Celebrating Halloween

It is the time of year in the American calendar where evangelical anxiety about Halloween comes to the surface more than it usually does.  There is never a time of year where rationalistic Christians do not have to put up with legalistic concerns about nonsinful things, but October is especially ripe for such baseless worry.  The "paganism" on display around Halloween is regarded as a particular threat to the influence of Christianity on the West--as if the evangelical world represents genuine, Biblical Christianity!

Often objecting to the general emphasis on costumes and monsters more than on the point of All Hallow's Eve, evangelicals might even go so far as to claim that those who celebrate Halloween have engaged in something that directly or indirectly glorifies Satan.  Even if acknowledging satanic forces was the objective of everyone involved in events related to Halloween, this would not be inherently positive or negative.  After all, different people could have varying attitudes towards positing this, if that somehow was indeed the case.

However, many people who participate in Halloween celebrations are not making any sort of worldview statement, nor do they regard Halloween as anything more than a day (or season) on which they can enjoy a "spooky" atmosphere with friends and strangers.  They appreciate the scenery, costumes, and general experience without attaching any ultimate personal or theological significance to it.  There is no ulterior philosophical motive for many who enjoy Halloween, much less one of disdain for Biblical Christianity!

As with all activities that the Bible does not condemn directly or by logical extrapolation (i.e., the Biblical condemnation of alcohol abuse also condemns drug abuse), each individual Christian is free to act on their subjective preferences.  A person who feels uncomfortable with anything about Halloween is under no obligation to participate in it, and he or she can simply find some other activity to engage in on October 31st.  A person who wishes to be a part of Halloween events is under no obligation to fight those wishes, and he or she can wear costumes and partake in other traditions of the holiday.

Christians who celebrate Halloween have in no way betrayed Christian values.  Ironically, it is the person who claims that participating in Halloween activities is sinful that betrays Christian values, as they look to tradition and emotion instead of theonomy for their moral framework, meaning they disobey the vital command of the Bible to not condemn that which Mosaic Law does not (Deuteronomy 4:2).  Legalists profess to desire righteousness, but their very additions to Biblical instructions reval that they are ignorant, hypocritical, stupid, or all three.

The Theological Ramifications Of Free Will

Far too many people think that a deity who creates humans that engage in immoral behavior must in some way be causally and therefore morally responsible for those human acts.  A single person who believes in a fallacious idea is always too high a number, but higher numbers of proponents mean that a fallacy holds more power in a given society.  The idea that God morally erred in creating humans has a fairly significant number of adherents, and thus it deserves to be addressed accordingly.

It is far less common for people to blame the parents of someone who carries out immoral behaviors for bringing him or her into existence, perhaps because it doesn't require especially deep thought to realize that a parent and their child are two different beings.  Unless the latter was literally controlled by the former, the moral standing of the child could not be legitimately blamed on the father or mother.  When it comes to God, however, many people who separate the moral culpability of parents and children say that a deity, if they hold that one exists, is to blame for whatever human acts they regard as evil.  The truth of the matter is deeper than just affirming that a being with autonomy is responsible for its own actions, though.

It is not merely true that free will renders criticism of God irrelevant when humans are the problem; it is also true that it is logically impossible for God to create a world without the opportunity for human sin unless he withholds the capacity for free choices on the part of humans.  There is no such thing as a world where all inhabitants are guaranteed to behave justly as long as they are capable of making their own decisions, uncoerced by other minds (including God's) or by some other spiritual or material factor.  The metaphysical liberty to make one's own decisions is an integral, inescapable part of moral flourishing, but it inevitably leaves open the possibility of morally flawed choices.

A will with only the potential for benevolence and creativity is not ultimately free.  In order for a mind to be truly free to make its own choices, it must have the ability to make choices that are destructive, immoral, and devastating.  Unless a person is willing to exchange any hint of autonomous volition for predetermined moral perfection, he or she is a hypocrite for objecting to the fact that humans can make decisions they find disagreeable.  Thankfully, every destructive human behavior is a reminder that humans can also do that which is productive, intelligent, and just.  I and all beings that are metaphysically equivalent to myself are not slaves to God's desires any more than we are slaves to biological variables, and though it is possible for free will to be misused, the very nature of free will is that it does not have to be.

Game Review--Wolfenstein: Youngblood Deluxe Edition (Switch)

"Remember girls: you are the daughters of the man who killed Adolf fucking Hitler."
--Abbey Walker, Wolfenstein: Youngblood


In Wolfenstein: Youngblood, BJ Blazkowicz's twin daughters Jess and Soph launch a desparate search for their father, whose sudden disappearance concerns the family.  It quickly becomes apparent that the gravity of the premise contrasts with the playfulness of the dialogue.  The twins are often rather silly and lighthearted, giving each other fist bumps and dancing in elevators as they traverse through Nazi-infested landscapes.  The sadism and cruelty of the Nazis in other Wolfenstein games is toned down drastically, and the general tone of the game is much lighter (and less philosophically charged) than the tone and themes of The New Colossus, even if the shooting is still fairly violent.

Since I played the Deluxe Edition, it is worth mentioning that the Buddy Pass, which is included only with the Deluxe Edition of the game (along with some additional weapon and suit skins), allows a player who does not own the game to play along as the second sister for free.  This feature alone will justify the $10 price increase for those eager to play with friends as quickly and cheaply as possible for all parties.  I have never heard of another game having a feature like this, so at least Youngblood stands out for this reason alone.

I want to clarify before going any further that the Switch version of Youngblood has hardware limitations that the game would not have on other consoles.  Some of the following criticisms, therefore, only apply to the Switch edition.

Production Values

Anyone who goes from playing shooters on a traditional console to playing Youngblood on the Switch should be able to immediately see that the graphics of the latter are noticeably inferior to those of the former.  The performance does suffer when numerous large enemies simultaneously attack you in an enclosed area, but the blurry visuals are a constant, particularly when you engage in swift motions.  The motion blur is perhaps even worse in the Switch version of Youngblood than it is in the Switch port of Doom (which I plan on reviewing at some point).

In addition to occasional offline slowdown and the consistently blurry visuals, there are a number of late game glitches that warrant mention.  While these glitches largely appeared in the last of the story missions, they included missing floors, spontaneous ejection out of the accessible areas of the map, and cutscene-to-game transition problems that actually crashed the game.  The game is certainly not unplayable, and the graphics certainly aren't horrendous by handheld standards during slow movements, but the visual and technical issues might make the PS4 or Xbox One version a better fit for someone who owns one of those systems in addition to a Switch.

