A friend of mine, in the course of doing some research, solicited my opinion as to why Christianity lends itself so easily (and automatically, I would add) to tyranny, as even a cursory glance at history will reveal.  The following post was my response.

What I wrote wasn’t what he was looking for as far as the objective of his research is concerned; but for my part, I submit that it sums up precisely the very core problem with Christianity, and why it not only historically has been a bulwark for the worst kind of violent and despotic societies and governments, but has also been a routine and systematically applied defense of so many vile and destructive institutions and practices within those societies and governments:  chattel slavery, organized genocide (e.g. the Holocaust), organized torture (e.g. the Inquisition), public execution (e.g. Salem Witch Trials, John Calvin’s stake burnings in Geneva), economic and political discrimination (e.g. Jim Crow laws, resistance to women’s suffrage), routine open and violent condemnation of categorically innocent and law abiding persons (e.g. the blistering denunciations of gay and lesbian citizens).  Yes, these, to name a few.  And there are many more examples.

So, in short, why does Christianity lend itself so perfectly to tyranny, abuse, violence, torture, murder, and the wholesale enslavement, both literally and figuratively speaking, of the masses?  As I reveal in my post, the answer is simple, and it is the same answer which is fitting for ALL evil and oppressive philosophies:  It does not know “What is man?”.

Period.  Full stop.

When you have no reasonable defense for the existence of the individual human, then humanity in general becomes, by definition a false idea.  An illusion.  A lie.  Or, at best, a thing.  Lifeless.  Soulless.  Meaningless.

Unless…

…it can be forced (and it MUST be forced…for humanity, in the despotic construct, is fundamentally unable to THINK) into either sacrificing itself of its own volition (which doesn’t actually exist in the despotic philosophies; man has no volition), or is forcefully sacrificed on its own behalf by the Priests/Elders/Kings/Officials of the Collective and the Primary Consciousness (which can be and usually is one and the same, and is defined as that which is assumed to be absolute TRUTH:  God, the Government, the State, the Party, the Tribe, the Race, the King, the Dictator, the Leadership, the People, the Workers, the Poor, the Company) in service to the absolute “truth” and “good” of the Primary Consciousness and the Collective, which gives all meaning and all moral value to the individual, right up to the point where there is no existential/metaphysical distinction.  You are either a member of the collective, wholly subordinate and enslaved to the Authority of the Collective (and the Primary Consciousness), or you don’t exist. You have no rational metaphysic.  There stands no definition, no qualification or quantification to the substance which you observe to comprise yourSELF.

“SELF” has no translatable concept or construct within the Christian metaphysical component of its belief system.   And in Christianity, the reason why it can almost always be found on the side of the oppressor, and willingly so, is because it flagrantly assumes, as a perfunctory part of its foundational philosophical concessions, that there is no such thing as individual human beings.  If you are not part of the group, admitted and affirmed by the proxies of God, your life is literally meaningless.

This is the fundamental assumption behind all tyrannies, and also Christianity (which is inherently tyrannical in its orthodox forms), as we have seen it practiced for almost its entire existence upon this earth.

And now, with no more ado, here is my reply to the issue in question, posited in the title of this post:

*

Here is what I have come up with.

It has been rightly said that the question of tyranny boils down to this particular question:  Who owns man?

But the question which still remains to be asked is:  Why is this a question in the first place?  Meaning, what are the presumptions which allow man to think that this question is somehow legitimate?

The answer is found in the root ideas about man’s existential nature, which is why I focus so heavily on metaphysics.  The implicit assumption behind the question “who owns man?” is that man somehow can be owned.  But the only way this can be assumed is if it is believed that man, as a matter of his existential being, is not in fact absolute.  On the other hand, if we concede that man IS, and that he EXISTS, then we must also concede that he is absolute.  For man cannot both be IS and IS NOT; existing and not existing at the same time.

At the root of man is an absolute existence, period.  Which means that man’s ability to be conscious of his existence is likewise absolute.  Absolute means infinite, which means that there are no boundaries to the metaphysical essence of individual man which includes his consciousness.  If this is true, then no “other” can claim to own him because no other can exist in such a way as to make such ownership ultimately efficacious and reasonable. Man acts in service to his own existence because he MUST, because everything he thinks and does is a direct function of his inherently absolute and infinite being.  This makes man’s interactions with God, other people, and the environment inexorably relative to HIMSELF.

Therefore, I would not even argue that man can own himself because in the case of an absolute, infinite SELF, ownership is besides the point. “Ownership” is merely a concept man uses to qualify a particular form of relationship he observes in his environment.  It is a tool he uses in service to the standard of SELF, which, as I have said before, is the only objective and legitimate standard of morality and truth which can be claimed.

The problem with Christianity, as always, lies in the assumption that man’s conceptual abstractions are causal (beginning to end, cause to effect, first to last, up to down, past/present/future, etc.).  Man “observes” that he comes from “nothing”, or “unconsciousness”, or non-existence into existence, and then, when he dies, he reverts back to his unconscious non-existence (or, if you believe in an afterlife, man goes there in “spirit”, whatever that means). But the point is that almost as soon as man’s brain develops into a full blown and efficacious awareness of SELF, he concedes that he is directly a function of nothingness (non-existence, un-consciousness).  And of course what this thinking ultimately leads to is the idea that man is not, in fact, metaphysically absolute.  His root being is foundationally a contradiction in terms.  He is an IS operating as a direct function of an IS NOT.  This is of course impossible and logically indefensible. And man should really know better, but after thousands of years of Greek philosophy, his thinking has evolved to assume that truth is somehow rooted in illusions and mystery; which means that man’s very consciousness cannot be trusted.

What this inevitably leads to is the idea that man’s metaphysical essence–his existential IS–can be parsed, and in fact IS parsed.  Man metaphysic is no longer absolute.  The assumptions which necessarily follow this idea are one of two:

A. There is no absolute, really, so the man with the biggest gun and the willingness to liberally apply it gets to make one up (usually himself).

B. There IS an absolute, but man is not it…so whoever claims (again, by force, fiat, lies, deception…it always goes back to force, which is why Christianity worships at the altar of “AUTHORITY” above all else)…yes, whoever claims to “know it” and to “serve it” as its earthbound proxy is “divinely” mandated to rule.

