Infanticide to Save Your Children from Hell = DEATH is Man’s Primary Moral Imperative

BTW, does anyone remember Andrea Yates? “She believed that the children would be tormented and perish in the fires of hell unless they were killed,” Dr. Melissa Ferguson testified.

-Commenter, A Mom

*

While in prison, Andrea stated she had considered killing the children for two years, adding that they thought she was not a good mother and claimed her sons were developing improperly. She told her jail psychiatrist: “It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren’t righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell.[59] She also told her jail psychiatrist that Satan influenced her children and made them more disobedient.[60]

-Wikipedia Article; Andrea Yates (Bold type mine)

*

A Mom,

Yes, I remember reading about Andrea Yates. To be brutally honest, the thinking behind her actions is the root moral premise of ALL philosophies which do not ultimately place man’s life at the center of morality and truth (which makes man’s life the only objective and categorical standard of both).  And what is the root moral premise  behind these destructive philosophies, as a function of their root metaphysical premise?  Simple:

The death of man, not his life, is the solution to the problem of evil.

Here are just a few examples:

* Marxism = The individual must be ruled; must be compelled to group integration, governed absolutely by the state.  Why?  Because the individual inexorably trends towards greed and exploitation, as a function of his root metaphysic.  Individual man IS greed, racism, oppression, and selfishness.

* National Socialism/Socialism/Fascism:  The individual must be ruled; must be compelled to group integration, the utopian ideal embodied and governed by the state.  Why?  Because purity is defined by the group– the workers, the people, the disadvantaged, the advantaged, the wise, the racially pure, etc.–never the person.  The individual thus has no definition, no meaning, no purpose as a function of his root metaphysic.  Individual man IS nothing and no one.

* “Orthodox” Protestantism of ALL varieties/Catholicism:  Man must be ruled, compelled to “right thinking and behavior” by the church authority divinely selected to “stand in the stead” of God.  Man must worship at the cross, the instrument of death, to remind man of death’s perfect moral outcome.  Why?  Because the death of self is God’s great command, and His divine example in the crucifixion.  The individual IS totally depraved; he IS evil incarnate.  Pursuit of self then is man’s greatest vice.  The “church” alone possesses the keys to God’s kingdom; they are not found in the individual because that which is absolute evil (man and his life) cannot be coupled with that which is absolute good (God).  Man must be purified by integration into the collective church as ruled by God’s divine and divinely inspired proxies.

* Tribalism (which is Racism, cultural-ism, fad-ism, trend-ism):  The individual must be ruled.  He has no meaning outside of the tribe; no relevance, no purpose.  He is solely defined by his integration to the tribe and its collective psyche and ideals.  Alone and pursuing self, man is a “Wigger”, an “Uncle Tom”, a “house nigger”, a “Wannabe”, a “poser”, a “traitor”, a “Jew/Nigger/Gay lover”, thinks he/she’s special, a “freak”, a “geek”, a nerd, a bleeding heart liberal pussy, a greedy white supremacist capitalist pig homophobe…and on and on and on. Why?  Because man’s instincts are always evil, always contrary to nature, and always subversive.  Integration to the tribe is the only way to keep his existential immorality in check.  Death of self in service to the trends of the tribe, whatever they may be, is the plumb line for man’s worth and righteousness.  Why? Because man IS selfish waywardness, which is exploitative by nature.

Need I go on?  Of course not.  You get the point.

Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity, if I read the article right.  That would be funny if it was not indicative of the intellectual blindness and rational lethargy which plagues this nation to a terrifying and astonishing degree.

Crazy?

No.  Not with respect to her religious reasons for murdering her five children.  She was as doctrinally fucking pure as they come.  The doctrine of ALL Christian orthodoxy, I submit and as far as I can tell, terminates at the conclusions Andrea Yates arrived at right before she drowned her innocent babies.  She was in the position, and by that I mean mentally, to carry them out, and so she did.  Far from being insane, her actions are entirely rational with respect to the doctrine.  Death is man’s greatest moral good.  Man MUST die in service to the absolute truth of God’s sovereign and all determining WILL, and the sooner the better.  If children are innocent until the age of reason and responsibility, mercy demands they be murdered before that time.  That way, they can avoid the great probability that they will not be arbitrarily elected by God to heaven (for narrow is the road, after all, the Bible says) and thus burn in the fires of hell for all eternity for being the depraved reprobates they are.  Any loving mother would and should do the same for her children if the logic is taken to its deadly consequence.

