The Justice Of Restitution

Incarceration has become a standard legal punishment in Western society, even having the support of many Christians.  Despite its popularity, it remains an unbiblical penalty that causes great harm of its own.  Instead of endorsing prison sentences, the Bible tends to prescribe restitution whenever physical punishments like lashes or execution are not used, with restitution being prescribed in cases of theft (Exodus 22:1-4, 7-9), minor assault/battery (Exodus 21:18-19), and arson (Exodus 22:6).  Though the brief incarceration of a suspect before a trial is allowed by Biblical law (Leviticus 24:10-12, Numbers 15:32-34), the punitive sentences of Scripture themselves never involve confinement.  Justice is not determined by the consequences of a particular legal penalty, but, even so, restitution is objectively more beneficial than prison for both offenders and victims.

Prison accomplishes nothing on the victim's behalf except perhaps the provision of a sense of satisfaction.  Contrarily, restitution is about making things right between the perpetrator and the victim.  The offender has harmed or inconvenienced the victim, and, consequently, the latter receives compensation that serves both a restorative and punitive function.  Restitution awards the victim a monetary sum (or replacements for whatever was stolen or destroyed) intended to help restore them to whatever financial position they held before they suffered the effects of the wrong, while also penalizing the thief for his or her crime, with the high ratios of repayment described in Exodus 22 serving the purpose of deterrence.

Alternatively, in the case of Exodus 21:18-19, restitution grants the victim a sum that makes up for the inconvenience of temporarily losing the ability to work after an assault.  Here, like in the case of restitution for theft, a monetary payment makes things right between the criminal and victim; however, the emphasis is not on restoring lost property, but on compensating for business opportunities forfeited by minor injuries, potential medical expenses, and perhaps suffering and/or humilitation (Lex Talionis is invoked in cases of permanent physical mutilation and in no other circumstances [1]).  Whenever a criminal is unable to make adequate restitution, whatever the need for it, a fixed period of servitude is called for (Exodus 22:3 with 21:2), and the offender is protected from abuse (Exodus 21:26-27).

Restitution accomplishes something productive on both ends.  Unlike the wasteful injustices of prison sentences, which the Bible is completely opposed to, restitution benefits criminals and victims alike.  In Biblical laws, there are no prescriptions of prolonged incarcerations that expose criminals to sexual violence and leave victims without compensation for their losses.  Many Christians continue to regard prison as a just penalty, despite the fact that Biblical justice excludes and condemns it.  Most would rather consult arbitrary cultural ideas about morality than the Bible they claim to follow.

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

The Distinction Between Mergers And Acquisitions

Considering that logical errors are quite common in the claims of the average person, there is not a single discipline whose components have been able to completely avoid misrepresentation.  Just as there are misconceptions about various concepts within theology, science, or mathematics, there are misconceptions about business concepts.  Businesspersons themselves might perpetuate some of these conceptual mistakes, even if they are experienced when it comes to making typical business decisions.  After all, that a person has experience in a certain position, even if that experience is very thorough, does not guarantee that they are sound thinkers.

One business concept which is surrounded by some degree of confusion is the difference between a merger and an acquisition.  Some people rightly treat them as distinct events, while others regard them as mostly or entirely synonymous.  While the difference is one of degree, the two are far from being interchangeable terms, as they refer to concepts that, though related, involve vastly differing power relationships between two firms.  In the case of the former, the power of each firm is fairly comparable; in the case of the latter, one firm has the upper hand, and it is obvious which firm is in this position.

A merger is the uniting of two separate firms in a someowhat "even" way.  It is very difficult for a merger to be exactly 50-50: since there are so many variables that could affect the power of a company's culture, reputation, and assets, it is more likely that two given companies will integrate on at least slightly unequal terms.  However, this does not mean that there is a massive difference in the power that two firms bring to a merger; it only means that an exact split of power is improbable.

In contrast to a merger, an acquisition clearly allows one party to hold a great deal of power over the other.  An acquisition involves the complete absorption of one firm by another, whether the acquisition is hostile (against the wishes of the target firm) or not.  Unneeded or difficult workers in the acquired company can be removed, and subordinating one corporate culture to the other could prove to be thoroughly challenging.  Given the potentially intrusive aspects of an acquisition, there is not only a difference between a merger and an acquisition in terms of the comparative power of both firms involved, but also a difference in how welcomed the transition is.

Though a merger and an acquisition share some common ground, the commonality being that both of them involve two firms becoming one collective unit, they are not synonymous.  Nevertheless, some people continue to insist that they are the same thing after all.  Since I have had business professors who repeat this myth, I wanted to emphasize the distinction between the two--when someone makes even relatively minor logical mistakes, they have laid the foundation for the acceptance of larger ones.

Does God Have A Plan For Every Individual's Life?

Every time that someone thinks God has a will tailored to the life of each individual, they must ask themselves endless questions if they consistently live out their suspicions.  Is it God's will that a person marry someone in particular?  Does God wish for a person to take one job over another?  Although these are popular inquiries, they are symptoms of a form of mysticism that has infiltrated the evangelical church, since people who take them seriously are forced to look to a subjective sense of peace, contentment, or God's presence to make certain decisions.

Nothing in the Bible suggests that God has a particular set of wishes for the lives of each individual beyond his desire for them to fulfill their moral obligations, which all humans share, and to enjoy a restored relationship with him.  In fact, pursuing some unverifiable, elusive, extra-Biblical "divine plan" for how one should choose between two legitimate marriage options or two equivalent job offers is likely to produce anxiety instead of peace.  Despite the inherent epistemological and Biblical errors in such pursuits, many Christians can waste significant amounts of time by treating subjective feelings as if they reflect some personal plan that God has for them as individuals.

Suppose that a hypothetical woman named Christine is offered three jobs all at once, none of which involve sinful activities.  The question she should ask herself is not whether God wills for her to accept one of the options in particular, but which one is best for her lifestyle, circumstances, and goals.  Christine has no obligation to work for one firm or another.  Thus, she is free to choose whichever one she pleases.  To say otherwise is to contradict the Bible itself.  How can I know that this is the case within the Christian worldview?

If God has a plan for how I should conduct the details of my individual life (beyond obeying the commands of the Bible), then I should adhere to it; I would be sinning if I did not.  However, moral matters can only be known by divine revelation (Romans 7:7), and the Bible says not to add to its commands (Deuteronomy 4:2).  The Bible says nothing about God having a specific plan for my individual decisions regarding marriage, jobs, or hobbies, given that I am not violating any of God's actual commands.  As long as I do not sin, I am permitted to do whatever I desire.

If I remain single, I have not deviated from a divine plan for my life.  If I get married, I have not deviated from a divine plan for my life.  If I choose to marry one intellectually and spiritually compatible woman instead of another, I have not deviated from a divine plan for my life.  The Bible contains all of the instructions that are needed for righteous living, and to posit that there is an esoteric set of personal actions which I must carry out, lest I forsake some special will of God for my lifestyle, goes beyond what the Bible teaches.

