“There is an objective reality in that the chair I’m sitting on really exists whether I will admit its existence or whether I’ll philosophize that maybe its only a form that exists in a Platonic world of ideas. Is admitting the actual existence of this chair somehow embracing a causal universe?”

This quote is an excerpt from a comment left by David Brainerd (for the record, I don’t think David is a brain nerd at all, even though he admits to working with computers for a living); you can view his entire comment in the comments section of the previous essay.

The specific question “Is admitting the actual existence of this chair somehow embracing a causal universe?” is what I would like to address in this essay…because it’s a good question and I understand that the previous essay was fairly “semantics” heavy, so to speak.  It’s important that I clear this up, otherwise it becomes too easy and convenient to categorize my ideas as Primacy of Consciousness, in the John Immel philosophical universe where Primacy of Consciousness and Primacy of Existence metaphysics are the only two gangs in town.  Like the old Crips versus Bloods wars.  In other words, you either concede the existential power of cause and effect in the form of Nature’s Laws which govern, or you are a mystic who is holding open the door for Armageddon.  However, I unabashedly claim that to concede the power of man’s ability to conceptualize his environment with himself as the only rational standard in order to organize what is a material universe which is entirely relative in its existence and interactions (and I submit that this is an axiom) is merely conceding the obvious.  For I defy anyone to name a singular, constant, material reference by which one can objectively define and quantify object interaction and existence in the Universe OUTSIDE of their own SELF; for YOU are the only constant in the entire Universe, and that cannot be denied, because in order to do so one would HAVE to deny it from the context of SELF, which automatically nullifies their argument and renders it impossible, thus proving my point instantaneously and categorically.

*

Without man’s ability to conceptualize himself and his surroundings, there can be no actual, efficacious, measurable, or valuable reality.  And the only way to argue contrary to this is to identify a singular frame of reference for reality OUTSIDE of man…that is, in the Universe.  Since this cannot be done, I must rest on reason to guide truth; and so–if I may be so bold–should you.  You cannot claim truth if you cannot define a standard by which you can say what is true or not…or rather, better said, why what is true or not.  And advocates of a causal Universe (a Universe wholly determined by the Laws of Physics) can have no such standard; and so I must insist that it is they who declare such a Universe who destroy human cognition, and not those of use who declare man’s ability to know himself and–from that frame of reference–to define his reality so that it serves and confirms his comfort, promotion, and inherent moral worth.  For those who laud a causal Universe are those who write man out of the existential equation with every abstract, mathematical or philosophical proof they scribble.  And their inability to identify an objective material standard by which to proclaim their proofs TRUE, and therefore GOOD, is why they insist that the Laws of Physics, though in and of themselves entirely unobservable to and beyond the reach of man in any capacity, are in fact actual…that is, exist in their absolute and imitable realm; the wizard behind the curtain of Oz, governing all things behind galaxy-sized swathes of dark matter, even unto our very root existence.

And you might argue that, no, that’s not what they believe.  And I would fire back that it matters not what they THINK they think; the imitable logical conclusions of the the very notion of cosmic Laws demands that they are nevertheless on the moral and intellectual hook for their irrational metaphysics.  And I don’t need to understand the equations, nor do I need to have studied in the John Immel School of Enough Time Devoted to the Topic (Which Apparently Neither He nor Anyone Else Possesses) Leads to the Reconciliation of That Which is a Rank Logical Fallacy to rationalize the conclusion. If the conclusion is a rank contradiction, I already know that the equation must be inherently flawed.  I am not obligated to study nor understand nor concede anything beyond this. You cannot rationalize that which defies the very idea by its conclusion.  That is an axiom, period.  To suggest I must spend time learning to arrive at a conclusion upon which can never be arrived is purely obfuscation.

*

“Is admitting the existence of this chair somehow embracing a causal universe?”

The real answer to this question is:  It depends.  Notice how, in my last essay, I did not say that admitting something exists is necessarily believing in a causal Universe.  I didn’t even say that believing in an objective reality means one must necessarily accept the determinism of a causal Universe.  I said that faulty and irrational determinism is a function of an “objective reality outside of man”, which is precisely the causal Universe that people like John Immel and his objectivist comrades demand.  In other words, a reality governed by Laws of Nature…a reality conceded to the forces which act to cause the existence and actions and interactions of all things, including man. Even though man cannot empirically or rationally vouch for the tangible, visceral existence of such forces.  Which…is pretty ironic.  The very people who demand empirical verification of all opposing ideas–ideas from those like me, who do not distinguish between reason and evidence–are the very people who cannot observe the forces which are said to create the objective reality they insist everyone else obey or be deemed a fool (thus resorting to rank pretension and insults as a means to intimidate their detractors).

Anyway…

So the question is not whether we rationally accept an objective reality (or rather, simply “reality”…for “objective reality” seems rather redundant), but how we define that reality.

When we consider how to do that…when we consider reality, there are really only two ways to frame it.  Either things “outside” of man exist “to themselves”, so to speak–meaning they have inherent meaningful, definable, qualifiable and quantifiable value in and of themselves in accordance with some organized, non-relative, non-random, purposeful, causal force which acts upon them absolutely, independent of man’s mind–that is, man’s ability to conceptually organize his environment in order to manipulate it for his own ends and for the sake of himself–or things exist “to man”.  Which means that they have no inherent, non-relative, organized value or meaning or efficacy unless man observes them and bestows upon them such value via his conceptual definitions.  It is by man’s ability to conceptualize his environment (which is, in fact, the whole Universe) that we get “chairs” and “cars” and “curvature of spacetime” and “trees” and “galaxy clusters”.  They are a product of man’s mind, meaning that mans’ ability to conceptualize his environment is what gives any relevant meaning to what are “chairs” and “galaxies” and “orbits”, etc., which means that it is by man that these things can be said to be real…to exist.  Reality has nothing relevant to do with the material substance of these things–which I do NOT deny–which is infinite (to be further discussed in an upcoming essay) and therefore infinitely relative and valueless in and of itself.  But rather it has everything to do with how they are standardized TO man’s life.  It is man’s ability to organize what he observes TO a reference point…TO a constant, himself, which is what creates “reality” in any relevant, valuable, or moral sense.  Without such a Constant/Standard, as I have said, all material existence and object interaction is purely relative, which means it can have no actual, singular, definable, relevant, meaningful reality.  Things simply are what they relatively are, relatively existing with all other objects, having no measurable singularity whatsoever; and thus it becomes impossible to describe them as even “existing”.  Because…existing to what?  To what reference? To what standard? To what end?  To what purpose?  In what context?

Without man and his ability to make SELF the infinite, singular reference point and Standard of reality, these questions can have no answer.  And anything which has no relevant, definable end or purpose because it has no ascertainable context or reference cannot rationally be said to “objectively exist”.  On the contrary, there is nothing objective about it.  By definition a relative existence of a pointless material substance which is infinitely relative and lacking any singular reference and standard is not an objective existence, period.  Full stop.  An utterly relative existence is no existence at all, because what it is that is said to “exist” cannot have a any meaningful definition.  And without such a definition there can be no meaningful reality.  Which means there can be no reality at all because a reality which lacks any definition is not, by definition, reality.

*

The idea of an “objective reality” rooted in a “causal universe” (that is, a universe governed by the interminable cause and effect determinism of Natural Law) defines man in such a way that he becomes existentially and metaphysically OUTSIDE of “reality” (hence the constant reference to an “objective reality outside of man” demanded by objectivism, Marxism, Fascism, scientific determinism and its psuedo-intellectual worker bees, the evangelical Atheists).  Man is a determined product of the causal forces of nature which act utterly beyond his senses (because man’s senses are a product of these causal forces…an effect, and therefore they cannot, by definition, be turned around to observe their own absolute and absolutely determinative  source).

Now, what is never explained by these emissaries of “rational” determinism and scientific “evidence”, is that man, of course, cannot possibly exist in a “reality” such as this.  For since man is a determined and thus absolute effect, he is an absolute function of the reality “outside” of himself…which means–if you can wrap your head around this–there is no “him”…no singular distinct SELF, to speak of.  And therefore, most ironically, this makes the reality smugly demanded by these people a complete oxymoron.  Since man is, again, a direct and absolute function of the laws of physics, man has no essence to call his own.  Therefore, nothing is real to him by definition because he is, in fact, nothing.  Which–one more time, again–makes appeals to “objective reality” even that much more absurd and hilarious.

*

If we say that a “chair”, or “car” or “galaxy” or a “tree” or a “micro brewery” exists as such, regardless of man and OUTSIDE of him, making his existence entirely irrelevant to these things, we are saying that man does not define his own reality, but rather, “reality”–the “external” environment–defines him.  Man isn’t the one who decides that a chair is a chair…he is not the one who gets to say that the relative existence of the material substance he observes to act and move and be in a certain way in order that it can in fact relevantly and efficaciously be a chair (because it serves to promote an objective standard, that is man’s own SELF).  No, somehow, on the contrary something outside of man defines and values his reality for him.  God, or the the cosmic Laws of Nature, or some other all pervasive, unobservable, infinite and inexorable force–which by definition holds man and his ideas in no esteem or regard whatsoever, because it doesn’t recognize him in the first place–gets to declare that the chair is a chair.  It becomes irrational and thus entirely immoral for man to have a say in how his environment is defined and organized.  Because the chair, as a chair, is defined not by man but by the very concept of “chairness”which is somehow a product of the cosmos…the Laws of Nature (because man’s ability to conceptualize is irrelevant according to the metaphysics of a “causal universe”).  And thus, I submit that John Immel’s point, and the point of Aristotelian philosophy (of which some is good and some is not) is that “chairness” exists regardless of what man observes or thinks.  So, quite naturally, we assume that this must mean that reality has some kind of efficacious and valuable and objective definition and purpose utterly in spite of man’s own life and self and mind and context and existence.  And so what is inevitably argued is that the very ideas man uses and creates out of his own mind and his own inherent ability to conceptually define and organize his environment to serve his own existence are somehow manifest in reality without him. That all of man’s thoughts and ideas and beliefs are not OF him, but are bestowed upon him by the “external” reality which categorically caused him.  Which really means that there is no way for man to discern between his own mind and thoughts–which includes the most salient concept of the SELF by which he defines his own body as distinct from his environment–and his environment and the requisite causal forces which determine and govern and create everything from outside of him and thus which, by logical extension, inexorably become him.  Therefore an appeal to the “objective reality outside of man” is really nothing more than a destruction of the distinction entirely.

