Morality Was Made for Man, Not Man For Morality: The doctrine of “Original Sin” as an example of Platonist fallacy and the destruction of man and reason

The only logical outcome of Reformed Protestant orthodoxy, most directly subscribed to by the neo-Calvinist movement (which is, as I have often said, merely another variation of Plato’s “forms” philosophy, sharing its philosophical seeds with Marxism, Theocratic collectives, and Secular Humanism (atheism), among others) is to completely remove man from the existential equation.

That is, according to Reformed theology, man can never be qualified as actually existing.   He becomes a function of unobservable, and thus unknowable “forces” outside of his existence.  But when you get beyond the Twilight-Zone mysticism and the shameless and silly appeals to divine “mystery”, what Reformed theology, like Platonism, really teaches is that man is a product of the ideas he creates, which are conceptual abstractions designed to perpetuate and affirm his life.  Of course, when the equation is reversed, and man becomes a product of the abstractions he devises, man becomes an affront to them.

Why?

Because any concept which cannot be given value by a material object which man can observe–a value that is ultimately measured against a standard of TRUTH, which must be man’s life and material SELF–is automatically absolute.  It becomes the infinite, all-perfect “thing” or, as I said “force”, to which man’s existence explicitly presents a logical and metaphysical stumbling block.  Since man then become the finite and imperfect agent which this absolute “thing” must subdue in order to, in fact, be absolute, man’s greatest moral good is to get the fuck out of the way and let the THING be the THING (the force be the force, the form be the form).  The unobservable, unknowable, and thus infinite standard of “thing” becomes the standard of absolute TRUTH, instead of man’s life; and thus man is valued directly against the absolute, infinite and perfect form, and not, as reason would dictate, his own life.  So the ethical and metaphysical plumb line looks like this:  the more man sacrifices his own individual agency to the form/thing, the more “moral” and “true” he is.  Again, the logical conclusion of this premise is that the death of man, both physically and spiritually (not that there is any real distinction…there is not) becomes his greatest moral action.  DEATH makes man perfect.  His life becomes the very reason he is evil.  It is not that man CHOOSES, or that man DOES this or that…no, it is that man IS.  Man, at his existential singular root, from which all of him proceeds, is the very manifestation of his depravity.  Depravity and evil stop being concepts man uses in order to define and organize his environment in service to his life, they become absolute forces and agents in and of themselves which possess man to the point where man is these concepts incarnate. Man is an affront to God not because of the evil he chooses to do but because of the evil he IS.  There is–and this should be obvious, but it isn’t–a huge distinction here.  In the first sense, man can know himself, and thus man is a able to relate to his God, which means that God can be known and defined as the GOOD Creator, who is GOOD for man.  There can be an exchange of true value between man and his God, and true love can flow, man can be both reasonably rewarded and condemned/judged according to his actions.  Man can love God and and God can love man because man understands that at the root of both himself and his Creator is the moral perfection implicit within their respective material singularities.  In the latter sense, none of this is true.  God must hate man and condemn him categorically.  Which, as man’s Creator, makes Him a hypocrite.  There can be no salvation for man, despite what the Reformed Protestants might tell you (it’s a lie), and neither man nor God can actually be defined or known.  There is no exchange of value, and God becomes culpable for sin by creating evil incarnate, in man.

And indeed, this is in perfect keeping with the Reformed assumption that all babies, should they die, go to immediately to hell to be tormented eternally, burning and gnashing their…er, gums.  They do not pass go, they do not get purgatory, they do not get to sleep the sleep of unconscious oblivion.  They go to hell.  And they go there for no other reason than they were born.  That they were.  It is their very existence which is their failure.

Now,  you may be tempted to entertain some of the equivocations so common to the neo-Calvinist mystics who want to claim that they do not in fact believe babies go to hell.  Trust me, this is even more of an insult to your intelligence than the doctrine of “total depravity” is, without the bald-faced attempt to serve you a glass of piss and call it lemonade.