The sound fares much better, fortunately.  The mechanical Nazi soldiers, German audio cassette logs, and dialogue are all realized well, even if the latter is often somewhat comedic and is simply shared by the two sisters for much of the game.  Jess and Soph are prone to give each other random comments of encouragement during firefights, but they even briefly mention things like their thoughts on how clueless some men are about the intensity of women's sex drives and the need for "Old Testament justice" (as if they are likely to understand the actual legal commands and applications of Mosaic Law to begin with).  Some might easily find their spontaneous conversations annoying, but the joking is not the whole of their dialogue.

Gameplay

Upon starting a new file, players select one of BJ's daughters, customize their power suit color, ability, and helmet type (more options are available for purchase using silver coins found in the environments), and then complete an assassination mission on a Nazi blimp.  After the "prologue," players can walk around an underground resistance base in New Paris, a Nazi stronghold in this version of the 1980s.  The resistance hideout serves as a hub from which you can visit other aboveground areas in the game, with underground areas having access points scattered throughout those aboveground locations.

As you progress through the main story, more connections between regions become available, and various alternate routes through familiar areas might be discovered.  Some of these alternate routes need flashlights due to severe darkness, while others can be used to stealthily avoid enemies or to silently kill them.  For those who prefer to simply walk or run to enemies and directly engage in gunfights, however, there are plenty of opportunities to fight, as well as plenty of opportunities to improve weaponry.  More than 100 weapon upgrade options can greatly enhance the attributes of each individual weapon (other than the melee weapons), given that you have enough silver coins to purchase them--silver is easily found in small quantities throughout the game.

Character upgrades, as opposed to weapon upgrades, are purchased with points obtained as your character levels up or as she completes certain missions.  These points can be spent on things like a secrets indicator, (eventually) the ability to catch grenades in the air and hurl them back, and health or armor capacity extensions.  Yes, you can pick up armor like in 2016's Doom, and this is not the only similarity: the weapon wheel in Youngblood resembles that of Doom, though pulling it up does not slow the game as it did before due to the nature of online co-op.  As the upgrades suggest, Youngblood is full of overt RPG elements, from the health bars above enemies to the leveling system to the large emphasis on weapon attributes.

Despite the game being crafted around the central co-op mechanics, you can play through the entire game alone, the other sister being controlled by an AI at all times.  In fact, the very nature of many objectives requires simultaneous input from both sisters.  The AI is actually helpful for the most part, even if she doesn't always revive you when she is under serious attack (yes, an AI that doesn't inhabit a biological body is inherently genderless, but the character herself is a woman).  All of her kills generate XP for the sister controlled by the player, but the incentive for actively killing enemies instead of letting the AI take care of them is that only player kills can level up weapons.

Story

Spoilers!

When BJ Blazkowicz abruptly goes missing, his daughters leave their home in Texas to search for him in New Paris, bringing their friend Abbey along with them.  The fact that many missions can be played in whatever sequence the player wishes means that the story is secondary to the gameplay and co-op, but there are some twists and revelations that unfold as the sisters complete their assignments.


Intellectual Content

As compared to The New Colossus, Youngblood is very thematically weak due to the game's minimal story.  There are legions of collectibles, though.  Some of the areas containing the collectibles are not obvious, but objects can be collected by simply walking up to tables, desks, or racks and pressing the Y button when the prompt appears.  There are no puzzles that must be solved to obtain them, even if creative exploration is sometimes necessary to actually get to the locations holding the items.


Conclusion

Youngblood is a good game at its core, but its storytelling is intentionally weak to accomodate the nonlinear co-op missions, and it does run poorly at times on the Switch.  None of this should stop a fan of the franchise from playing it on the Switch if they have no other options, but anyone who owns another current generation console might want to try the game on another system.  As far as the length of the game is concerned, it took me right around 16.5 hours to complete every story and secondary mission at level 51.  Even at that point, I still had many character upgrades to obtain and many weapon upgrades to buy, and it might take around 5-10 more hours to level up enough to buy every character enhancement.  Youngblood is not the longest co-op game, but it isn't the utter atrocity that some reviewers describe it as.



Content
 1.  Violence:  Although the blurriness of in-game motions does obscure some of the blood, killing human enemies with firearms and melee attacks alike is a bloody affair.
 2.  Profanity:  The twins regularly infuse profanity into their dialogue, and they especially favor f-bombs.  It seems like I would get along with them rather well!

The Criteria For Female (And Male) Pastors

As long as conservative evangelicals and liberal theologians quarrel over the requirements for the office of pastor, there will be a need to emphasize that gender, from a Biblical standpoint and even from a strictly logical one, has nothing to do with whether one is suitable to preach.  Rather than looking to the circumstance of a candidate's gender, congregations need to focus on the intellectual and spiritual attributes of a potential pastor.  Is he or she rational, consistent, and just?  If so, then that is all that is necessary to make the candidate a legitimate one.

Logical and Biblical accuracy are the ultimate criteria for whether a woman should be encouraged to pursue the role of a pastor, not her genitalia [1].  The same is true of male pastors: a man is not fit to pastor a church simply because of his gender (as conservatives might claim), but a male pastor is also under no obligation to step aside to allow a woman to take his place (as some liberals might claim).  The fact that accuracy, soundness, and consistency are the only inherent requirements for legitimate church leadership contradicts the ideas of most conservative and liberal Christians alike; as with other areas, truth is more nuanced than most can recognize without external prompting.

Complementarian norms contradict these requirements by treating the office of pastor as if it inherently hinges on the one in the position being a man, whereas the tenets of liberal "pseudo-egalitarianism"--that is, an ideology that does little to nothing to confront the acts of discrimination, acts of violence, and stereotypes that affect men and thus is not genuinely egalitatian--treat female pastors as if they have some moral advantage over male pastors.  These approaches both entail the belief that pastoring is tied to the anatomy of one's body, albeit in inverse ways, when leadership and teaching are about intelligence and moral character, not one's gender.

Conservatives and liberals alike are adrift in fallacies and hypocrisy, and it should come as no surprise to any rationalist that both make mostly asinine comments about ecclesiology.  Both sets of ideological adherents forfeit the right to intellectual and theological respect as soon as they identify with their frameworks.  Unless a pastor is aligned with reason and Scripture, their title is nothing but an empty phrase.  Whether they are a man or a woman, however, their gender is wholly irrelevant to the quality and consistency of their teaching.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking useful.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-legitimacy-of-female-pastors.html

The Scope Of Human Memory

Due to memory's significance in the construction of a stable internal identity from one moment to the next and in foundational epistemology, the relative lack of attention given to the philosophical aspects of memory might be puzzling to some.  Connected with the epistemological nature of memory is the scope of memory, which pertains to how much information can fit within one's mind.  A human mind can only focus on certain information at one time, but this does not mean that the total capacity of one's memory is finite.