*

Since man is not that which defines his own environment with himself as the supreme and singular reference point, the only conclusion to be logically arrived upon is this…and it is a conclusion which, in my experience, ultimately, sooner or later, be it John Immel, or the inestimable Paul Dohse (whom I adore), or any venerable libertarian thinker of our day, must and do concede:  man is NOT and CANNOT be the root cause of his own life; and thus he cannot be the reason for his own existence.  Yes, at the end of the day, even Ayn Rand is little more than a rank hypocrite.  Because “reality” is a function of a reality beyond man’s own self, man cannot possibly claim the right to define himself.  Man is wholly and ineluctably defined by what is NOT man.  Man thus becomes a big, fat contradiction in terms.  Man is no longer the source and purpose of himself…his own end (for if man is his own end, he must be his own beginning), rather he is a determined product of something entirely beyond him.

It is easy to see how this must lead to the exploitation and ultimately the destruction of humanity on shockingly large scales…and routinely does.

*

If man is at the mercy of and is the direct function of the forces of the causal universe–the “objective reality outside himself”–then man cannot possibly understand reality, by the very empirical definition of reality given to us. Man is OUTSIDE of reality.  Which can only mean that man is not real.  Again, by definition.  Thus, man is not himself.  Any beliefs or ideas as a function of man’s senses can only be considered illegitimate markers and definitions of reality; including his definitions and “discoveries” of the causal Laws of Nature which govern the Universe and everything in it.  Man is illusory; he is false.  Man cannot actually know anything himself, because he is no autonomous agent.  He does not, by nature, possess the epistemological ability to make a distinction between what he is (himself…his body) and what he is NOT (his environment), which is the epistemological prerequisite to any actual knowledge man may possess.  Because according to the very definition of a causal Universe, there is no distinction.  ALL things are direct and determined functions of the actions of all objects which have come “before”; and the root material essence and existence of these objects is a direct function the unobservable forces of nature–the Laws of Physics.

You see, when someone preaches to you about the governing power of the Laws of Physics, the logical question begged is where does that governance end?  The only rational answer is:  it doesn’t.  The Laws of Physics are the absolute and infinite cause of the causal Universe.  They ARE then, the Universe.  Which means to define the Universe as a function of the forces of the Laws of Nature is to relegate “reality” to an utterly unobservable, unknowable infinite CAUSE, which has NO effect, because everything is merely an absolute and direct function of itself, which eliminates the distinction entirely.  The power of the Laws which govern does not end, and therefore, it can have no beginning.  And to attempt to define reality this way is nothing more than the futile and pointless exercise of trying to parse infinity.  And this is rank madness beyond all the heady language and “intellectual” equivocation and appeals to educational and cognitive pedigree.  Whatever is the absolute function of a governing force IS and MUST BE that governing force, period, full stop.  There is no difference between the Absolute Causal Force and that which it causes.  And further, there simply is no way to make this not so.  There. Is. No. Way.  Not by Aristotle; not by Voltaire; not by Newton: not by Einstein; not by Hawking; not by Hitchens; not by years and years and years of study;  not by anyone or anything.  The Laws of Physics it must be conceded when we argue the notion of a causal Universe do not simply govern the movement of objects, but the existence of objects. And this includes the most salient of all objects, man.

*

It is important to understand that when we speak of “objective reality” we specify how we define it; meaning, how we rationally explain just what makes reality REAL.  Is man a product of “reality”, or is man the standard by which “reality” can be defined as such, and therefore given efficacy and and value and purpose?

How we decide to answer this question is, as history has shown, quite literally the difference between life and death.

Recently, I posted a comment on John Immel’s blog, http://www.spiritualtyranny.com, under the article “Welcome to the Problem of Universals”, which you can access here.  John then responded to my comment, and I responded back this morning.  My last comment is still in moderation limbo.  Not content with this, I have decided to post my comment here, for those of you who care.  I know that some of you who read here also read on John’s site, so I feel compelled, I admit, to finish this conversation, even if it means using my own blog as the platform.  I have been doing this blogging/commenting thing for several years now, and I have learned that the amount of time one lets a comment languish in moderation is inversely proportional to the level of people’s commitment to the discussion.  In this sense then, moderating someone can equate to a form of passive aggression, and a means of manipulating the debate.  Not that we can ever really know that this is actually what’s happening (not that knowing matters…the fact still remains, the longer a comment goes unpublished, to less effective the comment will be, because of the naturally waning interest of other readers).  I mean, for all I know, John may be on a honeymoon.  But since I understand the benefits of being the gatekeeper of a discussion, determining not only what can be said but when, I would like to try to mitigate this as much as possible.  So, here we are.  If a comment of mine is not posted on the original blog for which it was intended by, say, the late evening of the day in which it was originally submitted, I will post it here. Now, in this case, it is particularly important that I do so.  As you will see, John essentially accuses me of sharing philosophical identities with Marxism (he actually specifies Hume and Kant, but I suspect these are names one uses when they want to accuse someone of Marxism without actually referring to Marx).  I reject this entirely for the rank nonsense it is; but the reason for the accusation has everything to do with John not particularly understanding–nor even attempting to understand (because he makes no attempt to point out any inconsistencies in my thinking)–my perspective.  This I submit has to do with his full-on concession that the foundations of philosophical thinking have already been established, and there is nothing else to be said in this regard.  The only thing left to do is pound one’s opponent with ordinance that hasn’t changed significantly in the past thousand years or so.  In other words, you think within the boundaries of institutionally accepted metaphysical and epistemological theories, or you are disqualified automatically.  It is akin to a music theorist telling a musician that he or she cannot put two specific notes together, not because they actually sound bad within the context of the song, but simply because music theory doesn’t have a formula which allows for it.  This argument is ridiculous for obvious reasons, and bears no further commentary. I concede that only the individual human being is the rational Standard of Truth; that is, the yardstick by which any belief, idea, opinion, concept, or faith can be actually and efficaciously known as both true and ethical (or, conversely, by which these things can be known as false and evil).  Period.  How I get there is by proclaiming that man, by his powers of conceptualization, starting with the primary concept of the SELF, gives meaning and value to his environment, and that he thus is not a product of that environment as the empiricists and Objectivists would have you believe.  For if man is a function of his environment, then man cannot actually be a distinct SELF.  He is doomed to the determinist forces which govern all of “objective reality OUTSIDE of himself”.  And further, a reality OUTSIDE of man cannot be known nor defined by man by definition, because it is OUTSIDE of him, and thus cannot include him.  And so what is the point of the fucking conversation anyway?  Why is John so committed to pointing out my inherent Marxism, as though he can even be in an epistemological position to observe it, according to his own ideas?  If man is OUTSIDE reality, which is the explicit assumption behind appeals to a reality which is “real” whether man exists or acknowledges it or not, then the question “does reality exist?” is unanswerable on its face. But as we shall see, John doesn’t come within a million miles of even acknowledging this implicit rational flaw. Anyway…somehow, I’m communist.  And somehow this idea, that the INDIVIDUAL is the only rightful owner and definer of his or her own life–and that it is the ability of one to conceptualize his or her existence which makes all humans equal and thus negates as immoral all violations of other people–will lead to inevitable bloodshed, tyranny, and heartache for everyone on earth.  Amen. Well…look, I’m not a philosopher.  I never said I was.  I have never claimed any formal education and I have been entirely up front about the fact that I know fuck all about most of your major philosophical players.  And if you think I’m sitting through Plato’s Republic, you might as well go dig a hole and fill it in with fairy dust.  Because…no way.   I have not spent many wee hours of the night sitting by candlelight in the Library of Congress and pouring over old manuscripts until my eyes bleed.  I care nothing for dissertations and theses on these subjects.  Could give a shit.  I have simple questions concerning the rank contradictions which blaze forth, not from arcane writings in long forgotten textbooks on long forgotten shelves in long forgotten libraries in institutions of intellectual snobbery, but from everyday ideas, implemented to destructive effect, which is the efficacious and relevant conclusion of all of the esoteric blather when all is said and done.  I don’t need a dissertation or a canon of philosophical dogma.  I only need to turn on the fucking TV or open a newspaper.  Within four minutes I’ll be inundated with the causal effect of time; or the cosmic, determined imperative that I submit to some abstract political, collectivist ideal; or I will be told under some stupid science article that the universe is a a trillion years old and yet in the same article I’ll be told that time was created AFTER the Big Bang, which means the universe could not be a trillion years old because the question “a trillion years from when?” cannot possibly be answered. So to hell with your shelf of books.  Riddle me these things.  All the bullshit need not apply. I don’t want appeals to intellectual or educational pedigree (see John’s response below).  I don’t want the rhetoric of “if you only understood what I understand you would accept that you are all wrong”.  I shouldn’t have to study philosophy in some stuffy formal setting for years on end before the geniuses can answer a simple question like:  If man is a function of the laws of nature which govern, how can he in fact be distinct?  Or:  Of what efficacy and relevance is observation without a definition of WHAT is observing and WHAT is being observed?  That is, without a conceptual paradigm grounded in a Standard of Truth by which “observation” and “reality” and “SELF” and “truth” and “objective”, can have any meaning in the first place.  And: If there is no definition of any of these ideas without first their conceptualization, then just how can we know that observation comes first in the epistemological chain?  How do you define something without conceptualizing it?  How is man actually man without a definition of man?  How do we “observe” that which lacks any definition? I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  And for all of John’s words, I’m still waiting for the superior intellects to answer.  I know they may seem complicated, but these are really not hard questions.  They are only hard when we have already decided that the QUESTIONS are in fact, the answers.  That is, contradiction is the root metaphysical and epistemological primary.  And, don’t doubt me, John fully accepts the contradictions, because they are grounded in “objective reality” as he defines it.  And so once again, the philosopher kings get to define the terms.  Contradictions aren’t contradictions as long as the “right” people with the “right” philosophy (e.g. those philosophies, like Objectivism, which toot their horns as the moral antipode of Marxism) are in charge of them.  Your continued objections are merely proof that you are intellectually insufficient; that you have not been “given the grace to perceive”. And this is why nothing changes.  Because as soon as you dare to question the idea that man gets his truth from his ability to observe, as opposed to his ability to conceptualize or reason, you are a Marxist,  ’nuff said.  And that’s the point of John’s entire comment.  I have denied the senses as THE singular source of truth, so I must be a moral relativist.  I must concede that there is no truth. And he sees absolutely nothing beyond that.  Which is a shame. As soon as one condemns man to his senses for his truth, he condemns man to WHAT those senses sense.  Man becomes fully a product of what is NOT him…that which is outside of himself.  Which destroys the SELF, by definition.  I, however, submit that man himSELF is the source of his truth, and nothing else.  Not his environment; not his senses; not his God…nothing.  Man IS, period.  And it is by knowing that you ARE, because you can define what you are, that you can BE YOU; and you can think, and you can do and you can choose.  And knowledge is conceptual.  Not because it is my opinion, but because it must be.  There is no definition which is not ultimately a conceptual definition.  This is not up for debate.  This is not subjective.  Sorry. And whatever John says Kant or Hume or Marx thinks about that, I just don’t fucking care.  That’s not my problem.  I will not be pigeon-holed into the either/or dichotomy John Immel’s philosophy demands.  That is, you are either essentially an Objectivist or you are a rank Marxist.  That’s just plain weak.  Answer the questions; explain the contradictions.  That’s your only moral and intellectual obligation.  Not to appeal to your vast educational experience, or to draw up new textbooks for us all to ponder until the wee hours of our life’s winter years.  Not to tell us how we need to agree that if we only understood what you understand, we’d put down our raised hands and go back to knitting those shawls or rebuilding those carburetors or head back to the movies.  Explain why your contradictions aren’t actually contradictions…and if that takes a while, by all means, we’ll wait.  In case you didn’t notice, I have over two hundred and fifty essays on this blog.  I’ve got nothing but time.  So, take yours.  By all means. * Here is my first comment wherein I respond to a question John asks in his article.  The question is, “Does reality exist?”.

