Monthly Archives: January 2014

There Is No Such Thing as “Nothing”; There is No Such Thing as a Negative Command: Morality defined

David, this is why I love your comments.  They get me going…the thinking juices flowing, the motivation striding.  And the best part is that I do not necessarily find myself ever completely disagreeing with you.  I see where you are going with your thinking and I like and get it.  I just think the way you approach your ideas is…well, it’s certainly interesting and unique (this is not a sideways insult, btw), but it makes assumptions which I think need to be rationally tweaked, if I can say that without sounding like an arrogant prick.

Maybe I can’t.  I’ll let you be the judge.  If I can’t…touche; I can see that.

You wrote:

I think you are thinking of morality in terms of positive commandments. I only think of morality in terms of negative commandments. When I say morality I mean: Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery. I never mean anything like giving to the poor, etc. So often people confuse morality with benevolence. Morality is a necessity. Benevolence is just a nice to have. I don’t believe in any obligation to feed the poor, but I do believe in any obligation to not defraud them. Once people try to make morality based on positive commandments (do’s) rather than negative (don’ts) then you have tyranny.

*

David…and, see, that’s the rub.  Your observation is precisely why people MUST think critically when evaluating any idea, but particularly any idea which claims authority as a “law” or a “commandment”.  Because we so quickly resort to our default Platonism:  abstractions rule men, men don’t rule themselves.  Meaning is outside of man; and man is obligated to organize his life around the ethereal abstractions as if they are absolute and he and his life exist purely to conform to the “ideal” (the “form”).  Instead of the other way around, which is the only rational way of living.  It has become so second nature to us…hell, I would not even say “second” nature.  Our default nature IS our Platonist assumptions.  I mean…look, the entire fucking Standard Model of Physics is utterly rooted in irreconcilable Platonist metaphysical assumptions.  Obviously all matter inexorably will trend towards infinity…this is just a natural function of the reality of everything’s inherent BEING.  In order for any “law of nature” to work, there needs to be the OBJECT which IS in order to receive the influence of the “law”.  That is, all objects need to possess the inherent and innate ability to be acted upon by any law; and it is this which is the root of their existence.  The SELF of whatever is…must be infinite.  And yet, there they go, building billion or trillion dollar super colliders looking for the infinite, dimensionless particle which is the building block of all matter.  A particle which even a cursory infusion of reason into the entire fucking premise will tell you cannot possibly exist.  There is no such thing as “a particle” which exists separately from all that IS and yet is the source of all that is.  You cannot have the INFINITE source of what is be separated from everything which is a direct function of it.  This is simple logic.  An absolute cannot be parsed by “space” or “time”.

Anyway…you get my point.  And Christians aren’t any more reasonable…oh, hell no.  Our contradictory doctrines are a punch line to a bad fucking joke going back almost two thousand years to St. Augustine.  So quickly do Christians resort to Platonism that we make statements like “God creates man out of nothing”.  Nothing cannot literally exist, by definition…so, how does that work exactly?  God made the world in six literal “days”, when a day didn’t exist until man decided to invent the concept.  “Day” is an abstraction, and abstractions come from where?  Man’s mind.  If man wasn’t around, then neither is was a “day”.

And what also doesn’t work?  The idea that man can be commanded to do a “not”.  Every action of man is a function of man’s infinite being…thus, all man does is DOING, it cannot be NOT doing.

 Let me explain.

*

There is no such thing as a “negative” commandment.  All commandments require men to ACT…which is to do.  Since BEING is the source of man’s life, and being is perpetually active, and is the singularly infinite source of all man IS and does, man cannot, by definition, do “nothing”.  “Nothing” is a metaphysical/epistemological, even mathematical, placeholder.  It does not actually exist.  When God says “do not murder”, He is not advocating that man do “nothing”, which is a logical impossibility.  The implicit imperative behind these “negative” commands compels man to ACT: they are assumptions (ideas) which should lead to the volitional doing of things.

And the assumptions behind the Ten Commandments which man then uses to compel his actions are devoted to a singularity of TRUTH/MORALITY…that is, the infinite standard by which the Ten Commandments can be known as good and true.  That is, man is to use the assumptions to DO something in service to the standard.  In all Ten Commandments I submit the standard is man’s SELF…his LIFE, his singular existence.

This leads to the inevitable conclusion that man’s life then is the authority behind the “law”.  Thus, just as I said in my article, the Law ceases to be a law at all…for it lacks any authority of itself, no matter where it is from or who gave it (the “state”, the “church”; even God, Himself), to either condemn or justify/affirm man.  Man’s existence is the singular authority behind any “law”.  Period.  Full stop.  Which makes man the only real authority.

