Man as the Source of Truth: An offense to the Christian Platonists, a soothing balm to Christians longing for the return of LOVE

I wasn’t going to skip down this yellow brick road of Judaism vs. Christianity (more properly, Platonist gnosticism/Kantian collectivism vs. Christianity), but this topic is too important to back-burner, I suppose.  The truth is, the thrust of my metaphysics (and physics) and epistemology hinges upon my assertions in this matter.  It is good for me to fine tune my argument…for I utterly accept the efficacy and reason of my beliefs; but organizing the thoughts into words takes practice, and that is what debate is.

After all, philosophers don’t avoid philosophizing any more than Angus Young avoids rocking.

And debate is also about being right according to logically reconcilable ideas.  As such, both sides cannot be true.  One side is reasonable, one is not.  If James is reasonable, then Christ would indeed be superfluous, and likely, the swansong of all historic farces.  The problem is that Jame’s ideas are rooted in Gnosticism…the very thing he accuses me and Calvinists of, ironically (and in only one of these is he actually right). And this–Jame’s idea– is nothing more than the assertion:  TRUTH is only found outside of man.  Man is either the source of TRUTH or he is a slave/sacrifice to it, which makes his entire existence irrelevant.  I know this is hard for people to accept, but after thousands of years of Platonist conditioning, peoples’ brains are simply not wired to see the obvious anymore.  Like I said, try to find one physicists who declares that the “vacuum” (nothing”) doesn’t actually exist as “something”.  Even our science is rooted in impossible Platonist ideas.

And yet, science “works”…from a certain point of view.  And that is why these ideas are so wily, and so alluring.  They “work”…in a manner of speaking.  They satisfy.  For a while.  But we won’t get into that cluttered  closet yet.

So, James is not right, and I maintain my previous assertion:  Either the Law culminates in its obvious conclusion:  Jesus Christ as the final chapter in the saga of Man AS GOOD (and in this, in a manner of speaking I actually agree with the “historical redemptive hermeneutic”…but not in service to the tyranny the Calvinists crave, and not really by the same interpretive premises); or, man must be mass murdered in favor of the Law’s inexorable, infallible “TRUTH”.

There is no other option, regardless of how anyone wants to qualify their “logic”.  There is NO other actual logic available.  There is no “agree to disagree”.  Either man dies so that TRUTH can be revealed as utterly and perfectly true, and it is no longer necessary to inevitably apply it in the context of totally depraved man’s individual life, or man IS truth.

Any other notion is nothing more than a glorious and stupefying example of hope over reason.

Here is Jame’s latest comment.  A typical knee-jerk product of Platonist western thinking.  Unable to separate the illusions of truth for the real thing–of abstractions from the physical universe–we all, via Jame’s latest arguments and accusations–all move one step closer to the “collective” as the central rule of the barbarian masses.  For if abstractions like “law” are THE source of their own “truth” (people like Jame’s pretend to say God is the source of the Law, but this turns God into nothing more than your run of the mill Consciousness Prime), then there is only one absolute truth:  Marx’s Utopian Workers Paradise.  Otherwise known as the the destruction of the individual; otherwise know as the singularity of Platonist logic:  man is destroyed as a means of reconciling himself to the ineffable TRUTH which cannot be “perfect” by definition as long as it must suffer communion with the total depravity of human beings.

And so I declare that if I am an atheist, as James accuses, then James is a rank communist.

Here is his comment:

As I see it )and Argo seems to explicitly argue it this way) existentialism is nothing but the secularization of justification by faith alone into justification by existence alone.

So in Argo’s Sept 15th post “Man as the Singularity of Moral Truth: Another defense of Christ” he says at the end “Man’s existence is the key to his perfection, and that is why the temple curtain was torn in two. There is no more sanctification; there is no more justification necessary for man.”

No justification needed. No sanctification needed. That’s what Argo said.

Why? Because the moronic doctrine of Paul “justification by faith alone” and the moronic doctrine of the Calvinists “sanctification by faith alone” has been secularized in existentialism into justification and sanctification by existence alone.

Argue all you want that Jesus would have approved of this, but he certainly not have.

This secularization of the two most moronic doctrines ever contrived is responsibly for the total meltdown of society. In reality, despite teaching it in a putitively theistic way and making assertions about a determinist god, this is precisely what Calvinists actually believe. By buying into this secularization of their whole scheme, Argo is becoming a Calvinist, just a more secular one.

And if its true that you really believe we are both justified and sanctified by mere existence, then you really are nothing but an atheist pretending to theism exactly like the Calvinists.

