The Equal Authority Of The Bible And Logic

"If somewhere within the Bible, I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I'm reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it."
--Peter LaRuffa, Pastor


Christians, if another self-proclaimed Christian said that the Bible is correct even if it claims that 2+2=5, would you agree with him or her?  Would you reject the Bible, reject traditional mathematics, or would you try to reconcile the two seemingly contradictory positions?  Of course, let's remove the ambiguity that comes from our classification of numbers.  Even if we have the wrong names for numbers, mathematical truths are just numeric extensions of logic and are thus inescapably true by necessity, so the core logic of 2+2=4 remains true by necessity even if the titles for the numbers are incorrect.

So, what would you say to this Christian?  How would you modify or reinforce your belief in either the Bible or mathematics?  Hopefully you realize that you do not have to pit the two against each other.  Contrary to what some Christians may believe, it is actually impossible for the Bible to have more authority than logic (and by extension, mathematics, which is numeric logic) and, if the Bible is true, vice versa.  How, you ask?

Firstly, without logic no one would be capable of understanding the Bible, much less any sensory or conscious experience of any kind, so belittling logic will never help anyone demonstrate that a conclusion about the Bible is true.  Second, if the Bible is true, it is no truer than logic and both hold equal authority, for then both will reflect truth and will overlap with each other.  The idea that something can be more true than another truth may factor into why some people elevate the veracity of the Bible over reason, as Christians may sometimes believe that reason is true but the Bible even more so.  However, it is impossible for any truth to be "more true" than another truth; one may be more important, but both are equally true.  A proposition is either true or false (law of excluded middle) and thus there are no such things as truths that possess greater trueness than others.

If true, the Bible stands alongside and in harmony with reason
and does not possess some special additional veracity or authority.

The Bible, if true, stands alongside logic and not in front of it, for both would then ultimately testify to the same truths.  The petty, fallacious myth that the Bible is truer than logic needs to be removed from the lips and thoughts of Christians everywhere, especially if they want to advance in conversations with intelligent non-Christians.  This delusion represents a falsity that deeply damages the perceived credibility of the Bible and Christianity, enrages rational seekers of truth, and destroys the ability of Christians to accurately understand reality.  If a Christian or non-Christian ever asks you how you would respond if the Bible said that 2+2=5 or that the law of identity is false, do not fear, and explain why if the Bible is true then no one has to decide between allegiance to logic or the Bible, because both are equally valid.

Bible On Nudity (Part 2)--A Refutation Of Anti-Nudity Eisegesis

It's been months since I published the first part of this series [1], with the first installment detailing Bible verses which are undeniably pro-nudity and which contradict the evangelical notion that nudity is largely sinful outside of the context of a married couple engaging in it.  I talked there about how the Bible supports nudity, how nudity is not sexual in and of itself, how lust is not caused by seeing nudity, and how the idea that someone's spouse holds the exclusive moral right to see his or her nudity is a misguided product of legalism or jealousy, not logic or sound theology.  In this sequel post I will address some primary passages that people may appeal to in order to argue that the Bible condemns nudity.  Of course, more verses than these exist which are claimed to oppose nudity, but I have addressed some of them (1 Timothy 2:9-11 and Matthew 5:28, for example) and the affiliated arguments or similar ones elsewhere [2] and others can reduce down to the exact same basic types of verses that I will explain here.

God does not condemn nudity as shameful.  He created
humans naked (Genesis 2:25) and called it very good
(Genesis 1:31), allowed public nudity in Mosaic Law
(Exodus 22:26-27), never condemned nudity as immoral,
said in the Old Testament not to add to his moral commands
(Deuteronomy 4:2), and expressed deep anger in the New
Testament with people who ignored Mosaic Law while
inventing extra-Biblical moral obligations with a human and
not divine origin (Matthew 15:1-9).

Genesis 3:7, 21--"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves . . . The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them."


Adam and Eve mistakenly believed that they could conceal themselves and their sin from God, and their design of primitive clothes did not accomplish this goal at all.  Never does Genesis 3 say that nudity has become sinful merely because sin exists; that would be like saying that marriage was good before the Fall but now it is sinful because of sin.  Because Adam and Eve's meager clothing could not erase their ontological guilt or the shame that resulted from violating a command of God, God replaced them with clothes of skin to demonstrate that he alone can offer a better covering for their sins--this, of course, foreshadows what God would later do through Christ.  Although conservative theologians fallaciously point to Genesis 3 as evidence or proof that God declared post-Fall nudity sinful except in very limited circumstances, their position is not supported by Genesis 3 or any other passage in the Bible.  There was no accompanying moral condemnation of public nudity; nudity did not suddenly become a sinful condition; Genesis 3 does not say that nudity is now an innately sexual thing.


Exodus 20:26--"And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it."


This verse only applied to those approaching the physical altar of God, as the clothing that the Jews wore at this time seems to have exposed the lower part of the body if the wearer was walking up steps.  It does not apply to any other class of people, nor does it signify that the Bible condemns public nudity.  To base an argument that nudity is sexual (which, even if true, does not automatically mean it is sinful!), shameful, or sinful around these verses is asinine and illogical, as the extremely narrow application context has nothing to do with non-priests or people who do not have access to or need for a physical altar for Yahweh.


Ezekiel 16 (and 23)


I will not reproduce Ezekiel 16 here because it is best if you read verses 1-42, which I do not feel like quoting all at once, in one sitting and then read this afterwards.

It may be easy for some to incorrectly assume that because in the allegory God covered the naked body of the woman (16:8) and because nudity was involved in the sexual sins mentioned in this passage public nudity itself is therefore sinful.  Not only is that unsound and not only does the fact that God clothed the woman directly imply that she lived in her community naked before that day, but in this case, if Christians want to claim that Ezekiel 16 condemns nudity because the villainous, promiscuous prostitute showed her nude body to her "lovers", they will find that in the same passage God himself authorizes that those punishing the adulterous and murderous prostitute strip her naked (16:39), meaning that if such information in the allegory is literal then God wants adulteresses stripped naked, which means that God is not opposed to all public nudity after all anyway.

Now, 1) Ezekiel 16 and 23 are allegories and do not reflect the legal practices that God revealed in Exodus and Deuteronomy; 2) nothing in Mosaic Law says that men or women were to be involuntarily stripped naked as part of the penalties for sexual sins (or any other crimes), as it simply says to execute them for sexual crimes such as adultery, rape, and bestiality; 3) Deuteronomy 25:3 universally condemns all punishments that degrade an offender, and the intent behind inflicting forced nudity on a criminal as part of a legal punishment is to humiliate, debase, and degrade the man or woman being stripped.  This is intrinsically evil.  Since the Bible never prescribes forced nudity and also condemns degrading punishments, we know for sure that, although the Bible uses forced nudity in an allegory about punishing a murderess and adulteress, Mosaic Law actually prohibits that practice.

However, though forced nudity is abusive and sinful, God does not condemn voluntary nudity in public or at home unless the intent is to cause another person to lust (as in Ezekiel 16).  Even then, the nudity is only sinful in that case because the man or woman who is naked is intentionally hoping to make another person lust, which is impossible (it is impossible to make someone else sin, I mean); it is a matter of motive, as the action itself is not objectively wrong.

The Bible is supportive of voluntary nudity, but forced nudity is a moral
abomination.  In the Bible there are examples of dominant warriors
 depriving captive men and women of their clothing (Isaiah 20:1-6) and
 of perverse, sadistic officers stripping criminals naked to torment them
 in the name of "justice" (Matthew 27:26-31, 35, John 21:23-24).
Forced nudity is violating and degrading and can amount to
 sexual abuse in some circumstances.

Ezekiel 18:5-7--"'Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right.  He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel.  He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period.  He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.  He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.'"