Biology And Phenomenology

Biology (more particularly, neuroscience) might be a topic that is related to consciousness, but only logic and introspection can actually inform one about the nature of consciousness itself.  Only having consciousness and reflecting on it can tell someone what consciousness is actually like.  In other words, even if someone knew the total physical makeup of another creature, which includes the entirety of its neurological activities, they could not know merely from that information 1) if the creature is conscious or 2) what its particular consciousness is like.

For instance, even if an animal could be demonstrated to be conscious and not merely seem to be conscious, how could one know whether or not it possesses something such as free will or self-awareness?  One cannot know that another creature even has consciousness to begin with merely from the observation of its external behaviors or from awareness of its anatomy and physiology.  This is why the study of animal consciousness, as well as the consciousness of any being other than oneself, will never make any ultimate progress as long as human epistemic limitations endure.  I cannot know if other humans, much less animals, are themselves conscious.  It is true by necessity that any other beings with my limitations are also unable to obtain such knowledge.

One can become familiar with the seeming biological workings of another creature to the point where one can establish that there is a distinct, constant correlation between certain neurological events and the appearance of mental events.  Nevertheless, no scientist who has my epistemological limitations can actually say with legitimacy that there is such a thing as observational proof of animal minds or of other human minds.  It is not that biology should be ignored (science is still of great convenience for things like health), but that it can tell me nothing about any inner life that another living being actually experiences.  Another way of articulating this is that it does not follow from the fact that the lights seem to be on that there is actually someone inside the home.

Short of telepathy on the part of other conscious beings, the mind and its contents are only "visible" to their owner: that is, visible to that mind itself.  No one else can peer in without telepathy, but this also means that no non-telepath knows if other minds exist.  This is why I might turn out to be the uncaused cause [1].  There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, but it is logically possible because there is no conceptual contradiction involved and because it cannot be refuted.  However, there remains a great deal of evidence that other minds exist, albeit nothing that proves anything more than that other beings seem to be conscious.  I do not know even this from biology, though, but from reason.  Science is incapable of illuminating the matter of other minds.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/metaphysics-and-absolute-certainty.html

The West's Arbitrarily High Regard For Books

The arbitrary elevation of certain entertainment and communication media within Western culture, and the accompanying dismissal of others, is but one of many errors rooted in public consciousness.  There is only one entertainment medium that (often) demands of its users intelligence, skill, and interactivity, and that medium is not books, yet books continue to be viewed very highly by default.  Before some people straw man my comments that will follow, I want to assure readers that I certainly appreciate some books, and I likewise appreciate the broad communication medium of writing.  After all, I write here on a regular basis!  What I am objecting to are the assumptions many people tend to make about books and those who read them.

Neither owning nor reading books makes one intelligent.  In fact, many people who love to read are quite irrational, as they accept numerous claims as true simply because certain scientists, historians, or preachers posit them.  They look to writers of renown as if popularity signifies any degree of soundness or accuracy.  It is deeply disturbing to me that a plethora of fallacious thinkers like Plato and C.S. Lewis are commonly regarded as anything more than unintentional comedians.  Books might be useful in some circumstances, but they do not grant their readers intelligence, and I have yet to discover a single book that explores certain key philosophical truths [1].

It follows from these facts that there is no justification for the manner in which many people revere published writing as a medium.  Additionally, there is no intrinsic challenge or skill to the practice of reading.  In contrast to this, a format like that of gaming cannot be used without direct, and in many cases continual, interaction--yet video games are often perceived as a lesser mode of entertainment.  Intelligence and competence of varying degrees (or incredible luck) are required to progress in video games, whereas all one needs to progress in a book is the ability to turn pages.  Anyone with functioning arms can skip ahead to a later point in a book, but most video games must be completed in a linear manner.  This does not stop people from treating books as if they impart dramatic intellectual benefits simply by physical proximity.

There is nothing about the process of reading that inherently involves or develops some sort of spectacular intellectual ability.  Nevertheless, it is far from uncommon for people to merely assume that someone who enjoys reading is intelligent, observant, and concerned with matters of truth by virtue of reading.  Some people enjoy may reading, but far too many people regard it as a superior form of leisure or education and assume that it is usually a guaranteed sign of higher intellectual activity.  It is none of those things.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html

The Intersection Of Politics And Theology

Due to its inherent subjectivity, conscience is capable of being a legitimate basis for a legal system, set of social values, or personal moral beliefs.  It is only because many prize their subjective desires that conscience is deemed anything other than a practically worthless epistemological tool.  As with all intellectual mistakes, this can have dramatic social consequences, which in this case take the form of arbitrary laws.  Laws should not reflect the conscience of either a particular person or of the general sentiments or preferences of a group; they should reflect actual moral obligations, and nothing more.

To have laws rooted in anything else is by necessity either unjust or meaningless.  If moral truths exist and laws do not align with them, then those laws are contrary to justice.  If moral truths do not exist, then all laws are without any significance and authority to begin with.  In either case, laws that correspond to conscience are of no value, and only the delusional look to them with approval.  Justice is the only legitimate objective of a legal system, and justice cannot be known via subjective impulses.

Thus, the human conscience can tell us nothing of any moral obligations that might exist.  Ethical truths are within the domain of theology, for the nonexistence of God and the existence of a God who does not possess a moral nature both necessitate the nonexistence of morality.  The laws of a given society can have no moral authority unless they match any actual moral truths rooted in God's nature.  However unpopular these moral obligations may be, no society is exempt from them.

Since moral obligations can only be metaphysically grounded in the nature of a deity, moral knowledge can only be given by a deity (this does not mean that the mere existence of God means that morality exists, as it is possible for God to not have any moral nature at all).  It follows that there is no such thing as a sound non-theonomist moral framework.  Because theonomy is inherently political, and since politics is not amoral if moral truths exist, the existence of moral truths always necessitates theonomist moral obligations, though this alone does not mean that Christian theonomy is the correct model.

Nevertheless, theonomy is the necessary intersection of politics and theology, for moral obligations can only exist within a theological context, and politics is not exempt from existing moral obligations.  However, there are those who wish to keep theology separate from politics, not realizing that to do so is to keep the only sound philosophical basis for legal systems away from politics.  The irrationality of such people impedes the ethical accuracy of the legal systems they live under.

Originality Is Available To All

Of the two kinds of originality, discovering unknown or relatively unknown truths and independently verifying truths respectively, the first cannot be available for more than a limited period of time, whereas the second is available to all, irrespective of time and geography.  The first form of originality is far from extinct, however.  Only a mistaken person believes that historical philosophers were consistently rational, thorough, and precise.  Because of their usual fallacies and shallowness, there are many demonstrable philosophical truths that they overlooked (I call these neglected truths).  Even if the first type of originality was no longer achievable, though, the second could be enjoyed by anyone who practices intellectual autonomy.

Originality of the first kind is still certainly attainable even with regards to strictly logical and metaphysical truths.  Historical philosophers were silent or ignorant about many of the most important, verifiable truths about metaphysics and epistemology (such as the only way to prove that you are awake or dreaming at a given moment), some of which I have listed here [1].  I've attempted to find other websites that address some of these precise details about reality, only to find exactly what I expected: the advent of the internet has not made these facts known to the average philosopher because almost no one seems to have actually discovered them.  Renowned books, most philosophical websites, and the vast majority of other people are of no use to the one who seeks knowledge this specific.