And here is my response:

The debate about God’s existence is not one of morality.  This is a common mistake Christians make…and why they lose constantly in the face of learned atheists.  For the assertion that morality cannot exist without God is an assertion that Ayn Rand decisively vanguished in her philosophy of Objectivism.  It is really a red herring that Christians constantly fall for…it isn’t the point, and never was, and a lot of atheists know this, which is why they pounce on the nonsense that man cannot declare value without God.  It is akin to the maddening and ludicrous argument made by reformation Christians who don’t like to think:  “I can’t debate with you because my truth cannot be learned…God must give it to you.  So the only way you can understand me is if you agree that I’m right FIRST.”

Oh.  Good.  Fucking. Grief.

No wonder we are laughed out of government and schools.

For what is morality?  Morality is nothing more than the choice of one thing over another in service to the abstraction of “good and evil”.  In other words, morality is simply a value judgment.  Who makes the choice?  Man makes the choice…for otherwise, you are a determinist and YOU cannot exist in your own existential construct. For if man doesn’t  make the choice, something else is making the choice for him.  And since life is observed by choice, where do we see man?

That’s right.  Nowhere.

But if it is man making the choice based on what he observes to have some kind of value, then morality is nothing more than the utterly logical notion that THINGS have VALUE.  Big whoop.  Yes, any atheist can see this.  By your definition a Jew can be an atheist.  Who needs God when we have the Law.  If the Law is the source of TRUTH…of categorical moral value, then what does God have to do with anything? The Law, not the SELF, becomes the source of itself.

James, your need to re-evaluate your arguments.  You even said yourself that God still blessed Israel even when they failed to uphold the Law perfectly.  If the Law IS truth, then how can this possibly be?  The only answer is that the Law is NOT the source of ultimate moral value.  Man is. But you prefer to argue out of both sides of your mouth…to have your metaphysical cake and eat it to.  And you accuse me of being a Calvinist.  That’s a hardy har har.

The distinction is not then in what “law” we “follow”, for law by definition is an abstraction…an idea of values that MAN decides is true or not, based on what?  Well, based on whatever MAN affirms as having the highest value.  But what man constantly misses is that the only thing that can have value objective value (value that is not ultimately an illusion OUTSIDE of man, like the Law)  is that which actually exists as THE source of all truth.  The source of all truth is not God, the SOURCE of all truth is man.  Man becomes the plumb line for value then, because only man is in a position to SEE value in a way that drives choice; that drives “law”.

The argument about God is an argument involving how the SELF can exist if it is, at its root, infinite (and this is something I’ve not gone into on the blog).  If we argue that self cannot exist without God, then obviously, the perpetuation of the SELF (which then by extension must be that which is of the greatest and only objective moral value) becomes GOD’S purpose for man by definition.

In other words, If God is the sustainer of the SELF, then the SELF must BE VALUE by direct divine decree.

So James, you can jump up and down and foam at the mouth and froth and beat the air and scream and yell and use the “f” word and sing Camptown Races in racy French, but the fact of the matter is that all truth of any kind, be it a natural physical “law” or moral truth is a direct function of SELF, man, and whatever other physical object can be observed to exist…but again, only by man’s direct and conscious observation.  There is simply no way to get around this fact.  You can rant and rave and heave and ho and spit and shake, but your frustration I suspect is little more than realizing that this is an axiom that is unavoidable.  If YOU claim to have a truth, then YOU must be the source of it…otherwise, you are a determinist for one, and also you concede NON-EXSTENCE is the source of “your” truth.  Period.  This is obviously rank fallacy…at least if any kind of thinking even approximating reason is your guide.

If truth and meaning is “bestowed” upon you, then you have destroyed all metaphysical and existential distinctions between yourself and whatever “force” of “truth” has seen fit to give you the “grace to perceive” (whatever the hell that means, because you can’t exist…you can’t know what is GIVEN to you to know, not as a function of yourself, but of something outside you).  And given to you to perceive based on whatever arbitrary reason that you can’t possibly understand, because again, there is no you.

And finally, this goes in the last paragraph, because you read backwards (boy, do you ever):  If calling me names like “secular”, or “atheist”, or “existentialist” makes you feel better about your own irrational argument, go for it.  The fact is that none of my ideas work without God.  Your accusations could not be more false or backwards if you uttered them standing on your head in front of a mirror.