Unlike the storage in memory cards for electronic devices, human memory is not necessarily confined to a fixed scope.  There is not any evidence that it is impossible for a person to continually store more and more information in their memory, much less a way to logically prove such a thing.  The vast depths of human memory might have no inherent limitations beyond those rooted in biology.  It is vital to distinguish here between a hypothetical inherent limitation on memory, such as a memory being incapable of storing more than a certain amount of information by default, and biological limitations having to do with mind-body relationships.

The importance of the distinction becomes apparent when one considers the legitimate possibility that all disruptions and problems with memory reduce down to neurological issues.  In other words, all problems related to memory would be caused by something outside of human consciousness.  This would mean that the storage capacity of human memory itself is infinite, even though the confinement of the mind to the body still imposes restrictions on how much information (whether personal experiences or logical facts) could be preserved within a person's mind in a given period.

Memory, if the consequences of inhabiting a body with a nervous system governed by the laws of physics as they are were removed, could potentially be as vast as the space that holds matter: although matter might only exist in certain positions in space, space itself extends outward in all directions without end.  In the same way, human memory might be without any intrinsic phenomenological boundary, although it is not completely filled.  A given person would always experience a finite set of memories, but there would always be room to add more.  This can neither be verified nor falsified, but it is a logical possibility that needs recognition.

One could easily contemplate the scope of memory after realizing that memory is omnipresent in one's experiences in the sense that there is no way to have coherent thoughts or sensory perceptions from one moment to the next without it.  The very fact that one is not confused about everything other than one's immediate perceptions proves that one's memory is internally functional (though this does not prove that specific past events actually happened).  Nonetheless, the exact scope of memory--an individual's memory or human memory as a whole--cannot be established by this fact.  Even so, it is entirely possible that the capacity for the storage of memories is endless left to itself.  The nature of human memory may differ quite drastically from that of memory cards.

Biblical And American Slavery

Biblical slavery is drastically different from many pagan forms of slavery and from American slavery, but it is indeed slavery nonetheless.  The latter point is very rarely acknowledged by anyone associated with Christianity in the modern world.  More emphasis is placed on the enormous differences between these forms of slavery, but while distinguishing them is a necessary task, it is not all that can be said about the matter.  Nevertheless, it is highly important to understand what the Bible describes when it details laws for the treatment of slaves in the Jewish community.

The Bible plainly does permit slavery, but the form of slavery in question is not one involving racism, gratuitous beatings, or a lack of legal rights for the slaves.  In fact, the act of kidnapping someone, with or without the intent to sell them as a slave or force them into involuntary servitude, is a capital offense in Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:16).  There is no allowance for or tolerance of an elaborate trade founded on the abduction of those of a different ethnicity in the Torah.  This alone distinguishes the slavery of Old Testament Israel from that of America, but the differences extend further than that.

For instance, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 not only allowed Southerners to retrieve slaves from the Northern free states, but also mandated that anyone who assisted escapees be subject to legal penalties.  In contrast, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 prohibits forcing an escaped slave to return to his or her master, even if they fled from a foreign power.  A slave who fled abuse was not to be reported.  Mosaic Law in no way demands the predatory exploitation of slaves, but it also opposes the aid of abusive masters or mistresses.

No one can legitimately proclaim that Biblical slavery, for that is what the servitude of Mosaic Law is, is like American slavery in anything except in name and in the regard that servitude was involved in both.  The reasons for slavery, the manner in which slaves were treated, and the laws surrounding runaway slaves were completely opposed to each other.  Beyond a couple of superficial shared traits, the two are irreconcilable due to emerging from conflicting, exclusive moral concepts.  For this reason, no one can equate Biblical slavery with historical American slavery without leaping into error.

The 13th Amendment's provision for slavery as punishment for a crime is a Biblical one as long as it is carried out within certain boundaries (see Exodus 21:26-27 and Deuteronomy 25:1-3 for examples), yet this does not mean that the laws around Biblical slavery are equivalent to those around historical American slavery or the prison system.  The slavery codified in Mosaic Law is fundamentally distinct from the kind which was practiced in the Southern states prior to the Civil War.  The slavery of Biblical law is slavery, regardless of what prominent apologists might say, but it is also quite different from the slavery of many nations besides ancient Israel.

The Empowerment Of Originality

The ability to grasp reason transcends one's era, geographical location, gender, ethnicity, social class, and educational background.  In a sense, rationalism is inherently egalitarian directly from the start because of this fact.  Reason places the keys to autonomy in every person's mind, offering its depths to anyone willing to accept them.  This, by extension, allows every individual to reason at least some truths out on their own, apart from the presence or ideological shadow of other people.

Such autonomy is rarely described as an expression of originality, and yet it is exactly that.  Each person who discovers a logical truth through personal reflection alone practices originality, though it is a different form of originality than that which entails the discovery or production of something that is wholly or relatively new.  Moreover, every person who recognizes their capacity for autonomous reasoning is capable of experiencing the deep fulfillment that can arise from utilizing one's intellect in such a manner.

Both forms of originality can bring with them a deep sense of empowerment, for novelty and autonomy alike can serve as deep wells of contentment, excitement, and self-inspiration.  Autonomy is always present in originality, whether or not one has discovered or put forth something that is truly new in the sense that few or no others have previously discovered it.  Where there is autonomy, there is originality, as independence can stand entirely apart from novelty when one's worldview is one's own.

The thrill of originality (in both senses) can remind individual thinkers that that it is folly to hold others in high regard due to their reputation or mere appearance of intelligence.  At a minimum, one must examine another person's claims for oneself in the light of reason, though it is entirely possible (and ideal) to independently prove logical facts or contemplate an issue before interacting with someone on matters of philosophy, science, or theology.  While subjective fulfillment is trivial compared to comprehension of truth, empowerment is not an irrational priority, only a secondary one.  To recognize that reason grants autonomy is to open the door to a fulfillment that spans the emotions and the intellect.

The very nature of logic is that logical truths can be privately grasped without any exposure to the claims of other people, including unacknowledged or neglected truths, and every person is free to pursue a sense of autonomy-based excitement as long as excitement is not regarded more highly than truth.  The empowering feelings that can be derived from intellectual originality are only a pleasurable side effect of autonomy, as the most important aspect of originality is a direct apprehension of truth itself.  Even so, given that the priorities of a sound thinker are in the correct order, there is no reason to trivialize the empowerment associated with originality--and there is significant personal benefit to embracing it.

Premarital Affection

Evangelicalism only thrives because its followers are comfortable with epistemological ambiguity, assumed premises, and arbitrary ethical lines that have no basis in the Bible.  One of many examples is the typical evangelical stance on premarital sexual ethics: premarital sex is condemned on a universal or near-universal level and the moral dimensions of premarital sex are emphasized more than those of rape, when the Bible emphasizes the two inversely (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).  Furthermore, it is mistaken to claim that the Bible condemns all premarital sex to begin with (as I will explain yet again below).

