Misconceptions And Refutations: The Need To Point Out The Irrelevant

There are always logical truths about any given matter that can be reasoned out without anything more than mere contemplation, but there are many false ideas that need to be refuted using points that would not otherwise need to be brought up at all.  Not every knowable truth would be naturally brought to one's attention, and this is not because each person needs others in order to learn logical truths.  It is because these specific types of truths are about various relationships between ideas that only need to be mentioned to refute random fallacious claims.  In establishing logical facts, all notions to the contrary are disproven, and thus the only reason to bring up the particular reasons why certain objections are false is to refute someone else's misconceptions.

For example, one would never need to specifically reflect on or point out that there is no correlation between the sun's appearance in the sky and foot pain, that a picture of a woman's body that does not show her head is not objectifying, or that the concept of Christian theonomy is not inherently connected to presuppositionalism or Calvinism--unless, of course, these false assertions were actually made by someone else.  I have only seen the latter two claims get made, but even the first exemplifies the type of truth in question.  All three have no particular reason to be acknowledged apart from conversation with an irrational person who insists on their opposites.

Each of these logical truths can be realized without the need for someone to propose a fallacious idea in order to prompt a refutation involving a specific truth, but there would be no particular reason to seek them out or recognize them except as a response to someone else's errors.  This does not reflect poorly on the intellectual ability and autonomy of anyone who would not specifically realize the points mentioned in the above paragraph precisely because, left to themselves, no one would ever have the need to think about them at all.

Many truths can be and are recognized by thoughtful seekers of truth apart from conversation with others.  Some truths simply do not fall into this category.  Would anyone ever need to contemplate how grass and whales in particular are separate things unless prompted by someone else?  Would anyone ever need to specify that two wholly unrelated ideas are in fact unrelated unless someone has mistakenly associated them?  Outside of a situation in which a misconception needs to be refuted, there is no such need.  Not all logical truths are naturally discovered by rationalistic minds when there is no exposure to fallacious or erroneous claims.

The Physics Of Hell

The very concept of an afterlife is of a post-mortem existence in another realm or form.  Whether a real or hypothetical afterlife is physical, nonphysical, or a mixture of both metaphysical states (the Biblical afterlife is physical and spiritual), it is inevitably true that something distinguishes the nature of ordinary human existence from an existence of consciousness after death.  The kind of afterlife described in the Bible is one that places human spirits within resurrected bodies that will either face eternal life in a physical New Jerusalem or eternal destruction in a physical lake of fire.

Due to the valid association of the afterlife with spirituality and theological metaphysics, many fail to realize that the afterlife described in several key religions is not an immaterial "world."  It is a place made of matter inhabitated by the souls and bodies of humans.  Physics and the metaphysics of a logically possible afterlife are widely considered to be in opposition with or irrelevant to each other, but anything physical behaves in accordance with some set of physical laws, even though the laws of physics are arbitrary and contingent, unlike the laws of logic--physics is, after all, nothing but how matter behaves.

Since the Biblical hell is a physical place, it follows that such a place would be governed by laws of physics, even if they are drastically different from the laws of physics experienced by humans in the present life.  For example, some sort of gravitational phenomenon would have to be present in a physical afterlife, no matter how weak or strong the gravitation would be.  It is logically impossible for events in a physical plane of existence to occur without the physical landscape being subject to some sort of physics in addition to it being subject to the laws of logic.

As long as the physical substance in hell, such as the flames described in Mark 9:43-49, behaves in any way whatsoever, hell is subject to its own physics, however similar or foreign they may be to our own.  It is thus a misrepresentation of genuine Christian doctrine to say that hell, whether or not it actually exists, is divorced from all laws of physics (and the same is true of heaven).  Reading the Bible without assumptions on the matter reveals that matter plays a significant role in the afterlife: it is antithetical to Biblical concepts to say that hell is a matterless void of spirit and empty space.

Game Review--Omen Exitio: Plague (Switch)

"The drawings all lead to the far end where you see a much larger picture.  It looks like an altar surrounded by men, wearing what you recognize as a stylized version of the cult's masks and kilts."
--Onscreen text, Omen Exitio: Plague


A highly non-traditional video game, Omen Exitio: Plague is a text-based "gamebook" that allows players/readers to input dialogue and action choices which can impact how the story handles some of its most pivotal moments.  The tale is one of disease, conspiracy, and Lovecraftian themes that slowly but steadily blossoms into a grander philosophical tale about the protagonist's existential struggles with the horror of a pandemic and a cult.  Central character Jake Huntington finds himself navigating a world plagued by "new" type of affliction called a virus and an extensive conspiracy that involves elite members of various public classes.

Production Values

The illustrations are presented as black sketches on the right page of a book, very much at home on the brown page.  On the left of the images, the other open page displays the story's text, including dialogue and any player choices.  Although Omen Exitio does not even have character models, a camera system, or other common features of video games, it has a distinct soundtrack that accompanies many of the story panels.  Sounds, such as those of a ship at sea or of gunshots, also add to certain pages.  The only noteworthy problem with the presentation is the occasional punctuation or capitalization error.  Thankfully, these are genuinely rare, and the most common of the punctuation problems is missing commas that do not clearly mark the end of parenthetical phrases.

Gameplay

As players read through the story, they are given numerous chances to make decisions, some of which can be seemingly bypassed by other choices.  Making certain decisions gains Jake experience points, which can be used to strengthen attributes like "Speechcraft" and "Fighting."  In turn, these attributes let players successfully attempt specific actions, sometimes earning additional experience points.  The unusual nature of Omen Exitio means that there are very few gameplay mechanics, but they are executed well.  Just as important to a gamebook as the "gameplay," of course, is the story itself, and the narrative of the game is neither shallow nor so brief that it can be rushed through within only a couple of hours.

Story

Some spoilers are below, but the plot is far too detailed and serpentine for the description of the premise to reveal major twists and events.  Moreover, while the overall trajectory of the story seems to remain unaffected by certain player choices, it is possible to read through optional sections and parts that exclude other choices, meaning the exact details of the story could be different for different players.

Jake Huntington, a soldier who abandoned the professional practice of medicine after he failed to cure his wife Helen of a lethal disease, becomes part of a small British expedition to investigate a rumored disease that turns out to be far more dangerous than initial reports suggested.  He is approached by a representative of a group concerned with global disease and is eventually offered a very generous sum of money for research purposes.  However, he begins suffering from relentless nightmares, seeming hallucinations, and a sense of panic as he is targeted by members of a mysterious organization.  His experiences leave him uncertain as to whether he has contracted the novel disease or if he is being stalked by some metaphysical entity served by a network of cultists.


Intellectual Content

As it progresses, the story develops clear themes that are heavily steeped in epistemology, cosmic metaphysics, and decision-making.  These three elements become more and more intertwined as the slow burn plot starts to boil.  The epistemological limitations of sensory perceptions and memories of past events are repeatedly alluded to or even directly acknowledged, even if only for the sake of storytelling ambiguity.  Although the Lovecraftian imagery appears moreso in the latter half of the game, it is consistent with all of the major hallmarks of the author's universe--although the idiotic Lovecraftian theme of reason's lack of universal governance of reality is fortunately far less prominent than it is elsewhere.


