Inclined towards sin? Hmm.
You know…this is meaningless. I mean, really, to say such a thing and offer no qualification is a glittering example of what the rape of reason looks like. Further, this doctrine shows just how little Reformed Protestants esteem people in general. It isn’t merely an insult to the rational minds of their fellow human beings…it is representative of the full-on rejection of human existence as having any moral worth or truth at all. This of course is nothing more than a contradiction…an equivocation of reason which stems from the grand “truth” defining all of Platonist thinking, from Marxism (and all other variations of altruistic social engineering, otherwise known as Collectivism) to Theocracies to Monarchies to Mystic Tyrannies like Calvinism, and so on and so forth. That grand “truth” is that humanity is a contradiction in and of itself. Existing, but not really. Humanity is, and yet is NOT at the same time. There is always, it is assumed, something ELSE “out there”, in the spiritual ether, determining and controlling all humans do and think (the scientific determinists might call it the “laws of nature/universe/physics”; the Protestants call it “God’s grace” and the “sin nature”). This of course removes any metaphysical distinction whatsoever between humans and the absolute, all-determining force outside of them, which then utterly removes man from himself.
Man either exists therefore as a function of the Primary Consciousness (or, more precisely the human proxies who claim to represent the Primary Consciousness incarnate, somehow defying their own human existential failure), demanding a categorical surrender to the human incarnate proxies and complete absorption into the collective, or man doesn’t exist at all. And one who refuses to conform and thus forfeits his or her own right to exist then becomes utterly irrelevant to the “moral imperatives” of the proxy and his group. When this happens, get ready for the death squads and the trains stuffed to the point of bending rivets with human beings destined for the ovens and the gas chambers. If you don’t exist then you have no rights to your humanity, obviously. And a human who insists on existing in defiance of the absolute “truth” and perfect “goodness” of the absolute collective and its ruling despot MUST die in service to truth. There can be no other alternative. If you don’t join them you don’t get to exist…
…which means live.
In other words, this is no laughing matter. When you deal with the tyranny of irreconcilable ideas like “man is inclined towards sin”, you deal with the tyrant. And the tyrant, contrary to popular opinion, doesn’t want to be God. No…he wants to be the fucking tyrant. His tyranny IS the end of itself. He has no objective beyond that. He thinks he is better than God. And further, he doesn’t want to be God because God does not and cannot exist within the paradigm of his doctrinal and philosophical insanity. God is wholly reasonable…and as such, He cannot possibly share the podium with this asshole. And the best way to be the true tyrant is to deceive and enslave those who are willing and lazy and self-indulgently stupid, and to kill the rest.
And so I ask…
Inclined towards evil?
Does that mean all men are equally inclined? Well, if you know any true-blooded Reformed Protestant then you must understand that it does. For no man is exempt from his “inclination”. Inclination then is the STATE of man…man IS his “inclination towards sin”. Man is equally and universally inclined as a function of his root being. The very IS of man is “inclined” towards sin. The the divine mystics who rule over the barbarian masses as God in His stead notwithstanding.
But then, this begs the question (which should be obvious, but in this Platonist world sadly isn’t, because people don’t even THINK to wander down the primrose path of fallacious determinist ideas to their logical conclusion; the path being, of course, the wide road to hell)…ahem…begs the question: If all men are equally inclined then how can man define “inclined” in the first place? That is, what does “inclined” look like when there is no frame of reference, by very doctrinal definition, to determine what is inclination as juxtaposed to NON-inclination? If there is no such thing as one NOT inclined towards sin, then how in the hell do we even arrive at what inclined IS in the first place? In order to tell an inclination to choose vanilla ice cream, one must observe an example of someone who normally chooses chocolate. But in their brilliance, the Calvinist rational larcenists say that it is impossible for any human being to prefer chocolate, and thus be “inclined” to choose chocolate over vanilla. Except vanilla is “sin” and chocolate, which is “good” doesn’t exit. So then, again, in the absence of any “inclination” contrary, it is quite impossible to observe an inclination towards sin. Man’s “inclination” then is simply another deception…another way to state what they really think: man is utterly, categorically evil and a rank moral atrocity simply by virtue of being born.
In other words “man is inclined” towards his total depravity means that man is TOTALLY depraved. No matter how much they want to torture the logic and burn it at the stake like Michael Servitus, they cannot get around the fact that “total” does not leave room for any part of man that is not EVIL incarnate itself, by definition. Which is what they utterly believe. They believe, then, by logical extension, that God directly creates evil.
This is why all sane human beings who actually believe in God should run screaming from these apostates with all manner of savage invective and denunciation for what they believe blowing forth with every breath.
Now, some of the more wily Reformed types and/or Calvinists might argue that Jesus is what “not inclined” towards sin looks like. But that won’t wash into a rational argument for a couple of reasons. The first is that, according to their beliefs, Jesus was fully human. And thus, if He is not inclined towards sin then neither must be any other human. For if ALL humans are inclined towards sin, and Jesus was a human…well, if A is Jesus and B is Human and C is Sin, the A=B and B=C, then A=C. Understand? Its a simple logical relationship.
