to look in the right places or are quick to dismiss the logical compatibility of some types of love and hatred.  This is not some particularly challenging issue on any level.  Personal revulsion towards the idea of divine hatred, loyalty to church traditions rather than to reason and the Bible, and a misunderstanding of basic logical possibility are what actually deter people from accepting that, yes, Yahweh does hate people.  While Craig does not necessarily deny in full that Yahweh hates at least some sinners to an extent, at best, he significantly trivializes it.

John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 do not deny that God hates at least some humans, and you could realize this while reading these verses in strict isolation from any other passage.  But then again, neither does loving someone exclude the possibility of hating them at the same time.  What the Bible says about divine hatred conflicts with neither pure reason nor with any other Biblical doctrine.  Actually, the full nature of God's hatred is not even the only thing William Lane Craig has gotten severely wrong about verses like John 3:16.  At least at one point, he affirmed the extremely illogical, heinous position that eternal torture in hell is justice, and that this is the position of the Bible (though the linked video does not address this).  He probably still holds to this to this day.  However, the verse clearly says that the alternative fate to eternal life is perishing, which is the only thing that logically could happen to someone who does not live forever: they would eventually cease to exist!  The fact that God can still love people and still hate some of them fiercely is not the only major error he would hold to concerning John 3:16.  And no matter what he might believe, say, or feel, eternal torture is by nature far worse than lacking love towards someone one way or another.

Craig has to neglect or reject almost every fact stated in this post to maintain ludicrous stances, even thinking that a wholly loving God would have anyone tortured without end!  Somehow, allegedly, not loving sinners would be automatically evil or subpar, but torturing them forever is ethically legitimate, according to his incoherent nonsense.  Verses from the Quran like Surah 3:140 do outright claim that God does not love evildoers.  But, not loving someone is different from hating them.  Furthermore, Yahweh's hatred is not some obscure triviality in Biblical theology.  To make Christianity appear better than Islam, Craig misrepresents Christianity, when this is not even necessary to demonstrate that Allah's love is far more limited than Yahweh's either way.  More than this, Craig just assumes that loving all people unconditionally is morally good in addition to some of his more grave but related beliefs that are not mentioned in the clip.  As someone who thinks subjective conscience proves the existence of good and evil, as he states elsewhere, he is already standing on fallacious ground.  Layers upon layers of errors constitute the majority of his worldview.

[1].  https://youtu.be/Xem0vdDRCps?si=aRxMxA4btlY9IA0X

Enjoying Anger

I have known two other rationalists at the time of this writing (which is long before the scheduled posting date) who have relinquished anger because it wound up being so draining or overwhelming for them that, though it never had to be allowed to overpower their alignment with reason or compel them to mistreat anyone, they had no desire to entertain it.  Inability to conjure or silence emotion in all cases is not the same as an inability to control one's beliefs and actions regardless.  No one is automatically irrational for experiencing anger, therefore.  As rationalists, a denial of any of this would likely have been far from their minds in choosing their new disposition.

Anger can be a highly empowering thing that can only render someone irrational or abusive if they decide to let it.  There is no shortage of irrationalistic people one might encounter in life and thus plenty of fuel for the fire of anger on this level alone.  For a rational person who knows all of this, the feeling of anger can be a comforting reminder of their intellectual superiority over non-rationalists and a very personal source of emotional strength.  This is not the same as wanting there to be stupid and immoral people to be angry with, as to wish for errors on someone else's part is itself irrational and to hope for someone to be immoral to be justified in anger towards them would be immoral itself.

No matter how alluring or empowering it is to experience and perhaps even enjoy anger towards irrationality and evil, still, no person is in the wrong just for preferring to not bask in anger.  They can recognize all of these necessary truths and simply not find the genuine empowerment and pleasure that is there to be found in anger for every willing person, though only empowerment and pleasure in non-irrationalistic anger is valid.  All else is emotionalistic and/or egoistic nonsense.  While enjoying and dwelling on anger in this way might seem to many people as if it is contrary to the moral framework of Christianity, this is not at all the case.

