Still In Support Of Democracy

Contemporary American liberalism, irrespective of what individual liberals might think, is absolutely a democratic philosophy when it comes to its mechanism of appointing politicians.  That is, it holds that officials should be elected by the will of the majority of the governed people rather than, for instance, given power on a hereditary basis.  Many liberals are still in fierce or open support of democracy even as the inevitable fruit of a true democracy is on flagrant display thanks to Trump's administration.  Whether Trump stole the 2024 election as he claims Biden did in 2020 and that one such administration does not mean others would be similar would not change the fact that if this is what enough citizens actually wanted, the present situation would be the product of a consensus-based approach to politics that is, more importantly, contrary to the nature of truth itself.  Free and fair elections and an educated populace, which is never the same as an intelligent/rationalistic populace, can never erase the errors of democracy.

With democracy, the entire purpose of the system is to enact the will of the majority (at least the majority of the voters), so it does not matter what exactly that will entails in a given case; no matter the idea at hand or the intended or actual outcome, as long as 51% of the populace agrees on appointing a figure to office or implementing any policy, acting as the majority desires is never a misuse of democracy, but a basic manifestation of democracy.  And since ultimate truth, including truths about morality and laws, does not depend whatsoever on anyone's consent or preference or agreement with any amount of other people, democracy is inherently antithetical to the necessary truths of rationalism and justice (if good and evil do exist).

Beyond its philosophical underpinnings being entirely contrary to reason, democracy also offers no genuine protection from the majority.  Whatever the majority wants is imposed, or else there is no true democracy in place.  Either one can deny the majority their wish, which is intrinsically anti-democratic, or one can give into it, no matter how erroneous it is.  Of course, since truth itself (starting with logical axioms) is not dependent on belief, consensus, or comfort, no one could support democracy without irrationalistic rejection of the very core nature of reality.  There is no such thing as some arbitrary degree of political democracy being valid and another degree being invalid; all democracy is erroneous for the same fundamental reason.

And what of the politician(s) installed by the will of the people?  If a tyrant like Donald Trump takes power through democratic means, the only way to remove them from power that is consistent with the tenets of formal democracy, with its recurring elections, is to vote them out—either at the next election in which the general population participates or in some election by representatives chosen by the people.  Obviously, this does nothing to truly stop irrational or depraved leaders immediately if there is a rigid voting schedule, and it does certainly does not honor reason, although liberals might hold to it anyway because they wrongly think that the only alternative to democracy is authoritarianism, which is also irrationalistic since logic and morality are the only valid authorities [1] and not any human desire or leader.

Not even the most staunch liberal proponent of democracy would likely think the current actions and professed philosophical ideas of Trump and his underlings are not logically or morally legitimate.  Thus, they would probably think that not all results of democracy are valid, even if they are idiotically only reacting to concrete examples in their lifetimes rather than objective logical facts which transcends all examples.  Yet, they foolishly continue their allegiance to democracy.

Something that either inherently or haphazardly produces evil cannot be amoral or good even if the overwhelming majority of a population craves a certain course of action.  Then, again, entirely aside from any possible moral dimension, democracy is irrationalistic because truth is not grounded in or revealed by any sort of agreement, save for the fact that people agree about a particular issue in a given case.  Anyone who participates in democracy, however, is morally culpable for any evil committed by the person they helped put in office, especially if they voted for a certain idea to be championed or for a law to be passed despite that idea or law being illogical and/or unjust.

Instead of looking to reason's necessary truths and then recognizing that some political philosophies cannot be correct, including democracy and authoritarianism alike, liberals still prefer some semblance of democracy and fail to grasp its objective errors.  Democracy at least partially gave us Donald Trump's presidency and the catastrophic chaos brought about by the egoism, hypocrisy, and classism (all rooted in irrationalism) of Trump and his Republican party.  But foundational truth is not determined by mere consequences either, as democracy is inherently false as a philosophy, however stubbornly liberals admire or praise it and however much a democratically-appointed leader benefits a country.  Democracy is good and right, liberals would believe, but the things democracy brings about by virtue of being democracy are (in this instance, at least) asinine and wicked.  The former cannot be true if the latter is!

[1].  But God would only be authoritative for logically necessary reasons, and something like the Bible, a text and not a necessary truth or a conscious entity, could only be authoritative to the extent that it is at least consistent with reason and morality, like a human political leader.  The authority of such things as the Bible and a politician is still derived from something that is authoritative and is surrendered proportionately at any deviation from logic and morality.

Religion, Vulnerability, And Power

It does not logically follow from a person being religious, irrespective of the particular religion's veracity or falsity, that they are seeking power over other people, whether their religious adherence is sincere or insincere.  This alone means there is no inherent connection between commitment to or practice of a religion and egoistic motivations.  One religion can differ from another, and personal or organized practice might not reflect the actual philosophical doctrines of a religion; there is absolutely no way that all religion itself or everyone's practice of a given religion, whether it is really in conformity with the ideology or not (for many people, it is not!), is necessarily about egoism and power.

Anyone who, say, sincerely devotes their free time to helping the sick or poor despite their own poverty in the name of Christianity is absolutely not doing so because they gain material riches or immediate political power through this.  Simply put, it could not in itself be about exerting power over the masses or the vulnerable within them.  Yes, Judeo-Christianity's doctrines are absolutely no a stranger to exerting power and enforcing specific moral tenets using limited violence (for instance, see Exodus 21:12-17 and Deuteronomy 25:1-3).  At the same time, passages like the following from the ostensibly anti-humanitarian Old Testament laws attributed to God himself could in no way on their own be about holding power over others and using it arbitrarily out of egoism to manipulate others:

Exodus 21:26-27—"'An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye.  And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.'"

Exodus 22:25—"'If you lend to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest.'"

Leviticus 19:9-10—"'"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.  Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen.  Leave them for the poor and the foreigner.  I am the Lord your God."'"

Leviticus 19:33-34—"'"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.  The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born.  Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.  I am the Lord your God."'"

Deuteronomy 5:12-15—"'Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you.  Six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God.  On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do.  Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.  Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.'"

Deuteronomy 15:7-9—"If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them.  Rather, be openhanded and freely lend to them whatever they need.  Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: 'The seventh year, the year for cancelling debts, is near', so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing.  They may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin."

Deuteronomy 16:9-12—"Count off seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain.  Then celebrate the Festival of Weeks to the Lord your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the Lord your God has given you.  And rejoice before the Lord your God at the place he will choose as the dwelling for his Name—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, the Levites in your towns, and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows living among you.  Remember that you were slaves in Egypt, and follow carefully these decrees."

Deuteronomy 17:16-20—"The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, 'You are not to go back that way again.'  He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray.  He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.  When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests.  It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left.  Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel."

Deuteronomy 23:15-16—"If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master.  Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose.  Do not oppress them."

Deuteronomy 24:14-15—"Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns.  Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it.  Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin."

Obviously, anyone who lets slaves go for abusing them as according to Exodus 21:26-27 is losing some of their power, if anything.  This is about what the Torah presents as intrinsic justice rather than winning over already-liberated slaves as a political support base, for the master or mistress who mistreats them has already entitled them to immediate freedom no matter the reason why they are a servant/slave (Exodus 21:2-6, 22:3, Deuteronomy 15:12-18, 20:10-11).  This cannot be about empowering anyone but the slaves or servants who go free.  And while someone could be kind to others with the secret intention of manipulating the latter into giving fame, allegiance, or money to the former, this is not at all what the Torah prescribes.  

You are to give because giving without expecting repayment is righteous (Deuteronomy 15:7-9); you should have a day of rest and not deprive others of one day of rest out of every seven, even if they are foreigners or your slaves, because it is their human right (Deuteronomy 5:12-15; see also Exodus 20:8-11 and 23:12).  Such prescriptions and many others could hardly have some inherent bent towards the subjugation of those without power, as some mischaracterize the goal of all religious philosophy and practice.  On the contrary, they are plainly about protecting and caring for the powerless, or at the very least those who in one form or another lack power.

The Judeo-Christian religion as it really is, not as it is misunderstood or assumed to be by fools, certainly is not about enriching or preserving the general power of an elite upper echelon of society like monarchs or a class of clergy.  One of the most ironic things is that this religion more than many others is misunderstood as being oppressive, classist, sexist, racist, and so on, as opposed to some people who pay lip service to it try to use it as a tool for their own corporate, political, or ecclesiological power.  The egalitarian, anti-authoritarian philosophy of the Torah [1] is indeed utterly against seeking power for its own sake, exercising power however one wishes, or submitting to authority figures just because they have societal prominence or privilege.

