Month: November 2021

Joining The Eternal Conversation John’s Prologue and The Language of Worship By Robert W Jenson

Joining The Eternal Conversation: John’s Prologue and The Language of Worship —By Robert W Jenson.

Online PDF

Updated PDF Link (Jenson) https://metachristianity.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/joining-the-eternal-conversation-johns-prologue-language-of-worship-robert-w-jenson.pdf

Former PDF Link (typo Jensen) https://metachristianity.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/joining-the-eternal-conversation-johns-prologue-language-of-worship-robert-w-jensen-.pdf

Love, Reason, Reality, And The Golden Thread Of Reciprocity

Love, Reason, Reality, And The Golden Thread of Reciprocity:

The only disclaimer or forewarning is simply that the choice of wording here is going to be intentionally repetitive with respect to just why and how it is that reason (…on the one hand…) and morality (…on the other hand…) either succeed in finding singularity or else fail in finding singularity. The metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility reveals – given the Christian’s thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic – love’s timeless reciprocity and reason’s final felicity in the ontological singularity that is the Trinitarian Life and in fact nothing less than the *singular* metaphysical wellspring of Love and Necessity will do as we press in upon all possible contours here. The topographic map which results with respect to *that* – with respect to Possibility’s express Fountainhead – sums to the singular rational/moral landscape of the triune. The occasionally repetitive syntax is used so that at *each* step through our progression we are forced to recall – and include – each claim along the way.

Reason in her proper role as truth-finder is obligated to chase after the fundamental nature of X, whatever X is. The rational with respect to reason as truth-finder cannot be ontologically seamless with the moral given the No-God paradigm wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory. Given the No-God paradigm what reason claims to apprehend is (….given the non-convertibility of the transcendentals…) ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.

She (…reason…) in her proper role as truth-finder is obligated to chase after what *is*, after *facts* and justifiably so. As such the Non-Theists Hume, (physicist) Sean Carroll, Alex Rosenberg, Michael Ruse, and countless others find no obligation on reason’s part to prefer, chase after, the scratching of one’s finger over the destruction of the world. That is to say that the “morally *un*-reasonable” is, simply, impossible given the No-God paradigm’s appeal to the metaphysically absurd concept of ontological cul-de-sacs wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is – at bottom – illusory.

There again we find that in any No-God paradigm what reason claims to apprehend is (given the non-convertibility of the transcendentals) ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.

Whereas the Trinitarian processions of love’s timeless self-outpouring find that the rational with respect to reason as truth-finder is in fact ontologically seamless with the moral. Therein (to borrow a phrase from Feser) “….what reason therein apprehends is (given the convertibility of the transcendentals) as good and beautiful as it is real….”. The triune God presents us with the timeless diffusiveness of self-giving as such relates to the Ontic-Self in totum which of course presents reason with reality’s irreducible substratum.

Paradigmatically speaking, such is a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in any Non-Theism. The Golden Thread of Reciprocity is affirmed by natural theology, is perceived by reason, is seen by Non-Theism, but Non-Theism must foist a metaphysical impossibility in order to claim her given that in that paradigm irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory. Whereas, in the pursuit of coherent definitions with respect to the fundamental nature of reality it is the Christian metaphysic whereby reason affirms that the “A” and the “Z” of reality in fact carries the rational mind into an ethic of irreducible and self-giving reciprocity – such that it is the case that “GOD” or “Ultimate Reality” is in fact love. An immutable and cruciform love housed within the ceaseless and Self-Giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum vis-à-vis Infinite Consciousness logically forces an unavoidable reductio ad deum. Such contours carry reason towards reality’s irreducible substratum within love’s timeless reciprocity amid those uncanny Trinitarian processions housed in “Being Itself”.

Self-Giving with respect to “Being Itself” forces our hand. The “term” and “definition” with respect to “GOD” thereby referents, in fact, nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being vis-à-vis love’s timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum:

“…..the cross of Christ does not determine the nature of divine love, but rather manifests it, because there is a more original outpouring of God that – without needing to submit itself to the order of sacrifice that builds crosses – always already surpasses every abyss of godforsakenness and pain that sin can impose between the world and God: an outpouring that is in its proper nature indefectible happiness….” (D.B. Hart)

That is the proverbial umbrella beneath which all other definitions in fact live and move and have – obtain – their “being”.

Ontological Cul-De-Sacs Sum To Nonsense On Stilts:

Paradigmatically speaking – once again the Christian metaphysic thereby constitutes a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in any Non-Theism and in fact we find – once again that the attempt to “add” to any Non-Theistic paradigm’s irreducible substratum – ad infinitum – attempts a metaphysical absurdity whereby irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference such that the convertibility of the transcendentals which reason apprehends is finally illusory.

“The West’s liberal ideals in a secular/atheist framework are practically mysticism. This idea of a “fundamental human right” in a [Non-Theistic] context is, as Bentham stated, “nonsense on stilts.” ……..for all the times that I am accused of cognitive dissonance, which I may be guilty of, I cannot imagine living under the volume of cognitive dissonance in saying incidental meat robots called humans have “fundamental human rights”……” (G.M.)

Humanity’s general consensus on several fundamentals is expected given natural theology. The problem with Non-Theism is that it sees The Golden Thread Of Reciprocity but it cannot connect it to reason’s obligation in her (reason’s) role as truth-finder (….see Oderberg and what he terms the fundamental test or the primary criterion of the moral a few paragraphs down…).

Within any Non-Theistic substratum it is the case that reason, will, appetites, and reality find no irreducible moral nature to chase after, to fulfill, to reason towards. Non-Theistic maps of all kinds lack any such ontic-terminus and are – painfully – therefore eternally open-ended. All Non-Theistic definitions stream – ad infinitum – from a metaphysical bedrock within which reason is found attempting the metaphysical absurdity of irreducible self-giving trading on irreducible indifference and the final sum of that irrationality is nothing less than a kind of ontic-psychosis in that the convertibility of the transcendentals which reason apprehends is finally illusory and ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.

Whereas, within the Christian metaphysic it is the aggregation of logical compulsory moves which carries reason (….in her proper roles as truth-finder….)into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic constituting the timeless diffusiveness of self-giving as such relates to the Ontic-Self in totum as nothing less than Being Itself presents reason with an irreducible substratum within the contours of love’s indestructible reciprocity. All definitions stream from *that* metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility such that the Imago Dei itself and Reasonitself and the Beautiful itself and the Rational itself are – all – in fact ontologically seamless with what is nothing less than the Moral landscape.

Reason as truth finder has every (justified) prerogative to chase after reality *as*reality. Given the non-Theistic paradigm, the rational is (…therein…) perfectly seamless with the (…non…) moral. Enter the “ontic non-entity” of the Non-Theist’s blind-epistemic which he labels “sociopath”. Whereas: Love’s timeless self-giving in and of Trinitarian processions awaits reason at the ends of all vectors (….given the Triune God…) such that should reason chase after some other constitution amid “one-another”, some other form or procession or contour, she would then be (…factually…) contra–reason, or factually *un*reasonable. The irreducible rationalis (…therein…) perfectly seamless with the irreducibly moral.

Non-Obligation:

Regarding the pains of Non-Theism’s eternally open ended teleology vis-à-vis “goal” (…yes – it is true – as that statement reveals the absurd….), see Oderberg’s fundamental test or primary criterion of the moral a few paragraphs down.

The Non-Theist’s explanatory terminus is eternally open ended. And irreducibly indifferent. And reason knows it which is where the problem is found for the Non-Theistic paradigm given that she (…reason…) has an appetite for facts.

Obligation:

Reason is obligated (…in her fact-role as truth-finder…) to chase after *facts*, after the fundamental nature of X, whatever X is.

Reason presses forward:

The unavoidable result is that while the facts measured in all of the Non-Theist’s various metrics are real, they do not (…cannot…) change the fundamental fact which Hume, Carroll, Rosenberg, Ruse, and a growing tide of younger, more honest, gutsier New Non-Theists eager to get to the point affirm with respect to the fundamental nature of objective truth, the rational, and what is and is not contrary to reason. Any notion of supposed ultimate/cosmic worth of any self or any notion of any reach of any justice inside of a universe devoid of (…ontic…)moral facts, devoid of the triune’s irreducible and fundamental processions constituting love’s timeless self-giving is, simply put, “…nonsense on stilts…“

That a few Non-Theists hold out and try to disagree with Hume, Carroll, Rosenberg, Ruse, and that growing tide of younger, nervier Non-Theists with respect to the nature of reason and reality is interesting, though the premises and arguments of the hold-outs are not nearly as cogent as the crisp intellectual honesty seen in that bolder current.

Therefore it would be helpful if the hold-outs highlight some of the arguments of Rosenberg, Ruse, Hume, and Carroll in charitable form and then demonstrate where they fall down regarding the fundamental nature of reason and reality. We’d enjoy reading the hold-out’s demonstrations of where those rather bright fellas go off the rails.

That’s enough here as the best and brightest of the Non-Theists have already done the Christian’s work for him.

Hence we need not even introduce the thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic of the Christian nor love’s timeless reciprocity therein which constitutes reality’s irreducible substratum. Nor the fact that we find reason in her proper role as truth-finder factually obligated to chase after the fundamental nature of X (…which is *always* the case…) where X is the only (…morally…) reasonable option – namely that unique substratum of love’s irreducible nature.

Of course reason is *free* to chase some *other* end, only, then she will have ceased in her (proper) role as truth-finder (… contra-reason….) and will then have chased after the factually (…and morally…) *un*-reasonable.