I have seen people argue from these verses that we should clothe the naked and thus it is immoral to participate in nudity.  These verses refer to righteous humans clothing those who re not fortunate enough to have sufficient clothing for warmth and protection from the elements, likely due to poverty.  Do they teach that nudity is always sexual, that it is immoral to choose to not wear clothing in at least some public contexts, and that God declares nudity to be sinful?  No!  Is it sinful to be naked due to such poverty that one cannot buy clothing and needs to rely on the generosity of others to even have any garments at all?  Is it sinful to see someone in this condition and give him or her clothes?  Of course not!  Interestingly, Exodus 22:26-27 explores the "pledge" procedure mentioned in Ezekiel 18 and says that if a person takes a man's or woman's garment (as Jews from that era wore a single article of clothing), he or she must return the cloak before the sun leaves the sky so that the man or woman will be warm that night.  God did not care that the man or woman would walk around in total nudity because 1) the man or woman consented to the pledge and 2) there is nothing immoral about public nudity in and of itself.


Conclusion

It is explicitly clear from reading Scripture that God does
not care if we are naked and that he actually seems to
prefer us that way since it was the condition he
intentionally created us in.

Passages that some have twisted into alleged condemnations of nudity, as I have established, do not oppose public nudity at all.  And understanding the Biblical position on nudity will affect your life.  The effects may be comparatively minor, like no longer avoiding looking at nude sculptures in art museums or thinking that nudity in a film or video game automatically makes that movie or game morally reprehensible.  Or they may be far more liberating and dramatic, like realizing that a longing to admire the beauty of nudity can be pure and that viewing nudity as inherently sexual or sinful is a monstrous error.  Some people remain entrapped by lust solely because they think that it is impossible to not see the human body exposed fully or to different degrees without sexualizing or objectifying the man or woman in question.  I hope that these people realize that the solution to such sins is not to avert their eyes from the human body God fashioned to reflect his beauty but to understand that to view it as inherently sexual is a great perversity in and of itself.

In a future post I want to explain the different benefits of nudity, but that steps outside the territory of Biblical ethics and theology, so it does not belong in this series.  However, I may write another part in this series refuting false understandings of more ostensibly "anti-nudity" passages later if needed.


[1].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html

[2].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
  B.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-folly-of-modesty-part-2.html

Expectations For Logan

In four days, on this upcoming Thursday at 10:15 PM, I will have the privilege of viewing Logan almost two hours just before the official opening day.  I have certain expectations and hopes that I will detail here.  After all, from watching the initial trailer with Johnny Cash's Hurt to lamenting Hugh Jackman's final reprisal of his Wolverine role and now Patrick Stewart's last time as an older Charles Xavier, the hype generated by the wait has been immense for many.  I do not merely hope that I will be awed by the action and the spectacle of a Wolverine unleashed in an R-rated movie at last, I hope that this movie will represent the pinnacle of the superhero genre and will exemplify what superhero movies could be--cliche-defying, impactful, and deeply thoughtful.

I hope to find a masterful superhero movie that confronts Wolverine's character and past, a film that confronts existentialism, the personal and emotional burden that comes from years of seeing and engaging in violence, the pain of constant loss, the despair of a semi-post-apocalyptic world, and the tragedy of great minds succumbing to old age.  I want Logan to be the Dark Knight of the X-Men universe--realistic, intense, powerful, and all too lifelike in its ability to stir thought about crucial matters, and I think that the long-desired R rating can allow for all of that.  And I also expect the film to astonish me with great performances and emotionality as Patrick Stewart and Hugh Jackman leave the X-Men franchise after almost two decades of playing iconic characters so well that I can't imagine anyone else replacing them.

Superhero movies could be more than the generic, cliche, comedic movies they are becoming known as.  They could tell stories that visualize the great difficulty of being different than others instead of having characters often receive fame and praise for their powers or differences.  They could focus on the despair of human life instead of usually having optimistic endings.  They could touch our hearts and stimulate our minds (Doctor Strange uniquely excelled here) instead of entertaining us in the predictable manner that is becoming cliched (Age of Ultron, and X-Men: Apocalypse, for instance) or through the disjointed nature of other superhero movies (Suicide Squad).  The X-Men series has from the beginning boldly addressed philosophical and ethical issues like discrimination against minorities, war crimes, and mortality, and I hope that Logan can exceed the boundaries of intellectual and filmmaking quality that the best of the previous films in the franchise have established.

The advance reviews have been largely glowing.  Let's hope that Logan can succeed and let's hope that the film serves as a glorious swan song for two beloved actors and characters, giving Hugh Jackman's Wolverine and Patrick Stewart's Charles Xavier the exit that many people believe they deserve.  Let's also hope that Logan will demonstrate that films can contain great depth and transcendent themes even when in a genre criticized for its increasing repetition and superficiality.

Brain In A Vat: Reality Remains Unchanged

This is not the first time I have posted focusing on the infamous "brain in a vat" idea [1].  I have returned to the topic to prove something I hinted at before but did not fully elaborate upon: something extremely important and so obvious that many people may overlook it.

If you or I is a brain in a vat, stimulated by a scientist or alien or demon to perceive illusory images, what about reality changes?  Think about it before answering.  In fact, you may wish to pause reading this in order to at least briefly contemplate your answer before proceeding.  Utilize logic and simply think.  After all, the answer is so clear that you may not even think about it.

At most, if I am a brain in a vat, there is then one (or more) layers between me and objective reality, but I am still experiencing faint distortions of ultimate material reality and material reality (the material world) itself still exists.  The world projecting the simulation would still have a finite past and therefore require an external cause--what I refer to as God.  Any existing moral obligations would still have binding and universal properties, and I am still accountable for my decisions and actions.  An external world still exists.  Logic still reveals truth.  The only difference is the addition of a new layer (or layers) between us and true reality.

I will use this photo to visualize an analogy.  This woman is using virtual
reality goggles--what she is viewing is not real, but artificial and manufactured.  But
 clouds, the sky, a bird, and other objects from the external world still exist
in reality.  In the same way, the "brain in a vat" hypothesis only postulates
 that there may be an extra layer between us and reality.  Think of it this way: if your
 senses are being deceived you still have senses.  There is still much
 legitimate knowledge to be obtained in such a universe, but it will merely
 be accessed solely by logic and whatever experiences which logic can
 verify.  If you don't perceive reality directly, it still exists.

The "brain in a vat" poses an epistemological problem because it highlights the limitations of our awareness of reality, but it does not pose an ontological problem.  As I've proven above, reality would still exist and ultimate truths--the existence and reliability of logic, the existence of the self, the existence of God, existing moral truths--would still be just as legitimate as if we perceived them directly instead of by detached deductive reasoning.  This demonstrable fact is usually forgotten or unmentioned and therefore undiscovered in talks about whether or not our senses present reality to us as it is.  I have only heard one or two people mention these facts when discussing the issue in my entire life--and that is very philosophically and rationally disappointing.  Even sound Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig never bring this up when asked about brains in vats.  Instead, they usually attempt to persuade the questioner that to investigate such a subject is futile and that they should just accept reality as they perceive it.  This actually opens the doorway to postmodernism, which people like Craig condemn and usually straw man and misrepresent as relativism, although it is an entirely different worldview, thus adding more confusion to the questioner's mind.  People may walk away truly believing that nothing is ultimately knowable, which is a self-refuting impossibility, instead of walking away intellectually fortified and aware.

I have mentioned in an earlier post that my generation is one of the most skeptical ones in allegedly recorded history [2], and yet despite this acknowledged fact Christian apologists often avoid the kind of logicality and explanations I am presenting now in an effort to subjectively persuade skeptics who likely will not care, as they should if we have an obligation to use reason, about personal compulsion, emotional security, or probability estimates.  Instead of proving that reality remains entirely unchanged by the presence of an added simulation layer, they waste time and words hoping to fallaciously demonstrate that we can never know if we are in a simulation or they simply do not mention how many of their conclusions are still entirely true or, in some cases, likely, even if their senses are distorted or deceived.

In the 1999 movie The Matrix, a concept similar to the brain in a vat idea
 is presented.  In the titular matrix, though, individuals are not merely minds or
 brains having their senses falsely stimulated but are whole people with
 their own bodies that appear just as they do in the computer program.
  People sometimes overlook simple details of the simulation hypothesis.  If
rape is wrong in reality, then being in a matrix doesn't affect that truth.
  Things like time and logic that exist in all possible worlds still
 exist in the simulation.