Many people will never discover the neglected truths unless a rare kind of rationalist brings the facts to their attention, but this does not mean that originality is beyond their grasp.  Every person who looks to the laws of logic instead of alleged authority figures and traditions exercises originality of the second sense.  For instance, no one needs to read Descartes' Meditations to realize that consciousness cannot be an illusion, and every person who demonstrates this fact to himself or herself has exercised originality.  Likewise, no one needs to read Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding to discover that exact causal connections between events in the external world cannot be verified.  The idea that people can only rely on past thinkers when developing their worldviews is a destructive, asinine, fallacious myth that ignores both neglected truths and the fact that intellectual autonomy is always available to every individual.

If every knowable fact had already been discovered by humankind, every person would still be capable of recognizing and verifying truths wholly apart from the assistance of others, even if those facts currently belong in the category of neglected truths.  There is not a person who cannot turn from reliance on the claims of others to the freedom of originality.  Autonomy is a byproduct of of rationality, rationality being all that one needs to see through the fallacies of others and construct a worldview rooted in proof.  Furthermore, for now, originality of the first kind is certainly alive.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html

Preventing Gender Dysphoria Through Egalitarian Parenting

Conservative parents, often horrified by increasingly egalitarian changes to Western culture, insist that boys and girls should be raised in at least somewhat different ways.  Since childhood is an optimal time for introspection and identification of one's natural talents and traits, kids who are conditioned to behave as traditionalist adults expect, regardless of their actual natures, can end up questioning whether or not they are even boys or girls to begin with.  The key to fighting gender dysphoria is not prescribing the use of certain toys or segregating the two genders while children are young, though.  It is affirming that individuality is not determined by the genitalia one is born with.

If a person sees that he or she does not have the abilities, desires, and psychological traits that the societal constructs of gender roles dictate, it is far more likely that the person in question, given the current climate, might believe the myth that gender itself is a social construct.  Of course, it is only gender roles that are constructs, but many conservatives and liberals alike equate one's gender, which only pertains to the body and is thus synonymous with one's sex, with one's personal mental characteristics.  Egalitarian parenting can thwart acceptance of this myth.  However, egalitarian parenting should not be implemented simply for this pragmatic outcome; it is the only rational way to approach parenting boys and girls.

Furthermore, when children think that they must, for example, play with certain toys, they suppress individuality in ways that might hinder their understanding of themselves, even in ways that go beyond the stunted self-discovery encouraged by contrived gender roles.  Yes, they are more likely to struggle with gender dysphoria if they recognize that they do not fit into gender-based societal expectations, despite gender being nothing but a category for the physical body, but they are also less likely to explore their own individuality in general.  Conservative nonsense about gender traits is deeply damaging on multiple levels.

All children should be encouraged to play with toys, befriend the opposite gender, and engage in miscellaneous activities of their choice without taking the fallacies of conservative ideas into consideration.  There is no such thing as a masculine or feminine toy or behavior; there are only toys and behaviors that some people arbitrarily perceive to be masculine or feminine based upon subjective or cultural factors.  Expecting a child to play only with the toys that ignorant adults assign to his or her gender is an affront to the truths of individualism.  Ironically, gender dysohoria is what some advocates of things like gender-specific toys want to avoid!

Being male or female does not obligate anyone to behave in a certain way, including when it comes to playing with toys or making various other lifestyle choices at any age.  Accepting that there are only two genders (with the occasional intersex person being outside of the biological norm) is greatly facilitated when people are not pressured to live out gender stereotypes.  Similarly, accepting one's own gender is simplified once gender roles are recognized as fallacious, non-obligatory traditions.  If a person realizes that he or she is free to live for God in accordance with their individuality, not in accordance with social constructs, they can avoid the difficulties of gender dysphoria altogether.

Profanity Is Not Unintellectual

There is an arbitrary societal perception that using profanity in an explanation of an important issue somehow lessens the quality or soundness of the explanation.  Not only is profanity regarded by many as a lesser form of communication in such circumstances, but it is even often seen as something that reflects poorly on the intellect of the communicator.  Profanity is not unintellectual despite it often not being perceived as acceptable within intellectual communication.

Something is intellectual if it pertains to the exercise of the intellect.  Though the intellect's grasp of the laws of logic (logic and the intellect are by no means synonymous) is necessary in order for someone to have even immediate, understandable experiences, the word intellectual is typically reserved for references to more rigorous uses of the intellect, such as syllogistic reasoning.  As several moments of reflection can demonstrate, there is nothing about engaging in thoroughly intellectual activities that excludes the use of profanity, whether the profanity appears in writing or in verbal speech.

The reason why many people consider profanity to be "unintellectual" is the same reason why some people perceive profanity to be immoral or distasteful in the first place: social conditioning.  Ultimately, there is no reason to consider profanity out of place in an otherwise "normal" essay or speech.  It does nothing to inherently detract from the structure, intelligibility, or impact of a given message.  When someone is socialized to equate the use of whatever arbitrary words a culture deems "profane" with a lesser intellectual capacity, they are ironically the one who is demonstrating intellectual deficiencies.

Profanity is not unintellectual because an absence of profanity is not intellectual.  A highly intellectual essay or speech could use profanity, and a very unsophisticated essay or speech might not feature any profanity at all.  Using profanity is not an indicator that a person possesses either low or high intelligence, nor is not using profanity an indicator of a person's intelligence.  This being the case, it is impossible for profanity to hinder intellectual communication just by its mere presence, as if all it takes to render something unintellectual is the use of an expletive.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

Taking The Morning After Pill Is Not Abortion

Pregnancy is a possible biological outcome of sex, but sexuality can be enjoyed for its own sake.  Parenthood is not a universal goal when couples have sex, and there is nothing wrong with this, despite many people tending to pressure others to have children.  Since sexuality is controversial, it is no surprise that parenthood and contraception are similarly controversial.  It is also hardly surprising that controversial matters are often misunderstood.  One misunderstood form of contraception is the morning after pill, a type of emergency contraception that can prevent pregnancy.

It is not that children are merely burdens to be avoided; on the contrary, they are far more than that.  However, not every couple wishes to have children, and some people, in bouts of forgetfulness or spontaneity, might fail to use adequate contraception during sex.  The morning after pill is intended for use as an emergency contraceptive in such circumstances.  Some people equate the taking of the morning after pill with a form of self-imposed abortion, but the two are quite distinct.

Conceptually, the difference between the morning after pill and an abortion pill is that the former cannot actually induce an abortion.  While the morning after pill can prevent pregnancy if taken within a certain amount of time, it is incapable of killing a baby.  A pregnancy that has already started will not be terminated by taking the former.  Thus, there is no reason to expect the morning after pill to result in the death of a human being.

Abortion deserves firm condemnation, since it is the unjust extinguishing of a human life, but there is nothing immoral about doing what one can to avoid a pregnancy.  Some people may not like contraception.  Some people may wish that no one would ever use it.  Nevertheless, there is no obligation for any particular couple to have children--God's command in Genesis 1 for humans to populate the earth is not a command for every couple to have kids.

