Once Professional Motivation Disappears

In the case that one workplace task or coworker or manager after another destroys a person's motivation, it might never return even if the issues are rectified.  When someone sees the general futility of hard work in many instances, is not paid well or even comfortably, or has to constantly endure the irrationalism and pettiness of other workers, among other things, their resolve might diminish.  Their desire to do anything more than the absolute bare minimum might vanish, and there is nothing irrational or sinful about this.  Anytime they prepare for work or begin it, they could be struck by apathy or frustration.

The problem always needs to be resolved, but just taking it away does not undo what has happened already.  Once professional drive disappears, it might never return in any circumstances.  Updated compensation might indeed still leave someone disappointed or rightly upset over all the money they did not receive up to that point.  The firing of an unjust coworker is not guaranteed to restore any delight in work that might have once been present.  Always, avoiding these pitfalls is the best way to prevent this disintegration of personal investment in a job.

All of the aforementioned problems only come about due to irrationality, and since reason is inherently true, there is no basis for anyone to believe or act contrary to it.  They are always in the wrong and can always have been rational instead.  Due to the nature of necessary truths alone, workplace stupidity is erroneous, aside from ant moral dimensions.  However, there is a great deal of both general stupidity and intended exploitation in companies at large, and it is not exactly as if burnout or loss of devotion to work is surprising.  There are glaring factors contributing to it.

Aside from pure logic and morality, it is also objectively pragmatic to sidestep so many of the typical problems with workplaces by eliminating counterproductive or otherwise irrational company policies, paying well, and encouraging true collaboration free of all assumptions.  Yes, even pragmatism is governed by the laws of logic despite being meaningless compared to it, and effectiveness never invalidates moral obligation, but in this context, it would involve addressing many of the same errors anyway.  The way that many business leaders are not already being pragmatic in these ways, despite being irrationalists in either case, shows how far from alignment with reason they truly are.

Petty Marital Expectations

Deeply idiotic and selfish expectations, and petty ones at that, are not all that unusual as one actually gets to know various married couples.  Rather than impose no expectations that are not rooted strictly in reason or morality, with no subjectivist demands or bowing to social norms for the sake of conformity, many people approach dating and marriage with the stance that whatever they prefer is what they should receive.  A casual example is that of being uncontrollably furious or jealous if one's partner was to be flirted with or to flirt with someone else.  A petty, irrationalistic spouse might lash out or be bitter.  Not everyone would gravitate towards the same preferences or expectations even if none of them were to have forsaken philosophical assumptions, so there are other ways that people can express their pettiness in marriage.

It can go beyond the more popular nonsense like demanding that a spouse not keep or form new close opposite gender friendships, voice if they find someone else sexually attractive, or wear/not wear certain clothing around people of the opposite gender.  Some might also object to their partner not wearing their wedding ring in public at all times, remarrying after being hypothetically widowed in the future, or some other such thing.  Irrelevant, superficial, arbitrary (and thus epistemologically assumed) criteria are what this kind of insecure or egoistic person looks to in order to feel like their marriage is thriving, when these beliefs are not only false or emotionalistically motivated, but they are also potential distractions from the real problems in a marriage, such as selfishness or lack of communication.

I love wearing my wedding ring constantly because I cherish my wife, but if someone else does not wear theirs, it is not necessarily true that they have no personal attachment to their spouse or that they are attempting an affair.  Maybe they do not prefer the feel of always having it on their finger or, removing it to sleep, forget to put it back on in a rush of morning activities.  Someone else might be very personally offended that their partner would have this kind of attitude/approach to wedding rings.  It is just a ring, however.  It is not the relationship or a sign of anything having to do with marital health in itself.  In fact, a ring could be given or worn with utterly irrationalistic, hollow intentions.  In no way does it prove that a romantic relationship is strong.

A great degree of egoism is also needed, on the level of moral belief or amoral personal beliefs, to think that it is a betrayal to remarry or pursue another romantic connection after one's partner is gone.  This is like the idea that any previous dating relationship or marriage (which could have ended due to death or valid divorce rather than casual dissolution) is premature infidelity, the retrospective version of the notion.  Aside from the issue of legitimate polyamorous marriages, obviously, it cannot be infidelity to simply remarry after a beloved spouse is dead or to have already had romantic experiences before meeting/committing to one's spouse.  People who want to be their partner's "everything," an invalid and also personally crushing goal, are not satisfied with this.  They think they deserve more than genuine commitment for what it is.

Someone who is insecure, unwilling to avoid fallacies, and unwilling to correct their worldview and improve their emotional stability all together is an objectively terrible partner and cannot deserve any romantic happiness.  They either would deserve failure after failure in seeking out a marriage or just not deserve any relationship they have, since it would be based, on their end at a minimum, on falsities.  No one can deserve to be fulfilled or happy in anything but the truth since there could be no justification for belief or action unless something is both true and knowable.  Marriage is not about one person being subjectively gratified no matter what they desire.  It is a union of (hopefully) two rational, righteous people who have mutual affection and commitment towards each other irrespective of social constructs/norms like wearing rings.

The Idiocy Of Full Preterism

If Revelation was written in 95 AD as many think (not that belief or consensus makes it true, which is exactly why historical evidences never provide absolute certainty), then it could not have predicted the fall of Jerusalem to Titus in 70 AD, and thus the individual claims of the book about the future would be inapplicable to that event.  Aside from the date of its writing, preterism, the idea that some or all eschatological prophecies occurred in 70 AD, including and especially the return of Christ, would have more than just potential errors due to the year Revelation was written.  It would mean much of the Bible is outright false or misleading to the point where eschatological prophecies are absolutely deceitful in their wording since there are no contextual suggestions to the contrary.

On full preterism, Jesus has already returned in full, contradicting how an angel said Jesus would return in the same way he departed in his Ascension (Acts 1:9-11)--by being taken up into heaven, where God resides (compare Isaiah 6:1-5 with Daniel 7:9-14).  The angel said he would return as he left, and his Ascension was a distinctly visible thing according to the text.  Not even counting the details of other passages about a return of Christ (such as John 14:1-2, which I have another eschatological post on scheduled), enormous cataclysms, or a resurrection of the dead and final judgment of the wicked (Daniel 12:2), Acts 1 already refutes full preterism as a Biblically possible doctrine.  According to all historical evidences, there has never been a return of Jesus in such a manner.

Again, according to full preterism, all prophecies have already occurred.  Is the universe to continue onward with no end, supposedly?  How would the cosmos be burned with fire as 2 Peter 3:7 and 10-13 mentions, replaced by a new heavens and new earth as consistent with Revelation 21-22?  None of these things happened as described by the Bible in recorded history, certainly not as some event in 70 AD that was invisible, and thus even further from verifiability than typical sensory events that still cannot be proven to occur outside the mind as opposed to inside it.  If these prophecies are as non-literal as preterists/amillennialists claim, they could never possibly point to Biblical "evidence" for much or any of it since what the text says is according to them not what is supposed to happen!

However, the same epistemological and textual problems with full preterism render partial versions of it with regards to true "last days" eschatology likewise Biblically invalid.  Yes, the parables of Jesus and some aspects of Revelation (like the seven lamp stands of Revelation 1:12 representing the seven churches, which is explicitly clarified in 1:20), for instance, are or are almost certainly symbolic stand-ins for other, literal things.  If the Bible actually teaches that something is allegorical/non-literal, then it absolutely teaches allegory in that particular case.  What it does not do is directly or indirectly teach that Christ's Second Coming and the whole of eschatological predictions have their culmination in a Roman victory in the first century AD, after which the cosmos continues to go on as it had before.

There is no future return of Christ, no resurrection of the dead, no annihilation of the wicked (2 Peter 2:6), and so on under full preterism, yet each of these things is taught Biblically, and in a very literal manner.  These things either "already" happened in ways the Bible is woefully inadequate at describing or full preterism has nothing to do with the Bible.  Much more of the Bible than just Revelation or Matthew 24 is involved with eschatology in some way, and so there could not even be legitimacy in full preterism even if the events of Revelation were supposed to have all occured almost two millennia ago.  It is not as if resurrection or the annihilation of the wicked, among other things, is only taught in Revelation.

Tearing Apart "One Flesh"

It is very early in the Bible that the potential for husbands and wives to reach penetrating oneness is brought up in Genesis 2:24.  The two really can become like "one flesh".  Yes, divorce ends a "one flesh" relationship, though this does not necessitate the end of conversation or even friendship with a person's former spouse.  Intentional deception, unjust betrayal, neglect, violence outside of self-defense, and legalistic pressures or demands (which are controlling and subjectivist because they treat an individual's preferences as dictating how someone else should live) also destroy or thwart the intimacy that could belong to spouses and that would have to be present for the full unity of Genesis 2:24 to be realized.  This seems to be completely ignored by many evangelical anti-divorce traditionalists, who look to the New Testament in isolation and yet already have to hold to something contradicting the New Testament to think there is just one moral basis for divorce (allegedly found in Matthew 19:9 or 1 Corinthians 7:15 despite the differing grounds in each verse).

