But here is the problem. How does this square with the Augustinian metaphysic? And the answer is it doesn’t. Joe Carter has unwittingly offered into evidence the very counter proof that undermines his pervasive depravity starting point.
And don’t get sidetracked by Joe’s use of the words “sacred” and “exalted.” This is either lip service to a fundamental doctrinal inconsistency or Joe is fully aware of his doctrinal error and is lying. Augustine granted man NO virtue. Luther granted man NO virtue. Calvin granted man NO virtue. And Immanuel Kant eradicated virtue from human existence. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Kant represent metaphysical absolutes. Man is ONLY metaphysically debased, epistemologically corrupt, and ethically handicapped. In Neo-Calvinist doctrine, there is NO virtue in human existence. This is the only conclusion of orthodox doctrine. And if Joe can arbitrarily deviate from orthodoxy . . . what is the fuss over Sarah Palin’s comments?
So now let us evaluate.
If man is metaphysically debased, how can man do moral harm to himself?
The answer is he cannot.
If man cannot use common sense to grasp his own divided existence, why offer an argument against “dehumanizing” other men?
The answer is, by definition, there is no logical argument; there is no common sense that persuades man to different action because man is not affected by reason. And most crucially, man cannot choose to act on morally superior ideas because man is fallen. For a rational argument to be effective, Joe must reject the Augustinian premise. He must first conclude that man is metaphysically GOOD. This means that man’s existence is tied to values, which means that man must be able to choose values, which means that man must have a rational faculty that understands the world in which he lives, which means that man must have the ability to act on his rational conclusions, which means man has the requisite metaphysical tools to judge his enemies and act according to his own rational interest.
It is the Augustinian metaphysic that condemns man to brutality and dehumanization. Ten minutes of research into the Dark Ages proves my point.
In our attempts to dehumanize our enemy, we end up becoming less than human ourselves.
Wobble, wobble, wobble.
Notice again the doctrinal inconsistency. Under Joe’s metaphysical assumptions, it is impossible to become “less” human. Man already exists at the basest level of his moral existence. There is no further down, no greater depravity, no richer debauchery for man to achieve.
We can’t lose our “humanity” because—in this context—humanity is a synonym for virtue. But humans do not have virtue. You can’t lose what you don’t have.
It would be a Pyrrhic victory to save civilization and lose our humanity.
Wobble, wobble, wobble.
And again, notice how the foundation of Joe’s argument shifts like the sands of sea.
So what? Who cares if we lose our “humanity” but keep our “civilization”? Isn’t dichotomy at the very root of human existence? What is one more moral conundrum? We live a divided existence and we really don’t have any “humanity” to hold, so what is the difference?
The doctrinally consistent answer to all of these questions is that there is no difference. Man is two things at once, which really means that man is anything and nothing at the same time. It is this flexibility that gives Joe Carter the freedom to argue from any starting place:
- Man is debased and corrupt: “Oh woe is us! We are all just sinners.”
- Man is exalted and honorable . . . “We must cling to our better selves and take a different action.”
Notice the enormous argumentative power this dichotomy gives Joe Carter. He has no responsibility to any objective starting point. He can make up any argument he wants to satisfy whatever outcome he seeks. This is an object lesson for the importance of Aristotle’s three laws (discussed at length here).
- The law of identity.
- The law of non-contradiction.
- The law of the excluded middle.
From this perspective, look at what Joe Carter has really done. Notice how he has manipulated all sides of these laws. Man is both debased and exalted. This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, which means that man has no identity. Anything that is two opposites at once is really nothing at all. This manipulation gives Joe Carter the power to seize the metaphysical middle ground as the whim moves him, and the moral high ground with impunity.
“There probably should be a sign above this page reading, “Scripture Not Permitted Here.” I certainly meant no offense by citing scriptural reasons for my beliefs. Apologies to all! I thought (fool that I am!) that the Bible was helpful in the search for truth. But fine. Not here. So, apologies.”