Does any of this shock you?  If so, you weren't using reason properly and/or intellectuals in your life, including potential Christian apologists, did not succeed in proving to you that the foundations of reality are unavoidable because there is nowhere to escape them from.  If you know any Christian apologists who fit the description I have painted here, please share this information with them, refute them, and guide them back to the truth.  Show that any possible "matrix" or "simulation" does not discredit or even slightly threaten the necessary existence of God.  Explain to them how God could reach through even into a simulation to provide to us specific revelation in the form of the Bible.

So, am I a brain in a vat?  If I am, my life will still bear the consequences of my decisions and I am still able to know at least certain crucial truths about reality.  Does this knowledge surprise you?  If so, then you have perhaps joined many others in failing to notice the obvious when wondering if your senses are perceiving an illusion or a simulation.  Christian apologists, fellow rationalists, and seekers of truth--do not succumb to this ignorance.  Allow reason to guide you to whatever aspects of reality are inescapable, even if you are several dimensions removed.


[1].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/brain-in-vat.html

[2].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/information-why-quantity-and-easy.html

The Supremacy Of Logic Over Sensory Empiricism

While empiricism and rationalism in and of themselves are not mutually exclusive or contradictory, sensory empiricism is a blight on the study of reality, for it elevates a position that is demonstrably false.  In this post I will dissect sensory empiricism, which I have not directly mentioned often, compare it to rationalism, and demonstrate that rationalism grounds all knowledge even if sensory experiences do provide some knowledge.  I have provided definitions for key terms below:


Empiricism--belief that all knowledge comes from experience

Sensory empiricism--belief that all knowledge comes from sense experience

Rationalism--belief that certainty and knowledge come from logic and reason


Empiricism itself simply holds that all knowledge comes through experience of some sort, which is inescapably true.  To know that I can think and reason I must experience the acts of thinking and reasoning, for instance.  Claiming all knowledge involves a component of experience is not problematic at all, for all knowledge does inseparably require an experience of some sort, but the claim that all knowledge comes from the senses is still self-refuting and impossible.  This is because while all sense perception is a type of experience, not all experience is a type of sense perception.  So, if the word empiricism refers to the claim that all knowledge involves experience, the claim is inescapable true and I am indeed an empiricist, but sensory empiricism (I will use this phrase to refer to the belief that all knowledge comes from the senses) is self-refuting, objectively false, and not at all what I mean whenever I identify here as an empiricist.  The kind of empiricism I have shown true is not at all opposed to rationalism!  I am both a rationalist and an empiricist.  Without either internal experiences of consciousness and my mind or external experiences of my senses, I would have nothing to reason about, and without reason, I would be lost in unintelligible experiences!

With the definitions clear, I will now address the inadequacy and falsity of sensory empiricism.  Sensory empiricism is impossible to intellectually justify, for it cannot be proven, it is self-refuting, and it can it never assure sensory empiricists that they are correctly perceiving reality or that their experiences will remain constant in the future.  By this I mean that a sensory empiricist might wake up after 60 years of believing that experience and the senses are the sole or major revealers of truth to discover that he or she has awoken to a world with drastically different laws of physics which he or she now perceives through 39 senses instead of the 10 main human senses [1]--a world in which much or, according to some types of empiricism, all previous knowledge must be abandoned.  There is no way for the majority of our sensory experiences to ever confirm themselves; just because we perceive or seem to experience something does not mean that our perceptions or experiences are valid (meaning they do not necessarily conform to reality).

Also, to say that all knowledge comes from the senses is to make a claim that the five senses cannot verify, and in the same way to say that all knowledge comes from experience is to make a self-defeating claim.  However, to claim that logic grounds all knowledge is to make a claim that is not only self-verifying, for apart from reason no one could even process their sensory inputs or experiences, but one that no one can oppose without using logic in the attack, meaning that they are trying to use logic to discredit logic.  See the inconsistency and stupidity of such an endeavor?  If someone arguing against logic is right, then logic is correct, and if they are wrong, logic is correct!

It is objectively true and provable that all knowledge does not come from our
sensory experiences.  No one can escape the unconcealed and blatant fact
that the claim "all knowledge comes from the senses or experience" is,
ironically, a claim that the senses and experience cannot verify.

One will never encounter the problem of sensory empiricism, that is, self-refutation, with rationalism and logic, for logic applies to all possible worlds by necessity and remains inviolable and supremely authoritative regardless of all circumstances or experiences.  I have paraphrased each of the three laws of logic below:


Law of identity--something is what it is (I am I, not my brother or mother)

Law of non-contradiction--something cannot be and not be a specific thing at the same time (I cannot be married and a bachelor at the same time)

Law of excluded middle--something is either true or not true (I am either conscious or not conscious, but I am not in the middle)


Anyone who denies these logical laws will inescapably end up using them in his or her arguments or statements, proving that they are true by pure necessity--it would be impossible for them not to be true.  There is no possible way that logic is not true.  Logic starts with what is axiomatic, self-verifying, and true by necessity ("truth exists" [2], "deductive reasoning is reliable" [3], etc), including the reliability of deductive reasoning, and then allows a thinker to rationally approach, falsify, verify, or remain skeptical about a claim.  Without logic we could not know anything.  In its absence we would at best merely take in arbitrary perceptions we could never make sense of.  In fact, experience would be unintelligible and epistemologically meaningless without the illumination and guidance of logic.

Logic--reason--is the ultimate basis for knowledge.  Even if not all knowledge is
derived from pure deductive reasoning (some of our knowledge does come
from sense perceptions and experience), logic is required to even make
any sense of any other input.

Basing epistemology and beliefs around a foundation other than logic is the most damaging thing one could do to his or her worldview.  That is why I am a rationalist, someone who understands that at the very least the majority of all knowledge originates from logic.  Sensory empiricism is an erroneous philosophy that I would expect to be found more in laboratories and the beliefs of those who practice scientism than the worldviews of average laypeople, but wherever it appears it represents an obstacle to knowledge and truth.


[1].  I have at least 10 senses (although my sense of smell has not functioned properly in years).  This claim really isn't as controversial as it may sound:
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-than-five-senses.html

[2].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-self-evidence-of-logic.html

[3].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html

Skepticism And Wonder: A Compatible Relationship

Does a sense of awe or wonder at the universe contradict an intellectual skepticism that refuses to believe in something until proof or strong evidence is unveiled?  In my almost two years at college I have encountered at least one professor and several students who heavily emphasize wonder and imply that it is not only ontologically better to have wonder about some things than it is to have knowledge about them but that wonder is a reliable guide to truth.

Wonder is subjectively experienced.  Of course the subjectivity in perceiving wonder does not mean that there is no thing or concept that, if we properly viewed reality, we would know is inherently awe-inducing.  I hope that the individuals in my college that I mentioned will realize that if they haven't already.  However, wonder can still lead to a grand sense of subjective self-fulfillment.  It can seem pleasurable, seductive, and intuitive.  But none of this makes it a revealer of reality.

Someone might be attracted to scientism or Islam by wonder, but these worldviews are demonstrably false.  Unlike what some pretend is true, the presence of wonder is not an indicator of truth and epistemological skepticism does not exclude wonder from being a potential motivation for discovering truth.  Philosophy, science, and theology do not oppose a sense of wonder but can instead serve as great amplifiers of them.  Wonder can allure a skeptic and motivate him or her to investigate, think about, discover, and celebrate facts; it can drive a theologian to intellectually ponder Biblical concepts; it can awaken or rejuvenate the heart of an intellectually or emotionally numb person.

Wonder is something that certain passages of the Bible seem to appeal to (for example, Psalm 19:1-4), so it is not something the Bible is hostile towards.  Logic does not decree it to be a force that has to conflict with reason.  Nothing that I have said calls wonder a negative thing or denies that it can be quite wonderful to experience.  But if you seek truth, do not allow the heart to lead the mind; have the mind lead and the heart follow.  The inverse will lead to epistemological or existential catastrophe.

The Truth Of Annihilationism

Finally--it's time to prove that the Bible does not teach that the unsaved will suffer forever in conscious agony in hell.  I have hinted at and explicitly stated that I am indeed an annihilationist several times before in previous posts, but never before have I provided any sort of elaborate or Biblical case for it.  But I have compiled a partial summary of the many reasons we can know that eternal conscious torment, the idea that the unsaved will exist in torment forever, is false, unbiblical, and even logically flawed, and the reasons by which we can know that the Bible clearly teaches annihilationism, the idea that after a finite amount of torment the unsaved wicked are vaporized in hell.