This is why the Law can never justify nor condemn…and why I am a Christian, not a Jew, even though I obviously understand and affirm the usefulness of the Law in laying the foundation of right assumptions in a world where insane and destructive Platonist philosophy burns up cities and nations like a napalm bomb the size of the fucking moon.  But “law”, no matter which one, gets its authority from man’s life, which means that man is never ethically obligated to a law.  On the contrary…the law is ethically obligated to serve the individual.  And the individual is only ethically obligated to his own existence.

I do affirm your assertion that “morality is necessary”.  Truly.  But why?  What is morality saying exactly?  Morality is literally NOTHING MORE than declaring the individual human the standard of GOOD (and TRUTH).  Any other definition of morality is not rationally defensible.  Kantianism, Platonism, Marxism, Calvinism, Socialism, Collectivism, Communism, Theocracies, Monarchies…none of these have a rational basis for their standard of morality.  Thus, morality as an ideal is only valid if we are speaking of the right of each individual person to wholly own themselves.

So I agree that morality is necessary, but not any morality…because there is no such thing as any morality.  Morality is only non-relative/non-equivalent, and thus RATIONAL and reasonably EFFICACIOUS, if the standard is man’s life.  This is true for any conceptual abstraction (idea), whether it is morality, or space, or time, or math, or blue, or purple, or distance, or flavor, etc..  All ideas serve and affirm man’s life and/or make it possible for man to organize his environment in service to the promotion of his life…or they are false; they are irrational, and should be rejected out of hand.

Authority of Laws, Rationally Explained

In this day and age, where merely having an idea is the only necessary “proof” that the idea has rational value, it is easy to confuse the conceptually abstract–that which is solely a product of man’s conceptualizing brain (like, for example, mathematics/laws of nature, or religious “doctrine”)–with what is literal…what is materially actual, what exists, what are the observable, knowable objects of man’s abstractions in the first place (like, for example, HUMAN BEINGS).  This presents a huge problem in the form of that age-old bugaboo, moral relativism.

Now, moral relativism isn’t really moral relativism at all…it is more like what should be described as moral equivalency.  As my friend, the brilliant metaphysician, John Immel, might say, moral relativism is nothing more than the elimination of objective truth as that which man can either comprehend or pursue.  In other words, moral relativism is nothing more than saying there is a full-on moral equivalency between actions which are objectively observed to destroy human life, and actions which are objectively observed to affirm and promote human life.  As the great, contemporary neo-Calvinist tyrant Albert Mohler said in his article on Nelson Mandela:  “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.

This is true but only if one assumes what I just said: the promotion of human life is not the objective of man’s ideas; the promotion of ideas is the objective of man.  In other words, human beings become food for abstract ideas.  When this is conceded, it is no big thing to kill another person if it means your particular philosophy gets to rule the world.  Indeed, if man’s life is no longer the absolute moral and epistemological standard, then the abstractions MUST be.  And if that is the case, man’s life presents an obvious logical affront to the absoluteness of the ideas, and must be sacrificed.

You see, the only way a terrorist can be thought of as a freedom fighter is if we concede that morality has nothing to do with human life.  Of course if that is the assumption then there is no such thing as a freedom fighter.  All fights become about ideas specifically designed and logically constructed to exclude man from the moral and epistemological and metaphysical/ontological equation.  Thus, all fights boil down to FORCE.  Whoever kills the most number of the other human beings wins not only the war, but the right to declare his or her abstract ideas/assumptions morally perfect and perfectly true.  Thus, morality is directly tied to the DEATH of human beings.  Morality is defined solely by violence, by force.  The claim that TRUTH and GOODNESS lay outside of man’s individual life is simply claiming that killing human beings is the greatest moral act in the universe.  And it is literally nothing more than that.