The explicit assumption regarding absolutes (that are not man, and thus, unknowable by man…and this is key) is that that which is absolute, in order to in fact be absolute, MUST demand the sacrifice of everything else in favor of its infinite morality and truth.  If man is allowed to be “free” then he presents a necessary limitation to the absolute truth, by definition.  Therefore, man must either become a direct function/extension of the absolute, or he must be murdered in order to eliminate his “natural” affront to its perfect absolute-ness. Christians call this man’s “sin nature”.  Or his “original sin”.  These words are merely euphemisms for man’s existence.

And this where Christianity neatly fits in.  Notice how in practically EVERY “orthodox” version of the faith man is morally and metaphysically subservient to God.  Even Paul D. (whom I adore) believes in his “slave to unrighteousness/slave to righteousness” paradigm that it is man’s root metaphysical SELF which is ultimately changed, as if the infinite absolute of man’s existence can be parsed.  But the fact is that the same belief which leads to man’s justification also continues into sanctification…that is, it leads to man’s sanctification because the metaphysical nature of man cannot be changed.  To say that man can somehow be altered at the root of his singular, metaphysical IS is an impossible contradiction (wholly enslaved to sin versus wholly enslaved to righteousness to the point where no matter what man does or thinks, his position as a slave in either construct must remain unchanged).

But the truth is that the individual, basal SELF of man does not change.  Rather, his foundational BELIEFS change, and THAT is both why he is saved and why he is sanctified. Which is why I submit that he can indeed lose his salvation; because if man no longer believes that he absolutely IS, his reality no longer can be reconciled to his own existence.  There is NO MAN, rationally and practically speaking, to be saved unless man BELIEVES that his existence is in fact efficacious and absolute. Because belief drives action, and belief combined with action defines just how the metaphysical essence of man will be efficaciously manifest (measured by the observable affirmation of the SELF and all SELVES) in his environment; it will wholly inform his interactions with God, the world, and his fellow man.

But anyway.

According to all interpretations of Christianity, man cannot truly own himself because man cannot truly BE himself. He is always and forever a walking contradiction, a breathing and blinking mystery.  An impossible dichotomy of determinism and free will, good and evil, truth and lie, etc., etc. This of course affects his epistemology, making man utterly incapable of apprehending truth, because he always sees it from a broken, contradictory metaphysic. And since that is the case; since man is not absolute and therefore must be unaware, and is not the absolute standard of truth and morality, on existential par with God, man MUST be ruled; compelled to service or to death.  Otherwise, as I said, he is an offense to the “real” truth.

So why does Christianity lend itself so well to tyranny?  For the same reason as every other despotic notion does:  it cannot define man in a way to make him reconcilable to his own actual existence.

In Christianity, man is farce.  So what happens to him is ultimately irrelevant.

Last weekend I was watching drag racing with my father in law, which is pretty much the only interest we share, and he was explaining to me how modern time-gauging technology allows the winner of any given race to be called, if necessary, by the millionth of a second.

Me being me, I dwelt upon the philosophical implications of such a statement.

A millionth of a second.

Hmm.

That is some tiny duration.  And then I thought to myself, ‘Why stop there?’   I mean, what exactly is the shortest duration of time whereby there is no such thing as anything sooner?

After pondering this for a moment I decided that there was no such thing as the shortest duration of time, literally speaking.  Of course, practically speaking the shortest duration of time is the amount beyond which no one gives a shit.  A trillionth of a second?  Let’s just call a tie or do the race over.  Am I right?

But again, I’m not really interested in “practical applications” of truth, I’m interested in truth, period.  Because absolute truth will drive the practical applications of it, ultimately.  In order for there to be a duration beyond which no one gives a shit we must first concede that no ACTUAL duration of the “shortest amount of time” really exists.  If we do not concede that, but rather believe that there is a literal “shortest amount of time”, then clearly we cannot be satisfied with a millionth or trillionth of a second time interval gauging the difference between the winner and loser of a professional NHRA drag race, with hundreds of thousands of dollars, tons upon tons of fuel and equipment, and dozens of human livelihoods at stake.

No, in order to actually determine a winner, in the interest of fairness and justice, we would need to do our due diligence and pursue a technology capable of calculating the time differences down to the absolute shortest duration.  Only then can a true winner be established (except when the winner is obvious, of course).  The technology may be years away, but until it is acquired, how can we ever really call those races which may be too close to call by the stopwatches of today?

But if we understand that time is not actual, then it is merely a matter of deciding when time is short enough.  A millionth of a second should be adequate for all practical purposes, at least within the motorsports industry.  Beyond that I think we can all agree that calling it a tie is totally acceptable.  For in this instance, a millionth of a second verses a trillionth of a second is merely equivocating what is a tie for all practical purposes.  By organizing the environment in order to affirm and promote man’s survival and ongoing existence, conceptual abstractions are supposed to make human life easier, not harder, remember?  Once we begin to parse millionths of seconds… well, unless we are in the throws of some exacting scientific experiment or perhaps performing some forensic exercise, the whole thing just gets tedious…not to mention ridiculous.

Okay, where the hell am I going with this?

Something relating to the above drag racing story can be found in two of Zeno’s paradoxes (Zeno was another ancient Greek philosopher, of the Parmenides pain-in-the-ass variety; for those of you familiar with him, I agree with his premises but not his conclusions; relative truth is still truth, thus man’s concepts are not UNtruth, they are relative truth, and are proved true by the observable preservation and perpetuation of his existence and comfort).  One is a temporal dichotomy paradox, while another is a positional paradox.  The temporal paradox says that a slower runner who has a head start can never be overtaken by a faster runner because he/she will always have some manner of time difference to overcome.  Since the slower runner is constantly moving, whenever the faster runner arrives at the place the slower run has just been, the slower runner will have moved on from that point, meaning that there will be a temporal discrepancy the faster runner will need to surmount.  But since the slower runner is moving constantly, the faster runner will never arrive at the place the slower run is, but only where he/she was.  Meaning that regardless of the speed difference, the faster runner will always be behind the slower runner.