Jesus and Paul already directly permit divorce for different things in the New Testament, Paul later addresses not being partners with any wrongdoer in any context in Ephesians 5:3-7 without marriage being an exception, and the New Testament, including the words of Jesus and Paul, repeatedly affirms the Torah (such as in Matthew 5:17-19, 15:3-9, Romans 7:7, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11) that already allows many reasons for divorce (Exodus 21:9-11, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, 24:1-4).  The standard evangelical position on divorce literally contradicts the Bible on numerous levels no matter the emphasis placed on Jesus, Paul, or the Old Testament!  Jesus in particular draws attention to what is ideal for marriage in Matthew 19 without actually denying anything Yahweh reveals in the Old Testament.  Nor does he deny reason itself here, and it is true by logical necessity that a marriage does not have to end in death or divorce for the unity of "one flesh" to be torn apart.

The husband or wife who is "commanded" by their partner to do or not do things contrary to what is Biblically obligatory and permissible (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32), who is physically struck outside of self-defense (note the parallel between servants going free for physical injury in Exodus 21:26-27 and spouses divorcing over this), or who is sexually neglected (Exodus 21:10) or objectified has not been treated as if they are one flesh with their spouse.  They have been abused, which is independently addressed through the allowance of divorce for neglect in Exodus 21:10-11, neglect already being a form of abuse, with Exodus 21 also requiring that if divorce is valid for neglect, then it is permissible on Judeo-Christianity for at least anything equal or greater.  Unjust violence certainly impairs the intimacy of being one flesh physically and psychologically, and if a male or female servant is to go free for such treatment as Exodus 21:26-27 says no matter their debt or remaining years of service (Exodus 22:3, Deuteronomy 15:12) or promise of lifelong servitude (Exodus 21:5-6, Deuteronomy 15:16-17), then so too could a husband or wife go free when there is physical abuse.  They would not be sinning.  Divorce, in such circumstances and others, is just a kind of ending other than death for what once was or could have been a true one flesh relationship.

It is also ideal that no one would ever have to be put to death for their evil, for it is a travesty that any evil ever was committed.  However, the Bible mandates ongoing capital punishment for a handful of sins that go far beyond mere murder.  The fact that, if morality exists, of course no one should do that which should not be done in order to deserve just punishment does not mean that it is never justice to end a man's or woman's life.  To kill on a whim or without certain grounds is certainly Biblically evil (Exodus 20:13), but this does not mean killing is not sometimes permitted or required by morality.  Illicit killing of a human itself is to be punished with execution (Numbers 35:30-31); to kill someone using the Biblically prescribed/permitted methods for sins like murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Deuteronomy 19:11-13), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7), negligently allowing a dangerous animal to kill someone (Exodus 2:28-32), and rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) cannot possibly be unjust on the Christian worldview.  That execution would ever be deserved is a tragedy, as with divorce, but it is not prescribed only for murder, just as divorce is not permitted for only adultery.

Of course, adultery itself deserves execution (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22), so the offender should not be allowed to live long enough to be divorced and go about their life as it is.  Jesus, again, says he did not come to abolish the Law in Matthew 5:17-19 and that whoever breaks the least of its commands and teaches others to do likewise will be least in the kingdom of God.  For a society to simply enact divorce in cases of adultery as many pseudo-Christians think Matthew 19 allows is for it to act contrarily to Yahweh's laws, so Jesus could not be teaching otherwise unless the moral claims of the New Testament are simply fiction whether or not the Torah is true.  Lifelong marriage and holistic, deep intimacy within it being ideal does not logically entail that divorce is always or even usually evil.  I have not yet even addressed in this post how Deuteronomy 24:1-4 directly allows divorce for unspecified sin, which could not possibly be limited to sexual sins like the immorality mentioned in Matthew 19 since these acts already receive separate punishments.  Thus, there is direct allowance in the same Torah Jesus affirms for divorce over any sin at all.

If someone marries and their partner becomes displeasing to them, as Deuteronomy 24:1-4 puts it, because of moral indecency, he or she does not err if they leave the marriage.  Lest some fool draw non sequitur conclusions from the gendered reference in this text to a husband divorcing his wife, it is obvious that Deuteronomy 24 never says wives cannot do the same to their husbands, that Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 teach men and women are equal in an overarching sense later expressed in individual potions of the Torah's case laws, that the case law of Exodus 21:10-11 explicitly allows a woman to go free from a neglectful marriage, and that passages like the divorce-adjacent Exodus 21:26-27 directly mention both men and women.  Divorce is not only for men or only for women, and it is also not permissible only for adultery.  It is always a genuinely serious matter because a relationship that was or that could have been life-giving has been fractured to the point that one party wants or needs to exit, and they would not be in the wrong for pursuing this.  Many things popularly associated with the concept of a one flesh union nonetheless do not follow logically from this whatsoever and the Bible does not insist otherwise.  It is sin to simply divorce over amoral reasons such as not liking a spouse's cooking or aesthetic style, but Jesus does not suddenly condemn divorce for such things in Matthew 19 when he pushes back against the idea of pure no fault divorce: Deuteronomy 24:1-4 rather clearly teaches this on the other side of the Bible!

Scientific Language

Someone might not be familiar with or recall hearing the term hydrosphere, but they can still understand the distinction between water and dry land, recognizing the concept of water-related parts of a planet (the hydrosphere being the totality of a world's rivers, oceans, groundwater, glaciers, and so on).  They might not have heard of or learned a definition of the phrase quantum physics, but they can still understand the concept of a microscopic unit of matter that reduces to smaller subatomic particles, even if they are not aware of how the subatomic world behaves, other than that it would have to be consistent with logical axioms.  A glance at the night sky can show a black canopy dotted with glowing points even if a person had never heard words like outer space, celestial body, and galaxy.

The phrase Joule heating might have never been introduced to them, yet he or she can still have noticed that electrical cords can produce heat.  Science is nothing compared to reason metaphysically or epistemologically, but it is a fool who thinks that familiarity with terminology is what truly means a person grasps scientific concepts or has reflected on their everyday sensory experiences.  Science on this level is before anyone with functioning senses on a daily basis.  Education is accessible only as a social construct; reason and direct experience (though not everything can be directly experienced, not everyone will have access to the same experiences, and much of experience does not have to connect with anything external to the mind anyway) are respectively what grounds knowledge of the truth and what can prompt people to think about scientific matters.

A hypothetical person who has lived away from other people and never created or learned a language could still observe that a detached tree limb falls or that one kind animal feasts in another.  Words like gravity and carnivore are wholly necessary for this.  Language has to be constructed in reference to something that is or can already be known or perceived, or else no one would even have assigned the words to anything.  While scientific concepts can only be known in the sense of what they are, what does or does not logically follow from them, and whether they probabilistically seem to be true (for science proves nothing except that certain natural phenomena appear to be the case), language does not ground any scientific awareness and does not have to be what prompts people to dwell on them.

Not knowing the words for circadian rhythm does not mean a person has not noticed how their body reacts to sunlight on a repeating basis as the day-night cycle passes.  Whether it is because of a sheltered childhood or forgetfulness or some other reason, a person might not have exposure to the arbitrary construct of language, and still they can know the concepts and experiences of these things in accordance with what can truly be known of science through reason as described above.  Melanin, hereditary trends of outward manifestation, symbiosis, phototropism, stalactites, and more can all be thought of, identified with the senses, and grasped as concepts without any sort of linguistic prompting, and language could not possibly be required to encounter the evidence for a given scientific phenomena, see its observed characteristics, or deduce its relationship to the logical axioms that all things are governed by.

Cruel Punishments

A human can, according to some stories like that of a 1905 execution, potentially stay alive and conscious in the head for a short period after the decapitation (usually said to be no more than around half a minute), but the means of execution itself is rather tame compared to many other possible methods.  Beheading can appear quite intimidating and brutal but is seemingly very quick and generally painless, short of a dull blade needing to be dropped multiple times to fully sever the head or a brief amount of consciousness (and hypothetical pain) after the decapitation.  For the most part, execution procedures have not combined swiftness, general lack of pain, and brutality of imagery all at once.

Some other options, like the more modern firing squad, at least tend to not be incredibly, purposefully prolonged like some have been throughout the historical record.  Standard drop hanging could lead to immediate unconsciousness or death.  Even suffering for hours, though, would be far less terrible than what the ancient or sometimes modern world carried/carries out.  Plutarch speaks of Persian scaphism, where forced overfeeding, constant sun exposure, and consumption by the likes of scavenging bugs were all used in conjunction.  The victim was said to be placed in a boat on their back and smeared with honey, left for flies and bees, and made to defecate by the forced eating, which brought more creatures that would start entering the victim.