Reason qua Reason:

Non-Theist: “Religious people: Imagine I could have full access to your brain and was able to compare your hidden thoughts, desires, etc to that of a “nonbeliever”. Are you confident that there would be much of a difference?” ((https://twitter.com/AlchemistNon/status/1327766054731472896?s=20))

Christian Reply: The only difference between the First-Adam & another First-Adam would be some Second Something. Beware of the premise that an Atheist exhibiting Good is an event which lays claim to Good. If The-Good is real then “it” is “it” regardless of many and varied bell-curved-permutations in us. Should Reason discover Reality’s Concrete Furniture to be nothing less than Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving in/as Being Itself ((The Trinitarian Life)) — well then the “Rational” at once becomes seamless with the “Moral”. That is “where” and “how” and “why” Irreducible Praxis ((Act)) is seamless with Irreducible Moral Fact ((Being)). Anything less is contrived, arbitrary, and remains subject to Hume’s observation that Reason finds no Moral Fact to which she ((Reason)) is obligated ((in her proper role as Reason qua Reason)). Conversely, again, should Reason discover Reality’s Concrete Furniture to be nothing less than Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving in/as Being Itself ((The Trinitarian Life)) — well then the “Rational” at once becomes seamless with the “Moral” and we find the following in Reason’s Terminus of both Being & Satisfaction as a metaphysical singularity — namely:

MORAL OBLIGATION: We eventually arrive at that which is Irreducible — Ontological — and whatever THAT is will be the fact of the matter such that Reason will have found her Terminus of Closure. Should said Terminus in fact be Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Being Itself vis-à-vis The Trinitarian Life then — and only then — do we arrive at The Moral and The Rational as a Metaphysical Singularity and that arrives as nothing other than Logic||Love vis-à-vis Reason||Reciprocity vis-à-vis “…the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility…” ((…to borrow from David Bentley Hart…)).

Note again what Reason actually “is” — Reason “qua” Reason just is Obligatory Satisfaction vis-à-vis Irreducible Truth. Note that in “Man” within Non-Theism’s paradigm we find Being and Nature and Act/Praxis within the arbitrary contrivances of [Biology/Sociology/Psychology] + Hard-Stop. That is the best autohypnosis Non-Theism/Atheism can offer us and it will — every time — ultimately mis–diagnose both good and pathology and thereby mis–prescribe both goal and treatment. Indeed the fact of Being + Act or of Good + Praxis cannot rationally start/stop “there”. Notice that the layers there are valid — but not fundamental — not irreducible — and ((…sadly for Non-Theism’s hopes…)) our semantic intent must (eventually) traverse both Being + Act, both Good + Praxis.

Metaphysical Naturalism is eternally open ended regarding “Man” and therein there is no ontological Closure ~ and so no Perfection of Being ~ and so too no rational terminus for Praxis/Act. ANY Moral Ontology which begins and ends within the cul-de-sac of physics we call the brainstem is necessarily circular and arbitrary. Reason in her proper role as truth-finder has not yet ((in that cul-de-sac)) come upon the immutable and irreducible. Hence Reason finds no *obligation* regarding ANY semantic intent vis-à-vis “The Fundamental Nature of X”.

Reason “qua” Reason just is “Obligatory Satisfaction” vis-à-vis “Irreducible Truth” and by that we mean something like the following as we traverse ((..and we must traverse…)) both Pure Act and Being Itself:

When Irreducible Praxis (Act) is seamless with Irreducible Good (Being) then, and only then, Closure displaces Circularity. Anything less is contrived, arbitrary, and remains subject to Hume’s observation that Reason finds no Moral Fact to which she (Reason) is obligated. Regarding Moral Fact we find that Moral Obligation just is Reason’s Obligation vis-à-vis the aforementioned Praxis/Act and Good/Being.

Therein we come upon the following:

Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis

Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis

Being Itself vis-à-vis

The Trinitarian Life

Our Map takes all of that and then adds slightly paraphrased content from Twitter’s @TDisputations with the following:

Begin Paraphrase:

“The assumption that good is subjective depends on the assumption that all that exists are these limited forms of what would be the universal concept of the good, and that the universal concept of the good isn’t instantiated in a being.”

“God is necessary for objective morality because goods with only a finite power to allure us cannot be a sufficient motivation for us to act (by definition). You ought to do what will make you happy, and if there is a highest good that contains all goods, and perfectly allures you toward it, then it is the only thing that can give you perfect happiness. It’s the only thing that can fulfill all of your desires. A perfect good wouldn’t only be a particular good, but it would be a universal good. In the same way the concept of a dog in some way represents all dogs, the good itself in some way represents all goods. Anything you can desire will be found in the perfect good, and so it would be foolish to act against it. These other goods such as money, sex, etc. are only a limited form of this good. The perfect good doesn’t lack any of the good that is in sex, or money, or love, but it has all of those perfectly. The assumption that good is subjective depends on the assumption that all that exists are these limited forms of what would be the universal concept of the good, and that the universal concept of the good isn’t instantiated in a being. The concept of good itself applies to all of the different forms of good, and so it contains in a sense all goodness. So, if the good itself were to exist, it would be sufficient to satisfy all of our desires. Universal good is at least in our concepts because the concept of good in general applies to all goods, and the concept of good itself applies to all of the different forms of good, and so it contains in a sense all goodness. So, if the good itself were to exist, it would be sufficient to satisfy all of our desires, and if that concept is instantiated, then that’s what we call God. And, we desire God over all other things necessarily because Goods have degrees of power to allure us and only the infinite good (God) would have infinite power to allure us. Only the infinite good, therefore, has the power to rationally bind us to act always and everywhere. Thus, only God can ground objective morality.”

End Paraphrase ((of Twitter’s @TDisputations)).

Our Map takes all of that and then adds this:

“….Anything that has arbitrary limits has an explanation. A thing that has no arbitrary limits is required to explain the plurality of things that have arbitrary limits. Thus, something exists that has no arbitrary limits. This thing is God….” (Cameron Bertuzzi)

Our Map once again finds that ANY Moral Ontology which begins and ends within the cul-de-sac of physics [bracketed-off] as this planet or as this or that collocation of juxtaposed brainstems is necessarily circular and arbitrary. Reason in her proper role as truth-finder has not ((in that cul-de-sac)) come upon the immutable and irreducible – and therefore Reason finds no *obligation*.

David Oderberg reminds us of Aristotle’s doctrine that all practical reasoning must ﬁnd a terminus and therein the [Rational||Moral] arrives as an ontological singularity as per the following:

A brief excerpt from Oderberg:

Assuming that the meaning of “good” in morality, at least in its most general aspect, is identical to its meaning outside morality, we must appeal to the fulﬁlment of appetite in deﬁning the fundamental test or primary criterion of moral behavior. But that cannot be the whole story, since as argued earlier, reason and will must be essentially involved in the test. So I propose that what we end up with is the following formula:

The fundamental test of morality is whether an act is directed by reason to man’s ultimate end.

Now the ultimate end is just another way of talking about the ultimate appetite or essential tendency (perhaps tendencies/appetites in the plural) the fulﬁlment of which perfects human nature.

To appeal to the ultimate end is, from the ontic point of view, to dismiss the idea that there can be an endless series of appetites, each one such that its fulﬁlment is at the same time the means to the fulﬁlment of the next one in the series, where the next one will be broader, more general or all-encompassing. To countenance the thought is effectively to deny that human beings can ever fulﬁl their natures, that they can ever be just good. Apart from the intolerable hopelessness this would inject into morality, it would involve attributing a kind of inﬁnite nature to a manifestly ﬁnite being, which verges on metaphysical absurdity. From the practical point of view, the appeal to an ultimate end is just to endorse Aristotle’s famous doctrine that all practical reasoning must ﬁnd a terminus.

End excerpt. (From the essay “All for the Good” by David S. Oderberg, which is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiebWUyV25FRFZ0UWc/view )

Aristotle’s discovery, as opposed to invention, properly orients or aims reason as truth-finder. We say “discovery, not invention” because chronological mapping of epistemological developments through history never can define ontological – metaphysical – ownership of ultimate truths. Hence morality before Sinai – because *God*. Hence morality after Sinai – because *God*. The force of law (….and that includes Sinai…) just isn’t much according to Scripture’s definitions of Moral Excellence. Of course popularity and the day’s latest fashion are all the Non-Theist’s tools will allow him and so he has got to dance to that melody within his paradigm’s continuum of eternally open-ended cascades of cosmic flux. Whereas, [1] Christianity’s metaphysic of course shows how disharmonious that “culturally normative” Non-Theistic melody truly is and [2] history itself is a good demonstration of that disharmonious-ness. Therefore Christianity, history, and reason all track together in one seamless narrative throughout all of Mankind’s painful peaks/nadirs.

The Blueprint Of All Things Adamic — The Trinitarian Life:

We are Social Beings for an ontic reason – as it is the case that our own being begins and ends within the contours of a full-on metaphysical Full-Stop as per the Necessary Being – that is to say within the contours of Being Itself. The term “Normal” and the term “Moral Excellence” cannot have a semantic intent which begins or ends outside of Reality as per Reality’s Concrete Furniture and in the Christian Metaphysic we find that we are to be the living Imago Dei created off of the Blueprint of Being Itself as Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life. The Christian Metaphysic is in the end a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic and, therein, we find that “Being” in fact “is” Being Itself in Timeless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Irreducible Diffusiveness of Being in totum. It is that Terminus at which we find The Always & The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above – namely Timeless Reciprocity & Necessity as on Ontic Singularity – that is to say – Love & Necessity as an Ontic Singularity.