Now, this paradox was thought up thousands of years before Einstein’s theory of relativity showed us that speed is not independent of time, in which case the paradox falls apart (well, sort of…but I’ll get to that later).  Since the faster runner ages less relative to the slower runner, the faster runner naturally makes up any temporal discrepancy because he/she can cover more distance in less time, relative to the slower runner.

Thus, the reason the faster runner can overtake the slower runner has to do with the relationship of speed and time.  Arriving at a location in space is a function of both speed AND time, not just time, is the salient point.  So, if the unit of time duration is x, then, for example, when the slower runner arrives at the halfway point he/she is 3x old; but when the faster runner arrives at the halfway point he/she only is 1x old.  Which means, of course, that he/she arrives at the halfway point existentially sooner than the slower runner.  Follow this to its logical conclusion, doing the requisite calculus if you are so inclined (and I am not, because fuck that math), and you can see just how the faster runner overtakes the slower runner.  It isn’t because they are faster, in a sense, but because speed translates into a relative age difference whilst existing at the same point in space (spacetime), which means the faster runner is also the younger runner; and that is the root of the spatial/positional difference between bodies moving a different speeds.  The faster runner can arrive at the same location before the slower runner even though he/she started from behind, because positionally/spatially “before” is a function of age (the relative passage of time), which is a direct function of acceleration.

The positional paradox is similar to the temporal one.  This paradox says that one can never arrive at a single location because there are an infinite number of fractional distances he/she must cover in order to get there.  For example, in order to arrive at location x, one must travel half the distance to x, but in order to get there, one must go half the distance to half x.  And in order to get there, one must go half the distance to half of half x, and so on…the paradoxical conclusion being that one can never arrive at the objective location because he/she must traverse an infinite number of distances to get there.  And traversing infinite distance is impossible.

Again, when we input Einstein’s theory of relativity into the illustration, the paradox falls away.  Understanding that there is an inseparable relationship between speed and time, one can see that it isn’t a matter of traversing a distance, necessarily, but rather a result of speed mitigating time, and time is merely a way to describe the relative difference in states of existence (“before” is a temporal distinction, not a positional on; one can arrive at the location before he or she would need to cover an infinite number of distances because movement means that existentially they age less relative to the location to which they are going).

Since the movement of one translates to a smaller temporal existence relative to a static other (the location), it is possible to arrive at a location by shortening the distance of one’s existence relative to the location, since motion itself is merely a change in relative existence between to bodies (labeling the location as a “body” in this instance; the train station, or the bus stop, for example).  The faster you go in the direction of the location, the younger you are relative to it, which means the location of YOU (your existence) relative to the location to which you are heading is different.  It is possible to arrive at the location by changing your relative position to it via speed, which reduces your existential “footprint” relative to the location you want to go to, thereby allowing you arrive there by mitigating time which reduces, existentially, distance (since time and speed and distance are all inexorably a function of relative existence and thus are all a function of the the agent, thereby making them interrelated).

Hmm..how is that for a mind bender?

So, the question is, is there truly a paradox present in these examples?  Well, when we apply Einstein’s theory of relativity, we can see that the paradox is resolved.  But Einstein’s theory only goes halfway to truly unraveling the ostensible contradiction.  There is still more to go.  In order to completely dismantle the paradoxes we need to examine the nature of time and speed as removed from the context of the material universe, its objects and agents.  When we do that, we don’t need Einstein or his calculus to straighten out what appears to be crooked.  It becomes purely a matter of reason.  And thank goodness, the fucking calculus is superfluous.

To that end, are these examples truly paradoxical (forgetting for a moment Einstein’s inseparable fusion of time and acceleration)? Only if you concede that time is actual, which it is not.  If you concede that time is merely a concept created by man’s conscious mind to organize a specific qualification of the relative movement of objects and agents in man’s environment, then you can understand that it isn’t a paradox at all.  It is merely that the nature of conceptual abstractions are inherently paradoxical (contradictory) when we assume that they somehow exist as real entities which are distinct from the material context.  When that happens, all concepts ultimately boil down to a value of either zero or infinity, which means that they must at some point contradict and conflict with the material universe.   But if they don’t actually exist then they cannot actually be paradoxical, because they cannot actually BE anything.  They are purely abstract, and serve man’s cognitive organizational needs, period.  Full stop.  Any “paradoxes” are irrelevant.

Let’s examine this further in the next post.

The logical conclusion of the reformed doctrine of Total Depravity is that man is sin (the rational arguments for this I have discussed in previous posts).  There is no rational distinction to be made between man and the concept of depravity itself.  The serious problem with this idea is revealed when we understand that man-as-sin equals an infinite essence of man which is the concept; and the concept which, since it cannot be observed to have any distinctiveness, any boundaries in the material world juxtaposed to what it is not, can only mean that the idea of “what it is not” is inapplicable, since there is no observation of and thus no rational way to define objectively what it is not…it is what it is what it is, and so on.  Sin is sin is the beginning and end of its definition, both conceptually and practically.

The only way sin can be described as having any distinctiveness is to observe its limitations in material reality.  This means that sin must be “revealed” as a function of some observably distinct object or agent.  This of course means that the observation of that object or agent which is materially so is the prerequisite of sin being efficacious.  Which means that sin is a direct function of the object or agent, and not the other way around.  Which means that the SELF of the object or agent is what is actual; therefore sin must be conceptual (not actual, but only “real” insofar as it serves as an efficacious abstract component of the systematic conceptual reality of the universe, which is a product of man’s mind).   Which means that sin does not actually exist as a distinct entity, but rather is a function of how the object or agent is observed relative to another object or agent.

But if the metaphysical roles are reversed…if man is the direct function (the product) and sin is the absolute, prerequisite entity which forms the efficacious basis for reality, then man is, again, the absolute concept of sin at his root existential level…the level of his very being, according to Argo’s Universal Truth Number One:  Whatever is a direct function of an absolute is the absolute.  And which, being absolute, cannot be breached by any “other”, or, as is more properly labeled, OTHER; with OTHER being the absolute SELF of that which is NOT the SELF of the agent (man) in question.