I have divided this post into portions marked by statements in bold for easier navigation and so that readers can read, pause, and resume at a particular place with ease.


Eternal Punishment Does Not Mean Eternal Conscious Torment

I am going to show the verse pointed to by pro-ECT (eternal conscious torment) theologians as the confirmation of their beliefs they perceive it as, and then I will prove that their understanding of it is hasty and assumptive, not rational and consistent with the remainder of Scripture.  The phrase "eternal punishment" does not mean what adherents of the "traditional" model of hell pretend and is thus not discarded by annihilationism.


Matthew 25:46--"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


But doesn't this obviously prove eternal conscious torment, you might ask?  Before I explain, read the verse below.


Hebrews 5:9--". . . and, once made perfect, he (Jesus) became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him . . ."


As seen above, Hebrews 5:9 says that Christians have an eternal salvation.  But Christians will not be constantly in the process of being saved throughout eternity, but instead they are or will BE saved and the effects will last into eternity.  In the same way, just because the Bible occasionally--and I do mean occasionally, because it is easily provable that the phrase is used in one or two places at most--refers to the punishment of humans in hell as eternal punishment does NOT at all mean that humans will be in the everlasting process of being consciously tormented.  They will be tormented for differing lengths and severities according to their deeds, then they will be annihilated and the effects will last into all eternity.  But so far I haven't proven yet that the Bible teaches annihilationism, only that the phrase "eternal punishment" does not necessarily mean what many ascribe to it.


The Soul Is Not Inherently Immortal

The idea that the human soul possesses inherent immortality is not one defensible on Biblical grounds.  Other than the passage from Matthew 25 which I analyzed above, there is no verse advocates of eternal conscious torment can appeal to in order to argue for the innate immortality of the soul.  To verify the alternative, allow me to present several passages below.


Ezekiel 18:4--"For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me.  The soul who sins is the one that will die."


This verse specifically states that the soul that sins will die.  This sounds very similar to another more popular verse . . .


Romans 6:23--"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."


The eternal life Jesus offers is contrasted here with death.  Now, I have listened as people tell me that what "death" means in this verse is perpetual suffering in hell--but that is clearly not the meaning of the word death and no one would ever make this absurd claim unless he or she was defending the fallacious idea of eternal conscious torment.  Romans 6:23 blatantly teaches that there are two ultimate destinies for all humans--extinction or redemption and the eternal life it brings.


Romans 2:7--"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he (God) will give eternal life."


How can God possible give immortality to people if all of them, saved and unsaved, will already live forever anyway?  Why would Jesus speak about people receiving eternal life if they commit themselves to him when they already have eternal life?  It would be impossible to give to someone eternal existence if they already have it.  But if people will not acknowledge the plain meaning of the verses I have quoted thus far, the one that follows proves very directly that the Bible does not teach innate immortality of the human soul.


1 Timothy 6:15-16--". . . God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light . . ."


It is impossible to legitimately dispute the meaning of these verses: God alone possesses inherent immortality and no human soul will live forever apart from the salvation that Christ revealed.  Without the salvation extended by God, our consciousness eventually dies in hell just as our physical bodies do.  Claims that "eternal life" refers to the "quality" of existence instead or its duration rely on a completely biased and non-objective understanding of the words "eternal life".  When one stops reading into words like perish and eternal life meanings that don't exist, it becomes much easier to detect that eternal conscious torment has no support or proof whatsoever.


Perish Means Perish, Not Eternal Conscious Torment

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

Psalm 37:20--"But the wicked will perish . . ."


Does perish mean "suffer conscious agony without an ending point"?  No!  That is not the meaning of the word perish, and no one would interpret this or similar passages to mean perpetual suffering by the word "perish" unless he or she had already assumed that eternal conscious torment is true.


The Fate Of The Wicked Is Destruction

Here is a portion of the verses that undeniable say the wicked will be destroyed, not tortured forever.  Ironically, proponents of eternal conscious torment are often conservative theologians who lean towards interpreting the Bible literally (as they should) as opposed to in a forced and biased manner, yet a literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for the possibility of eternal conscious torment.


2 Thessalonians 1:9--"They will be punished with everlasting DESTRUCTION . . ."

Matthew 7:13--"Enter through the narrow gate.  For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to DESTRUCTION, and many enter through it."

Matthew 10:28--"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  Rather, be afraid of the One who can DESTROY both soul and body in hell."

2 Peter 2:6--". . . if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them TO ASHES, and made them an example of what is GOING TO HAPPEN to the ungodly;"

2 Peter 3:7--"By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and DESTRUCTION OF UNGODLY MEN."

Revelation 21:8--". . . their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.  This is the SECOND DEATH."

Revelation 20:14--"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  The lake of fire is the SECOND DEATH."


Traditionalists who denounce annihilationism have only two options when addressing these and other passages: 1) they can ignore them or 2) they can insist that they don't mean what they appear to.  However, both approaches amount to nothing more than irrationality.



The Bible is explicitly clear that those who are not saved will not be tortured endlessly.
While hell itself is described as "eternal fire" (Matthew 18:8), it does not logically
follow from the permanent existence of hell as a realm that humans will exist inside
it forever.  I will clarify this specific point in a future post at some time, but the
verses I have compiled in this post prove annihilationism already without the need for
additional evidence.  With this knowledge we must not ask if annihilationism
is true, only how certain Biblical ideas factor into it.

The Analogies Used For Hell Emphasize Temporality Of Punishment

Matthew 13:30--"At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned . . ."

Matthew 13:40--"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age."


I am not claiming that these verses alone could ever serve as Biblical proof of annihilationism, but I am noting that these analogies have far more in common with annihilationism than with eternal conscious torment.  When weeds are burned they disintegrate even if the fire lives on; they do not burn forever without vanishing.  Not only do the explicit descriptions of what will happen to the unsaved clearly speak of annihilation, even the analogies can strongly suggest this.


Eternal Conscious Torment Unjust

Infinite torment for finite sins is absolutely illogical.  No matter how many sins someone committed and regardless of the severity of them, it is logically indefensible to say that it is just for God to torture people forever for a finite number of finite sins.  I know that there are some who elevate the Bible above logic (although if both are true neither is more true than the other and both testify to the same realities) and will not accept annihilationism on the basis of logic alone, so I wilI will also demonstrate the disproportionality of eternal conscious torment by proving that it contradicts the principles of justice that God himself revealed and embodies.

To demonstrate this I will reference several passages from God's moral revelation in Exodus and Deuteronomy.


Exodus 22:3--"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft."

Exodus 21:2--If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years.  But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."


This is just one portion of Mosaic Law demonstrating that there are lines that cannot be crossed even in criminal punishment.  Involuntary servanthood was allowed in the case of a thief who could not make restitution, but the period of servanthood ended at six years.


Deuteronomy 25:2-3--"If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime deserves, but he must not give him more than forty lashes.  If he is flogged more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes."


These verses establish the same point in a different way.  Corporal punishment via flogging was permitted by God, but the infliction of more than forty lashes was explicitly prohibited on a universal scale.  Eternal conscious torment is not compatible with the indisputable truth that certain tortures are inherently wicked and never justifiable or just--and if flogging someone with more than 40 lashes is immoral, how can the same God who revealed that decree torture men and women forever, without respite or a terminus?


Exodus 21:23-24--"But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot . . ."


While this passage is frequently misunderstood and miscommunicated by almost everyone who writes or speaks about it, it has some relevance here.  Yes, "eye for eye" was literal [1].  No, non-permanent injuries were not punished this way (Exodus 21:18-19) and other crimes besides infliction of permanent physical injury on someone were NOT punished in this manner (see the [1] for more information on this).  All of that aside, it would be evil under this standard for a civil agent to cut off both hands of someone who only removed one finger from his or her victim.  The concept of eternal conscious torment contradicts both the proportionality of justice and the fact that there are objective lines never to be crossed in any punishment.