Indeed, there are no exceptions for the monarch (Deuteronomy 17:18-20), both necessarily in light of many other commands of the Torah having no exceptions based upon a person's social standing and the text of Deuteronomy 17 literally saying that the king must not turn to the right or the left from the Law and the moral obligations the written Law reflects.  This contradicts the allegedly Christian idea that the monarch has absolute authority from God to demand universal submission to their subjective, petty, irrationalistic whims.  One can assume that the Torah teaches this, but it does not.  Genuine authoritarian submission to other people is contrary to its blatant tenets.

Once again, nothing at all about religious philosophy or commitment to it by logical necessity has to be about obtaining power.  With Judeo-Christian philosophy, having power is not sinful.  One can legitimately be born into financial or political power or obtain power of various kinds for oneself without sinning.  Power is not the problem; using power in certain ways is evil.  It is these kinds of abuses of fellow humans that Yahweh's Law condemns repeatedly in many different contexts, whether the other person is a slave, an employee, a widow, a foreigner, an impoverished person, and so on.  Not even royalty is above any of these moral obligations, as addressed.  Judeo-Christian moral philosophy is not about an elite class of wealthy people ruling over others for their own gain as they egoistically trample on or mislead the masses; whether true or false, it is about treating people as they deserve, and part of this is about not using power to trample on others in a host of particular ways.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2025/01/miscellaneous-torah-denounciations-of.html

Getting Rid Of Evil

Evil could not exist apart from evildoers, for there is no one to carry it out apart from them.  Without the practicer of immorality, there is only the logical possibility of a given being committing evil.  There is thus only one way to truly, completely eradicate evil: purge the incorrigible evildoer from existence.  Of course, this could only be achieved by inflicting a state of true death on them, and for it to be true death, they cannot exist as either an unembodied or embodied consciousness in some eternal afterlife.  Forcing someone to avoid evil is impossible for a being of particular metaphysical limitations, as with one person being incapable of making another living, conscious person stop evil thoughts—yes, they could render them unconscious or kill them, but this is not at all the same as willing that another person cease their evil and making them mentally comply.  Otherwise, such an ability would be reserved for some being of superhuman power, like a deity who could override another entity's free will if it chose to so that they still live and yet no longer engage in certain thoughts or behaviors.

In Deuteronomy, there is repeated emphasis on how capital punishment, exclusively in the cases which and with the methods which make it righteous (for anything else could only be unjust), purges evil from a community.  See Deuteronomy 13:5, 17:7, 12, 19:13, 18-19, 21:20-21, 22:21-22, 24, and 24:7 for instances of this.  How can one purge evil from among a group?  Again, this could only be accomplished in the strictest sense by the death of the wrongdoer.  In this way, there is no possibility for the sinner to be expelled or flee so that they bring continued evil elsewhere.  Not even exile accomplishes this.  No, if they are dead, their sin perishes too.  Certainly, not every Biblical sin deserves the premature death of execution carried out by other humans despite how all sin deserves death (Ezekiel 18:4, 20, Romans 1:32, 6:23).  The Bible clarifies which sins merit such a human response.  However, not a single sin of any severity could deserve eternal torture, more importantly.  The Bible agrees, condemning such treatment by virtue of declaring anything past certain thresholds inherently evil (Deuteronomy 25:1-3, Luke 12:47-48).  It would crucially be true independent of Christianity, by strict logical necessity, that infinite torture for finite sins, no matter the degree of torture or the sins being punished, could only be unjust because of infinite disproportionality—the greatest category of evil.

Hell is just, and so hell does not involve eternal torture.  It is where people are killed for their sins unless they repent (Matthew 10:28, Psalm 37:20, Romans 2:7-8, and many more).  Death in hell is the ultimate capital punishment in its effects.  People, as Jesus says in Matthew 10, can kill the body but not the soul.  Once the wicked soul is restored from the unconsciousness of Sheol (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10) at the resurrection (Daniel 12:2), God can then kill body and mind once and for all, with no opportunity for another resurrection.  Only the righteous will have eternal life.  It is logically impossible for someone to be given what they already have.  A person can be given wealth when they already have wealth, but a belonging they already possess cannot be given to them.  Someone either has eternal life or they do not.  Only if they do not can they receive it as a gift from God.  If only the righteous live without end, however, then evil really will be no more.  There is also no other way that the old order corrupted by sin can pass away so that there is no more evil or death (Revelation 21:1-4).

Evil truly would then have been purged from creation; the enemies of God, of righteousness, are destroyed in the second death (Revelation 20:15) so that death itself never again occurs, death itself being the last enemy of God to be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26), which requires that the others have already been banished from existence.  There is no more evil and no more deserved death due to evil because none are left who practice it.  Instead, the lifeless bodies of those who unrepentantly opposed God are seen by the righteous (Isaiah 66:22-24).  Execution in hell is the grand, universal capital punishment for everyone who persistently refuses the truth.  In perishing (John 3:16, 2 Thessalonians 2:10), they no longer exist in order to do evil.  This is justice and it also has the effect of cleansing reality from the presence of evildoers.  Sin gives birth to death (James 1:13), the latter of which is the wages, the just earnings, of the former (Romans 6:23).  Yahweh is not a utilitarian.  Annihilation of sinners in hell is not justice simply because of the positive consequence of there literally being no more sin in existence any more than eternal torture is just because it could inspire dread to the point of deterring all sin.  Any alternative to annihilation, though, would involve the permanent existence of evildoers and thus of evil.

Financial Entanglement In Marriage

It is not just a Biblical doctrine that marriage unites two people so that it is as if they are one.  Logically, a sincere marriage will accomplish this to some extent.  Upon marrying, each part of a couple brings their individual personalities, aspirations, and finances with them into a partnership (and this is as true of relational marriage as it is of the mere social construct of legal marriage).  Some might assume that one error or another concerning marital finances is true, each of which inaccurately reflects the true level of both oneness and individuality that marriage entails whether people like it or not.  For instance, what about spending within a marriage?  Is money a given spouse earns theirs to spend at their whim or the couple's to mutually decide upon using for a particular end?

Yes, a unified couple's money is their money on one level, regardless of who is actually laboring to earn a given amount.  If both have their own income and both contribute as needed to shared necessary expenses, then as long as they are not spurred on by irrationalistic beliefs or engaging in some sort of sinful activity, they are nonetheless free to spend their own money as they wish.  It is in one sense still their money, not that of their husband or wife, who did not earn it and would not have an automatic moral right to it in the case of separation or divorce.  There is nothing antithetical to sheer egalitarian, relational unity within a marriage about striving to earn, keep separate (to an extent), and spend one's own money.  Is a husband's or wife's money their own or their partner's?  Depending on what is meant, it is both!

A couple is a unit, and ideally each side of the relationship would be in perfect relational sync as individuals; all the same, the truths of individualism are not nullified by marriage, however passionately connected a husband and wife are.  No depth or length of marriage could ever erase the metaphysical individuality of each partner.  Marriage also cannot be more important than the individuals that it cannot exist apart from.  In the tragic case of divorce (which is absolutely permitted by the Bible for all kinds of spousal wrongs [1]), each person has to return to living as more of an individual, though they could still cohabitate with their former spouse for economic or other reasons.  There are ways to go about marriage that gratuitously injure the ability of each person therein to be self-sufficient as much as possible inside and (if applicable) after the marital bond.

Even in the case of debilitating illness of the "breadwinner", the other spouse can quickly be prompted by experience to realize the perils of intentionally relying on one income earner that could be ignored for asinine reasons until the last possible moment.  A spouse who did not work just because they could rely on their partner's income has in either instance set themself up for disaster.  Women might be pressured by sexist stereotypes to do this simply because they are women, but unless they are forced to refrain from working by an abusive/sexist partner, it is entirely on them for actually choosing this course of inaction.  Men of course need financial stability and independence as well; while the idea that men need to work by default whereas it is morally/pragmatically optional for married women to work is utterly sexist (against men primarily!) and therefore illogical, men and women alike need to hold onto financial independence where they can.  This need does not disappear when someone gets married.