Any true relationship between agents, or an agent and an object, be it man to man or man to thing or man to God, requires the conscious observation of the SELF to OTHER, and there can be no OTHER without the existence of an actual, knowable, distinctive SELF by which what is NOT SELF (that is, OTHER agents or objects) can be observed.  Therefore if man is truly the incarnate of the concept of sin, then man cannot actually be conscious.  Any awareness of SELF is an illusion, since a distinct SELF of man is wholly incompatible with the infinite absolute of the concept of sin.  Man is merely an extension of the absolute, which makes him functionally the absolute itself.  “Man IS sin” means that man is not man by definition, man is something ELSE.  Which means, again, that man’s awareness of SELF is purely a lie.  His consciousness is an illusion.  A farce.  A facade.

Of course this cannot possibly be true, because if man is not conscious he cannot know SELF, which means that he cannot know any OTHER, be it an agent or an object.  Without the existence of the SELF it is quite impossible for man to recognize that he is not himself (that is, is depravity qua “totally depraved”) since “himself” never really existed in the first place.  Thus “man is sin” becomes a contradiction in terms.  Man cannot be sin because man cannot be what he is not (the point I made above in bold).  Which means that any talk of man’s sin and man being an offense to God and man needing Jesus and man receiving grace and man being totally depraved becomes nothing more than nonsense and mystic propaganda.  Man can no more know God than he can know himself.  His very existence is nothing, which means that God didn’t create him at all which means that sin and Christ and God are all irrelevant.  Just more illusions as a function of the grandest one, the un-actual SELF of man.

In order for man to know that he is sin and needs “regeneration” man must be self-aware, which demands the actual existence of a distinct SELF so that he can know what he is as opposed to what he is not, which includes God.  This way man can know that he needs God because “he” (that is man) actually exists, which is a requirement for DOING anything…in this case “needing God”. But of course if man is aware of SELF then this awareness must be real…that is, rooted in the actuality of the existence of man as a distinct agent, which means that man cannot actually be sin.  And if man is not sin then man is not totally depraved because depravity only exists as a concept which only has efficacious meaning in a specific context of man relating to objects or agents in his environment.  Man cannot be totally depraved ALL the time, because the only thing man is ALL the time is man. “Man is man” is the only logical metaphysical statement.  “Man is totally depraved”; “man is “inclined” towards sin”; man is “fallen”; man is “regenerated”; man is “saved”…all of those ideas have no rational basis if we concede that “sin”, “salvation”, “depravity”, etc. are anything more than conceptual abstractions man uses to define himself as a function of his relative interaction with other objects and agents in a specific context .  All truth begins with the rational premise that man is himself.  Any descriptions of man beyond that are nothing more than conceptual ways of describing his relative relationship to his environment, which includes other self-aware agents and other objects.

Thus any change of man, call it “salvation” or “regeneration” or “justification” or “being in right standing” cannot affect man at the level of his metaphysical root SELF, which is the absolute prerequisite to anything being efficacious or true (the only rational standard of morality and truth).  “Man is man’ is an absolute and categorical constant.  It cannot be altered, ever, by any idea, nor can it be changed from the infinite root of SELF, even by God.  For if God changes man from what he is to what he is not, God has created a contradiction that His own TRUTH cannot withstand.  Man cannot be what he is not, by definition.  And if God created man, then God created man as he is, not how he is NOT, never to be “regenerated” into what he is, existentially, NOT.  For if God creates man as he is NOT, then God could not really have created man; He must have created something else.  The “man” God created is void…is nothing.  Which makes God a liar, and makes God wholly irrelevant and a hypocrite.  God cannot call Himself the Creator if what He creates is nothing.  For nothing cannot exist, by definition.

So “change” in this sense (regeneration, salvation, justification, right standing, etc., etc.) is the observable altering of the infinite SELF of man as he relatively relates to other objects and/or agents.  It is NOT a fundamental transition of the SELF of man into something else, which as I said is an impossible contradiction.  Change, then, cannot happen metaphysically, it can only happen conceptually, meaning that change is a function of man’s inherent cognitive ability to conceptually define and organize his environment, and thus is ultimately a function of the assumptions which drive his actions in service to defining how he relates to his environment and other men and God, which forms the systematic rational/efficacious understanding and truth of his reality.  In other words, man’s changing from a “sinner” to a “saint” is a function not of metaphysics but of philosophical assumptions.  Or, more concisely stated:  salvation is a function of belief.

Hmm…who else has said that exact same thing?  Anyone?  Christians?  Now’s your chance to say something rationally consistent for a change.

And unless you concede that, then Jesus cannot make any real sense.  His message of belief was rooted in the idea that HE was God who was human.  The logic which can be obviously deduced from this is that being GOOD has nothing to do with humans morphing from one metaphysical reality to another–which makes God a liar and a hypocrite–but rather recognizing that humanity itself at its existential root is GOOD already.  That man is the plumb line for truth and good is evident when we observe that God came as a human being, and thus the only “law” which is efficacious for salvation is the law of love:  the recognition that man as God’s premier creation is the beginning and end of all philosophical TRUTH, which then goes on to define the reality of man’s life, which is efficaciously observed and thus known to be true via the actions of man with respect to his environment and fellow man and God and which can thus be seen to perpetuate and affirm the very SELF from which all existence, its definitions, qualifications and quantifications, are derived.

This morning I noticed a response to a comment of mine over at paulspassingthoughts.com.

“Lydia said, on March 10, 2014 at 12:45 pm

“Man, I love it when I’m right. I have accused her of being a hypocrite for months. This proves it. She is a full blown Calvinist, and an obvious determinist. I would say she only argues over how much, but if your sin is determined, then how much is ALL”

Argo, Not sure if determinism or a case of “we cannot help but be sinners after salvation”. Would that be determinism or a degree of determinism? I suppose it is because if we cannot help but sin (and not defining that as imputed guilt where our existence is a sin) then would that not be some form of determinism?”

I realize that I have not been clear on why Total Depravity is fundamentally a determinist premise, just like any concept which we assume has causal properties with respect to observable material objects and agents.  Since making my point requires a much lengthier explanation than is appropriate for a post in a comments thread, I decided to answer Lydia with a specific article on my own blog.