There is no way anybody can rationally claim to accept the notion of “Original Sin” and “Total Depravity” and declare babies absolved from their own abominable existence.  If the very material SELF of man is corrupt, and no distinction can be made between what is depraved about man and what isn’t (a thoroughly impossible distinction because bad and good cannot co-exist in a metaphysical/physical singularity:  man), and God demands moral perfection as the standard of salvation, and that only comes (irrationally) through “accepting” Christ, then God would be a full-on hypocrite to save babies.  So, not only do these mystic deviants declare that you are unable to do any good–because your own very SELF is incapable of moral action, making it thus impossible for you to make a right judgement about anything at all, including God, and thus must mean that you can’t really think–but they impugn God in their schemes and deception by claiming that He can engage in hypocritical actions which are an extension of his “goodness”.  Calling evil good is specifically condemned in the Bible, but even more than that, this removes the meaning and relevancy of “good”.  Which makes God not only a hypocrite, but also incapable of actually doing anything out of love.  Why?  Because love qualifies actions which are a direct function of “grace”, which is, despite what you might have heard, a direct acknowledgement of someone’s inherent moral worth.  If man can never be a recipient of God’s love, because he is totally depraved by his material self, then man has no moral worth, which makes any action of God towards man NOT loving by definition.  There can be only judgement and condemnation against that which lacks any moral worth whatsoever, or else the love is irrational and hypocritical.  Thus, all of God’s actions of “love” towards man are ultimately really only to Himself, which makes God, Himself, and all He does a contradiction.  God doesn’t need to show love for Himself to humanity which isn’t, according to Reformed doctrine, ever in a position to recognize love in the first place.  Why does God need man?  Man becomes besides the point.  Man, as the doctrines of Original Sin and Total Depravity explicitly teach, is wholly corrupt in every way.  Man therefore is nothing but a mere bystander to whatever God does.  If God saves man, it is in spite of man.  If God sends Jesus to the Cross, it is not for man, it is in spite of man.  If God sends man to heaven, it is not for man, it is in spite of man.  In other words, God saves Himself, through Himself, for Himself.  Man is an irrelevant observer to both his own salvation, should he (somehow) be elect, and to his own damnation should he not.  This of course wrecks man’s frame of reference for both the suffering of hell and the bliss of heaven…for since both occur in spite of man at his very material root existence, then man really can never define either one.  Therefore, any man, as a function of this theology, could never tell the difference between one or the other.  You see, again, if man’s depravity is absolute…

*

Let me break for a sec and address this.

Depravity.  Is absolute.

Let’s talk.

