“‘”The Bible gets to be true, and specially so, because it utterly affirms the ultimate standard of TRUTH, recognizing it absolutely, beyond any other work ever written. And that standard, again, is man’s LIFE. YOU are the reason for the Bible, which means that it serves YOU, YOU do not serve it.” From Argo’s last post.
Argo, how/when did you realize this? If you wrote about it already, sorry, I forgot or missed it. It is a huge shift, break-away. What’s first required is not a knowledge of Greek or Hebrew but a knowledge of what love is.'”
It takes nothing but pure reason, to be honest. Without man, of what relevance is the Bible? None. Without man’s life, of what efficacious meaning is the Bible? None. Without man, can the Bible even exist at all as a philosophical statement given TO man? No.
By the way, in my debate with Paul and Alex over on http://www.paulspassingthoughts, in the comments thread of the article in linked to in my post two back, neither one of them answered these questions. I offered the contradictory thinking in their argument to them for review, expecting an answer, for I consider them noble men:
If man’s life is the necessary prerequisite for the Bible having any relevant meaning (or existing at all), how can it be the standard of truth for man? Would it not seem that man is the standard of its truth, since it is only true within the context of man?
Again, they never directly addressed the blazing contradiction. Thus the subsequent frustrated tone of my last few posts here on this blog. It takes dialog to change minds, but some people would rather jump out of a perfectly good airplane than see it to its destination. And how can there be any confronting of tyranny when we will not allow reason to guide us safely to the landing strip? It makes everything a colossal waste of time.
The reason they did not answer seems obvious, and the fact that it seems so obvious is mostly why it is so depressing and disappointing: The questions and answers completely dismantle their assertion that the Bible is the standard of truth. But they would not answer, I suspect, because to answer would equal a concession. Thus, it seems to me as though everyone wants to run away in the face of a rational argument that they cannot answer because they think it is more noble to not lose a debate than to concede a rational philosophy that won’t ultimately dissolve into tyranny.
And why shouldn’t this demoralize all of us? Holding to ideas that WILL destroy human life is preferred to losing a short war of words? I…just don’t understand this.
And if I sound bitter, I am. Why debate at all if you are unwilling to capitulate when confronted with a better argument? If you aren’t willing to change your mind in the face of rational ideas, then you are an ideologue, not a thinker or a seeker of truth. And we already have a shitload of ideologues running things. We do not need any more.
The Bible is only true after man’s context–after his LIFE–is already established. This means that the Bible simply cannot be the standard of truth; man’s life must be the standard. The Bible serves man, not the other way around. Anyone who disagrees with this is forced to explain how the frame of reference by which anything can be called true is not, in fact, necessary to the establishing of truth.
I assure you, this cannot be done.
The same argument can be used for the Law. Without man’s life, establishing the standard of GOOD (morality)…that is, the Law, is impossible. Like the Bible, without man’s life, the Law is meaningless, irrelevant, and non-existent. Therefore, the Law serves man, not the other way around. The Law is only efficacious when it is condemning action by its declaration of the moral and truthful integrity of man’s life. That is, it can only condemn those who deny that mans life is the standard of GOOD…and actually, it is not really the law which condemns, it is…well, we’ll get to that.
The Law cannot provide righteousness to human beings who already possess it by nature of their very existence, and are “walking it out” in an efficacious way by believing that they are, in fact, legitimate self-aware agents with a legitimate epistemology operating thus according to legitimate and causal volition (choices which actually pursue and affirm the SELF).
To say that we have to keep the Law in order to be good is not only a false gospel (as Paul Dohse rightfully declares…and this should lead him to the logical conclusion that keeping the Bible then is likewise a false gospel), but it is a totally irrational claim. Obedience to the Law is irrelevant to either morality or truth. Obedience to the law can have no efficacious and thus no rationally definable purpose…thus, it cannot be a moral objective at all. The only time the Law is relevant and efficacious is when people are disobedient to it…because disobedience signifies that they are acting upon the false assumption that the standard of good is in fact something else outside of man’s life. And thus it isn’t the Law which ultimately condemns them, but the disregard for the standard of good (and truth) which condemns them; and a disregard for the standard which declares what is good and therefore what is not means that man must operate from a place irrelevance…which is functionally NOTHING. (More on this later.)
Obedience to a Law that is given to simply affirm that man gets to BE himself makes obedience to the Law, itself, superfluous. Being alive as an individual SELF is the sum and substance of “obeying” the law (which is why humanity was never supposed to have a Law in the first place). Which means as long as you accept and believe that YOU are the standard of GOOD and TRUTH, that YOU get to be YOU, always and eternally, and that YOU then is GOOD and TRUE, and thus understand that the only immoral act is the denial and violation of SELF, which by logical extension must include all OTHER selves we observe to be our moral and truthful equals (other people and God), then you are perfect and perfectly true and perfectly good. There is no other thing or rule or tradition or habit or “way of life” you need to be absorbed by in order to be perfect before God.
There is no flag you must salute, no “body” or collective into which you must integrate…no hair style you must keep, style of dress you must wrap yourself in, job you must have, income you must make, “bad words” you must not use, Bible studies you must attend, pastors you must obey, ways you must spend your time or your money. All of those things serve your inherent right to be YOU, YOU do not serve them.
Therefore, obeying the law means nothing except if we decide that the law is the standard of good outside of us, and in that case what obeying the law means is something very bad and very destructive. Because if that’s what we think, then good is good regardless of man’s life…whether he is or not. Which makes man’s life irrelevant if we decide that man is not good or truth’s standard. And if man’s life is irrelevant then it lacks a rational definition. Which makes man’s life equal to zero…or, speaking metaphysically, nothing. Thus, making life’s objective that of law-keeping (obedience to the law), or Bible-keeping (obedience to the truth) MUST demand man’s death. For the absence of man is the most rational conclusion of conceding that good and truth is OUTSIDE of man’s life. If man’s life is functionally nothing, then death is the most logical and legitimate form obedience to standards of truth and good outside of it.
Finally, I submit that God’s truth never ultimately depends on blind faith or mysticism, but it can be discerned by pure reason.