Here is my response:

*

Lydia, yes…and not only is it some form of determinism, I would argue that it is categorically pure determinism.

The logic goes something like this:

The inexorable premise of man as totally depraved is that man is, in fact, total depravity itself.  That is, man is the incarnate “body” of the “form”, or what is really the concept, of depravity.  This makes man a direct function of it since there is no observable distinction, and thus cannot be any rational/logical distinction, between man and depravity.  Depravity becomes causal.  But not only that, depravity becomes absolutely causal.

The reason it must be conceded that depravity is an absolute, by which we must concede it is infinite and all controlling, has to do with the fact that conceptual abstractions cannot be observed.  They have no material essence by which man can distinguish what they are from what they are not.  Therefore the entirety of the distinction between the concept and what it is NOT is, if we are speaking rationally, completely cognitive.  This makes any boundaries between the concept and the material object it “effects” fundamentally subjective; or, better said, it roots the boundaries in how man decides to make the distinction at any given moment according to his context, which is the actual and material concept, and not on any quantifiable properties of the concept itself.

Now, in a healthy philosophy, the non-actuality of conceptual abstractions like depravity (and space and time and even gravity)…that is, the subjective nature of the concepts, rooted in the understanding that they are products of man’s ability to conceptually organize his environment in service to his systematic survival, is conceded.  The conceptual abstractions are not assumed to be “real”…that is, it is understood that they have no power to affect any material object in any literal sense.  Objects and agents interact based upon their physical existence, and “cause and effect” becomes itself a concept which is described in more precise detail by other concepts, again, to organize the environment in service to man’s life.

This does not subvert the volition of the free agent of man, and it does not make his existence a matter of de facto determinism by suggesting that the interaction of objects he observes is a function of some kind of unobservable (and thus unknowable) “natural law” which “governs” the environment.  For if the environment is wholly governed by forces beyond man’s ability to observe with his senses, then man’s existence must be determined, because you cannot have a volitionally free agent who is coupled to a wholly “governed” environment.  If the environment is a product of “natural law”, which is merely another word for the determinist force, then so must man be.  “Free” and “governed” (as in the metaphysically guided sense) are mutually exclusive concepts.  They cannot possibly coexist.  Incidentally, this is the precise reason why God cannot be “sovereign”…why he cannot be “in control of all things”.  For if we concede that all is governed by God’s absolute control, then we are conceding that all of Creation is utterly determined by His will.  And, like I said, if Creation is utterly determined, then God’s will cannot possibly be “free”.  For if the universe MUST behave in a specific way, then God MUST specifically will it that way.  And if it is absolutely specific, God cannot and could not have ever willed whatever happens to happen in a different way.  God’s will is no more free than the Creation He has determined.  Again, there is no logical way to couple determinism with volitional freedom.  The two concepts are complete opposites.

Depravity as a conceptual abstraction has no material form which man can observe.  All man can observe is the effects of depravity upon objects and agents.  Again, this is fine when depravity is conceded to be non-actual, and thereby having no actual causal effect upon material reality.  The “effects” are only conceptual, and therefore as subjective as depravity itself is.  Now, understand that “subjective” does not automatically equal irrelevant or ineffective.  The way depravity is efficaciously defined so as to make it useful in organizing man’s environment has to do with acknowledging an objective standard (of truth) by which it can be practically defined and by which its (conceptual) effects can be observed.  For example, if the standard is man’s life (which is the only rational standard), then we can rightly define certain actions and thoughts as depraved, if we define depravity as “that which subverts man’s life and property”.  Murder, envy, larceny, adultery…all of these become “depraved” in a practical sense because we have defined depravity against the plumb line of man’s life.  The same could be said for the concept of “blue”.  When does “blue” become practical and efficacious?  When man, as the standard of truth, comes to a consensus of its definition.  Man as the standard and as the material volitional agent gets to decide what blue is.  Why?  In order to organize his environment; so man can communicate effectively.  And the fact that man is the one who gets to define blue proves that blue is a direct function of man’s conceptualizing brain and NOT a function of some kind of unobservable, ethereal and absolute “force” of blue beyond the material reality man observes, yet which is somehow able to effect its actions and interactions.

When depravity goes from a concept to an actuality, and from actuality to a governing force, then man is effectively removed from the existence equation for all practical purposes.  Man is a bystander at best to the FORCE of depravity.  Depravity, having no visible attributes, can only be known to man as absolute, and therefore its effects upon man and the rest of Creation are likewise absolute.  And this goes back to my original point:  when the Calvinist and the Reformed accuse man of being totally depraved, what they must mean is that man is depravity itself.  For there can be no rational distinction between that which is governed by depravity and depravity itself.  Since depravity is absolute and therefore infinite, having no observable boundaries, man is unable to distinguish himself from the causal force of depravity.  Thus, it must be conceded that depravity only exists…there is no such rational thing as what it is NOT, because depravity as a “form” has no observable, quantifiable boundaries.  Everything which acts as a function of depravity is an extension of depravity; and as there is no end to depravity since it has no observable boundaries, any function of depravity is going to be depravity itself.  This is why Argo’s Universal Truth Number One (soon to be number two) says:  Anything which is a function of an absolute IS the absolute.  There is no rational difference.

That being the case, man must be determined by his depravity, insofar as we observe actions of man, and yet understand (understanding being a contradictory concept in and of itself…if one is determined, one cannot understand)…and yet understand that they are not HIS actions, but are the “out-workings”, or the extension of the absolute of depravity.  There are no actions which were not ALREADY, if that makes any sense.

Hmmm…let me try to smooth this out here.

Since depravity itself is an infinite absolute for all the aforementioned reasons, then depravity IS, period.  Thus, it has no “time”…no “temporal” existence.  Man may observe cause and effect actions, but in light of the absolute governing force of determinism, cause and effect cease to have any relevant meaning.  The cause is the exact same thing as the effect, because whether it is the cause man is observing, or the effect, the source of both is identical:  depravity.  So if man acts in this way or that, there is no functional or practical difference between the actions.  ALL actions are equal extensions of depravity, which means that all of man’s conceptual qualifications/quantifications are meaningless.  Everything we observe IS depravity…not was or will be, because depravity is absolute.  There are no boundaries between what it is and what it is not that are actual and legitimate.  So there is no such thing as what was, or what will be…for all things ARE depravity, regardless of when or how man observes them.