Because taking the morning after pill is not the same as aborting a child, there is no grounds for opposing it.  The idea that the two are synonymous is a false equivalence used by people out of ignorance or, perhaps, a dislike of contraception in general, which is correlated with conservative ideas about theology.  Contraception is not sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2) or murderous; it is helpful for couples who wish to enjoy sexual intimacy but, for various reasons, do not want to produce children.  The morning after pill is just a backup contraceptive for abnormal circumstances.

A Contradiction Of Calvinism

At the heart of Calvinism is a contradiction that renders the idea incapable of corresponding to reality.  The nature of a contradiction is that it cannot exist except as a disparity between components of a hypothetical or actual worldview: since the laws of logic cannot be violated, there is no such thing as a contradiction that is not false.  Contradictions cannot describe the way reality is because the impossible cannot be true.  Whether Calvinists are honest or not, Calvinism is a bundle of contradictions that disqualify the belief system from describing the actual relationship between God and humans.

According to Calvinism, God is ultimately responsible for directing humans to salvation, with humans being unable to choose redemption on their own.  It follows from this that, since being in a state of rebellion against God is sinful, God intentionally and arbitrarily keeps some people in a hopeless condition of sin.  Yet this is an impossibility.  God cannot simultaneously be the being whose nature is righteousness and be the sole reason for human unrighteousness.  Though Calvinists might try to avoid admission of this fact, it follows from the premises of Calvinism that a Calvinistic deity would be responsible for every act of human sin, as he is forcing them to remain in rebellion against him without any ultimate autonomy.

Unless humans have freedom of the will, and are thus able to align themselves with good and evil as they wish, God can have no grounds for punishing them.  In such a framework, God is himself unjust, for he is responsible for human sin despite being a sinless being.  A morally perfect being cannot cause even a single instance of evil without forfeiting its state of moral perfection!  The contradiction is obvious to anyone who rationally approaches the concept of Calvinism, although Calvinists will use misdirection to conceal it.

In Calvinism, God's approach to handling human sin is like that of a human punishing a stone for being thrown through a window--the stone cannot be guilty of anything, but the one who threw it can be guilty of malice if he or she possesses a self-guided volition.  However, the relationship between God and human sin in Calvinism is not merely comparable to that of a person punishing a stone for being thrown without a choice in the matter, but it is also equivalent to a person throwing the stone and then punishing the stone for being thrown.  The thrower is at fault, not the object that was hurled.

If the Bible taught Calvinism, then the Bible would be in error.  As if Calvinists are rational enough to recognize this!  Calvinists are often presuppositionalists who assume their worldview to be true and then refuse to submit to reason; thus, refuting and ridiculing them is not likely to lead to anything on their part except frustrated assertions that Calvinism is true.  Presuppositionalism is a plague that needs to be confronted with the same viciousness that Calvinism must be handled with: when a person clings to assumptions, they are unwilling to utilize reason and are thus capable of multiplying their fallacies to the point where they will believe or do anything that conforms to their arbitrary preferences.

The Value Of Scientific Awareness

Whether the subject is quantum physics, the development of artificial intelligence, neuroscience, cosmology, or some other category or subcategory of science, science is ultimately useful for convenience, not the pursuit of verifiable truths.  There are certainly advantages to staying up to date with contemporary scientific pursuits, but knowledge of reality beyond the fact that one has specific sensory perceptions is not among them.

Convenience, not knowledge, is the primary benefit of science.  Whether the convenience pertains to health, entertainment, or leisure, there is no other ultimate point to investing time into use of the scientific method due to its numerous and inherent epistemic flaws.  Some people may certainly find themselves attracted to science by a subjective sense of curiosity, but anyone who thinks science is capable of proving anything except that specific phenomena in the external world are occurring during the present moment is thoroughly mistaken.  The value of science is in its pragmatic benefits, and nothing else.

A love of science that is rooted in nothing but personal preference drives many to overlook, deny, or trivialize the intrinsic epistemological flaws of looking to the scientific method for verification of anything more than the aforementioned material phenomena of the present moment.  It is one thing to appreciate science; there is nothing irrational about enjoying the process of making repeat observations and formulating estimations based upon them.  However, the belief that science even remotely resembles an epistemic savior is utterly unintelligent.

Science is not a pathway to ultimate knowledge about anything more than activities in the natural world detected by immediate sensory perceptions.  It cannot be used to demonstrate anything about the past, the future, or even whether or not one's immediate sensory perceptions correspond to the actual appearance of the external world.  The scientific method is incapable of verifying even a single fact about reality beyond one's perceptions, much less a multitude of them.  Reason alone, immutable and omnipresent, possesses this ability, and what is immutable cannot be dethroned.

The Nuance Of The Biblical Response To Homosexuality

Homosexuality is not a particularly deep issue in itself, despite being a major focus of vocal Christians, along with transgenderism and abortion.  It is, however, a culturally important matter at this time.  There is a nuance to the genuine Biblical position on homosexuality that is scarcely approached by many Christian teachers, but truth is not always as simple as the average person wishes it to be.

Many Christians simply react to whatever cultural shifts are occurring in their lifetimes.  Since American culture at large is putting great effort into making homosexual behaviors seem innocent and natural (depending on the meaning of natural), many Christians, often conservatives, are eager to talk about that particular subject.  If conservative evangelicals were truly consistent in their Biblical opposition to the acceptance of homosexual behaviors, though, more of them would differentiate between homosexual feelings and homosexual actions, as the Bible only condemns the latter.  They would also oppose homosexual prison rape far more harshly than they do consensual homosexual acts if they took Biblical ethics seriously, though rational Christians would not pretend for even a moment that the Bible has a neutral or positive stance on consensual homosexual activities.

Of course it is possible for Christians to be accepting of individual homosexuals.  After all, being homosexual doesn't even mean that a person acts on their impulses or doesn't wish they were different.  However, a consistent Christian--and I mean someone who is not just an evangelical or liberal Christian who selectively ignores and approves of the Bible--will condemn homosexual intercourse, affirm that the Bible regards it as a capital offense (Deuteronomy 20:13), and directly admit that cultural and individual preferences about morality are purely arbitrary and without significance.  Loving homosexual people and holding homosexual behaviors to be immoral are not exclusive, as the Christian conception of love is quite different from what many people characterize it as being.

The idea that Christianity is a tolerant religion based upon nonjudgment is a grievous misunderstanding of Christian ideology.  Biblical Christianity demands that we love all human beings, but the love universally prescribed by the Bible is nothing more than a commitment to the ultimate wellbeing and redemption of others: in other words, if a person treats others justly as the Bible defines justice and wishes for the unsaved to become reconciled to God, there is nothing more that they are obligated to do for other people.  Anything beyond this is nonobligatory or supererogatory at best.  The notion that Christians should not judge non-Christians and each other for actual moral faults is both self-contradictory, since one must judge in order to oppose judgment, and contrary to the Bible's teachings (John 7:24).