Not all interpersonal sexual behaviors involve actual sex, however.  When elaborating on their legalistic ideas about other forms of premarital affection, evangelicals tend to be very imprecise while detailing just where the line separating legitimate and illegitimate behaviors is.  They scarcely even attempt to do anything more than blindly assert that sexual interaction outside of marriage must be immoral, admit that finding the line between licit and illicit behaviors for unmarried couples is difficult within the evangelical framework, and then oppose all behavior that subjectively upsets them.  There is almost never any acknowledgment of the fact that there is a dramatic difference between premarital sex and other premarital sexual behaviors.

Even regarding premarital sex itself, there is an enormous difference between casual sex with no intention to remain committed to one's partner and sex with the intention to remain committed to or become legally married to one's partner.  It is not as if having sex with someone outside of a legal marriage indicates an absence of affection, commitment, or concern for Biblical ethics.  Exodus 22:16-17 makes it clear that merely sleeping with an unengaged, unmarried single of the opposite gender in a consensual manner is not automatic grounds for moral condemnation.  In fact, this act is amoral as long as it is handled within the guidelines of Exodus 22.

Since lesser sexual activities involving two people, like oral sex or mutual masturbation, are not themselves sex despite having an inherently sexual nature, the requirement of commitment attached to premarital sex in Exodus 22 would not apply in other cases.  A couple that engages in sexual fondling, for example, is under no obligation to formally marry or stop seeing each other, as they have committed no sinful act and have not done anything that warrants lifetime commitment.  As long as they are able to manage their excitement and stop short of actual sex without the legitimate desire to commit to each other, they are morally free to continue.

Premarital affection of an explicitly sexual kind is far from Biblically immoral in itself, as the exact lines are described in Mosaic Law with clarity.  There is a vast difference between actual intercourse and all other interpersonal sexual behaviors, and thus the Biblical condemnation of the former in contexts without commitment is not automatically a condemnation of the latter.  Moreover, since the Bible does not prohibit premarital sexual interaction short of sex itself, nor does it follow from any Biblical command that such a thing is immoral, it is an act of legalism to denounce expressions of premarital sexual attraction and affection sinful by default (Deuteronomy 4:2).

Fear of sexuality, complementarian overtones of evangelical stances on dating, and reluctance to investigate the Bible without assumptions are at the heart of the opposition to premarital affection that can be so easily found in the church.  It is apparent from any rationalistic analysis of Mosaic Law and the New Testament writings that there is nothing inherently sinful about a man and woman enjoying each other's bodies outside of marriage as long as noncommittal sex, betrayal of a spouse, and objectification are not involved.  Pleasure itself, and especially sensual and sexual pleasure, is not an enemy of Christian morality; indulgence in pleasure without regard for future consequences, the rights of other people (or animals), or one's relationship with God is the enemy of Biblical ethics.

Darkness In Entertainment

Though the Old Testament's ethical statements are misinterpreted far more commonly and egregiously than those in the New Testament are, it is not uncommon for the contents of the gospels and epistles to be misunderstood in the evangelical world.  For instance, a verse as relatively unimportant as Philippians 4:8 (unimportant in the broader context of Biblical ethics) is often touted about as if its instructions to think about that which is "true," "pure, and "praiseworthy" condemn dark entertainment.  The blatant non sequiturs aside, this stance is actually opposed to the sincere contemplation of many parts of the Bible.

The Bible contains stories of sexual assault (including the assault of men by women [1]), murder, abduction, sadistic torture, incest, sorcery, and other deeds that it itself labels not just immoral acts, but offenses that warrant execution at the hands of other humans.  The typical conservative understanding of Philippians 4:8 even precludes thoroughly meditating on these aspects of the Bible!  Beyond embracing the inherent contradiction of using the Bible to argue against consuming dark entertainment, though, evangelicals seem to want entertainment to do little to portray the world in a realistic manner.  They rightly complain when a culture trivializes sin, but lash out at many works of art that do the opposite.

I do not mean that a work of entertainment must be dark and violent to be realistic or worthy of attention, nor do I mean that only darker themes are capable of having depth.  Life is neither intrinsically dark nor intrinsically bright; these aspects of life are determined by a given person's circumstances, and the emotional perceptions of a particular situation are purely subjective.  There is always a place for entertainment that emphasizes either general side of the spectrum.  However, the last two decades of filmmaking have produced no small number of lighthearted movies aimed at a broad audience, and these films (and similar video games and TV shows) have not extinguished the desire for content that includes intentionally dark themes.

Darker works of entertainment--works like Joker, Game of Thrones, Saw, Logan, The Boys, and the rebooted Tomb Raider games, to list some examples from the 2000s--often have an even greater capacity to spark contemplation than lighthearted works of entertainment.  This is not because darkness is a prerequisite to intellectual or emotional depth, but because it is more likely that audiences as a whole will take darker themes seriously.  Not everything in human life is intrinsically bleak from an experiential standpoint; however, it does require a special boldness to create a story around thematic elements that are excluded from casual conversations because of the intellectual or personal weight associated with them.

Thus, while lighthearted entertainment inherently lacks the same thematic intensity as darker works, it does not follow that lighthearted content is undeserving of anyone's time.  Nevertheless, even those who personally dislike dark themes are without basis for treating mature or controversial entertainment as if it has any causal connection to social ills.  Despite all the asinine criticisms thrown at dark entertainment, it ironically often accomplishes something that "family appropriate" content could easily fail to do: it spurs people to seriously grapple with ideas and realities that they might otherwise scarcely acknowledge or understand.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/when-women-rape-men.html

God's Active Punishment

Not all pain has a moral dimension--some suffering might come about due to purely natural, and therefore amoral, causes.  Nonetheless, the moral ramifications of pain are worthy of discussion in the context of justice and God's character.  Regarding the latter, a vital question might easily arise in the minds of Christians about God's activities: does God actively harm people or does he simply remove protection from certain individuals?

While the Bible might provide clear examples of God withholding protection and thus permitting misery to befall some people (such as in the case of Job and his family), it also provides examples of God deliberately, directly harming or killing deserving people, from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) to Herod Agrippa (Acts 12).  The Old Testament and the New Testament contain overt examples of God actively punishing individuals, and thus divine judgment is hardly limited to the allegedly outdated early books of the Bible.

There is a more significant example of God intentionally inflicting pain and death than even events like the flood of Genesis 9, the destruction of Sodom, and the killing of Herod Agrippa, of course.  Hell is the ultimate example of God directly punishing unsaved humans by means of a torment that ends with the cessation of existence.  Matthew 10:28 and 2 Peter 2:6 make it clear that it is God himself who will annihilate the unsaved, killing their souls as he destroys their bodies.

