Part Nine of: Collectivist Philosophy Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal

“When you stop to think about it, all this secrecy [the assumption, again, is that you lie by nature to others, and that the “you” alone in the room at night–the pervasively debauched monster who comes out when no one else is around–is the “real” you] doesn’t make sense. If the people only like the image you’ve created, then they don’t really like the real you anyway!…So why not give up the charade [oh! the motherfucking presumption!] and step into the light?  Wouldn’t that be easier in the long run? What do your really have to lose? If you’re willing to take a chance, you just may experience being known and accepted for who you are for the first time.”

(Bold print mine)

(p. 25, Community:  Your pathway to progress; North Point Ministries, 2008)

Quick exercise in logic here.  Let’s examine the assumption and then see if the conclusions consistently follow.

The assumption:  Man is totally depraved; he is the source of evil; he is the perpetual liar; he can do no good thing in and of himself; he IS evil incarnate.

Conclusion 1:  Man must present to the world a false front.  Man must interact with society in disguise.  He must pretend that he is good in order that he may find success in his public pursuits…his vocation, his education, his politics, etc.

Conclusion 2:  Man is capable of knowing the difference between his false self and his true (infinitely evil) self.  Man is a liar and he knows it; man lies to other men and to God, by nature, and is therefore rightly condemned by God and His “true” Church (reformed Protestantism).  Man does not manifest his evil nature unawares.  Indeed, the nature of this booklet is to convince man that, by God’s grace, he no longer needs to engage in this “charade”…that he cannot help but engage in, because, again, his nature, all the way to the root of his metaphysic, is pure evil.

Conclusion 3:  By willfully joining the Marxist Totalitarian Church Collective man can be cured of his inculcated depravity, no longer living in the shame of a double life, able to step into the light, and let his perpetual inner monster become his perpetual outer monster…only this time by God’s blessing, because the monster, though not metaphysically nor practically changed in any way, has been “positionally” changed.  Meaning, the monster is still utterly and totally the monster, it’s just that thanks to Jesus (i.e. the Marxist Totalitarian Church Collective…for they make no functional difference between the group and the Savior) God doesn’t care anymore.

Now, after reading that, the question  I posed becomes obviously rhetorical:  Is the logic consistent?  Well, I have removed the bullshit from the burning paper bag where its fetidness is fully revealed, and we can see the train of thought derail at several sections of track…so, we can pick out example A by simply closing our eyes and pointing, and then go from there.  Because like horse droppings on a dirt road, the rational bankruptcy is lined up for inspection.  So let’s inspect it.

Conclusion one, again, states that man by nature presents to the world a false front; his successful and altruistic persona, by which he navigates his public life.  However, since the metaphysical presumption is that man is totally depraved–TOTALLY–by nature, man cannot possibly create a dichotomy of his person.  Since man is absolutely and therefore singularly depraved, any manifestation of his self is going to be a full on extension of this depravity.  Therefore, there isn’t any difference between his “true” self and his “false” self; his “failed” self and his “successful” self.  It’s not that there isn’t any difference functionally, it’s that there isn’t any difference period. There can be no dichotomy of any kind in a person who is defined as a categorical function of a conceptual absolute, like “depravity”; “evil”; “fallen-ness”.  If man is “depravity” absolutely, which is precisely what the metaphysics declare, then man cannot be parsed.  Everything man does is a full-on function of “depravity”, which has no object boundaries because objects, like man, are a function of it, and not the other way around. Man’s very existence is NOT separated from the absolute of “depravity”.  Whether he is sleeping or waking; whether he wears a tuxedo or a pair of overalls; whether he dines with a group at Ruth’s Chris or eats a Hot Pocket in the solitude of a one-bedroom Brooklyn apartment, there is no existential difference.  Man can no more observe a “false” self from a “true” self than he can proclaim that he and his depravity are different things.  According to the metaphysical presumptions present in this little Protestant primer, this is a laughable impossibility.  For man’s very observations are merely his depravity with a different label.