Protecting yourself financially on a personal level during marriage not only gives you a stronger chance of weathering a divorce or the death of your spouse, but it also can ease a great many tensions within the marriage or subvert them altogether.  In the more troubled moments that might arise in the relationship, having as much clarity as possible about the security of your money or possessions can make adversarial exchanges less prominent or necessary.  Unfortunately, an abusive or unhealthy marriage can severely jeopardize your career, job security, and savings, but a peaceful marriage can benefit your finances significantly, and not just because of pooled income—and stable personal finances can contribute to marital peace.

It is just that pooled income does not mean that the husband and wife are not entitled to a portion of their own respective earnings which they can utilize as they wish, given that they do not sin in the process.  The husband and wife are individuals and never cease to be their own persons, yet they are in a relationship that inherently unifies them, at least when it is not trivialized to the point of neglect or more severe abuse.  The logical truth about financial entanglement in marriage is therefore neither that all resources are beyond the claim of a particular person nor that being in a marriage is irrelevant to the individual's ownership of money, whether it was obtained beforehand or while married.

[1].  See here or other articles tagged under "Divorce":  

https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2024/06/tearing-apart-one-flesh.html

Fury Of Darksiders III

The third Darksiders game introduces Fury as a playable character, the first female horseman of the four loosely modeled after Revelation's—and I do mean very loosely, since the names War, Fury, and Strife are not even used in Revelation 6, unlike how Death is explicitly mentioned as the name of the fourth horseman (6:7-8); at least War is still named after the function of the horseman in verses 6:3-4, who removes peace so that people kill each other.  Not even he gravitates so naturally and so passionately to conflict as his sister.  Burning with rage and quick to pursue violence, Fury certainly lives up to her name as she hunts down and defeats the Seven Deadly Sins.

In fact, near the beginning of the game, Fury says to her horse in quiet moment that if she didn't love him so much, she would kill him just to alleviate her sheer boredom.  This is rather extremely antithetical to the utter myth that women are calm, passive, delicate beings that can only instigate harm of a lesser kind than "men's" or gravitate towards nonphysical harshness.  At the very least, women are fallaciously considered naturally more likely to have these traits by the typical religious and secular complementarian.  The conjoined, philosophically inseparable myth is that men are inherently or more likely to be angry, brutal, and physically violent than women.  Each of these stereotypes, though logically false, would necessitate the other.  If men were prone to anger or violence because they are men, then women would have to be prone to the opposite because they are women.

Fury might not have been intended to exemplify the errors of gender stereotypes, but as a far more aggressive and emotionalistically (not just emotionally) volatile character than her brothers War and Death from the first two games, she certainly accomplishes this.  It is not that the other characters in the game scoff or marvel at her ire because she is a woman, though even this could have been used by the game's creators to push back against false ideas.  She is presented as physically and magically powerful and emotionally fierce, but also as lacking almost any self-control or recognition of how her emotions do not dictate the nature of reality, such as matters of strict logical truth or moral correctness.

Of course, nothing can be portrayed in fiction unless it really is true or possible (though something being possible is still a truth)—as opposed to characters or real-life storytellers claiming something contrary to reason.  It is true that one man's or woman's mental traits do not mean another person of the same gender also possesses the same characteristics.  It is true that having one kind of genitalia or chromosomes does not logically necessitate having an irate or demure personality.  These things are true due to reason's inherent veracity; it does not matter what someone wishes or feels or believes!  Wherever a man or woman is not reflecting their true natural personality, they could only be bowing to the nonexistent authority of social conditioning, perhaps mistaking the fallacies and errors other people tell them for logical facts.  If personality is not dictated by gender, it can only be individualistic.  There can be nothing unrealistic or impossible about Fury's intense disposition.  Furthermore, Fury's characterization is not an affirmation of the stereotype of women as unstable, but an example of how women do not "normally" or inevitably lack ferocity.

As distorted yet artistically excellent as the elements of Revelation are in Darksiders, the franchise is still based on Biblical theology to an extent, and the Bible does not discriminate against men and women as victims or perpetrators of violence.  Beyond an utter absence of this discrimination which is rather popular in some American communities (against each gender in varying ways), there are in fact many direct statements of gender equality regarding physical and verbal violence (Exodus 21:15, 17, 20-21, 26-32, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:10), as well as related passages that do not exclude the same egalitarianism (see Exodus 21:22-25 and Leviticus 24:19-21).  This alone clarifies that the passages which do not overtly emphasize gender equality without contradicting it, including murder laws outside of Exodus 21 (for examples from various categories, see Exodus 21:18-19 and Deuteronomy 19:11-13), would be applicable to men and women as Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 also necessitate on their own.

Do I think that the developers of Darksiders III had any of this in mind, logically or Biblically?  No, because even if this was the case, I have no way of knowing.  It is still fitting that a game series that borrows some concepts from Judeo-Christianity—and from popular misrepresentations of it, like Lucifer and other demons ruling in a hell that does not even have any inhabitants yet when hell is not a place ruled over by the sinners condemned to die within [1]—would reflect its teachings on a matter very neglected in the church.  Women are no less violent than men because there is no such thing as a gender-specific psychological bent.  They are repeatedly and sometimes forcefully given less opportunities to show their true selves as individuals, which would in some cases, as with men, entail them being violent and even sadistic.  Men who are violent are not this way because they are men, and the women who truly are naturally nonviolent or emotionally calm, as opposed to those who have only been culturally conditioned to not express anger, are not of this personality because they each have a vagina.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-myth-of-satan-reigning-in-hell.html

The Person Who Attacks Their Parents

Exodus 21:15 says if someone strikes their father or mother—something like self-defense being an exception (Exodus 22:3)—he or she is to be put to death.  This is one of the only assaults other than the kind involving murder (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12-14, etc.) that is directly prescribed the death penalty, though it would follow from Deuteronomy 17:12 prescribing execution for the mere verbal display of contempt for a righteous judge of Yahweh's Law (similar to how cursing one's father or mother deserves death according to Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9) that attacking them physically, a greater offense, would also deserve death.  But what of a child, not in the sense of biological relationship but of age, who attacks their parent?

While a very young son or daughter striking their parent out of malice might seem petty to some, they have still intentionally struck their own parent without a morally justifiable reason, and they would still be the type of offender condemned to die by Exodus 21:15.  It would not matter if the offender is six or 10 or 15 years old: they would deserve to die all the same, just as they would if they committed murder (see also Numbers 35:31) despite their age.  Children are, like adults, individuals who are capable of sin that varies in motivation and intensity from person to person.  Age (like race, class, and gender) does not exempt someone, if such an act is truly immoral, from the guilt of murder, and the same would by necessity be true of attacking one's parents maliciously.

The seven year old who willfully strikes their father or mother—such laws as this one and those of Exodus 20:12, 21:17, Deuteronomy 5:16, and 21:18-21 are explicitly egalitarian, in contrast to what some assume the Torah teaches about fathers—simply deserves to perish.  1 Timothy 1:9 says that those who kill their fathers and mothers are among those who deviate from God's commands, possibly referring to an extreme case of the child-parent assault described in Exodus 21:15.  It is utterly untrue that the New Testament revokes such penalties, as if Jesus and Paul could possibly be on Yahweh's side (a deity whose moral nature does not change according to Deuteronomy 5:29, Malachi 3:6, and James 1:17) while promoting anti-theonomist philosophy.

Jesus very directly acknowledges that those who curse their parents as addressed in Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 deserve to die (Matthew 15:3-6, Mark 7:8-13), as if he had not already said he did not come to abolish or alter the obligations of Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19).  Paul, who repeatedly affirms Mosaic Law as being of divine origin and thus perfect righteousness (Acts 23:1-5, 24:14, Romans 7:7, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and so on), says the kind of disobedience to parents mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 deserves death in Romans 1:28-32.  The New Testament rather overtly does not in any way contradict the Old Testament on a plethora of moral matters, which of course includes terrestrial justice, and if it did, the New Testament could not possibly be true since it would then conflict with what it stands on.

Eternity And Boredom

When faced with the harsh transience of this life, eternal life might seem preferable.  Setting aside the even more extreme reason why eternal life alone does not necessarily entail eternal bliss [1], there is a reason, however, why eternal life of a calm or initially pleasant kind could become a massive burden: one might grow bored having a perpetual remainder of time to exist and a limited range of logically possible things to do (whether on a mental or physical level), especially if one's personality is such that familiarity with an activity or experience dulls whatever thrilling excitement was once stirred by it.