It is there that we find in the Christian metaphysic the intellectual and moral grounds for affirming the term, “Love Himself” vis-à-vis the A and the Z of the Trinitarian Life with respect to the Divine Decree of the Imago Dei and all that necessarily comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there that we find nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being – and all that comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there in nothing less than Being that we find The Always and The Already constituting Being as Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Ontic Diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum, and all that necessarily comes with “that”. Every Possible Ontic with every Possible Sentence with every Possible Syllogism are all subsumed:

It is THAT explanatory terminus which is reality’s rock-bottom, reality’s irreducible substratum – the A and the Z of every Possible Ontic, of every Possible Sentence – of all Possible Syllogisms.

Still More Discovery:

We find in the No-God paradigm (…..wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory…) that reason, will, appetites, and reality find no irreducible moral contours to chase after, to fulfill, to reason towards. Non-Theistic maps of all kinds lack any such ontic-terminus and are – painfully – therefore once again found to be eternally open-ended. Hume rightly observed that, given such tools, it is not and in fact cannot be contrary to reason (….in her proper role as truth-finder….) to prefer the destruction of the whole world over the scratching of one’s finger. Hume was right after all. And Carroll, Ruse, and Rosenberg with him.

Again: It would be helpful if the proverbial Non-Theistic hold-outs highlight some of the arguments of Rosenberg, Ruse, Hume, and Carroll in charitable form and then demonstrate where they fall down regarding the fundamental nature of reason and reality.

The Golden Thread of Reciprocity:

Non-Theism’s appeals to mutable perfection (….”god”….) seems odd. As does Non-Theism’s eternally open-ended “goal” (…”good”…). Precision is a priority here and so “odd” is not the right word. A better term would be either [1] metaphysical impossibility or perhaps [2] absurdity. As we move farther downstream – or upstream depending on one’s approach – the necessary transcendentals which the Non-Theist finds himself in need of are not convertible in his attempt at an “ontic-cul-de-sac”. Why? Because there are no such realities as ontological cul-de-sacs. In various fictions perhaps there are but not in the real word as we actually find it, such “ontology” is – being committed to this or that cul-de-sac – finally illusory.

The eternally open ended teleology of Non-Theism is forever just a few steps removed from successfully obligating reason (…in her fact-role of truth-finder…)should she disagree with Goal-X. Non-Theism has not overcome Hume’s (…and so on…) rational refutation of the morally *un*reasonable. Reason finds no obligation to chase after the illusory and therein “…useful but not true…” is all that “emerges”. Why? Because, given the nature of cul-de-sacs, that is all that *can* emerge with respect to reality’s irreducible substratum. Of course, even there the employment of the term “useful” again begs the question but, as that is all Non-Theism has to work with, there’s no need to press the point.

Paradigmatically speaking, such is a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in the Christian’s metaphysic. The Golden Thread of Reciprocity is affirmed by natural theology, is perceived by reason, is seen by Non-Theism, but Non-Theism must foist a metaphysical impossibility as irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory.

Reason is obligated (…in her fact-role as truth-finder…) to chase after *facts*, after the fundamental nature of X, whatever X is.

Within the Christian metaphysic it is the aggregation of logically compulsory moves which carries reason (….in her proper roles as truth-finder….) into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic constituting the timeless diffusiveness of self-giving as such relates to the Ontic-Self in totum as nothing less than Being Itselfpresents reason with an irreducible substratum within the contours of love’s indestructible reciprocity. All definitions stream from *that* metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility such that the Imago Dei itself and Reasonitself and the Beautiful itself and the Rational itself are – all – in fact ontologically seamless with what is nothing less than the Moral landscape.

The Irreducibly Objective Moral Ontology:

Just as it is necessarily true that “Being Itself” cannot be “just a little bit less” than infinite with respect to God ←→ Miracles (…as in “a bit too much” of GOD© or as in “not quite enough” of GOD©…), in the same way it is necessarily true that “Being Itself” cannot be “just a little bit less” than irreducible objectivity.

The metaphysical fountainhead of all possibility that just is reality’s irreducible substratum ultimately forces all definitions and, for painfully obvious reasons, the rational with respect to reason as truth-finder cannot be ontologically seamless with the moral given the No-God paradigm wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory. Given the No-God paradigm what reason claims to apprehend is (….given the non-convertibility of the transcendentals…) ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.

Whereas, there is a metaphysic which is far more robust and lucid which is found housing not only far more explanatory power but which is also found successfully traversing the vast Oceans of Reason Itself without ever coming upon that fateful Edge of Non-Theism’s Flat World there at the End of Reason Itself. Therein the annihilation of reason follows hard on the heels of love’s annihilation as we press in, and that just won’t do.

Whereas, the rational mind seeks to prize and retain reason itself, even as the rational mind seeks to prize and retain logic itself, even as the rational mind seeks to prize and retain love itself, and – just the same – the rational mind finds – discovers – all such currents streaming from that metaphysical fountainhead of all possibility that just is reality’s irreducible substratum. As it turns out, a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic emerges.

Moving Towards A Necessary Ontological Singularity:

Reason’s obligation – in her proper role as truth-finder – is to chase after the fundamental nature of X – whatever X may be – and that directly relates to this or that paradigm and whether or not, in fact, the irreducibly rational is ontologically seamless with the irreducibly moral.

Any convergence of vectors in a metaphysical epicenter or fountainhead of irreducible Self-Giving vis-a-vis the Ontic-Self in totum reveals that the irreducibly rational is ontologically seamless with the irreducibly moral. There we will discover reason’s obligation in her proper role as truth-finder. For clarity: Reason is not obligated to chase after the illusory “qua” Truth. Why? Simply because of the fact that the metaphysical absurdity of ontological cul-de-sacs just won’t do when what is necessary and sufficient sums to reality’s ontological continuum. Self-Giving with respect to “Being Itself” forces our hand. The “term” / “definition” with respect to “GOD” / “Being Itself” thereby referents nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being vis-à-vis love’s timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum.

“…..the cross of Christ does not determine the nature of divine love, but rather manifests it, because there is a more original outpouring of God that – without needing to submit itself to the order of sacrifice that builds crosses – always already surpasses every abyss of godforsakenness and pain that sin can impose between the world and God: an outpouring that is in its proper nature indefectible happiness….” (D.B. Hart)

That is the proverbial umbrella beneath which all other definitions in fact live and move and have – obtain – their “being”. In the Christian’s thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic it is the case that the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility reveals love’s timeless reciprocity and reason’s final felicity in an ontological singularity. Nothing less than the *singular* metaphysical wellspring of Love
and Necessity will do as we press in upon all possible contours here and the topographic map of that very Wellspring just is Meta-Christianity.

The *Why* of Morality – The *Reason* of Morality:

The Objectively Moral comes with and in and by the Objectively Rational, through the seamless singularity of The-True and The-Good, that is to say, through the seamless singularity of The-Rational and The-Moral.

As in:

Reason’s lack of any obligation to chase after the illusory “qua” Truth as per Hume stands intact given any Non-Theistic paradigm. That tends to be an arena which a large percentage of our Non-Theist friends are too timid to enter into given the fact that the phrase “morally un-reasonable” sums to a metaphysical absurdity.

Convertibility: We begin to discover just why it is the case that the rational with respect to reason as truth-finder cannot be ontologically seamless with the moralgiven the No-God paradigm wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory. Given the No-God paradigm what reason claims to apprehend there in that golden thread of reciprocity is (….given the non-convertibility of the transcendentals…)ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.

The irreducible substratum of love’s timeless Self-Giving in and by and through those uncanny Trinitarian processions finds the The Always and The Alreadycompelling the convertibility of the transcendentals even as it is there alone where we find that the irreducibly Moral is in fact ontologically seamless with the irreducibly Rational. All such contours relate to Reason herself in her proper role as truth-finder and her obligation to chase after The True which in and by and through the convertibility of the transcendentals is to chase after The Good.

The “why-of-morality” is found in the necessarily rational, in reality’s irreducible substratum, in that which sums to nothing less than that uncanny metaphysical singularity wherein The-Rational is ontologically seamless with The-Moral. Hume gets it right and observes that the Rational itself, that Reason herself, finds no necessary amalgamation with any claim of Moral, of Good, and thereby rationally prefers any goal to any other goal as there cannot be, even in principle, the morally unreasonable. For clarity once again: Nothing less than the *singular*metaphysical wellspring of Love and Necessity will do as we press in upon all possible contours here and the topographic map of that very Wellspring just is Meta-Christianity. The red herring so often injected here by our Non-Theist friends is “….but disagreement exists…!!” Rather, the point is the fact that we believe that some things really are right/good and some things really are wrong/bad a – contraHume, as in:

“-Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. -Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. -Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than for the latter.” (Hume Treatise of Human Nature 2.3.3.6)

An Observation on Monism, Dualism, and Moral metrics:

Granting Monism or Dualism to the Non-Theist is easy enough. Consider it done.

We observe, then, that our Non-Theist friends have *not*, with said grant, managed to fund the problem of closing any moral loop. In other words, short of “Love and Necessity” in singularity we still lack the means to close any moral loop as at some ontological seam somewhere any such paradigm will – finally – do to the Self and to Love and thereby to The Good what Pantheism in fact does to them. The narrative of love and of necessity in all such paradigms is one where we find two X’s which are forever disparate as the two fail to precede, define, and outdistance all other lines in and by and through their own metaphysical singularity/unicity.

It is catastrophic. Love will lack the Necessary, or, the Necessary will lack Love. The rational mind demands lucidity through and through and we find that Necessity void of love’s necessary content arrives on scene at some ontological seam somewhere and such lovelessness just won’t do.

We error to assume the whole of morality is a thorough-going intentionality. It isn’t.