How, then, should Christians connect with homosexuals, given that Christian love is neither tolerance nor a mandate to go beyond what is obligatory?  To reach out to homosexuals better, Christians need to make it clear that denouncing homosexual behaviors is distinct from condemning people for experiencing homosexual desires.  Sexual orientation can be subject to fluctuation, but that does not mean that a person wills to feel certain sexual attractions at a given time.  Making this distinction clear would help some people find emotional relief and motivate them to be more open about the matter.  In addition to this, Christians need to emphasize that sexuality is not what defines people whether or not Christianity is even true.  When people recognize that they are far more than their sexualities, whatever their sexual orientations, they might be far more willing to grapple rationally with issues of sexual ethics and personal identity.  Honesty, vulnerability, and rationality are the keys to connecting with marginalized people, homosexuals included.

Authentic Autonomy

Collectivism is a gratuitous, destructive shackle that accomplishes practically nothing except the preservation of social forces that discourage individuality and rationality.  The person who seeks truth, not social constructs, is willing to disregard cultural norms and expectations whenever it suits them, whenever the urge strikes, or whenever a failure to do so results in unethical standing.  Individualism, which is at its core a thoroughly rationalistic ideology, is the antidote to the madness of collectivism.  Indeed, it is impossible to live in authentic autonomy apart from embracing individualism.

Individualism is mistaken by many collectivists for a form of arrogance and selfishness, but no individualist who fulfills their actual moral obligations to others is guilty of any such thing.  Many people confuse superficial, supererogatory acts of kindness for morally obligatory behaviors, but many small kindnesses are neither just nor unjust; they are supererogatory at best.  It is impossible for there to be an obligation to go beyond what our moral obligations demand of us, and thus there is no ultimate reason to avoid nonsinful activities that offend people other than subjective preference or manipulative usefulness.  Living without regard for anything except that which reason, morality, and personal fulfillment require is the only autonomy that is genuine.

As long as a person does not violate any of their moral obligations, there is no such thing as legitimate authenticity apart from acting as they wish, without regard for how it impacts the feelings of other people.  Since people have certain moral obligations to their spouses and friends that they do not have to others outside of those relationships, there are some feelings that should be taken into consideration before taking certain courses of action, although the wishes of the general populace are not moral obligations to be obeyed, but things to manipulate, discard, and accommodate as needed in order to achieve any nonsinful ends that one desires.

Collectivists can object to individualistic autonomy and the freedom from irrational social constructs that it encourages, but they can do nothing except roar against reason in vain.  No one is required to submit to the arbitrary, conflicting demands of human cultures, no matter how offensive this is to onlookers who derive their sense of stability from constructs that have no significance.

The Empowerment Of Bikinis

After generations of being expected to conform to asinine, non-obligatory social constructs about modesty, Western women are able to don the bikini without offending almost every person in sight.  Yes, this form of swimwear still has its fallacy-bound opponents, but many women are now permitted, in a social sense, to wear it.  There are empowering elements to this freedom that even anti-legalists often neglect.  Every point about the human body that follows applies to both men and women.  However, the male body, while usually not recognized as an object of beauty [1], is not a regular target of ascetics who demand that it be covered, when the same is not true of the female body [2].

Every time a woman wears a bikini, she has the opportunity to celebrate the nonsexual nature of her body while she enjoys an innocent freedom that has been opposed by ascetic and legalistic ideas for centuries.  In social settings, this allows her to perhaps enjoy the admiration of others.  As reason and experience can reveal, having one's body receive admiration from others in either a platonic or sexual sense can be exciting for men and women alike, and it has the potential to solidify someone's comfort with their bodily appearance.

After all, the voluntary display of one's body can facilitate or signify the acceptance of one's body.  Christianity (and Judaism by logical extension) is thoroughly pro-body, yet there are relatively few Christians who actually embrace this.  Christians are often more likely to pay lip service to the notion that the Bible regards the human body very highly, since it is the pinnacle of God's physical creation, than they are to live as if it is a metaphysically good product of God's craftsmanship.  Christian subcultures are often immersed in prudery, particularly with regard to the female body, though the teaching of prudery actually contradicts the Bible's position on the status of the human body.

Prudery fosters shame, and shame can lead to the internalization of damaging attitudes towards one's own body and the bodies of others.  The solution to body dysphoria of women and men (of course, Western culture largely ignores male issues with such things) is not brought about merely by encouraging words.  When people become familiar with their bodies, they might be more willing and likely to accept them and even love them--and the quickest way to become familiar with one's body is to allow it to be seen.

Displays of the human body can have a deeply empowering effect on observers and the one(s) being displayed, which is exactly what ascetic Christians need to experience.  Familiarity with something can lead to its acceptance, and when there are practical benefits to accepting a thing that is metaphysically good, the only people who oppose it are those drowning in their own fallacies.  Legalistic Christians could ironically benefit from the bikinis they despise.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-male-body.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html

Nonromantic Passion

In the context of interpersonal relationships, the word passion often has a perceived affiliation with romantic and/or sexual feelings one person might harbor for another.  Popular culture, casual conversations, and common jokes can all reinforce this alleged affiliation.  Conceptually, though, to have passion that is directed towards another person means nothing more than that one experiences strong emotions or attitudes, whether positive or negative, towards the person in question.  The erroneous equating of passion with romance (or sexuality) encourages the average person to not express strong emotions for others outside of romantic or familial relationships, and, in doing so, stifles the quality of other relationships.

The presence of passion is not an indicator that romantic feelings lurk nearby.  Western culture is quick to associate intensity of passion with romantic or sexual affection, despite there being no logical connection between the them.  Romantic feelings can accompany passionate affection, yes, but it is also possible to find examples of nonromantic intimacy.  Of course, logic proves there is no inherent connection between passion and romance without the need to actually observe or speak with other people.

Passion of a nonromantic kind can be a core component in friendships between people of the same gender or of the opposite gender.  A man can have a passionate but nonromantic connection with another man, just like a woman can have a passionate but nonromantic connection with another woman; a man and a woman can likewise share a passionate but nonromantic connection.  Western culture has conflated romance with passion, yet the latter can be entirely distinct from the former.  The result is confusion about the differences in various types of passionate feelings for other people.

I love my closest friend, a woman, beyond my ability to articulate the depth of the attachment.  My love for her is not a calm, quiet love, but one that is deep and vibrant.  There is definite nonromantic passion in our mutual affection for each other, and there is nothing unnatural about this.  Every person is capable of experiencing such passion for another person, irrespective of gender.  It is American culture that is responsible for the inaccurate perceptions that many Westerners have about expressions of emotional and physical intimacy within same gender and opposite gender relationships.

Misunderstandings Of Phariseeism

The offenses of the Pharisees are often misunderstood by the modern representatives of anti-nomianism.  At its core, anti-nomianism is a rejection of Biblical moral obligations rooted in Mosaic Law and the New Testament's commentary on this Law.  Pharisee is a pejorative word that might be used to discourage people from emphasizing Biblical ethics, especially given that Biblical ethics has neither a foundation nor a persisting obligatory status without Mosaic Law.  In actuality, the Pharisees that Jesus condemned gave their allegiance to legalistic constructs of their day instead of God's commands, forfeiting any claim to moral superiority that they might have otherwise enjoyed.

Not all Pharisees were necessarily legalists who distorted the Old Testament, as I have explained elsewhere [1], but the ones who did so were the targets of Jesus for that reason.  If they were legitimately superior to others by virtue of living righteously, Jesus would not have opposed them.  Modern Christians might accuse people of Phariseeism if they rightfully identify their moral inferiors as inferiors, when moral superiority is a privilege to pursue, not a mythical condition that cannot be attained.

