On Original Sin, the Trinity, Christ’s Sacrifice and Why My Presence and/or Response is Not Really Required to Dismantle His False Ideas: My final response to James Jordan

James Jordan said:

“And I certainly would not be destroyed by an educated atheist or any type of atheist, and certainly not by you. But a Christian has to answer for the 3 most idiotic doctrines ever conceived by any religion:

1. Original Sin.
2. The Trinity.
3. The necessity of a human sacrifice for anyone to make it to heaven.

The Christian has destroyed themselves before the atheist even gets started. “Everyone is born damned and in need of salvation because a man thousands of years ago ate an apple when he was told not to, and now nobody can go to heaven without a human sacrifice that is required by a god who is three people at once.””

Argo said:

James,

You have already lost the debate to me…you just won’t concede it.  You are as stubborn as any advocate of a Primacy of Consciousness in that you will never explain how man can be reconciled to an absolute truth which exists outside of his physical person.  By any rational observation or standard, the only means man has of apprehending any sort of truth, moral or otherwise, are his senses and his brain.  The only way man has of physically organizing his environment vis a vis  his cognitive conceptualization of it is with his legs and opposable thumbs.  Thus, all reality and all truth starts and ends with man, even God.  If God does not exist to ultimately affirm the only thing man can know as absolute truth, himself (his life/existence), then God cannot be trusted. Further, your premise assumes that there is an inexorable and perpetual chasm between you as a human being and your epistemology and metaphysics.  This means that by your own definition you cannot actually know anything.

Anyone affirming that there is a standard of truth which exists outside of man’s person (be it a physicist proclaiming the Laws of Physics, or Plato with his Forms or Marx with his Utopia or Lenin with his Collective or the Calvinists with their “body of believers” or Kant with his Categorical Imperatives or Ayn Rand with her “happiness”) will lose the argument because when all the bullshit they use to try to qualify what cannot be qualified or reconcile what cannot be reconciled is done away with it always comes down to the fact that unless YOU are YOU and YOU as a person–not what you do or think or how lovable you are or what “values” you offer to another person or what property you own or money you have…and yes, I am a capitalist–are the standard of all that is GOOD and thus all that is TRUE, you cannot claim to know one single damn thing at all.  And so it is the height of arrogance and self-contradiction to continue to argue for a truth which by your own rationale cannot ever be obtained.  It is more than arrogant…it is insane.  It is a sign of a mind that is not in touch, literally, with reality.  And how these men/women like Kant and Marx and Plato and Augustine and Calvin and even Rand are not called out as shills of the Impossibly Insane Epistemology but instead lauded and thrown money at and propped upon pedestal’s to be worshiped as givers of life and lesson is beyond me except to say that at any one time in my life, I was given to accept their conclusions like every other third rate thinker walking the streets.

No more.  I demand you and them…no! I defy you to answer the basic question of how a man can be a function of a truth which cannot include himself as a physical being (actual, observable, quantifiable, visceral, relatable, an objective of the senses) in its infinite absoluteness…and further, how that truth can demand anything from man and by man except man’s utter destruction.

And since you cannot answer the basic question: how can the Law both be satisfied as an absolute truth and yet still affirm MAN as the root of all GOOD (which MUST mean all truth), you have lost the debate before I need to utter a single word in rebuttal.  You kill yourself in order to be “right” (metaphorically speaking; but those like-minded to you in civil power will kill to be right literally, as history has shown).  We call that kind of argument insanity in the rational world.

As to your accusations of Christian assumptions, I have addressed them many times on this blog.  Actually reading my posts would, I believe, satisfy your interrogations.  You may not agree, but at least you’d have your answers.

I deny Original Sin as a false and evil lie.  Original Sin contradicts even basic Old Testament standards of the right of the individual to stand or fall on his own moral actions before God; he or she is not a product of anyone’s offense but their own.  It is their life, they own it, their name is on it, they have categorical free will, and thus when they are judged they are judged by what THEY do, not what Adam and Eve did.  Adam and Eve subverted the human being as the source of all moral good and sold themselves and by default all of humanity to the notion of the Primacy of Consciousness.  It is up to individuals to reject that premise and put themselves at the center of all morality and truth…which is the way it was before the “fall”.  At the root of humanity is moral GOOD; man IS good, as the Lord declares in the very first chapter of Genesis, and never recants in any other chapter in any other book in the Bible.  If man is not fundamentally good by his mere physical existence, only rendered “evil” when they deny the human self as the singular moral truth which must be affirmed, then man cannot be saved period.  Not by the Law, and not by Jesus Christ, and not by any Consciousness Prime.  Man can no more be totally depraved and yet “saved” and “declared righteous” than the color black can be declared white or the grasshopper declared an automobile.  Aristotle’s Law of Identity must stand in this case. Original sin is a logical fallacy.