Conclusion

Omen Exitio: Plague is not a grand test of the player's combat skill, observational abilities, or puzzle-solving talent, even if Jake Huntington himself can use these attributes.  Little about it resembles traditional gaming at all.  Nonetheless, the game is deep and thoughtful.  It is an atmospheric story driven by text and illustrations, combining the urgency of a pandemic with the cosmic scope of existential matters of perception and certainty.  Omen Exitio is a very niche game, but it is one that is well worth playing for anyone who finds cosmic horror, book-style storytelling, and deeper themes appealing.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  Blood appears in some of the illustrations, and the onscreen text sometimes describes physical fights, stabbings, and gunfights.
 2.  Profanity:  The text rarely uses words like "goddamned."
 3.  Nudity:  Jake's buttocks are seen in an image for a story path where a shaman's daughter has sex with him while he is drunk, meaning that she sexually exploits him to some extent.  Male and female cultists are shown shirtless in later illustrations, and an image of a female cultist shows her exposed breasts from the front (of course, this is not nudity any more than male shirtlessness is, but it is treated as such by ratings boards).
 4.  Sexuality:  If certain choices are made, Jake and a woman named Lorraine have sex when he visits her village to learn about the new disease.  The same can happen later in the story after Jake gets to know a woman named Ayata.

Polyamorous Intimacy

Members of couples that practice polyamory or that are at least open to their spouses having multiple committed marriage partners have not doomed their relationships to romantic coldness.  The visibility of monogamous norms in Western culture has been misunderstood by opponents of polyamory, who take it to mean that there is something fundamentally flawed about a marriage, in both a moral and relational sense, if either partner is not generally offended by the thought of their spouse having an additional husband or wife (depending on their gender).  Marital love is not intrinsically exclusive, however, as one can cultivate closeness to multiple people without overlooking or otherwise harming any of them.

A woman with two husbands can love the bodies, personalities, and talents of both husbands without the intimacy with either coming into conflict with intimacy shared with the other.  A man with two wives can love the bodies, personalities, and talents of both wives in the same way.  Comparable to how a married person can enjoy deep nonromantic intimacy with close friends of either gender while also enjoying deep romantic intimacy with his or her spouse, a married person can enjoy deep, genuine intimacy with multiple lifelong partners of the opposite gender.

As long as neither spouse is controlling, petty, or willing to make assumptions about the nature of their relationships, polyamory is not a troublesome way to approach marriage.  Even if a polyamorous couple is irrational, gratuitously jealous, and prone to assumptions, polyamory itself is not to blame for how those who misuse it act.  Polyamory is not suitable for the personal preferences of all men and women, and there are other Biblically legitimate ways to act on sexual or romantic attraction to multiple members of the opposite gender that have nothing to do with practicing non-monogamy.

Relational intimacy of various kinds is not threatened by sharing it with more than one person.  If that were the case, no one could manage having two or more friends at the same time without experiencing deep problems in each relationship.  Of course, many people who think monogamy is the only Biblically valid kind of marriage tend to have multiple friends at once.  If they would only reflect on the fact that nonromantic intimacy is not weakened when it is shared with more than one person, they might realize that the same can be true of romantic intimacy.  It is entirely possible to be deeply committed to more than one spouse, even if there are some who are simply unfit for polyamory.

The Overhyped Influence Of Satan

Demons as a whole are far from present in every corner of the Bible, and references to Satan himself comprise only a portion of the Biblical passages relevant to demonology.  This has not discouraged claims randomly attributing sins to demonic origins.  All sins would offer something for demonic entities to celebrate, and perhaps some sins are directly influenced by Satan or other demons, but the Bible itself rarely connects demonic and human activities in this way.

One might hear many Christians credit Satan or some lesser demon with responsibility for a sinful act or a destructive event nonetheless.  While the Bible does have accounts of demonic possession, it never engages in this sort of blameshifting when it comes to addressing human depravity.  Demonic possession itself is a fairly rare occurrence in the Bible, as only a handful of stories speak of such a thing.  Even these stories of possession are never said to entail demons forcing their way into human bodies uninvited.

Humans have the capacity to sin in the sense that it is logically possible for any living person to do that which contradicts God's moral nature, with or without the very existence of Satan or other demons.  In other words, while Satan is presented as a being that would certainly like for humans to disobey God, it is not the case that the Bible credits Satan with the sin of individual humans.  Any being that chooses to sin is responsible for its own actions and intentions.

The very nature of free will is that no external mind or force can make a mind capable of making autonomous decisions do anything whatsoever.  Outside factors can influence a mind with free will, but they can never arbitrarily erase it.  The power that is ascribed to Satan in the Bible never includes the ability to make humans sin involuntarily (in fact, as the example of rape in Deuteronomy 22:22-27's context of adultery illustrates, there is no such thing as an involuntary sin, for a lack of autonomy and consent to perform an action removes moral responsibility).

The Bible indicates that Satan wishes for humans to oppose God.  Moreover, he is shown to be devious enough to attempt to use truth itself as a tool of manipulation, as is the case in Matthew 4.  At the same time, treating Satan as if humans could not sin apart from his influence distorts his significance and denies the nature of free will.  Sin is not solely the domain of the demonic.  Ordinary people are no less able to freely commit wrongs than Satan.

Deuteronomy 25: Lashes And Sandals

To some readers (likely not the kind associated with mainstream evangelicalism, who are inept at recognizing nuance), Deuteronomy 25:9-10 might seem to subtly challenge the condemnation of degrading treatment in the first three verses of the chapter.  Shortly after Deuteronomy 25:3 opposes any corporal punishment that exceeds 40 lashes because it would degrade or, as some translations put it, humiliate the recipient, verses 5-10 detail a procedure for handling a man who chooses not to marry his brother's widow in ancient Jewish society, as was encouraged in verses 5-6.  The man who consistently refused to marry his brother's widow was to go before the elders, where the widow would remove one of his sandals, publicly spit in his face, and pronounce his line "The Family of the Unsandaled."

Degrading or humiliating someone through physical abuse is a vile injustice that is inherently different from socially humiliating someone in an arbitrary ritual that does not harm anyone physically or spiritually (in the sense that social perception does not determine the status of one's relationship with God), of course.  Maliciously flogging a person with more than 40 lashes for a crime and spitting in their face before publicly, formally saying "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line" (Deuteronomy 25:9) may seem to have little in common, but both involve at least some element of a desire to disgrace the person on the receiving end.

The difference behind the Biblical morality of these two acts is clear: the first is unjust physical torture and the second is merely a potentially humiliating ritual socially acknowledging someone's unwillingness to continue a sibling's family line.  Many Christians who contemplate or discuss issues of harshness and justice have it backwards.  They oppose even relatively mild forms of social humiliation in the name of arbitrarily defined love and treat unbiblical forms of torture as if they are either morally permissible under certain circumstances or as if the ultimate Biblical morality of such torture is vague, a matter left to the state to decide.