Intention, even it emerges, just won’t do the work of obligating reason to chase after love’s topography. Hume stands undefeated in all such granting-of-wishes as “The Good” presses in as to what reason is and is not obligated to chase after for reason’s role is Truth and should the end of Truth fail to land in the lap of Self-Giving – Full Stop (….we’ll leave it to folks to find the necessary contents of love’s “Self-Giving” in their Necessary X’s rather than their Contingent X’s….) – then – again for obvious reasons – Hume stands undefeated.

That said, many Non-Theists claim all sorts of things about their mathematical models and what they can account for, but there’s been no one so far who successfully traverses that ocean short of equivocating somewhere between “upstream” and “downstream” in a logical impossibility aimed at inventing a kind of ontological cul-de-sac. Sean Carroll’s syntax roles on quite strong in his Poetic Naturalism only to gently slip into the illusory syntax of useful-but-not-true.

Metaphysical Armistice:

All such Non-Theistic paradigms finally or cosmically leave us within what just is a metaphysical armistice amid eternally colliding ontological equals and thereby we’ve no means by which to find any (ontic) moral *distinction*. “Being” is conceived of as “….a plain upon which forces of meaning and meaninglessness converge in endless war; according to either, being is known in its oppositions, and oppositions must be overcome or affirmed, but in either case as violence….”

David Bentley Hart describes such views and notes that – on simplicity – on beauty – on goodness – it is not “Totality”, nor is it “Chaos”, nor is it distinction achieved only by violence among converging ontological equals, but rather it is the compositions of the triune where all vectors of being ultimately converge. “Nietzsche prophesied correctly: what now always lies ahead is a choice between Dionysus (who is also Apollo) and the Crucified: between, that is, the tragic splendor of totality and the inexhaustible beauty of an infinite love.”

His book, “The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth” in part explores such contours. A brief excerpt:

Quote:

Within Christian theology there is a thought – a story – of the infinite that is also the thought – the story – of beauty; for pagan philosophy and culture, such a confluence of themes was ultimately unthinkable. Even Plotinian Neoplatonism, which brought the Platonic project to its most delightful completion by imagining infinity as an attribute of the One, was nonetheless compelled to imagine the beauty of form as finally subordinate to a formless and abstract simplicity, devoid of internal relation, diminished by reduction to particularity, polluted by contact with matter’s “absolute evil”; nor could later Neoplatonism very comfortably allow that the One was also infinite being, but typically placed being only in the second moment of emanation, not only because the One, if it were also Being, would constitute a bifid form, but because being is always in some sense contaminated by or open to becoming, to movement, and thus is, even in the very splendor of its overflow, also a kind of original contagion, beginning as an almost organic ferment in the noetic realm and ending in the death of matter.

Christian thought – whose infinite is triune, whose God became incarnate, and whose account of salvation promises not liberation from, but glorification of, material creation – can never separate the formal particularity of beauty from the infinite it announces, and so tells the tale of being in a way that will forever be a scandal to the Greeks. For their parts, classical “metaphysics” [rather than rigorous metaphysics] and postmodernism belong to the same story; each, implying or repeating the other, conceives being as a plain upon which forces of meaning and meaninglessness converge in endless war; according to either, being is known in its oppositions, and oppositions must be overcome or affirmed, but in either case as violence: amid the strife of images and the flow of simulacra, shining form appears always only as an abeyance of death, fragile before the convulsions of chaos, and engulfed in fate. There is a specular infinity in mutually defining opposites: Parmenides and Heracleitos gaze into one another’s eyes, and the story of being springs up between them; just as two mirrors set before one another their depths indefinitely, repeating an opposition that recedes forever along an illusory corridor without end, seeming to span all horizons and contain all things, the dialectic of Apollo and Dionysus oscillates without resolution between endless repetitions of the same emptiness, the same play of reflection and inversion. But the true infinite lies outside and all about this enclosed universe of strife and shadows; it shows itself as beauty and as light: not totality, nor again chaos, but the music of a triune God. Nietzsche prophesied correctly: what now always lies ahead is a choice between Dionysus (who is also Apollo) and the Crucified: between, that is, the tragic splendor of totality and the inexhaustible beauty of an infinite love.

End quote.

Non-Theistic means and ends (….be they non-theistic evolution or any otherlandscape….) lands in the eternally-open-ended and therefore the syntax of goal/closure is unintelligible as that same eternally open-ended landscape finally void of Being vis-à-vis Self-Giving in fact built *all* epigenetic/genetic memes – bothreligious and non-religious – Hard Stop. Every permutation. Every combination. The Net Sum: metaphysical armistice – eternally colliding ontological equals – Hard Stop.

All such Non-Theistic paradigms finally or cosmically leave us within what just is a metaphysical armistice amid eternally colliding ontological equals and thereby we’ve no means by which to find irreducible, ontic, moral *distinction*. “Being” is conceived of as “….a plain upon which forces of meaning and meaninglessness converge in endless war; according to either, being is known in its oppositions, and oppositions must be overcome or affirmed, but in either case as violence….”

Whereas, in the Christian metaphysic we discover factual – metaphysically necessary – differences between The Good and various deficiencies thereof even as we discover such nuances as, say, the fact that to whom nothing is given, nothing is required, to whom little is given little is asked, to whom much is given much is required, and that, say, forgiveness is tied into not-knowing. All of that and far more which continues to arrive on scene is far more coherent than what Non-Theism brings to the table here.

A Second Observation on Monism, Dualism, and Moral Metrics:

Locating the irreducibly objective moral fact is not complicated when one does not have to try to find a pretend line in the sand where there is in fact no line to find. There’s a reason morality precedes Sinai just as there is a reason morality outdistances Sinai – and – should our Non-Theist friends embrace thatunmistakable truth of Scripture they will find that, then, that same reason doing real, actual “ontic-work” throughout the rest of reality’s metanarrative as well.

With respect to the Non-Theist’s “re-defining” of “Being Itself / GOD” into something akin to “a subjective thought” or into something akin to “a thought floating in space” as opposed to what the term actually referents vis-à-vis the irreducibly objective reality of nothing less than Being Itself, and with respect to [A] monism vs. [B] dualism, it becomes apparent that the factually objective finds no complete explanation of all things Adamic in the trails and footprints of particle cascades. Even if we assume a Theistic Monism that is the case for there too what is in those footprints fails to provide a lucid stopping point. That is to say that even in Monism – if God – then also there will always come that seam at which some contour within us or of us travels beyond us in order to find closure. Not that we affirm Monism, but, rather, that is only mentioned to point out that our Non-Theist friends sometimes assume that their own Non-Theistic brand of Monism can provide something other than that finally illusory “useful but not true” which finds its way into the syntax of “reality” (…on the one hand…) and “reason” in her role as truth-finder (…on the other hand…) vis-à-vis, say, Sean Carroll’s Poetic Naturalism or into, say, the moral termini of Hume with whom Carroll agrees as we juxtapose them here:

“The lack of an ultimate objective scientific grounding for morality can be worrisome. It implies that people with whom we have moral disagreements—whether it’s […name any evil player…] or schoolyard bullies who beat up smaller children — aren’t wrong in the same sense that it’s wrong to deny Darwinian evolution or the expansion of the universe….But that’s how the world is…….. Hume was right. We have no objective guidance on how to distinguish right from wrong: not from God, not from nature, not from the pure force of reason itself….Morality exists only insofar as we make it so, and other people might not pass judgments in the same way we do…..” (S. Carroll)

….juxtaposed with……

“– Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. -Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. -Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than for the latter.” (Hume, Treatise of Human Nature 2.3.3.6)

First, note Carroll’s unavoidable re-defining of what “it” “is” which the term *GOD* in fact referents (…in the Christian metaphysic that is…), and, secondly, note that both Carroll and Hume agree with the Christian in concluding this: our Non-Theist friends who sometimes assume that their own Non-Theistic brand of Monism can provide closure with respect to moral ontology are in fact mistaken. If they wish to go down that road than perhaps Spinoza’s Pantheism or the Hindu’s Pantheism awaits them and, even there, outreaches them, outdistances them. But let’s move on to the Christian’s Trinitarian metaphysic:

Irreducibly Objective Moral Metrics:

The first metric just is the last metric and such just is immutable love as that which reason apprehends is – given the convertibility of the transcendentals – actually or factually real. Love’s timeless reciprocity carries us into those uncanny Trinitarian processions which in fact are reality’s irreducible substratum there amid Self/Other – what D.B. Hart somewhere terms that “…eternal ‘one-another’…“. We need not be concerned about Privation for in the Triune God it is the case that the Self is both The-Good and The-Whole such that the term “Hate” is not necessary for that move of Privation within the Trinitarian Life as the I AM traverses both history and consciousness.

Only the Trinity solves that dilemma with respect to love’s perfectly free and volitional contours amid Self/Other (…on the one hand…) and that which is Necessary (…on the other hand…). No other metaphysics solves that problem. It is – again – uncanny that Privation is not only necessary in the Trinitarian Life but, also, it is necessarily the case that the term “Hate” cannot be ascribed to Intra-Trinitarian Privation given that that term is referencing “Good-Minus-Some-Thing” and – obviously – to ascribe such to the seamlessness of Divine Simplicity (…on the one hand…) and/or to the Christian’s Triune God (…on the other hand…) sums to ascribing roundness to squares or sound to colors. Nothing less than the singular wellspring of Love and Necessity will do and that is precisely where the Christian metaphysic finds both its A and its Z as the collocation of reason, logic, and love carry us into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic.