Then there is the Assyrian habit of eagerly flaying captives, where the skin is removed slowly from the body while someone is still alive.  Josephus and Tacitus (in works like Antiquities of the Jews, The Jewish War and Annals) speak of a far more renowned form of utterly cruel execution style: Roman crucifixion.  This had no single reported variation, with some people being impaled in their genitals according to Seneca the Younger.  Flogging, forced nudity, the nailing of the limbs or other body parts, and public exposure to the elements contributed to torture that, like with scaphism, could last for consecutive days.  It could be utilized specifically to artificially extend the extreme torture.

That many evangelicals say crucifixion was deserved by people besides Jesus, such as by the thieves crucified with him, only reveals that they are horrendously opposed to Biblical ethics (Deuteronomy 25:3 alone, among other passages in the Torah that are relevant to various aspects of Roman crucifixion, by extension condemns practices like this).  Many of these idiots also likely think that Biblical stoning is some egregious, unjust thing that would be sinful to reintroduce to contemporary society, though they say they obey the Bible (which commands stoning in select circumstances), approve of forbidden and far worse legal punishments, or support things like the American prison system with its objectively far more severe nature.  

Life imprisonment, even aside from solitary confinement, sexual or physical abuse, is far more harsh a penalty (and one excluded by the Biblical kinds), with its perhaps many years of isolation that a person would simply have to endure.  This is without the rape and nonsexual savagery that is actively encouraged or casually approved of by many Americans!  Stoning, one of the more prominent execution methods prescribed by God in the Bible (which would still be binding of Christianity is true: Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Malachi 3:6, Matthew 5:17-20, James 1:17), is blatantly, objectively minor even compared to America's prisons.  One blow to the head could bring unconsciousness.  The ancient pagan world is reputed to have practiced tortures that far exceed the absolutely mild prescriptions of Yahweh in Mosaic Law, and so does present day America.  If Christianity is true, justice in this life and the next [1] has been very much misunderstood.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-real-punishment-we-biblically.html

The Sabbath And Alcohol Sales

In Texas, a specific kind of blue law, or law that unbiblically/legalistically prohibits certain sales on the "Sabbath," criminalized the sale of alcohol at arbitrary times on Sundays.  The legal permittance has shifted to allow for a broader timeframe of alcohol purchasing at various establishments as of recent times, but the very motivation behind any iteration of this law is erroneous on the Christian worldview.  This is the case not only because the Sabbath is Biblically binding on all people, as opposed to strictly Jews of Old Testament times as taught by many, if not all, evangelicals (Exodus 35:2, Malachi 3:6).  The timing of the Sabbath from week to week on the level of calendar days is not fixed, among other errors.

A blue law would only be tied to Sunday in the first place because of the myth that the Sabbath is Biblically tied to Sunday in the Gregorian calendar even though 1) the Sabbath is never prescribed for a specific day of the calendar week (there is only a pattern of one day of rest for every six days of work) and 2) if the Sabbath was about no professional establishments operating at all, there would be nothing that should be done to conduct business transactions in a store, not merely the sale of alcohol.  The singling out of alcohol sale/use on Sundays, as if Sunday is the mandatory day of the Sabbath anyway, it absolutely idiotic, but even moreso is the emphasis on specific windows of time within the exact same day-night cycle and calendar day being "legitimate" for selling alcohol.

Since the Sabbath is one day out of seven, it would not matter if alcohol was only sold after 12:00 PM or 10:00 AM, the old and new allowances under Texas law (the latter reportedly enacted in 2021).  It would be prohibited universally during that day!  However, since all human calendars are irrelevant social constructs and the Sabbath is about a pattern rather than a specific, inflexible day (such as Saturday or Sunday) that never floats from one week to another, an employee could sell alcohol on a given day, an act of professional work, and the customer might be only making a purchase on their own personal Sabbath.  The Sabbath days for different individuals could be on different days in the same week.

It is also not true that the Bible says not to drink alcohol on the Sabbath (Deuteronomy 4:2).  As long as someone does not get drunk, descend into alcoholism, or allow alcohol to lead to them actually engaging in some gratuitous physical labor (especially professionally), their alcohol consumption is of course permissible whether it is their Sabbath, someone else's Sabbath day, or any other recurring calendar day.  Most Christians and non-Christians simply have no fucking idea what the Bible actually says about practically anything and are even worse at understanding what is and is not logically necessitated by a certain concept, Biblical or not.  Blue laws as structured in Texas law are contrary to Mosaic Law itself.

Maintaining Intimacy In Friendships

Strong relationships based on reason and personal openness either need or deserve to have their intimacy preserved.  Active engagement and the feelings of intense intimacy might become far more difficult to sustain, even when both parties are of course willing and eager, because of miscellaneous life trials, the need to take care of oneself or one's family in adulthood, and the perhaps diminishing mental energy someone experiences as they age.  Some of these obstacles are personal or natural and some only take their current form because of the delusions of broad society, professional work's role in America being among the latter.

The trap of the workplace, which so many unfortunately rely on just to survive, already can demand a large amount of time every single week, which not only fills that time and typically prevents meeting with any friends outside of the job, but also can leave people so exhausted for the only days they have off that socialization seems overwhelming.  Then, though not a mere social construct, there is the desire many have to date or marry, which can occupy another enormous amount of time each week even if it, like the workplace, turns out to require a massive time investment to often tread in place in a mediocre or terrible relationship.

One can and should balance marriage or dating with established friendships without sacrificing one for the other, though, given that all the friends and the significant other are rationalistic equals (not many people are rationalists, so finding such equals can be highly challenging).  Even so, between the needs of practical and personal life such as labor or sleep and the surprise trials that might spring up, it is not necessarily easy to maintain every friendship that deserves one's devotion.  Time and energy can become more and more strenuous a thing to give with work and exhaustion weighing down.

One way or another, it is vital that one engage in persistent communication and seize what opportunities to meet and celebrate the friendship that one can.  Although geography and other factors might interfere with seeing friends in person, technology permits people to hear each other's voices and see each other's very faces.  This is a wonder that many appear I take for granted across their lives.  No, it is not the same as being in the physical presence of a friend or other loved one and seeing their face or hearing their words, but it is no minor thing to have this capability in the present era.

Maintaining intimacy in friendships as the pressures and distractions of life, particularly adult life, roar into prominence in early adulthood is not always the easiest accomplishment, depending on the individual disposition of the friends involved.  However, it is one of the only social interactions worth persevering in seeking out.  Lesser relationships might come and go, never reaching the same quality and depth as rationalistic friendships--which a truly great marriage ultimately is another example of--and the sometimes socially constructed demands of adult or modern life might drain one of energy, but rationalistic relationships are not something to be allowed to casually slip away.

Hilbert's Hotel

The concepts of Hilbert's Hotel involve not a paradox, as the "thought experiment" is sometimes called, but an inherent contradiction.  Many things are called possible or impossible by people who are in the grip of assumptions, and thus they wildly misunderstand both.  Some truths are necessary: they are true in themselves and could not have been any other way because anything to the contrary would still rely on these things being true.  For instance, it could not be true that there is no truth, so something (logical axioms and other necessities) is always true.  Thus, they cannot be false despite how anything in conflict with them could only be false.  The veracity of logical axioms and the fact that one cannot perceive anything at all, not even doubting that one exists, without existing as a consciousness are the examples.  Possibility is determined by whether something is consistent with these or any other necessary truths (not all necessary truths are self-evident as these are).

Anything that is not consistent with these or some other truth is genuinely impossible rather than whatever strikes someone as odd or unfamiliar.  Now, some things are logically possible in that they could have been true even if they are not.  Because I perceive grass to not be gold, it cannot possibly be true that I am perceiving it to be that very color, but, the issue of the reality beyond the perceptions aside, I could have seen red or gold grass upon entering this world rather than what I observe.  Hilbert's Hotel does not deal with something like this.  Pertaining to the nature of infinity, the idea is one of a hotel with an infinite number of rooms which are all full--however, since there is always another room in an infinitely large hotel, there would always be a place for a newcomer, or else the hotel would not really be infinite.

Infinity added to infinity is still endless at least in one direction.  If this kind of hotel was possible, one could always have the guest in one room move to the next room, such as with the person in room 106 moving to room 107.  If the number of rooms are infinite, though, there is always another room that can be taken without any current guest having to move to the next available room.  It could not be that a hotel would be entirely full and yet be capable of always accepting a new guest by having everyone move one room up/over if there is an infinite number of rooms to start with.  Since a hotel being full and yet simultaneously having additional rooms for more guests is a logical contradiction, this is impossible, though reason still necessitates that certain things follow from the premises.  It is just that the premises nullify each other because of the intrinsic axiom of non-contradiction.

A hotel of infinite rooms could be full and not full at once, rendering the idea logically impossible.  Although it is not the same as other notions related to infinity, such as the concept of the universe having an infinite number of past events, it exemplifies why some manifestations of infinity are not even hypothetically real and could not have been the case in any counterfactual universe (as necessary truths, the laws of logic would be unchanged and transcend all matter, spirit, and other existents).  An infinite sequence of past moments would never reach the present, which can be logically proven to exist.  An infinite past is thus impossible.  On the contrary, at a microscopic level, one could always reduce a log or some other object in half, given the right supernatural or technological means of doing do, because a finite distance or unit of matter could be constantly lessed in size without eliminating its existence altogether.  Hilbert's Hotel does not feature this kind of logically possible infinity.