Pharaseeism is not the celebration of genuine moral superiority; it is the mistaking of adherence to extra-Biblical rules as grounds for moral superiority and the shunning of those who display actual contriteness.  The Pharisees whom Jesus opposed were not guilty of obeying God's moral revelation, as if adhering to Mosaic Law means one is inadequate and sinful, but were instead guilty of misunderstanding and adding to it (Matthew 15:3-9), for Jesus would not have reprimanded them if they upheld God's actual commands with legitimate intentions (Matthew 5:19).  These truths tend to be overlooked when evangelical and liberal theologians distance themselves from the enduring status of Mosaic Law within Christianity.

Denying that moral superiority and moral inferiority are inherent components of any ethical system does nothing to alter the fact that the existence of moral values necessitates that people who persistently align themselves with goodness make themselves metaphysically superior to those who persistently align themselves with evil.  The Pharisees were not morally superior to those they condemned, since they practiced hypocrisy and legalism while obstructing the restoration of the repentant to God.  The offenses of the Pharisees have not stopped some Christians from somehow simultaneously regarding them as villainous and upright, amusingly.  However, someone who fulfills their moral obligations does possess a value that is superior to someone who does not.

Fear of moral inadequacy can stop people from attempting to morally better themselves.  Nevertheless, all humans are instructed to pursue moral perfection (Matthew 5:48).  Regardless of whether it is a popular fact, the Bible is blatantly clear that moral progress is, at the very least, a primary reason why God saves people to begin with [2].  The gospel is at its core about morality, for there would be no need for salvation apart from moral errors, and there would be nothing to ultimately restore people to without moral perfection.  Even the mercy present in the gospel is only significant because mercy is not morally obligatory.

It is easy for people who know that they make minimal efforts to obey the Bible's commands to treat an emphasis on obeying Mosaic Law as if it, and not the inverse attitude, is a major problem within modern Christendom.  Contrarily, anti-nomianism is one of the most influential and consistent problems in the church.  It is one of the only things that evangelical and liberal theologians alike agree on.  In neglecting Mosaic Law while prescribing non-obligatory and extra-Biblical rules, they have ironically become the Pharisees they falsely regard theonomists to be.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-sins-of-the-pharisees.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/saved-for-righteousness.html

The Remnants Of American Patriarchy

If a rational egalitarian speaks of patriarchal influences that still have a grip on modern American civilization, they most likely, with some possible exceptions, are not referring to the general political or corporate worlds as being bastions of overt misogyny.  Instead, they are probably referring to ideas that are more casually accepted by the average American than the exclusion of women from politics or business.  When complementarians mock the idea that there is still a patriarchal presence in America, they straw man those who point to the fact that patriarchal ideas have generally retreated into the more subtle aspects of the culture.

Yes, women are still barred from preaching in complementarian churches.  Yes, some people might still be openly against female political leaders.  Complementarian Christians are often the ones guilty of these fallacious stances.  Nevertheless, the majority of the current sexism directed towards women in modern America has to do with relatively common, accepted practices that are integrated into the lifestyle of many men and women alike.  Conservative women are taught to defend these practices, which include benevolent sexism.

Gender stereotypes about dating, marriage, and sexuality, are perpetuated even by many people who would deny that they are sexist at all.  For example, men are pressured to be initiators in actions within all three aforementioned categories, and women are expected to be passive.  It is these stereotypes that can convey deeply patriarchal ideas even in a country that is superficially egalitarian (there are many grievous forms of sexism directed at men as well, even ones stemming from patriarchal influences [1]).  The promotion of male centrality and a hierarchy that elevates men over women in certain ways endures because of this.

There are certainly still patriarchal ideas and practices in American culture, but they are often the kind that religious and secular complementarians might not even recognize as patriarchal to begin with.  If such people see women in positions of corporate, social, and political power, they think that there cannot be anything patriarchal left in the broader culture.  They are mistaken, not because women are collectively shunned from positions of authority, but because men and women alike are still held hostage by the remnants of patriarchal concepts.  These remnants still infect enough relationships in and outside of the church for them to be noticeable to the observant.  There are still many lies rooted in American society that egalitarians need to deconstruct.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/how-complementarianism-injures-men.html

What It Means To Be A Philosopher

Though philosopher is often a term assigned to someone who formally educates or writes, everyone is a philosopher to the extent that he or she contemplates reality.  A philosopher is not someone who holds a faculty position at a school or someone who has written books.  People often conceive of a philosopher being at least one or the other, when neither is a requirement.  Someone can be a beloved member of a prestigious faculty and publish many articles or books without having ever engaged in serious thought, much less rationalistic thought.

Everyone who seeks to understand reality is a philosopher, whether they are a rational or irrational, deep or shallow.  The person who reserves the title of philosopher only for a teacher or an author misunderstands the nature of philosophy.  All key metaphysical and epistemological facts that can be proven are available to every willing intellect, for intelligence, not education or social recognition, is what makes a philosopher sound in his or her worldview.  Everything else is secondary at best, and unrelated to soundness at worst.

Since there is nothing that is outside the domain of philosophy, every part of our daily lives is in some way ripe for philosophical analysis.  Despite being surrounded by matters of philosophical concern, though, it is only a relatively small fraction of humanity that is either curious or intelligent enough to consistently live in intellectual depth and sincerity.  Proximity to academia and/or the publishing world are irrelevant factors.

To be a philosopher, one needs nothing more than to seek to understand reality.  This intention in no way ensures that someone will be a rational philosopher on its own.  Adherence to strict rationalism is necessary for that.  Nevertheless, this intention is at the core of philosophical pursuits, whether the conclusions a given philosopher makes are accurate or inaccurate, verifiable or unverifiable.  The one who mistakes credentials--arbitrary and meaningless things at best--for what makes someone a philosopher is guilty of stupidity and ignorance.

Prioritizing Intelligence When Dating

Far more than affection and attraction are necessary in order to maintain a lasting dating/marital relationship.  Consistency, honesty, and loyalty are vital to an intentionally healthy relationship, but worldview overlap is often trivialized: it is rare to find couples with a bond based largely on a shared and sound worldview.  To have a sound worldview, one must be intelligent, and intelligence, like a rational worldview, is often overlooked when people search for romantic partners.

Many people do not seem to intentionally seek out romantic partners who are genuinely intelligent.  They certainly might praise any intelligence that their partners possess, but they do not make it a high priority when dating.  In fact, it can be difficult to find anyone who legitimately makes it a priority at all, especially since many mistake mere education, a good memory, or articulate speech for intelligence.  Consequently, many people do not even know what ideological correctness looks like.

When it comes to ideological matters, the pragmatics of living with someone of a different worldview are often given greater weight than the fact that two contrary worldviews cannot both be correct.  What I mean by this is that many people are more likely to avoid a relationship with someone with a different worldview because of the inconveniences of making personal decisions together with them than because they care about truth (or because they do not want a relationship with someone who does not share that concern).  As long as their relationships entail superficial peace, many people will tolerate obvious and major errors in their partner's worldview.