Believe me, at the end of the day, any proponent of Calvinism–and really, any proponent of any “orthodox” Christianity–must eventually come to this conclusion:  terrorists are freedom fighters, always.  Terrorists are nothing more than people who will slaughter any and everyone–from children on school buses to marines sleeping in barracks to soldiers on the battlefield–for one reason only:  to FORCE other men to their philosophy because man’s greatest obligation is to die in service to the “truth”, which is totally OUTSIDE of man.  Since Calvinists concede the same philosophical ideal–that man exists to serve doctrine; that man is perpetually outside of truth–Calvinists, along with any other person who shares the same ideal, must declare a moral equivalency between a terrorist and any other “soldier”.  They can no more condemn the terrorist than they can condemn the “god” they serve.  For their “god”, like the terrorist, condemns everyone to die, no matter who they are.  The only absolution for people comes in the form of conceding that death is not only perfectly acceptable, but is the apogee of moral perfection. Only then can they be “saved”.  Buuuuuuuut…since man at his existential root is utterly incapable of making such a moral distinction, by doctrinal/philosophical definition, the decision by “god” or anyone else to murder them for their own good is quite an easy one to make.  You see, you cannot ever choose not to die.  You are either one who accepts your death as your cosmic moral obligation or you are one who does not.  And this ends the relevant distinctions between men.  You MUST die…that is the inevitable, MORALLY inexorable outcome of your existence, ironically .  Life is not about choice, it is purely about death.  The “saved” ones are simply the ones who admit (confess) this  “truth”.  

In this sense then, there is no such thing as salvation within these philosophies.  If anyone who does not concede individual life as the singular source of all moral truth and good, and yet still asserts that it is for your salvation that you must convert, then they are liars of the worst kind.  Period.  Full stop.  Reject them.

The truth with respect to these philosophies is that everyone dies.  Everyone.

*

As an aside, please visit John Immel’s site, http://www.spiritualtyranny.com, and read his latest article.  It is positively brilliant, and by that article alone you will gain an understanding of the devious, surreptitious nature of tyrannical ideas, and be significantly prepared to recognize and reject them when they come in sheep’s clothing.

*

The efficacy and moral integrity of any law of any kind, civil or religious or scientific, must be vetted by an absolute, singularly infinite standard.  The standard cannot obviously be the law, itself, for that presents an impossible contradiction of logic and conflict of interest.  A law in the rational sense should point to man’s life as the root of all moral GOOD; that is, the standard of morality and TRUTH.  With this in mind, the law then becomes wholly unnecessary as a “law”–that is, having in and of itself “authority” (force/punishment)–and it becomes merely a ideal pointing to the standard of TRUTH, which can only objectively be man’s LIFE, or MAN (humanity). Once this is realized, the law is no longer a law at all…for it can possess no power over man.  Man realizes that the pursuit of himself, by himself is the singularity of all goodness and truth, and thus, man is neither condemned by nor affirmed and justified by a “law”.

Now, for those who who cry “selfish, oppressive, capitalist pig!!”, let me state the obvious for you, since you seem perpetually incapable grasping it yourself…because you are an intellectual sloth and a categorical affront to reason and humanity.  Of course, man cannot deny his “neighbor” and claim to be pursuing himself.  It is this rational axiom/truism which prevents man from pursuing his own comfort, peace, and prosperity at the expense of other human beings, which his senses and rational faculties indubitably tell him are equally free agents, possessing the same inherent rights to pursue SELF as he has.

Did I clear that up for you?  No?  Well, don’t blame me.  I trust what I observe.  I can make rational distinctions between human beings and ideas.  And my ideas include the reality of my human neighbors and thus their implicit right to own their own existence.  If you cannot make that distinction, well…I suggest you get the fuck away from whoever you are hanging around with and whatever books they are reading.

The point then is that laws can no longer claim to have any authority over man, period.  Laws are solely abstractions…and man’s abstractions have only one rational purpose:  to affirm and perpetuate man’s life.  Laws can only be guideposts to point man in the direction of himSELF, as the ultimate and singular source of truth and morality.  If any law claims to have authority over man as a function of itself, it is an unjust law, unnatural, and irrational.  A law either points to man’s individual LIFE as the source of all GOOD and thus should be respected and considered sacred, or the law points to something ELSE as the source of all TRUTH and MORALITY…the “state”, the “collective”, the “poor”, the “government”, the “church”, the “race”, the “culture”, the “natural laws/laws of physics”, the “workers”, the “monarchy”, the “leader”, the “minority”, the “philosophy”, etc., etc.

Notice how in every single example above we are looking at what is not a material reality but are looking at a figment of man’s conceptualizing brain.  There is no such actual THING as “workers”, or “race” or “church”, or “poor”, or “government”, or “philosophy”.  All of these are merely euphemisms for some group…and a group is what?  A collection of individuals.  And since individuals are the only thing in the equation which actually, observably, materially exist, then EVERY OTHER IDEA must logically give way to the reality which is before our eyes:  man’s individual SELF is the PRIME and singular source of all truth.  Any attempt to make man’s illusory abstractions the ruler of man WILL lead to man’s destruction and the wholesale institutionalization of tyranny.