Language's Deep Ambiguity

The only words one can know the meaning of with absolute certainty are one's own.  One can certainly recognize patterns, however erratic or conflicting or random, in how others seem to use the same words, but one would have to already literally know their minds to know what they intend.  Words can be misleading and they are always ambiguous on their own.  Thus, one can never know from them what the contents of another mind really are.  It does not follow from someone using a word that they must mean exactly what someone else does, and one is already trapped within one's own consciousness regardless.  Words do allow for more precise communication than grunts or gestures.  One can only hope to convey so much by pointing, waving, or groaning, after all.  Even so, all language is inherently, hopelessly ambiguous to varying degrees.

As mental or social constructs, human words are neither necessary truths of logic like axioms nor sensory objects one finds in the natural world.  They are created to reference things other than themselves.  For the sake of more detailed communication--or attempts at it--they are necessary if people are to interact beyond the most superficial non-linguistic means.  Words are thus arbitrarily conjured up and associated with various concepts.  To someone who has never thought about the metaphysics and epistemology of language, at least free of assumptions, their own cultural wording might seem so natural and apparent, but even if they never encountered a speaker of an outside language, they could at any time choose to realize that there is nothing about a happenstance sound or character that has any inherent meaning.

They could come to see that it is not obvious what others mean by their words, but that what they seem to intend can be obvious.  Beyond the fundamental nature of linguistic communication between isolated minds, there are even additional ambiguities in some languages that are more blatant to non-rationalists.  Systems like verbal Mandarin (not the written kind, which is as if it is a whole separate language) and Swahili, spoken in some Eastern African countries like Kenya, are languages with only gender-neutral pronouns, so there would be no specification of "he" or "she," or not a spoken clarification when it comes to Mandarin.  To someone such as an English speaker, this introduces more than the normal, baseline level of uncertainty.  Significant but fluctuating amounts of ambiguity are simply already present with all verbal or written exchanges aside from this.

The features or lack thereof in particular languages are not what necessitates that all words, by themselves, always unclear to an extent.  It is thoughts and intentions that dictate what objective concept was meant by a given usage of a word.  If one could see into other minds with absolute certainty, one would precisely know what their words mean with no capacity for disconnect, but then one would have no need for language altogether.  One could just gaze into other minds directly!  It is not just that some words have multiple meanings, that some words/phrases are absent from specific languages, or that languages such as Latin, like individual words, can go "extinct" (fading from public familiarity) or evolve.  One cannot know anything more than the seeming meaning of other minds' communication from audible noises or written symbols.

Other than the idiocy of passive assumptions like non sequiturs (which a person can identify without the prompting of language since logic is true prior to/independent of words), there could be personal motivations to believe things to the contrary.  It might be deeply painful to think that one does not really know the thoughts or feelings of a treasured spouse or friend.  The metaphysical isolation brought by this epistemological restriction might be uncomfortable in moments where one craves genuine interpersonal connection.  Then there are possibilities like someone not wanting to admit that they cannot know anything more than what words appear to mean in some text they hold dear.  No perception from within a non-telepathic or non-omniscient mind could prove the interior of other minds.  It can take rationality and potentially courage to truly understand this.

"If Thy Brother, An Hebrew Man Or An Hebrew Woman . . ."

In Hebrew and in English translations of the Bible such as the King James Version, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and to a lesser extent the New International Version prior to 2011, the Bible sometimes uses words like he, him, man, and men when it has just been explicitly specified that men and women alike are meant.  Otherwise, such translations and the original languages might use male words when neither gender is excluded by the statement, but men and women are also not separately mentioned.  In Mosaic Law, these things are especially important because they emphasize, though there are many other logical and Biblical reasons why just using male language by default would not teach sexism towards men or women in various statements, that the same sins by or against men and women are of course sins meriting the same reactions.  See Exodus 21:26-27 (one place where this is done to emphasize that men and women are equal victims of the same sin), Leviticus 13:29-39, Numbers 5:5-7 (a place where men and women are both listed as perpetrators), Deuteronomy 13:6-10, and so on in, say, the KJV for examples of men and women being mentioned independently and then jointly mentioned again using male words.

Deuteronomy 15:12 in the King James Version actually uses the word brother, mentions that a woman is also referenced by that word, and then goes back to using a male word to speak of someone whom the text just said could be either a man or a woman:

Deuteronomy 15:12 (KJV)--"And if thy brother, an Hebrew man or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serves thee six years; in the seventh year thou shall let him go free from thee."

This would even aside from all other logical and Biblical affirmation of gender equality in Christian ethics have clear ramifications for what the wording of many other passages in Mosaic Law and elsewhere would mean, only a small number of which are provided below.  To emphasize the default nature of male words for all people, the following passages are quoted from the King James Version, as with Deuteronomy 15:12 above.

Deuteronomy 15:2--"And this is the manner of the release: every creditor that lendeth aught unto his neighbor shall release it: he shall not exact it of his neighbor, or of his brother, because it is called the Lord's release."

Deuteronomy 22:1-3--"Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.  And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thy own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and though shalt restore it to him again.  In like manner shalt thou do with his ass, and so shalt thou do with his raiment: and with all lost things of thy brother's which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest not hide thyself."

Deuteronomy 24:7--"If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise out of him, or selleth him: then that thief shall die, and thou shalt put away evil from among you."

Deuteronomy 24:10-11--"When thou dost lend thy brother anything, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.  Thou shalt stand abroad, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee."

Deuteronomy 25:3--"Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee."

Matthew 18:15--"'Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.'"

Luke 17:3--"'Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and he repent, forgive him.'"

Even aside from the fact that the male language of "brother" or "brethren" in these verses in light of Deuteronomy 15:12's wording in English and Hebrew alone encompasses all people, male or female, there are separate, blatant affirmations that some of these things would have to be gender neutral even if someone never looked past the male language of a given verse and looked past the gender equality of Genesis 1:26-27.  Concerning how Deuteronomy 25:1-3 speaks of a man (a human), a "brother", being flogged, Exodus 21:20-21 in Hebrew and all English translations explicitly mentions male and female slaves being subjected to corporal punishment and only condemns abuses of this, while Leviticus 19:20 in the KJV and NKJV makes it clear that the offending woman in question would be flogged (though the NKJV makes it clear that of course the man would be punished the same way as well).  Deuteronomy 25:1-3's lashes are the default punishment for criminal sins when nothing else is specified, and since men and women are equal (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-2) and therefore equally guilty for the same sins and deserving of the same punishments, only an idiot would ever think that Deuteronomy 25:1-3 even in isolation limits corporal punishment to men, as if they deserve greater physical harshness or as if women are morally superior and would never do anything worthy of lashes!

As for the money and property-related teachings of Deuteronomy 15:2, 22:1-3, and 24:10-11, Deuteronomy 15:12-18 specifically affirms that women can have their own property, married or not.  Never is a woman owning property condemned, and it follows necessarily from both genders having God's image that of course both can hold their own property, but Deuteronomy 15:12-18 directly says that female slaves of a person's own country, upon release, should be liberally supplied with belongings just like freed male slaves.  If a woman who has just come out of slavery is allowed to own property, of course a lifelong free woman could!  However, the plain clarification in Deuteronomy 15:12 that a man or woman is in view with the word "brother", aside from other male words demonstrably being the default for people of both genders in older translations of the Bible, means that the references to a brother are references to a fellow person or a person from one's own country depending on the context.

There are obviously, to a rational person, many ways to show that these verses in their older male-default language, even on their own, are not saying that women are not to have their debts cancelled, to not be given corporal punishment (which would be sexist against men), or to not possess property of their own.  They simply do not say such a thing.  Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2, in saying that men and women bear God's image, would nevertheless have clear ramifications for gender equality in victimization by sins (see also Exodus 21:15, 17, 26-32, and many more), the perpetration of sin, and the punishment for sin (see also Leviticus 20:15-16, 27, Numbers 5:5-7, and more), for the moral rights and obligations of both would be the same.  Many verses in Mosaic Law and the general Old Testament use male language after specifically referencing both genders (Exodus 21:20-21, Job 31:13-15, and Isaiah 24:1-6 are more examples), so unless the context excludes it, both genders are always being mentioned/addressed wherever there is male language.

Yes, since men and women have no gender-specific psychological traits, there could not even be this basis for different treatment of men and women when literal anatomy is not the issue; it is logically impossible for having certain genitalia to be metaphysically tied to moral rights or personality characteristics, since one does not entail the other and since different people are individuals.  The objective logical truths about what does and does not follow from physical gender and about individualism refute the very possibility of religious or secular complementarianism--that is, this is not even something that could have been true but is not, in the same way that grass could have been perceived to be red instead of green, though it is not.  The Bible would have to be consistent with these logically necessary facts to even possibly be true, and it is both consistent with them and directly affirmative of them.  The way that Deuteronomy 15:12 specifies, as many other verses in older translations of the Bible do, that women are often also addressed or included by words like man, he, and brother is one way the Bible does this.