Whose interpretation of scripture when in search for truth? what about folks who never had scriptures, could they never know truth? And, once you go down the proof texting alley it becomes a black hole. Some of us have learned our lessons all to well to stay out of that alley. I don’t have much time for it anymore.
That might be one reason John often cuts to the chase with the question: Who owns man? I don’t know but it is a good place to start.
And I have come to believe over the years that those Christians who do not think they are responsible for themselves are not trustworthy.
Many people are taught the scriptures and come away thinking they have no control over themselves when it comes to sinning. I think that is scariest of all.
So yes, I try to avoid going there. I think it is unfair to declare that scripture is not permitted here. I have never seen that. Being challenged when using it or referring to it is not the same as not being permitted.
Tom said:
“There probably should be a sign above this page reading, “Scripture Not Permitted Here.” I certainly meant no offense by citing scriptural reasons for my beliefs. Apologies to all! I thought (fool that I am!) that the Bible was helpful in the search for truth. But fine. Not here. So, apologies.”
Lydia’s response
Whose interpretation of scripture when in search for truth? what about folks who never had scriptures, could they never know truth? And, once you go down the proof texting alley it becomes a black hole. Some of us have learned our lessons all to well to stay out of that alley. I don’t have much time for it anymore.
That might be one reason John often cuts to the chase with the question: Who owns man? I don’t know but it is a good place to start.
And I have come to believe over the years that those Christians who do not think they are responsible for themselves are not trustworthy.
Many people are taught the scriptures and come away thinking they have no control over themselves when it comes to sinning. I think that is scariest of all.
So yes, I try to avoid going there. I think it is unfair to declare that scripture is not permitted here. I have never seen that. Being challenged when using it or referring to it is not the same as not being permitted.
Fair enough. Cite scripture all you want, but only in a way that clearly conveys no expectation that people will act in accordance with the cited scripture. It is fine to say, “God created the heaven and earth,” because it conveys no imperative for the behavior of others. But it is not OK (at all!) to cite, “Lay not your hand on the Lord’s anointed,” because then you are conveying the imperative that laity may not challenge clergy, for that is clearly tyranny.
If scripture citations can possibly be interpreted as imperatives, outlawing scripture citations seems the safest route. At best, they are innocuous; at worst, they are dangerous. So, they probably don’t belong here.
So I found this gem in “Foundational Thoughts/Definitions:”
John Immel wrote:
Unfocused Passive Pseudo Thinker: Smart, but intellectually passive; choosing a hazy, foggy, indistinct intellectual existence, often offended at a challenge of their ideas because further discussion threatens their entitlement to stagnation. Their intellectual arguments are founded in appeal to authority: stock variations of: “Well, umpty ump master thinker said this … and I agree with them.” Their implicit passivity and intellectual obstinacy, places them at forefront of tyrannical social, political, and religious movements.
I think certain people have had me pigeonholed as a member of this “class” (John indeed said to me “all we have ever done is ‘challenge your assumptions.'”)
This is fascinating, because if that is true, there seem to be two basic paths to take with such a person.
Path 1: Assume that person will not change. Do not attempt to educate. Simply focus on exposing that “Unfocused Passive Pseudo Thinker” for the intellectual fraud that he is. He is dangerous, unwilling to examine his own beliefs, and will never abandon appeals to whatever authority he is bound to.
Path 2: Point that person to the URL of “John Immel’s Guiding Philosophical Principles”, and indicate which of those principles that person was “violating.” This would at least focus the conversation on the fundamentals, and if the person were to persist, then yes, he is not listening, won’t change, and will stay “at forefront of tyrannical social, political, and religious movements.” But perhaps such a person *can change.* With Path 1, we will never know.
It is interesting that nobody seems to have thought that Path 2 is possible, helpful and doable. Indeed, had somebody pointed me to “John Immel’s Guiding Philosophical Principles,” at least I would have a *chance* of engaging the debate without violating those principles. Maybe I only *look like* an Unfocused Passive Pseudo Thinker because I have not read and understood the Guiding Principles. How would anyone know?