Overlapping Themes are at: Moral Ontology Vis-À-Vis The Ontological History Of Reason Itself — at https://metachristianity.com/moral-ontology-vis-a-vis-the-ontological-history-of-reason-itself/

Interesting Excerpts From A Discussion On Moral Reasoning:

Quote:

Could I ask if you actually believe in the sort of extreme nominalism that you seem to be defending? If you don’t actually believe in it, then do we need to spend time arguing about whether it is logically coherent?

So if I could summarize what I believe you have said or implied:

1- It is possible to make a correct moral argument (I agree).
2- In order to do so, the premises of that argument have to be true (I agree).
3- The truth of the premises aren’t determined by what what people think (I agree).

Yes?

What you have written previously seems to imply that some moral premises are actually *true*, and that that is a separate issue from whether anyone actually believes in those premises. Have I misunderstood? You said that moral reasoning can sometimes be correct. You said that correct moral reasoning requires correct premises. Does it not follow from that that premises in moral arguments are sometimes correct?

To stick with your exact language: you implied that *proper* exercises of moral reasoning are sometimes possible, and you stated that *proper* reasoning requires true premises. It follows, notwithstanding your insistence in your last particular wording, that premises that are used in exercises of moral reasoning are sometimes true.

The point is, you cannot reasonably expect the lever of reason to do any real work unless you push down on the lever with premises that might actually be true. And also, you cannot engage in moral reasoning without moral premises. If you start with premises about what we want, or something like that, that you aren’t engaging in *moral* reasoning at all, but rather some sort of economic or political reasoning.

So, to paraphrase what I said at the very beginning, we either accept that some moral premises are true (we don’t have to agree on which moral premises are true; that’s a debate that can be deferred), or we give up on the whole project of moral reasoning. I can’t see how it could possibly be otherwise.

End quote ((…from “J.Hillclimber” / slightly paraphrased…))

C.S. Lewis’ Abolition Of Man describes “The TAO” which is helpful. Specifically see Appendix: ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE TAO for inroads to moral ontology. Two online sources for the book are:

In addition to the work of moral ontology needed there, there is also the following from E. Feser which brings in overlapping ontic–work to be done:

On Intuitions https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-intuitions.html

Unintuitive Metaphysics https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/08/unintuitive-metaphysics.html

Objective & Subjective https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/objective-and-subjective.html

Context of Discovering vs. Context of Justifying https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/05/context-isnt-everything.html

The Universal Stalemate Strawman/Fallacy:

Moral Ontology is too often shoehorned into a kind of “All-Are-Equivalent” assumption which of course ends in a “Stalemate” and more accurately in Metaphysical Armistice. But of course “A” is not “Non-A” and until/unless one does the WORK well then merely foisting such a “Universal Stalemate” won’t suffice. For example, what about the following and moral ontology?

Pantheism?
Spinoza’s?
Hindu’s?
Islam?
Judaism?
The huge divergence through large swaths of ontological real estate between those juxtaposed to the Christian metaphysic?
The imaginary stopping points of Naturalism & its twin Buddhism?

For how that unfolds see the specific comment https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/overcome-your-cognitive-bias-with-the-50-50-rule/#comment-3994533990 which opens with the following:

Interacting with one’s own ToE (Theory of Everything, Paradigm, Etc.) and/or with the Christian Metaphysic finds that at some “ontological seam somewhere” one must bring all definitions back, and back again to the Epicenter common to all of Christendom: the “…three distinctions in “GOD” as Trinity…” and the “…All Sufficient Self-Outpouring of God…” and of course to one’s own explanatory terminus vis-à-vis one’s own ToE. (…etc. as that comment continues…)

In Closing ~ Recall:

The Blueprint Of All Things Adamic — The Trinitarian Life:

A Few References:

[1] https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/how_to_make_the_case_for_objective_moral_truth/ which is STR’s “How to Make the Case for Objective Moral Truth”

[2] http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/01/18/god-is-necessary-not-necessary-for-morality/ which is titled, “God Is Necessary & Not Necessary For Morality?!”

[3] For helpful segues into the relationship of Reason, Joy, and Morality are in “Saving Wasted Virtues: Heaven and the Ground of Morality” at https://www.moralapologetics.com/wordpress/saving-wasted-virtues-heaven-and-the-ground-of-morality

[4] Slavery In The Christian Metanarrative Is Defined As A Swath Of Privations Many Pains Therefore The Christian Metanarrative Cannot Have A Pro Slavery Verse Much Less A Pro Slavery Any Thing https://metachristianity.com/slavery-in-the-christian-metanarrative-is-defined-as-a-swath-of-privations-many-pains

[5] Deficiency Of Being, Old Testament Violence, The Metaphysic of Privation, And Christ Crucified https://metachristianity.com/old-testament-violence-the-metaphysic-of-privation-and-christ-crucified

—END—

Soul, Substance, And Intellect In A Thomistic Approach by James Chastek at Just Thomism

Soul, Substance, And Intellect In A Thomistic Approach by James Chastek at Just Thomism

The Mode Of Analysis Proper To The Discussion Of The Soul
The Importance Of The Mode Of Analysis
Intellectual Soul
Soul As Substantial Principle

SEE PDF: soul-substance-and-intellect-in-a-thomistic-approach-by-james-chastek-at-just-thomism-copy

Imago Dei and Closure In An Actual Human Nature and Rejecting The Eternally Open Ended

Whence The Imago Dei ?

What is it that carries “that”? Is it Sentience? Reason? The Rational? Animal Consciousness? When we ask what it means to referent all things Adamic, what it means to be Human, and more specifically when we ask what we mean by the Imago Dei, some may make the mistake of stopping in the general zip code of “….Sentient Beings / Sentience / that is the Key…” And is that in fact a mistake if one wishes to have a coherent ontology of “A”||“The” “Human Nature”? And of the Imago Dei? Well yes it is a mistake in both cases and there are few inroads as to why:

Quote:

“…To return, then, to this essay’s beginning: if it is so that this is how the divine image is constituted in us—as the play of God’s glory gathering in the mirror of our nature—and that it is a Trinitarian image, then, in considering how God reveals himself in the economy of creation and salvation, we must ultimately find ourselves far beyond all simple oppositions between “social” and “psychological” Trinitarianism, or between “personalism” and “essentialism,” or—most certainly—between Greeks and Latins. Just as we must resist every temptation toward those twin reductions of the human essence to either simply society or simply ego (which are vapid as abstractions and vicious as ideologies), we must surely avoid reducing our understanding of God to rudimentary images of either confederacy or subjectivity. In our own souls, in their absolute implication within one another of the exterior and the interior, we discover—without grasping—an icon of that infinite transparency of the divine persons within and to one another that is also the infinite depth of each divine person’s distinctness. On the one hand, it seems we must understand this infinite coincidence in God of relation and identity by reflecting upon the unity of the soul’s motion outward toward expression and inward toward thought (however we may wish to employ “social” models, in themselves they can offer only pictures of extrinsic accommodations between monads, or perhaps of the “transparency” of collective identity, but in neither case can such models account for the mysterious complexity and amphibology of personality, or for the reality of the soul’s unity within difference); but, on the other hand, for Gregory no less than for Augustine, the turn inward proves to be, in a still more radical sense, a turn outward: I am an openness whose depth does not belong to me, but to the boundless light that creates me, and whose identity is then given me as other. And as the otherness of God is the soul’s true depth, she can possess no identity apart from the otherness of the neighbor; and both the soul’s otherness from God and the otherness of each soul from every other reflect the mystery of God’s act of “othering” himself within his infinite unity…”

End Quote ((…from David Bentley Hart’s The Hidden and the Manifest…))

(Observation-1) All things Angelic have Rational Capacities & yet the narrative of “Imago Dei” does not land “there” the way it does within the “Adamic” v. God-In-Man || Man-In-God || Incarnation. Notice that this point or this (Observation-1) here in this list stands alone and is enough to push the content of Imago Dei first past Eden ((Man had not eaten of Eternal Life yet)) and second past the current pains of Privation and third ((…take note…)) past Animal/Angelic vectors of Sentience & Being. Still, even though (Observation-1) is enough by itself to settle the matter, we can add more:

(Observation-2) Given (Observation-1) it’s apparent that there is far more with respect to Logos vis-à-vis the Adamic by which the Imago-Dei houses its definition. So, when it comes to that, notice that the fallacies which contradict that tend to cling to life by expunging the Means & Ends of Closure there ((…Being Itself as Reason Itself vis-à-vis Absolute Consciousness as Pure Act and Proportionate Causality and so on…)). The reason they do so is that Non-Theistic vectors in the arena of biology are eternally Open-Ended. Further, as if that were not bad enough, the Grand-Goal-Full-Stop which is defined by our Non-Theist friends as Life & Flourishing in fact ALSO finds no Closure given that such things are at most blind cul-de-sacs in the proverbial “Quantum Foam” ((…that is borrowed from D.B. Hart but one can label “it” whatever one wishes to call it…)). It’s uncanny but we find there in that Grand-Goal of Non-Theists that but for the terminus of Whole and Eternal Life the Grand-Goal itself never can find Ontic Closure.

(Observation-3) “Animals Are Conscious! In Other News, Sky Is Blue, Water Wet...” https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/08/animals-are-conscious-in-other-news-sky.html and also “Aristotle Watches Bland Runner” http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/05/aristotle-watches-blade-runner.html both of which speak to why the question of origins as it relates to Nature and therefore to Moral Realism does not “stop” “at” ANY path in/of “Dirt-To-Man”.

(Observation-4)

(4A) If Non-Theism wants to claim solvency & purchase the ontological real estate of [Rational || Reason] then it must follow through and avoid its inevitable elimination of Reason Itself from Being Itself.