Depravity being absolute is the same thing as saying it is “total”, without the bullshit semantics and childish intellectual games that Reformed Christians try to play.  Don’t believe the bullshit about “total depravity doesn’t mean that man is as sinful as he could be”.  I have heard this a thousand times, and trust me, it is nothing but more equivocation by those whose understanding of everything is grounded in thoroughly impossible, irreconcilable presumptions.  No matter how hard you press them and how hard they try, they cannot make a distinction between the “sinful” parts of man and the “not sinful parts”.  Indeed, any attempt to place , let alone parse, mutually exclusive concepts within a singularity (man’s SELF) is a full on rape of logic.  If man is ONE self, then there can be no “parts” to him.  In order to have man as a combination of depravity and NOT depravity (mutually exclusive concepts), man must have existential and metaphysical parts, not physical parts…for total depravity, remember,  literally speaking is completely conceptual, NOT material.  And, of course, making man a composite of metaphysical parts means that man is and is not, somehow, at the same time.  Man is existentially defined by “parts”, which means that where one “part” of man’s metaphysical self ends, another begins, which means that one part stops at NOT man, and NOT man is where man thus begins again.  Which, in both cases, means that man is a direct function of NOT man…which is impossible.  Man, in order to be defined as MAN, must be consistently himself.  If man always begins at man, which he does–for there is no way to rationally deny this–then man is ONE…he is infinite.  There can be no interruption of man’s SELF, because that creates a schism which cannot be logically reconciled.  If man cannot view himself as a singularity of existence then man cannot rationally define himself.  And if man cannot rationally define himself, which is his absolute and perpetual frame of reference, then man cannot define anything at all.    Again, nothing which is can be a direct function of what it is not.  That may be hard to understand, but believe me, when you think about it, it’s just basic logic.  Red cannot be a direct function of blue.  Up cannot be a direct function of down.  Left cannot be a direct function of right.  SELF cannot be a direct function of NOT SELF.  And this is why the whole dualism of man between “spirit” and “body” is not and cannot be reasoned to be literal.  Man is his physical SELF, and all that man is proceeds directly from this singular, infinite SELF, which is why man is ONE SELF, not a composite of “selves”.  Man is ONE; just like God is ONE.  Spirit and body are merely ways man abstractly qualifies certain properties of himself which he observes.  The same is true for the Trinity.  The reason Christians cannot explain the Trinity has nothing to do with it being a function of God’s divine omnipotence and thus beyond man’s understanding (note:  anything beyond man’s understanding due to his metaphysical/existential being is categorically outside of man’s frame of reference, and is therefore, totally irrelevant…which makes the Trinity a pointless doctrine; which is why, I submit, it is not found in the Bible).  The reason man cannot explain the Trinity is because it is a totally impossible concept.  It is unreasonable…that is, it cannot be reconciled logically.  Period.  Full stop.  Not even God can reconcile it…for God cannot be both God and NOT God at the same time.  There is no possible way that He who is infinite and absolute, a perfect singularity of SELF just like man is can have three “distinct” persons.  Because this contradicts God at the root.  God ends at NOT God and begins at NOT God. Impossible.  God is God is God, just like man is man is man.  Any compromise of the singularity of SELF creates an irreparable epistemological schism and voids ALL knowledge of everything in the universe, including and especially God.  Put simply, infinity has no number, regardless of how man decides to qualify/quantify what he observes.  Take note of this, because it is important.  If you take nothing else away from my blog and my almost one hundred and seventy articles, please, take this:  Conceptual abstractions are not causal

Conceptual abstractions are not causal.

It doesn’t matter how much we want to claim math is “objective”, numbers do not cause what materially IS to conform to what is abstract…that is, materially IS NOT.  When you see God, you see God, period.  Full stop.  He is not a number any more than YOU, your metaphysical SELF, is a number.  God is God.  You are you.  “One” is not a mathematical distinction then in this sense, it is a metaphysical one.  

And how about this:  everything you observe is, in itself, an infinite singularity of self.  Everything you define as A thing, is infinitely what it is.  And by this assumption, every abstraction we use to qualify/quantify whatever “thing” we observe, cannot actually exist.  They have “existence” then only insofar as they serve man in organizing the environment he observes.  Morality, number, distance, color, etc., etc., are purely products of man’s ability to conceptualize.  They do not cause.  They describe the IS of the things man observes.  Why?  For one reason only:  so that man can promote his own life, which is the only rational standard of all TRUTH

*

If man’s depravity is absolute then his depravity must then apply to man’s thinking as well.  Which means that all your thoughts are literally without meaning.  If your mind is also inflicted with your mortal and moral failure then there is no way to actually know what you claim to know.  And as such, again, heaven and hell, and how you would “experience” them become impossible distinctions to make.  You simply haven’t the existential ability to apprehend either on any level.  So take heart those of you who are not “elect”…those arrogant Calvinists won’t be able to understand their heavenly utopia any more than you can understand your hell.  And even more gratifying, according to their doctrine, they could be surrounded by angels and lutes and clouds and white robes and still not know if they were saved or not.  And if they turn around and claim that they can know, then they should be careful.  For to claim that one can know that heaven is GOOD and hell is BAD means that one CAN in fact make a moral distinction in and of themselves.  And this means that Calvinists purposely avoid pursuing good and confronting evil because they make themselves (and everyone else they successfully propagandize) moral hypocrites by their own doctrine.  I find it hard to accept that rank hypocrisy and intellectual deception are the “narrow road” to heaven.