I deny the Trinity as impossible logic.  A God which is infinite cannot be declared a number (by obvious definition), because numbers are purely an abstraction used by man’s conceptualizing mind in order to cognitively organize his own environment for his own physical survival.  Time and numbers and space are not actual…they are concepts man invents and uses to affirm and propagate his own survival.  They are not the source of man, they are a product of his mind.  Hence, a concept is only logically useful when it practically and observably adds to “truth” in such a way that it results in an  efficacious elevation of the standards of life or understanding (incidentally, this is also the definition of “truth”).  The “Trinity” does no such thing. The Trinity detracts from man’s proper understanding of God’s metaphysical truth by attempting to make what is most useful to man’s understanding and thus his survival–God as infinite–and declare Him to be a function of MAN’S own devised and purely abstract concept:  number.  This is ludicrous.  In this case, the idea of infinity is utterly incongruent with a limitation of that which is infinite via numerically conceptualizing it.  Literally speaking, that which IS, IS (God is I AM), and so regardless of how God reveals Himself to man, man has no right to remove God’s infinite identity and replace it with an utterly useless and improper label, as boring as it is stupid:  Three.  It is arrogant, stubborn, and nonsensical for a person to both declare God infinite and NOT infinite at the same time.  Such is the state of the Christian mind.  NOT thinking is as ontologically inevitable to the Christian it seems as his utter worthlessness as a human being in the universe.  And this is why Christians are pariahs to the rational world when they should, in fact, be the bastion of it.

As to the “human sacrifice”.  Christ’s sacrifice is an extension, and necessarily so and inevitably so, to the demand by Old Testament Law for sacrificial atonement.  The “human sacrifice” rose from the dead, so the death of Christ as a sacrifice does not qualify as “human sacrifice” in the common understanding of the notion.  To rank Christians as practicing and affirming the customs of those worshiping Molech is ad hominem at best.  And an evil lie at worst.  (Closer to the latter.)  The point of Christ’s death was to satisfy the only and inevitable conclusion of the Law so as not to invalidate the Law as a lie and a contradiction of itself; and His resurrection was proof that the human Self, the human LIFE, being the real source of all moral good, was not ultimately subject to the Law, but quite the opposite.  All truth is subject to man’s life…this is why Paul declares no condemnation for those in Christ.  Literally, THEY are the source of their own moral perfection.  Christ’s death was God’s way of satisfying the Primacy of Consciousness which man demanded when Adam and Eve conceded Satan’s Platonist lie without actually destroying man altogether, which is what the Law inevitable leads to without Christ.  God, in order to save humanity from a truth outside itself–the very thing the Law cannot do–sent Christ to both reveal man’s root existential purity as defeating the Law of Truth outside himself, and yet not contradicting His (that is, God’s) own need, after the Fall, to explain to humans that there are ACTIONS and ways of THINKING (as embodied in the Law) which affirm the Truth of human life as the source of all morality and knowledge…which affirm man, not despise him.  And that if you don’t think these ways, or run around with people who develop whole cultures (look at Islam today; look at Communist Cuba and China) around the idea that man’s denial of himself is the key to absolute truth, you will suffer the fate you demand: destruction. Only more viscerally so as God had chosen Israel to reveal his right to instruct TRUTH to man by his ever-present and in-your-face power.

Finally.  James, I have no problem debating ideas that really have little or nothing to do with the original post to which the comment thread belongs.  However, I do have a problem debating ideas which I have already explained in previous posts (some very, very recently so) and which your questions reveal you have never bothered to read.

From this moment on, I will no longer engage you because I don’t believe you actually read anything I write, either in post form or as a response to you in the comment thread.  This makes communication and the exchange of ideas impossible, you see, and I do not appreciate spending my time engaged in activities which are, by definition, a waste of that very time.

You, not because of your ideas or your disagreement, but your laziness in actually reading anything I write, have become an albatross to me.  You see the world as a mirror, and so you can hear nothing.  You can learn nothing.  You may continue to post, but I will delete any comment of yours which indicates that you have not read a post or comment…by me or any other person here.  And I will delete any comment which resorts to insults or other sundry evidences of childish thinking and ranting rather than rational debate.

I would hope that you would have granted me the ostracism you so vehemently declared we–that is, those who disagree with you–sorely need.

By the way. I like gay people a lot and have absolutely no problem with them, their behavior or existence.  I declare them to have every inherent right under the sun as any other human being and that Christians cannot and should not pass judgment on them or anyone else for behavior that is mutually agreed upon between two self-aware and law-abiding American citizens who are hurting no one and nothing by engaging their right to own their own lives. I do not concede that homosexuality is a sin in and of itself.  Like anything, truth and morality is established by the context of the individual human being in specific circumstances.  And truth in general, that is axioms and maxims, are only true insofar as they affirm the right of human individuals to pursue their own survival and happiness and comfort because and for no other reason than they are human individuals.  Anything which is effective to that end is truth.  Anything not effective to that end–the end of the human individual him/herself–is a lie.

Does that help?

Perhaps a “Get behind me Satan!”?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s