Oppressive Business Leaders

Since there are stereotypes about Indian, white, male, female, or other such business executives or managers, it needs to be understood that oppressive business leaders are not cruel or selfish or hypocritical (as literally almost every non-rationalist already is or would be the moment it became subjectively appealing to them, with or without a context of corporate power) because of their race or their gender.  Being a man or being white or Indian does not mean someone will tolerate or delight in exploiting workers, just as being a woman or being a member of a different racial group does not make someone a rational, just, compassionate, or competent business leader.  There are some cultures that strongly encourage stupidity and injustice in the workplace, but the problem is that at one point in time enough fools had power to influence a culture and enough fools submitted to them, entrenching idiotic and destructive business norms.

Skin color or geographical location is always intrinsically irrelevant.  Just as a white CEO who exploits his or her workers is not doing so because they are white or a black person who commits a crime is not a criminal because they are black, an Indian who perpetuates a cruel workplace is not doing so because they are Indian.  In the case of the latter, they either allowed reportedly hyper-oppressive Indian workplace norms because they were stupid enough to think tradition is valid or their personalities make them individuals who gravitate towards exploitation left to themselves.  Their skin color, as well as their lineage and gender, have not a damn thing to do with it.  At the same time, their skin color, gender, lineage, or nationality (nationality is not at all the same thing as race) cannot make them deserve less harshness for their irrationality.  Neither toleration nor unjust harshness or irrelevant criticism is ever justified.

Some cultures simply tend to have higher or more intense levels of workplace exploitation because most people, regardless of their race or gender, are fools who are largely willing to go along with arbitrary, conflicting, or blatantly irrationalistic norms, and if a society has already trended towards hypocrisy, egoism, and other kinds of stupidity, it takes a very bold and resolute person to defy the culture--and more importantly, do so on a strictly rationalistic basis and not because of petty emotional disatisfaction with the status quo.  In these cultures, people happen to find themselves in societies that are already full of asinine traditions.  It is not as if a person can choose which culture they are born into or raised in.  Since the vast majority of people are not and probably will always choose to be non-rationalists, these cultures change for the better slowly, if at all.  This is how some cultures can produce abusive employer after abusive employer: it is stupidity on the part of whoever shaped the culture how it is beforehand and everyone who gives in to personal emotionalism/subjectivism or cultural conditioning.

The predominant skin color or other irrelevant characteristics of people in a culture just have nothing to do with it.  That there are people who respond to workplace exploitation with racism or sexism (or classism, as hating or stereotyping people for having some arbitrary amount of money or for not being raised in poverty is fairly popular) further exemplifies how pathetic non-rationalists are.  Only rationalists could deserve to have power, in business just as in politics.  No one else is fit to rule anything from a small business to a grand empire because no one else avoids assumptions and lives for anything more than their own subjective, random whims and perceptions.  With the only exceptions being extremely young children or people with certain mental disabilities, every non-rationalist is, in addition to being thoroughly irrational to some extent, only just or competent by accident.  It is no wonder that non-rationalists with business power often end up exploiting their workers, intentionally or unintentionally.

Pagan Belief Or Commitment And Practice: Which Is A Capital Sin?

It is logically impossible, if such a thing exists, for anyone to have a right to sin (doing what is evil would be something one should avoid at all costs, not something each person can be in the right to pursue).  There is the volitional freedom to sin, yet this is not the same as the right to believe, intend, or behave as one subjectively wishes no matter what.  By necessity, this would extend to issues of religion.  Not all religions can be true.  Though there is an uncaused cause either way [1], all religions could be false.  If Christianity is true, of course other religions are contrary to reality in an amoral and moral sense, and still, despite how some insist the opposite, the Torah with all of its capital punishment commands does not say to put anyone to death simply for mentally embracing another religion.

Philosophical beliefs and commitments are not what is to be punished with execution by fellow humans.  Never does the Bible say to kill someone for being an atheist, which is not even an error involving commitment to another religion, or for being a Wiccan or an adherent of some other form of "mere" ideological paganism--that is, holding to the philosophy itself.  Aside from the universal prescription of capital punishment for particular religious offenses (see the paragraph below), when Yahweh tells the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of the Promised Land, he does not say to do so because of their ideological errors or assumptions, but because of their deeds (Deuteronomy 18:9-13).  See Leviticus 20:1-21 for some examples of what God says he is going to drive out the pagans of the Promised Land for (20:22-24).

Sacrificing to another god (Exodus 22:20), enticing someone to worship other deities (Deuteronomy 13:6-10), personally worshipping an idol, the natural world, or another deity (Deuteronomy 17:2-7), and practicing components of certain other religions like sorcery (Exodus 22:18) or spiritism (Leviticus 20:27) are capital sins, but not private mental assent to any form of paganism or other worldview, though many philosophical stances would be irrational or sinful to hold anyway.  Not only are ideological religious commitments never decreed sins worthy of execution, but on their own, they could never provide evidence of their presence detectable by two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15); non-telepaths cannot see into each others' minds, so the requirement of at least two or three witnesses for all executions and other criminal punishments could not be met if someone only believes, however fallaciously, in a religion besides Judeo-Christianity.

A person who silently holds to a given religious or even broader, more foundational philosophical error is not to be killed or otherwise legally penalized.  It is not just a matter of them being silent and thus keeping their worldview a secret, but that sins of the mind alone are not sins to be terrestrially punished.  By the standard prescribed in the Torah, this is not justice since every legally punishable offense is of an outward kind, but this is not because everyone has a right to believe whatever they wish.  Whether or not morality exists, no one could be justified in believing anything apart from pure logical proof either through self-evidence as with axioms or because one thing follows by necessity from another.  Also, whether or not morality exists, no one could have a moral right to believe as they please because if morality does not exist (only at most moral feelings/preferences or social norms), no one has a right to anything, and if it does, no one could have a right to believe that which is false or immoral.

What is demonstrably false by logical necessity or epistemologically assumed is baseless on the level of belief even in a wholly amoral sense, and what is immoral could never be anyone's right to believe in or practice because immorality is by nature that which should not be done.  Even so, although the Bible's doctrines are consistent with all of this, it never says to punish someone in any form except for those who commit specific behaviors that have at least two or three witnesses/evidences testifying to their guilt.  Having a certain worldview, no matter how asinine or evil it is, is not among these capital offenses.  For sins strictly of the mind, only biological death and the second death in hell (Romans 6:23, Matthew 10:28, Ezekiel 18:4, 2 Peter 2:6) are deserved instead of premature death at other humans' hands.

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

Uncompensated Work

To voluntarily work outside of normal hours, even without additional compensation, for the sake of benefitting a just employer is not obligatory, but it could be way to express gratefulness or affection for someone who does not misuse their power as an employer.  To demand or expect this kind of, at most, supererogatory behavior (good but not morally mandatory), and even moreso to enforce it by punishing those who do not go above their job duties, is itself unjust, the exploitative manipulation of people into working when there is no personal benefit or moral obligation in doing so.  A selfish, irrationalistic manager will think they are entitled to other people's surplus time and effort, and at any resistance to their tyrannical whims, they might asininely feel like they are actually the ones being mistreated.

A very misleading phrase that has in recent times been used to refer to not doing more than one's core job duties is "quiet quitting," which makes it sound like someone is resigning from their job without providing any notice.  As inept at communicating as many people are, it is unsurprising that some non-rationalist devised the phrase quiet quitting to mean the practice of simply doing what one is supposed to do for a role and nothing more.  In other words, a person who quiet quits (what a fucking stupid phrase it is!) does the bare minimum for their jobs.  This is not the same as being intentionally incompetent at one's work or being lazy.  No, it is to refrain from providing free labor when one is unwilling to do so.

Again, it is not necessarily irrational, unjust, or naive to perform additional tasks or to genuinely want to help a specific kind of employer succeed.  It should still eventually be rewarded in some form, whether with a monetary bonus or some professional favor that roughly corresponds to its impact.  At a minimum, it would deserve some sort of direct recognition and acknowledgement although some employers would despise the idea of this.  Unfortunately, many workplaces in countries like America or India are places where emotional manipulation or threats are instead used to "persuade" workers to do more than they need to, or where those who do only what their job specifically entails, even if they do it well, are overlooked for raises or promotions.

To persistently complete more work than is called for by a job's actual nature, either by the nature of the tasks themselves or the amount of time one is set to work, remains a sacrifice of time and energy that a worker is free to make if they hope to be rewarded.  Despite this, not only is refusing to do more than is necessary assumed by some irrational employers to be an excuse to dismiss someone from consideration for better pay or career opportunities, but working above and beyond what one's role requires is not a guarantee that one will be better compensated or even noticed.  In fact, some managers/employers might just complain or react with greater irrationality if such a worker suddenly begins to quiet quit.