It is a grievous offense against God and fellow humans to endorse or practice any torture that goes beyond the Bible's allowance of up to 40 lashes and a small handful of permitted physical injuries (like the partial amputation of limbs), but humiliating someone by means such as social ostracism or Deuteronomy 25:10's spitting in a person's face is not inherently unjust or cruel by Biblical standards.  Thus, it is asinine to object to measures like social humiliation in themselves on the grounds that the Bible instructs people to be loving.  The same God who commands people to love their neighbors as themselves (Leviticus 19:18) allows spitting in someone's face in some situations.

The examples of corporal punishment and the manner of dealing with those who became known as "the Unsandaled" both clarify different aspects of Biblical morality.  Treatment of others that may result in subjective feelings of humiliation are not sinful by default because not all humiliation of others, intentional or intentional, is unjust.  This is why Deuteronomy 25:1-3 and 25:5-10 are not in conflict.  The former condemns abusive criminal punishments by prescribing fixed limitations, while the latter prescribes a form of social shaming, thereby clarifying that social shaming can be morally legitimate.  The difference lies in the reason for the humiliation and the fact that one results from a physical action and the other from a social procedure.

Removing Obstacles To Overcoming Poverty

When it comes to fighting poverty, conservatives might be apathetic about the issue, while liberals endorse involuntarily giving one person's money to someone less fortunate.  Apathy only sustains the status quo, and forcibly redistributing wealth from those who have done nothing immoral in the process of gaining their wealth to those who have either less or no money is not a just (as far as the evidence suggests) way to rectify poverty.  However, there are ways to remove the obstacles to financial stability that would accomplish multiple things at once; it is just that almost no one suggests them.  One example has to do with hygiene.

Hygiene is something so basic that many people take it for granted, but it is widely considered especially important in particular situations like job interviews and other major career activities.  People without access to the resources needed to simply take showers, cut their hair, or brush their teeth are at a disadvantage given societal norms behind job interviews.  In fact, some people might be turned away on sight or quickly rejected once the interviewer sees or smells them.  While this might seem called for by some people, there are two reasons why turning someone away for these reasons by default is harmful and gratuitous at best.

If a homeless man or woman interviewed for a job which they are intellectually and/or experientially qualified for, whatever poor hygiene and "unprofessional" clothing they might have is of no relevance to their true merit as workers (at least for jobs which require little to no contact with the public).  They could always improve their hygiene and purchase more traditional workplace clothes if they had some measure of financial security with which to do so, but rejecting candidates solely based on a lack of needless "manners" or other such comparatively superficial characteristics both perpetuates poverty and focuses on issues that are both irrelevant to many jobs and fixable in the context of a stable job.

Abolishing unnecessary interview requirements such as the aforementioned example would help put qualified people trapped in poverty or even homelessness in a place from which they could start to consistently overcome their financial limitations--while also ensuring that it is more likely for interviewers to not dismiss candidates based on traits that are arbitrary or changeable.  Removing such obstacles to overcoming poverty harms no one, simplifies entry into a a career for those who have none, and pressures businesses to choose people solely based on merit in contexts where individual merit is all that matters.  It is a far more effective step to take towards eliminating poverty than those suggested by many people.

The Biblical Purpose Of Government

Only two parts of the Bible address the Biblical purpose of government with any thoroughness: the Pentateuch and Romans 13.  The former details exact legal penalties that are morally demanded by certain offenses on the Christian worldview (yes, Christianity is an inherently theonomist religion [1]), while the latter states that a righteous government wields a sword that is to be used for the sake of imposing justice.  Ironically, some attempt to use Romans 13 in arguments against Mosaic Law, as if a morally perfect God--which evangelicals rush to call Yahweh--could prescribe unjust or otherwise flawed punishments!

Paul says that human governments are authorized by God to punish evildoers, but the justice of a given penalty is not revealed or determined by its popularity, deterrence effectiveness, or subjective sense of "rightness."  If murder, rape, and slave trading are universally sinful and deserve to be universally criminalized, it is not as if any punishment at all can be legitimately assigned to them.  A specific sin that God calls a crime can only deserve one response (or, in some cases, one of several potential penalties from a specific set of punishments, as Numbers 35:31 implies is sometimes the case).  If a regime does not deviate from this mandate, it has not erred.

There is no Biblical purpose of government other than carrying out just punishments on those who commit specific sins--that something is sinful does not mean it should have the status of a crime, and only particular punishments can be just for particular crimes.  The state has no right to invent or enforce unjust or unnecessary laws, and far more falls into these two categories than the average conservative or liberal would be comfortable with.  A Biblical system of government, which is hypothetically compatible with various structures like monarchy and autocracy,

Even conservatives, for all of their talk of "small government," would be hypocrites if they rushed to abolish unneeded components of the American government rather than choosing to selectively and slowly phase them out, and liberals would be hypocrites if they embraced any sort of small government whatsoever.  A Biblical government is neither centered around a large emphasis on the military nor built to sustain programs that require unnecessary taxation.  After all, it only takes a small government to impose justice as needed.

It is impossible to rationally argue for political policies which are unnecessary, so there is no sound argument for anything more than a small government as it is.  However, the inability of reason to directly reveal human obligations, including any which govern the acts of the state, leaves Christians without anything to point to as evidence for a given political system other than the Bible--unless they want to go beyond their own worldview into a mirage of conscience-based assumptions.  Since the Biblical conception of government is very limited, there is no such thing as a Biblically valid conservative or liberal government.


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

Openness About Masturbation

Because masturbation is such a personal act in the sense that it reduces down to self-inflicted sexual pleasure, many people are reluctant or unwilling to discuss the personal or intellectual aspects of masturbation as openly as they might discuss basic sexual attraction or even interpersonal sexual acts.  It is more likely that one would hear many people talk in detail about what they find sexually attractive in the bodies of the opposite gender than hear them talk about if or how they pleasure themselves to the sight of those same body parts!  Prudery particularly discourages comfortable, casual discussion of masturbation as a general subject.

The reason why is simple.  Self-pleasuring involves the manual stimulation of the only parts of one's body that are almost always covered by clothing in the presence of others.  For this reason, in a prudish society, masturbation is one of the most intimate acts a man or woman could indulge in.  It rejects the prudery, at least for a moment, that might otherwise deter someone from exploring their body.  To masturbate is to bare one's own capacity for physical and psychological pleasure to oneself regardless of how secretive the act is treated as in one's culture as a whole.

Masturbation has the potential to be one of the most individualistic expressions of sexuality--it is an act that does not need to involve anyone else and it can be enjoyed with or without mental imagery or sensual pictures/videos in accordance with a person's preferences.  In fact, masturbation can be an act of emotional self-exploration rather than only an act of physical self-pleasuring.  When people are more open about acknowledging the personal pleasures of masturbation, the sense of shame around it can retreat.