It might not involve vicious external torments or moralistic punishment (obviously, eternal torment cannot be morally legitimate punishment because of the intrinsic, supreme disproportionality), but boredom could wear down any happiness a being has at the prospect of eternal life, even if they had the freedom, whether pragmatic or moral, to do anything they would like to do, as long as it is logically possible.  The existential desperation of having an infinite amount of time to live through and a declining or collapsed satisfaction with one's conscious existence could lead to immense psychological anguish precisely because there would be no upcoming, looming death to bring an end to the suffering.

If one person was to descend into boredom during their eternal life, it would not mean that another person would.  Nor does it follow from having eternal life, however many people would possess it, that an individual must experience eventual boredom.  Those who think the possibility of boredom means the very idea of eternal life could not be positive, even the version of it in Judeo-Christianity, would be wrong.  All the same, the concept of living forever is not inherently positive as fools with a contrasting stance might think.

Ultimately, and thankfully, nothing about eternal life logically requires that someone would wind up bored or frustrated simply by virtue of living forever; but, should they not have the ability to eradicate their consciousness from existence or plunge themselves into a state of no perception (as with the Biblical Sheol), then there would be no escape from the boredom unless it happens to vanish from their mind at some point just as it happened to come about.  Otherwise, it would last forever, just as their consciousness would exist forever.

That would be no small thing.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2024/02/to-live-forever.html

The Multifaceted Connection Between Exercise And Mental Health

Is it logically possible for physical exercise to result in improvements to mental health?  Absolutely.  Read commonplace statements about this issue online, however, and the information presented can be very incomplete or outright inaccurate.  Causal oversimplification and neglect of how mental and physical health are separate but still significantly intertwined are easy to encounter.  For instance, a site might just say that exercise alleviates or can alleviate depression, with no clarification about why this could or would be the case or how highly individualistic variables relate.  There are in reality many ways that exercise can elevate or reinforce mental health that are far more precise and existentially charged than the one merely following the other sequentially, as if physical activity always or inherently produces positive mental states.

Doing something that benefits one's physical health, on the more simple side of things, could inspire a contentment with or inner celebration that one has taken measures within one's power to protect one's bodily wellbeing.  Since one's mind inhabits the body, there is a connection between physical and mental wellbeing, and such satisfaction with simply trying to improve or maintain one's health is one possible way to appreciate this connection.  Or, successful exercise could highlight that one still has the capacity to physically (or mentally) carry out certain activities and stir up a sense of joy or gratefulness—especially pertinent to ill or older individuals who could find immense relief that their bodies have not deteriorated to a greater extent.  The latter is really about expressing or maintaining mental autonomy through bodily action rather than about exercise for the sake of largely/exclusively physical benefits (a stronger heart, reduced inflammation, etc.).

Still other potential ways exercise could be tied to uplifted mental health, should someone remain consistent in their endeavors, include exemplifying a sustained commitment or crossing new thresholds of personal achievement.  The exact motivations could vary between individuals, as motivation is always an individualistic matter even when two people ultimately have the same core intentions or feelings.  But in some way, mental health improvements or stability derived from exercise are always about more than just physical processes and outcomes, whatever form they take in a particular person's case.

Never is it intrinsically as simplistic as physical activity automatically triggering the likes of happiness, excitement, or fulfillment divorced from any entirely psychological/phenomenological factors, which are themselves nonphysical in nature and highly personalized.  A reductionistic philosophy of exercise, such as one rooted in sheer metaphysical naturalism (materialism), would conflate the two or deny that the mental component is anything more than some sort of illusion (obviously incorrect since logic requires that consciousness cannot be illusory).  A less explicitly abstract or extreme but incorrect philosophy of exercise might still conflate physical and mental health, with its adherents just assuming that the former entails or leads to the latter in some ultimately erroneous manner.

Even exercise tiring someone to the point that they fall asleep more easily and perhaps feel less exhausted upon waking, instilling an upbeat mood that could help ward off or diminish something like depression, does not involve as sharp, direct, or personal an impact of physical health on mental health as some of the scenarios provided in the second paragraph.  Yes, there is a relationship between mental and physical health since we experience what we do with our bodies and whatever physical advantages might come about (even non-rationalists who by nature have no actual knowledge can still experience), but that relationship can be manifested in far more layered and diverse ways than reductionistic science-oriented articles address.

A Legitimate Form Of Pessimism

There is much to be bitter about almost by default in human life, from explicitly abstract, weighty issues of truth (like the fact that one cannot know if there is an afterlife or how terrible it might be) to personal tragedies (an agonizing disease, among other things) and even the accumulation of otherwise minor inconveniences.  Even a total non-rationalist who sidesteps the first of these three categories due to their own irrationalistic neglect can still find themself struggling under the burdens that fall within the latter two categories.  In certain cases, people respond irrationally by clinging desperately to some kind of philosophical (as in, ideological) optimism that helps them feel less overwhelmed.

Some within this group might go further by rejecting the legitimacy of pessimism outright, either as something that is perhaps philosophically true, whether one likes it or not, or as a personal means of coping with suffering.  Almost inevitably, the real reason why some people oppose all degrees of pessimism or outward complaining from others is because it impacts their mental health, which obviously changes nothing about the objective logical nature of the matter in question.  Their unwillingness or even potential inability to not handle the truth is no justification for others to always withhold complaints or to embrace emotionalistic optimism.  The genuine failure is their own.

This life is—or at least it is entirely logically possible for it to be—a massive series of setbacks, pains, and labors that entails so much that is worthy of frustration or anger, whether or not Christianity is true.  Of course, complaining about stupidity, sin, and amoral misery is not at all the kind of inward/verbalized complaining that the New Testament does condemn [1].  But even if there was some supposed moral problem with persistently complaining in one's speech or dwelling on the oppressive nature of anguish, it would change nothing about the logically necessary nature of some concepts or circumstances.

Depending on the form of the pessimism, the idea is an objective philosophical truth (such as that some things are worthy of lament or bitterness and that it could not be irrational or evil to recognize this), far from a mere subjective state of mind that would only ever appeal to or be found in someone already in the throes of suffering.  But many people seem to adopt pessimistic thoughts when their resolve is weakened without ever trying to consider the necessary truths about the subject, which by their very nature do not depend on thought or some challenging situation.

As more than a mindset, which corresponds only to a being's consciousness and not to the likes of transcendent logic or external scenarios, a particular variation of pessimism is simply correct.  Some things are not positive and might be incredibly difficult or unfavorable, either/whether objectively or subjectively, and it is entirely legitimate to accept, speak about, and dwell on these facts.  One does not have to pretend like everything is beneficial or pleasant to be in the right or to be have the psychological strength to weather trials.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2025/09/paul-on-complaining.html

Interfering With A Person's Livelihood

With malicious intentionality or some other motivation, interfering with a person's livelihood—when the job itself is not wicked—is a form of mistreatment that strikes at their very ability to survive or have a life of comfort.  The Bible does not say to not obstruct a person from making a living as directly as the wording of "Do not obstruct a person's career unless their profession is immoral."  It does not have to.  What it does say of direct relevance would be found in two passages from the Torah, Exodus 21:18-19 and Deuteronomy 24:6.  The situations covered in each text relate to obligations that are far broader in scope and ramification than just the two exact circumstances mentioned.

Exodus 21:18-19—"'If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.'"

Deuteronomy 24:6—"Do not take a pair of millstones—not even the upper one—as security for a debt, because that would be taking someone's livelihood as security."

The first, Exodus 21:18-19, is a crucial passage about a particular kind of physical assault, a largely separate issue.  Still, restitution for time the victim had lost would include time they would or could have engaged in professional labor to make money for themselves.  The assault and injury, though not of a lethal or permanent nature and thus deserving of neither capital punishment (Exodus 21:12-14, 20-21) nor Lex Talionis (Exodus 21:22-25), deprives them of opportunities that should not have been robbed from them whether or not they were going to earn money.  Again, while not strictly or primarily about depriving someone of work or the resulting monetary means of survival, such a thing is within the literal scope of the passage.

The second passage, Deuteronomy 24:6, says not to take the instrument a person uses to make a living as security for a debt, the example of a millstone being given in the text, precisely because that would hinder their livelihood.  Thus, the Bible does condemn even more blatantly than in Exodus 21:18-19 the interference of one person in another's ability to make money by nonsinful methods.  Not even debts are justification for taking from a person that which they rely on in order to survive without resorting to theft or reliance on the arbitrary generosity of others.  Of course, even if someone was to lose their ability to work, the Bible prescribes a number of safety nets for the poor (Exodus 22:25-27, Leviticus 19:9-10, Deuteronomy 15:1-18, 24:14-15, and so on) so that no man or woman is without a divinely prescribed or permitted means of softening or escaping poverty altogether, with or without regular professional labor.