And if children are born depraved, then their murder is their just punishment.  Surely God cannot condemn the righteous woman who snuffs their lives out in an act of reverence for God’s justice, which must be fulfilled, especially if she is wise and clairvoyant enough to see the inevitability of their plunge into rebellion.  The children were rank and pure sinners, and they got what they deserved.  How can any mother who venerates God’s moral perfection so gratuitously by murdering the fresh affronts to His glory be reprimanded or categorized as insane for merely meting out the punishment which Divine purity demands?  God should never be opposed by that which is depravity incarnate, especially that which is so freshly and purely evil:  the children, who are naturally the most selfish of all human scum.  They aren’t even able to make a pretense to good or to give nod to God’s glory.  All they see is SELF.  And that SELF is nothing but sin in its most uncut and perfect form.

And finally, if God is sovereign, and we define “sovereign” as “in control of all things”, and as the determining force by which all that happens was able to happen and did happen, then the murder of Andrea’s children is a moot point, morally speaking.  For how can we declare any action immoral when by doctrinal definition all things which come to pass MUST be as a direct function of God’s will?  The answer is we cannot.  The children who were elected to heaven will still go to heaven; the children who were elected to eternal torment in hell even before their birth will still go to hell.  Each group will be utterly cast into its pre-ordained place.  The lives they might have led are irrelevant at best.  For their lives would have offered them nothing in the grand scheme of God’s sovereign will.  Not that they could have lived them.  The fact that they were murdered by their mother is proof that they were never meant to live in the first place.

Dear readers, this is not hyperbole.  I dare anyone to dismantle my reason by appealing to orthodox Christian ideals.

Andrea Yates was not insane.  She was acting in perfect accordance with the doctrine of the church today.  She just had the will and wherewithal to see it through.  And any orthodox Christian who condemns her is a hypocrite.  You believe the same things.  The only thing that makes you different is your unwillingness to practice your doctrine as it demands in its consistent form.  You are either then a coward, a rebel, or are ignorant of what you really believe.  You are either afraid, stiff-necked, or blind; and none of these makes you righteous according to your beliefs.  I will say it again:  any Christian who concedes “Original Sin”, the “Fall of Man”, “Total Depravity”, God’s divine control and determinism, or the existential inability of man to do good of his own free will and yet condemns Adrea Yates is a full-on hypocrite, and is twice as evil in their beliefs. Their only hope is that they are wholly unaware of what they believe; but I confess that the chances of intellectual laziness (and the resultant complacency with the pervasive influence of evil) being excused because it is argued that it was due to forces outside of their control…well, they are exceedingly slim.

And if you are reading this article, you have no chance to make this excuse before God.  You are morally and intellectually obligated to investigate your beliefs and follow the breadcrumb trail to the logical conclusions.

*

Andrea Yates’ perfectly SANE (i.e. internally rationally consistent) doctrinal rationale looks like this:

Death is the answer to life; because man is by existential nature “fallen” and his life is certain to be full of torment and suffering and guilt.  Therefore, death remains the supreme moral and final solution for man’s problems. Man is evil incarnate; man’s birth the source of all existential and universal ills. Pursuing the destruction of man is the moral obligation.

I did an article a while ago dealing with this very thinking. The idea that we should just kill babies so that they’ll go to heaven instead of risking that they should grow up and not believe in Jesus, thus damning themselves to hell for eternity. The logical flaws in this argument are massive, and unfortunately no one really seems to see them.

Without going into the finer points of my article(s) the fundamental assumption behind the assertion that babies should be killed in order to avoid damnation is just what I said above: Life is too risky to be lived. Life is fraught with evil, and as commenter, Tom over at SpritualTyranny stated, even if you don’t believe that man’s nature is depraved surely man’s environment will inevitably coerce man into inexorable and irresistible sin. Following this thinking backwards to its logical premises, the idea is that this sin-compelling environment is a direct function of man’s, not the world’s, existential evil.  Again, man’s life represents the sum and substance of all that is evil and all that causes suffering. Destroying man saves the world from his utterly evil existence, and may even save man. From what? From himself.  Do you see then the fundamental problem with Tom’s argument?  Man’s environment is a direct function of man’s sin, not the other way aroundMan caused and causes the environment to fall and languish, man’s environment is not the culprit.  Man corrupts the environment; the environment does not corrupt man.  The environment doesn’t influence man to sin; man’s root existential depravity exploits the environment as a natural consequence.  Man is the root evil, the source of universal corruption, not the world around him.  Eliminate man and the environment is not longer fallen.  It regains its lost moral perfection and purity.  Kill man, save the environment.

So, disregarding Tom’s non-logic,  the real argument being made is: Kill the babies as a means to save them from their own existence, which by their nature demands absolutely that they will do evil, reject Christ, and be damned. And all of this simply because they were born. And rather than allow them to live the life that they were by definition created to live, murder them as a solution to their first and fundamental problem: being.