And this segues nicely into the contradictory assumption found in conclusion two, which states that man is capable of understanding the difference between his false, “good” self, and his true “evil” self.  Naturally this demands that man is capable of rightly defining the difference between good and evil.  Well, feel free to laugh heartily at this perfect example of reason shat upon.  For man is wholly depraved, and this, by Protestant doctrinal definition, includes–fuck, especially includes–his very mind.  This being the case, there is no possible way man possesses the epistemological faculties necessary for creating a false front of “goodness”.  Man is incapable–again, by doctrinal fucking definition–of understanding what “good” even is.  Man’s physical and spiritual and cognitive enlightenment to “righteousness”  is a direct manifestation of God’s grace upon him, so the hideous theology goes, and has absolutely nothing to do with him.  Therefore, it could be argued, if man is capable of putting on a false, but convincing, front of goodness, it’s because God allows it…for such a feat would require a proper understanding of what is “good” and that is always and only a function of God’s very own knowledge and enlightenment, acting on behalf of totally depraved man. Man himself is a blind, blithering, slobbering animal who couldn’t comprehend goodness any more than he could balance his whole body on his piggish nose.  Goodness utterly eludes him.  He is dead to it from the moment of his birth.

You see, since man’s epistemology (how he knows what he knows) is a direct function of his metaphysical state, which again is absolute evil, it is impossible for man to recognize good because it is impossible for him to recognize God because it is impossible for him to recognize TRUTH, by nature.  In other words, man’s understanding is as corrupt as his body is (because there is no actual difference).  Thus, he cannot help but think depraved thoughts and believe depraved things; to to be utterly confounded when attempting to ascertain the difference between good things and bad things.  Absolutely everything about man is evil (individually…but this all changes, somehow, when he arrives at the supreme enlightenment of Protestant church group integration).  There is no rational way to separate how man thinks from how he acts.  And this entire philosophy, presented so succinctly in the saccharine quote from the booklet above, is designed to teach us that morality, like metaphysics, is a function of the group, not the individual.  The idea that man should join his church’s “small group”  is proffered by North Point Ministries not because it is assumed that the individual can actually be taught anything…not at all; for this is impossible because man is morally bankrupt from his flesh to his thoughts; from cradle to grave.  But rather, what these collectivists assume is that man instinctively understands, somehow, that his reality–the true sum and substance of his life–is really a function of how OTHERS (humanity the collective) observe and define him, and that is why he is compelled to put on an act.  It isn’t because he is capable of understanding the difference between good and evil, but rather that he instinctively wants to belong to the group (again, humanity the collective).  And he will instinctively, not rationally, modify his behavior in order to achieve group integration.  The Marxist Protestant Church Collective’s job is to compel man (by force, preferably, but certain pesky political documents advocating a Republican form of government, rather than a totalitarian oligarchy ruled by the church such as existed in the fucking dark ages, prevent them from openly (key word) employing violence to grow the church)…yes, the Marxist Protestant Church Collective’s job is to press man into the “right” group…”God’s” group, led by the men He has called to “stand in his stead” (an actual doctrine preached in neo-Calvinist protestant circles).  And that, not the spreading of benign spirituality, Christian charity, or altruistic compassion, is the real purpose of this booklet.

Conclusion three’s contradictions begin with the idea that people can “willingly” choose to join the group.  Again, as I’ve just explained, man cannot willingly do anything.  For his will is utterly submitted to his moral turpitude.  The idea is to compel man to follow his instinctive need for collective integration into a specific direction.  This is most effectively and efficiently done  by “righteous” violence, such as was seen in medieval Europe when nations we awash in bloodshed and all manner of moral atrocity sanctioned by the Church and rooted in its detestable and contemptible Augustinian Platonism which demanded that man be entirely ruled by God’s “specially” appointed philosopher kings.  But since that isn’t (yet) possible in America, church-funded propaganda efforts and group-think practices will have to suffice.  However, on the bright side, for all you good little Protestant acolytes, its pretty fucking effective…and you don’t have the bloody mess to mop up or the rolling heads to chase around the floor.  Convenient.

And finally, you must have certainly noticed that nowhere in the paradigm does man actually change. Man is never NOT pervasively corrupt…no, no, no…man’s cosmic affront to His maker (yeah…and how does that not make God culpable for sin?  Punt, goes the answer) is perpetual and it is total.  Nothing can change man’s  pure and uncut metaphysic, which IS evil.  The group merely provides him covering from God’s wrath. How? Shrug. Who the fuck knows?  God only sees the group, and the group is good, even though its individual components are a stench to his nostrils.  The sum and substance of absolute evil, when practiced in a group, turns to righteousness…or so goes the Christian collectivist refrain.

Still, you wonder, how can this possibly be?

Aaaaaaaand….punt! Stay tuned for part 10.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.