“The same God who brings the storm to your life is also the One who will rebuke it.”

-Christian Pastor,speaking western European mysticism.

Ah yes…we were discussing the story in Matthew.  Or Mark, one of the two, anyway.

And then, Jesus rebuked the storm and all was well.  Except that there was little faith.

And then, again, the gentle pastor who is unfortunately taken to speaking in terms of impossible metaphysical contradiction founded upon pagan western European mysticism, and not on the empirical and rational philosophical foundations of the Jewish texts says:

“The same God who brings the storm to your life is also the One who will rebuke it.”

Now, at this point, take yet another moment to ponder that statement, the insanity of it; the outright impossibility of it in light of what we understand of our reality and God’s inability to NEED to control ANYTHING He creates, by definition, because He is quite above it, and NOTHING can prevail against the Lord’s objectives, as a product of His omnipotence.  Indeed, if He controls Creation, then He is really rationally unable to rebuke or subdue it; it is merely Himself.  And as Jesus declared:  “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  This is an obvious metaphysical truth.  But the mystic despots deny truth and reason because they present a stark and unwelcome reminder of their spiritual treason.

And this is the crux of the whole irrational neo-Reformed matter:  God bringing a thing and then rebuking a thing is functionally the exact same thing as saying God brings Himself TO rebuke Himself…and even worse, this supposedly for your moral benefit.  As if God rebuking Himself is supposed to help Creation or man experience GOOD!  How can God be our ever present help in time of trouble if He is too busy rebuking Himself to actually help?  That does not make any sense.  On the logic scale of zero to ten…well, it cannot find the logic scale.

Hmm…interesting.  Very interesting…and oh, so telling a thing this little gem of “sound doctrine” is.  Do you remember how I once said that the doctrine of Calvinism and the neo-Reformation is designed to destroy the moral standard; to blur the lines between good and evil so that, pragmatically speaking, there is no true and reasonable difference?  And what I mean by this is that if man is ALL bad and God is ALL good then logically there can be no discernible difference between the two, because this paradigm equates morality with existence; thus, “anything man does is evil” is the mirror equivalent to: “anything God does is good”.  The doing becomes not a function of a moral standard but purely of being and thus, everything is a function of whatever IS, not moral GOOD/EVIL. And this is also the rationally impossible outcome of trying to synthesis God’s existential nature as the I AM with man’s existential nature as the I AM, RELATIVE TO THIS/THAT.

Incidentally, this is also why the concept of dualism cannot possibly lead to a standard of morality…yes, the dark side of the Force is just as good as the light side of the Force, and vice versa; there cannot be any TRUE moral standard imposed on either.  Each one is a law unto itself.  So, the way the “moral” construct looks is like this:  the darkness of the dark side of the Force is not relative to anything, or, if it is relative, it is relative to the light side of the Force–this of course, make no sense at all.  And the lightness side of the force is not relative to anything, or, if it is relative,  it is relative to the dark side of the Force–which also cannot stand the scrutiny of common sense.  For how can a thing’s moral standing be defined relative to its complete moral opposite; that is how good a thing is is measured by how bad another thing is; or how bad a thing, which cannot help but be bad, is NOT.  To put it another way: who declares how high a thing is by how low a separate thing is?  If there is no separate standards–like sea level, for instance–by which the height of two things are judged, then it becomes impossible to say just how high one thing is because you cannot define how low the other thing is.  Highness and lowness become undefinable; there is no functional difference between them because there is no objective standard by which to measure them.

And so the the moral and logical and metaphysical dilemma of dualism (e.g. Star Wars’ the “Force”) arises when one realizes that if both sides of the Force are relative to themselves, and there is no third party standard of “good” by which they both can be measured, then there is no rational nor moral way to conclude that the light side of the force is, in fact the “good” side.  For by definition, good and bad as far as practical definitions of morality go are irrelevant.  Goodness and badness, or rather, lightness and darkness are simply the innate essence of the existence of each side of the force , and as such, are both morally equal.   There is NO functional moral difference, then, between EVIL and GOOD.

This illustrates precisely the problem Calvinism presents for morality.  It is dualism, plain and simply, and thus it destroys any meaningful understanding of morality.  Man is evil, God is good equals ANYTHING man does is evil, and ANYTHING God does is good. This, again, is pure pagan dualism.  There is no standard beyond themselves.  They are relative to either themselves, or to the antithesis of themselves, which is utterly irrational and logically impossible.  For to declare an act/thought/desire by a thing actually good or evil, one needs to compare the act/thought/desire with an external plumb line by which the distance from it can be measured; and thus what we are saying is that the THING itself doing the act/thought/desire must be functionally separate from that moral standard, be able to recognize it and either act in accordance or contrary to it of its own free ability.   That plumb line cannot be simply EVIL, of course, for evil represents NOT the standard which GOOD is attempting to attain, but by definition the antithesis of itself; and vice versa.  And again, this amounts to nonsense.

For instance, again, if man is EVIL, then HE is the standard, and thus anything he does is evil; and this means that his evil is no longer a function of morality, but a function of his existence; and thus to condemn him for evil is unjust.  One can only justly condemn the creator of him, for the creator, in bringing about existence, brings about evil.  Except, really, you cannot even condemn the creator because again, EVIL in this case has NO moral implication.  God cannot be faulted for creating a moral atrocity because morality does not really exist.  Man just IS evil, and that’s just another way of saying, not that man is not good, but that man IS, period.  

So, yes, the end result of Calvinist “morality” is relativism; a blurring of the lines between good and evil so that every human’s relationship to morality basically consists of a constant state of confusion-the logical outcome of such a nonsensical definition of morality…which of course is utterly perfected in total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints…gnostic, dualistic paganism (Calvin’s TULIP acronym).  People know that they are supposed to do good and yet they know that they cannot do good and can’t even apprehend good because their very thoughts are vile and damned from the utter start; they have NO frame of reference for good except that they SOMEHOW know it is precisely ALWAYS and perpetually what they are NOT.  Remember, according to the doctrine, every single faculty by which humans are supposed to apprehend, organize, and interpret anything is totally depraved.  Thus, they cannot even really define good by definition, because it would have to be THEM defining it, THEM knowing it even if someone told it to them.  And the problem is that THEM is totally depraved.

Stay tuned for part three.