If killing a man or woman in a rapid act outside of allowances like justice (Exodus 20:13, 21:12-14, 20-21, Deuteronomy 19:11-13, and so on) or even negligently allowing them to be killed by a danger one expected or was warned of (Exodus 21:28-32, Leviticus 19:16, Deuteronomy 22:8) is a capital sin, then it should not be surprising that intentionally interfering with their livelihood so that they can avoid a slow death by starvation is of course a great immorality.  A person's flourishing, as long as it does not come about due to sin, should not be obstructed, as their livelihood is a way to stabilize their flourishing as a being made in God's image and to provide for any dependent family members.  As with so many other things, Biblical prescriptions about restitution for minor assault and not taking millstones as a security for debt address so much more than just these exact scenarios.

The Biblical Rejection Of Looking To Moral Intuition

Morality cannot be demonstrated to exist or not exist [1], and certainly not by personal feelings or appeals to human governments or norms, but a person can, without they themself or their audience making assumptions, realize and share accurately what Mosaic Law is, what the logical prerequisites or ramifications to its various laws would be, and what evidence there is for Christianity, and thus for Biblical ethics being true.  The existence of morality itself is entirely speculative either way, but at least Christian ethics is logically possible (it does not contradict logical axioms or other necessary truths) and has actual evidence in its favor; all other moral systems have none at all or contradict themselves or something else about reality that is true by logical necessity (for example, see just one of my many refutations of Islam here [2]).  See these excerpts from Deuteronomy and Isaiah specifying that children do not know morality and have to in some way learn it (again, no person can actually know the existence or particulars of moral obligation, if it does exist, but one can teach to them the tenets of Judeo-Christianity and the evidences for them, and so on, or they can recognize them without social prompting):

Deuteronomy 1:39—"'And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land.  I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.'"

Isaiah 7:14-16—"'Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.  He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.'"

I used the New International Version above, which still conveys that in both cases, children do not know moral right and wrong left to themselves, though this is even more explicit in translations like the King James Version and the English Standard Version.  According to very direct Biblical statements, no one knows morality by default.  No one would have to learn or teach God's revealed laws from or to other people (Deuteronomy 6:6-7) if everyone just "knows" from subjective feelings what is right or wrong, which is already a logically impossible thing.  God would have never had a reason to reveal any commands at all if this was the case.  Emotions only require and prove that one's own emotions presently exist.  Feelings have nothing to do either metaphysically or epistemologically with whether morality exists or what obligations there are.  Since reason is inherently true, and thus the Bible would have to be consistent with logical necessities in order for its philosophy to even possibly be true, it is no small thing that the Bible does plainly deny innate moral knowledge.  In fact, many people who claim to be Christians and profess moral knowledge through conscience would actively disregard or oppose Biblical commands while thinking that unrelated or innocent things are moral evils.  

Conscience would not be any less subjective even if everyone's was the same, but would your conscience suggest that you always pay your laborers (employees or hired workers) before the next sunset (Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 24:14-15)?  Have you, if you have a conscience, ever been stricken left totally to yourself because you ate pork (Leviticus 11:1-3, 7-8, Deuteronomy 14:8) or thoughtlessly vowed to do even something good (Leviticus 5:4-5), not that you can know what is good beyond what is good if a given worldview is true?  Such a feeling would still only require that you are experiencing guilt or moral concern, not that the thing itself is immoral, and you could never know objective morality from subjective conscience anyway.  What about your feelings about the mandatory stoning of a family member to death for enticing you to worship anything besides Yahweh (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) or about the release of male and female slaves, which are Biblically permitted but so very different from the slaves of many other times and places, every seventh year and their furnishing with resources upon the end of their service (Deuteronomy 15:12-14)?

I doubt that anyone I have known would have ever had their conscience make it seem as if these and other such exact things are respectively obligatory, permissible, or evil.  Even if someone's conscience did make them feel like these are the moral obligations that exist, the Bible concurs with what is logically true either way: no one "just knows" morality from conscience, which is purely subjective, not that everyone has a conscience to begin with, and not that everyone who has a conscience will not lose it or see it change.  You cannot be taught by God or fellow humans what you already know, just as you cannot be given eternal life if you already have it and thus the unrighteous will not live, and hence cannot be tortured, forever (John 3:16, Romans 2:7-8, and so on).  Perhaps a misinterpretation of Paul's writings in Romans 1-2 is what many Christians I have encountered base their philosophical notion to the contrary on, at least as far as what they think the Bible teaches on the subject of moral epistemology.  Was this actually what Paul means, then his writings would contradict both the inherent truths of reason and the Old Testament doctrines he supposedly champions.  The New Testament or certain parts of it can be false if the Old Testament is true, but not the other way around.

It is not as if the belief that conscience is an genuine confirmation of objective morality is limited to only evangelical Christians, however; it is quite a popular belief, or at least many talk and act as if they believe it, whatever the rest of their worldview is like, though this idea and all that it entails could by logical necessity only be false.  People who have literally never paused to even examine the mountain of sheer assumptions on which their passively constructed worldview stands might have a thriving yet intrinsically arbitrary, irrelevant, and meaningless conscience; atheists, Muslims, and any other category of philosophical adherent could have a passionate conscience.  Not even believing in moral nihilism, which cannot be proven or as much as evidentially supported even if it is true, necessitates that someone is without a conscience, and neither does lacking a conscience mean someone is not a fierce moralist of one kind or another.  Not once does the Bible, its moral doctrines most precisely and almost exclusively introduced in the Torah's Law of Moses, say anything that denies any of this.

[1].  See here for a handful of my posts on this matter:

A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/denial-of-conscience.html

B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-myths-about-moral-agreement.html

[2].  For instance, see here:

A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/quranic-punishment-surah-538.html

B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2025/05/the-food-laws-of-quran.html

C.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2025/09/the-quran-on-corporal-punishment.html

The Multiple Affirmations Of Annihilationism In 2 Peter 2

2 Peter 2:6 says that the wicked will be literally burned to ashes like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah—at least in something like the New International Version.  In the King James Version, or in certain other translations, the wording is as if the cities being burned to ashes is a general warning to God's enemies, not a prediction about an eschatological judgment.  However, if this verse conveyed something different in the original language, or if a translation like the King James Version is used, which describes what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah (being burned to ashes) as an example to wicked people who live later in history instead of an example of what will happen to the wicked, it is not so that the rest of the chapter says nothing that still affirms the eventual annihilation of the wicked.

Peter says, first, that destruction awaits false teachers in the opening three verses of the chapter.  Destruction by God in hell is what Matthew 10:28 contrasts with the mere killing of the body but not the soul by humans; obviously, this verse means that the wicked will die in hell unless it is using language in incredibly misleading ways.  Other parts of the Bible say the wicked will ultimately be destroyed so that they are no longer alive (see also passages like Philippians 3:18-19), but nothing in 2 Peter 2:1-3 requires that this destruction of false teachers is only their natural biological deaths or a premature death from God in this life.

What Peter says about the fate of false teachers, whom he describes as having, for one thing, lives based around greed, is that they are like animals that will perish (2 Peter 2:12).  The word perish alone already references actual annihilation, certainly not endless torture, and John 3:16 contrasts perishing with having eternal life—as if stating that eternal life is only possessed by the righteous or forgiven does not already necessitate that anyone else does not live forever, thus making their eternal torture impossible.  Furthermore, it is the comparison to the fate of irrational, wicked teachers to that of animals that perhaps alludes to a handful of verses from the Old Testament.

Does the Bible say animals will exist in an afterlife forever by default, or be tortured forever more specifically?  No.  Actually, Psalm 49 speaks as if humans and sheep alike go to Sheol, which the Bible very clearly says is where the dead perceive nothing at all because they are totally unconscious (Job 3:11-19 and Ecclesiastes 9:5-10, for instance).  Humans have no advantage over animals in the first death (Ecclesiastes 3:18-21) because both have the same breath of life from God [1], and their dead all go to unconsciousness by means of soul sleep.  However, only humans are said to be eventually resurrected (Daniel 12:2, John 5:21-29, and so on), and the unrepentant wicked will then face a permanent second death, a literal death with no additional resurrection (Revelation 20:11-15).