In conclusion, I would like to appeal to my philosophy as the panacea for the madness which is so overwhelmingly pervasive in the world today:  All of this dissipates when we concede that human life and the perpetuation of the SELF of man is the single standard of truth and morality. Then life becomes the solution, never the problem of evil.

The only way evil is repelled is if PEOPLE are allowed to LIVE in order to confront it with better ideas.  Ideas and beliefs that venerate man’s existence as the pinnacle of God’s creative GOOD. Any other philosophy WILL logically conclude with death as man’s primary moral obligation. Period.

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “Infanticide to Save Your Children from Hell = DEATH is Man’s Primary Moral Imperative

  1. ” If children are innocent until the age of reason and responsibility, mercy demands they be murdered before that time.”

    That wouldn’t be free will.

  2. Susan wants to go to dinner, will come back as apparently Susan’s session has sparked a very interesting discussion.

  3. “And if you are reading this article, you have no chance to make this excuse before God. You are morally and intellectually obligated to investigate your beliefs and follow the breadcrumb trail to the logical conclusions.”

    Gee, Argo, how arrogant of you or anyone to seek God! To seek truth and understanding? To think outside of the box? To think you can know anything at all, before you die? Where is your complacency? Where is your blind trust in the ambiguous character of God? In contradiction, falsely called “mystery”?

    /sarcasm

  4. 1. This world is first about choosing to be eternally damned or eternally with God. To kill somebody is to prevent them from being able to make the choice which God wants put before them.
    2. Sovereign does *not* mean in control of. A king may choose when to put down a rebellion, and in the meantime seek to restore as many as possible.
    3. Mankind is a subject of the rebellion against God, and as such does have an evil nature. The solution is not death, but being born again, of God – by the choice to repent, and to take advantage of the death of Jesus Christ made on his behalf to give him Life. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no man comes to the Father but by me.”
    4. Man cannot be his own moral standard, because whatever he thinks is right will be ‘right’. It is the equivalent of taking the rider off a horse and throwing the reins upon the horse’s own neck. He will go where the grass is greenest and longest. Everything he does will be right in his own eyes, and his standard will be his desire, and his desire his standard, and he will act according to both his desire and his standard. Against what will you then measure his actions? His will is his standard, and he has followed both. He cannot be wrong. I am referring to the group, mankind.
    Such a moral standard is no standard at all, it is a weather vane, turning wherever the wind currently blows. It is neither moral nor a standard, just an indicator of moral fashion.
    if there is no spiritual world, people can do whatever other people will allow them, or are made to allow them.

  5. “Man cannot be his own moral standard, because whatever he thinks is right will be ‘right’.”

    This is interesting. So, where does the moral standard come from? God?

    If so, how do we know what it is? The Bible?

    Whose translation/interpretation? And what about the poor schlubs who were not allowed to own one or could not read? Where did they come upon this moral standard?

    BTW: You will never hear me saying humans cannot be evil. But they CHOOSE to be evil and it is easy to do so. Very easy. It is much harder and takes quite a bit personal integrity to care about and act upon justice for your neighbor. It is much easier and more profitable to steal milk from his cow. But still, it is a CHOICE.

  6. “3. Mankind is a subject of the rebellion against God, and as such does have an evil nature. ”

    Vipers in diapers doctrine.

  7. Hi, Anthony. Welcome to the blog, and thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I appreciate the perspective.

    You’ve made a lot of points here, and you’ve numbered them, which helps! 🙂 I should do that more often. Anyway, I’d like to respond to your ideas since you took the time to lay them out here.

    Your first two points…you’ll get little argument from me. I agree wholeheartedly that only the living can make the choice for salvation. The dead are irrelevant to choice and so indeed it is utterly illogical to suppose that killing people is a way to get them saved. To think otherwise is to assume that salvation really isn’t a choice…and as such, it really isn’t salvation. If you have no choice in the matter, then you are not saved from anything, by definition. So, far from being salvation,it is rather determinism. Further, you are correct in your definition of “sovereign”. It does not mean control. It means, in the divine sense, that God is NOT the product of another agent’s whims. He does what he does and outlines the purpose for doing them according to His will and understanding alone. Man is neither controlled nor compelled as a function of God’s sovereignty, nor does man control or compel God. I also submit that the term “sovereign” is a nod to God’s metaphysical essence of infinite oneness. He IS Himself. Period.