An example of what that looks like:

(4B) A not uncommon Non-Theistic fallacy regarding knowledge which piggy-backs off of earlier knowledge even as it is revised along the way goes something like this: “It Turns Out That “3X” Actually Piggybacked Off Of “X”. Therefore 3X Is Fallacious. Because [Knowledge].

(4C) Therefore we are stuck at: “Calculus piggybacks off of subtraction & addition. Calculus Grew & Was Modified Along The Way. Therefore calculus is fallacious. Because [Knowledge].

(4D) That fallacy of course reduces to absurdity and the reductio ad absurdum there is that [everything] [Piggybacks] off of [something], and, therefore, *IF* one means to tow that line *THEN* one’s own Reason had better Piggyback all the way home — to Reason Itself vis-à-vis Being Itself.

On Non-Theism such a question with respect to the reality of and possibility of “a-Human-Nature” – as in “a” Human Nature – in fact lands, obviously, in that which is necessarily and eternally Open-ended and therefore we cannot find an ontology of Closure. Biology is one slice of that and, in isolation, affirms that same eternally open-ended topography. Then, just as obvious, the metaphysical topography of the Imago Dei avoids that lack of closure found in the pains of the illusory —and instead arrives at a full-on Ontic-Closure as irreducible transcendentals press in.

It’s amazing how some of our Non-Theist friends are so easily impressed by this or that narrow “slice” of reality and find “it” so impressive that they’re readily willing to abandon reality’s far wider swaths which in sum actually mandate reason’s satisfaction over and against the pain of circularity and absurdity.

Overlapping segues with respect to “What Does It Mean To Be Human” vis-à-vis the reality of “a” Human Nature or “an” “Actual Human Nature” and so on begin to press in.

Reason’s proper termini? The Christian metaphysic just is the reply to that question. Aristotle’s famous doctrine that all practical reasoning must ﬁnd a terminus presses in. This is why “Dirt-To-Man” by ANY path in ANY Non-Theistic paradigm suffers the fate of remaining eternally open-ended and as such annihilates realism vis-à-vis morality. That is why intellectually honest Non-Theists affirm the finally or cosmically illusory nature of morality and trade away Moral Realism in exchange for vectors which Begin/End within the illusory shadows of non-being. Whereas, “Dirt-To-Man” by ANY path in the Christian metaphysic necessarily retains the convertibility of the transcendentals and thereby lands in the lap of the proverbial Blueprint of all things Adamic – namely the Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life. Paradigmatically speaking, such is a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in ANY Non-Theism. THE GOLDEN THREAD OF RECIPROCITY is affirmed by natural theology, is perceived by reason, is seen by Non-Theism, but Non-Theism must foist a metaphysical impossibility as irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory.

Reason, appetites, will, and reality converge in the following:

Quote:

Assuming that the meaning of “good” in morality, at least in its most general aspect, is identical to its meaning outside morality, we must appeal to the fulﬁllment of appetite in deﬁning the fundamental test or primary criterion of moral behavior. But that cannot be the whole story, since as argued earlier, reason and will must be essentially involved in the test. So I propose that what we end up with is the following formula:

The fundamental test of morality is whether an act is directed by reason to man’s ultimate end.

Now the ultimate end is just another way of talking about the ultimate appetite or essential tendency (perhaps tendencies/appetites in the plural) the fulﬁlment of which perfects human nature.

To appeal to the ultimate end is, from the ontic point of view, to dismiss the idea that there can be an endless series of appetites, each one such that its fulﬁlment is at the same time the means to the fulﬁlment of the next one in the series, where the next one will be broader, more general or all-encompassing. To countenance the thought is effectively to deny that human beings can ever fulﬁl their natures, that they can ever be just good. Apart from the intolerable hopelessness this would inject into morality, it would involve attributing a kind of inﬁnite nature to a manifestly ﬁnite being, which verges on metaphysical absurdity. From the practical point of view, the appeal to an ultimate end is just to endorse Aristotle’s famous doctrine that all practical reasoning must ﬁnd a terminus.

End quote. (David Oderberg, “All for the Good”)

As alluded to in “Observation-3” earlier we come upon all sorts of segues such as Aristotle and Blade Runner and Animal Consciousness. All of this is why we are happy to grant either Monism or Dualism to our Non-Theist friends as, without the Singular metaphysical wellspring of Love and Necessity neither can help them retain, finally, the convertibility of the necessary transcendentals. Either God is the Necessary Being and the Necessary Being is Love — or else — final lovelessness as Moral Realism finds only those Start/Stop points which begin and end within the illusory shadows of non-being.

That is one of, not all of, the reasons for the “Non” of Non-Theism. The term Non-Theism tells us what the Non-Theist affirms (…ultimate/irreducible reality lands in lovelessness…), whereas, the term Atheist only speaks to what he does not affirm. Non-Theists do not — cannot — hold that love is reality’s ultimate good, that love defines reality’s irreducible contours. Atheists foist that they *do* believe that love is the highest good, however, their Non-Theism unmasks the fact that their attempt there is in fact a reach for a metaphysical impossibility. Whereas, the Christian metaphysic necessarily retains the convertibility of the transcendentals and thereby lands in the lap of the proverbial Blueprint of all things Adamic – namely the Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life.

These all bring us to something we can borrow from the comment https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/intrinsic_human_value_is_the_same_for_all_and_can_never_be_lost/#comment-3501477241 as to “reason’s growing pains” and “the perfection of being“. That comment is longer but its first/opening paragraph begins with the following:

Begin Quote/Excerpt:

On Racism, Persecution, Violence, and Reason

– or perhaps –

Reason’s Growing Pains & The Perfection of Being

Though change is always painful, Reason’s growing pains in, say, the first century as Christ’s moral imperative on the irreducible worth of Every-Man clashed with this or that Roman sentiment (just to name one of several possible examples), are unavoidable (…for some examples, L. Hurtado’s Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, Baylor University Press…). Why? Because in a sense Reason knows her proper role as truth-finder and, so, properly desires to be “right” or “correct” as it were. And that’s good. Proper. As it should be. But of course when the “ontic-metric” is indestructible self-giving (Trinity / Trinitarian processions within *GOD*) it’s an unavoidable fact that within the pains of privation Reason herself as truth-finder is going to face radical shifts. And when that is happening at millions of different “levels” in millions of different people in countless nuances of perception, well one had better hold on tight.

Peeling back several layers:

Quote: “Jesus’ teachings are about as far away from “values” as you can get. If there’s a single statement in the Gospels that sums up Christ’s moral vision, it’s “Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” It’s as outrageous a statement today as it was 2000 years ago………”

End Quote/Excerpt.

All of that carries us into juxtaposition with Absolute Consciousness vis-à-vis the Divine Mind, as in:

1—In all of this we come upon reason and upon love’s timeless reciprocity and upon the moral landscape as the eternal Processions of the Trinitarian Life / Trinity provide us with the following ontology:

2—The irreducibly rational just is seamless with the irreducibly moral even as the moral just is seamless with love’s indestructible self-giving — which is itself seamless with the Divine Mind — which is itself seamless with infinite consciousness – which compels us into a landscape wherein the perfection of reason just is the perfection of consciousness, which just is the perfection of love, which just is the perfection of being.

Non-Theism, however, finds the Inverse of all of that – or more specifically the Absence of any such “rock-bottom” vis-à-vis “reality’s concrete furniture” and “grain” ((so to speak)). The nature of that Eternal Open-Endedness, that final lack of Ontic-Closure, informed Hume with respect to reason’s lack of obligation to prefer any particular goal to any other goal. Fixed-Biological Ends is Non-Theism’s anathema — whereas the convertibility of the necessary transcendentals and those transcendentals themselves in fact begin and end the Christian metaphysic.

This delineates a distinction between a “World View” ((on the one hand)) and a normative moral construct ((on the other hand)). The former speaks to fixed objective vectors, akin to the proverbial “T.O.E.”, the latter speaks to temporary subjective vectors, which are in turn eternally open ended.

That is why all attempts to couple “Secular Humanism” to “There Are No Irreducible Moral Facts” ultimately fail to retain solvency. The disconnect between secular humanism and a universe void of intrinsic and irreducible moral facts is also looked at in the following link — https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/racial_equality_makes_sense_in_the_christian_story/#comment-3563810576

That link explores the fact that if there is no such thing as “X” (value) (intrinsic ontologically irreducible value) then how is it that one claims to find “X” (value) (intrinsic ontologically irreducible value) in one’s own feeling/preference? Reason’s obligation as Christendom’s long history notes, and even as Hume notes, is found between reason and reality. Reason as truth finder becomes non-reason or un-reasonable with respect to X if and when she chases after something other than the irreducibly true nature of X, whatever X may be.