Thus, a law must point to individual man as the source of its authority or it is a false law.  And if it points to man as the source if its authority, then the law is no longer “law”, it is merely what?  An assumption.  The assumption being this:  man’s LIFE should be the standard which drives ALL of man’s volitional actions.  Justice can thus be objectively defined as: governing and ruling in sole favor of the right of individual human beings to pursue their own existence in service to themselves, not at the expense of others, and not in the interest of others.  Any attempt to force men into a morality which excludes the singular SELF (e.g. “morality” proceeding directly from the “masses” or the “state” or the “church”) as the infinite source of moral GOOD and TRUTH is logically indefensible, irrational, and will inevitably lead humankind to its destruction and death.  In other words, morality outside of man demands death.

And obviously, any idea which demands death as man’s greatest moral obligation is a rank evil.

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.

Lest We Be Hypocrites, Let’s Interpret Paul the Apostle by Vetting His Ideas According To Reason: A brief response to David Braine

“You ever read Thomas Paine? He compared Paul to a monk in a cell and Jesus to a man walking in the healthy air of creation. And it was precisely because of this point. You can’t earn anything its all of grace is patently Pauline. But “do X and great shall be your reward in heaven” is patently Jesusy. But we’re all trained from our youth up to ignore those kinds of sayings of Jesus because Paul says nananabooboo to them.”David,

When you first posted here John Immel texted me saying that he thought you were James Jordan. I agreed…but I had some minor doubts. Not so much anymore. LOL 🙂

You don’t like Paul…if you are James Jordan, you know my thoughts on him. I deny that he espouses gnosticism in his epistles. I understand that he was tasked with bringing the message of a Jewish Christ to people who were steeped in a philosophy that had little if any frame of reference for such ideas. As such, Paul was presented with a difficult and frankly, thankless (at least “temporally” speaking) task…and, certainly, he deserved it. Add to that his natural tendency, which is so obvious, to have just a hell of a time getting to the point, or even finding it at all (on some occasions I find that Paul makes a broad claim, yet never truly defines it…for example, why is long hair a shame to men, exactly?, and what is “unwholesome speech” exactly?), and Paul was bound for an eternity of criticism and accusations of “heretic”. Add to that his odious and short temper, which is evident throughout his epistles, as evidenced by his tendency to take quick offense to challenges of his ideas and his authority with long and almost incoherent soliloquies on why he is an equal Apostle, and…well, yes, you get the idea. He was told he’d suffer for Jesus’s name, and he did. And in reading Paul, and being exposed to ghastly and destructive interpretations of him by Reformed deviants, so, it seems, do we.

So are his Christian ideas hard to ferret out? Hell yes. Do his epistles call for a superficial, “plain reading” of the text? That is an extremely naive approach to Paul. Do I reject ideas of his which I cannot reconcile with reason (as defined by: man must utterly exist as a separate and wholly self-aware agent, in and of himself, with all actions and ideas beginning and ending with himself as the singularity of his own existence…categorically distinct from God, and is, as such, the standard of his own TRUTH in both this life and the next)? Yes I do.

But I feel that rejecting Paul for the same ostensible and superficial interpretations of his ideas by which the Protestant demagogues and tyrants accept them is hypocritical. And worse…it is irrational.

Having said that, I do not mind your input in the least. You make Christians uncomfortable with your ideas and I really fucking like that. Christians have gotten intellectually fat and rationally lazy and philosophically stupid because they have conceded the reasonless, pathetic, ignorant, slothful, silly, stupid, insane, asinine and, frankly, evil idea that to believe in God means blasting reason into the vacuum of mystery. To them, God cannot be explained rationally because man is unable to reconcile God to his very existence because his existence is a perfect epistemological and moral failure. This means that doubting God as they define him is proof that you are “unelect” and outside of God’s concern and compassion. The hypocrisy which they will have to answer for, and likely fail, is: how can they judge others for not apprehending God and condemning them as morally corrupt for their blindness when by their own doctrine they admit to the very same blindness? If you cannot explain God according to reason then you cannot explain God. Period. Full stop. Reason is the arbiter of truth. There is no other. And to pretend to understand God’s revelation and yet have no rational grounds for “understanding” is a contradiction in terms.

So…you make Christians think. You challenge them and you piss them off. And that is just fine by me.