The person who places relational fulfillment above worldview compatibility when seeking a romantic partner is not worthy of having a partner.  The person who seeks subjective pleasure over truth does not deserve to experience subjective pleasure until they align themselves with reality.  Dating as a rationalist can be quite difficult in a shallow world, but an intellectually and morally deficient significant other is worth avoiding, even if such avoidance means one must live without a romantic relationship.

Deuteronomy 30:11 Affirms The Possibility Of Sinlessness

"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach."
--Deuteronomy 30:11


It is no wonder that Deuteronomy 30:11 is not a familiar verse for many Christians.  Not only are modern evangelicals reluctant to engage the Old Testament honestly, but they are also prone to deny that it is truly within human power to not sin.  Of course, this stance, when accepted by the majority of Christians in a given setting, inevitably leads to moral stagnation of varying extents, or to the excusing of miscellaneous faults.

Moses himself directly, explicitly says in Deuteronomy 30:11 that the fullest range of Mosaic Law's commands (including the ceremonial and dietary laws) is not something that humans cannot bear.  If this was true in the days of ancient Israel, then it is inescapably true in the modern era, when there are at least some parts of the original Mosaic Law--not the legal punishments, however [1]--that are not obligatory [2].  The reduction of even a single obligation makes upholding the Law a simpler matter; Christians have even less of an excuse for sin than the ancient Jews did.

Sinlessness in human life would only be unachievable if such a thing was beyond our metaphysical ability to pursue.  Since there is not a single individual instance where someone has to sin (outside of very specific circumstances [3], I must clarify), it is not logically necessary for anyone to sin at all, however strong a temptation might be.  Now, human sinlessness is certainly rare--though not unheard of in Biblical narratives.  However, it is obviously possible due to the fact that there is no logical contradiction that prevents a person from consciously moving away from sin and into a state of moral perfection.

The most effective ways to avoid fighting sin are to either not recognize it as sin or to fallaciously think that sin cannot truly be defeated.  A sound moral epistemology, which is nothing other than a rationalistic and theonomist ethical framework, is the only way to combat the first problem, as it is a problem of ignorance.  The second problem is one that knowledge of what defines something as sinful cannot resolve on its own.  A personal resolve to live rightly is also required.

That sinlessness can be achieved by humans is one of the most empowering truths that could be discovered by a Christian.  To tell someone that they can stop sinning is to emphasize that they are not a helpless slave to sin, but a being with an autonomous will, the capacity for redemption, and the ability to correctly identify what is sin and what it is not according to Scripture.  Indeed, it is degrading to regard a person, including oneself, as incapable of choosing righteousness over moral error.  Furthermore, it is contrary to Moses' statement in Deuteronomy 30:11, as well as contrary to Jesus' command in Matthew 5:48.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-consequences-of-non-theonomy.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-old-covenant.html

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-morality-of-vows.html

Memory Defines The Self

There are two senses in which one could understand the concept of self.  The first is that the self is synonymous with consciousness, meaning that any conscious being has its own self, regardless of how sophisticated that consciousness is on a metaphysical level.  The second is that the self is a unity of experiences within a consciousness.  According to the second sense, people who have lost their memories might be said to have lost themselves.  Both descriptions of the self are correct, depending on the context.  I will focus here on the second sense.

One must have a stable self to even have the ability to form a fallacious argument against a persisting self.  In the absence of a stable self, a person could not even misuse deductive reasoning long enough to concoct an invalid argument against it; they would be adrift in confusion about their personal identity.  In fact, at worst, they would be adrift in confusion about everything except perhaps an immediate grasp of first principles and their present perceptions.  The very process of arguing against the self is inherently self-contradictory.

Without a coherent set of memories, there would be nothing to hold a series of experiences together within one's consciousness.  A mind without a functioning memory would be a cauldron of conflicting identities, none of which would necessarily take precedence over the others, meaning that there would be no identifiable self to appreciate the experiences or comprehend them in a unified manner.  Every new experience would itself form a new identity, since there would be nothing tethering a recalled experience to a present one.

The very fact that I am not confused about almost everything proves to me with immediate and absolute certainty that my memory does provide me with a unified sense of self [1].  Even if my memories of past experiences do not correspond to actual events, it remains true that I have a personal identity because of them.  My knowledge, recollections, and immediate perceptions all mesh together to create my enduring self, and every new experience deepens it further.

The self is omnipresent in my experiences because I cannot escape from my own mind; such a thing would require that my self be separated from my self, an impossible thing.  Without an intellect that grasps the external laws of logic, my experiences would not be understandable whatsoever, but without a memory that ties those experiences into a consistent whole, I would have no core identity that persists from one period of time to the next.  It is the fact that I do possess this core identity that allows me to live as I do.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-reliability-of-memory.html

Libertarianism Is Not About Selfishness

There are many who tend to demonize or criticize a political ideology before they even understand what it is.  Sometimes that criticism is deserved, despite them having simply made an assumption that turned out to be correct (though they would have no right to make that criticism out of ignorance); sometimes that criticism is based on a straw man of either the ideology's followers or of the ideology itself.  Libertarianism, like conservatism and liberalism, is the target of straw man accusations that only reveal the ignorance of the accusers.

Libertarians are sometimes characterized as people who want nothing more than to do almost whatever they wish, even if they desire to do something that is ultimately immoral, as long as they do not violate very specific rights that all people have (right to life, private property, and so on).  According to this stereotype, (many) libertarians are not libertarian because of intellectual and moral accuracy, but because they dislike accountability to others.  This is an erroneous misjudgment of the nature of actual libertarianism.

Libertarianism itself is not about people selfishly seeking to avoid moral accountability, but about recognizing the limits of what constitutes a just government and safeguarding the rights of individuals to live without large governments micromanaging their lives.  It is an ideology that opposes every unjust or unnecessary law.  Governments have a very particular basis for their existences, and they lapse into tyranny of a minor or major sort whenever they deviate from this purpose.  This, and nothing else, is at the center of genuine libertarianism.

After a few moments of contemplation, it should become apparent that libertarianism is not anarchy.  The latter is the absence of all governmental bodies, while the former emphasizes minimal government.  Thus, no actual libertarian wants absolute personal freedom from all laws.  The notion that libertarians defy legitimate authority is incorrect.  It is easier, of course, for conservatives and liberals to pretend otherwise.

It is unfortunate that some people would rather let a government unnecessarily deprive them of resources, unjustly prohibit them from engaging in morally permissible activities, and create new societal problems than advocate for a government that does not operate outside the boundaries of its duties.  If a policy or activity is gratuitous, it does not matter if people like it.  If a law unjustly restricts individual freedom, it does not matter if people think the law is just.  Just because people are used to a certain kind of government does not mean that the government in question is legitimate.

Genesis 3 Does Not Prescribe Patriarchy

It takes a great deal of unintelligence to read Genesis 3:16 and mistake the curse of patriarchal leadership, something exists solely because of sin according to the third chapter of the Bible, for a positive, morally obligatory thing.  In the aftermath of the Fall, God told Eve that her husband would rule over her; history makes it clear that this curse, like many of the other curses, was not limited to the lifetime of Adam and Eve.  Despite the blatantly, inherently destructive and unjust components of patriarchal societies, some Christians today continue to confuse a descriptive pronouncement for a prescriptive one.