Just as one could freely pay a vendor more than their wares are sold for as a tip or to show appreciation for the service or the vendor himself/herself, one could go above one's specific professional responsibilities in order to convey goodwill.  Since this is not owed by the employee to the employer, it cannot rationally and justly be demanded by the latter, but this can be legitimately offered by the former under certain circumstances.  So many workplaces do not offer the circumstances where rational workers, who neither think highly of themselves in an emotionalistically arrogant way nor eagerly submit themselves for exploitation, would have a reason to do more than their job truly calls for.

There Is No Human Nature Beyond This...

Because some things are logically impossible, it cannot be the case even hypothetically that any person--or any being, God included--has any contradictory traits.  I do not mean contradictory traits as in a person believing in inconsistent ideas that cannot be true at once.  A person cannot be six feet tall and five feet tall simultaneously, though they could be just one height or the other.  They of course could have conflicting beliefs or priorities, but they cannot be extraverted and not extraverted at once.  They cannot have affection for something and have no affect for it at all at the same time: even hatred and love are not contradictory!  To be human is not to be extraverted, to love, or to have a particular worldview although only strict rationalism and all it entails are valid.

Other than things like the metaphysical unity of an immaterial consciousness in the specific kind of mammalian, bipedal body that humans have, there is no human nature.  There is only the nature of conscious and physical beings as dictated by logical necessities and there is the nature of individuals on an intellectual, moral, and psychological level.  Humans are not destructive, peaceful, rational, irrational, and so on; individuals have these qualities.  There is always the capacity for each of these things in every person if they chose to pursue them, but there is only default personality and yielding to cultural conditioning that shapes a person unless they look to reason and forsake all assumptions, and even when it comes to personality and culture, humans are very different from other humans.

People could be cruel or they could be tolerant.  They could be neither of these things; they could be neither and still be loving and selfless.  None of these possibilities is "human nature," and none could be the nature of beings that are inherently individualistic.  People are not by necessity as specific individuals one way or another in anything that is not the absolute core of being metaphysically human.  With any personality characteristic, moral alignment, philosophical aptitude, or other talent, any beings besides those under hypothetical mind control from the same source are inevitably capable of being different on all levels except necessary ones.

A human is still a human no matter which of the logically possible beliefs, priorities, personalities, physical variances, or emotional states they have.  For the same reason a man or woman does not have any given moral status or psychological trait because of their gender--because it does not logically follow by necessity--humans are no different on the level of their humanity in this regard then they are with gender and race.  There is no human nature beyond the handful of specific metaphysical constants, which spam phenomenological and biological factors alike.  Even if a person lost something like a hand or a foot, that humans naturally tend to be bipedal or have two hands is part of human nature short of deformity, and the combination of consciousness (with the ability to grasp the objective laws of logic) and body is another.  Very little of what else is called human nature is human nature at all.  

Better Compensation Than Industry Norms

A non-rationalist who makes fewer assumptions than another non-rationalist is not necessarily more rational, but less irrational. A murderer who has killed 10 people is not righteous as opposed to someone who has murdered 20 people, but less evil. Having two broken doors in one's home is not good, but it is better for general living than having three broken doors.  For the same reason, an employer who pays better than a competitor might still be underpaying as much as they expect to get away with or whatever the bare minimum is to have a somewhat positive reputation.  The pay could still be terrible except compared to some other amount in light of factors like the cost of living, the effort involved in the job, and so on.

A company's compensation or benefits could be better than the industry norm, yes, but this does not mean they are livable or good--it only necessitates that they are better than some lesser alternative that might be much, much worse!  Better is not inherently the same as good, though it is less bad.  Getting paid 10 dollars an hour instead of 7.35 is a stronger position to be in, but neither of them will do much to help someone in contemporary America who needs, say, $30,000 or more just to survive comfortably while perhaps saving some money aside.  Depending on one's region, one might need far more than that to simply get by.

One might find that a confronted employer (of the irrational kind, since there is nothing about being an employer that necessitates this) thinks that paying more, in actuality or according to their erroneous delusions, than some other company makes their compensation good by default.  Is it livable?  Can someone afford housing (either a true home or some rented property) in spite of requirements like needing to make three times one's rent, enough food to not have to skip meals out of poverty, health items like sufficient amounts of toothpaste or soap, ans so on?  If it is livable in the most literal sense, is it also enough for a person to live on even if sudden emergencies spring upon them?  Can they save for a more financially secure future?

If the answer to any of these is no, then the compensation is in no way pragmatically good (and if humans have moral rights such as a right to live unless they commit a capital sin, then this would also be morally good).  It is either abysmal or it is barely enough to afford what is needed to strictly stay alive in a potential status of miserable hunger, thirst, fear, and despair.  Someone who thinks that they are rational and just for merely doing better than another employer, in addition to perhaps only caring out of utilitarian greed, is not good.  It could certainly be possible for them to be less greedy, less malicious, or less philosophically asinine.  They would not be a good employer for this alone.

Allowing Others To Hate When One Is Merciful

I would never advise anyone to be merciful in spite of me (perhaps just temporarily) gravitating towards it.  Of other people or my own self if I so much as lost interest in mercy, I of course, as any thoroughly rationalistic person would, have nothing against hating, confronting, mocking, and betraying non-rationalists in general, if only one is able to do these things without actually violating any objective moral obligation (feelings are irrelevant and obligations that exist might be very different than what many people want anyway).  Hatred and confrontation and mockery can be done without actually giving up mercy as well, for one could be hateful in a logically and morally legitimate way while still withholding other deserved harshness.  One would no longer be merciful if one went further so as to engage in something like calculated relational betrayal.

In speaking of hatred, I am not talking about feelings of intense dislike that are involuntary.  These cannot be good or evil or irrational either way since they do not reflect beliefs or behaviors.  I mean hatred stemming from worldview or personality.  To hate someone because they were born with a penis or a vagina is asinine.  To hate someone because they come from a certain country or have a certain skin color, black or white or anything else, is asinine.  Hating someone for being emotionalistic, abusive, or in any way unrepentantly irrational (to an extent proportionate to their delusion or sin) could not possibly be erroneous.

As of the time of writing this, at least, I am eager to be generally merciful.  Some individuals and some errors have made me contemplate if I want to continually maintain this merciful attitude, but thus far, I have not gone back to my well-known and potent hatred of irrationalistic people and not just false concepts, as delightful and empowering as it is.  My worldview was and is the same either way.  Since mercy is withholding justice out of something like love or pity, and justice is by default obligatory, to be merciful or unmerciful is fine regardless as long as one is not irrational in the process.  Certainly, I do not oppose other people being hateful in valid ways and acting on that hatred as long as they do not believe anything irrational (assumed or contradictory) or act in an unjust way (such as physically assaulting someone).

If someone else does not personally desire to be merciful, even if it did bother me, what basis could there be for pushing back?  They can accurately insult non-rationalists for their egregious stupidity or excitedly long for the deaths of the wicked and not be irrational or evil.  Mercy is optional by nature, so to truly expect or demand mercy to always be shown by everyone is invalid.  There is also the crucial distinction between what mercy and justice actually are.  If shooting someone in the head is the deserved penalty for kidnapping, for instance, then opposing the prolonged torture of a kidnapper is not mercy; it is rationality and justice.  However, if kidnappers do deserve death and a rationalistic person was to hope for their just death and find deep pleasure at the longing for it, then it is morally just for them to have this disposition and even a merciful person has no right to oppose this.

One day, I might return to my familiar  unflinching, rationalistic hatred of everyone who is not at least trying to be an equal, ally, or friend in their alignment with reason.  It is not as if the Bible is against this (Leviticus 20:23 and Psalm 5:5-6, for example).  It is not as if any amount of discomfort from those on the receiving end of rational, righteous hatred makes it evil.  Until that day arrives, if it does, I could still have no justification to expect anyone else to be as I am and desire to show mercy.  If no mercy was to ever be sought or exhibited by anyone ever again, there would be nothing wrong with this state of affairs.  Lack of mercy in anyone else is therefore never a problem.  Irrationality and injustice are.

Vampirism: Christianity And The Consumption Of Blood

Associated with Christianity because of several popular stories and tropes involving crucifixes, holy water, and Satan, standard vampires steal the life-energy of their victims by drinking/eating their blood, often directly from their neck, killing them.  Even though hypothetically taking the energy of another being could take alternate forms that do not involve teeth going into skin to find blood vessels, conventional vampirism has an explicit connection to blood.  This makes the storytelling links between vampirism and Christianity even stronger.  It is the taking and swallowing of blood from a victim that makes a typical vampire beyond the taking of life outside the parameters of justice.