As 2 Peter 2:6 puts it, at least in the NIV and ESV, being burned to ashes as happened to the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is what will happen to the unrighteous.  This is not the only place where such a thing is directly addressed, as in the case of some other verses I have referenced here, but in this form, 2 Peter 2:6 is a very plain statement of annihilationism.  Regardless, other parts of 2 Peter 2 itself are not only consistent with annihilationism, the idea that the wicked will at some point cease to have conscious life as punishment from God, but they also point to them perishing instead of eternally suffering—something that could not possibly be just, logically or Biblically [2].

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-breath-of-life-in-animals.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2024/06/death-is-not-worst-fate-logically-or.html

Alleged Bible Contradictions: Exodus 18:13-26 And Deuteronomy 1:9-18

I would not have even thought about the idea that Exodus 18:13-26 and Deuteronomy 1:9-18 do contradict each other, with both addressing how Moses installed judges to prevent all cases of interpersonal offense from being brought to him, any longer than is necessary to casually but rightly notice the genuine overlap of the two passages (with variations in what is clarified) if it was not for seeing someone claim that they are indeed in contradiction.  Unlike some verses that can absolutely appear to contradict other verses (including 1 Corinthians 7:19 and Genesis 17:9-10/Leviticus 12:3 [1]), there is no apparent discrepancy of the illogical kind between the aforementioned parts of Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1, only a difference in the details provided in each account.

Exodus 18:13-26 tells of Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, advising Moses to not act as the exclusive judge for the large number of people who come to him, because he is only exhausting himself gratuitously.  The proposed solution is having others act as judges as opposed to simply having no one hear the numerous cases that would have been brought to Moses.  In Deuteronomy 1:9-18, Moses retells these events, but leaves out a reference to Jethro and adds his own words to the new judges.

Exodus 18:13-26—"The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening.  When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, 'What is this you are doing for the people?  Why do you sit alone as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?'

Moses answered him, 'Because the people come to me to seek God's will.  Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God's decrees and instructions.'

Moses' father-in-law replied, 'What you are doing is not good.  You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out.  The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone.  Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you.  You must be the people's representative before God and bring their disputes to him.  Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave.  But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.  Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves.  That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you.  If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.'

Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said.  He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.  They served as judges for the people at all times.  The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves."

Deuteronomy 1:9-18—"At that time I said to you, 'You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone.  The Lord your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as numerous as the stars in the sky.  May the Lord, the God of your ancestors, increase you a thousand times and bless you as he has promised!  But how can I bear your problems and your burdens and your disputes all by myself?  Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you.'

You answered me, 'What you propose to do is good.'

So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you—as commanders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens and as tribal officials.  And I charged your judges at that time, 'Hear the disputes between your people and judge fairly, whether the case is between two Israelites or between an Israelite and a foreigner residing among you.  Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike.  Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment belongs to God.  Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it.'  And at that time I told you everything you were to do."

According to Exodus 18, Jethro encourages Moses to dilute his bloated workload by appointing other figures to judge cases themselves.  According to Deuteronomy 1, Moses installed such figures to act as judges, insisting that they (as reason and Yahweh's prescriptions require) harbor no bias towards or against anyone, regardless of his or her ancestry and social or economic standing.  The summary of his own actions Moses provides in the first chapter of Deuteronomy does add points about how he addressed those placed in authority.  But, none of these details contradict the exact particulars of the account in Exodus 18.

The beginning of Deuteronomy summarizes the outcome of the incident described in Exodus 18:13-26.  True, the second book to address the historical appointment of Israelite judges acting on behalf of Moses and ultimately God does not mention Jethro.  Nor does the Exodus narrative bring up the charge of Moses that these judges rightfully refrain from any discrimination against Israelites, foreigners, the rich, and the poor, though it does state that Moses acted in accordance with Jethro's advice and that the judges brought the most challenging cases to Moses, handling the rest on their own.  Nothing about the one book's alleged sequence of events is incompatible with those of the other.

It is important that Moses was actually already receiving divine revelation about morality, including the just penalties for various wrongs, before the Sinai covenant (see also Exodus 16 regarding the Sabbath and Genesis 26:5 regarding Abraham's righteousness), which is yet another reason why the moral revelation codified in Mosaic Law that begins only two chapters later could not be only for the Israelites—except where its content logically could not apply to a non-Israelite as with Leviticus 21:1-4 and Deuteronomy 25:17-19.  That is why miscellaneous acts condemned in the Law are said therein to be evil for non-Israelites as well, such as in Leviticus 18:5-30 and Deuteronomy 18:9-13; such immoral acts and many others are capable of being performed by people of any nation or lineage.  Morality is morality, applying to all people except where there is some logically necessary exception.  Exodus 18 has relevance to such vital facts.

Moreover, the chapter touches on the legitimacy of not burdening oneself needlessly to the point of damaging one's mental health even for the sake of God, something lurking more in the background of Deuteronomy 1:9-18 but still touched on in verse 12.  No one needs to go above and beyond for either God or other people.  While Exodus emphasizes this far more than Deuteronomy's looser overview of the need for judges besides Moses as well as his words to those appointed, the details of the events as described in both Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1 are wholly consistent with each other.  Numerous times, Deuteronomy restates or adds information about earlier events or moral laws affirmed throughout Exodus and Leviticus, which does not require that there is a contradiction.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2025/04/paul-on-circumcision-in-1-corinthians.html

An Overview Of Light: Quanta And The Macroscopic

Other than traveling at the speed of light or some even faster hypothetical speed, there is still a faster way to travel that is logically possible, although it could only be attained through supernatural or extraordinarily advanced technological/natural means: immediate teleportation.  But as far as reported empirical investigation yields, little [1] to nothing observed within the universe moves faster than light itself, naturally or artificially.  Even if it did, it would be traveling faster than our composite neurological-phenomenological ability to see it.  If our conscious sense of sight is integrated with physical eyes that cannot receive photons faster than light travels, anything faster would be imperceivable to us.

Now, photons, the quanta (the ostensibly smallest quantum units) of light, are supposed to be energy without mass: in other words, they are claimed by some to not be made of matter although they have a direct relationship with the material world.  Like the empty space between atoms [2] (and empty space, like logically necessary truths and the uncaused cause, by necessity exists prior to and independent of the physical cosmos, whatever scientists or theologians might pretend [3]), photons are among the sometimes subtly acknowledged immaterial existents proposed by otherwise metaphysically naturalistic scientists.  Though they might be called fundamental particles, they are said to not be miniscule units of matter like electrons or quarks, also deemed fundamental particles, but are instead alleged to be matterless altogether.

This would mean, if the hearsay is true, that photons are in a sense not strictly part of the natural world, as they have no physical substance.  Since sensory observation and interaction with the world of matter are still related to light, this remains a scientific issue despite how science is about matter and not about the immaterial side of metaphysics.  Of course, one cannot know if things like immaterial photons or many of the seemingly physical objects around us really exist outside of our conscious perceptions, and we cannot directly perceive quantum energy or particles regardless, but we can see macroscopic light in our everyday lives.  Immaterial as photons and the visible light they generate seem to be, the external world it illuminates would be physical, though experiments could be performed that reveal what seems to be the case about how light interacts with nature.

Galileo's lantern experiment of 1638 is one such example regarding the speed of light in particular, though its extreme rapidity—for it seems to us to appear instantaneously—and the imprecision of then-contemporary timing mechanisms imposed empirical limitations.  Much has been investigated or proposed since then.  Today, in addition to the aforementioned quantum scale of light "particles," the cosmological distances light can travel, related to why we would only be seeing distant galaxies as they were in the past, have received much attention.  The speed of light has been pinpointed as 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum, with slight to significant variations in the perceived speed occuring when light hits certain substances.  The speed of light seemingly slows in a medium like water due to the high refractive index, for instance.  Eventually, the macroscopic luminosity of light can be drowned out altogether, and this would have to be the case for there to be a bathypelagic zone in the ocean (starting at 1,000 meters below the surface).

Otherwise, no layers of the deep sea could ever be fully immersed in darkness, except for that which is dispelled by bioluminescence.  Without a boundary past which light is entirely muted or absorbed, sunlight would reach all the way to the bottom of every trench even if its visibility weakened with depth; light would only be blocked when debris or creatures briefly separate a given spot from its rays.  The bathypelagic, abyssopelagic, and hadopelagic zones are, however, shrouded in darkness.  What light is present, save for some that might penetrate down to around 1,000 meters supposedly under the right circumstances, originates from local sources like the appendage of the female anglerfish.  Observing this still would tell us nothing about the quantum processes that contribute to such a phenomenon, though.  Do photons continue moving at their same speed unhindered and undissipated even if the light loses its macroscopic visibility?