None of this means that pain that is not caused by God must be caused by Satan, demonic entities, or other people.  On the contrary, it is entirely possible for pain to befall someone simply because he or she is the victim of natural forces, where there is no moral aspect to the pain whatsoever.  Pain, whether physical or psychological, can be a major component of human life, but there is not one guaranteed cause for any particular instance of it.  Where pain exists due to God's direct actions, though, there is no place for moral criticism: any objection could only come from the emotional whims of conscience or the meaningless agreement of the majority.

The Primary Cause Of Sexism

It is easy to see that tensions between men and women as a whole are high in American culture despite the steady progress of genuine egalitarianism.  A common reaction to this is to avoid directly addressing issues involving sexism towards either gender, which reveals either apathy towards truth or an unwillingness to stand with controversial truths.  There is no shortage of claims about the origins or motivating factors behind sexism, with both prominent political factions remaining largely ignorant about the actual foundation of sexism.

Sexism against both men and women has been practiced for so long that it has become regarded as a necessary component of a healthy civilization according to conservatives, while liberals tend to misdefine the term sexism to only apply when discrimination is directed towards women.  Both major sociopolitical groups respond to sexism in deeply problematic ways.  Consequently, both of these ideological groups contribute directly to the unease of the general public when issues of gender are brought up.  It is not as if political parties are the primary cause of sexism, though.

Tensions between many men and women are ultimately high simply because there are very few genuine rationalists: all but a small number are adrift in assumptions, fallacies, or apathy.  In other words, the vast majority of people in any documented society are inept thinkers at best.  The fundamental reason why so many people, inside and outside of the church, adhere to any ideology that even slightly discriminates against men or women except when physical biology is concerned is that thorough stupidity is the norm.  Sexism does not primarily exist due to spiritual warfare, as some Christians might assumptively suggest, nor does it primarily survive due to politics (though both main parties are often deeply sexist).  Human stupidity is enough to preserve the power of any error.

Any man or woman who supports, practices, or trivializes sexism even after correction has forfeited any right to be treated as an intellectual equal.  I do not say this first and foremost because the Bible so clearly opposes broad and specific manifestations of sexism, although the metaphysical foundations of Christian ethics as found in Genesis and in the details of Mosaic Law do strongly oppose sexism, but I instead say it firstly because any claim about psychological traits being tied to one's physical gender are inherently fallacious and false to begin with.  Morally prescriptive claims based on stereotypes are erroneous by default even apart from the non sequiturs involved in them.

The solution to sexism, as well as to any other societal problem, is not tolerance or the kind of hypocrisy displayed by theological conservatives and liberals.  Only rationalism can rescue a society from its simplest and most severe fallacies alike; there is no point to treating anyone who rejects rationalism as if they could possibly be worthy of any sort of intellectual attention beyond refutation or mockery.  Even Christianity and its blatant egalitarianism are secondary to the necessary truths of reason, and Christians who identify as egalitarians need to ensure that they do not largely blame sexism against men or women on something other than unrejected fallacies and assumptions.  The stereotypes and double standards of sexism are irrational before they are Biblically immoral.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

Geometry And Physics

One stone is one stone, and no one needs to investigate the external world with their senses to discover this fact.  However, can knowing that mathematics must apply to physical objects reveal the material composition, weight, or subjective physical feel of a given stone?  Of course not!  Logic reveals only necessary truths, some of which pertain to numbers and shapes, not contingent facts about particular objects that can be perceived with the senses.  Geometry and physics are intertwined, but they are far from synonymous.

Physics inherently relies on mathematics, which is itself founded on the laws of logic, but the mathematical aspects of geometry are not revealed by the empirical investigation of matter, nor are any other mathematical truths.  The fact that one equals one is not grasped because of scientific inquiry.  No matter how many times a scientist examines an object, it will always be governed by the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and numerical truths because logic inescapably transcends the whole of science.  One can know this before even opening one's eyes or physically analyzing an object.

The logical factors that define shapes likewise apply to all physical objects without exception.  Even if a person never once intentionally uses the scientific method to dissect a repeatable sensory observation, they can easily prove to themselves that nature is confined by logic, including the numeric logic of mathematics.  It is attributes like density, weight, size, and chemical makeup that cannot be discovered solely by rational reflection (not that science can unveil any facts about these things outside of the present moment, and even then the results are only known to reflect one's perceptions).  To obtain information about these characteristics of a given object, some form of sensory investigation is required.

It is only the extreme overemphasis on physics in modern culture that drives many to go beyond this and overlook that geometry, while it does overlap with physics, is separate from science in the ultimate sense.  Geometry is the application of logic to the concept of shapes, which can in turn be applied to science.  Science is therefore not the foundation of geometrical facts.  Sensory experiences are not the basis for one's comprehension of numbers and shapes; numbers and the laws of logic as a whole are the basis for one's comprehension of sensory experiences.

Online Sociality

Technology, modernity, and unconventional behaviors seem to always have their senseless opponents.  The intersection of the three is especially likely to attract criticism, and the results span everything from the idea that non-traditional jobs aren't "real" jobs to the idea that online friendships aren't "real" friendships.  Regarding the latter, anyone who argues such a thing betrays their ignorance about the nature of friendship.

A relationship is not of an inferior quality merely because it exists or is sustained because of online interaction.  A friendship is a relationship based on genuine, mutual affection or shared interests.  As such, the exact methods by which two people communicate and bond do not determine whether they are or are not friends to begin with; that is for them to decide.

Some people might subjectively prefer to talk with friends in person, while others might prefer the flexible convenience of texting or some other form of digital communication.  Is one kind of social orientation more legitimate than they other?  One's approach reduces down to preference and circumstance, and either fundamental method of communication (conversations in person and digital conversations respectively) is capable of sparking or preserving deep relationships.

There are certainly elements of in-person interaction that are missing from other forms of social interaction, but this does not mean that even any friendships supported primarily or entirely by these alternate methods are illegitimate or incomplete.  It only means that the other communication methods do not include the fullest range of physical or verbal expression.  The only inherent requirement for friendship is the mutual willingness of two people to be friends.

Logical facts will not stop irrational people from continuing to make invalid assertions about friendship, technology, and the internet in general.  They can encourage those who enjoy fulfilling or helpful relationships precisely because of contemporary technology, however.  Those who invoke assumptions will simply be incapable of understanding the positive uses of technology for what they are.  Appealing to traditional ways of life, those who are reluctant to coexist with amoral technological trends tend to be as vocal as they are unintelligent.