The more I study and the more I think the more I conclude that there are only ostensible differences in the most common ideas, be them political, religious, or even broadly philosophical. It’s all the same authoritarian determinism with different vocabulary. Or the same vocabulary (Catholic vs. Protestant, for example; Democrat vs. Republican, for another example) redefined.

I have been listening to a lot of Christopher Hitchens on YouTube lately, because I am always on the look out for ways in which atheism (or antitheism, as he prefers to think of his ideas) differs fundamentally from other authoritarian determinist collectivist ideologies, like, for example, religious despotism (Hi there, neo-Calvinist movement!). And Hitchens is this month’s flavor….Noam Chomsky, then followed by Stephan Moleneux and a slew of like-minded (to Stephan, not Noam) anarcho-capitalists was last month’s variety. On a side note, I’m sure this is not an original thought, but shouldn’t we refer to Noam as Gnome?  I mean, he doesn’t look entirely unlike one of those adorable pointy-headed little elves which garnish so many suburban yards; and he’s about as useful when you examine what he actually says.

Anyway.

Here’s my conclusion: There is no fundamental difference. All the presumptions which form the core of these ideologies–atheist, theist, agnostic, what have you–utterly concede the idea that man is a function of some outside force; which of course destroys man’s identity and obligates him to the “philosopher kings”–the purveyors of the Primary Consciousness in question (God, laws of nature, “human existence”–that is, the existential irreducible primary a-la Ayn Rand, the Party, the Race, the Tribe, the Gender, the Nation, the Kingdom, the Mathematics, the Moral Law, the “Right Way” of Doing Things, etc.).

It is equal parts frustrating and highly telling. Truly the philosopher kings have no clothes. No one seems able nor even willing to answer the question “What is man?”. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the very first thing for which your mind–which must always enter into the arena of ideas with a generous portion of skepticism and a side of knee-jerk denial–should be on the lookout.  If no definition of man is forthcoming, then the idea(s) should be summarily rejected as an illegitimate answer for the questions “What is TRUTH?” and “What should man do?”.  For unless man is rationally defined as a SELF which is completely autonomous and distinct, infinite in its ability to BE what it is, and to KNOW what it is and what it is not, and to appeal to itself as the only rational standard by which truth may be defined as true, and moral (good) actions may be defined as actually moral (good), and coupled with an explanation of just how this is materially possible (which can only be done by injecting God into the equation, atheists)…yes, unless this is forthcoming then you may safely assume that the ideas you are consuming are not fit for existential application.  That is, they are not TRUTH, and thus while they may serve some ancillary subjective purpose in some specific context, they are inadequate for describing and/or explaining reality on the whole.

So, no atheist that I have observed yet answers the question, “What is man?”.   It is just assumed that man IS. But IS is not fundamentally different from IS NOT unless it can be explained beyond its “axiom”–the axiom which says that that IS simply IS, and there is no consideration given to just how the  IS became an IS and how it therefore may be rationally juxtaposed to what it IS NOT.  For what is merely considered to BE can only be observed as distinct (that is, where its being is not utterly infinite) from other things if one can explain just how this distinction can be made.  That is, how what IS, and infinitely so, can co-exist with other things which it is NOT.   And no one–NO atheist which I have observed–does this beyond appeals to science (or ignorance…”We just don’t know”), just like the the “orthodox” religious big-mouths appeal to God’s creative powers whereby He makes something out of nothing (which is nonsense defined).  And of course it should be observed that these are ideas which can only be conceded AFTER one already exists, FROM that place of existence. In other words, the things that always and only are observed to follow  from man’s awareness of himSELF (like the “laws of nature”, for instance) are said to be the cause of that SELF…which is a madness to rival even the most insane sidewalk babbler.

*

The atheist or antitheist dismisses God out of hand as tyrannical nonsense simply because the men who have preached Him since even before the days of Christ have succumbed to the pervasive lie of gnosticism (codified by Plato, and further disseminated by St. Augustine under the guise of Christian enlightenment). They never bother to ask themselves whether or not the self-described proxies and herald’s of God and His moral mandates actually rightly apprehend His person and place and purpose, or rationally interpret the religious canonical texts. They simply concede that the ecclesiastical proselytes do. Or, better said, the atheist first assumes that God cannot exist, and then they use the obviously irrational doctrines, and the obviously untenable interpretations of scriptures of the religious “orthodoxy” to “prove” their point.

What I mean is that instead of simply pointing out the logical flaws in the doctrines and platitudes perpetuated by those who claim to know and preach God, the atheist assumes that these doctrines are the only way God can be acknowledged to exist and to act efficaciously. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it is a massively shallow and obtuse assumption, and undermines their entire argument. They approach religion with the same flawed assumption their mystic counterparts do: that religion rationally passes as a full-on philosophy. Which, as I elaborated upon in my last post, it does not. Religion is NOT a philosophy–at least not in the true holistic sense–because before one can believe in the doctrines of faith one must have conceded metaphysical and epistemological absolutes ALREADY in order to proclaim that it is THEY who are BELIEVING in something. Any atheist who is worth anything beyond his or her polemic-ism would understand this, and therefore not assume that God must necessarily be defined by religion, which, again, does not internally or intrinsically possess any metaphysical or epistemological axioms.

The atheist, to be taken any more seriously than the mystic, must understand that there is a massive difference between a disbelief in religion and a disbelief in God. But they don’t seem to make this distinction, nor give any evidence that they are even aware of it at all. Which leads me to conclude that prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens are in essence no different than the very people they pretend to criticize: People who love to argue for truth only from hindsight, where the “logic” extends no further than the initial assumption.  And of course the problem with this is that the presumption can thus be literally anything at all, which means, conveniently, that they can never lose an argument, much like the mystic who appeals to his or her divinely bestowed enlightenment, which cannot be learned but must be somehow magically dispensed. For the atheist, by presuming an infinite existential axiom with zero explanation as to just how such an axiom can be arrived at (and yet it still must be conceded), simply appeals to the same argument of “divine” enlightenment, except they remove God as the granter of such gnosis, and replace Him with a salad bar of empiricism, like science and nature and mathematics and statistics and ad-hominem and moralizing and “righteous” indignation, and even shoulder-shrugging ignorance (well, we know the Big Bang is the cause, but we CANNOT know (an appeal to man’s fundamental and thus infinite intellectual insufficiency) what caused the Big Bang), making those who posses an innate aptitude for such things the new divine proxies.  A rational metaphysical absolute (a comprehensive answer to the question “What is man?” via the tool of pure reason, not empiricism) is wholly disregarded. Which makes the quest for TRUTH pointless because TRUTH then becomes entirely relative. And thus the debate dissolves into merely a tit-for-tat parlance where the root point is simply “I’m right, because I believe I am right; and you’re wrong because YOU believe I’m wrong.”. A point of view which incidentally cannot have a fucking thing to do with TRUTH.