Regardless, it is paradoxical that something ostensibly consisting of nonphysical energy would be impacted in its sensory perceivability by a physical medium such as water, but my immaterial mind still controls behaviors of my body despite having no physical substance.  Pertaining to quantum and macroscopic physics alike without actually being part of the material cosmos according to one paradigm, light is a highly foundational yet nuanced subject of science.  Providing literal illumination of the environments and objects around us, light is vital to basic human activities and is complex in its metaphysical composition.  The nature of photons and general quantum energy is, while secondary to the primary of logic, the uncaused cause, and empty space (as well as one's own consciousness on an epistemological level since it is self-evident along with axioms), of great relevance to the reliance of what is comprised of matter on what is immaterial.

[1].  https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a70885429/darkness-faster-than-light/

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2021/06/empty-space-within-atoms.html

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/07/god-and-empty-space.html

Survival Of The Cooperative

The concept of survival of the fittest is sometimes misunderstood as the idea that a creature must be ruthless, selfish, and willing or eager to trample on other living things in order to be "fit" enough to survive.  Everything from casual conversation to fictional stories might reinforce this erroneous perception, but being fit to survive does not have to inevitably mean that one animal exploits or abandons others according to whatever is in its immediate interests.  At its core, the concept just entails that a being is fit to survive in some given situation, whatever the means of doing so (however logically or morally legitimate they are).  Those criteria that help that creature extend its life can significantly vary.

In one context, a person might be genuinely more prone to survive by expressing boldness or cruelty; in another context, a person might be more prone to survive by acting timid or reserved.  Physical strength, a thriving immune system, rationalistic intelligence, and sheer luck are among the traits or factors that could contribute to someone having a better chance of remaining alive, depending on the scenario.  So, too, would cooperating with others intentionally and wholeheartedly, contrary to a popular notion about the efficiency of the vicious survivalist who will use or brutalize anyone to stay alive.

Two or more people who can look out for each other can increase their prospects of survival immensely.  For instance, a lone person intent on survival out in "the wild" has no one to share pragmatic burdens with.  He or she must endeavor to find a secure place to sleep that does not leave them exposed to the elements or at heightened risk of unwanted attention from other animals, including fellow humans.  There is no one to act as a guard or watcher on their behalf, which at worst leaves them vulnerable in the case of an intruder.  Even a single additional person taking a turn watching while the other sleeps could bestow great advantages to both.

The strength or observational capacity of multiple people can easily surpass that of a person operating in solitude.  And what if sickness or injury befalls the lone survivalist?  They have no one to assist them in even the most basic actions, even actions that improve the likelihood of their recovery to fuller autonomy.  There are many logically possible survival situations and factors not addressed in this post, of course.  But, when directly confronted with scenarios like these, it is not unusual for people to acknowledge the benefits of cooperation with others when it comes to survival and more general ease of life.

The people in these situations who act cooperatively, though this does not make their beliefs or actions logically or morally valid in themselves, are certainly "fit" for survival in a sense.  Survival of the fittest has no singular manifestation.  Indeed, some people are more equipped mentally or physically to navigate a given perilous situation without losing their life.  One of the means of achieving this, especially in some circumstances, is working together with or directly caring for the needs of other people.

What If Someone Finds Annihilation Appealing?

Logically, it is impossible for eternal torture to be justice: endless suffering infinitely outweighs any individual sin and torture would objectively be worse than many sins being punished as it is.  Biblically, like it or not, the fate of the wicked in hell is death and not the supreme injustice of perpetual torture (Matthew 10:28, John 3:16, Romans 6:23, etc.).  The Bible thus agrees with pure logic on this matter.  But what if someone is eager to be annihilated or to face this punishment precisely because there is no eternal pain, despite the resulting state of death lasting forever?  More specifically, what of a person highly attracted to suicide due to the potential for mental oblivion or the person who would gladly, knowingly sin as long as they expected to eventually cease to exist and not face eternal suffering?

A suicidal person might not care if their sin of suicide was to seal their future damnation to soul oblivion—I am not saying that this must be the outcome of committing suicide, as I am focusing on a logical truth about their potential motivation.  Someone who hates the misery of their life so much that they prefer cessation of mental existence to living out the rest of their natural lifespan could find the idea of annihilation after resurrection and cosmic judgment relieving.  Even if they have to suffer a finite amount of time to reach the final state, they would still eventually be purged from existence, unable at that point to even ponder or regret the choice that led them to true and lasting destruction.  This is precisely what they longed for enough to find suicide appealing.

Alternatively, a wicked person bent on pursuing whatever subjectively pleasurable thing calls to them in the moment might be apathetic towards the final destiny of annihilation as long as the pleasure of their preference is accessible now.  To commit suicide is at least in most cases sinful, but a desperately suicidal person craves nonexistence for the sake of relief while the hedonist or malicious person who wants to do as they like wants nonexistence to escape accountability.  If the latter could know in advance with absolute certainty that annihilation awaits them if they do not repent before their soul is killed, as with the sufficiently suicidal person, their personal attitude could be one of relief and contentment.  The irony is that they could experience none of that contentment once death has arrived.  

For someone still living, true death can seem like a greater state by far in itself or by comparison to any other possibility.  That it is Biblically reserved for the unrepentantly wicked would probably not dissuade either kind of person described even if there is evidence that the Bible is true.  Why should they seek eternal life regardless, and why would it be in their best interests?  Now, if something is morally obligatory, by nature it is what you should do even if you despise it.  If something truly is evil, it should not be done.  If morality exists, whether or not in the form it has on Christianity, there is no legitimacy in doing whatever you wish because you will not have to suffer without an end in some sort of afterlife.

It would not matter if someone does not care that they will be annihilated forever if they do not repent of their sins, as they should avoid evil by nature of it being evil and not strictly to avoid punishment.  However, the kind of suicidal person and egoistic sinner described above at least do not consistently care about pure logic and do not care about upholding righteousness more than gratifying their own subjective whims, as different as they might be.  Necessitated by justice is the fact that any punitive suffering is not eternal, and, again, some people might crave the oblivion that follows any torment in the Biblical hell.

Would you personally want to do what you should and shun what should not be done, when logic and morality themselves require that there could not be morally legitimate torture without end as punishment for evil?  Even if someone was irrational enough to care more about their own preferences than what is true and what is morally correct (if there is morality) for their own sake, on the Biblical worldview, there are still pragmatic benefits to seeking eternal life, the gift to the righteous.  Whoever receives eternal life does not merely exist forever unlike the wicked who perish.  Each individual with eternal life is free to do whatever they would like as long as they do not sin—and those boundaries are much less confining than many people inside and outside of the church assume.

Morality should be lived out no matter the consequences or lack of them.  When the enduring consequence is death of the soul, total extinction of consciousness and thus the very capacity for sadness or pain, this might seem trivial to someone intent on living as they please no matter what because they still can do as they wish in the present.  It is absolutely not trivial.  The eternal deprivation of the ability to experience pleasure in all its nonsinful forms—such as savoring logical necessities, engaging in empowering introspection, knowing God, and enjoying deep friendships—would be a terrible thing.  On the level of sheer personal benefit, eternal life free of pain coupled with existential fulfillment and pleasure always outweighs the unconciousness of eternal death.

With all of this in mind, aside from whether Christianity is actually true, would you really want to cease to exist as opposed to enjoying the multitude of good or permissible pleasures without boredom, pain, or an end?  Independent of preference, one should do and intend to do whatever is good because one should do it, but there are incentives according to Biblical philosophy that objectively would be better on a pragmatic and personal level than simply seizing what is comparatively like a few brief moments of pleasure in this life mingled with the opportunity for unwanted pain, and then dying forever.  The process of dying in hell might be very painful although logic and Christian morality require a maximum severity to justice (Deuteronomy 25:1-3, Luke 12:47-48).  This potential for pain is part of the deterrence.  