Movie Review--Joker

"I haven't been happy one minute of my entire fucking life."
--Arthur Fleck, Joker

"You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it's like to be someone like me?"
--Arthur Fleck, Joker


Thoroughly intelligent, emotionally complex, and fittingly relevant in light of the current political climate, Joker does for Arthur Fleck exactly what last year's Venom could have done for its titular character: it provides an R-rated story isolated from any established cinematic universes and explores the dark nuances of its lead with a gravity that sets it apart from many other offerings in the genre.  It is no overstatement to call Joker a masterpiece that completely refutes the idea that comic book movies belong to a lesser genre (as if other movies haven't already demolished this asinine belief).

We have reached the point where one of the best movies for each consecutive year is derived from comic stories (Logan [1] in 2017 and Into The Spider-Verse [2] in 2018), and 2019 has only continued that trend.  Diversification is precisely what the genre needs right now in the post-Endgame era, with Joker climbing above all other recent DC live action film efforts--even the largely excellent Wonder Woman [3].  Joker does not wait to display the intellectual and emotional depth at the core of its slow burn drama; it is not an action film, but a detailed exploration of one character's psychology.

It is worth noting up front that the themes of Joker are not ideas that can be casually dismissed, much less ignored completely.  Every individual has the power to shape the fabric of society in at least some small way; dehumanization is at the foundation of a great deal of the mistreatment that humans inflict on each other; mental illness does not render a person unintelligent or unworthy of being treated like a person; murder is by definition an unjust solution to apathy towards the poor and downtrodden; a person's motivations for committing heinous acts can be far more complex than the simple desire to be cruel; to do nothing to oppose evil is to indirectly enable it.  These are only some of the issues Joker tackles that demand to be addressed in light of actual world events.


Production Values

Since there is little need for effects work for the vast majority of the film due to the general lack of action sequences, Joker stands or falls almost entirely based on its performances.  The secondary characters, some of the most notable ones played by Zazie Beetz (in her second comic book movie role, the first being that of Domino in Deadpool 2) and Robert De Niro, are realized effectively within their few scenes.  Yes, there are relatively few scenes with  characters other than Arthur Fleck himself, who is acted superbly by Joaquin Phoenix.  Heath Ledger's Joker was phenomenal, but Heath never had to carry The Dark Knight from scene to scene.  He was one of many characters.  Joaquin, however, is literally at the forefront of the entire movie.  While he is not in every frame, he is in every single scene, each of which in some way contributes to building or maintaining momentum.

The cinematography and soundtrack often focus on Arthur, with the score in particular almost sounding like it belongs in a horror movie.  Speaking of horror, there are indeed some very clever comedic moments that provide rare periods of respite for viewers while also showcasing the Joker's personality, but the general tone of Joker is actually closer to that of a horror film than it is to that of standard comic book movie.  There is no Batman to save Gotham, and the combination of mental illness and political tensions is more than enough to frighten sensitive viewers with its blatant realism.  The cinematography is distinct enough from that of an outright horror film, but even shots showing something as simple as Arthur looking out of a bus are elevated by the talented camera work.


Story

I will reveal several mild spoilers below, but some of these were already shown in the trailers.  For the sake of withholding several major plot twists, though, this section will be short.

The film opens with a scene that portrays the complicated sadness of Arthur Fleck, a clown who struggles to provide for his mother despite having severe mental illnesses for which he takes seven medications.  His mother persistently writes Thomas Wayne, who is running for the position of Gotham's mayor, claiming that Thomas is a good person who would despise the conditions that they--and the poor of Gotham by extension--are living in.  As political and class tensions escalate, Arthur finds himself placed in one dangerous situation after another, prompting him to make a decision that will dramatically impact the future of Gotham.


Intellectual Content

I will refrain from spoiling some of the most shocking and philosophically-stimulating revelations here, but Joker does openly deal with ambiguity by revealing that Arthur hallucinated a key aspect of his life for a time, and the ending does little to confirm how many of the events shown in the film truly occurred as shown.  No character ever explicitly talks about matters of epistemology or metaphysics, but the shadows of both are clearly over much of the movie.  The characters do frequently find themselves grappling with matters of ethics, however, and ethics in the context of class relations and politics in particular.

As simple as it may sound, the story emphasizes how casual acts of indifference that may not even be remembered by the perpetrators, especially if they are wealthy, can have such a devastating effect on the lives of those without at least a small number of friendships to fall back on.  The collective citizens of Gotham are portrayed as selfish, cruel, and hypocritical, and Joker should at least raise questions about social and individual responsibility for crimes.  The answer itself is not difficult to prove, but it is an important one nonetheless.  A society is responsible for how it behaves, but so are individuals.  That Gotham's moral decay created conditions ripe for exploitation by someone like the Joker does not mean that Arthur is not fully responsible for his own actions, some of which are morally justifiable (his first two kills), and some of which are inflexibly immoral by Biblical standards (every kill after the first two).

Arthur loses concern for the moral accuracy of his intentions and behaviors (if that was ever a priority to begin with), but that does not stop him from telling one of his victims "You get what you deserve" just prior to murdering him.  Justice is not synonymous with what actually occurs, and only an imbecile would ever try to equate the two.  Joker puts the consequences of private and societal delusions on full display as different characters often react to the injustices of other characters with more injustices.  In their irrationalistic stupor, many of them fail to acknowledge that no illicit act justifies another illicit act.  Of course, conscience and arbitrary, ever-shifting social standards are not the basis of any existing moral obligations, and no one in the movie appeals to anything higher than their own individual or cultural preferences--the Joker and his opponents alike.  It is hardly surprising that randomness and narcissism are the two defining features of the actions of almost every character.


Conclusion

Joker is a film that even people who dislike or are weary of traditional comic book movies might find themselves enjoying simply because of its thematic brilliance and excellent production values.  Perhaps the most relevant movie of the year, it brims with a kind of realism that could easily shock people into contemplation about serious issues like mental illness, classism, epistemology, justice, the evil of silence in troubled times, the role of government, and the nature of truth itself.  It is rare for a movie about a character so familiar to the public to confront philosophical and societal subjects with this level of directness, and anyone who enjoys layered films should be grateful.