So if you act, your action is a manifestation of depravity as it exists already…as it exists now, and has and will forevermore because it is constant. There is no functional difference between anything you have done or you will do.  All is the same amount of depravity.  This is why the Reformed doctrine of total depravity is merely just another facet of their wholesale worship of determinism, which MUST result in the death of man (which is why they are not Christian but are in fact a cult of death, as John Immel rightly explains).  They worship the idea that man is not himself, but is a direct extension of the absolute of depravity, which destroys man’s volition, which destroys man.  Their doctrine of depravity demands that they are categorical determinists which removes man from his own existence, which means they do not worship God, the actual Creator of actual man, but death.  For determinism in any form means the wholesale removal of man in the existential equation.  And the non-existence of man is the DEATH of man.

So when you act, you are acting according to the IS of the absolute of depravity.  What you do you cannot help but do because you are nothing more than what already IS via your existence qua depravity.  You are determined.  What you do you must do.  You have no choice because you are wholly consumed by the absolute force of depravity, which makes no rational distinction between “past”, “present”, and “future” actions.

And this is also why modern science, especially physics, is likewise rank determinism.  But the difference between physicists and Calvinists is that at least the physicists will tell you they are determinists.  They are not bashful about explaining to you the wonders of the laws which govern anything and everything.  Their problem is the cognitive dissonance which never gets discussed, either because they don’t want to talk about it, for obvious reasons, or (and this is the more likely explanation) because they completely and willfully ignore the massive philosophical implications of their subject, assuming that physical reality can be divorced from the consciousness which observes it.  This is the physicist’s greatest blunder, and why all of their models will always and inexorably terminate at the useless value of infinity, the parsing of which, via mathematics, gives them the keys to some truly impressive industrial products, and the efficacious use of these products creates the illusion of wisdom and genius, but ultimately their subject by itself offers no real answers to the questions they are really interested in.

The physicist’s cognitive dissonance is this: if all is governed by external and unobservable forces which determine the existence and interactions of all things, then how do they explain consciousness?  If humans are merely extensions of the absolute forces which govern then it is quite impossible for man to THINK.  For even man’s thinking does not belong to him.  Even man’s mind must be nothing more than the law which governs all things.  Which  means his mind is an illusion at best.  Which makes it impossible for man to know that he is determined, and impossible for him to recognize the law which determines him.   For an infinite absolute cannot recognize itself, by definition, because for it to know SELF means that it must also know what is NOT SELF.  But if SELF is absolute and infinite then there can be no such thing as NOT SELF.

Incidentally, this is why I reject the idea of ex nihilo.  God could never have existed “alone” as Himself.  There must always have been something else…some other substance or material by which God could know Himself from what is not Himself.  Otherwise God could not have claimed consciousness.  And without consciousness there is no existence. (But that’s a topic for another article.)

This is also why I reject the actuality of time and space (and gravity, too…but before I go there I need to do the preliminary work on explaining why gravity is just like time and space, which is why it isn’t actual, but conceptual, and that’s another article).  Time and space cannot be observed as distinct in the universe.  Their existence is “supposed” by observing the interactions of material objects and agents.  Their existence, like depravity, is only inferred from their effects upon material objects man observes.  This being the case, the relationship between time and space and the material universe must be a direct one.  And since they are in and of themselves utterly absolute, having no boundaries or dimensions which man can quantify or qualify via observation, anything we concede to be a function of time and space, or effected by them, must be conceded to be a direct function of them.  And if they are a direct function of these absolutes then the material objects and agents man observes ARE these absolutes. (Argo’s Universal Truth Number One (soon to be number two)).

Aaaaaaand back we are to square one.

Only material objects and agents exist.  What man cannot observe man cannot know.  And if man cannot know it then man cannot claim it exists, and man cannot qualify it or quantify it as any kind of actuality.  It is purely conceptual, not actual.  Only what can be seen as an IS which is distinct from what it IS NOT can be rationally described as existing.

As those of you who read here regularly already likely understand, I maintain that the only way to call truth TRUTH and good GOOD in any reasonable and efficacious way is to define a plumb-line…a STANDARD by which anything we concede as TRUTH and GOOD can be measured against.  And that without this standard there can be no such actual thing as TRUTH or GOOD.  That is, anything we declare to “know” or “believe” can only be TRUE and GOOD if it can be rationally known as perpetuating and affirming the standard.  Without those things which we concede as GOOD and TRUE being understood within the context the objective standard, there is simply no way to actually (rationally/objectively) know whether anything is actually GOOD or TRUE.

Let me define what I mean when I say GOOD and TRUTH, in terms of the overarching philosophical concepts.

TRUTH refers to those things we say are true and those things we say are not true.  What I mean by this is that some true things are truly true and other true things are truly NOT true.  For example, “the sky is full of air” is truly true, while “the sky is full of chocolate pudding” is truly NOT true.  The knowledge catalog of TRUTH contains those things which can be actually known as true and false (truly NOT true) in order that man may properly define and organize his environment.

Why?

Well, the why is the standard of TRUTH and GOOD (by which they are known), which is the point I am getting to.

GOOD refers to those things we say are good and those things we say are not good.  And what I mean by this is that some things we understand as “good to know” are truly good, while some things we understand as “good to know” are truly NOT good.  For example, walking on the sidewalk is GOOD; and walking in traffic is NOT good.  Both of these things are truly GOOD to know, but one concept–walking on the sidewalk–is GOOD, and the other–walking in traffic–is NOT good; one is morally a good thing and one is morally (morality defined in this case as maintaining one’s life) a NOT good thing.

You see, there is more to knowledge than what is true or false; the flip side of of the epistemology coin is the moral implication of that knowledge.  Knowing things objectively and non-relatively means that those things which are known–that is, defined as this or that–will also contain some moral imperative; either they will be known as good things or as bad things, in accordance with the moral standard, which is the same as the knowledge standard.  And in both cases, whether the thing is known as objectively good or objectively bad (objectivity being established, again, by the standard) the knowledge, broadly speaking in terms of the concept of GOOD, is good to know.  Ergo, the concept of morality I prefer to label as GOOD; while the concept of definitive (objective) knowledge I prefer to label as TRUTH.