If God will hold humans accountable for their excessive punishments of others, then it is impossible for him to violate that same morality because it is an immutable part of his nature.  As you can see from these verses I cited--verses which detail what terrestrial justice looks like in certain particular cases--proportionality in punishment is objectively just, meaning disproportionate punishment is inherently unjust, and there are certain things which people are universally prohibited from inflicting as punishments because those things are intrinsically unjust and wrong (more than 40 lashes, more than six years of involuntary servitude, etc).  God himself is just because justice is part of his nature; he himself revealed which specific punishments are just and which are unjust.  If God is good and if justice is good, then it is impossible for God to be unjust.  But proportionality is just and the Bible describes and condemns certain thresholds past which punishment is what Americans call "cruel and unusual".  So how can God punish people with eternal conscious torment when it violates these elements of justice which are an indispensable part of God's own nature?

Eternal conscious torment is the worst form of injustice one can imagine.  Ironically,
proponents of it often try to defend it by appealing to God's justice--the very thing
that stands opposed to their fallacious ideas.

Conclusion

I have not argued that because God is loving eternal conscious torment is impossible.  I have not appealed to emotion or subjective preference at all.  Instead I have relied solely on logic and Scripture in my argument for annihilationism, as any Christian theologian should.  Also, I never said that hell itself will cease to exist, only that unsaved humans will be destroyed, but that is a distinction that I will try to address another time.

An ironic fact is that a believer in ECT has to start with an inherited assumption of the meaning of Matthew 25:46 and interpret the other Biblical passages about the ultimate afterlife for the wicked in a forced, irrational, biased manner in order to attempt to reconcile them with his or her assumptions about the human soul; yet an annihilationist only needs to accept the literal language of the Bible and not invent fanciful meanings for words like "death" and "perish".

There is no true debate to be held.  There is not only no legitimate evidence for ECT and the doctrine of the "immortality of the soul" in the Bible, but logic itself proves ECT is irrational; there is not only no true Biblical evidence for ECT, but the truth of annihilationism waits blatantly in almost any verse speaking about the fate of the wicked.

If you have believed in ECT because you were taught it is true or because you cursorily inspected the Bible with the background knowledge that many Christians believe in ECT, please examine everything I have written if the concept of annihilationism is new to you.  Never again will you have to feel discomfort with God and the Bible over the issue of the destiny of the unsaved.  Never again will you have to conjure up wild and illogical defenses for ECT in your talks with nonbelievers.  You will not need to confront the criticisms that those outside of Christianity will hurl at ECT.  Simply abandon it altogether and replace it with something that is demonstrable from the Bible and logic, perhaps comforting and relieving yourself in the process.  After all, false doctrines like ECT have frightened and terrified many, and when people identify obviously fallacious and impossible concepts with real Christianity, they may reject truth because they have been told by others to accept as truth that which is a devastating falsehood.



Christians can often do a very poor and lazy job of safeguarding the doctrines
of the Bible from fallacious, extra-Biblical human-made absurdities.  If we
Christians ever find ourselves accepting a theological belief on the basis of
tradition or preference, we need to submit ourselves again to logic and
divine revelation.

[1].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/bible-on-torture-part-2.html

Movie Review--John Wick: Chapter 2

"Whoever comes . . . I'll kill them.  I'll kill them all."
--John Wick, John Wick: Chapter 2


Well, I chose to experiment with my movie selections by watching this title and giving Keanu a chance--and the results were very enjoyable!  I was surprised by the quality and atmosphere of this movie, which I will detail below.  This may be one of the best movies released so far this year, not the kind of films that critics expect from the month of January.  I've dissected components of the film in their usual spots.

Production Values

Excellent fighting choreography is on full display here, with many action scenes seeming unique and distinct from the previous ones, whether the difference lies in having the shootout in a mirror maze or in a montage of several different fights or having two skilled assassins brawl and shoot their way across subways, crowds, and the outdoors.  This movie is not the type of film to have or need elaborate CGI, and I hear that Keanu has invested himself deeply enough into the character that many of his stunts are just legitimate acting coupled with practical effects.  Search for videos of Keanu practicing at a gun range on YouTube to see him truly immerse himself in the role and actually shoot in real life with the same precision, speed, and consistency that he does in the film.  Between the sets, choreography, and splendid practical effects, this movie has very impressive visuals that truly aid the world-building.

I completely bought Keanu Reeves as an ultra-skilled and extremely-focused assassin.  In the past I have scoffed at his acting (or lack of it), but this role seemed perfect for his dry, blank Keanu expressions.  Ruby Rose and Common (bizarre name!) play the two primary antagonist assassins who oppose John Wick, and both delivered wonderful performances, especially considering the type of movie I expected this to be.  Ruby Rose's character Ares is a mute woman who communicates using sign language; Common's character Cassian is an imposing persona who requires a great deal of effort from John Wick to kill.  Both stand out in the film partly because of the absence of any other opponents of John that receive screen time beyond a shot (get it?) of John killing them.  The rest of the acting is not forced or cheap, which elevated the whole film.

Tyler Bates designed some of the music, with his former soundtrack projects including 300 and God of War: Ascension, both of which are appreciated by me from a soundtrack perspective and as overall art.  He successfully created appropriate music that ranges from haunting to exciting, tailored well to the scenes where each track appears.

The movie has great production values all around.  What could have been a cheap B action film is instead a breathtaking series of fights within a clever backdrop.


Story

The titular John Wick, seeking retirement from his life as an assassin, is coerced back into his macabre occupation when his home is destroyed by a man named Santino who wants John to kill his sister Gianna.  She has ascended to a position of power after the death of her father instead of John's employer and her brother wants to replace her.

John completes his mission and finds himself pursued by the minions of the deceased Gianna and by others who are interested in a $7,000,000 bounty that Santino has placed on his head--after all, what kind of man would he be if he did not "avenge" the death of his sister?

(SPOILERS)

The majority of the remaining scenes either show or set up dazzling action scenes in underground Roman catacombs, public crowds, and a mirror maze semi-finale that oozes style.

In anger, John eventually kills Santino on Continental grounds, a place where killing is prohibited.  John finds himself declared "excommunicado" and the organization he once worked for bars access to its weaponry, technology, and services.  The final scene shows him fleeing as he is given a single hour to prepare before legions of assassins attempt to kill him and earn an even larger bounty than the one Santino placed on him, leaving the story open for a dramatic sequel.

For a movie expected to heavily emphasize action and spectacle, the story arc and setting are quite inventive and immersive.


Intellectual Content

Is there such a thing as a legitimate assassin?  Obviously the Bible would condemn hiring a man or woman to kill a neighbor (Exodus 20:13), but can governments hire assassins to kill individuals resembling Hitler, Stalin, Nero, or Tiberius outside of war conditions without committing a wrong?  The answer is deceptively difficult to verify because it is impossible to make a moral judgment that is both correct and confirmable without divine revelation (and God has not necessarily provided enough details to dogmatically answer this), yet the possibility of it being immoral to not engage in such preemptive assassinations remains.

The movie never explores the morality of assassinations with any serious depth, but it is clear that some of the assassins are more egoistic and amoral than others and that some of them have adopted a type of moral code.  To be fair, the movie was designed to astonish the mind with chases and shootouts rather than investigate a philosophical topic, and it definitely succeeds in that area.  Still, the question of the morality of the occupation of an assassin is a relevant concept to think about after viewing it.


Conclusion

John Wick: Chapter 2 is a great action movie that delivers a story intriguing enough to craft a creative backdrop for the spectacular shooting sequences--and the gunplay and action are indeed spectacular.  Keanu Reeves has found a role that actually makes the most of his monotone, reserved, largely emotionless and bland acting and turns it into something imposing and impressive.  If you want to watch a thriller with well-constructed background lore and excellent fighting scenes, then you will very likely appreciate John Wick: Chapter 2.  It is a wonderful film that successfully accomplishes almost everything it needed to.


Content
1. Violence:  Many people are shot to death and some scenes involve lengthy brawls between formidable opponents.
2. Profanity:  Various characters say "f-cking" and "sh-t" occasionally.
3. Nudity:  Gianna removes all of her clothing before entering a pool of water and slicing her forearms open.  No so-called "private parts" are actually seen directly by the camera but she is wearing nothing.