In the Reformed Protestant paradigm (and the Catholic as well, if you want to be honest…its all Augustine, and he lifted it from the Gnostics who lifted it from Plato) punishment has nothing to do with culpability in the legal, rational sense. Punishment is man’s reward for being born.  The only way to avoid, according to most Christian orthodoxy, it is for man to NOT BE himself.  And many Christians say that getting “saved” is precisely how this happens.  Of course, the logically fallacy only proceeds to worsen and give way to even more madness once an individual is “saved”.  Being saved by no means absolves man of his moral depravity in Reformed theology.  (I have written a huge article on this very issue, which was prompted by a long discussion with my sister-in-law over the Christmas holiday.  By the way, I recommend that you don’t eschew these kinds of discussions…they are a cornucopia of source material for ferreting out the rational flaws in Christian theological/philosophical assumptions.  Once you know what to look for, you better bring a fucking fishing net, because you won’t have enough hands or a big enough car to carry all the rational larceny.  No offense to my sister-in-law of course…she is a sweetheart.  She’s just been at the Reformed chow line for too long.  Lest I be a hypocrite, I should admit that three years ago we wouldn’t have even had that conversation.  I’d have agreed with her.  And believe me, the depth of my guilt is matched only by the depth of my invective towards what I used to believe.  The evil.  The lies.  I tortured myself and others for years with that shamanistic, fraudulent mysticism.)

But getting to the point of my article:  the Original Sin doctrine does just what I have been describing.  It attempts to portion the singularity of man’s SELF by making him a direct function of a rank conceptual abstraction:  morality.

Morality is a heavy word.  It is so often used as a mystic or socialist bludgeon that people almost physically flinch when it is leveled as an accusation…as if people are constantly on the hook for defending their own existence.  They somehow just know that they are immoral assholes, eschewing their cosmic and existential obligation to collectivist altruism (e.g. communism, Calvinism, socialism, fascism) and that their entire lives are little more than a poster boy for “selfishness” and “self-indulgence”.  This of course is rooted in the Platonist ideas I elaborated upon above.  The notion that you are not really YOU, but are a function of some abstraction–in the Marxist sense altruism–demands your guilt for simply being born and waking up each morning.  And once you convince man that he only exists insofar as he sacrifices himself perpetually for others (the “collective”; the “workers”,  the “poor”,  the “people”, the “needy”, the “state”, the “church body”) it is easy to rob his person and property. In Reformed theology the abstraction is “morality” if you are “saved”,  or “immorality” if you are not.  But the purpose is the same:  to put man outside himself in order to to steal from from him to feed your own wicked will to power.

What I mean is that by making man’s existential essence–his material self–a direct function of an abstraction like “morality”, the Reformed oligarchs can easily twist the logic into the deception of the false and unbiblical doctrine of Original Sin…which, like the Trinity, is not anywhere to be found in the Bible (that’s because God is categorically rooted in reason and rational assumptions–and I will gladly debate any atheist anytime and anywhere for free, and destroy their arguments with a giddiness which will undoubtedly strain my Christian charity)…yes, they can twist the logic to deny that man has any kind of material, knowable, definable SELF at all, which is how you can get from utterly moral (pre-Eden) to wholly morally corrupt (post-Eden, or “the Fall”, which I also do not believe is in the Bible).  What they do is just what I described above:  they attempt to place mutually exclusive concepts within the singularity of man’s SELF.  This makes man a direct function of these unobservable concepts; and once this is accomplished, man is removed from any kind of epistemological TRUTH and thus epistemological efficacy (pursuing knowledge to a rational, knowable, objective end:  man’s individual LIFE).  And once man is removed from his SELF and any efficacious knowledge of his SELF and anything else, by extension, then the mystic overlords, the theo-marxists, are free to control man in service to their own power; to rob man in service to their own evil gain.  It is as simple as that.

If man can go from being one absolute–morality–to the absolute mutually exclusive antithesis of it–immorality–then there is NO man to speak of in the equation.  You aren’t really YOU…which, as you know is the whole fucking point and why that root assumption of all tyrannical philosophies is my utter bag.  How dare these people tell me I’m not me; that I’m some pre-determined figment of God’s musings, unable to make any kind of moral or practical or intellectual distinction of any kind for myself because myself?  Doesn’t exist.  I mean, really…do I look that fucking naive?