And the rest of us, whether praying or scoffing at those who do, haven’t moved one inch closer to true enlightenment OR salvation.

Before we examine another parcel of madness bathed in a wash of syrupy platitudes and cliches, and wrapped in a paper-thin shroud of compassionate spiritual counsel, I am compelled to point out the lack of bibliography, citations, or references of any sort in the primer which has been the subject of my latest series “Collectivist Philosophy Masquerading as the Christian Orthodox Ideal”.  The booklet is, again, entitled, “Community: Your Pathway to Progress”, and it was published by North Point Ministries in 2008.

We are all just supposed to assume that they are speaking from some place of higher authority and that whatever they have scribbled down is somehow “God-breathed”; which is merely another nod to their presumption of representing God as proxy to the laity.  The laity…which is not in the position, either metaphysically or epistemologically, to really know the difference.  Oh, sure, they will poof-text the Bible in a lazy attempt to add credence and legitimacy to their ideas, but this is merely another stage prop in the facade.  Remember, the Bible is NOT a philosophy, no matter how many of us wish it were or function as though it was.  It does not spell out a clear, stark metaphysical construct for man; it does not lay out a fundamental epistemology rooted in this construct; it does not declare axiomatic ethics (beyond the Ten Commandments, which are unfortunately obliterated in a raging sea of equivocation once the Jews are seen to interact with tribes outside themselves, not to mention how the Commandments are handled, often circumspectly, in the New Testament); it does not posit a stark political strategy (and given that most of the Old Testament is within the context of a monarchy that God advised AGAINST, and the New Testament functions within the confines of Roman imperialism and Rabbinic hyper-authoritarianism I’d say this point is pretty well made for me…my further elaboration unnecessary); nor does it offer examples of a derivative aesthetic based upon the rest of the philosophic axioms…because they aren’t there.  My point is that in order to interpret the Bible rationally one must have a rational philosophy already established.  For I submit that the single greatest weakness of the Bible (and this is not really the Bible’s fault, but rather the fault of those who pretend to be its authorities and experts) is that because of its decided lack of metaphysical and epistemological absolutes it is prone to massive subjectivity with respect to the doctrines derived from it.  Meaning that anyone can get it to say just about whatever the fuck they want it to say.  And again, this is precisely because it is NOT a philosophy.  Thus, in order to understand the Bible–if we concede that the Bible is our primary source for what we think, spiritually–we must possess a rational mind, with rational consistency, and have developed our existential assumptions (philosophy) via reason before the Bible can possibly make any sense or have any efficacious relevancy.

My opinion with respect to God’s view of man from all of the aforementioned is this: The fact a reasonable philosophy is a prerequisite for a rational rendering of the Biblical messages is, to me, an illustration of God’s faith in man’s ability to observe his own reality and concede the existence of his own distinct, autonomous, volitional SELF, and to live by it, before He even deigns to dialogue.  Indeed, the efficacious and rational existence of man’s SELF is so obvious that God doesn’t even bother with presenting some kind of singular philosophy; he just jumps right in to LIFE, and counsel for the most valuable and profitable and satisfying way of living it.  Alas, God has a much higher opinion of man’s intellect and ability to apprehend reality rationally than does man.  But try arguing this with the evil, Marxist shills in charge of running the institutional church these days.  You’ll find yourself run out of town on a rail; next stop, Heretic Land. My point is that you must remember that when you read things like “Community: Your Pathway to Progress”–with “community” being a euphemism for Marxist-style totalitarian collectivism–understand that it is not rooted in any particular, salient, deep, or rational understanding of…well, anything at all.  It is a bunch of ill-educated, intellectually stunted, under-productive man-hens clucking around the coop in the hopes that at some point truth in Shakespearean prose might burst forth from their lips.  Why?  Simply because they’ve assumed God’s omnipotence and authority by fiat.  In other words, by just deciding that they are somehow “called”.

So my recommendation?  Take this stuff–advice books from the institutional church–for what it is:  very little.  And then proceed to find the humor in it by its sheer audacity; then mock it, disprove it with reason, know that God does not consider madness to be wisdom, and go on with your life, living it for you, your pleasure, your comfort, your peace, because its God’s gift to you, because he’s a Father, and normal, sane fathers actually want their children free and happy…not enslaved, confused, tortured, and murdered for the sake of some asshole who stands at a podium and says “obey me”, with absolutely no more depth to his “authority” than that simple directive.

A week or so ago on my Facebook page, I posted this short comment:

If I utterly affirm your right to marry and love whom you choose; to worship what you will, or nothing at all, and to adore what your soul desires, why do you not affirm my right to fully own my property and my labor, and dispose of it as I will, in service to my own interests, and exchange value with whom I wish? For all are of these are likewise inalienable rights of the individual.

A little later I received this affirmation from a respected contributor to the Paul’s Passing Thoughts blog:

For example, I might support the freedom of two lesbians who wish to get married, but I should not be forced to bake their wedding cake, nor punished under law if I refuse.

I wrote a short reply in which I agreed, stating that it is hypocritical for gay people to demand the right to marry, rightly–as marriage is a private value exchange between two autonomous individuals who possess the inalienable right to engage in such exchanges free from government interference; or any other kind of disruption–and yet stand silently by while the government thrusts a value exchange upon the proprietor of a cake shop by demanding, at the point of a government gun (i.e. it’s “the LAW”…which can only mean force, which is ultimately the threat of punishment, which is violence), that he or she violate their conscience and perform a service for homosexuals that they do not which to perform.  In short, while it is fine for the government to compel by force an individual to dispose of his or her private property in the name of “equality” (whatever the fuck that means…it’s a bullshit meme), it is somehow an abuse of government power and a moral atrocity to forcefully compel those individuals who wish to marry to do so with only members of the opposite sex. In both cases, it is the government seizing by force the right to define “appropriate” value exchanges between individuals, even in cases where the relationship poses no direct threat to nor manifests as a direct violation against any citizen of the State.

Thus, for government to declare one value exchange moral (gay marriage) and another immoral (religious expression via the disposal of private property…that is, one’s business) represents an arbitrary ethic, rooted not in reason but in the notion that government, not individual LIFE, is the plumb line for MORALITY, and, via logical extension, TRUTH.  And this means that individuals can only exist, metaphysically and morally, for the sake of government (and this IS collectivism…or, in the economic vernacular, Marxism), and not the other way around–which is the only rational political ideal. This philosophy, being completely backwards to logic and reason, representing a world-view that is decidedly anti-life, must always, always, always end up in tyranny…and misery for the denizens.  It represents a philosophy that has its seed in Satan’s lie in the Garden of Eden:  That the individual exists to be sacrificed to a standard of “good and evil” that is wholly outside of him/her; mutually exclusive of him/her, and arbitrated by a metaphysically-excused (somehow) “authority” which is granted the right by God (or whatever Primary Consciousness is being pressed…the Worker’s Utopia, the Racial Ideal, the Pride of the Nation, Equality–the Level Playing Field, the Poor and their Perpetual Provision, etc.) to force, by hook or crook or firing squad or suicide bomber or dunking chair or guillotine or Tyburn Tree, the unwashed masses into “right” thinking and behavior.

Incidentally, this is the very philosophical heart of Christianity in America today, which dreadfully–and artfully–follows John Calvin’s cohesive Platonist interpretation of biblical doctrines to a terrifyingly accurate degree.

Christian suicide bombers?

Far fetched?  Go ahead, pick a sermon from any church, on any give day.  Listen to what is being said.  What are the root assumptions about the existential morality and empirical worth of individual human beings one must hold in order to arrive at such doctrinal interpretations?  I promise you, Christian suicide bombing is only one spark away.  For crying out loud, the logical conclusions of the doctrines are already openly being preached.  One has no further to look than John Piper’s declaration that Christian women, in order to honor the “authority” of their husbands, and to practice their proper submissive duty, may have to endure a night of smacking (paraphrase), and then bring the issue up not with law enforcement, but with their Pastors…who are ALL men, and, being full-on advocates of the doctrines of categorical male-dominance, will surely be sympathetic to her side of the story.

Right.

For crying out fucking loud…how far away from this premise do we really think “honor” killings are?

Not far enough, I can assure you.

Next, another friend of mine on Facebook posted this ostensibly powerful argument.  And, by way of prologue, allow me to state that this kind of thinking is a brilliant tactical move on the part of those who seek to subterfuge their hypocrisy (and this subterfuge is not necessarily conscious, nor is their hypocrisy…I do not want to accuse this person of outright deception, for I don’t believe he is of that character) via strong emotional appeals:

Here’s an analogy that should explain why forcing anti-discrimination measures is necessary. Let’s say that instead of a bakery, this is was a pharmacy. And instead of the lesbian couple looking for a cake, let’s say they came because one of them is having a DEADLY allergic reaction to something, and is in need of an Epi-pen (sp?). And let’s also say hypothetically that this is the only pharmacy in range of said couple that has epi-pens (and the nearest hospital is too far away to reach in time). The couple demonstrates that they have enough money to pay for one. But the pharmacy owners refuse to sell the epi-pen because they don’t approve of the lesbian couple’s “lifestyle.” The point of the argument is that if you are going to have a business that is open (and advertised) to the GENERAL PUBLIC, and if you are not willing to serve certain people based on who they are and how they live their lives, then don’t be a business that is open to the general public. Even in the most “socialist” of countries (that are democratic/representative), you will never see laws that mandate that a business must serve everyone no matter what. If a customer is being disruptive, rude, etc, most of the time a business has the absolute right to NOT serve said customer, and can probably kick him/her out. Bars do it all the time. I find that many of the arguments used to defend the “right” of businesses not to serve (or hire) the LGBT were also the same arguments used to defend Jim Crow. If mandating that a business cannot refuse service on the basis of sexual-orientation is a violation of a business owner’s “rights,” then by that logic, so is the repeal of Jim Crow laws. Should we repeal the Civil Rights Act then, if this is “tyranny?”