9 thoughts on “Man as the Source of Truth: An offense to the Christian Platonists, a soothing balm to Christians longing for the return of LOVE

  1. Argo, You simply have to read Anatomy of Hybrid by Leonard Verduin. I am not past the first chapter and it is screaming Argo!

    Frankly, I was expecting a historical treatment of church state but it is so much more. He is making a case that Christianity is about “individualism’ unlike what he calls sacral “religions”

    it is out of print so I had to order a used copy but it was worth it for the first chapter!

    (thanks to Ryan over at PPT for recommending it. I have read Verduin’s, “Reformers and their Step Children” several times and it is excellent research)

  2. The Law points the SELF to the Natural Law which God has put within each SELF, so that when the SELF refuses to see the Natural Law on its own, it is forced to see it by the Law. Christ can do this as well, but only to a lesser extent, since we don’t see him in specific situations. He is asserted to be generic goodness incarnate, and therefore he can somewhat point to the Natural Law, but is too generic to do so with much success. Although each SELF could find the Natural Law within himself, many don’t want to — not all, but many don’t want to. So they must be beat over the head with the Law and forced to look at the Natural Law that is already withing them, which God placed within us all and which no apple can remove. The Calvinist particularly must be smacked upside the head with the Law constantly, because he is totally depraved BY HIS OWN CHOICE and needs to be snapped out of it. Christ cannot snap him out of it, for Christ is his excuse to wallow in his self-chosen depravity.

  3. Since Christianity is really about salvation by church attendance alone, its not a very believable thesis.

  4. “Since Christianity is really about salvation by church attendance alone, its not a very believable thesis.”

    Where do you get that idea? I don’t even agree with the concept of “church” as we tend to think of it historically. I do not believe for one minute church attendance equals salvation. In fact, in some cases I think it is enabling evil to attend some of them!

  5. The greatest problem in Christianity (and what is truly an enabling of evil) is that everyone runs around saying Christianity this and Christianity that, but the Christianity they are preaching is nothing but an idealistic fairytale that only exists in their head. Nobody wants to face the reality of what Christianity is in the real world and how its practiced. The same with the church. People make the church out to be the perfect ideal of their own devising and refuse to look at the real thing.

  6. James,

    You will not find a greater critic of the church in the world than me. I deny the office of “pastor” as anything even resembling what we see today. I deny that the true “church” or gathering of believers in America today is more than a gathering of Puritanical, finger-wagging hypocrites resembling more a Marxist social club than an entity actually interested in people for people’s sake.

    But humanity taking a good idea and something pure and beautiful and then turning it into Frankenstein with a trillion volts of bullshit is hardly an uncommon practice in world history.

    Exibit B: United. States. America

  7. Very true, Argo.

    Perhaps James is forgetting the corrupt priests in the OT? The fact that a Mishna even exists is telling?

  8. Do you really believe the sacrifices were ever of great importance to the diaspora to begin with? The whole point of the Babylonian captivity seems to be to kill off the whole idea. Most people don’t know, by the way, that there was another temple in Alexandria Egypt. For most of the diaspora if they went to a temple, it would more likely have been that one. Even from the very beginning, the temple was mostly just a get rich scheme of the priests and of kings. You’ve read all the historical books like Judges, Samuel, Kings…constantly the people are worshiping in “high places” so called, and supposedly they’re off in idolatry. Its unlikely. More likely the temple-pushers simply accused everyone who did their sacrifices in their backyard like Exodus 20 says to of idolatry because they wanted to push a centralized temple. Remember the split between Rehoboam and Jeroboam after Solomon’s death? One decided it was too much for the people in the North to have to go down to Jerusalem to worship, so he built his own temple up North. We are told he put golden calves in it…but is it likely? Its more likely he thought he’d get in on Solomon’s great business idea. And thus was born the divide between Jews and Samaritans. And the likelihood that God really established the animal sacrifices to begin with is sketchy.

    This has all very much repeated itself in the churches. The “Lord’s Supper.” Its unlikely that Jesus even established this thing. The Didache which is probably earlier than our gospels has the prayers over the bread and wine reference them as symbols of Jesus’ life and teaching not body and blood. Its quite probable, nay certain, that Jesus simply ate a passover with the 12 without instituting anything new and that the church later made the ritual up, first with the symbolism of the Didache and later changing it to the symbolism we all know. And this is the sacrifice of Christianity. This is why you need the pastor. If he excommunicates you, you don’t get to validly eat Jesus’ body and blood anymore, and “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood” the fictional Christ of John says “you have no life in you.” So, yes, salvation by church attendance is the scheme.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.