    The rest of your comment is where I find myself, for the most part, at odds with your ideas. I do not agree that all men are in rebellion against God, since this implies that rebellion is a function of man’s root metaphysic and not of choice. Since I submit that all sin is a conscious choice, then the only way to declare ALL mankind in rebellion is to somehow argue that ALL men have made the choice to sin. This is simply impossible to know. Those who argue that mankind has a universal “sin nature” and all are “fallen” must then appeal to metaphysics. Man’s sin nature is a function of his root existence, which means that sin is not a choice, but a matter of man’s being. In this case, it is impossible to define sin as sin, and so we are left with mysticism; the belief that since all men are metaphysically flawed they are determined to do evil and thus must be FORCED into right thinking and behavior. And this force can manifest itself in may ways, none of them good.

    In your fourth point you mistake my position as that of moral relativism. I do not say that man’s will is the standard of truth but man’s LIFE. I do not argue that man can do “anything he wants”, so to speak, but that his beliefs must be centered around the idea that LIFE is the plumb line by which ALL ideas and actions are known to be true and good. Therefore, the actions of man cannot violate the person or property of another human being because person is SELF, and property is a direct extension of the SELF. This would naturally apply to man’s actions towards God as well, as God is likewise a self aware agent Ia person) who’s life deserves sanctity, as man’s does.

    My challenge to you is this: attempt to argue for the truth and goodness of something exclusive of your life. I submit it is impossible. The Bible, Christ, God, and the Spirit are all good and true precisely because they affirm and promote man’s life…indeed, they are his Creator. If this is not the abject promotion and affirmation of LIFE then I do not know what is. Where is the purpose of God in anything else with respect to man? God cannot affirm his own life at the expense of man. God destroying man in service to his truth is to destroy the one creature which can rightly define Him as God and affirm His power and position thus.

    Finally, your life (your material conscious existence) is the only means and context by which you can know and believe anything. This means that your life is not only the standard of truth and morality but is AXIOMATICALLY so.

  8. Argo, thank you for the lovely reply. I’m glad we agree on the first 2, and we might even find agreement on the 3rd as well. I did not mean that mankind is IN rebellion, only, SUBJECT to it. Born in captivity. With the result that we can and do make bad choices. Sin is still a choice, but we are at a disadvantage which prevents us from resisting it to some degree. Or, to use another analogy, born with our parent’s disease, a *susceptibility* to sin. Jesus said there was only one cure, and that was to be born again, of God. Those who choose to accept this gift are obviously not in rebellion, but submission, and upon accepting, are also empowered.
    Thanks also for clearing up my mistake about moral relativism. I don’t think I meant relativism, so much as circular.
    I do think your point is a good one in practice, though I would say that the value of life and self and property, though obvious to most, if not all, is not philosophically or logically self-evident. You are imposing your/our/mankind’s own value (will) in putting LIFE forward as good. I’m reminded of an old Dr Who show where Sutek the destroyer says, “But your evil is my good”. What makes life a good value? We know it is, but what makes it so? Not nature. Atoms don’t care. Self-awareness? Life itself? But why? Why is it a good thing to live and a bad thing to die? (If there is no God – if there is a God, then surely his rules are our moral standard.) We feel it, but on what do we defend it but itself? Your point is valid only because we already value life and property. in a sense you are saying, preserving life is our standard because it is wrong to kill because life is valuable. Though we all agree on it, it’s still circular. Before making an accurate declaration on what is a good moral basis for a moral standard, one has to throw out all pre-conceived notions of what is good, otherwise one is choosing the moral standard by one’s pre-conceived notions. And it is here where we throw out our own notion of what is good, we have to look externally for a reference.
    Simply put, any moral standard of mankind is circular, like the horse with free rein, unless it is based on something external to mankind.
    Finally, on this last statement of yours, “Finally, your life (your material conscious existence) is the only means and context by which you can know and believe anything. This means that your life is not only the standard of truth and morality but is AXIOMATICALLY so.” I don’t follow the logic.Through my life I may become aware of other lives, and know and believe *anything* I discover, ranging from my life to theirs (including God’s). My life is the door, not the creator, of what lies outside. By it I become aware of much more than my life, both what is lower and subject to me, and what is higher, to which I am subject. From my life’s door I can discover a moral standard in much the same way a blind man discovers a page of braille, and his blind finger no more axiomatically a definer of what that page says than my life is a definer of what is right and wrong.

  9. Anthony,

    Let me try putting this another way.