I would CERTAINLY never have used any scripture on this site had I known that “citing scripture” is a key indicator that a person is an Unfocused Passive Pseudo Thinker. I am an actively engaged thinker, and the moniker does not fit me. But how am I supposed to divine that I am breaking one of the rules for this discourse? Those rules are not spelled out anywhere, and nobody has made a clear statement to me at any time that I have broken one of the rules. Indeed, there seems to be a pretense that “there are no rules.” That is intellectually dishonest, gentlemen. Every human society has rules, whether written or not. In this case, the penalty for breaking these rules is to be labeled and treated as either “Unfocused Passive Pseudo Thinker” or “Mystic Despot.” That is a penalty with serious consequences, so spelling out the rules seems a decent thing to do. Furthermore, I think that I got pigeonholed the *moment* I cited scripture in any context. I only added to certain people’s certainty of my classification when I persisted in doing so.
For reference, I am attaching my proposed version of those principles, which I strongly suggest, John, that you post (after your necessary revisions! I do not make any claim that this list is correct or complete!) in Foundational Thoughts for the purpose outlined in “Path 2.”
John Immel’s Guiding Philosophical Principles
as suggested by Tom
1) The Bible is a historical document that has been used to control men from the beginning.
2) The process of controlling other men has involved “the authority of scripture” as defined by some arbitrary man or group of men.
3) Man is either Metaphysically GOOD or Metaphysically EVIL, and there is no middle ground
4) But we see great Spiritual Tyranny arising from the presumption that Man is Metaphysically EVIL.
5) Ergo Man is Metaphysically GOOD
6) The “authority of scripture” is a flawed concept, because scripture has no authority. Only Man has authority, because Man is Metaphysically GOOD.
7) Any appeal to scripture as a guide to understanding God, Man or the relationship between God and Man is merely “church as usual.” It is de facto an attempt by one man to control another man.
8) Therefore, there is no formulation of “Church” that can be rational, since that would be “church as usual,” and would necessarily involve one or more men using “the authority of scripture” to control other men.
9) Therefore, the very concept of “Church” is flawed, from the Megachurch all the way down to the home church. Such gatherings are necessarily merely opportunities for one or more men to control others by the use of “appeal to the authority of scripture.”
Naturally, I would welcome any formulation of Guiding Principles, because then I could argue *their verity* instead of violating them and winning the title “Unfocused Passive Pseudo Thinker” or “Mystic Despot,” neither of which fits me, IMHO.
Who owns Man?
First, Man is Metaphysically GOOD, but the behavior of individual men is reliably and frequently seen as not good. So there is some disconnect between the GOOD that is Man and the behavior that men do.
The question ‘Who owns Man?’ is easy to answer (and therefore not very interesting): Man owns Man.
The question ‘Who owns a man?’ is the harder question. My contention is that a man is owned by the habits of mind and of action that he has adopted.
Habits of mind include doctrines, ideologies, strategies and tactics. Habits of action include the peculiar and the ordinary: those actions that we take daily without thought. As children, we learn that habits are efficient ways of solidifying our choices. I no longer choose the specific muscle-firing patterns necessary to walk; walking for me is now a habit of action. The compulsive gambler will similarly keep pulling the handle of the slot machine.
Giving ourselves over to our habits is a necessary part of being human. We are “creatures of habit,” as the saying goes. Giving ourselves over to “bad habits,” by extension, is a choice all too easy to make, whether the bad habit is overeating, compulsive gambling, substance abuse, “going to church,” believing in Calvin, etc. What constitutes a bad habit is a separate discussion.
My belief is that human beings were designed to be habitual, which design is GOOD. However, the habits we choose are not necessarily GOOD. Man is GOOD. The “habituality design” is GOOD. But, like handguns, habituality design can be used for good or ill.