There is no need to never speak of one's masturbation practices in front of friends, including friends of the opposite gender.  There is no need to shy away from treating masturbation as a serious act with many of the same philosophical dimensions as other sexual acts.  In fact, there is no better way to celebrate the Biblical legitimacy of masturbation [1]--including masturbating to images of the opposite gender--than by openly affirming the nonsinful ecstasy of pleasuring one's genitalia until orgasm.  Doing so is not an invitation to others for shared sexual behaviors; it is an expression of honesty.

Open discussion of masturbation--both in a personal and intellectual sense--is only one way to weaken the hold prudery has on the church and on Western culture in general.  However, it might be a crucial step to making Christians feel comfortable engaging in a practice that is not sinful whatsoever in itself.  Silence does nothing to challenge assumptions and uproot errors.  Even though a handful of individuals may realize there is no disparity between Christian ethics and a love of masturbation on their own, prudery will keep others chained to legalism unless they see someone treat self-pleasuring with rational and Biblical honesty.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/sexual-self-stimulation.html

Game Review--Submerged (Switch)

"I need something to get Taku's strength back."
--Miku, Submerged


Like City of Brass, Submerged is the product of ex-Bioshock developers, and the flooded world of the game is much closer to Bioshock's Rapture than the enchanted desert city of City of Brass.  A brief but very unique game, it features a city mostly covered by the waves of a seemingly global flood.  The story of how the main character and her (seeming) brother found their place in this alien environment is slowly revealed, and the remaining landmarks of a once surface-based cityscape are gradually identified.  Submerged stands out because of these and several other aspects that are handled quite differently than those of more mainstream games.

Production Values

The flooded city is a grand world that can be explored at will, but the graphics, at their best, fail to rise above the lower end of mediocrity for the Switch.  At the very least, though, they do manage to showcase a world left flooded after a great storm.  While sounds from the environment, including noises from animals, are common, there is almost no human speech.  The main character speaks in an unspecified language, but only infrequently, making voice acting an addition that barely occupies any time of a playthrough.  In fact, most of the immediate story is told through visuals, while the backstory of both the two primary characters as a family and the world as a whole is told through optional collectibles that unlock images.

Gameplay

Players use a boat to travel between various structures protruding out from the global ocean, disembarking to grab collectibles and obtain necessary resources to progress the story.  Combat is nowhere to be seen, as boating, platforming, and exploration of the sunken landscape are the only gameplay components.  Optional items such as boat upgrades can be found by scouring the environment carefully, but it would be difficult to play through the entire game without running into several even without actively looking for them.  While using the boat, numerous upgrades can be found floating openly!  Boat rides also give Submerged the chance to show it's aquatic life: although their appearances can differ from their real life counterparts (due to a strange skin condition that the main character develops), dolphins, whales, and rays can surface near the boat.

Story

The narrative is driven almost completely by the environment, most of it revolving around helping a young boy who seems to be the playable character's sibling.  As such, there is little to spoil besides the setting and the very simplistic story, but I will still announce that spoilers are below, as usual.

A young, unnamed woman takes care of her (likely) brother Taku as she navigates a flooded world.  After placing him in a safe area, she collects medical supplies, water, and food from the surrounding buildings that have seemingly long been abandoned after the flood.  As she ventures to and fro, a mysterious humanoid being watches her from nearby rooftops, and it is soon joined by others.  The protagonist also becomes increasingly affected by a seeming growths of vegetation on her skin, something that appears to worry her without ever deterring her from gathering supplies for her brother.


Intellectual Content

The lack of dialogue (or monologues) leaves much of this world's backstory unspoken, which is an experimental take on thematic development by the standards of modern gaming.  This means that there are no conversations between characters that reflect core philosophical ideas behind the narrative.  However, the very absence of a flourishing human society could easily provoke thought on the part of players about both the relationship between humanity and the natural world and the manner in which humans should live now.


Conclusion

Submerged offers a gaming experience that differs significantly from the more intense, dialogue-driven games of the mainstream entertainment world.  This means that most people would likely either resent it for diverging from the norm or embrace it for the very same reason.  Regardless, it is a game that stands on its uniqueness, and it conceptually succeeds as a smaller title built around nontraditional storytelling.  Submerged does not attempt to handle itself the way many other games would, but it does a great job of handling its world and its handful of mechanics.


Content:  There is practically nothing in Submerged that would even warrant an ESRB content descriptor, so, for the first time, there is nothing that needs to be detailed here.

Rationalistic Empiricism

Reason and experience are not at odds.  It is impossible to have an experience that is not metaphysically and epistemologically governed by reason, after all.  The myth that the two are in opposition has promoted a perceived but nonexistent gap between rationalism and basic empiricism, though the gap is partly continued by the mistaken idea that all forms of empiricism hold that the senses ground all knowledge.  Experience is far broader than sensory information, and every fallacious belief about experience can be avoided if one only aligns with reason.

Sensory empiricism is self-refuting, for the senses alone can neither verify the epistemological nature nor be processed without the light of reason.  Either sensory empiricism is assumed to be true without sensory confirmation (which would be impossible as it is because logic and consciousness, both of which are required to understand sensory experiences, are nonphysical things not observed by the senses) or it is defended with fallacious reasoning.  Regardless of the arguments in its favor, it must be false.  Experience, however, is a prerequisite to all knowledge, but experience encompasses the inner thoughts of the mind and its grasp of the laws of logic as well as sensory perceptions.

Rationalistic empiricism is an aspect of thorough rationalism.  This stance acknowledges that reason is more fundamental than experience while also acknowledging that the very process of reasoning anything out or immediately grasping any logical axiom must be experienced in order to occur.  After all, a mind cannot grasp reason without conscious experience.  Rationalistic empiricism therefore does not pit either reason or mere experience against each other.  Rather, it is when people misunderstand or draw non sequitur conclusions from their experiences that they err.

This framework does not elevate experience above reason because experience is epistemologically worthless without a sound grasp of reason.  It is only because of the intellect--which is not the laws of logic themselves, but the means of comprehending them--that a person can even know that his or her own mind exists.  Without reason, it would be impossible to distinguish between the components of experience that cannot be illusions, like the fact that perceptions cannot exist without a mind and that at least one's perceptions of the external world are knowable, and those that may not be connected to the full reality behind them, such as memories of past events (there is no way to prove the events they recall actually happened).

The most thorough form of rationalism contains an empiricism that acknowledges the full scope of experience instead of ignoring experiences that do not involve the senses.  It is experiences pertaining to the intellect and general introspection that are absolutely certain (logic cannot be false and consciousness cannot be illusory), which makes them more fundamental than sensory information while also granting them the highest epistemological statuses by default.  The senses, in contrast, are useful only for establishing that some sort of material world exists, although only one of the senses can verify this [1], and that one is experiencing specific perceptions of stimuli.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html

A Socialistic Policy Defended By Conservatives

It is no secret that some people would rather accept an idea because a particular person proposes it to them than accept that idea, either fully on their own or when prompted by someone else, simply because it is true.  Not only is letting someone dictate one's worldview instead of merely consulting reason itself a fallacious and haphazard way of forming beliefs, but it is also likely to create a desire to see an idea embraced by a subjectively cherished figure before one will accept that idea.  Politics is a realm where this inane bias is particularly noteworthy.