Quoting Non-Theists On Non-Theism:

A— “The lack of an ultimate objective scientific grounding for morality can be worrisome. It implies that people with whom we have moral disagreements—whether it’s […insert any evil here…] or schoolyard bullies who beat up smaller children—aren’t wrong in the same sense that it’s wrong to deny Darwinian evolution or the expansion of the universe….But that’s how the world is.” (S. Carroll)

B— “Hume was right. We have no objective guidance on how to distinguish right from wrong: not from God, not from nature, not from the pure force of reason itself….Morality exists only insofar as we make it so, and other people might not pass judgments in the same way we do.” (S. Carroll)

C— “– Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. -Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. -Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than for the latter.” (Hume, Treatise of Human Nature 2.3.3.6)

D— Non-Objective once again — “There’s no rational foundation for morality… It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective…. but… our psychology will get us by….” (M. Ruse)

E— Non-Objective once again — “Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down. Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like: “Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all bull___t, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for me.” The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer. So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective. “Why should I be good? Why should you be good? Because that is what morality demands of us. It is bigger than the both of us. It is laid on us and we must accept it, just like we must accept that 2 + 2 = 4.” I am not saying that we always are moral, but that we always know that we should be moral. Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what’s to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense.” (M. Ruse)

F— “Pressing on through Alex Rosenberg’s The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, we come to Rosenberg’s treatment of morality. Followed out consistently, Rosenberg says, scientism entails nihilism. As Rosenberg is keen to emphasize, this is not the same as moral relativism or moral skepticism. It is not the claim that moral truth is relative, or that it is real but unknowable. Nor is it the claim that everything is morally permitted. It is a far more radical and disturbing claim than any of these views. Nihilism, as Rosenberg understands it, is the view that there is no such thing as being “morally permitted” or “morally prohibited” in the first place. For there is, given Rosenberg’s scientism, no intrinsic value in the world of the sort that is necessary for morality to be intelligible. Morality — not just commonsense or traditional morality, not just religious morality, but all morality, morality as such, including any purported secular, liberal, permissive morality — is therefore an illusion.” (…from https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/02/reading-rosenberg-part-vii.html etc…)

End Quotes.

The solvency and bookkeeping of moral obligation is explored in “Love, Reason, Reality, And The Golden Thread Of Reciprocity” at https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/ and another “Lens” is the following: Slavery In The Christian Metanarrative Is Defined As A Swath Of Privations Many Pains Therefore The Christian Metanarrative Cannot Have A Pro Slavery Verse Much Less A Pro Slavery Any Thing | Meta Christianity

Immaterial, Material, Covalent Bonds, & The Imago Dei

The Immaterial (whatever that is) is not, and cannot be, made up of, and therefore reduced to, covalent bonds vis-à-vis Material (whatever that is). The Non-Theist’s perseveration with/upon Biology-Full-Stop when discussing the Imago Dei is entirely misguided.

Of course, perhaps God-Breathes means God has lungs. Perhaps God walking in the cool of the morning denotes God having legs. And, so, then, it’s legs and lungs and covalent bonds and…. and…. and…

Please.

It’s a curious thing to observe A. the Non-Theist carefully set up all of his Metrics and Calibrations there in his Physicalism (or whatever) and then B. go about trying to cram the Christian’s entire metaphysical landscape into those Metrics and Calibrations only to then C. opine about the “difficulty” he is having “lining up” their respective “surfaces“.

The proverbial Dog and Pony Show.

The Corporeal’s ontological history of becoming and the Imago Dei’s ontological history of becoming are not wholly interchangeable given the sorts of ontic real estate each respectively traverses.

→There’s a reason the Corporeal is found lifeless outside of Eden. Made of the ground.

→There’s a reason the Breath of God births Life, the Imago Dei. Still outside of Eden.

→There’s a reason it is only then that the Adamic and the Edenic converge.

→There’s a reason Eden cannot remain, is not God’s Ideal, and has two *outward* facing Doors/Trees, each necessitating a radical “ontic-change” ((…that is explored somewhat in https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/free_will_makes_sense_in_the_christian_story/#comment-3538979858 which opens with “The Adamic, The Edenic, Free Will, God’s Will, God’s Decree, Incarnation, and Possible Worlds”…)).

Any argument against the Christian Metaphysic which presents any path from “Dirt-To-Man” is fine should such arguments wish to include such paths given that the Christian Metaphysic from the get-go affirms such a path — but — to Start/Stop with “Dirt” sums to an argument which fails to include the Whole of the Christian Metaphysic and/or which simply begs the question with respect to Physicalism ((…Covalent-Bonds-Full-Stop and Etc…)) and just isn’t a sophisticated argument — that is to say that it does not actually address the actual premises of the actual Christian Metaphysic.

When we speak of Truth “qua Truth“, as they say, we don’t referent such illusory trades and equivocations. In the Christian metanarrative we find the Trinitarian metaphysic and, therein, love’s timeless Self-Giving and irreducible Diffusiveness of the Ontic Self with respect to …being itself… and — thereby – The Always and The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above – namely “Love & Necessity” as an ontic *singularity*. To be Truly Human is to be, or to become, by whatever means, Fully Human. Non-Theism has no such means, no such Closure. It is that pesky and weighty bit about “Fully” wherein all lines converge or else diverge.

[Brief Digression — There is talk of such Truly/Fully when we begin to speak of Christ. That, however, brings in all sorts of other topics, as alluded to in a. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/does_god_care_about_our_pain_and_suffering_video/#comment-3540674185 (and its links) and also in b. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/does_god_care_about_our_pain_and_suffering_video/#comment-3540718163 (and its links)… End brief digression.]

Wheedling & Huckstering & Never Mind The Ultimate

The following is a quote from a Christian in dialogue with one of our Non-Theist friends who seems unable to avoid equivocation and conflation with respect to reality’s concrete furniture and moral realism. The Christian reminds his Non-Theist friend that as Christians we understand, as relative newcomers may not, that the nihilist dance routine and the refrain that it is better to huckster the crowd than to pester about the ultimate, is in fact this particular Non-Theist’s operating premise.

Begin Quote:

You stated this, “Isn’t the problem of justification always going to be a shell game? You can always find where I’m dropping a premise, taking something for granted without arguing for it …”

I’m not accusing you of “dropping a premise” or taking something for granted without arguing for it. I am accusing you of something worse: deliberate intellectual fraud.

I am accusing you of persistently deploying universal terms which have been rendered entirely problematical on your own account, as if they still meant what they once did in a moral universe populated by natural kinds and furnished with teleologically derived normative standards.

It’s just all too precious.

Now, I understand, as the relative newcomers here might not always, that the nihilist dance routine, and the refrain that it is better to huckster the crowd than to pester about the ultimate, is in fact your operating premise. But, and it’s a big ugly butt as they say, if you took your own claim of epistemic humility seriously, you would keep this truth about your method at the forefront, and refuse to engage in pseudo-arguments which are in principle incapable of any kind of resolution because of the built-in problems of equivocation; problems of which you are perfectly aware, and have in fact placed there.

Thus, when you launch off on these rhetorical diversions, one can only conclude that these speech acts of yours are base and cynical attempts to simply exhaust those who don’t quite get the meta-narrative which lies behind and informs and shapes your surface efforts.

What you need to do, in order to be “truly authentic”, is to admit to yourself and to everyone else, why that kind of consistent honesty is so dangerous to those taking your stance; and why, unless relentlessly pressed, you seek to avoid it.

By the way, and for what it is worth; I don’t wish to leave the impression that I imagine there is some functional equivalence between the concept of a tautology and a spandrel. I was – probably obviously – implying the prosaic image of a cluster of tautological statements giving an appearance of a meaningful structure or system when stacked and leaned up against each other at various angles … the resultant spaces providing the necessary illusion for pattern projecting subjects to go on to … etc …

You know, and in adverting to the paragraph two above, there is in fact, something profoundly “metaphysical” in that diversionary, dissembling tactic. Something, as you have I believe yourself admitted as anti-logocentric. Something which at the deepest and most profound level takes deceit, and manipulation, to be at the very heart of a “life strategy”

It almost reminds me of … well … the paradigm or myth escapes me at the moment. But I am sure it will come to me eventually…….

….. [ ] …….You replied, “This feels too all-or-nothing to me …”

You will be glad to know that you need not feel that way, since that is not what I was suggesting.

I was stating outright that given your epistemological bracketing of and placing aside systems of truth in favor of a kind of “pragmatism”, and given your adoption of a rotarian program of arguing rhetorically, rather than logically and categorically, you should try admitting this upfront, rather than having it squeezed out of you.

It would be an interesting experiment to observe what would happen if you were to say to someone: “Now, what I am saying is not to be taken as universally true, or even true in your case, but I wish you to accede to my request because it makes me feel better and serves my interests even if it does not, yours.”

It would be akin to the Churchlands whom I mentioned earlier, admitting upfront that they had no minds but that they nonetheless wished (insofar as there was a “they” that could “wish“) had registered an impulse which caused them to try and modify your brain state and thus affect your behavior. Not that there was, as they would be the first to stipulate, any real “purpose” to it.

I am challenging you to give up using traditional moral language in a deceptive and purely rhetorical manner and to adopt a more transparent and less time-wasting mode of interfacing: or, to at least always admit upfront that what you are doing is wheedling, rather than arguing in any traditional sense. I’m challenging you to drop the camouflage as a matter of principle, and not wait for it to be forcibly stripped from you.

I’m challenging you to admit that your “arguments” are not arguments in any reals sense but attempts to produce emotional effects in others, and thereby modify their behaviors in a way which you find reinforcing.

How far do you think you might be able to get in this project in that open manner and without the camouflaging rags of a habit you have long thrown off?

And if you cannot get by in that manner, what does it say regarding your essential life project, and the role of deception in it?

You mention the post-moderns. Perhaps you would like to share some of the broader implications of an explicitly anti-logocentric anthropology.

End quote (by DNW)

Recall: The solvency and bookkeeping of moral obligation is explored in “Love, Reason, Reality, And The Golden Thread Of Reciprocity” at https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/

Moral Obligation & The Why Of Morality

What is Reason obligated to given her proper role as Truth-Finder? Is love reality’s elemental rock-bottom? Reality’s highest ethic? Those questions focus on the convertibility of all necessary transcendentals and ask us if the rational is in fact seamless with the moral. Where? Well there at the end of all of our possible “ontological-voyages” ((so to speak)).