Nonetheless, the lasting part of the punishment of hell is being eternally denied the capacity for joy and pleasure.  You no longer exist to regret or repent or find any sort of fulfillment and happiness.  Eternal life alone is not a positive thing whatsoever [1]; Biblically, whoever receives eternal life will be the endless subject of a perfect life with all that human perfection really permits and entails, very much unlike what many conceive of living in heaven being like.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2024/02/to-live-forever.html

Wise (Or Rational) Only In One's Own Eyes

The approval of other people does not make anything true except that they harbor approval.  It could only be stupid, because the concept itself is objectively erroneous, to think that one person or group considering another person to be wise is what means the latter really is such a thing.  The latter individual believing they have this quality is likewise not what makes it so or reveals the truth of the matter to them.  Now, intelligence is not necessarily the same thing as wisdom.  However, the same point would be true either way of rationality (real intelligence) and wisdom, for someone is not lacking in either trait simply by believing or not believing they possess it; they alternatively do not possess it by virtue of others believing or not believing that they do.  It all comes down to whether they truly have the characteristic.  When Proverbs condemns people who are wise in their own eyes, it is in actuality warning against a person having the false belief they are wise, not against anyone ever thinking they are wise.

Proverbs 18:2—"Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions."

Proverbs 26:12—"Do you see a person wise in their own eyes?  There is more hope for a fool than for them."

As with many statements in Proverbs, the claim of 26:12 is extremely hyperbolic.  To be wise only in one's own eyes (according to one's perception/assumptions but not in reality) is to be irrational, and to be irrational is to be a fool, so the person wise in their own eyes, who believes they are what they are not (and thus could only be assuming this), is by nature foolish.  He or she is wise only in their own eyes and not in truth.  Someone who falsely thinks they are wise on the basis of assumptions neglects or denies reason, perhaps rooting their worldview in sheer intentional egoism.  Thinking one is rational or wise is not erroneous if it is true and one is not making assumptions.  These things are true and knowable by logical necessity independent of the Bible and its veracity, of course, but Proverbs 18:2 very plainly contrasts genuine understanding with holding to subjective, preference-based opinions.

There is no way to have anything more than an entirely illusory understanding apart from strict adherence to rationalism, requiring that someone start with recognizing the utter truth and foundationality of logical axioms and make no assumptions.  Anything else is to have a worldview that is unproven or unprovable and that ignores the only things that have to be true in themselves.  Of course a rationalistic person can know that they are rationalistic, and thus intelligent.  Logical truths and introspective states of mind, for the person who is not a slave to assumptions, are absolutely certain because logic cannot be false—if logic was false, it would follow by logical necessity from the nature of reality that it is false, and so it would still have to be true—and one's own mind is directly experienced.  If a person knows reason and knows their own mind, it follows that they can certainly know that they are intelligent, aka rational, aka rationalistic.  This person cannot possibly be rational or wise merely in their own eyes (though wisdom is again not the same as pure rationality, which is pure ideological alignment with necessary truths).

The person who believes in falsities or in assumptions can only be in error, and thus he or she is not intelligent to the extent that they neglect the self-evident (logical axioms and their own conscious existence) or embrace any kind of assumption.  They would be an example of the fool of Proverbs who delights in their own preferences or arbitrary, false, assumed beliefs because they find this appealing, as if reality hinges on subjective whim—not even the whim and power of God can alter what is true by logical necessity.  Someone who believes they are intelligent because they recall philosophically secondary or unimportant information about historical or scientific matters that cannot be logically proven anyway [1] is an example of a person wise or intelligent only in their own eyes.  Though they deny or neglect logical axioms or make a myriad of assumptions, confusing hearsay for proof and history and science for the heart of reality one way or another, they are utterly deluded.

[1].  For instance, see elaboration here:

https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/09/rationalism-is-not-evidentialism.html

The Market Rate

The market rate is not necessarily livable or in any other way rational and just.  Really, it is just the normalized amount employers are personally willing to pay in a given area at a specific time.  Sometimes it is equated with an average of what other employers in a similar business pay, meaning that some of the wages or salaries are even lower than the supposed rate.  Either way, that the "market" pays only a certain amount does not mean that the work does not deserve more simply because it is professional work or because of the nature of that exact role.  This alone is unlikely to deter employers from acting as if whatever minuscule compensation they offer is somehow significantly better than what one would fine somewhere else.  Often, this vague, unspecified amount is just presented on job listings as "competitive."

A wage or salary being better than that of a competitor requires nothing more on its own: it is better, which in this case means larger, than the competitor's wage or salary.  It might be genuinely horrible, which necessitates that the competitor's lesser offering is even worse.  The lower compensation offered by the other company might be so abysmal that almost any amount would be better, so superior pay does not automatically mean excellent or even adequate pay, as some employers might try to mislead applicants into thinking.  Higher standing relative to another similar example is not the same as something being good itself.

The philosophy and actions of one abusive employer—for paying anything less than livable wages is exploitative—are not legitimized by the fact that another employer is more abusive.  Yet the similar range of employers' willingness or unwillingness to pay are somehow considered the proper criteria for whether the compensation is adequate and just.  Hypothetically, all employers in a region could even actively collude to keep compensation low, even if it means giving the outward perception that they cannot afford to pay more when this is far from the case.  Small businesses in particular might be helmed by people who like to complain about how there are not enough resources for raises, or at least not for everyone in the company.  This changes nothing about how anything less than livable compensation is exploitative in itself.

If an employer cannot truly afford to pay workers enough to live, they need/deserve to go out of business or to remain/revert to a sole proprietorship if that is all they can fully fund (which would diminish the scope of the work that can be taken on).  The basic threshold of whatever is livable—not what barely permits literal continuation of survival despite immense financial difficulty and the stress stemming from it—is not some pragmatic or Biblically suggested option that need not be ensured.  On top of the baseline of the bare minimum necessary to survive in a certain place and time without sacrificing stability (this is what the genuine minimum wage would amount to), factors like experience and skill would proportionately increase the fitting compensation.  In my country at this time, even years of experience and immense skill would probably not get the typical worker to the point of being offered enough by their employer to live without sacrificing stability of one kind or another!

The criteria for the market rate, in either case, are not valid.  Someone's willingness to pay a certain amount or their degree of conformity to social norms has nothing to do with whether what they are willing to pay is morally and otherwise legitimate.  Probably, they want fully invested, cheerful workers who go above and beyond when they are not even paid enough to live comfortably, and that is if they have the chance to perform almost any outward activity besides the likes of eating, showering, commuting, and sleeping when they are not professionally working.  The market rate is an arbitrary social construct that some employers use to actively oppress workers while hiding behind the excuse of the arrangement being normal throughout an area.

Eve's Legalism In Eden

The very first seeming legalist presented in the Bible is not a Pharisee.  It is Eve herself.  God tells Adam to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:15-17), and whether Adam told her of this after her own creation or God repeated the command to her, Eve shares this with the scheming serpent in Eden.  However, she tells the serpent that God said not to eat from that tree or touch its fruit, lest she die (Genesis 3:2-3).  Yahweh never said to not touch the fruit, or to never do other things like gaze at it.  Eve wanes here into legalism, the rejection of God's actual commands or the addition of personal preference or slippery slope "precautions" to them.

She appears to have already stooped to irrationality before eating the fruit in question, just not yet specifically the violation of the direct command from God to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  God does not say in the text that touching the fruit must not be done, just as he never said later on to not touch a living non-kosher animal in addition to not eating it.  Like the Jews who think that consuming any combination of meat or dairy is what is really being condemned in Exodus 23:19, Eve added to Yahweh's commands out of stupidity and sin.

Again, the Genesis account never says that God instructed Adam and Eve to not touch the fruit at all.  The serpent's denial of God's honesty (Genesis 3:4-5) is often focused on, but Eve has already distorted what God told the first humans at the first opportunity to respond to the serpent's question of "Did God really say . . . ?"  She has already fallen into the irrationality of legalism, of misunderstanding Yahweh's commands and then adding to them (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:5-6).  That one thing is immoral necessarily requires that other things also are in certain cases.  For example, if eating from the forbidden tree is sinful, so is encouraging someone else to eat from it: though the latter is not what God said, if what he did say is true, this would also have to be the case.

It is not so with touching the fruit or looking at it or thinking about it, or with finding it aesthetically appealing as Eve does (Genesis 3:6).  It does not follow from eating the fruit being immoral that the same must be true of any of these additional things.  Similarly, it does not follow from murder being sinful that anger is (Jesus only condemns anger without cause in Matthew 5), or from drunkenness being sinful that merely drinking alcohol is.  Eve, and possibly Adam, was already a legalist before God specifically touched upon how it is itself immoral to add to his commands in Mosaic Law, as if his moral nature is incomplete or as if he intentionally withheld revelation of moral prescriptions from humans.