A somewhat recent example is the lack of uniform conservative pushback against Donald Trump's plan to send stimulus checks to Americans during the COVID-19 crisis.  Although conservatives tend to rabidly object to any government-provided money other than that involved with tax returns due to a hatred of socialism, they have gone so far as to complain about liberal pushback against the bill.  Now, the money provided by this plan was intended to be paid back by future taxes, so it is not merely "free money," but it is still closer to socialism than not sending money at all.

Apparently, Trump's endorsement of the somewhat socialistic idea is all that was necessary for many conservatives to embrace something they may very well have furiously rejected if it had been backed by a liberal president.  Some evangelical conservatives act as if Trump can do no wrong, despite his legions of fallacies, contradictions, and erroneous philosophical or theological claims (when he used the phrase "Two Corinthians," evangelicals should have been roused from their usual dullness to see through his facade).

It is not that sending Americans (more specifically, most Americans) checks is an inherently flawed action in the present circumstances, and the decision could have very beneficial impacts.  This is far from the greatest example of political hypocrisy from either conservatives or liberals as it is!  However, the hypocrisy that leads some people to accept or despise a proposition based upon who is making it will hold them back from intellectual and moral consistency as long as they allow it to.  Far too often, people cling to one of the two flawed major parties despite their assumptions and hypocrisy all while calling out every real or imagined hypocrisy of the other side.

The Moral Legitimacy Of Hatred

The very word hatred is enough to frighten plenty of individuals away from an idea, practice, or mindset.  Few things are as offensive to a culture of tolerance as real or perceived hatred.  This has kept many from understanding that hatred is not a moral hazard in itself--in fact, it can be a mark of moral correctness.  To hate that which is contrary to reality is a distinctive sign of concern for the reality that any moral obligations reflect.

Now, I am not referring to slanderous or otherwise unjust hatred.  For example, to hate someone who has not committed a moral error is itself unjust, and therefore morally problematic.  To hate someone for a circumstance such as their gender, race, or nationality reeks of logical errors.  Hatred itself, however, is not morally atrocious by default.  The reason behind the hatred and the manner in which it is acted upon are the only factors that can render a specific instance of hatred immoral.

Hatred is often the target of irrational criticism because many people are too unintelligent to separate the concept of hatred from distinct concepts like sexism, racism, or malice.  In an era where tolerance is seen as one of the highest virtues (even though it is logically impossible for it to be a virtue to begin with [1]), hatred is likely to be interpreted as evil even when nothing like sexism, racism, or malice is present.  There is not only no inherent connection between hatred and injustice, but hatred can be a significant ally of justice.

Indeed, a sense of strong dislike for the people who are responsible for irrationality and injustice in the world is a natural result of a strong dislike for irrationality and evil.  There is not even anything contrary to loving others about hating those without whom entire types of sin would not be practiced.  The only form of love one is Biblically obligated to harbor for all people is merely the desire for all people to be treated justly (i.e., for their human rights outlined in Mosaic Law to never be violated) and for all of the unsaved to repent.

Universal affection for humankind is not prescribed; even if it was, however, affection and hatred towards the same person can indeed coexist.  In spite of this, gratuitous and unearned affection for humankind as a whole is widely regarded as empowering and positive, while hatred of the irrational and unjust is widely regarded as poisonous.  A morally competent person is capable of loving (in the sense of having affection) and hating someone as their deeds merit.  In certain contexts, hatred has a moral legitimacy that has been almost completely ignored or denied by Christian ethicists.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/hate-sin-hate-sinner.html

The Gratuitous Nature Of Term Limits

The American political system has been structured so that there are specific term limits that presidents, senators, and congresspersons are supposed to abide by.  For example, presidents are confined to serve a maximum of two consecutive four year terms, the common justification being that limiting the length and number of terms can prevent lapses into tyranny.  Behind the idea that term limitations are inherently good is the idea that power is either evil, albeit perhaps a so-called "necessary evil," or corrupting--and both ideas are flawed.

Does staying in office one day beyond American term limits transform someone into a malicious, tyrannical, egoistic leader?  What about two additional days in office?  Three?  What about one year?  If there is no fixed day on which someone inevitably becomes a tyrant after staying in office beyond the length of two terms, there is no necessary change into a tyrant that must occur.  Time does not reduce anyone to an abusive politician, just as the mere holding of power does not reduce anyone into evil.

The problem with many American politicians is not that there is an arbitrary number of days they have been in office.  Hypocrisy, assumed philosophical ideas, and a lack of willingness to only endorse stances that are rational and consistent are the problems with most American politicians.  The decision to be irrational or unjust is not made for a politician by anything other than their own intentions and lack of resolve.  Only an individual politician decides if they will descend into madness.

Political power is not a corrupting force external to humans; human social power does not exist without humans, who have the ability to choose how to express it.  It is something that every politician can choose to exercise in a rational and just manner.  No man or woman is a slave to tyrannical misuses of a political office.  This is true even when a politician is in office past whatever arbitrary time someone might think is the "appropriate" duration for serving in a political position.  No matter how uncomfortable it might make either conservatives or liberals in a given case, extended time in office is never the moral problem with a political system.

The Potential Of Various Genres

Different individuals might find that they easily gravitate towards different genres within entertainment, and their favored genres will naturally have the potential to explore different aspects of human existence more thoroughly than others.  Some themes and storytelling approaches are especially suited to genres like horror, even if any work of entertainment could include sections that identify most with a genre other than the one(s) that summarizes the work's primary features.  Each genre can be intellectually appreciated for its own unique focus on specific components of reality.

For example, drama has a particular tendency to hold light to the potentially complicated layers of the human mind, whereas horror can draw attention to matters of epistemology and the metaphysics of supernaturalism more directly than many other genres.  It is not that drama and horror have elements that no other genre can possess, but that they can unify or emphasize certain elements of philosophy and storytelling in ways that are more focused than other genres would handle the same subject matter.

Fantasy is often used to present moralistic archetypes--though it can also be used to thoroughly deconstruct them, as Game of Thrones accomplishes.  Again, archetypes and deconstructions of those archetypes are not confined to fantasy, but not all genres are able to as naturally acknowledge or dismiss archetypal figures.  Furthermore, science fiction, romantic films, and other genres and subgenres have their respective thematic strengths that make them more suited to certain kinds of stories and subject matter than other genres.

Even comedy addresses the capacity for humor and laughter, things that are sometimes philosophically underappreciated and thus ignored or trivialized.  There is no part of reality or human nature (which is itself just one part of reality) that needs to be kept out of entertainment, no matter how lighthearted, dark, or subjectively offensive it might be.  All of human life can be displayed or dissected in various works aimed at prompting anything from catharsis to introspection to emotional excitement.