Now…there are many, many points made in this comment.  Some are more salient than others.  Therefore, in the interest of avoiding a full-on Voltaire-like catalog of literature in response, I attempted to address only those points I thought demanded a rebuttal…and this editing of my responses persists to the end of the conversation.

There are many things to say in response to your post. I will write more tomorrow. But for now…Jim Crow law was the government declaring that businesses were not free to exchange values as they saw fit. You cannot legalize discrimination any more legitimately or morally than you can FORCE by law non-discrimination. They are both two sides of the same philosophical and political coin. Anti-discrimination laws are closer to Jim Crow than what I believe. It is the government compelling by force the individual exchange of value.

And further, simply because an act is reprehensible does not demand government coercion. People are free to be racist assholes. And I am free to ignore them and spend my money elsewhere and proclaim their bullshit to the world in an attempt to change behavior via better ideas. It is always the tyrant who thinks the government needs to decide to whom YOU should relate.

This person then offered another comment:

It is fair to call government the “mother” of Jim Crow LAWS. But the PEOPLE of the South, collectively and individually, were Jim Crow’s extremely horny father (as far the actual laws are concerned). Outside of police crackdowns on marches and protests (sit ins, etc), the enforcement of Jim Crow was hardly “top down.” The (white) people of the South loved it and were more than happy to enforce it themselves, as groups and as individuals. They did not have to be “coerced” into discriminating. They would have done it with or without laws. And if that’s the case, what exactly can a powerless and disenfranchised individual do? The ugly & racist behavior of many white people and white-owned businesses were exposed over and over again, with no change. And many individuals suffered as a result, especially those who sympathized with and/or participated in the Civil Rights Movement. My point is this: it took a more “evolved government” to actually end Jim Crow. The Federal Government, I mean.

********For the record, I do not believe that the federal government was or even is finished “evolving” into being the government that it should be. In fact, I believe quite the opposite, but that is to be a LOOOOOONG conversation & debate for the next family reunion ;)***************

Honest & friendly question here: do you feel that Affirmative Action and/or racial quotas should be legal (but not required, of course), within private and/or public institutions (which includes private businesses who directly receive tax dollars for any reason and/or government contracts? I’ve had a revelation lately when it comes to government & and its people.

A government can only be as good as its people, collectively. Which I think ties in to my point about Jim Crow. Generations of individuals in the South were programmed with everything except syringes filled with the “racist gene.” It would have happened with or without government, with or without fear of punishment. There is a reason why there hardly exists any official documentations or interviews from SOUTHERN White people who participated in the Civil Rights & abolitionist movements and/or rebelled against Jim Crow. I’m not saying they didn’t exist, but their numbers in the “not a racist/pro-slavery” category were definitely a minority for a reason. After all, it took literal US Military force to let black people into the same SCHOOLS. I’m not sure if that applied or still applies to 100% private schools, but if it does, GOOD! Especially if I have to see ads for private schools on bill boards next to federal highways (designed specifically to advertise to those driving on said highway) or at movie theaters (the private school I went to from k thru 12 does this…weird :/), or if it entitled to tax-funded police protection, etc.

******I am only saying that private schools must comply with non-discrimination laws to be able to legally advertise in such places, not arguing against that general right ;)***************

I’ve applied this revelation to the gun control debate. In my opinion, the most logical reason why strict gun control laws work well in other first world countries is because their people in general do not view guns like Americans do (I’ve spoken with enough foreigners and have seen polls on this, trust me). They do not view guns as a tool to “defend oneself.” Most of them see it as a tool that can cause great harm and shouldn’t be allowed in the hands of just anyone aged 18+, or at all. because some police forces within in these countries don’t even carry guns…and that MIGHT explain why they have such disproportionally lower fatalities caused DIRECTLY by law enforcement officials (some of these countries have 0…TOTAL. An old co-worker of mine, who spent his formative years in England, told me that people in England will “tell on you” if you have a handgun [England’s gun laws pretty much ban privately-owned handguns, assault, auto, and semi-auto firearms entire…just shotguns & hunting rifles mostly].

I do know that Australia did have to do a “gun grab,” mostly just by giving monetary compensation for people to give up their guns (with…of course, the alternative being incarcerated). But VIOLENCE by the government, as a tool to enforce this law, would only have been tyrannical and unjustified if the non-compliant citizen violently resists arrest, DIRECTLY causes damage as a result of fleeing (or hiding his/her guns from) law enforcement.

My responses:

Jim Crow laws were not restricted to the south. It’s important to remember this. Government was actively legislating business to patron transactions, in this case discriminatory, in both the North and South. A small minority of Americans worked tirelessly to end the Jim Crow atrocity. Before the government was compelled to act, these people had to change minds with ideas. This being the case, it disproves the implicit assumption in your last comment: that people are inherently and pervasively flawed and will not commit to righteous action except under threat of government violence. This is indeed your premise when you claim that government is “needed” to end discrimination, and was necessary to end Jim Crow: Man on his own will always pursue evil, and therefore a special “authority” must compel him to “right” action and thinking by threats, violence, imprisonment, and confiscation of property .

This, incidentally, is the same Platonist philosophy which has been at the root of every human moral outrage in world history, from wars to genocides to chattel slavery to forced sterilization to Satan’s lie in the garden of Eden. It is the root philosophy of both orthodox Protestantism and Catholicism and why I devote an entire blog to dismantling the doctrines and ideas of the church today in America. But government was not needed to end Jim Crow. What government needed was to be utterly stripped of its power to regulate individual transactions, business or otherwise, in the first place. For THAT was the root cause of Jim Crow’s moral atrocity, not people’s racism. Racism is powerless against the individual until it finds a friend in government. A white business owner may not serve blacks. But only the government can force the business owner around the corner, who would otherwise do so, to not serve them either.

And do you not find it somewhat contradictory and ironic that the same government which demanded segregation somehow now must be put in charge of ending it? How does the government get a pass on its own abuse of power and its rank moral offense? Simple: it’s the government. And government is the “specially” appointed authority needed to compel “fallen” man. It holds the keys of both good and evil; which of course destroys both completely by making them a function of whatever government decides they mean at any given moment. First the government says discrimination is good. Then declares it evil. This massive inconsistency is proof enough that government had and has NO business regulating morality.

Government is not an arbiter of ethics. It is FORCE, period. Full stop. It gets things done by coercion, period. Full stop. It knows of no higher authority than itself. With strict limits set rigorously upon it by a free people, it can be efficacious. But it is NEVER good. It may be a force for good. But it is always FORCE. Therefore the standard to which it must always be held is the freedom of the individual to exist for his own sake, by his own choices, to his own ends, exchanging value with whomever he wishes in whatever capacity he sees fit. Whenever government is allowed to substitute itself for any one of these things, tyranny always follows.

*

A legitimate function of government is to protect individuals from direct violations (“direct” being key) against their person or property. Since no private citizen “owns” the public school, by definition, a private citizen preventing the admission of a student or students based on race would constitute a direct violation against that student. This being the case, I find it no abuse of power for the government to use military/police to force (because government IS force) the inclusion of the student or students in question.

Whether public schools themselves are a just function of government is a different argument.

*

With respect to your example of the lesbian couple, the life threatening allergic reaction, and the bigot pharmacist: While emotionally provocative and certainly difficult if not impossible to morally accept, it still does not justify the kind of government interference you argue it must. Here’s why: Ultimately, your example, by logical extension, really seeks to make some individuals culpable for the death or injury of others simply because of what they own and what they choose to do with it. There is no direct violation occurring…but you are advocating the idea that the pharmacy owner should be compelled by a government gun to part with his private property simply because he happens to find himself in a certain place at a certain time. This makes the right to own property and dispose of it as one chooses merely a function of situational context. And if the government claims the right to dictate what you do with your property in one context, it–that is, government–not the rights of individual man, becomes the benchmark of morality. And this, unlike your hypothetical example, has been the greatest source of death in world history.

There is no functional difference between making a business owner responsible for the death of someone else because of his right to dispose of his property, and making the passerby legally culpable for not stopping to intervene in a mugging. The principle is still the same: in certain contexts, the government has the right to take what is yours (your property, your person) and give it to someone else.

Finally, and again, your metaphysical assumptions come through loud and clear. Man is fundamentally evil. At the end of the day he can do no good without threats and force. Ideas and reason are not enough to compel man to compassion in situations like the one you describe. We must give government ultimate authority to control and compel because the example you site is not only possible, but INEVITABLE. And this root metaphysic drives your entire political and existential world view.

It’s not original–no offense. Like I said, it is the root philosophy of humanity since the Garden of Eden. It is the root of every atrocity committed by man: government ultimately owns man, because man is evil and depraved by nature. FORCE is the ultimate arbiter and catalyst of good. Either good is compelled by an “authority” (who somehow gets a pass on the depravity which controls everyone else), or there is no good at all.

For my next post, I would like to explain and express further my notion that this person’s metaphysical assumptions concerning man are professed loudly and clearly in his comments, and why they are unreasonable and must necessarily lead to the death of the individual…that is, his or her categorical sacrifice to the “authority”, represented in this peculiar ideology as a government mandated by the Primary Consciousness to arbitrate “equality”.  But of course what our ideological adversaries never concede is that death is the only true material and existential equalizer.

This will be a short post, because this is fairly simple to explain…well, it is now, after boiling down a very long hand-written post to its salient and self-evident points.

Cause and effect are mutually exclusive ideas…that is, what is the cause cannot also, simultaneously, be the effect; and what is effect cannot also be the cause.  Each notion has an absolute definition which must remain consistent in order for “cause and effect” to have any meaning in the first place.  At the same time each notion depends on the other for its value and relevancy.  What this means is that the cause is not actually a cause without an effect.  There is no such thing as a cause with no effect, by definition; and the converse is also true.  So, in other words, each notion obtains its value and meaning as a direct function of the other.