Both the good and the NOT good are GOOD to know, and to know reasonably, because proper moral understanding is efficacious to maintaining and affirming and perpetuating the standard.  The standard being the “why” things are actually good and actually true.

*

Okay, so what is the standard?  Those of you who are at least somewhat familiar with my philosophy will likely know the answer to this already.  And to be honest, it is the only answer possible.  There is no other answer which can in any way be reasonably defended, or rationally explained or defined.

The standard I am speaking of is HUMAN LIFE.  HUMAN EXISTENCE on the level of the individual, singular, SELF of you, and me, and everyone else who exists and shares the same inherent and autonomous ability of self-aware consciousness.  And you should understand that any Christian who concedes this wholly rational and objective standard will almost certainly be labeled as an unsaved, unbiblical, anti-Christ heretic who undoubtedly is “preaching another gospel” and as such is eternally accursed.  Agree with me at your own risk.  You want to see brother against brother, mother against daughter in law, and the like?  Try proclaiming YOURSELF as the infinite standard of morality and truth, as a child of God, able to define God as God and God as Good and SELF thus as good because you first exist to do so, making your existence the prerequisite for the efficacious truth of anything, even God.  And watch them flee.  Watch them light the fires and prepare the s’mores.  And then try to convince them that it is the height of humility to acknowledge the moral standard of SELF, because it means you can define God rationally, and thus understand His place of Honor effectively.  Good luck with that.  It is a thankless, uphill slog, and it must happen in the short time between when you first express your ideas and when they write you off as a hopeless apostate they want little if anything to do with.

Better yet…maybe you should just do what you’re used to.  Do what’s comfortable.  I mean, we have “orthodoxy” to rely on, after all.  Surely God will be happy with that, no matter how many children are raped and hapless lives wrecked in the name of “sound doctrine”, right?

No?  So be it.

Thus it goes when you try to introduce reason to mysticism.  And that is what Christianity is.  Christianity, except for a distressingly tiny handful of us –and I say that not arrogantly, but sadly and exasperatedly and matter-of-factly–is full blown mysticism these days.  Go around the world.  Scour the internet; the books; catechisms of the medieval “revelators”; talk amongst the pastors and priests of any denomination you like.  That’s fine…take all the time you need.   Just don’t check your Bible…well, unless you approach it with the false and evil interpretive concepts they almost all do.  For if you look at your Bible with an objective eye upon the rational standard of human life, you might actually see that Jesus Christ was a human being who was God.  If this doesn’t convince you that HUMAN life is fully capable of being an objective standard of TRUTH and GOOD then nothing will.  Well…almost nothing.

I am living proof that drowning in a sea of evil theology need not be permanent.  That rebirth is possible.  During the throws of confusion and anxiety which followed me and my family’s separating from Sovereign Grace Ministries (an entity dedicated to dark ages Christianity, Calvinist hedonism and wicked theology, and believes that FORCE and AUTHORITY are the plumb line for spiritual “truth”) I found myself contemplating returning to that crucible of evil ideas out of sheer stress.  And in the midst of this I heard the Holy Spirit speak to me in an audible voice and He said, “You have Me; you do not need them”.

And I never looked back.  And that?  Was the beginning of my understanding.  You see, a little after hearing those words I decided that God must be rationally explained; that any theology which rested upon a foundation of “who the fuck knows; its all a mystery at the end of the day” could not possibly be true.  And that if the Creator Himself was not able to be defined rationally and consistently (objectively) then man’s epistemology was doomed, and faith was completely wrecked.  I understood that blind faith was really NO faith.  That madness and the LACK of TRUTH could not pass for TRUTH and faith without impugning God; without relegating Him into the same corner as every other false god and foolish religion man had ever conjured up in his ultimately empty, pointless mind.  Now, I would be lying if I said I was on the brink of giving up  my faith.  Truly, I knew that the Lord had answered prayers in my younger days so clearly; so apparently and actually that that alone, I was convinced, would make my walking away from the faith even LESS rational than concluding that it could only be explained by “mystery”.  This is testament to teaching people about Christ as early as possible.  Because God indeed responds to the faith of children.  He NEVER disappointed me.  Not once that I can recall.  It is amazing that when you concede that you ARE, and that God IS, and that there is a mutual exchange of value based upon the rational notion that BOTH have freedom of the mind to define and know the other in truth and reason, how God will respond to that.  It was only when I began to sink in the quicksand of SGM’s determinist lie that the answers stopped.  They stopped because I no longer had a definition for ME, for mySELF.  And God will not hear the prayers of the unbeliever.  Because believing in God means that you must believe in the TRUTH of the SELF; and this means valuing the SELF as God’s supreme creation.  And if you cannot answer the question “what are you?” (what is man?) then it is impossible to answer the question “what is God?”.  And that is why I fear so greatly for the salvation of those who have given themselves over to the despotism and lie which passes for Christianity these days. I was once asked if I was a Universalist.  I laughed…not because I was surprised, you see.  You must understand that when you believe the things that I believe (that faith must be rooted in reason, and all TRUTH must be rooted in individual SELF/LIFE) you get confused with all kinds of things.  First it was that I was Arminian.  But then I explained I didn’t know anything about Arminianism because I had been a fucking Calvinist all my life.  Then it was Universalist.  Then it was probably some other thing I don’t know anything about, and now it’s just heretic or “idiot”.  Whatev.  Like I said, try to introduce reason into matters of “faith” when that faith is rooted in rank mysticism which looks more like a Hindu Caste system than anything resembling what Christ or Moses taught and get ready for some serious frothing.

And we think we are so much better than the hoards which stormed the Bastille or burned fake witches in Salem or dunked wives in ponds for “back-talking husbands” to the point of drowning in rural Pennsylvania or drove a generation of innocent Jews to the gas chambers or commit “honor” killings in the name of Allah.  (“Honor killing”?  Now there’s a contradiction in terms.)  What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

But anyway, I laughed at being labeled a Universalist because if anything, I explained, I believe there will be far fewer people in heaven than we think.  That the “mansion with many rooms” is going to have…well, not that many rooms, relatively speaking, and won’t be as big as we imagine.

