I got this comment yesterday (see the last post’s comments thread):
“I think perhaps in trying to escape the overly pessimistic view of Calvinism that everyone is pure evil you’ve gone to the opposite extreme that everyone is pure good. Surely there is a happy medium.”
No…because you are still not grasping my position correctly. I recognize a complete distinction between conceptual abstractions and material objects. I do NOT look at “good” and “evil” as material objects. Because they are not. They are conceptual abstractions which come from man’s mind in order to organize his environment around a specific objective standard. That standard is man’s LIFE…any other standard wrecks man’s epistemology. Good and evil are purely descriptions then describing a material object (which man is included…man is a physical object first, before being a conceptualized SELF), in a particular context. The innate inner foundational core of all material objects is utterly removed from abstract concepts. As such, it merely IS. Human beings at their singular material root are not “good” or “evil”, they just ARE. They are, so to speak, morally innocent. Like God, good and evil are not applicable when man is viewed from this position, which I submit is precisely man’s state before he surrendered his moral innocence to the external standard of “good and evil”. Once that happened, sin came into the words because now man refused the standard of SELF in service to standard of “law of good and evil”. Man was on the hook for reconciling himself to an infinite abstraction which must by definition always be mutually exclusive to man. All of man’s good deeds are now not GOOD because they stem from the root of man’s physical, innocent SELF, but are “good” as a direct function of the “law of good and evil”. And thus what must give definition to “good” if it is the law defining “good” and not man’s SELF? Sin. Good is defined as good because sin is there giving it meaning. Good is the flip side to sin…they are part and parcel of the exact same absolute standard. There can be no good deed removed from sin, and no sin removed from good. This destructive paradox goes away the moment man throws off its chains and begins to see himSELF (and all SELVES…God and other human beings) as the root of all GOOD because he recognizes that there can be no abstract standard which can define the infinity of his physical existence. Man is at his root morally innocent…which is precisely how God observed him when He created him.
Man at his root is purely an IS…how he is rationally described as “good” or “evil” then will depend how is actions serve to affirm and promote the standard of LIFE; his own and others. This is the only way to properly apply moral standards. Thus, man is HIMSELF, and his actions can be considered good or evil depending on the context.
Abstract concepts removed from any material context–removed from man’s physical SELF–in a vacuum are infinite, and absolute (they have no “value”, or “meaning” until man applies them in context, again, as measured against the standard of LIFE). Therefore, there can be no such thing as a combination of “good” and “evil”; just like I told Paul Dohse there is no combination of “light” and “dark” because these abstractions are infinite. You cannot combine what is infinite by definition, because it is impossible to define a combination of “light-ness/dark-ness” abstractions which will arrive at any other value except “infinite”. And infinity can have no practical value in man’s life because infinity must be mutually exclusive from man. When man or any other object enters the picture, then what is infinite is no longer infinite. It has a finite value. Relative to what? To what is MATERIAL.
Here is what you must understand that you are not understanding: abstractions are NOT actual. The source of every material object cannot be an abstraction, it can only be the SELF of the object. There is no other rational way to define material objects except as direct extensions of themSELVES, period. Because any other definition must necessarily remove man’s senses from his epistemology. And once this happens, man cannot know anything, because he cannot observe (sense) TRUTH.
This is difficult to understand; I get it. But it is nevertheless true. There can be no source of anyTHING except itself, when we are speaking of the singular and infinite root essence of the thing. All things are first and foremost, including and especially man, their own infinite SELVES. Their ability to BE is a direct function of themselves; of the physical material which IS them.
On the surface (and likely the typical knee jerk response will be some variation of this) the assumption I get ALLLLL the time is that this idea strips God of His Creative powers. Not at all. An infinite physical material is merely logically required as a prerequisite to being formed into a relatively finite object which can exist RELATIVE to other objects in order to be observed and conceptually defined by man. This is God’s power. But before Creation can be created someTHING must exist to be acted upon. This is the root source–the root SELF–of all we observe. Otherwise, we are saying that God created something (Creation) out of nothing.
Something out of nothing? The very notion is LITERALLY indefensible.
It is an impossible logical contradiction and thus, has no possible chance of being rationally explained by anyone at all…not even God, I submit. Because God is not in the business of reconciling man’s inane logical fallacies.
I do not hold God to be magic…God is real because God is reasonable. If God cannot be explained according to reasonably consistent arguments which corroborate man’s ability to rightly observe his universe of his own ability, then there can be no rational argument for His existence. Faith is not faith then, it is foolishness. Attempting to “explain” God is besides the point. That is a red herring argument designed to scare people away from their rational minds in order that they may continue to serve a particular primary consciousness which can have no logical motive besides control, and no logical outcome except death. And further, if it is heresy for me to explain how God can rationally co-exist with human beings for the efficacious promotion of man’s LIFE to God’s glory then I submit the church is totally fucked.