“First, Man is Metaphysically GOOD, but the behavior of individual men is reliably and frequently seen as not good. So there is some disconnect between the GOOD that is Man and the behavior that men do.” Tom
Tom, What I am hearing is this type of thinking: Sex/work/fill-in-the-blank behavior is tainted because it may be harmful/wrongfully done. You make the statement below to back up your claim… which essentially is that God made habit to be a good thing, but man ruined habits also. And now enters Jesus’ purpose: a get out of jail free card for bad behavior. How many rock songs glorify that thinking! Hmm… They don’t claim to follow Jesus, but some claim Satan. Are they one & the same? Not to me!
“My belief is that human beings were designed to be habitual, which design is GOOD. However, the habits we choose are not necessarily GOOD. Man is GOOD. The “habituality design” is GOOD. But, like handguns, habituality design can be used for good or ill.” Tom
Most of what I have read here from you are put-downs of man (All, reread Tom’s comments again if needed.) Of course, that comes from how you choose to assess life itself.
I believe Jesus has real, today, practical value. Make good. Do good. And it will be good for you. Choose today, choose right. It is all a choice, Tom.
Maybe some choose bad, maybe many choose bad, because they hear from most Christians:
they can’t do right,
they are resigned to do bad,
they think it’s natural or ingrained
There is no hope but in a free card for bad behavior. Is that what you believe, Tom? I am curious. It is the opposite impression I get of Jesus, from Jesus himself.
Tom said:
“First, Man is Metaphysically GOOD, but the behavior of individual men is reliably and frequently seen as not good. So there is some disconnect between the GOOD that is Man and the behavior that men do.”
A Mom said:
Tom, What I am hearing is this type of thinking: Sex/work/fill-in-the-blank behavior is tainted because it may be harmful/wrongfully done. You make the statement below to back up your claim… which essentially is that God made habit to be a good thing, but man ruined habits also. And now enters Jesus’ purpose: a get out of jail free card for bad behavior. How many rock songs glorify that thinking! Hmm… They don’t claim to follow Jesus, but some claim Satan. Are they one & the same? Not to me!
My response:
I did not use either the word or the concept “tainted.” What I said is that human beings do bad things. Sometimes Very Bad Things. Do you deny this? You are dragging Jesus/Salvation/Cheap Grace into a discussion that mentions none of these things. You are refusing to acknowledge that bad things are done by human beings. I can’t imagine why.
There is a fundamental disconnect between “Man is GOOD” and “men murder one another.” I am simply trying to discuss that disconnect. Do you have anything constructive to add?
Thanks
A Mom,
Seriously, I have abandoned everything I said before the point where I apologized for breaking all the unspoken rules. If you are not able to comprehend that, the fault is not mine. John Immel says, “Present a better argument.” So that is what I attempted to do. You “know me too well.” But you don’t know me at all.
I presented the unspoken rules, and you had no comment. Does that mean you agree with the list of unspoken rules? I made a post fully honoring the unspoken rules and you want to continue to pillory me for the sins of the past.
Please respond to the “better argument.” Otherwise you come across as unforgiving. Perhaps that is your goal, but if so it would be difficult to suppose you understand the first thing about Jesus.
A Mom said:
Most of what I have read here from you are put-downs of man (All, reread Tom’s comments again if needed.) Of course, that comes from how you choose to assess life itself.
My response:
Not only do you refuse to forgive my rule-breaking, you want to do all in your power to ensure nobody else does either.
Look at it like the story of the blind men surveying an elephant.
One examines a leg and declares the elephant a tree.
One examines the tail and declares the elephant a rope.
And so on.
Not that I was blind, but metaphorically, I was, since I was unaware of the rules for surveying an elephant. Everything I said before I understood the rules must be taken in that context of metaphorical blindness.
You can mock me for “believing the elephant is a tree,” or you can accept that I am no longer blind to the rules. I never believed the elephant to be a tree. Still don’t. But now, I won’t make such statements.