    To proclaim a standard of truth outside of your life is to proclaim that the standard of truth is, in fact, unknowable. Since you must operate from the inexorable context of SELF, anytime you attempt to describe this external standard you are inevitably going to have to do it from the frame of reference of YOU, which you concede is OUTSIDE of it. And that’s a problem. Your epistemology is utterly insufficient because it depends on your metaphysical essence for its existence. And since YOU, at the root level of your very being, are infinitely outside any standard of truth, you cannot possibly claim to describe the standard in a way which does not ultimately fail. So again, if the standard of truth is not man’s LIFE (the frame of reference of the SELF), then NO standard can actually be proclaimed.

    Further, if the standard of truth is outside of man then there is no way to make a rational argument as to why it is good for man to integrate himself to it. The standard of truth outside of man can never, by definition, amount to MAN’S good because man’s good is utterly irrelevant. In fact, there is no such thing as “good for man” because man does not get to define what is good. Thus, pursuing man’s good is tantamount to pursuing SELF, which is contrary to the idea that the standard of truth is outside of man. Man then must sacrifice himself entirely to the standard of truth outside of him, which he cannot know (which makes sacrifice impossible, unless someone else does it for him…hence the tyranny of your assumptions) to the supreme exclusion of his own life. His context of SELF becomes a total stumbling block to the standard of truth outside of him. Man’s purpose for existing then becomes NOT to exist. The awareness of a context beyond the standard of truth is man’s greatest vice. He exists to die. He is created to NOT BE himself, because “himself” is a context that has nothing to do with truth.

  10. “Before making an accurate declaration on what is a good moral basis for a moral standard, one has to throw out all pre-conceived notions of what is good, otherwise one is choosing the moral standard by one’s pre-conceived notions. And it is here where we throw out our own notion of what is good, we have to look externally for a reference.”

    I once heard NT Wright say that even kids on the play ground understand the rudiments of a moral standard when they say, “not fair”. Taht is not saying their undeveloped brains understand this in abstract and how their behavior is unfair to others. But, where do they get the idea of “unfair”? Even babies have an instinct for it.

  11. Argo, What gentle, “lovely” as Anthony said, responses!

    Regarding this post, we are of the same mind. Andrea was not insane (mindless), she was using her mind to logically think out what her religious beliefs were in order to carry them out. And she did carry them out accurately & true to her religion. It is horrific.

    Check out SSB, ironically the June 28th post, Post-Spiritual Abuse Change of Perspective: Buffer Zones and Abortion Clinics. Look through the comments (there aren’t too many) and see if you spot a comment that alarms you…..

    Well, there’s one comment in particular I saw that parallels Andrea Yates logic. Was wondering if you would catch it also.

    I need to think how I want to respond. I am concerned because the logic is bad & it’s not what we should tell perps or victims. For instance, what if a girl has an abortion. Then she births 2 kids. Both grow up & become murderous adult reprobates. This lady could logically come to the conclusion she should have aborted all 3, or kill them before adulthood, so they would all go to heaven.

    Most parents won’t go the final step, but I think this logic leads parents to treat their children harshly… for their own good, to keep them from hell. I think it’s far worse than we know.

  12. Meaning, good Christian parents will want to keep their children from becoming adults who go to hell. The children may not suffer death, but they are suffering.

    And of course, Joel Beeke will say suffering brings a human closer to God.

  13. Anthony said: “You are imposing your/our/mankind’s own value (will) in putting LIFE forward as good. I’m reminded of an old Dr Who show where Sutek the destroyer says, “But your evil is my good”. What makes life a good value? We know it is, but what makes it so? Not nature. Atoms don’t care. Self-awareness? Life itself? But why? Why is it a good thing to live and a bad thing to die?”

    I know everyone was being exceedingly polite in this exchange, but I have to point out that this is absurd.

    Beyond the fact that Dr Who makes for terrible philosophy, do not be sucked into the erroneous example: Dr. Who and Sutek are quarreling over ethics, not metaphysics. And they are quarreling over bad ethics to boot.

    Anthony said: “What makes Life Good value? . . . Not nature.”

    Don’t trip over the comment about Atoms don’t care. Anthony is bootlegging an ethical concept into a metaphysical discussion. “Care” is a word used to describe Man’s emotional reaction to values. To apply such a concept to atoms as a disqualifier of Natures proof of values is catastrophically misapplied in this context.

    To the crux of the issue: If it is not self evident that LIFE is GOOD, then there is no further discussion of anything.

    Let me say it this way.

    IF it is NOT axiomatic that life is GOOD, metaphysically GOOD, THEN the only alternative is annihilation. Life, as it is being discussed, is really about existence. Existence and Consciousness are corollaries. Life is the abstraction applied to entities who are consciously aware of their existence. So what is really being challenged here is what makes Existence GOOD.

    So I will now restate the first sentence: IF it is not Axiomatic that EXISTNCE is GOOD, metaphysically GOOD, THEN the only alternative is annihilation.