If Christianity is true as it appears to be, anger is not immoral.  In fact, any anger that is involuntary, unable to be willed away, could not be morally erroneous anyway because no one could be guilty of a thing beyond their control.  This is the case with all anger on Christianity as long as it is not baseless (see Matthew 5:22 on anger without cause), disproportionate, or used as "justification" for sinful beliefs or actions.  Anger itself is never condemned in Mosaic Law or anywhere else (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32), and more than once it is said in the Bible that no one has to sin in their anger (Psalm 4:4, Ephesians 4:26).

Yahweh is also said to be angry at certain people and worldviews or deeds (Exodus 22:24, Leviticus 26:27-28, Psalm 30:5, 103:9, Jeremiah 30:23, and so on).  If God himself is rightfully angry, since only the uncaused cause having a moral nature would metaphysically anchor morality to begin with, it cannot possibly be evil for humans to be angry, and in the right circumstances, to love anger for the rational and righteous intentions behind it.  If something is good or even merely permissible, moreover, it cannot be evil to enjoy it.  Only emotionalistic, selfish anger or anger that drives sinful behaviors could be immoral.  Anger can be legitimately celebrated and delighted in otherwise.

What Makes Something Abstract?

The likes of microbes, organs, asteroids, valleys, stones, and water are not metaphysically abstract.  Any such things that exist are physical objects or environments, though any logically necessary truths about them are abstract in nature since they are immaterial truths/existents grasped by the mind.  For instance, the fact that a brain or a boulder could not exist if there was something logically impossible about it is an abstract truth.  Possibility and impossibility are more foundational to reality than concrete examples of material objects because if a physical substance was truly impossible, it could never exist to begin with!  Possibility is dictated strictly by the laws of logic, starting with the axioms that cannot be false because then they would still be true.

One of these axioms is the fact that some things necessarily follow from others: if not, then it would be true in light of the nature of reality that there is nothing that logically follows from anything.  In other words, it would follow logically from the nature of reality that logical necessity is false!  This requires that logical necessity is true either way.  It would likewise follow from it being possible for contradictions to be true that it is impossible for the conflicting idea that contradictions are inherently impossible to be true.  Regardless, contradictions are impossible because their truth would still inescapably hinge on their falsity!  All genuine axioms are self-evident because they must be relied on in the process of disbelieving in them or as much as doubting them.

Something is, again, abstract if it is immaterial and grasped by the mind, such as a logical truth, a concept, or a mental state like a deep emotion, and logical axioms are the supreme foundation of these and all other things.  The mere physical existence of a mountain is not an abstract matter, or at least not apart from its relationship to issues of metaphysics and epistemology beyond its basic physical substance.  Is there an uncaused cause, and did it directly create the universe or create another being that bought the universe forth, and so on?  Is there any moral obligation to protect the natural world?  What makes the existence of mountains possible as opposed to impossible?  Can one know if a mountain exists rather than the mere mental image of it?  All of these issues are explicitly abstract.  How does a specific person subjectively feel about the sight of a mountain?  Even this is abstract, an issue of introspection and thus the mental realm of experience that is still necessarily governed by logic.

One major error is the idea that because a mind is necessary to grasp abstract "objects", they must exist because of or within minds; that is, they are not mind-independent.  Anyone is guilty of this extreme philosophical blunder who goes as far as to believe that logical axioms or mathematical truths are distinct from the material world but would not be true if there was no universe and no conscious beings.  This position neglects how logic is not only true of other things in that it necessitates certain truths about them, but it is true in itself, quite literally the entire reason anything is true at all.  Logic cannot be false and therefore necessitates itself, and consequently, it exists with or without any other existent, including God.

Logical truths are not thoughts, but a being with rational (rationalistic) thoughts does actively recognize logic for what it is: logical axioms are inherent truths that could only be false if they were still true, and other things follow necessarily from this handful of self-evident facts.  Discovering this entails making no assumptions and intentionally grasping the self-necessity and thus absolute certainty of logical axioms.  Even a person who believes in one thing that really does follow from another but does not know logical axioms, or rightly believes in logical axioms but makes assumptions regarding something else, is irrational.  As abstract as it is, for it is pure objectivity that transcends all else even while governing/underpinning the rest of reality, logic alone grounds knowledge, and it is logic alone that actually makes anything true.  Anything else can only be true if it is logically possible.