As an aside, it is hardly surprising that many criticisms of the film are rooted in misandry or racism against whites (the hypocrisy of these criticisms deserves its own future article, however) rather than in objections to the presentation of the story: the characterization and plot of Joker are executed far too well for its detractors to be able to legitimately call any of its cinematic components thoroughly bad.  Anyone who cheered for Erik Killmonger but condemns the Joker is an asinine hypocrite, as is anyone who would react differently if the film's central character was a woman or a black man.  Given that the deeply entrenched nature of hypocrisy in contemporary society is one of the most important points of the movie, it is truly ironic that many of Joker's critics are just as blind as key characters in the film.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  The handful of killings in the movie are far bloodier than those in other comic book movies.
 2.  Profanity: Variations of "fuck" are used throughout.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/movie-review-logan.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/movie-review-spider-man-into-spider.html

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/movie-review-wonder-woman.html

Deterrence In Mosaic Law

There is no such thing as a Biblical position on criminal justice other than theonomy (without the presuppositionalist and postmillennial bullshit that is often associated with it).  As a cursory examination can reveal, the punitive commands in Mosaic Law are connected to the moral nature of the Christian deity, relating to what people who commit certain acts deserve by virtue of carrying out those acts.  Justice is about the nature of the punishment itself, and it is thus deeply contrary to Biblical ethics to prescribe, endorse, or tolerate any framework that treats deterrence as the objective of justice.  Mosaic Law instead demands that specific penalties be imposed on certain crimes because these are the only penalties that are just according to Christian morality.

Deterrence has to do with nothing more than what some people subjectively and circumstantially find harsh enough to convince them to avoid a course of action.  As such, it has nothing to do with whether a particular punishment is just.  To revise laws in order to maximize deterrence is therefore unjust, since it deviates from the obligation of inflicting on others what they deserve, and nothing more or less than that.  The major error of any ideology that emphasizes deterrence for the sake of deterrence (even from a strictly logical perspective that does not reference the Bible) is that feelings and arbitrary outcomes are treated as the basis of justice.  There is no guarantee that anyone will react in any particular way to a law, regardless of the consequences either way, but the central issue is that justice does not hinge on what discourages individuals from doing wrong.

Deterrence is a certainly possible side effect of the penalties in Mosaic Law, and the Bible draws attention to this on several occasions (such as in Deuteronomy 21:18-21).  It is not as if the Biblical stance on criminal justice is that deterrence dictates what is just, however.  The Bible makes it equally clear that to go beyond its strict limitations on specific punishments is unjust without respect to whether harsher punishments would deter crime.  For example, it is Biblically unjust to inflict more than a maximum of 40 lashes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), no matter how incensed an offended party is or how concerned an administrator is about "making an example" out of a criminal.  It is likewise unjust to combine separate Biblical penalties (and especially extra-Biblical ones) for the sake of shocking people with prolonged displays of punishment.  Every person who commits a sin that the Bible invokes a legal penalty for deserves to be punished, according to the Christian worldview, only in the way that the Bible details.

That some people react to a law by wishing to never break it is a matter related to their personal psychologies and subjective thresholds of motivation, having nothing to do with whether the law underpunishes or overpunishes.  It follows that there is no legitimacy in creating or revising laws with deterrence in mind.  If a punishment is unjust, it needs to be amended solely because it is unjust; preferences and reactions are irrelevant.  If a punishment is just because it matches the right penalty to an offense that deserves to be legally punished, it needs to remain unedited.  In either case, deterrence is of no primary significance.  In fact, deterrence, when regarded as anything more than a secondary, incidental benefit at most, is the best way to rally people around legal punishments that degrade the recipients and trample on their Biblical rights as criminals.

Only a fool makes deterrence the defining factor in their worldview as far as justice is concerned.  Such a person is always on the brink of potentially descending into a heinous savagery that betrays the very justice they claim to seek, but they have betrayed reason even if they never actually let their ideology take them beyond the legal prescriptions of Mosaic Law.  Ironically, given the reputation that Old Testament laws are themselves degrading and unjust, Mosaic Law is the only thing that provides Christians with awareness of the specific moral obligations that exist on the Christian worldview in the first place.  There is no place in a sound worldview for emotionalistic or utilitarian ethical stances, and this completely rules out the notion that deterrence is anything more than a helpful but happenstance result.

The Epistemology Of The Future

It is not difficult to observe that many people spend a great deal of their lives preparing for expected future events.  The occurrences that they plan for rest on varying degrees of likelihood, as the very nature of the future is that it is unobserved at the present moment.  That the future has not occurred, as well as the fact that human limitations prevent one from directly perceiving into anything other than the present, undermines the claims of those who pretend to know for sure what awaits them.  Information about the future itself is largely impossible to obtain (with one major exception that will be addressed below).

In fact, evidences pointing to specific future events only tell one about the present, not the future: they at most reveal details about one's perceptions at the present moment.  It may seem as if it will rain if dark clouds appear overheard, for example, and yet it is possible that no rain will follow.  Seeing the clouds only proves that one is seeing the clouds; to conclude that it must rain is to make a mere assumption.  As far as epistemology goes, a claim about the future in this instance is sound only if it is rooted in seeming probability.

Probability estimates remain legitimate as long as they match the available evidence, but no amount of information received through the senses alone establishes that some particular event will occur.  There is always the possibility that even a seemingly unlikely thing could happen.  This does not leave us in a complete absence of knowledge about the future beyond perceptions, however.  In spite of the epistemological limitations that prohibit knowledge of exactly what will happen following the present moment, it is not the case that nothing about the future can be known.

The only things that can be known with absolute certainty about the future are that the laws of logic will apply by necessity (I use "things" in a plural sense because  logical truths do not encompass one single fact), existing regardless of what else might hypothetically cease to exist and restricting events to those which are logically possible.  There is no true knowledge of what will or must happen in the future other than this, but this does not mean that there is not genuine evidence suggesting that certain events will likely occur.

Existential Originality

In failing to align with reason, a person fails to grasp their own nature as an individual to the largest extent possible.  It is easy for someone who is not thoroughly committed to discovering truth to live without deeply analyzing their own mind, their own will and its freedom included.  To neglect one's free will is to neglect the ramifications of one's respective autonomy.  A very personal feature of consciousness, free will is the foundation of an existential originality that few openly embrace.

The very nature of free will and individuality is that they distinguish one being from another even if no other obvious outward characteristics do so, and even if other people have made the same decisions in the past.  Free will, by virtue of requiring a conscious mind, is a feature that is wielded according to one's subjective desires.  It is the fact that it is impossible for one being with free will to literally make decisions for another being that also possesses free will that grounds existential originality even if all humanly possible decisions had already been made.

Originality, after all, is not only displayed in novelty.  Autonomy--when one's worldview and decisions are one's own--is another manifestation of originality.  On a moment by moment basis, each person exercises a kind of autonomy that, while it is available to all people, inescapably comes forth from the unique identity of each individual.  Many do not choose to explore this existential originality in a spectacular way, preferring to live for fallacies or petty goals.  Each person has the autonomy to control their will nonetheless; how a person will wield their volitional liberty is completely up to them.