For instance, a cause is only able to be defined as a cause and observed as a cause via the effect, which makes the cause merely a direct extension of the effect, which I have already explained must be absolute (i.e. the effect is absolutely and utterly the effect…it cannot simultaneously be a cause).  And this renders any actual distinction between cause and effect impossible.  The distinction is purely conceptual; a product of the human capacity to conceptualize what he or she observes. The converse, naturally, would also be true.  An effect is only able to be defined and observed and identified as an effect via the cause; its value and relevancy a function of the cause, therefore making the effect merely a direct extension of the cause; and the cause must be absolute (i.e. a cause cannot simultaneously be an effect).

This renders any actual distinction between cause and effect impossible.  Such a distinction can only be made conceptually, as a product of the human conceptualizing brain, which is uniquely able to organize the environment in such a way.

And from here you can see why the title of this article makes sense.  “Cause” and “effect” are both everything (i.e. absolutes, which must possess a consistent and ineluctable definition at any given moment) and nothing (i.e. each one deriving its value and relevancy as a direct function of the other, rendering each one a direct extension of the other, thereby making moot both concepts altogether).  Everything and nothing are mutually exclusive, which means that everything and nothing cannot possibly be the existential state of any object or force in question.

To write the equation mathematically, everything is 1, and nothing is zero.  1 x 0 = 0.  The product of both “cause” and “effect” separately is zero.  And thus when you couple them together as “cause and effect”, or rather, cause plus effect, in order to complete the notion, you get, presented abstractly, 0 + 0.  Which of course equals zero.

The point is to show that cause and effect is not an actuality…is not a causal force which somehow, outside of man’s conceptualizing brain and therefore his life, exists as some actual, tangible, efficacious objective reality and causal power.  But rather, the material universe is what it is, and it is a singularity, not ruled by “laws of nature” or other forces which are in reality human-derived concepts, much like “cause and effect”, and another one of my favorite punching bags, “chance” (which we will look at later).  The material universe, being an infinite singularity, makes all objects within it likewise infinite singularities, parsed and given meaning and relevancy and truth by those who possess observation coupled with an innate ability to make a conceptual distinction between SELF and OTHER (whatever object or objects are observed to be NOT SELF).  And thus, truth is a function of the truly self-aware agent: God and Man.

He who is able to know and define SELF as SELF is the Standard of Truth for all which is observed; and is likewise he who gives value to everything in the universe, and is the most valuable.

Reason thus demands that all castes and hierarchies, and distinctions of all sorts, must inevitably crumble under the weight of infinite individual human worth.  Because these castes and hierarchies and distinctions are not actual, they are conceptual.  Therefore all human beings can only be judged according two things:  their own self-ascribed values, and how they wish to freely exchange those values as a function of their individual attributes and desires (excepting, of course, the decidedly irrational desire to exploit and violate a fellow human being, or God).  In this sense, then, one having “judged”, has not been in the least judgmental.

We last left our discussion of Christianity’s collectivist philosophy by examining the assumptions behind a few questions asked of the new “home group” member, according to the North Point Ministries primer on collectivist re-education entitled “Community:  Your pathway to progress”.

As an aside, I must admit that I take serious issue with the use of the words “your” and “progress” in the title of this booklet.  Because, insofar as “your’ is concerned, let me say this: within the pages of this Marxist-Leninist allegory there is nothing but the utter denial of the individual and his or her efficacious existence; which naturally destroys the concept of the SELF altogether.  In other words, there is nothing of you or your to be seen within the collectivist paradigm to which this booklet is entirely devoted.

And as for “progress”…snort.  That’s a laugh and a half.  Progress?  Only if you consider a return to the bloody days of Stalin’s gulag, Hitler’s Jewish ghettos, or John Calvin’s pyromania  (among other examples)  a “progression”.  And in such a case, the facts of history and the stark glare of reality would like to have a few words with you.  Indeed, it is pointing out the obvious by now to say that this little ode to the Christian Marxist collective takes as many soaring liberties with language as any work of despotism does.

At any rate, let’s continue with our evaluation of said ode.

2. How have these people [the “friends” mentioned in question one, see my previous article here] influenced you?  What is something that you have learned from each person?

(p. 19, “Community:  Your pathway to progress”, North Point Ministries, 2008)

Notice how this question leaves absolutely no room for one to answer:  I have not been influenced at all. I have enjoyed their company, and they mine, but we do not share a hive mentality. We all have our own ideas about what’s best for our own lives, and any “influence” is nothing more than the free choice we each have made as individuals to appropriate some manner of behavior or thinking which we have deemed to be of benefit to our unique situations.

No…the idea of “influence” categorically eliminates such a definition of “friendship”.  One begins to wonder whether these “Christians” have any idea what friendship actually is in the first place.  As far as they are concerned, it seems it is little more than mutual osmosis: the idea that simply being around another human being brings changes to your behavior, thoughts, beliefs, ideas, even personality, wholly and utterly apart from your will or choosing.  And this is because, in part, Reformed Christianity does not recognize human beings as having a will.  The doctrine of God’s Sovereignty, which is as non-biblical as any other Reformed doctrine, forbids such an ability.  And I submit that any equivocation of the matter by your nearest Protestant “orthodox” friend will invariably arrive, should you push the matter far and long enough, at the place of “God’s mystery”, which of course is the sepulcher where ALL “orthodox” beliefs are eventually laid to rest when confronted with their glaring rational contradictions by one not afraid to clearly  spell them out.

So “influence” openly implies a lack of will on your part.  You have been influenced, and this is not open for debate or discussion.  Your only job is to explain how.  And if you shrug and say you don’t really know…well, the “influence” is apparent.  Your exposure to the devil’s world has blinded you to the facts of your existence.  You don’t even realize how colossally rebellious and unaware you have become, to proclaim some kind of immunity from or ignorance of the inexorable “influence” of others…that is, the group, be it whomever they are, which will commandeer your body, mind, and soul, because this is your metaphysical reality.  That is, you are NOT and NEVER will be your SELF.  You are always and infinitely an extension of the group; the truth is always outside of you.  YOU don’t exist.  You are sacrificed to the collective as your divinely compelled existential and moral obligation from the moment you are born.  The only difference then between your group of “friends” and this new “home” or “care” group is that they are the real collective…the one that God really likes.  And all the others are frauds, forgeries, fakes, and impostors.

So, the assumption is that your friends, constituting the secular (monstrously evil and depraved; despised by God; the devil’s play thing, and utterly destined for hellfire destruction) group, must have influenced you, because you, by metaphysical axiom, are unable to resist the group’s influence.  The trick, then, is getting influenced by the “right” group.  Which is, as I alluded to, whatever group in your immediate vicinity which happens to be pushing the Reformed metaphysic; the Calvinist/Lutheran hermeneutic, which is the sum and substance of all Protestantism, and which, again, is entirely collectivist in its philosophy.

“Think About It“

Do you tend to think of spirituality as private, or as something to be experienced wit others?

(p. 21, same source)

After all that has preceded this fucking loaded question, and in light of the obvious group metaphysical presumption, we can recognize its bullshit rhetorical nature.  And it infuriates me because it is deceptive on its face.  They are not interested in what you really think about spirituality.  They don’t believe for one second that you might have a great point, though it may be different, or even contrary to their assumptions.  In short, they aren’t interested in a fucking discussion with you, and they know it.  This question is purely self-serving; it is purely designed to test how successful they have heretofore been in indoctrinating you to their collectivist mentality.  Have you conceded? That’s the real question.  Are you buying it yet…or is it still too early?  Well, any idiot can understand what the answer is supposed to be from their perspective, but how you decide to answer and how you defend your answer helps them know just how much pressure they still need to apply.  What’s the next step, and how much force is required?  Are you ready to concede, or do you still not understand, or refuse to accept, that what they are really asking you is to abandon your “rebellious” ways and embrace their complete authority over your life?  Are you still operating under the assumption that you have a choice or say in the matter?  Or are you ready to forsake SELF and throw yourself upon the mandate of their divine calling?

The vile motivation behind such a question, particularly located at a very early point in the booklet, cannot be understated.  It is arrogant presumption, and it shows us just how highly they think of themselves.  Their influence is soooo divine; their “reasoning” soooo compelling; their apprehension of doctrine and truth and spirituality sooo fucking extraordinary that they don’t even make a strategically-placed pretense of requiring anything but a few short pages to completely rip you from reality…that is, the perfunctory and starkly obvious individual SELF of your existence.  That the idea that YOU don’t exist, but are merely an absolute extension of some group…some “force” outside of you, is soooo obvious and yet soooo mind-blowing and they soooo divinely adroit and eloquent and deft and enlightened that they would think it appropriate to ask this kind of question so early is the pinnacle of empty navel-gazing and wicked self-worship.  I mean, even physics gives you whole text books and semesters to plod through before it expects you to surrender your individual existence to absolute forces that exist in the blank cosmic ether where they transcend objects and observation.

Assholes.

“Who are the wise people in your life?  How can you incorporate more of their influence into your life?”

(p. 21, same source)

Again, this question is a test of their strategy heretofore.  How you answer is indicative of their success or failure in leading you towards conceding their ecclesiastical authority structure.  That is, in asking how you might “incorporate more influence”, they are asking if you are ready to appropriate the beliefs and actions of those you must, if you are a good Christian, concede are your “intellectual” superiors.  And your concession is not something that depends necessarily on whether you actually agree with, or, more appropriately stated, are epistemologically capable of agreeing with, these “wise” people…for your acceptance of their ideas is irrelevant.  They are “wise”, and therefore you are obligated to obey them.  Because, to the Reformed, agreement must equal obedience since TRUTH is not learned, but divinely granted.