Examples Of Jewish Myths In Antiquities Of The Jews

In Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, one can find semi-detailed information about the trappings of rabbinic Judaism at the time of the author.  He presents many ideas as part of the Torah's laws when they are not, and vice versa, completely distorting some elements of Yahweh's prescriptions while ironically summarizing others accurately in ways the Torah itself does not state so directly.  Here, we will focus on the differences.  It would already be impossible to tell from reading Antiquities what the Torah and broader Bible teaches as its moral doctrines, or its historical narratives, and if someone compares the two, numerous contradictions or deviations become apparent between the two proposed moral systems.

To start with, here is what Josephus writes about what appears to be Exodus 22:28, which in some translations says not to revile the "gods", an exaggerated term sometimes used for judges acting on behalf of God:

"(207) Let no one blaspheme those gods which other cities esteem such; nor may anyone steal what belongs to strange temples; nor take away the gifts that are dedicated to any god." (117)

Numerous errors are taught here.  To start with, though there is irrationalistic and unbiblical moral relativism taught by Josephus here (he would probably think that the sins of Deuteronomy 17:2-5 are sins only for Israelites), the verse he seems to be thinking of, Exodus 22:28, does not say what he claims.  It says in some translations not to revile "the gods."  Translations like the ESV say otherwise, although the phrase could indeed refer to human judges enforcing (Psalm 82).  Though there is etymological ambiguity in whether the Hebrew word means "the gods" (as in pagan deities), "God" (as in Yahweh), or human judges operating on Yahweh's behalf, if Exodus 22:28 literally meant that it is immoral to curse or oppose paganism, it would absolutely contradict other parts of the Torah.  Along with passages like Deuteronomy 7:24-26, 8:19-20, see the following:

Deuteronomy 12:2-3—"Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains, on the hills and under every spreading tree, where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods.  Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places."

Deuteronomy 16:21-22—"Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar you build to the Lord your God, and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the Lord your God hates."

Exodus 22:28 is clarified by the likes of Leviticus 24:13-16 and Deuteronomy 17:8-12, which respectively condemn cursing God and Levitical priests or judges upholding the laws Yahweh reveals.  Yahweh is, after all, the God of all humankind (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-2, Numbers 27:16, Isaiah 19:23-25, 56:3, and so on), though he revealed himself to the Hebrews in a special way for reasons other than their righteousness or alleged superiority in any arbitrary, meaningless separate standard (Deuteronomy 7:7, 9:1-6, 10:14-15, Psalm 147:19-20).  Yahweh is also said to be the only god even ahead of the writings of Isaiah that emphasize this dramatically (see Deuteronomy 4:35, 39).  Now, if only Jews are obligated to worship Yahweh, then this contradicts his status as the only deity (the same would be true if he was the supreme deity out of many, though the Torah does not actually teach this as some think); it cannot be logically or morally valid to worship something that demonstrably does not exist, and thus since Judaism entails the nonexistence of other gods, any Jew who thinks worship of gods other than Yahweh is permissible for Gentiles would be an ideological hypocrite.  

Also, by logical necessity, if something is good or evil, it is good or evil for all people capable of practicing it, and Gentiles are certainly able to worship Yahweh.  The Hebrew Bible would be inherently false it its teachings actually contradicted this or any other necessity of reason.  However, the Torah itself directly acknowledges that its moral obligations are, except where logic requires otherwise (for instance, there cannot be Levitical sacrifices if there is no active priesthood), absolutely universal across time, geography, and nationality (Leviticus 18:24-30, 20:22-24, 24:10-16, Deuteronomy 4:5-8, and so on).  Jews having additional obligations just because they are Jews would be racist against them, and Gentiles having a lesser relationship with Yahweh just because they are Gentiles would be racist against everyone else.  Josephus is an intellectual insect both with regard to the plain teachings of the Hebrew Bible and, more importantly, with regard to knowing the necessary truths of logic, even if only concerning what follows and does not follow from the tenets of true Judaism.