Tom,
1. Two years ago is hardly a “few short months”. But even if it was only a few months ago…irrelevant. Pointless information. Since when are ideas a function of a timeline?
2. I will take your word for it w/r/t me making similar arguments as you in the past. If indeed I did say the same things you are saying then I was wrong and you need to evolve your thinking as I have. That’s my advice to you. Man’s truth and morality is his SELF; his LIFE; there is no other rational argument. Period.
3. “And yet, you have no mercy for one stating very nearly the identical arguments you yourself posted. That is not a sign of one who has willingly adopted a better philosophical position. Because mercy would be part of that picture.”
I literally have no idea what this means. I think it’s because it means nothing. It is more of your invective, inviting attention by attacking my character once again, nothing more. You bait, I bite. Do not get used to responses from me.
However, I will says this, though I am almost certain it is a waste of resources.
Mercy is not an aspect reason, a function of reason, nor a consideration of reason. It is a consequence of having a rational philosophy, one which proclaims man’s life as the sole standard of truth and good (for that is the only rational philosophy). My mercy is evident in how I view people (infinite worth); my reason is evident in how I deal with false ideas. I dealt with your ideas as my reason rightly dictated: dismantle, debunk, deny.
YOU read personal attack into criticisms of your ideas. That’s not my “mercy” problem; it is your interpretation problem. And as you will recall, I’m not the one who proclaimed “Argo, you are dead to me”. Mercy? Is that what you call it?
Argo says: Since when are ideas a function of a timeline?
My response: Great. Then you assert that your ideas are subject to change. Can you accept that mine might also be?
Tom, If our thinking does not evolve and change that is not a good sign. What if at 40 we think the same way we did at say, 25? That is not a good sign. I have drastically changed my thinking much over the last 9 years or so. And there are plenty of old comments on blogs that can prove it. I challenged myself because many things I believed made NO sense in practical application UNLESS I could appeal to mystery and leave it there. I could not. And there were few out there challenging the assumptions yet that is where I had to go. To assumptions.
I have yet to meet anyone I agree with on every single thing. That is ok. I am looking the root assumptions and how they play out.
Lydia,
So, it is reasonable to assume that Argo’s 180 degree change in thinking is normal evolution. But somehow my thinking is, what, unable to evolve?
If Argo is not being pilloried for things he said two years ago, why am I still held to a standard of what I said prior to my realization of the rules for discourse here? His thinking evolved, but I am that “rat bastard who said Argo is ‘dead to me?'”
John Immel says, “Present a better argument.” So, on June 23, 2014 at 6:17 am, I did. No response. No agreement, no disagreement. Just no response.
I have issued numerous retractions, apologies and restatements. None of those count as “evolution of Tom’s thinking.” How is my thinking to evolve if I am constantly told what I REALLY (mwah-ha-ha!) believe in spite of my attempts to revise and extend my remarks?
I am beginning to think I am just a Piranha around here.
Cheers!
All right… see if you iphone and Ipad addicts can do a comment please. Working with a new comment widget. Can I have some feedback por favor.
Not me. Funny this, I thought my phone was ringing today, but it was my new Samsung washer. Apparently it has it’s own ringtone to sign off when done. And a 5.0 cu ft tub which uses a fifth of the water my old washer used. That is not logical. My dishwasher uses more water per cycle!
And plasma tvs? My Panasonic is a dead breed?
We are going backwards, people.
A comment box I can write in woohoo!
BTW – I use a Motorola Droid and was unable to comment until now. So it wasn’t just iphones.
yea!! Glad iit worked.
Good to sae you here Bridget.
Me too!
It works.
And now…you’ll regret it. Lol!
Do they hold church inside the NRA on Sunday? You could kill two birds with one stone…er, one picket line.
Sorry, bad choice of idiom.
There we go Argo… the NRA headquarters … LOL . . . this plan to ban Mathew is coming together. It won’t be long.