None of these genres are necessarily superior to the others in terms of their philosophical or storytelling potential, even if some examples from each stand above some examples from the others.  Different genres simply permit more specific explorations of the parts of reality that are more relevant to their own types of stories.  The fact that genres can overlap in a given work only highlights the fact that they are not thematic or artistic opponents that can never coexist in the same space.  Instead, they are a diverse set of tools for communicating a diverse set of concepts.

Why Academic Cheating Is Not Immoral By Default

Many school policies indicate that cheating in the context of academic matters like tests is often seen as a major offense.  This is even regarded as grounds for expulsion from universities when it is actually an amoral behavior in many circumstances.  If a student did not promise to avoid cheating, there is nothing "deceptive" about academic cheating, meaning there is no breach of honesty and thus no offense against truth involved.  Those whose consciences flare up at the thought of this must remember that conscience is merely an emotional reaction and that tradition is irrelevant to morality.  For the Christians in that group, it is necessary to emphasize that the Biblical prohibition of lying (Leviticus 19:11) does not have any ramifications for issues that are not strictly connected to it by logical necessity (Deuteronomy 4:2).

Someone who intentionally puts lackluster effort into the particular academic subjects they would rely on in the workplace, which rules out multiple subjects taught in schools in most cases (not that the standard subjects addressed in schools are consistently important), will face the constant possibility of being exposed as unqualified once they graduate--unless, of course, they equip themselves in some other way.  In fact, they may not even be able to enter the industries they had allegedly aimed for if their lack of preparedness comes out early on.  Knowing that this is a potential outcome that becomes more probable the more they avoid reflecting on and developing themselves for their career, they can make their own choice.

Students who look to their classroom assignments to prepare them for their jobs might simply fail to obtain or perform well in their jobs, which will be the pragmatic--but not moral--consequence of cheating in a college classroom setting.  This has nothing to do with the act being immoral, but it instead has everything to do with a person's lack of technical competence in their industry costing them job security.  Biblically speaking, outside of situations where they promised to complete academic coursework without "cheating," there are no moral dimensions to the issue.

It is common to find Christians who think that cheating in a university setting or some other sort of educational context is a grave moral error because they have never reflected on the issue without making assumptions, or else they would never dispute or contradict any of the aforementioned facts.  Cheating in this manner is not automatically the same as lying.  There is no Biblical principle or command that condemns cheating on tests, no matter how odd the notion may strike many people.  Nevertheless, traditions and norms rule many people far more than reason, so it is no surprise that academic cheating has been condemned so harshly despite this.

Social Distancing Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is not unusual in a society that isn't collectively devoted to pure rationalism.  As an emotionalistic culture, America is teeming with examples of ideological inconsistencies in its political leadership and civilian populace alike.  This is true of both conservatives and liberals--and this has been on full display during the entire COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanying social distancing demands.  Since the death of George Floyd, however, one case of hypocrisy is particularly obvious to any intelligent onlooker.

Many of the same people who treated violation of social distancing as if it is murderous or automatically selfish said nothing in opposition to the protests and riots that occurred after the murder of George Floyd.  The cognitive dissonance revealed who was seemingly concerned about social distancing out of a genuine care for others and who was only supporting overkill quarantine measures because of hysteria and because authority figures they subjectively respected said to.  Moreover, attacking criticism over this hypocrisy in favor of protests during a pandemic only heightens their stupidity.

Anyone who defends protesting after harshly criticizing those who failed to stay six feet away from a maximum of several people at a time, regardless of their motivations for doing so, either have no regard for consistency or are even more blind to social hypocrisies than is typical.  It is clear that anyone in this category is influenced by whatever current events are occuring to suddenly shift their fears, behaviors, and claims back and forth in accordance with what others dictate.  In other words, they are thoroughly emotionalistic and prone to abandon ideas they only just asserted.

There are also almost certainly some among this group who would likely assume that racist intentions are the only reasons someone would ever oppose the protests during a fucking pandemic (even if it is far less deadly than liberals tend to say as it is).  Just as pandemics, like every other crisis of any size, give conservatives more opportunities to blatantly cling to their errors, they also give liberals the chance to do the same.  The fact that anyone at all would endorse two utterly contradictory courses of action is asinine even if they went from idea to idea rather than actually believing both simultaneously.

Torment Before Annihilation

Annihilationism, although it affirms that eternal conscious torment is not the default punishment for the unsaved, does not exclude the possibility of a period of torment before annihilation.  The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and the lake of fire is the second death (Revelation 20:14-15), but this does not mean that the only aspects of final punishment are death and the resulting forfeiture of eternal life.  Indeed, annihilation might not arrive until the unsaved have endured harsh torment as their deeds merit.

The length of potential torment before annihilation could differ wildly from person to person.  An unsaved person who only committed minor sins during his or her life may only be tormented in hell for minutes before receiving the eternal punishment of cosmic death, while someone who committed a host of sins the Bible classifies as capital crimes might suffer for centuries or millennia before having his or her consciousness terminated.  Perhaps some may even suffer for billions of years until they are finally removed from existence.

Regardless of how a person's respective sins will factor into their punishment, mere annihilation is itself an enormous penalty that removes its recipients from any possibility of redemption, pleasure, or any desired experience at all.  Even if it is not preceded by torment, the second death is hardly something to scoff at for those who prefer existence to nonexistence.  In either case, the Biblical God is said to deliver nothing short of undiluted justice to every being that rejects him.

The Bible simply does not provide exact details about how the different severities of sins will factor into whatever torment individuals may face before their permanent death in the lake of fire.  However, it does specify that sins are not equal in their depravity, as is confirmed by the different intensities of the punishments assigned to certain sins in Mosaic Law.  It would therefore be contradictory for a God whose moral character is revealed in Mosaic Law to treat all sins as equally trivial or equally severe in hell.

That the Biblical realm of hell is eternal (Matthew 18:8) does not establish that all things that enter the hellfire will exist eternally.  Similarly, that death is the ultimate penalty unsaved humans will face (with a handful of potential exceptions [1]) does not mean that instant annihilation is the punishment.  Annihilation might be instant in some cases, but it might also be preceded by a period of torment that far exceeds any human lifetime on earth.  At the very least, within the framework of Christian theology, every being's punishment in hell will be a just fate that is proportionate to whatever sinful deeds or intents it is guilty of.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/03/revelation-149-11.html

Movie Review--Extraction

"You're hoping if you spin the chamber enough times, you're going to catch a bullet."

--Nik, Extraction

Siblings Anthony and Joe Russo, the directors of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, have reunited with Chris Hemsworth for Netflix's Extraction, this time serving as producers instead of co-directors.  Far more like John Wick than than anything the Russo brothers handled in the MCU, Extraction relies on its elegant but raw action scenes at the expense of character development, but its performances do not suffer from this.  Thankfully, they remain strong despite the superficiality of the characterization.