Deep down though, I was confident that my faith would not come to mystery; because if the understanding of my Creator was ultimately rooted in mystery–which is just a euphemism for “shrug”–then I could not know myself.  That ALL I observe, including the SELF of ME, is an illusion.  And you know what?  An illusion cannot be aware of an illusion.  That is a rational impossibility.  I  knew that I WAS.  And if I was, then God WAS.  And HOW He was and I was could not be rooted in mystery, because mystery is nothing but an illusion when we speak of matters of reality and metaphysical essence.  If I was me and God was God then I knew it was all a matter of reason…of logically reconcilable assumptions which would lead to the rationally explainable need for a Creator and a Savior.  And once I conceded that, it was just a matter of thinking about things..about all the questions that remained unanswered or “paradoxical” (which they aren’t, they are contradictions), and not assuming that since all this shit had already been “done before”, and that “people have tried to figure this out for centuries” it therefore must be impossible to know…as if the fact that Christians haven’t developed a rational understanding of their faith yet is relevant in any way.  It’s only relevance is that it illustrates just how far we have to go and why so much of the world flees our bullshit in droves.  The “we can’t really know, because it’s been tried before and we’ve always failed” mantra is a rank, intellectually lazy cop out.  It is much easier to throw your hands up and cry “mystery”.  “All is mystery!”.

Except when it isn’t.

Except when you are having panic attacks and debilitating anxiety and it’s all rooted in the assumption that someone who cannot define himself on a metaphysical level as rationally existing with rational reasons why and rational conclusions as to how cannot possibly know that this anxiety is BAD, and is not “God’s will”.  And its fucking hard if not impossible to get better if you think it is likely, in your determinist assumptions, that God WANTS it this way.

And that’s when I realized that all of that was wrong.  That if I was determined and God wanted it this way then good and evil had no real definition.  Right and wrong, true and false could not be known or defined.  And if that was true, then God had no business being believed in, so there was really no God who could “want it this way”, or to have “determined it”.  Because if I couldn’t know right and wrong from good and bad or true and false because ALL things were determined by a “sovereign” God according to His “sovereign grace” then God could have no definition because there was no such thing as me knowing anything.  Everything I knew was determined, and as such, there was no ME thinking it, because there was no ME.  I was DETERMINED.  Which meant that my consciousness was a lie, which mean that God was a lie, too.  Determinism, not God, was God…so to speak.  You see, if all is determined then all thoughts are determined.  And that means you have no choice but to think what you think and believe what you believe.  Which means that there is no YOU, because without the ability to choose what you will believe you cannot declare that it is YOU believing.  Even your very notions of SELF are nothing more than an extension of the determinist force.

So I began to develop, for the first time since I was little and prayed God prayers that He actually answered, a rational sense of SELF.  A sense of my own consciousness and that it was mine.  Mine alone.  Mine to BE, and with it I chose to think what I thought and believe what I believed.  And if I WAS, rationally, then I understood something even more profound and something more important:

The fact that I was, was ABSOLUTE.  It was the singularity of my entire SELF.  Me, existing, was the singular and infinite source of everything I was and everything I saw and all truth and all good that I conceded.  The fact that I existed was even the source–the vehicle–for knowing God.  Which meant that God’s practical existence depended first on MY existence and being aware of it; that I had to BE, first, before God or anything else had any relevance or meaning. And that this awareness and being had to be autonomous and independent or it could not be defined as anything but an extension of the determining force, which made me a lie, which meant that I could not possibly know God, because determinism is absolute, and as such removes even God from His place.  All there is is determinism.  Period.  Full stop.

And that is when it hit me.  The root of all truth and morality stares at each one of us in the mirror every morning.  Our efficacious, root existential, metaphysical SELF is the source of all we know and all that exists.  Why?  Because if it doesn’t exist to US, then it cannot be qualified as existing, period.  Without YOU, there is no way for you to know anything; and if you don’t know anything, you cannot argue for the existence of anything…anything at all, even God.

Thus, YOU (and me, and him and her, and all of us individual SELVES) are the objective standard by which all things are properly defined, and properly and efficaciously known to be TRUE and GOOD, even God.  And for those of you who cannot accept this, so be it.  But you must understand…and I DEFY you to refute this…you must understand that there is no other rational standard.  There is nothing you can concede, there is nothing you can say, there is no way to reject or deny my standard without automatically contradicting your own argument.  Why?  Because the prerequisite for you disagreeing with me is–like it is the prerequisite for anything else–YOU.  YOU must EXIST FIRST before you can “know” I am wrong, and declare to me that SELF is not a requirement for the TRUTH and GOOD of anything we know, even God.  And that automatically makes your counter argument a hypocrisy. 

*

The standard is the human SELF.  It is the standard because it is the prerequisite for knowledge and belief.  All knowledge and understanding is a direct function of the actual IS of man.  And this is why the root of moral perfection and truth is man’s life, and not anything else.  Not even God.  God is known as TRUE and GOOD because man first EXISTS to know it…and even if you cry “revelation!” you must concede that man must posses an inherent ability to be revealed to.  Man must exist first, before he can be “given” the divine knowledge.  Existence cannot proceed revelation!  That’s simply impossible.  If there is nothing or no one to reveal to, then revelation is not only pointless but it is not revelation at all, by definition.

So the human SELF is the standard.  It is why anything can be good or true.  And if that offends some, I really don’t care.  I’m tired of caring…because I’m tired of being called an idiot and a heretic, or that my ideas are unbiblical and lies by people who have no standard of truth, which makes them hypocrites of the worst kind.  How dare they declare me a blasphemer when they cannot even rationally define God because they have murdered Him and themselves upon the altar of their false religion…of their “sound doctrine”.

I have no kind words for people like this.  And there is no limit to the invective I maintain for their ideas.  They are the seeds of despotism…and they worship the murder of humanity as the greatest and only moral “good”.  He who has no answer for “what is man?” is the worst kind of liar.