    To suggest that annihilation is morally superior to existence is an absurdity.

    When discussing Life qua existence the contrast is not between GOOD and evil, but between GOOD and annihilation.

    So, Anthony is wrong. Nature DOES say that life is GOOD. Because there is no distinction between existence, consciousness or life. Without existence there is no discussion of evil. Existence must be GOOD. If it is not, then man’s only outcome is nihilism.

    “And it is here where we throw out our own notion of what is good, we have to look externally for a reference. Simply put, any moral standard of mankind is circular, like the horse with free rein, unless it is based on something external to mankind.”

    And this is of course the root presumption of all Primacy of Consciousness metaphysics. Christians like to pretend that they are the only people qualified to define WHOSE Consciousness is the ruling one, so they feel pretty secure when they insist that God is what gives man value not realizing that by insisting that Man is the metaphysical weak link, they have thrown open the door to any mystical primacy of consciousness to define morality. For example: Islam also says that man is hopelessly subjective and Allah is the only external source for moral value. Hegel concluded that Man was hopelessly subjective and therefore the state is the only source for moral value.

    Once this door is pushed open there is no way to control what comes through because they have already conceded that Man is disqualified from judging values. By definition Man is hopelessly subjective which means that man is hopelessly driven by whim, which means he cannot hope to pick the correct prime consciousness. And every religious and collectivist war since the beginning of recorded history proves that such a starting point is a disaster.

  14. Cool Dry Place . . .

    I assume you mean the doctrine as specifically created by Augustine (and not the first formulation developed by Ireneaus)? Argo is correct. I reject the doctrine, if for no other reason than it cannot be found within cannon—Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox. Nowhere does one read “original sin” and neither can one find Augustine’s formulation explicitly taught. (The same is true of the metaphysical construct “fallen world” or “The fall of Man.”)

    I think the much better question is why do Christian’s accept the doctrine without the slightest blush of shame. In light of Christians endless determination to stab their bible and say “the Bible CLEARLY says…” to proof text their world view, how they can then accept a doctrine as axiomatic that requires treating discrete bible verses like Legos is curios.

    Of course the outcome of Original Sin is full on ethical disaster. It makes a mockery of Justice and lays the foundation to destroy all values from human existence. This is of course the crux of the issue. The doctrine should be roundly condemned, not held up as a tenant of Christian orthodoxy.

  15. John, that’s a great point. Whether the Bible “clearly” says or ” unclearly” says something seems to be irrelevant to certain Chrisrians who are just so sure that they have the monopoly on “sound” doctrine.

    Clear or unclear demands the SAME level of abject obedience to THEIR interpretation. Hence the “orthodoxy” of the Trinity, Fall of Man, Total Depravity, etc., etc.. So “clearly” is merely obfuscation. FORCE is what they mean.

  16. yea… you wrote a great post about his very phenomena . . . can’t think of the name off the top of my head, but you pointed out that biblical infallibility really means infallible understanding which really translates to the justification for some men to compel specific intellectual content.

    The whole proof text interpretive methodology is rooted in the same presumption: I believe what the bible says because the bible says what I believe. Never once do these mentalities take notice that they have absorbed conclusions that have nothing to do with the bible. They read their conclusions into the text and consecrate their doctrines under the auspice of God’s “authority. This gives select men enormous power to craft any doctrine, any justification they choose because to argue with their conclusion is to argue with “god.”

    This is a profound conceit . . .

  17. Me makes three on the number count who reject original sin here. Depravity is depravity. Whether it’s total or just a little.

    “Of course the outcome of Original Sin is full on ethical disaster. It makes a mockery of Justice and lays the foundation to destroy all values from human existence. This is of course the crux of the issue. The doctrine should be roundly condemned, not held up as a tenant of Christian orthodoxy.” John Immel

    Absolutely. And whether or not it’s a tenant of Christian orthodoxy, I would still reject it. It reduces man to dust.

  18. Yes, Argo. And all I can think of is Andrea Yates. And now Leanna Harris, the mother of the child in Atlanta who died in his carseat:

    “While Leanna Harris said she will forever miss her son, she also stated at the funeral that he now wouldn’t have to deal with heartbreak, those awkward stages in life or have to deal with middle and high school. She went on to say that she wouldn’t bring the toddler back into this “broken world.”
    http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/06/30/georgia-hot-car-toddler-death-justin-harris-cooper-leanna>

    The thinking goes: The child is safe in heaven, having been murdered or killed or having accidentally died. But the child who grows up broken in a broken world unsaved is going to hell. THEREFORE, the dead child is better off, not the child who grew up to become an adult. So childhood death is good? Preferred? This upsets me big time. I need to compose myself so I can compose a level-headed response.