"(214) Let there be seven men to judge in every city, and such as have been before most zealous in the exercise of virtue and righteousness.  Let every judge have two officers, allotted him out of the tribe of Levi." (117)

Deuteronomy 16:18-20 prescribes having judges in each town of the Promised Land, but nothing is said about the number of judges or the exact nature of those beneath them on a hierarchy.  The arrangement Josephus describes is also not at all what Moses himself claims to have established in Deuteronomy 1:15-18, where he summarizes how he set up an unspecified number of leaders who preside over groups of up to thousands and administer justice.  Josephus either mistook traditions for the Torah's teachings without reading it, and reading it without making assumptions at that, or he actually read the Torah and thought that it states what it does not.  He assumed regardless: if one is wrong, one could only have assumed, since there is no way to accept an untruth other than on the irrational grounds of belief without proof.

"(219) But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment." (117)

Nowhere does the Torah say anything remotely similar to this.  It is not as if Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 from the start of the Bible are compatible with only one gender having the right to formally testify, and nothing is said about slaves not having this right.  Josephus merely appeals to stereotypes about gender and class despite their inherent falsity [1].  Now, even if the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 17:6-7 and 19:15 used explicitly "masculine" wording when speaking about witnesses, this neither indirectly entails that the same thing does not apply to women (logic requires consistency if this moral concept is valid) nor actually says that women are excluded or in any way treated differently as witnesses.  In fact, as I love to emphasize, a more literal translation of the pronouns in the Bible shows that over and over, male wording refers to both men and women who have already been separately mentioned together.

Male language is often the historical default despite inclusive meaning even when gender equality is not explicitly stated, hence why the 2011 NIV has Deuteronomy 19:15 and other passages on witnesses translated in a clearly egalitarian (gender neutral) way.  The obligation, right, or allowance would still have to be the same for men and women by logical necessity unless it has something to do with literal anatomy (as with Leviticus 19:27); if something is evil and doable by all, it is evil for all, and vice versa.  As for examples of male language explicitly speaking of women, below is a small number of the Torah's moralistic commands that show how male language alone does not exclude women in its meaning, as if an intelligent person (an actual rationalist, unlike Josephus) could not know this from reason alone.  Only one is necessary to affirm this, yet there are many more than these three, emphasis mine:

Exodus 21:20-21 (KJV)—"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished.  Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

Leviticus 13:29-30 (KJV)—"If a man or woman have a plague upon the head or the beard; then the priest shall see the plague: and, behold, if it be in sight deeper than the skin; and there be in it a yellow thin hair; then the priest shall declare him unclean: it is a dry scall, even a leprosy upon the head or beard."

Deuteronomy 15:12-13 (KJV)—"And if thy brother, an Hebrew man or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.  And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:"

Josephus is wrong on many levels in this matter.  His sexism, which in this case is against women, is contrary to both reason and Biblical doctrines.  

"(253) He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among men), let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more . . ." (Page 120)

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not say that divorced spouses can never remarry each other.  The specific example in the case law clearly conveys that if a husband and wife divorce, they cannot remarry if the wife has separately married afterward and then her new husband dies or also divorces her.  There is no universal prohibition of remarriage to one's former spouse.  Also, Deuteronomy never says spouses can divorce based upon any reason, as in a personal preference for their partner to not wear clothing of a certain color, something which is permissible no matter the dislike of others.  It says that there must be some moral deficiency on the other spouse's part, or an "indecency" as the NIV puts it.  Josephus, whether because of his own asinine assumptions or yielding to the irrationality of then-contemporary religious leaders, or "better" yet to long-standing erroneous traditions, gets more than one pivotal thing wrong here.

Additionally, the ideological bent of Josephus towards aristocracy, his declaration that free men should not marry slaves, and so on exemplify his utter irrationalistic misconceptions of not only Biblical philosophy, but also reason itself.  Some of these concepts are so unrelated or contrary to the concepts actually put forth in Mosaic Law that it takes extreme levels of stupidity to remotely consider them as Biblical.  His moral system often reflects the type of social constructs and conceptual misrepresentations Jesus opposed in Pharisaical philosophy (including in Matthew 15:1-20), which is riddled with contradictions and assumptions.  No historical or present Jew believes in Jewish myths about the Torah's ethical prescriptions or any other sort of error because they are a Jew and one Jews folly does not mean another shares in it, but from rabbinic literature to Josephus to the New Testament itself, a plethora of writings record examples of sheer legalism on the part of many Jewish individuals.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful, and it is true whether or not you know or like it.