Let me explain:

Obedience is the only meaningful response when the assumption is that “wisdom” is not a function of reasoned learning, but rather a function of divine enlightenment.  You cannot agree with the “wise” man until God grants you the “grace to perceive” what they are all about.  And once you receive your own cognitive dispensation from above, you will naturally recognize their “wisdom” as truly “wise”, and perpetually so, and therefore they will remain your authority, which you are obligated to obey, because God has revealed to them the “truth” first…that is, before you.  And indeed this is how the Christian caste system works.  Those who are first called to enlightenment have a head start on their divine “wisdom”, making them perpetual spiritual and therefore intellectual superiors (which is why so many Calvinist leaders are such arrogant tool bags).  Thus, you, in a manner of speaking, are always playing catch up…operating on a smaller amount of divine insight than they are.  And so, yet again, your ability to truly understand their wisdom is perpetually truncated by your inferior spiritual status; your understanding always lagging behind their own.  So in this case “incorporating more of their influence” means nothing more than shutting the fuck up and doing what you’re told.  And of course the leading nature of this question becomes all too apparent:  the ostentatious point is that they are the most wise of all, because they, meaning the ecclesiastical authorities–pastors, priests, and all who come before you in the God-ordained pecking order–are the only ones who have been “called” to “stand in the stead of God” (words actually uttered by pastors in my old mystic iron maiden, Sovereign Grace Ministries…egregious).  In other words, they possess a “wisdom” that defies the sum total of your understanding and your ability to understand, and cannot possibly be reached or breached.  There is no one–and I mean no one–who can ever be in a place to question the ideas of the supreme pope…that is, the senior pastor, and those upon whom he dispenses his “authority”, because this kind of “wisdom” is never learned, it is only bestowed.  It transcends human understanding to the point where if the senior pastor declares the earth six thousand years old, and only six thousand years old, then any critic is summarily dismissed as base, blind, and unsaved. Even Einstein, that old sage and genius, should he be compelled to hazard a critique, can go fuck himself.

Because in the Reformed construct reason-based understanding (from which real TRUTH springs, and there is no truth besides rational truth) is not understanding at all.  It’s “man’s wisdom”; which is a polite way of saying that all of the ideas by which we organize our universe and recognize our place in it are complete horseshit. “God’s wisdom”, you must understand, according to these people, is contrary to reason. That is, “real” truth…God’s truth,  is utterly unreasonable.

And that, my friends, is terrifying.  Because if there are no benchmarks of truth to which an individual can make reference in the event that the church attempts to violate his or her person or property, then there is no moral standard whatsoever to which he/she can appeal for justice and protection.  If truth is completely a function of the subjective whims of one who is “called by God” to “stand in His stead”, making him utterly impervious to any contrary idea, and this by God’s perfect Will, then in the event that the monster who actually believes this kind of insanity and is willing to act upon it ever acquires absolute civil power, he will murder massive numbers of human beings in the interest of perpetuating and maintaining his “authority”; because his authority is on par with God, Himself.  Everyone will be sacrificed to his whims, because whims, and only whims, are exactly what you get when you jettison reason as the rails upon which truth must ride.

Thus, what I am saying is that there is absolutely no philosophical difference between the authors of this booklet–that is, in general, the Reformed Ecclesiastical leadership, a.k.a., your Pastors–and the Nazi Schutzstaffel (SS), or the Khmer Rouge, the Soviet NKVD, Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety (and though this was a product of the the French Revolution, notice the rank use of the word “public”), and even the common drug lord.  None of them recognize the right of the individual human being to appeal to, nor the ability of the individual to apprehend, truth, be it rational or moral.  All of them rule by the collectivist metaphysic: that the prime existential obligation of the individual is sacrifice to the group, as led by those who claim divine calling as the authority by which they rule absolutely.  And this sacrifice may be either figurative (e.g. the devotion of all of your time and resources to the perpetuation of the group’s philosophy and the compelling of humanity by force into the group’s sphere of influence), or it may be literal.  As in, you can “rightly” be murdered in cold blood if the leadership deems this to be the most effective and profitable way you can serve the group.  And this is why Joseph Stalin had zero problem with ordering the slaughter of tens of millions of men, women, and children on behalf of the Workers Utopia…which was Stalin, himself.

His job was to lead.  Their job, predestined by “God”, or whatever primary consciousness compelled him, was to die.  Period.  Full stop.

And in like philosophy, welcome to the mind of the Protestant priesthood.

Welcome to Home Group.

Welcome to Care Group.

Welcome to hell.

“But the truth is, no matter how independent or influential you feel you are, the people you surround your self with will impact your future.  All you have to do to test this statement is take a look back.  You’ll likely discover that many of the things you now regret were done in the company of those you considered friends.  Typically, we don’t get into trouble on our own.  We usually have company.” 

(p. 16, “Community:  Pathway to progress”, North Point Ministries, 2008)

Okay, this is both patently false and presents an obstacle to the premise of this book, namely that the “community” is the the only effective vehicle for positive and righteous existence.

First, it is just not true that “typically, we don’t get into trouble on our own”.  I think this can be unequivocally denied.  Sure, we may be influenced by “peer pressure”, but we must make the decision to engage in behavior.  If we have reached the age of reason and observe right and wrong by the understanding that since we are born for the express purpose of living, LIFE of SELF and OTHER is our greatest moral obligation.  And to arrive at this conclusion takes nothing more than the cognitive ability to make the conceptual distinction between SELF and OTHER (other people, the environment).  The point being:  we are all on the hook for our choices and subsequent actions.  “The devil made me do it” is not a reasonable explanation for why people commit evil acts.  “It’s not my fault, its society/my parents/my company/my wife or husband/God did not give me the grace to perceive my sins (C.J. Mahany)” is nothing more than a full on abdication of our very lives.  If we are not individually responsible for our choices, then we cannot have a rational definition of LIFE; that is, if we don’t really commit the acts we commit, because the impetus is traced to a causal force outside of us, then we admit that we don’t really live at all.  We are all dead men walking.  There is no US to us…no YOU to your life.  And discussion about anything else is purely academic…irrelevant to functional reality.

And…ah….could it be that this is the very point this excerpt from “Community” is trying to make?  I believe it is. YOU are never really to blame for your “sins”.  It’s always your nature merely filling the vacuum that the group creates for it.  So, while on one hand they will explain that you are evil, it isn’t because YOU decided to act on any independent or individual belief, as though you can know anything at all, or exist as an autonomous agent, but rather it is merely your nature, which is attracted to the evil influences of the collective like a positively charged particle is attracted to a negatively charged one; as the moon is drawn inexorably to the earth. The moon and particles don’t really THINK, they just fill the space created for them by the collective environment outside of them.

So, while on one hand the author(s) of this book attempts to appear sympathetic to your history of failure (for failure in the “orthodox” Christian metaphysic is utterly presumed) and absolute existential inadequacy and impotence (for even when you think you are a success you are a “spiritual” failure; and the “spiritual” is the only thing that matters, remember), what they are really prescribing is that same old bugaboo, the group metaphysic.  This segment of the book merely reinforces the fact that according to their metaphysic, all relevant morality and existence is always a function of the group.  “On our own” we don’t really possess any value, which means anything we do “on our own” or “in our own strength”, to proof-text the Bible, is meaningless and irrelevant, which means that we, “on our own” cannot really be described as existing at all.

And finally, I question whether or not the author(s) thought through the wisdom of inserting this section into the book.  On its face, and to the less informed reader I would think that it appears to be nothing more than a rank contradiction to the efficacy and importance of the “community” so categorically subscribed.  I mean, at first glance this is how I interpreted it.  I thought,  ‘Why advocate adherence to the collective and the hive mentality if trouble is best avoided by being alone?’

And then after a more careful examination of the paragraph and in light of the overall context of the book I realized what I already knew:  that there is no such thing as alone in the group metaphysic these people believe in.  Alone you have NO value; no meaning; no relevancy, and therefore no truth.  Thus, alone cannot be defined as any manifestation of your existence, period, if this makes sense.  YOU as a legitimate agent or even meaningful concept is categorically denied in Christianity today.  There is only ever the collective.  It’s just a matter of what collective into which you happen to find yourself integrated, since you WILL, as a matter of existential certainly, be fully integrated into a group, where you WILL be its direct extension.  What the promoters of this book are doing is merely attempting to cull you from your “immoral” collective and bring you into their “moral” one.  And who gets to make the distinction?  Who gets to decide which group is the good one and which is the bad; and which we praise and which we waggle our fingers at and cry “shame!!”?

Not you.  Not me.  Not anyone IN the group, for the group doesn’t get to dictate its own definitions of, well…anything.  The group is merely the group. Full of totally depraved windbags and assholes who together merely prove the metaphysical point:  that the formal manifestation of the SELF is really the GROUP.  And from this is illustrated the ethical point:  It is in the group where your totally depravity attains relevancy and meaning (for the individual, total depravity is without any efficacy, as the individual cannot be defined as actually BEING anything at all).  So, it is only via the group that people realize the actuality of their absolute sin nature; their full on rejection of God and their categorical commitment to works of evil.  You do not attain any goodness from the group, is the point.  No, the group is where the consequences of your total depravity are made manifest; made relevant, made fetid and offensive to God.  The group must from that collective place be led…and by this what they really mean is compelled by FORCE, under the guise of “spiritual” authority (“Authority always equals FORCE”–John Immel).