Patriarchal social customs (real or hypothetical), just like real or hypothetical matriarchal social customs, are perversions of God's intent for human societies.  According to Genesis 1:28-31, both men and women were commanded by God to steward the natural world, for both were charged to rule over "every living creature that moves on the ground," and yet Christians have tended to primarily encourage men to carry out these instructions, living out the curse of Genesis 3:16 instead.  God called the initial status of humanity "very good," and the initial status of humanity was free from the poisons of patriarchy (and matriarchy as well).

In the Edenic world, there was no gender-based hierarchy in the interpersonal relationships Adam and Eve shared with God and each other.  There was never a such a hierarchy in the relationships between God and humans even after the Fall, as if God values one gender above the other.  Unfortunately, the same is not true of some people: there has not only been a large amount of sexism inflicted on both genders throughout human history, but Christians have often been supportive of this horrid discrimination to varying extents.  Their endorsement of patriarchal cultures, and thus endorsement of the overt and subtle harms that men and women have suffered because of them, is a massive deviation from Scriptural doctrines.

A curse of sin that disrupts and impairs human relationships cannot be a prescriptive moral duty.  This is a logical impossibility--an evil predicted by Genesis 3:16's curse cannot be legitimately treated as something that should be carried out.  To say that a patriarchal society is God's will, a person must ignore or fallaciously interpret almost the entirety of Scripture, starting with the first three chapters of Genesis.  To read Genesis (and other books of the Bible) and judge the Bible to be complementarian, a person must practice heinous eisegesis.  That complementarians adopt a facade of deep concern for Biblical teachings, as opposed to constructs of tradition, is an ironic thing indeed.

The Idiocy Of Pascal's Wager

There is no shortage of atrociously poor arguments for the existence of God, nor is there a shortage of arguments in favor of believing in God without confirmation of his existence.  Among the latter is Pascal's Wager.  Respected by some even in the present time, the wager suffers from grave errors that render the entire effort completely worthless.  Keep in mind that the existence of a deity is not an unprovable matter [1] and that my harsh refutation of the wager does not equate to a refutation of theism.

Pascal's Wager insists that it is somehow rational to believe that and/or act as if God exists even in the absence of confirmation.  If God exists, then the theist (or at least the theist affiliated with a particular religion) will enjoy a positive afterlife, and perhaps an existentially fulfilling terrestrial life before that.  If God does not exist, then the theist, having perhaps lived a fulfilling life already, ceases to exist--in other words, nothing happens as a result of God's nonexistence.  Atheists and agnostics are allegedly on the more concerning side of this wager.  If God does not exist, nothing happens when they die, but if he does, they will suffer consequences in the afterlife.

The wager is at best a shallow attempt to persuade someone to live in a certain way without demonstrating to them that the lifestyle in question would actually be rooted in reality.  It is used to pressure people into choosing a particular type of theism based upon the mere logical possibility that an agnostic or atheist might ultimately regret having not committed to a specific deity.  Of course, this inevitably reduces down to a pathetic stance of faith, not a rationalistic decision, which is hardly surprising given that Pascal erroneously denied in his Pensees that absolute certainty is possible, whatever the subject.

There are a number of horrifically invalid assumptions that plague Pascal's Wager.  First of all, it treats the issue of God's existence as if it is completely unable to be resolved by the use of logic, when this is demonstrably untrue [1].  Additionally, this wager assumes that the existence of God automatically means that there is an afterlife, and that God must have some sort of moral nature.  One of its most significant flaws, however, is that it treats human existence as if it is at its core a series of wagers hinging on a central wager.  Legitimate skepticism is not a wager for or against anything, and thus the person who withholds affirmative belief (or the inverse) when a point cannot be demonstrated is not wagering anything.

Appeals to ignorance never influence anyone except for the intellectually sluggish or deficient, for they are nothing more than a method of coaxing people into believing something which cannot be proven.  Thankfully, the existence of an uncaused cause can be proven, and the deity of Christianity seems to be synonymous with the uncaused cause due to significant historical evidence.  Pascal's bullshit methods of apologetics can do nothing to undermine legitimate apologetics based upon rationalism.

[1].  https://thechristianratinalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html

Feminism And Erotic Media

The stupidity and errors of some Christians--unfortunately, of many of them, both living and dead--has nothing to do with Christianity as a worldview.  When I criticize Christians as a general group, I am not in any way directing that criticism towards Christianity.  Similarly, though egalitarianism/feminism is fully logical and Biblical, there are claims made by individual egalitarians that do not reflect the rationality of the position itself, and these errors need to be corrected.  The stance of many Christian egalitarians or feminists in the western world is that the making and consumption sexual videos and images inherently degrades, objectifies, and trivializes the people who appear in them, especially if someone uses them for masturbatory stimulation.

Objecting to all erotic media because some people might objectify those they view is analogous to objecting to all alcohol use because some people might get drunk, opposing gun ownership because some people might misuse firearms, and rejecting an ideology because some of its adherents are incompetent.  This argument against erotic media is nothing but a slippery slope fallacy combined with various non sequiturs that has the benefit of already being believed by the average Christian, whether complementarian or egalitarian.  Even if the causal connection alleged by the argument did exist, the argument confuses abuse of something morally permissible for the intrinsic nature of the thing itself.

A person, man or woman, can masturbate to or sexually think about a member of the opposite gender while still fully acknowledging that they are a whole person whose existence involves far more than their sexuality or subjective sexual appeal.  That a person stimulates his or her genitals while looking at or thinking about a member of the opposite gender does not mean that the thoughts accompanying the self-pleasuring are objectifying in nature (of course, masturbation might not involve such thoughts at all).  There is nothing about masturbating to images, videos, memories, or fantasies about an actual person that in itself ignores all but one aspect of that person's humanity.

Christian egalitarians/feminists who demonize creating, using, or masturbating to erotic videos or images err, for they misunderstand both the nature of objectification and the Bible's criterion for moral knowledge [1].  For some people, the discovery that neither experiencing sexual attraction towards particular people nor permitting that attraction to motivate bouts of self-pleasuring is itself objectifying or sinful can trigger great relief.  After all, sexual legalism is responsible for a great amount of gratuitous guilt, despite legalism being utterly antithetical to Christianity.

There is nothing anti-feminist/anti-egalitarian or anti-Christian about men and women alike coupling masturbation with erotic media depicting people they are not married to, whether they themselves are single or married.  What is anti-feminist/anti-egalitarian, however, is the acceptance of social constructs that regard erotic media as something men are helplessly fixated on and something women do not use.  Consistent egalitarians realize that women are free to enjoy their sexualities in any nonsinful way, just as men are; they also realize that male sexuality is not predatory or overpowering.

The abhorrence of erotica in many Christian circles is irrational and misguided, and egalitarians often subsume this component of evangelicalism into their personal worldviews despite its erroneous nature.  Nevertheless, demonstrating the falsities in this position is a simple matter.  Every argument against erotic media itself is riddled with false assumptions and logical fallacies [2]--yet many Christians genuinely think that the Bible is opposed to practically every form of it!


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html

[2].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-3.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/an-asinine-criticism-of-erotic-media.html