    In the meantime, why do so few realize what this thinking LEADS to & teaches? Andrea Yates. Now, Leanna Harris? The Pearls. Etc. The evidence is there….

  19. Why don’t they see it?

    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for men to change the definition of GOOD.

    Until you can defend that it is GOOD for man to exist for his own sake, Evil will always triumph.

    ~John Immel

  20. John,

    How can I help you? You are a skilled presenter with a made for radio voice. And your message is critical. It needs to get out.

  21. “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for men to change the definition of GOOD.
    Until you can defend that it is GOOD for man to exist for his own sake, Evil will always triumph.” John Immel

    Yes, you are right. That’s what you said in your last video TANC session. I thought that was one of your best sessions, BTW.

  22. A Mom,

    Yeah. Then I caught her comment. It is the same kind of thinking which leads some people to murder their children for the children’s “own good”. Living is the DIRECT cause of suffering–both your own and others you will afflict at the hands of your “sin nature”–once all the obfuscations are finally removed. Death then becomes the single greatest moral achievement. Evil is caused by human EXISTENCE, so the problem of sin is that anyone was ever born at all.

    This doctrine is evil. Period. Full stop. Reject and deride anyone who claims it is ultimately a good thing that a child’s life has been snuffed out. They do not know the first thing about Christ or His message.

    And further, no one ever thinks to ask what happens to babies after they die. That is, what is heaven like for the infant? Or the child? We all just assume that they will grow up like they do here without all the pesky challenges of sin nature and evil influences and God’s determinative election process, etc, etc? But what do we call ” growing up” in a context by which the living have no frame of reference to understand?

    We are born of woman into THIS body for a reason…because that is the means by which our consciousness is manifest and evolves. To assume that this process can be usurped via murder and yet still yeild the efficacious outcomes of human existence (cognitive and physical development, etc) is ridiculous. How can you rationally argue for the normal development (i.e. LIFE) of a person who is DEAD?! This is nonsense on its face. It’s like those who believe that God knows things before they happen. It sounds good at first, until you ask the question, “How can even God know what doesn’t exist?” If something hasn’t happened yet, there is nothing to know, by definition!

    All of this thinking is a glittering example of hope over reason; the salve of mysticism as a cure for real problems and answers to real questions. These people shouldn’t be within a hundred miles of civil government.

  23. “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”

    . . . since they are heirs (or co-heirs) with you of the grace (gift) of life.

    Life is a gift. It’s appalling how many believer’s want us to view this gift; as in we were given a depraved gift to begin with. Who gives a rotten gift. 😱 Apparently, some believe God does.

  24. Bridget,

    Excellent point. Life is not a gift but a curse according to those who claim that DEATH is a great way to avoid the perfunctory evil which MUST accompany every child into the world.

    And…I have trouble watching Rhonda Rousey and referring to women as the “weaker vessel”. I’m thinking this phrase is pretty relative. Lol

  25. Relative, yes. But overall, or majority ruling – probably weaker in body. However, I will never concede the mind to men!

  26. I will never concede the mind to men!”

    You shouldn’t. It says something that it is women who are leading this fight against neo-Calvinist tyranny. And not that I condone their doctrinal assumptions, but it also says something that women are leading the discernment blog movement.

    It says that men do not have a monopoly on truth just because they have external genitalia. “I forbid a woman to teach a man” outside any rational context (which the Apostle Paul may or may not have had) to me is the greatest display of rank male-inadequacy-syndrome ever perpetrated upon the earth.

  27. LOL…. uh…. I think I would prefer the made for movie’s body. That could help with my porn career.

    )snicker(

    I do appreciate the offer A Mom but honestly … I have no idea what to ask for. For me to expand what I do, it must be economically viable … which means I am faced with developing products that can be sold in a capitalist market. Unfortunately I suck at the marketing part of that equation. And without marketing there is no economic success. I won’t live my life with my hand out so begging for donations will never be on my agenda. And my days of living poor for a “good cause” are long over. That choice led me to financial ruin. Something I’m still paying for.

    So…. shrug…. like I said. No idea what help I need because I don’t really see a means to take what I say to another level until I am professionally able to finance my avocation … which is not all that far off.

  28. “Of course the outcome of Original Sin is full on ethical disaster. It makes a mockery of Justice and lays the foundation to destroy all values from human existence. This is of course the crux of the issue. The doctrine should be roundly condemned, not held up as a tenant of Christian orthodoxy.”