The Difference Between Soundness And Validity

Have you ever heard people distinguish between calling an argument sound and declaring it valid?  If so, did you understand the difference between the two labels?
If not, I hope this helps illuminate the issue.  I haven't really commented on this topic yet but decided that it is important to establish.

An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises; an argument is sound if the premises and resulting conclusion are actually true (and if the argument is valid as well).  To see a syllogism that is valid but unsound, see below:


1. If Abigail loves Samantha, she cannot hate Samantha.
2. Abigail loves Samantha.
3. Therefore Abigail cannot hate Samantha.


This is an example of a syllogism that is logically valid but unsound.  While it is true that if premise one and two are correct that the conclusion above follows inescapably, it is not true that it is impossible to love and hate someone at the same time.  To borrow a movie example, in The Fellowship Of The Ring Gandalf says to Frodo that Gollum hates and loves the ring as he hates and loves himself.  Just because you love something does not mean you do not loathe it simultaneously.  There is no logical contradiction between loving and hating something or someone despite such a contrary notion existing in present American secular and church culture.  Thus, this argument possesses validity but not soundness.

Now, inspect the following:


1. If Jesus was divine, then Christianity is true.
2. Jesus may have been divine.
3. Therefore Christianity may be true.


This is an example of a syllogism that is both valid and sound; the conclusion follows from both premises and the premises and conclusion are entirely correct.  The argument meets both sets of criterion.

I make this distinction between soundness and validity for the sake of future reference and because it is necessary to clarify these things when discussing logic.  Now, I have heard people classify these two terms with the inverse definitions, and if I have the two backwards I am willing to edit this post and switch them.  This type of distinction serves to better utilize language and terms in discussions and helps with clarification of specific points that need precise handling and description.

Feel free to comment and correct me if I mistakenly swapped the two definitions!

The Truth Of Axioms

There are some who claim that axioms cannot be proven, and here I will prove them wrong.  The issue is of such epistemological and ontological importance that I will abruptly dive into the matter instead of more lengthily elaborating on the topic.  I have defined axioms and discussed them elsewhere (I have links below), so check those if you need clarification about what an axiom is or about the nature of axioms before reading this.  It seems that these people believe that axioms are unproven or unprovable assumptions because they are the starting points of all knowledge and thus they are not conclusions based upon previous premises.  This is a great error.

Axioms are self-verifying, the greatest possible proof there is.  They are true no matter what else is, as I have explained multiple times.

Consider the following syllogism below:


1. If the sky is blue, the sky is not green.
2. The sky is blue.
3. Therefore the sky is not green.


Axioms do not have to be proven by syllogisms like the conclusion I stated above.  They are not reached by more foundational principles because there is no way to go back further into reality and epistemology than them; they are true by pure necessity and apart from their existence we would be unable to know anything at all about reality because we would have no starting point for knowledge.  If someone says that axioms are not proven by other premises, that person is correct.  But if he or she claims that axioms cannot be proven at all, then he or she either does not understand the concept of an axiom or is intellectually impaired.

Something that is provable either can be proven by a deductive argument or by the necessity of its own truth.  Simple reflection can provide knowledge that some things cannot be false.

Look at the statement below:


Truth exists.


This statement is not proven by preceding premises.  It is proven through the inescapable impossibility of it not being true.  It is impossible for truth to not exist.  Now, the questions of whether or not God exists, whether or not slavery is right or wrong, or whether or not we can know anything about truth beyond its abstract existence are all separate issues.  But regardless of the answer to any of these or other questions, truth still exists unavoidably.

See here for other examples of axioms [1].

If someone denies or doubts axioms, ask them simple questions that reveal the impossibility of their nonexistence or unreliability.  If someone claims that truth does not exist, ask "Is that true?"  If someone says that words cannot convey truth, ask "Then how are you communicating that truth using words?"  If a person insists that deductive reasoning is unreliable, ask "How do you know?"  He or she will inevitably use deductive reasoning in the answer, proving that either way deductive reasoning is reliable.  If someone tells you that due to our limitations we can't know anything, ask "How do you know that?"

This is a very effective method of demonstrating the existence and truth of axioms without defining terms precisely or explaining anything; if someone denies axioms, simply ask them brief questions that will illustrate how he or she is admitting axioms exist because it is impossible not to.

Don't listen to anyone who argues that axioms are unproven or unprovable.  Apart from them, no knowledge is possible whatsoever, regardless of what people may claim.  Axioms are not proven by other premises because they inherently possess the greatest possible proof--a self-verifying nature that is true independent of whatever else is.


[1].  See below:
  A.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-self-evidence-of-logic.html
  B.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html

Death Existed Before The Fall

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned . . ."
--Romans 5:12


The issue of the condition of the world before the Fall can be ignored by preachers and Christians due to its proximity to controversies about Genesis, theistic evolution, and origins in general.  But I've noticed that some Christians either directly claim or strongly imply that before the infamous Fall there was no such thing as death whatsoever.  This is a wildly inaccurate belief that fails to acknowledge obvious truths about reality.

Only this morning I shared a stimulating conversation with several Christians about this matter, with one of the discussion members expressing skepticism about the idea that animal death occurred before humanity's expulsion from Eden.  I will summarize the explanation I provided in response below.

The Bible clearly teaches that human death did not exist prior to the Fall.  Romans 5:12, which I quoted at the top of this post, proves this, but neither the Bible nor science allows for an Edenic universe without any death at all.  Before sin, which carries an inevitable death sentence (Romans 6:23), humans would have lived without the threat of death in the greatest terrestrial pleasure and comfort imaginable.  But, as I said, this does not mean that the same is true about any other life forms (attempts to argue otherwise will have to resort to a non sequitur fallacy or the fallacy of composition).  This truth has many opponents.

There are those who, for instance, insist that the teeth of carnivorous dinosaurs seem capable of serving as great devices for chewing plants, thus nullifying the need for God to have created such creatures as carnivores.  There are some who assert that God would never include death as part of the initial creation order because such a state is not good.  All of these defenses of a death-free Eden cannot be justified Biblically or otherwise.  Whether dinosaurs we classify as carnivores had sharp teeth originally intended to eat plants (as some creationists argue) or not, even if every living organism on the planet was an herbivore, the death of non-human creatures was still unavoidably necessary.  If eating was a mandatory part of life for any organism, then death of non-humans was a mandatory part of existence in a creation that God declared "very good" (Genesis 1:31).  This may contradict the feelings or presuppositions of some, but neither feelings nor presuppositions were ever reliable indicators of something's veracity.

 

Death in the plant kingdom is absolutely necessary before or after the Fall
in order for any living creature to eat.  Death in the animal kingdom before
the Fall is not an impossible notion, although this subject is often avoided
by Christians and pastors at the popular level.

So far I've proven that the Bible teaches the complete absence of human death pre-Fall and that at least plants must die in a world where any creature at all needs to eat.  Neither point is contradicted by the possibility of pre-Fall animal death as well--even animal death caused by predatory animals.  It is entirely logically possible for a world to exist where animals kill plants and other animals yet do not attack or slay humans.  Some may view this as undesirable or even not how Eden should be, yet no one's preferences or feelings have any effect on changing how things are.

If any organism needed to eat before the Fall, then non--human death of some sort was an indispensable requirement for a world without sin and the effects on nature and life that followed.  Christian apologists need to be capable of proving this point to both Christian and secular audiences so that basic Biblical and scientific errors are avoided.

Game Review--Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate (3DS)

Although I purchased a 3DS and six 3DS games (alongside my PS Vita and games for it as well) last summer, I have only now come around to playing some of those games.  One of them was Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate, the only handheld Arkham game so far.  It was released for both the 3DS and Vita, but I ended up buying the 3DS version.  The game, other than the dual screen functions in the 3DS edition and the clearer graphics in the Vita version, is the same across both platforms.  This marks my introduction into the Arkham game universe.  Blackgate represents a very solid offering that excellently combines a Metroid-like style with the mechanics of the acclaimed series this title serves as a handheld companion to.