But Jesus was also fully God (never mind the obvious logical contradiction which is merely ipso facto if you are a Reformed Protestant…that is, two absolutes cannot possibly be reconciled into a single absolute, by definition, for the entire premise is impossible; I argue that Jesus was a human, who happened to be God, if that makes sense…if not, well, that’s another article). So they will argue that it is his God “part” which made him walk contrary to human “sinful” inclination. Of course the problem with this is that God is ontologically/metaphysically distinct from man. That is, His nature is wholly exclusive to man’s nature. When sin and evil and depravity become a part of the existential nature of man (man’s root SELF at the level of pure, naked existence) and not a CHOICE man makes to act in service to an objective standard of truth/morality that he is fully capable, innately and inherently, of reconciling himself to, then existential essences which are utterly exclusive (i.e. God’s SELF at the level of existence vs. man’s SELF at the level of existence) cannot relate. That means that whatever God does as a function of his existence man cannot possibly observe, because what God does, God IS…and we have just, via the false doctrine of Total Depravity, separated man and God completely at the level of existence. Man would need to have existential equality with God AND moral equality (both man and God, as a root function of being, are GOOD) in order to ever observe and integrate into his own context anything God ever does, including acting in a way not inclined towards sin. In other words, in order for anything God does or says or is to have meaning and relevancy in man’s life, man must be able to rightly observe it and create right ethical and epistemological definitions of it. This means it would have to have legitimate value in the context of man’s life. But when man is existentially separated from God by his depraved inclination towards sin, man’s context is wholly parsed from God’s context…again at the level of root, naked existence. So, if man IS his inclination towards depravity, which the Calvinists argue, and God IS not, then man and God can have absolutely nothing to do with each other, up to and including mere observation. And this would obviously preclude God from being the Creator, and would preclude man from even knowing about God in the first place. So by doctrinal abdication, Calvinists trump their whole fucking argument . If man is existentially separated from God, then God and man can’t even know each other are around. So why are we even discussing Total Depravity in the first place? It speaks to a relationship, man and God, which cannot exist according to its own assumptions.
What all this boils down to is this: If a human beings can observe what “not inclined towards sin looks like”, then there is no reason to ever assume human begins actually are inclined towards sin. Because “not inclined towards sin” would have to be a knowable, relevant aspect of man’s contextual existence. And if it is knowable in man’s existential context, then it is actual IN MAN (because man IS his context, his life, his existence), somewhere, somehow, by someone, so that it can be rightly SEEN. Again, since ALL that man rightly knows and rightly defines is a product of man’s senses FIRST, then “not inclined towards sin” must be actual in the life of mankind, somewhere, somehow, so that man can recognize it. And if this is true, then by definition man in general is NOT inclined towards sin. The declaration is patently false…or, here, outside of Calvin’s Metaphysical Traveling Sideshow, a lie. If he can observe this concept of “not inclined toward sin” so that he can know what “inclined towards sin” looks like, then “not inclined towards” sin must exist TO man. The concepts “inclined” and “not inclined” must be identified as a product of man’s SELF, and as such, this observation then must deny the idea that ALL men are inclined towards sin.
In short, God cannot show you what “not inclined towards sin” looks like and then proceed to say that it is utterly outside your metaphysical essence, existence, nature, and context, to ever actually BE “not inclined” whether “saved” or “unsaved”. If He shows it to you and then says that it is utterly beyond you as you then “not inclined” is totally irrelevant. And any concept which is totally irrelevant all the way down to the root position of man’s existence cannot have any meaning at all. And anything that has NO meaning cannot actually exist TO man. Ever. Something with utterly NO meaning means that man cannot know it.
Thus, if man can observe “not inclined” so that he can define “inclined”, then man cannot be “inclined” by existential nature. Inclined must thus be a choice of man, not a product man’s SELF. A choice driving man to action, and rooted in assumptions. Thus, all evil is really a function of man’s assumptions (ideas, doctrines, beliefs, etc.) never a function of man himself.
Since all humans are inclined towards sin, there can be no median from which to quantify any standard deviation that could logically be identified as a trend of “inclination”.
This will further be elaborated in part three. Stay tuned.
3 thoughts on “(Part Two of…) Man is “Inclined” Towards Sin?: Yet another nonsensical argument from the despotic equivocators of “Total Depravity””
“These six simple machine doth physics know: yea, a seventh is not known to it: A Lever, a Wheel and axle, a Pulley, an Inclined plane, a Wedge, and a Screw.” (Physics 6:16)
So they are claiming man is a simple machine, an inclined plane.
A pre-programmed, pre-determined machine.
Inclined planes don’t incline themselves. So to say that man is inclined to sin is to say that God is the author of sin.