For how can he who is totally depraved be led?  Being led presumes a relationship where both parties are equally cognizant of the concepts used to communicate; where TRUTH by both parties is understood and reasonably arrived at via the inherent cognitive abilities of each; the understanding of the metaphysical singularity of SELF and the inherent right to pursue SELF, thus.  The totally depraved man cannot actually think; cannot actually understand.  His depravity is absolute (though many Christians say this isn’t true; they are either liars or they are ignorant…or both, as is often the case).  Which means that he can make no distinction between right and wrong, truth or lie.  He cannot conceptualize anything because he cannot even recognize himself or his world as being distinct from pure, infinite evil.  Thus, and again, he must be forced…compelled by violence and fear into “God’s righteousness”, like an animal.  Or worse, a devil.

And this, of course, I realized is exactly what this excerpt is arguing.  The group ALWAYS leads you and me into debauchery.  So why advocate a group at all then?  Because the group is the introduction…the doorway into what they are really advocating, which is the same thing ALL collectivists advocate:  the robbing and murder of the individual in service to the government.  And this is most easily done when individuals are gathered.  And by government I mean the authority of those who proclaim themselves, by themselves, to be the mediator between “god” (or whatever Primary Consciousness) and man.  And in Christianity today who are these mediators?

The authority.  The called.  The pastors.  The priests.  The “men of God”.

And that’s why you see so many churches popping up in so many affluent areas of this country.  Are you educationally or intellectually challenged?  Lazy?  Like to opine about this and that and the folks at the family gatherings are getting tired of and bored by your spluttering monologues and you endless rants about how much you hate liberals, and Obama, or the the moral failures of the youth in this culture, or how everyone is on their fucking phones all time and no one wants to have a conversation (when smartphones were actually invented so people and especially kids wouldn’t have to talk to your boring ass)…yes, are you this kind of person and desire a comfortable income with little to no effort?

Or even better, you want to get rich?

What do you do?

You start a church near rich people.  It is literally as simple as that.

And when all the smoke and mirrors and spiritual piffle and Christanese buzzwords and pseudo-psychology and trite social commentary are removed, THAT’S really why this book was written.  It’s not for you, it’s for them.

“What’s Your Story?

…each person will share his or her story in 10-15 minutes.

…Keep in mind that no big presentation is required.  You are simply expected to introduce yourself.  A great way to do this is to identify three key people who have played significant roles in your life, three events that have effected you, and three places that are special to you. “

(p.11, 12, “Community:  Your pathway to progress”, North Point Ministries, 2008)

Notice in this introductory blurb concerning how best to introduce oneself to the newly organized “care group” (in Sovereign Grace Ministries, I noticed that this title was perfectly ironical) the three suggestions for doing so are examples wherein the person explains how he or she was affected by his or her world, and not the other way around.  Meaning, the person regaling the group with their cliff-notes autobiography are advised to present themselves as the product of their environment…as an effect and not a cause.  They are not counseled to discuss their hobbies or interests, or their past decisions or current desires, or the choices they have made and the consequences of those choices reaped, good or bad.  No, what they are asked to do is explain the three ways they have arrived at that place (the new group), at that time (of the group’s choosing) by the influence or will of OTHER:  OTHER people, OTHER places, or OTHER events.

In other words…

The “people” who have influenced you never includes YOU as having anything to do with the why or how of that influence.

The place…they are not interested in your observations or how you interpret the environment, or what it means to you or how you willfully experienced it.

The event…they are not interested in hearing about your impact on the event, how your presence and existence defined it and gave truth to it for YOUR life and YOUR context.

And this is deliberate.  This is the setting of the stage in your mind for the group metaphysic they are soon to explain is the only real and efficacious hermeneutic for reality; and then they will demand you categorically accept this hermeneutic in order to be approved by God and welcome in His “community”.  This will eventually be followed by either an explicit or implicit (but fully presented and fully expected and fully required) demand that you subordinate your beliefs, opinions, will, time, and property to the “authority” of the pastoral leadership.  For since no individual in the group is capable of defining truth or morality alone by metaphysical definition, the pastoral leadership will be presented as those who represent, by divine gift and insight, the sum and substance of the moral and epistemological (truth understood) value of the group.  This is for no other reason than to secure power over you and as many as they can “evangelize”…that is, cull from the herd of the unwashed, brainless, hopeless, cosmically-rejected masses for the purpose of exploitation.

This is and was the operating procedure of Sovereign Grace Ministries to a bulls-eye, and the consequences were and continue to be a full on disaster.  And in America right now we have literally thousands if not millions of SGM-like disasters teetering upon the precipice.  And the more we remain blind to the collectivist philosophy which places them there–that Satanic catalyst for every horror and human catastrophe ever wrought upon the earth, from the Garden of Eden until now–the higher and higher the precipice rises.

Now, I understand that at this point I may still seem to be reaching a bit.  Exaggerating; taking myself too seriously; quibbling; nitpicking; exacting.

You might think so.  But then, we are just getting started.

*

“Most of us charge hard after progress.  We seek it in our careers, in our kids, in our marriages, and even in our tennis games.  We work hard, read books, attend seminars, and take lessons, all in an effort to make today better than yesterday and tomorrow better than today.  But what about our spiritual lives?”

(p.15, “Community:  Your pathway to progress”, North Point Ministries, 2008)

Presently we will observe, as an absolute certainty, that individual progress in our autonomous lives is mutually exclusive of and contradictory to our progress in our “spiritual” lives, which is collective.  This is merely a further manifestation of the fundamental parsing of man’s singular metaphysical SELF, his existential oneness, which is the prevailing and orthodox metaphysical theme in Christianity today (most egregiously noted, presumed, and preached in the neo-Calvinist/Reformed movement) and since the days of Augustine.

The worldly and fallen flesh of man’s body represents individual progress; while man’s unseen spirit/soul represents the “real” man…his “spiritual” progress.  This is the non-material man…the “true” man.  The part of man of which he only experiences as a second-hand observer.  The part of man which is fully integrated into the collective of God’s people.  The relevant and eternally (assuming you are actually elected to salvation, which, by doctrinal definition you can’t ever really know) binding part of your singular SELF.  Which is a contradiction, I know.  But understand that all of reality according to the Platonist Christian group metaphysic is really based upon that which cannot be observed “in the flesh”; which means it cannot be observed at all, period.  This is the root of the false interpretation of Hebrews’ “faith is the hope of things unseen”:  What you observe in the here and now with your fleshly senses is not in fact reality, but is merely a “shadow” of reality.  Reality lay beyond the body, which is simply another way of saying that it is impossible for YOU to apprehend it in any way, full stop.  Thus, you must have faith; and “faith” thus defined is, when all the logic is parsed out and taken to its only rational conclusion, a complete concession of and submission to the existential hermeneutic (how you interpret ALL of reality) of the “divinely called leaders of men who stand in god’s stead as your authority”.  Which is simply another way of saying that you exist and were born for the express and ironic purpose of DYING…that is, dying for the “greater good”, or the “good of the community”, as dictated to you by your human authorities, who are those men serving as proxies for the Primary Consciousness (e.g. God’s Will/God’s Plan for Your Life (Modern American Protestantism), the Workers Utopia (Soviet Union, Cuba), the National Ideal (North Korea), the Economic Ideal (Jeff Davis’s Confederate South), the Union of States (Lincoln’s Federal North), the Racial Ideal (National Socialist Germany), the Collective Good (American Liberal Progressive movement), the Natural/Divine/Traditional Morality (American Conservative Christian movement).

Indeed, the great dichotomy and irreconcilable chasm between your body and soul is probably the greatest contradiction and fallacy of reason in the history of religion.

*

“And what does progress from a spiritual standpoint look like?  Admittedly, spiritual growth can be a little hard to measure.  Because God is involved in the process, it’s a bit mysterious.”

(p.15, “Community:  Your pathway to progress”, North Point Ministries, 2008)

Keep this self-admittedly nebulous declaration in mind.  This is the fundamental equivocation which forms the impenetrable defense of  this doctrine and group metaphysic against all denunciation and criticism from anyone for any reason in any context.  The root philosophical premise–that is, the essential premise of the entire philosophy–is that there is no actual or discernible distinction between man’s SELF and God’s Sovereign Will.

This is important.

It allows these collectivist mystics to punt ALL of their many and serious contradictions into the great cosmic abyss of God’s mystery.

It is easy to understand then just why they immediately, in the introduction, before they move on to anything else make this clear:  How this all works is a mystery at the end of the day.  How you can both be you and the group (NOT you) is simply a contradiction you’ll have to accept because to deny it is to deny the power of God to “make all things possible”.  This is rank deception and, again, is intended to nip any and all metaphysical or doctrinal disagreement in the bud.

Because the “truth” ultimately boils down to mystery, they can move the plumb line for truth anywhere they require in order to maintain control.  If you zig, they zag.  I call it Whack-A-Mole philosophy.  You can never pin them down because there is no benchmark of reason in their doctrine; and this is because their “truth” is not a function of reason, because reason they rightly assume is an extension of observable reality, which they do not concede is a legitimate reality.  Rather, real “truth” is a function of the utterly exclusive and unknowable (to you) realm of the “spirit”.  “Spiritual” progress then requires that you forsake reason as the necessary presumption for truth and abandon your senses as an efficacious bridge to reality, and instead wholly subordinate your mind to the mystics who claim a clairvoyance that you as an individual cannot possibly possess.

It is amazing how many otherwise educated and erudite people simply nod in agreement when they are fed this cold porridge.  They are told that they–no matter how successful or prosperous or educated or admired or powerful or revered in the community they are (usually much more significantly so than any Pastor, who is usually intellectually unimpressive and educationally nascent)–yes, they are told that they do not really know anything at all, and that their success is in reality a laughingstock of farce and completely discarded by God–who supposedly loves them with an immeasurable love–as pure piffle at best, and wicked arrogance at worst.  And these people think that this is just the most profound and breathtaking wisdom to which they’ve ever been exposed.  Incredible.

It would be utterly comical if it weren’t so deadly and so indicative of the danger this “Christian” movement represents. Even the most astute among us seem unable to resist its guile.

Stay tuned for part four.

,