Production Values

The visuals are mixed in quality.  Graphic novel-type cinematics that mark key moments of the story are absolutely gorgeous in 3D, but gameplay graphics can look jagged at times, although turning on detective mode (a vision filter that highlights the skeletons and body heat of enemies and secrets and interactive objects in the environment) actually can make the visuals seem clearer.

As expected for a game in this series, the audio is fantastic and the voice actors do splendid jobs with their respective characters.  Troy Baker serves as the voice of The Joker instead of Mark Hamill, but other cast members from the series reprise their roles.  Brian Bloom is Black Mask and Grey DeLisle is Catwoman, for example, at least according to IMDB.

The production values are great overall, but I expect that the Vita version, which I have not played, would win in this department due to the enhanced visuals.  The 3DS version, of course, does boast 3D depth, which some people may prefer over smoother in-game graphics.  Other than these differences, there's nothing to complain about.


Gameplay

Unlike its console counterparts, Arkham Origins Blackgate is a 2.5D side scroller with quasi-third-person portions, with the game usually balancing exploration, mild puzzles, and combat sections.  Although it is a side scroller, that title almost doesn't capture the true nature of the game, as, although the camera usually remains fixed in a 2.5D style, you can grapple up to background objects, access new areas facing different directions, and have the camera change as the player enters a different plane.

It is a Metroidvania-style game where you begin scarcely equipped and thus many areas are initially inaccessible.  As you obtain new devices and upgrades for them, more sections become available, meaning that backtracking to discover parts for new costumes, "Armor Reinforcement" components, and other miscellaneous items is very profitable and beneficial.  For instance, "Rush Upgrade" items add or extend a rush meter which can amplify the damage of your attacks, which can prove very useful in certain fights.

This format is actually surprisingly like the console Arkham games, as many similarities between them exist.  The slow-motion close-up knockouts during fights appear here, as do many of the wonderful gadgets like the gel gun and the line launcher that the other games utilized.  The Joker, Black Mask, Deadshot, The Penguin, Solomon Grundy, and other villains return also, as does detective mode.  This game just represents a side-scrolling version of the exact same formula in the other games in the series.


Story

As the game opens, Batman meets Catwoman for the first time and pursues her across Gotham's rooftops, climaxing in the first boss fight of the game.  Two weeks later, an explosion at Blackgate allows the inmates to make hostages of the prison staff, with Black Mask and The Joker having a rivalry and their minions patrolling separate areas.  Some of this information is given to Batman by Catwoman, who helps him because she wants a lesser prison sentence in a safer environment.

From that point onward, Batman encounters and defeats classic villains, rescues hostages, and returns order to Blackgate prison.  The story isn't ultimately very emotional or particularly deep, but it does fit into the universe of the Arkham games well.


Intellectual Content

There are plenty of hidden items, upgrades, and collectibles for completionist to search for and recover, and the process of obtaining them may seem stimulating and satisfying to some players.  Besides collectible hunting, puzzles like hacking minigames constitute the more intellectual aspects of this game.  As you receive higher clearance for your hacking device, the puzzles become more complex, though I would certainly not label them difficult.


Conclusion

Although I have this review classified as a review of a 3DS game, the title was also released for the PS Vita as I mentioned in the introduction.  The Vita version has trophies and at least somewhat clearer graphics, so owners of both handhelds who are interested in this game will need to choose between the two systems.  Arkham Origins Blackgate offers an entertaining side scrolling take on the franchise that took me more than eight hours to complete with almost 100% of the items [1], and the order that you choose to defeat certain villains in will change the ending and thus extend the potential replay value by having three total endings.  If you have a 3DS (or a Vita) and like Batman, you may find this game very satisfying and enjoyable.


Content
1. Violence:  The player has to fight and stun numerous enemies, but they are usually not killed, merely incapacitated or left restrained.  There is no blood.


[1].  There is a glitch that prevented me from obtaining a secret item in the industrial section (an Internet check revealed this object is the gloves for the Red Son costume).  While I found the other collectibles without any trouble or external assistance, this one remained inaccessible due to an infuriating glitch.  If the PS Vita version has this error too, then it will be impossible to get the platinum trophy.

Theonomy And Don Quixote

The book Don Quixote, somewhat unexpectedly to me, displays how human punishments can become unjust when not rooted in divine revelation.  This, clearly, is not the issue many contemplate as they read this novel about an insane man’s wanderings and misadventures, yet as a theonomist I see the ramifications of theonomy and the absurdity of any other position all around me, even in Cervante's classic narrative about a man who imagines himself a knight.

When the titular Don Quixote stumbles upon a group of soldiers escorting several criminals to the galleys in chapter 22 of the book that bears his title, he inquires about the crimes and punishments of each.  Near the end of his investigation he learns that one of the men will face 10 years in the galleys.  Now, I find this highly ironic considering the Christian leanings of many characters in the novels, for the very Bible they would seek moral education from condemns such a punishment.  “When you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve you for six years.  But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything” (Exodus 21:2), says Exodus.  The Bible does allow temporary servanthood as a judicial penalty for certain offenses (Exodus 22:3), but it is not permitted to extend beyond six years, unlike how the unseen king in Don Quixote allows sentences of 10 years of slavery.  Another way the punishments Don Quixote encounters were unjust by Biblical standards is the number of lashes some of the criminals received.  One explains how “. . . they kissed my back a hundred times, gave me three in the gurapas” (164), and another person says of a separate malefactor that “. . . he was sentenced to six years in the galleys, plus two hundred lashes” (165).  Deuteronomy 25:3 universally prohibits the infliction of more than 40 lashes in corporal punishment, yet the two criminals I referenced had 100 and 200 lashes imposed on them—in addition to years of time in the galleys, a double punishment unheard of in Mosaic Law!  And all of this came after some of the criminals were tortured to confess their crimes, violating a core principle of justice found in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15--the testimony of two or three witnesses is to establish someone's guilt, not cruel torture.

Humans, both Christians and non-Christians, regularly
complain about the alleged harshness of Mosaic Law, often
while willing to tolerate true barbarism and things that Mosaic
Law vehemently condemns.  Those who seek freedom from
justice inevitably become enchained by injustice of some
form.

Four evils and injustices appear here--1) periods of slavery lasting longer than six years, 2) lashes exceeding a number of 40, 3) double punishments that combine separate penalties, and 4) torture before conviction to force information, whether truthful or dishonest.  The Bible does not hide the fact that it opposes all four of these wrongs.  No matter what people may say to demonize Mosaic Law, humankind has often exchanged the laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy for vile, despicable punishments and immoral and unjust laws of their own creation.  When people abandon laws based on divine revelation, they replace them with abominations like the American prison system, the cruelties of Rome that strike many as unconscionable, or the excessive penalties mentioned in Don Quixote.

I write this to demonstrate that, although many in and outside of the church would panic at the idea of Old Testament penalties being implemented in a modern setting, humans have devised far harsher punishments and labeled them just.  In fact, I am greatly irritated by people who describe the morality of the Old Testament as oppressive, cruel, sadistic, or brutal—especially with regards to punishments—and then remain silent about historical and current legal systems and penalties that are far more severe.  As someone who loves justice, Biblical morality, and the law God revealed, I notice things like this when I read books or listen to others.  Those who categorize Biblical penalties as cruel and then replace them with draconian laws are stooping to multiple errors and inconsistencies, and even the book Don Quixote proves that humans often invent cruelties in the name of justice that the Bible so many view as barbaric actually blatantly and staunchly condemns.


Don Quixote.  Cervantes, Miguel De.  Trans Grossman, Edith.  New York: HarperCollins, 2003.  Print.

The Motivation We All Share

People vary dramatically in their interests, ambitions, emotions, backgrounds, beliefs, knowledge, and skills.  The fact that people are drastically dissimilar strikes many as blatant, impossible to rationally deny.  But there is one thing that they all share whether they are aware of it or not.  All people, no matter what course of action they pursue, will all have the same motivation no matter what differing destinations they seek.  That common ground I refer to is the fact that that everyone does what they want to do 100% of the time.


Does this strike you as too simplistic?  The complexity of human nature does not nullify this truth, but actually confirms it.