Aside from the murder itself (Exodus 21:12-14), as well as the sorcery (explicitly demonic in origin in many stories and another capital sin according to Exodus 22:18 and more) and potential kidnapping before the murder (Exodus 21:16), the very intentional consumption of blood in itself also violates Yahweh's moral nature as well.  Exile/ostracization is the penalty for the eating of blood (Leviticus 17:14), as opposed to execution.  First, God says that he will cut a consumer of blood off from his people (17:10), and then the text says that people themselves should "cut off" anyone who eats blood from their community (17:14).

Life is in the blood, Leviticus 17 emphasizes, as without blood, a creature like a human is to die, and it is the blood of animals that once made a passing atonement for human sin. As such, vampires, logically possible (they do not contact logical axioms) but not necessarily something that would actually walk Earth even if Satan exists, are uniquely antithetical to Christian morality. Indeed, the only thing a real vampire would be able to do to make their moral status worse is some other capital or extreme sin, like rape or tortures beyond or outside of the very limited confines of Mosaic Law. Consuming blood makes them more than just typical human murderers or sorcerers.

Without actually killing someone by direct means, exiling those who consume blood as Leviticus 17:14 prescribes remains a serious penalty.  Depending upon the circumstances, exile would be an indirect form of capital punishment, an exclusion from living in a given area that could soon lead to an exclusion from life itself.  So serious is eating blood that this is a food-related command that does not hinge on the type of creature being eaten.  Regardless of which animal--including humans--blood comes from, it is never to be ingested (clearly, though, there would be a difference between accidentally eating small amounts of blood in meat and intentionally consuming blood out of apathy or emotionalism).

Whether sorcery is involved or not, someone could not get to the point of actually eating the blood of a person without possibly having committed at least one or two capital sins already and being deserving of premature death, but the archetype of a vampire that derives a cursed state with superhuman abilities from demonic power is often guilty of more than one capital sin.  A true or wishful vampire would be an individual intending or acting deeply contrary to Mosaic Law and Yahweh's nature that is revealed by it.  Specifically because of how it feeds on blood, and human blood at that, an archetypal vampire tramples upon what the Biblical Yahweh says is the sacred nature of blood.  It can be spilled, and the meat of certain animal bodies can be eaten, but to purposefully consume blood is to disregard life itself.

Jealousy And Transparency About Compensation

Talking about pay amongst employees is a legally protected activity in America under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (also termed the Wagner Act), not that the legal statutes of human governments have anything to do with whether or not rights and obligations actually exist, the truth being independent of perception and preference in either direction.  No, legality is meaningless because only reason and morality, as well as things tied to them, could matter, yet businesspeople who pay lip service to obeying the legal permissions/prohibitions might disregard it all the same.  With coworkers discussing their wages, some employers might claim that they want to eliminate this practice to stop petty jealousy over one person being paid more or less than someone else, when they could instead be purposefully underpaying some or all workers and overpaying others out of illicit favoritism.

Verbally discouraging such openness might not always be intended as a smokescreen for keeping under-compensation secret, but it could still be the case that a manager or employer who truly (and fallaciously) thinks employee jealousy is a moral issue ends up paying "poverty wages" to their entire workforce, preserving the injustice anyway all because they discouraged talking about pay with a different motive.  Still, this measure can be enforced or strongly advised by upper management specifically with the goal of preventing employees from learning about compensation disparity, including that of new hires being paid more than longstanding workers in the same role, that of family members being paid more out of nepotism, or that of any actual gender pay gap.  As for the actual concept of this objection itself, independent of a person's motives, it is epistemologically invalid either way.

It does not matter if one person (or any number of such people) will feel upset or jealous or undervalued as an employee (not as a person, such as if they are not paid livable wages by default) on the basis of their income if they are not actually being mistreated.  If they receive lower compensation that really is a matter of lesser merit or seniority instead of workplace exploitation, then their feelings are irrelevant and it thus cannot matter if open talk about compensation would bother them.  This is not a violation of their (Biblical) human rights on the part of the employer or the other employees.  Especially if they are actively incompetent, they are not being taken advantage of by being paid less than a more committed or productive worker.

Pay transparency of course might offend some people, but it is not by necessity bound to hurt anyone's feelings, for that is an individualistic issue.  Regardless, emotion is just not what makes it true or false that direct, overt discussions between employees about their compensation should be permitted and even encouraged.  The specific people who would be bothered by this simply need to improve their standing as a worker if they truly are stupid or lazy or accept the logical fact that their emotional comfort has nothing to do with reality--just as an abusive employer's feelings or comfort do not have anything to do with whether underpayment is morally permissible.  Livable compensation is a human right if people have a right to life.  Additional payment would indeed need to be earned on a personal basis.

With money and business, as with logical axioms, the uncaused cause, sexuality, scientific laws, friendship, art, and anything else, people's feelings about the matter only mean that they feel a certain way.  These emotions or perceptions or desires do not make anything else true and they also do not reveal anything more than themselves.  For workers and employers alike, irritation is only legitimate as an active motivation in pushing back against something if the thing in question is illogical or immoral.  Keeping compensation undisclosed or suppressing jealousy, particularly if continuing exploitation unnoticed is the objective, is not something that is by logical necessity morally good--and even if it was, no one has anything to base belief in this idea on besides sheer emotion and preference.

On Non-Rationalists Refusing To Admit Imperfections

No, just because one person is flawed does not mean another person is.  If morality does not exist, there can be no such thing as moral perfection, and if it does, then it is possible to be or become morally perfect.  No person can be obligated to do that which they do not have the power to do.  Either way, logical axioms, epistemologically self-evident, inherently true, and at the heart of all other things, are knowable by any willing person.  Everyone already relies on them, albeit unknowingly for many.  Concerning logic or morality and every truth associated with them, perfection of rationality (not making assumptions while at least grasping logical axioms and being open to other truths that follow) and of moral character (the willing, wholehearted upholding of whatever obligations one has) are not beyond anyone's reach.

So many people say otherwise because they do not want to face their own imperfections or the possibility of them.  Other than general, sheer irrationality, there is likely an element of deep insecurity on the part of whoever believes that they cannot be the only person out of a pair that is philosophically and morally inept.  For the sake of making himself or herself feel better, a non-rationalist might pretend like their exact flaws must be the same as those of other people--when this does not logically follow--or like all people must have some kind of flaw if the non-rationalist in question is not perfect.  It is not a matter of being human; it is a matter of being a rationalist and being fully devoted to rationalism, embracing necessary truths, forsaking assumptions, and remaining resolute.  Imperfection of these kinds, the only kinds that could have moral guilt, is always avoidable.

In an effort to not feel alone or, in some cases, as inferior to someone else as they really are, a non-rationalist might purposefully refuse to seek out these truths or will ignore the idea of them entirely.  At least a stupid, hypocritical, philosophically apathetic person could recognize that they are stupid, hypocritical, and apathetic about the only things that are inherently true or the only things that could possibly matter.  Most irrationalists or anti-rationalists will not even acknowledge this much.  They will choose to be blind to their own failings or will refrain from admitting them.  Sometimes, however, an honest admission even as they are still lost in delusions would be enough to make a critical rationalist turn to them in mercy or overt kindness, not rational judgment.

Related to this is the belief, and one that is inherently false, that the non-rationalist's irrelevant feelings of security or peace or self-esteem are more important than truth itself, without which it would not even be possible for them to exist or seek the distractions of emotionalism to start with.  They might be hurting or terrified or confused, and yet as long as they cling to errors or assumptions even of things that could be known, they are deserving to that extent of contempt, aggression, mockery, or coldness.  Someone who will not so much as affirm logical axioms, the only self-evident and intrinsically necessary truths (all other necessary truths hinge on axioms, and not even the self-evidence of one's own conscious existence means that one could not have never existed), is inferior to even waning or struggling rationalists.

Non-rationalists are people, and thus they are capable of total philosophical alignment with reason and of achieving moral perfection.  Even the Bible, which is almost certainly true, directly teaches that moral perfection is of course attainable in places like Deuteronomy 30:11, Job 1:1, and Matthew 5:48.  One could not be obligated to do what one cannot do!  As for logical truths, their inherent veracity and the fact that all other things already rely on them means that no one can truly avoid them, obliviously or intentionally, and that anyone at all except for very young children or people with the likes of dementia can go beyond knowing self-evident logical axioms if only they actually tried.  There is no excuse for stupidity or evil (outside of very precise moral dilemmas where one sins either way).  Not even having never thought of a matter or being cautious about it means someone has to make assumptions or live for emotionalism in the meantime.

Material Possessions

Does filling a shelf with personal belongings and striving to obtain more of them mean one is by necessity materialistic, apathetic towards all else, or enslaved to greed?  In Christian moral theology, are material possessions evil or at least impossible to desire without stooping to evil?  It is not so in either case.  The likes of consumerism and workplace exploitation for the sake of greed are irrational and unbiblical, but neither of these things is the same as having or wanting physical belongings for the sake of practicality or excitement.  To marvel at and actively seek to own such things is not itself a betrayal of anything deeper and higher than material comforts.