The Works of Josephus: New Updated Edition (Complete and Unabridged in One Volume).  Josephus, Flavius.  Ed. Whiston, William.  Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, LLC, 1987.  Print.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/06/refuting-gender-stereotypes-unnecessary.html

Similarities Between Romantic Partners

When I was younger, before I was a rationalist, I was told that "opposites attract" in romantic relationships.  Did the person who told me this mean it in the sense that it is supposedly some ordinary phenomenon for people to be romantically drawn to someone who is different from them, such as when it comes to personality?  Did they mean that it is actually good to seek out a partner who is psychologically different from oneself?  I am not sure if they only meant the first sense or also the second, but this is entirely erroneous except in that many people, being non-rationalists, might asininely end up staying in romantic relationships with people who are not really compatible with them—much less rationalistic, morally upright people.

Marrying someone who is unlike you hinders intimacy or introduces great troubles, if not both.  This is a basic but vital logical fact about marriage.  One does not need to be told nonsense about how (supposedly) "opposites attract" to then realize why it is of great importance for the stability of a romantic relationship that both parties are compatible up front.  Marriage is no exception.  With the strict exceptions of things like complementary skills (not on the basis of gender, but individuality) or differing hobbies that can be conducted in a way that does not irritate the other party, someone has to be a special kind of idiot to think that intentionally or recklessly choosing a partner with different personality traits or behaviors is in any way rational, morally valid, or even pragmatically beneficial to the relationship.

You have no control over whether someone else changes their beliefs or personality inside a marriage, especially for the worse.  Just to clarify, of course it is only valid to change an irrational belief (either it is logically impossible or demonstrably untrue, or it was simply assumed to be true even if it demonstrably is) for a rational one; all else is objectively erroneous.  But, at least the starting point leading up to the beginning of the marriage can be carefully engineered to involve genuine compatibility.  Somehow, many people act like they are incapable of or absolutely averse to 1) being rational and self-aware and 2) selecting a partner who is both of these things and actually similar when it comes to personality.

Irrational people might pine after someone else even if they themselves have thought of how they and the recipient of their interest are not really compatible—if not on the level of worldview, the ultimate level of compatibility/incompatibility that non-rationalists often neglect, then on the level of personality.  Even if two people both hold the correct worldview (rationalism and various things which stem from it), do they have the same desires, goals, and habits where there is freedom of individuality without believing or doing anything irrational or immoral?  If there are differences of personality, are they simply pretending like they are not present or refusing to take them seriously because they feel so in love?  

Two people do not have to like the same television shows or even both like watching television or streaming shows, for instance, but if this leads to any lack of alignment in other ways, then even something like this is a blatant mark of incompatibility.  Waiting until marriage to intentionally discover and communicate such things is a surefire way to place the relationship on a weak foundation.  Some people might, for the sake of either assumptions or emotionalism, put little to no effort into thinking about significant philosophical issues—including compatibility in marriage—and their relevance to the context of their personal life.  If either partner sincerely expresses their authentic self in the marriage, disparities will probably rise to the surface very quickly.  Both partners could contribute to this idiotic negligence before marriage, certainly.  At least one of them has to in order for this to ever be a problem.

They are ideologically and relationally negligent in that they actively or passively wait for some personal experience to prompt them to ponder something major, when it is both often logically obvious what the truth already is from pure reason itself and when they to an extent damn perhaps the entire course of their life from not acknowledging tbe truth ahead of time.  And yes, remaining silent about such things before a marriage unless due to very specific reasons (such as having to focus on major life problems) because of assumptions, emotionalistic obliviousness, and unwillingness to risk discomfort is incredibly neglectful towards the truth and towards one's partner and relationship.  If the marriage collapses under the strain resulting from this, it is absolutely at least in large part the fault of the partner who charged ahead foolishly.