Production Values

Chris Hemsworth has a role that is far more grim than that of Thor, and he communicates little about his character through words--one of the better aspects of his writing.  In his character's introductory scene, he jumps into a body of water and calmly sits at the bottom, which is a more explicit way to convey his physical ability and discipline than merely having other characters talk about them.  Hemsworth manages to thoroughly immerse himself in the role despite its intense physicality.  The supporting characters, though they are not the focus, are also acted competently.  A colleague of Tyler named Nik is an easy example, her role performed by Iranian actress Golshifteh Farahani.  So, too, is a character played by David Harbour.

As for the underdeveloped characterization, it is not that Extraction is a film that pairs electric action scenes with silly or careless characters, but that the characters, despite being appropriately somber and humorless, simply are not explored deeply.  The action, however, is developed far better than the characters.  Long, smooth camera shots are used in key fights that other filmmakers would likely have shot with rapidly changing angles that obscure the action rather than enhance it.  The choreography and environmental diversity of the fights in the John Wick trilogy might very well be unsurpassed by other contemporary action films, but Extraction comes far closer to matching it than any other recent film I know of.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

An Indian crime lord's son is kidnapped at the behest of Amir Asif, a rival Bangladeshi drug lord.  The boy's caretaker is threatened to get him released, at which point a former soldier who has become a mercenary is contacted to rescue the child.

Intellectual Content

There is no grand philosophical purpose to the events of the movie, but a film can have other kinds of excellence, as Extraction does.  It manages to stand on its largely strong production values rather than on philosophical depth, a weaker sort of depth when it is isolated from philosophical significance, but a source of cinematic strength all the same.

Conclusion

Chris Hemsworth and Extraction's spectacle are certainly enough to warrant attention from viewers who are fans of either the actor or action films that embrace utter seriousness.  As long as one doesn't expect complex characters, Extraction can be appreciated for what it is.  It handles its primary components very well, but the absence of the missing components is very noticeable.  If there is a sequel, and one is reportedly being planned, the weak areas that need improvement are obvious--and so are the strengths that need to be preserved.

Content:
 1.  Violence:  Films like The Predator are noticeably more violent than Extraction, but there are still plenty of vicious onscreen brawls and killings.  In one scene, a head is forced onto a rake's points, and there are many bullets used to great effect.

 2.  Profanity:  "Shit," "bastard," and "fuck" are used.

The Need To Focus On Oneself

Without having already dedicated oneself to soundly building one's own philosophical knowledge and standing by rationalistic reflection, it is pointless to try to help others become intellectually and morally competent (not that anyone ultimately needs others to do so).  In this sense, one's own self always needs to be a higher priority than anyone else, and yet this is not selfishness.  Selfishness comes about when a person disregards or violates actual moral obligations to other beings; realizing that one's own relationship with truth and with the evidence for Christianity (which may or may not turn out to be wholly true) need not be dismissed for the sake of others is far from selfish.

It is actually irrational to focus on positively influencing other people more than one does on developing and reflecting on one's own worldview--if someone does not know truth for themselves, they can only offer little to no help to others.  The only assistance that such a person can grant others is incomplete, incidental, or insincere.  If one is to help others understand philosophical truths--again, not that anyone needs to rely on a person rather than on reason to do so--one must already understand those philosophical truths on one's own.

One's own intellectual, moral, and spiritual status must come before that of anyone else if one is to even understand what is at stake when trying to reason with others.  Again, this is not the same as selfishness.  A selfish lifestyle is one of selective or total egoism, which is nothing but a focus on one's desires and preferences at the expense of all else.  A person can care about the philosophical and soteriological status of other people while rightly caring more about whether they are where they need to be in light of reason and morality.

When correcting the ideological errors of others or evangelizing with them, this truth needs to be kept in mind.  It is better to refrain from engaging with someone who desperately needs to a rationalistic worldview for the sake of oneself than it is to influence them thoroughly for the better at one's own expense.  Before truth can be shared with other people (who are capable of discovering logical truths completely on their own with effort and intentionality), it must already be understood by the person who wishes to share it.

Worse Than Murder

Murder is often cited as one of the first examples of a major misdeed--and perhaps even as the most severe.  According to some, there is no greater offense than murder.  They right to life is said to be the most important human right by such people, as if painlessly murdering someone is as disrespectful to the victim's humanity as torturing them for months or years.  As a number of hypothetical and actual examples affirm, there are forms of abuse that show far more disrespect for their victims than even casual murder does.  Even on a subjective level, while different people might find death preferable to different things, there is likely something that every person would find more atrocious than mere killing.

Some tortures are more depraved than it is even possible for simple murder to be.  This is why it is always more heinous to inflict certain kinds of tortures on evil people than it ever is to inflict simple murder upon innocent people.  The act itself, not the recipient of the action, is the largest factor in determining the morality of an action; only after the nature of the act is accounted for does the identity of the victim become an important factor.  An evil act is not always more or less evil when an evil person is its victim.  In some cases, such as when some call for unbiblical tortures in the name of "justice," there is no more depraved motive or deed than those associated with torture.

In light of these truths, it is asinine when a society tends to use something like a murderous shooting as an example of the absolute greatest evils a human can commit.  Such a person either lacks a thorough understanding of the true extent of human cruelty or willfully ignores it.  Malice, sadism, and selfishness can lead to acts that would make many victims plead for death.  Reason and experience can reveal to everyone that there are things far more brutal, degrading, and cruel than murder in its basic forms (such as murder by gunshot).

If even a single kind of possible treatment of a human is any worse than simple murder, it follows that the "right to life" spoken of by so many conservatives is not the most important right humans have.  It is important, but it is not of the utmost importance.  Indeed, it is far from the most important right affirmed by the Bible, as there are many examples of greater sins that the Bible directly condemns, such as making someone a lifelong slave against their will (Exodus 21:16), torturing someone with certain methods for days or longer (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), or violently raping someone over and over (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).

The point is not that murder is a trivial offense.  On the contrary, Biblical ethics takes murder so seriously that it, like several other equal or greater crimes like kidnapping and rape, is assigned the death penalty.  Nonetheless, it is true that murder, unless it is coupled with things worse than murder, is nowhere near the most degrading thing one person could inflict on another.  Two things can be heinous to the point of meriting capital punishment without having an equal severity.  On this, reason and the Bible agree.  Sins are not equal, for they do not all violate obligations that possess the same importance, and it takes more cruelty to torment people in psychologically and physically devastating ways than it does to simply murder them.

The Absence Of References To Lesbianism In Leviticus

Although many Christians tend to condemn all homosexual expression to the point of exaggerating its severity and overlooking issues that are far more important, a strange ideological subset claims that lesbian behaviors are morally distinct from male homosexual behaviors in that the former is either not as heinous or not immoral at all.  They might cite Leviticus 18 and 20 as evidence for their inconsistent position.  When Leviticus condemns homosexual behavior (not attraction), it provides examples of male homosexual actions.  This is true, but their conclusion does not follow in any way!