    Yes! Oh my church history after Augustine right up to the American Founders, proves this one. When people say they appeal to church history and orthodoxy it sends chills up my spin.

  29. Argo,

    I am sure by now all have heard the news of the little innocent baby that was left in the car (murdered) in GA. I live in the same town as this family and the institution they attend is just down the street. I am sure it will not surprise anyone to learn the members of the church are required to sign a membership covenant that states members will submit to their pastors and leadership in matters of conduct and doctrine. Does this mean the pastor gets to share in the responsibility of the murderer?

    The pastor before the service on June 28, you can listen online – updates are given, said the mother of the child was a “rock star, she did great”. He also said at the funeral, “there is an example here for all of us on how to deal with things. I’m not sure there’s a better testimony to who You (God) are or what You do than Leanna.” She is a true example of Christian behavior and forgiveness, said the pastor.

    The father, murderer, was able to dial in to the funeral in order to speak and also listen, in which he received a standing ovation. The mother also said she was “happy” that her little boy would miss some of life’s letdowns and would not want to bring him back, to bring him back into this broken world would be selfish she said.

    It has been so very difficult for me to even function these last weeks, years for that matter. No one grieves for the little children and all others who are suffocated by the good church going people.

    Death is celebrated and so are those who participate. Life is evil.

    I was told years ago that I might not be elected, one of the chosen. I do have so much to say.

    Keep writing Argo, keep teaching, please. Keep giving a cup of cold water; good news. Indeed life is beautiful and I thank God that I can say these words even though my own body bears the scars from people who call themselves Christians.

  30. Pondering,

    You are not alone in the things you have suffered. When the metaphysical assumption which drives ALL of reality is the idea that man IS evil itself, which is precisely what the doctrine of Total Depravity teaches, and why it is the FIRST point in TULIP (don’t fall for their lies when they tell you it doesn’t mean that man is all evil…yes it does,absolutely it does)…yes, when the root metaphysic is that man is not only bad but BADNESS itself, then you WILL suffer, because in light of such a wicked assumption suffering and by logical extension DEATH becomes man’s greatest moral state.

    You need to constantly affirm your infinite WORTH, your infinite moral purity as God’s pinnacle of creation. Without YOU, specifically, as an individual, neither the Bible, Jesus, or God has any relevance or meaning. This doesn’t make you God, but what it does is put in perspective the vast importance and value of the individual. Of all God’s creatures on earth, man is the only one capable of rightly and efficaciously defining and thus knowing God as God. This makes man massively valuable, and life utterly precious. We honor ourselves and others, loving them as well, because we understand that love and real relationship with God and others are based on TRUTH, and truth is a function of our ability to utterly BE US, which allows us to make rational distinctions between US and OTHERS, including God, and this is a direct function of our perfect and perfectly absolute existence as SELF, which means we cannot be “fallen” or “totally depraved”, because those ideas MUST destroy man’s ability to rightly define what he observes, be it God or others, because they make man NOT himself but purely an extension of something else: depravity, evil, fallenness, “sin nature” or whatever other lie. We are not fallen or depraved or governed by a sin nature. We are SELF, and are SELF absolutely. And as such we are GOOD, and that is precisely what God calls us in literally the first book of the Bible.

    Pondering, never listen to the lies again. Get angry when they tell you you can’t understand as a function of your depravity. That you deserve punishment or hell or pain or suffering, or that any evil or torment which befalls you in this life is you getting “better than they deserve”. The only thing these peddlers of mysticism deserve is to be called sons of hell, and twice that, indeed. You are of infinite WORTH, because you infinitely are YOU, and by that frame of reference you can properly and efficaciously and rationally know God.

    You are worth MORE THAN MANY SPARROWS.

  31. John,

    It is a cult of death…there is no better description in the world. They no longer can see the forest for the trees. There are so many equivocations and excuses for the madness that they cannot see to bushwack their way out anymore. These churches, for the sake of mental health and the love of life need to be avoided like the festering, infected wounds of evil that they are.

    They are a pit…an open hole with an appetite for the living that cannot be slaked.

  32. Argo,

    I wept as I read your response; I have not heard such words of life spoken to me in all my years of going to church. Thank you!

    John is absolutely correct in saying Christianity is a cult of death, and there is no better description in the world as you said.

    “They are an open pit…an open hole with an appetite for the living that cannot be slaked.” They do this by “resting and feeding” on Christ and others while yelling, “didn’t you know Christ died for you…he hung on that cross for you…He bled…He bled for you….forgive!” Pure wickedness- to misuse scripture and use it to torture people.

    Thank you again, Argo.

  33. Deb,

    You are welcome. And your reply means so much to me. I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this beautiful comment.:-(

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s