Obviously, someone could want conflicting things--someone might struggle with something he or she deems or knows is evil and thus that person could want to fight the impulse while also wanting to succumb to it.  People can have contradicting, compartmentalized desires and act in an accordingly fractured way.  The truth that people solely do what they want can adopt many complex forms, yet all of these manifestations testify to the same inescapable truth.


I want to know the truth about reality and thus I live my life dedicated to uncovering it, as my blog evidences.  Someone else, however, may want to live fully for his or her own preferences and pleasures without regard to ultimate matters.  One of us will align more with reality and one will not, but we both are pursuing exactly what we want to.  One person may pursue good while another chases after evil, yet both are merely enacting the desires of their heart.  No matter what someone does, he or she wants to commit those actions to at least some degree or he or she would never engage in them to begin with.


Since no one can ever avoid doing what he or she wants, for no one can choose willpower over desire without first wanting to make that choice to begin with, then the only thing we can do is, if we discover that such a thing as good exists, to orient our desires around what is good.  Of course, this may require a transformation of our core longings and our deepest habits, and that is not something that comes easy.  Even then, we would merely be exchanging one want for another.  We all, whether we admit it or not, have the same base motivation behind all of our actions and choices--our own desires, the motivation we all share.  Now, what will we choose to do with this truth?

An Allegory Imagined

Some readers of the Bible have a habit of allegorizing difficult texts or passages they do not want to mean what they clearly say.  Whether that target is prophecy, law, an attribute of God, or something else, the effects of treating a literal text as a subjective metaphor or allegory can range from subtle to disastrous.

One entire book of the Bible that is sometimes subjected to extra-Biblical allegorical interpretations is Song of Songs, an eight chapter book which focuses on the delights of sexuality and marriage.  Since Christians can have difficulty with openness and clarity about sexual issues, naturally some of them dislike the strong sexual imagery and themes in Song of Songs and thus they attempt to alter its meaning--instead of being solely about human sexuality, Song of Songs is, according to them, partially or even mostly a metaphorical and allegorical representation of God's love for the humans he created.

Song of Songs is not an allegory except in the fallacious imaginations of those Christians who read into the book something that is not present in any visible form.  There are no indications that the book is about Christ and the church--especially since the church wasn't even in existence yet!  Never once in all eight chapters does the text classify itself as literature that is anything but a poetic exploration of sexual excitement and intimacy.

The ironic thing about allegories is that we have no reason to suspect that a text has allegorical significance or meaning unless the text itself identifies itself as an allegory, and, even then, we have no way of knowing the true meaning of an allegory unless the symbols and stories are defined and explained to us by the text.  For instance, unless Jesus clarified the meaning of certain parables for us we could guess at the meaning of them and blindly turn out to be correct, but we could not truly ascertain what he meant by them.

Ironically, just this past Sunday I listened to someone preach about the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11.  He interpreted many minor details of the story as allegorical aspects of what it means for an unsaved person to become saved.  Now, though I am not denying that similarities between the resurrection of Lazarus and the salvation of an individual may exist, I understand that the story of Lazarus is a historical narrative and NOT an allegory.  Whether incidental or intentional, the similarities between the two do not indicate the presence of an allegory or a story meant to be metaphorically interpreted.  In the same way, although similarities between the love expressed in Song of Songs and God's love for humans may exist, Song of Songs is not an allegory in any way.

Now, there is nothing shameful or sinful about being honest about sexuality and the fact that Song of Songs is a book of erotic poetry.  Besides, the idea that erotic literature is evil or that it makes people lust is false because God himself intentionally included such a writing in the Bible.  Christians can be reluctant to not demonize sexual writings and certain expressions of sexuality, even when the activities in question are not condemned by the Judeo-Christian God.

I write this post because about a week ago I heard a professor at the Christian university I attend (HBU) declare that Song of Songs is both an allegory and erotic literature.  The more Christians allow other Christians to escape unchallenged when they make unverifiable or false statements, the more they fail to honor truth, reason, and the Bible to the best of their abilities.

Why Ephesians 5 Does Not Teach Rigid Gender Roles

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord . . .  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . ."
--Ephesians 5:21-22, 25


Complementarianism--belief that men and women are ontologically equal but have different roles (usually in marriage but sometimes outside of it)

Egalitarianism--belief that men and women are ontologically equal and should also be allowed to interchangeably take roles (in marriage and general society)


I have never heard any pastor or theologian attempt to argue that Ephesians 5 instructs husbands to love their wives but not the inverse, but I have seen plenty of preachers insist that all wives should submit to their husbands and that the opposite approach or an egalitarian one is faulty or sinful--and, of course, many of them disagree on what it even means for wives to submit to husbands to begin with.  This is all highly suspicious considering that Paul only one verse before the "complementarian" section of Ephesians just told his general Christian readers to submit to each other out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21).  Now, a complementarian might argue that verse 21 extends to everyone while the remainder of the chapter applies only to married people of either gender, so let me examine the ramifications of this.

If wives are to submit to husbands and couples are to be discouraged from sharing a more egalitarian mutual submission because God designed men to "lead" and women to "follow", then the only logical conclusion is that husbands are to love their wives but mutual love is not in accordance with God's intentions.  That is the only way to consistently interpret the passage.  Either both members of a marriage can and should love and submit to each other or wives should submit to husbands without the opposite ever occurring and husbands should love their wives, with the same rigid gender-specificity here applying only to men, but you can't have it both ways.

Are wives not to love their husbands?  Are husbands never to submit to their wives?  Are spouses not supposed to walk side by side together in love and mutuality instead of having one spouse arbitrarily lead the other simply because of his gender?  Christian egalitarianism posits that personal gifting, ability, and sometimes preference determine what role is suitable or optimal for individuals and that spouses can switch "roles" and share them as is best for their convenience and personal skills and as they decide through mutual consent.  Complementarians expect all men or women to act a certain way (which they tend to dispute the specifics of when one presses them for more than a superficial explanation of complementarianism) when men and women clearly do not all have the same supposed gender-specific characteristics, longings, abilities, reactions, and perspectives that people often attribute to them.

Also, the only gender roles that people can legitimately debate the Biblical basis of are these two roles in marriage.  Never does the Bible state, for instance, that men should work to provide for their families while women must remain in the home.  It never teaches that men should be stoic and fierce while women should be quiet and passionate.  Nor does it once suggest that the genders be largely separated outside of marriage and kept occupied with gender-specific tasks.

Now, I will not straw man complementarians by claiming that they believe that men and women hold different degrees of intrinsic ontological value, because complementarianism does not deny that God created all men and all women equally in his image (Genesis 1:26-27).  That is not the issue egalitarians debate complementarians over, as the controversy centers around the alleged gender roles complementarianism proclaims.  However, complementarians often do perpetuate myths like the idea that males are hypersexual and "hypervisual" beings while women are far less sexual or, as some call it, "visual" by nature (this notion has infuriated men and women alike), the idea that men and women can't ultimately understand each other due to assumed differences between them, and that married Christians should isolate themselves from members of the opposite gender because they are or will likely be "dangerous" to their marriages.  I mean, I have honestly to my recollection never heard of a complementarian pastor that tries to actively and publicly deconstruct gender stereotypes or that admires friendship between the two genders in the same way that he would same-gender friendship.  So while not opposing the theological fact of the equal value of both genders, the Christians that believe in gender roles can damage individuals of both genders with the stereotypes (therefore committing the fallacy of composition) and misinformed assumptions (therefore begging the question) that can permeate society and common complementarian practice and ideology.

In reality, the case for complementarianism from Ephesians 5, if taken to its only logical conclusion, results in a doctrine that tells husbands to unilaterally love their wives with wives not reciprocating this love--because if wives are to submit but husbands are not, then the same is inescapably true about the husband's obligation to love; it is an obligation only intended for one gender and not the other.  Complementarian philosophy also usually appeals to arbitrary cultural constructs and subjective personal anecdotes as support, neither of which amount to anything more than random and unverifiable preferences and experiences which hold no value in the quest for truth.  When it comes to Biblical and rational support, complementarianism is deficient and inconsistent.

A husband and wife can stand alongside each other in mutuality
instead of confining themselves to rigid gender roles inherited
from various dimensions of culture and very inconsistent
interpretations of the Bible.