There are obvious logical consistency problems with declaring an act to be morally wrong only when a particular gender commits it, as an immoral act is immoral because of its own nature, not a factor like the gender or race of the person who has committed it.  However, it is especially ironic when Christians act like male homosexual behaviors are somehow worse than those performed by women.  Leviticus may not refer to lesbian activities in its case laws addressing homosexual behaviors (homosexual attraction is not Biblically immoral), but female homosexual expression is mentioned and addressed elsewhere in the Bible.

At the very least, Romans 1 directly addresses and condemns lesbian behaviors.  Even if the New Testament did not specifically clarify that female homosexual acts are sinful, consistency demands that the prohibition of male homosexual acts would also extend to homosexual acts involving women.  If male homosexual behaviors are wrong because of the homosexual aspects, which is clearly what Leviticus 18 and 20 draw attention to, then the same would be true if the genders are switched.

Just as Exodus 22:18 specifically condemning sorceresses does not mean that male sorcerers are not guilty of a moral offense and Deuteronomy 22:25-27 specifically mentioning a male rapist does not mean that female rapists are not guilty of a moral offense, Leviticus specifically condemning male homosexual behavior does not mean that practicing lesbians have done nothing wrong.  It proves nothing except that Leviticus only mentions male homosexual expression.  Of course, the New Testament does specifically refer to lesbian behavior as sinful, but this is not necessary to refute the idea that homosexual activities are only immoral when committed by men.

Morality is not tied to gender.  If an act or attitude is wrong, it does not matter whether a person who engages in it is a man or a woman--it is still immoral.  Denial of this logical fact can lead to some of the most devastating gender-based double standards.  Anyone who rationally seeks morality itself will eventually realize that an act can only be wrong if it violates some objective moral obligation, and thus the gender of the perpetrator is irrelevant.  The Bible consistently teaches that men and women share the same obligations to each other, animals, and God, meaning that men are not condemned for things women would not be condemned for and vice versa.

The Many Biblical Exceptions To Lex Talionis

Like other punishments prescribed in Mosaic Law, the physical mutilations associated with Lex Talionis, the set of "eye for eye" laws, are only called for in very particular scenarios.  They cannot be legitimately said to summarize the Torah's criminal justice laws.  While Lex Talionis is often not even referenced due to a popular misunderstanding of the words of Jesus in Matthew 5 (since Jesus did not overturn the Torah's prohibition of murder and adultery when he alluded to them earlier in the same chapter, consistency demands that Jesus did not overturn Lex Talionis by simply telling people to "turn the other cheek"), many interpretations of the Bible's "eye for eye" penalty treat mirror punishments as if they are the standard punishments of Mosaic Law.  However, mirror punishment is not the norm in Biblical laws, and to invoke Lex Talionis where the Bible does not is only to embrace utter hypocrisy.

The Biblical punishments for a host of criminal sins have absolutely nothing to do with Lex Talionis, yet this fact, which can be demonstrated by many different examples, is almost always left out of public discussions about the Biblical verses prescribing "eye for eye" penalties.  It is clear that the Bible does prescribe a literal version of Lex Talionis (that is, mirror physical injury is the punishment) in a very specific set of cases involving assault that results in permanent injury or disfigurement, but it is also clear that the Bible opposes Lex Talionis in other contexts.  Mosaic Law does not prescribe Lex Talionis in most cases, but it does require a literal "eye for eye" sentence when it does.

Sins like rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), seizing someone's genitals in an act of assault (Deuteronomy 25:11-12), arson (Exodus 22:6), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), assault with no permanent injury (Exodus 21:18-19, 22), assault (however minor) of one's parents (Exodus 21:15), infliction of permanent injury on one's servant (Exodus 21:26-27), inflicting more than 40 lashes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), and criminal slander (Deuteronomy 19:16-19) are some key examples of actions which it would be Biblically unjust to inflict on an offender even if he or she did them to someone else.  Each of these things is prohibited in itself or assigned a non-mirror punishment.  There is no actual ambiguity as to how the Bible does not prescribe "eye for eye" punishments for all sins with a criminal status.

As any observant and rational person could discover by reading through Mosaic Law on their own, Lex Talionis is irrelevant to the vast majority of Biblical crimes.  Of course, most readers of the Bible are neither observant nor intelligent, regardless of what worldview they claim to represent.  The small handful of verses prescribing Lex Talionis for a similarly small range of crimes are often ignored completely, misapplied to crimes other than the ones mentioned, or mistaken for verses that are using the language of Lex Talionis to always describe financial damages to victims (as apologist Paul Copan pretends).

The Biblical text completely rejects all three of these stances on the matter.  Unfortunately, they are the only three approaches to Lex Talionis that most people will likely know of, partly because they are so common and partly because of intellectual apathy or incompetence on their own parts.  It is vital for anyone who recognizes the centrality of criminal justice in Biblical ethics to not err to the left or to the right in understanding Lex Talionis and its very limited role in Mosaic Law.  Lex Talionis might be a relatively minor part of Biblical morality, but misconceptions of it are anything but minor.

The Folly Of Optimistic Nihilism

It is folly to believe that nihilism is true in light of the epistemological limitations that prevent beings like myself from knowing if meaning exists or not, but it is an even greater folly to believe in a more specific type of the ideology called optimistic nihilism.  This kind of existentialism holds that an absence of any objective values (which are only a subset of the much larger range of objective truths that would exist regardless) is liberating, empowering, and worth celebrating, as it means one can live as one pleases in a reality with no higher purpose than that.  Any sort of favorable existential outlook, though, is erroneous if nihilism is true.

It is one thing to celebrate subjective preferences when they do not conflict with values for which there is evidence, but it is something else entirely to pretend like there is any intellectual basis for optimism within a nihilistic lifestyle or belief system.  The latter is completely asinine, a delusion that any thinker should be able to easily falsify.  Absurdism (apart from the baseless addition of existential perseverance to its core concepts by Camus) is sound due being the epistemologically valid response to an ultimate inability to prove that meaning exists; optimistic nihilism is inherently contradictory.

Unless optimism is treated as nothing but a subjective reaction to indifferent logical facts--not that nihilism can be established with reason as anything more than an unverifiable possibility--it is incompatible with nihilism.  To say that nihilism, if it is true, would be a philosophical basis for optimism is to affirm two concepts that exclude each other.  Meaninglessness leaves no room for optimism or happiness outside of a subjective attitude rooted in personal psychology or a denial of nihilism's ramifications rather than in philosophical truth.

It is irrational to believe in any existential ideology that is assumed, as nihilism must be.  There are no logical facts from which is follows that there is no such thing as meaning, even if nihilism is logically possible--and it is even compatible with some forms of theism [1].  A nihilist is guilty of mere assumptions, but one that advocates for optimistic nihilism as a coherent existential framework is guilty of assuming two ideas that cannot both be true simultaneously.  Either optimism is warranted or there is nothing meaningful about any aspect of reality, but only one of these notions can be true.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/arguments-for-nihilism.html