And further, let me explain something:  If man is utterly changed at his existential rootfrom the complete ground up, so that he can go from being a moral agent to an immoral agent then there can by no means be any way to rationally explain how man could even know that in the first place.  If man’s metaphysical alternation was absolute (total), then man cannot seen anything beyond the absolute of what he now is:  immorality/depravity/sin nature.  You would not be able to look upon the “old Adam” and declare:  See!  That is the perfection I used to be!

It would be impossible for you to recognize the old Adam, for the new absolute of the “fallen” Adam has completely consumed man.  There could be no “perfect moral objective” that you could even define, or observe, or pursue.  You could not, from your metaphysical slavery, recognize the “free” you which you used to be.  Indeed, he/she would not and could not have any meaning to you whatsoever.

When you change from one absolute to another (which is impossible, of course), you cannot observe the first absolute.  If blue were to become red, then it couldn’t ever observe itself as blue again.  Because its “redness” is absolute.  There is then, by definition, now nothing beyond the infinite absolute of its redness.

So, no…man did not undergo some metaphysical metamorphosis in the Garden of Eden whereby he materially and existentially and epistemologically changed from this to that.  Man is the same as he ever was, now, or before the “fall”:  HIMSELF.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Morality Was Made for Man, Not Man For Morality: The doctrine of “Original Sin” as an example of Platonist fallacy and the destruction of man and reason

  1. Calvinism because it defines sin as simply being human must deny the incarnation. Of course they are too shrewd to admit to not believing the incarnation so they lie and claim they do. But they can’t really.

    They must make Jesus’ flesh into some other kind of flesh — it can’t be the same as ours, because then he would have original sin per their system.

    Unfortunately they’ve drafted the virgin birth in to sell their false doctrine, claiming that Jesus had to be born of a stainless spotless virgin to avoid original sin (yet the Bible never uses these adjectives nor gives this explanation at all).

    The virgin birth was only intended as an impressive miracle — “Behold the Lord himself shall give you a SIGN….” not as a prop to teach that being human is a sin. Quite the opposite, if being human was a sin, God would not have been born. The incarnation is the ultimate weapon against Calvinism…or would be if they weren’t able to twist the virgin birth all around. Satan is one tricky bastard.

  2. “If God sends man to heaven, it is not for man, it is in spite of man. In other words, God saves Himself, through Himself, for Himself. Man is an irrelevant observer to both his own salvation, should he (somehow) be elect, and to his own damnation should he not.”

    That’s certainly what they teach. Their god is simply putting on a grand puppet show for all his buddies on Mount Olympus. “Hey Zeus, look what I can make John Piper do. See I pull this string and he cheats on his wife. Then I pull this one and he goes and yells at some poor sap and calls him a Pelagian for being a decent moral fellow. And I pull this one and he takes some more prozac so he can get in the pulpit with crazy druggy eyes.” Zeus: “Wow, Yahweh, that’s pretty awesome. Can I try?” “No, of course not stupid; I’m SOVEREIGN. John Calvin said so…because I pulled his strings.”

  3. “the Fall”, which I also do not believe is in the Bible

    If the reason Jesus came was because Adam fell then its rather strange he never mentioned it.

    He says he came to seek the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not to undo some fall by Adam.

    He says he came to call sinners to repentance, not to call the righteous to repentance, and not to undo some fall by Adam.

    He mentions Moses at the burning Bush. He mentions Noah’s flood. He mentions Abraham. He mentions Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. He mentions Jonah. But does he mention Adam and Eve? Actually yes, but only to talk about marriage: “He who made them at the beginning made them male and female” not to talk about the so-called “fall.” On the Augustinian theory this is a major oversight on the part of God Incarnate.

  4. Morality is for the improvement of this life (by banning the wrongs evil people like to do to others). Morality was not designed simply to condemn. The same, of course, can be said of that dreaded thing called “The Law.” The point was to prevent destructive practices, not to put something impossible in front of people to condemn them for predictable failure. Only Gnostic/

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