The extent to which a person comprehends, utilizes, and celebrates this existential originality is often tied directly to his or her sense of fulfillment as an individual and as a human.  In this regard, it is in the best interest of many who neglect to recognize their autonomy to intentionally live in its light.  There is a deep empowerment that can be found in recognizing and dissecting one's free will, but for this empowerment to not be illusory, one must understand their free will on its own terms, rejecting assumptions in favor of the knowledge that can be obtained through reason.

Game Review--Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (Switch)

"Heaven hunts you . . . Hell hates you.  All of creation cares not whether you live or die . . . Join me, War.  Like a great sword, I will raise you up, and our enemies will shatter against us.  The spoils of a thousand victories will be yours.  Or, serve the justice of a corrupt Council.  And a Creator who abandons his most faithful.  I offer you this choice, Horseman.  Would you serve in Heaven, or rule in Hell?"
--The Destroyer, Darksiders


Darksiders may quite obviously borrow mechanics from God of War and Legend of Zelda, but it removes them from their former contexts and instead cloaks them in an original video game narrative that is loosely connected with the book of Revelation in the Bible.  The superb exploration, combat, and puzzles are placed in a world ravaged by a premature apocalypse that shatters a vital treaty between Heaven and Hell.  References to Biblical concepts include dialogue about the Four Horsemen (a strange title given that one of them, Fury, is a woman), the seven seals, the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Knowledge, and the "Creator," but it quickly becomes clear that Darksiders is only set in a pseudo-Biblical cosmos--still, the defining features of the gameplay are excellent, regardless of how bothered some Christians might be by the themes.

Production Values

Darksiders is not a new game, as the original edition was released in 2010, but the visuals look great on the screen of the Switch Lite: the colors are vibrant, the animations are smooth, and the load times only periodically interrupt the gameplay.  There is a level of environmental detail that is lacking by comparison to that of current generation console games, but this is a port from an earlier generation of consoles.  Its age aside, the Warmastered edition does offer settings that allow players to favor aesthetic quality or performance respectively, so there is flexibility when it comes to choosing graphics over frame rate and vice versa.

While the story involves unique lore and characters, very few of the latter actually have significant roles in the game.  Even the ones who are prominent are not developed beyond what is necessary to move the game from one major plot point to the next.  The voice acting is still executed rather well, Mark Hamill being a standout: he voices a character called the Watcher who uses Hamill's iconic Joker voice.  War, as well as secondary characters like Uriel, are acted competently enough, but they simply do not have the same fire that the Watcher does.


Gameplay

Anyone who loves the traditional God of War or Legend of Zelda games, and especially anyone who appreciates both franchises, will easily recognize the elements from each series embedded in the Darksiders formula.  The Shadowflight ability is the equivalent of the wings in the second God of War, and War's sword Chaosspitter even has a name similar to that of the Blades of Chaos that were introduced in the first God of War game.  Green chests yield health orbs, with the souls flying out like the chest contents in Kratos' adventures do.  Some of these chests are located in dungeon-like areas filled with puzzles and collectibles, things that maps and "compasses" can help players locate.  After major boss fights, War receives health extensions, even leaving the dungeons throuth a familiar blue portal!

I do not mean to belittle the game at all for these overt similarities to other franchises.  After all, only one game can have a feature before all subsequent games that have the same feature are either directly imitating it or are unintentionally copying one of its aspects.  I only repeat this comparison to help readers know what to expect if they have not viewed or played the game themselves.  That the fighting and exploration are comparable to specific series beyond Darksiders does not detract from their quality!  Darksiders still has great combat that allows for an evolving liat of moves and violent kill animations without the constant need to press specific buttons in the quick-time events of similar games.  The majority of one's playthrough, though, will be spent solving puzzles, exploring the post-apocalyptic remains of the planet, and then revisiting old areas with new gear.

As one of my above screenshots evidences, War does eventually get the freedom to ride his horse Ruin in select locations, a thoughtful addition given that he is one of the franchise's Four Horsemen.  Many of his other abilities are likewise useful in specific areas, but there is a fair amount of variety here.  Each item has all been seen before in in other games in some incarnation, but the diversity will still be welcomed by anyone who likes to perform tasks like slowing the perceived passage of time and attacking enemies from afar with a massive throwing star.  It is these items that bridge the combat and environmental navigation, as they are crucial to both pursuits.


Story

Spoilers!

War, the first of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, is summoned to the earth to partake in the Endwar, an eschatological event set to occur upon the breaking of the seventh seal.  With angels and demons fighting around him, he quickly learns that, although he was called to battle, the seventh seal was not actually broken, meaning he has violated a peace treaty between the forces of Heaven and those of Hell.  War is taken before entities called the Charred Council, but he is given the chance to clear his name, given that he is blamed for the apocalypse, and unravel what truly led to the battle.  His investigation exposes a grand conspiracy against the will of the in-universe version of God.


Intellectual Content

Though it could have been explored far more thoroughly, the theological metaphysics in Darksiders is at the forefront of the entire basis for the story.  In this mythological take on aspects of Revelation, three beings that comprise the Charred Council preside over the aforementioned cosmic treaty, upholding a coveted "Balance" between good and evil and between light and darkness.  That God is absent from the events of the game despite being spoken of and that he has delegated such enormous authority to entities never even alluded to in the Bible are the largest deviations from the source material of Revelation, but honorable mentions include the fact that the angels of Darksiders can switch allegiances and outright sin even when still aligned with Heaven.  The developers still managed to craft a unique extra-Biblical framework for several Biblical events despite some of the theological details of that framework.

The plot of Darksiders contains enough alterations to Biblical eschatology to potentially intrigue players who care about Christian theology and religious concepts in general, but it is the puzzles and exploration that provide much of the game's intellectual content.  As you progress, you obtain new abilities and weapons that permit access to previously unreachable areas--which hide optional but helpful items like health extension pieces and pieces of Abyssal Armor--but you must often play through areas that resemble dungeons from Zelda games to get them.  These dungeons house puzzles that are usually less complicated than those of some of the games Darksiders imitates, but the final one in particular is spectacular, forcing players to create sets of two portals at a time to transport themselves and other objects across the environment.


Conclusion

As far as games that appropriate Biblical imagery go, Darksiders is an excellent title not because of its theological accuracy (of which it has little), but because of its gameplay and level design.  It does not utilize its Biblical themes and language as thoroughly as Dante's Inferno (although the descriptions of hell in the latter deviate blatantly from the Biblical doctrines of conditional immortality and anmihilationism), but it simply does not need to in order to provide a deep gaming experience.  Christian and secular gamers alike can find much to admire about Darksiders and the series it spawned.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  War can dismember smaller enemies and bosses alike using finishing moves, the attacks accompanied by spurts of blood.
 2.  Profanity:  Infrequent profanity includes "damn" and "bastard."