The Biblical God is certainly not opposed to monetary wealth or a wealth of possessions other than money. Mosaic Law, the only truly precise, clear, and holistic presentation of Christian moral obligations (all the others do not have all three qualities at once), does not condemn wealth acquisition even as it acknowledges that there are no sins Yahweh has not in one way or another condemned in the Torah (Deuteronomy 4:2). Though narratives are entirely secondary or irrelevant to direct moral revelation, God is also said to have blessed Job with an immense personal wealth (Job 42:12), granting him far more than what God allowed to be taken away earlier in the book to demonstrate his resoluteness to Satan. It would obviously follow if Christianity is true that the envy, greed, or emotionalism-driven pursuit of wealth and possessions is morally invalid, and the desire for money and what it can access could motivate every sort of evil (1 Timothy 6:10). These items are nonetheless amoral or good on their own.

As long as someone can afford it without resorting to theft or other sins and is not motivated by any form of irrationalistic philosophy--and as long as they are not ignoring the ways their resources could resolve more pressing problems like major health concerns for them or their dependents--then they are Biblically free to collect, use, admire, and long for material belongings.  Whether for the sake of subjective emotional enjoyment or practical convenience, each person who does so without falling into irrationality, greed, or injustice of any kind has done nothing wrong even by loving their physical possessions.  This does not usurp the love of reason, truth, God, justice, and humans unless it is allowed to.

Ownership of physical necessities and luxuries alike is not what is spiritually disruptive or morally tainting.  Enjoying them and hoping to gain more of them is not even problematic unless a person cares more for materialistic ownership of goods than grand logical truths, God himself, moral obligations, or their fellow humans.  It is only the confusion of material possessions for the heart of all things or for some kind of ultimate priority that is erroneous: erroneous logically by default since this is an invalid belief to have (and thus acting as if it is true is invalid), as the necessary truths of logic and the uncaused cause are more fundamental to reality by far, and erroneous morally according to Christian ethics, the only moral system to have any evidence in its favor.

To worship or to shun material possessions is a common attitude of non-rationalists towards them.  Some seek them out in the asinine hope that they will be able to erase or ignore their failings and limitations by drowning themselves in material comfort, pleasure, and security.  They will neglect the core truths of reality as they cling to possessions they temporarily hold onto in a relatively brief life.  Others will denounce or forgo material possessions irrationally, perhaps thinking they are virtuous just by avoiding them.  They might react to greed and consumerism by jumping to another fallacious philosophy or simply be driven by dislike of those they are envious of.  To the left or right of the truth is where many reside although all false or assumed beliefs can be avoided in full.

The Dave Ramsey Fallacy

Among evangelicals, Dave Ramsey is a popular personal finance figure.  Renowned for his deep hostility towards credit cards, he strongly encourages people to destroy them and never rely on them.  There is no danger, however, to a person's financial standing intrinsic in having a credit card, as I will address below, and I will also demonstrate that there are benefits to credit cards that far surpass those of cash.  Denial of any of these things is routine for Dave Ramsey, who is guilty of what can be called the Ramsey fallacy, that of assuming credit cards are inherently or all but inherently an avenue to financial ruin.  He is in error with other philosophical matters of Biblical theology and so on, but he is not as widely recognized for these ideas, with rejection of credit cards altogether being his most prominently advertised notion.  As helpful as this measure could be for a very specific kind of person who is entrapped by credit card debt, he makes it as clear as he can that he is simply against buying things on credit cards at all.

Having a credit card does not mean a person will ever use it, as the latter thing does not logically follow by necessity from the former.  Having a card available is different from actually putting it into use on any level.  Using it, though, does not mean a person will buy anything they did not already plan to purchase, or that they will plan to buy something they do not need--not that this is by default a moral or pragmatic problem.  Buying what one does not need does not have to entail going into gratuitous consumer debt as well.  On these points, Dave Ramsey tends to leap fully into slippery slope fallacies, demonizing credit cards as if they are conscious entities exhibiting literal mind control over consumers.  Moreover, he commits the fallacy of composition if he thinks that one person will overspend or wind up drowning in credit card debt just because someone else did/does.  One person's actions do not have to mirror those of another!

If someone is going to buy a thing anyway, whether a need or a want--and it is not Biblically sinful to buy things you do not need as long as you are not buying anything immoral or neglecting what is obligatory, such as feeding one's child--credit cards also give them a monetary benefit that cash cannot in the form of cashback.  This reward system can go beyond earning 1% of a purchase price in redeemable points.  Ramsey has pointed out the very large amount of money that must be spent with the typical credit card to receive a comparatively tiny amount of cashback, but what Dave does not like to acknowledge is that while, yes, no one intelligent is going to spend 10,000 dollars just to get 200 dollars back (this would be at a 2% rate), credit cards still have an inherent financial advantage over physical currency since there is otherwise no money one gets back at all on any purchase.

There are other distinct ways credit cards are superior to cash in certain situations.  With cash, you cannot pay for genuine emergency expenses ahead of time when there is not already money in an account for a debit card to draw from--or to withdraw in cash.  On top of this, one must travel to and from a banking location to retrieve the cash, which adds unnecessary time and, ironically, expenditure of money for gas to the process of paying for something.  Not all credit card spending and thus debt is the result of stupidity or lack of intentionality, and there will always be more effort involved in simply getting physical money ahead of time.  Furthermore, cash can be lost due to forgetfulness or theft--it is never a victim's fault if they are robbed, no matter how much they did not conceal whatever they were carrying, but at least with credit cards, fraudulent purchases can be reported and cards can be shut down.  Cash that is lost is probably lost forever.

I have never heard Dave Ramsey merely admit any of this, nor have I heard anyone else speak of him doing so.  One can easily find his anti-credit card rants on the Internet, but it is also easy for a rationalist to refute his non sequitur fallacies concerning credit cards.  Oh, he is logically and Biblically wrong on other matters too, yet none of them are necessarily as overtly emphasized in his presented monetary philosophy as eliminating not just credit card debt, but credit cards themselves.  He opposes them even if they are paid off in full every month and reserved exclusively for necessities.  Some people are deluded or fiscally dangerous enough to themselves to the point that they personally need to get rid of all credit cards.  No one has to be if they only look to reason and self-control.  Dave Ramsey, though, still speaks as if he is under the surface brimming with unbridled emotionalism on this subject in particular.

Matthew 19:9 Does Not Restrict Divorce To Adultery

Well before Matthew 19, and afterward in Paul's writing to the Corinthians, the Bible gives specific categories of behavior that justify divorce, and they go far beyond adultery.  In Matthew 19, Jesus makes the famous but misunderstood statement that anyone who divorces their spouse and remarries commits adultery unless their former spouse practiced sexual immorality.  In contrast with the Pharisaical distortion of explicit allowance for divorce in Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:10-11, but see also Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and 24:1-4; Exodus 21:26-27), Jesus said that divorce is not morally valid in just any circumstance as soon as it is preferred.

Exodus 21:10-11 specifies that neglect and abuse are grounds for divorce, and although the case law mentions a woman divorcing a man, the irrelevance of gender to moral obligation necessitates that this also would apply to the inverse.  1 Corinthians 7 sees Paul acknowledge that abandonment is grounds for divorce.  No one is obligated to remain in a marital covenant with someone who has broken it by leaving their spouse behind.  With neglect and abuse alone, this is already far more than adultery or broader sexual immorality that permits a severance of marriage.

Within Matthew 19:9 itself, though, Jesus does not actually say that only sexual immorality, confused by some to mean strictly adultery when all sexual sins like rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) would by necessity be included, legitimizes divorce.  He says that anyone who divorces their spouse except for sexual immorality and marries a new partner commits adultery.  The focus is on sexual basis for divorce and the sin of remarrying after an illicit divorce.  What Jesus states is that someone commits adultery if they do this and contrasts it with a misconception of Mosaic Law.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does permit divorce, and Mosaic Law is Biblically identified as the just commands (Deuteronomy 4:5-8) of a deity who never changes (Malachi 3:6), one whom Jesus affirmed (Matthew 5:17-20).  If Matthew 19 did contradict any of this, the other verses could be true because they are consistent with logical axioms and each other, but Matthew 19:9 would be false.  It would be appealing to prerequisite things it then contradicts.  However, Deuteronomy 24 does not say that divorce is mandatory or permissible in all circumstances.  It specifies that indecency, as in sin, justifies divorce.

Divorcing on emotionalistic, selfish, hypocritical, or any other kind of irrational or morally invalid grounds (the one initiating the divorce being in the wrong here) is not ending a marriage over the other party's indecency.  It is divorce for stupidity on the initiator's part.  This is what the context reveals Jesus is pushing back against; divorce is just, freeing, and healing in the right scenarios, from emotional abuse to food deprivation (see Exodus 21:9-11 again) to abandonment to true sexual indecency.  To divorce casually for irrationalistic reasons and remarry is adulterous in a sense because the prior spouse was betrayed.