Does an enlightened society believe any one part of the syntax in the sentence “love is the highest ethic”? Or does an enlightened society instead love something other than irreducible veracity and thereby truly believe in, say, something akin to a kind of equivocation or perhaps a kind of Noble Lie or perhaps a kind of “cosmically-induced autohypnosis” baked into us through this or that genetic/epigenetic meme? What is Reason obligated to given her proper role as Truth-Finder? Hume Stands Affirmed. Reason as truth finder has every (justified) prerogative to chase after reality as reality. We find that Reason finds no terminus of closure – and reason knows it, and the fact that she knows that is where a key problem is found for the Non-Theistic paradigm given that she (…reason…) has an uncanny appetite for facts – as in Moral Facts in this case.

Finding Ontological Distinctions

Pantheism & Atheism share in their mutual inability to draw full-on Ontic Distinctions.

First Let’s Look At Pantheism: Within Pantheism all vectors converge such that we find the syntax of All-Is-God-Full-Stop. We find there that regardless of which “I” or “Self” or “I-Am” actually “is”, we cannot find any Ontic Distinctions between “that” and “everything else”.

Second Let’s Look at Atheism/Non-Theism: Whereas within any Non-Theistic paradigm and therein any Atheistic vector we find within all explanatory termini the necessary conservation of “No-I-Am”. That is to say we find Metaphysical Naturalism’s Necessary Conservation of [No-Irreducible-I-AM] — or simply [No-I-AM] full stop. And the reason is obvious: any such Explanatory Terminus ipso facto lands in Theism. Therefore we find within all Natures – fundamental and otherwise – that same Ontic Terminus and that same Necessary Conservation of [NO-I-AM]. Because of that Necessary Conservation from Top-Down and from Bottom-Up, we find that regardless of which “I” or “Self” or “I-Am” actually “is”, we cannot find “it” in any Ontic Distinction between “that” and “everything else” such that “Mind” and “Non-Mind” ultimately Begin/End in the same Necessary Conservation and, therein, we do NOT end up with Pantheism’s All-Is-God-Full-Stop but, instead, we end up with Atheism’s/Non-Theism’s All-Is-Full-Stop.

The Results:

Each and every “i-am” / “I-Am” / “i-think” / I-Think” / “i-reason” / I-Reason” / “Self” / “Mind” and so on ad infinitum finds its Fountainhead and its Terminus in Non-Distinction such that Pantheism’s All-Is-God-Full-Stop or else Non-Theism’s All-Just-Is-Full-Stop. That is discussed further in “The Trajectory of All Ontological Arrows” at https://metachristianity.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-trajectory-of-all-ontological-arrows-1.html

David B. Hart describes that problem as “being itself” found to be constituted of a “flat plane” upon which we find only “…eternally colliding ontological equals…” Notice: — there are no and in fact cannot be any Facts which are found Outside of that eternal Metaphysical Armistice and when we arrive “there” we discover that, having no ontic distinctions to speak of, we are not, and cannot become, speaking beings/spirits. Not actually. We are forced in that Metaphysical Armistice to conceive of “being” as….

Quote:

“……being as a plain upon which forces of meaning and meaninglessness converge in endless war; according to either, being is known in its oppositions, and oppositions must be overcome or affirmed, but in either case as violence: amid the strife of images and the flow of simulacra, shining form appears always only as an abeyance of death, fragile before the convulsions of chaos, and engulfed in fate. There is a specular infinity in mutually defining opposites: Parmenides and Heracleitos gaze into one another’s eyes, and the story of being springs up between them; just as two mirrors set before one another their depths indefinitely, repeating an opposition that recedes forever along an illusory corridor without end, seeming to span all horizons and contain all things, the dialectic of Apollo and Dionysus oscillates without resolution between endless repetitions of the same emptiness, the same play of reflection and inversion. But the true infinite lies outside and all about this enclosed universe of strife and shadows; it shows itself as beauty and as light: not totality, nor again chaos, but the music of a triune God. Nietzsche prophesied correctly: what now always lies ahead is a choice between Dionysus (who is also Apollo) and the Crucified: between, that is, the tragic splendor of totality and the inexhaustible beauty of an infinite love.”

End quote ((…by David Bentley Hart. The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth…))

Again: The solvency and bookkeeping of moral obligation is explored in “Love, Reason, Reality, And The Golden Thread Of Reciprocity” at https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/

What About Personhood, Abortion, Ensoulment, & Metrics?

What About “Why Is Murder Wrong?”

First, a few excerpts from a “Twitter” thread/discussion:

[A] “Simple case for life: 1. Humans get human rights. 2. Human rights include the right to life. 3. The unborn are human. 4. Therefore, the unborn have the right to life.” ((Sean McDowell // @Sean_McDowell))

[B] Possible Challenge/Clarification: “1. Humans get human rights. 2. Human rights include the right to be free. 3. Bad mistakes (Or opposable thumbs, goatees, & bad habits are human. 4. Therefore, bad mistakes, thumbs, goatees and bad habits have the right to be free. In 1 “Human” is a noun, in 3 “Human” is an adjective. Confusion.” ((@TomVMorris))

[C] Draw a distinction: “So change (3) to (3*): the unborn is a human. – a member of the species “human.” ((@skymcm))

[D] Back to @TomVMorris, “No short argument does the job. The epistemic status of the ultimate metaphysical claim prevents that. What is human? A human person. An embodied soul. When does embodiment happen? No quick answer. I can’t change that. [Further, yes, but] you have to convince your interlocutor of the truth of what’s packed in there and you get back to the endless debate on ensoulment and its time, not the quick argument portrayed. One reason I don’t engage on the issue is the perceived futility of doing so. Some feel sure the soul indwells the body from first conception, others feel equally sure you can never be sure of this precise metaphysical claim. Socrates thought it was wrong to be sure of too much.”

Secondly, an observation:

Neither [1] the Christian’s Precise Point of Ensoulment nor [2] the Non-Theist’s Arbitrary-Personhood-Determination are needed in order for Logic do find her necessary If/Then break-point. There is a Logical Chain of Continuity vis-à-vis the Ontology of the Imago Dei and although we as Causal Agents choose the mutable and the contingent amid various sets of possibilities/counterfactuals, we cannot ((not even in principle)) choose “Let The Imago Dei Be”.

The Value we look for here is not World-Contingent but streams from the Ontology of Imago Dei both from Divine Nature and Divine Decree and so “To-Be-Human” is to “House” that which is “The Value of the Beloved” — and such streams from Logos.

Whereas, our various choices within Privation such as Mustache vs. Ford Mustang vs. Bad-Choices vs. Etc. are chosen by the Man somewhere within the Ocean we call “The Perfection/Perfecting Of Being”.

Hence the Logical Chain of Continuity vis-à-vis housing “The Value of the Beloved” *necessarily* *exists* ((…Divine Nature | Divine Decree | Ontic-Hard-Stop | Etc….)) vis-à-vis the ontology of the Imago Dei but it does *NOT* “necessarily* *include” specifically This-Choice and/or specifically That-Choice with respect to the me and you and us as the Casual Agent.

Earlier it was stated that neither [1] the Christian’s Precise Point of Ensoulment nor [2] the Non-Theist’s Arbitrary-Personhood-Determination are needed in order for Logic do find her necessary If/Then breakpoint. A clear path to that is found in the comment section of “The Moral Pro-life Case” which is located at https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/11/the-moral-pro-life-case.html

It has 2 or 3 pages of comments in the comment section, which has a helpful conclusion. However, to decompress those pages just focus on the conversation between three commentators, namely (1) WisdomLover, (2) Brad B, and (3) Ben. Near the end the following excerpt from the comment section alludes to the nature of the discussion:

“Good work, WL. The development of this argument under your care is very helpful and I think it’s also simple enough to be useful to anyone arguing a pro-life position who thinks they have to deal with some arbitrary personhood determination — they don’t. I would hope to see it developed further or strengthened if possible by people like those here at STR or Francis Beckwith etc…so that it could be made more readily known to the pro-life community.”

From a different part of that same discussion the following quote is given to again allude to the nature of the discussion:

Begin Quote:

Ben asks this: “How do you get from points #1-5 to concluding that “the capacity for future autonomous activity is then the criterion of the possession of a right to life”?

Here’s the closest Ben comes to a criterion of personhood. He repeated it a couple of times in his early posts. Here’s the first rendition: “I’m hesitant to say it is a human being, though, because typically by that term we mean a human which has been born, and/or which possesses a mind.”

Like the other paragraphs from which I gleaned what I called “Bens List”, this is two parts red herring and one part mistake. Let’s look deeper.

I guess for starters, we should note that it is not the case that this is what we mean. If it were what **we mean, then **we wouldn’t be arguing.

Also, being born or unborn is a red herring. Here’s a goofy thought experiment to illustrate the point:

Suppose that in addition to humans, there were two other intelligent species on the planet. One, the Roomans, are marsupials. Rooman joeys are born very quickly after fertilization occurs. When born, the joey looks and acts about like a grub or maggot and latches itself onto its mother’s teat in her pouch where it continues to develop for a good long time, eventually poking its head out of the pouch at intervals to say “Hi” and then disappearing again.

The second non-human species are called the Titans, after the Greek legends. Like the Titans of legend, titan children stay in their mother’s womb (though not because their father refuses to let them out) until they are fully formed, able to speak, and make moral choices. Some titan fetuses even enter into contracts in utero.

Given current moral sensibilities, there would be significant debate about whether newborn rooman joeys have a right to life, and no debate at all about whether late stage titan fetuses have rights. Of course, pro-life advocates would support the right to life for all at all stages of development. But clearly, the mere fact of birth would have no bearing in any case.

So it is the possession of a mind that seems crucial here. But there are plenty of creatures that have minds, but that have no right to life (or to anything else for that matter). The common housefly comes to mind. Chickens also.

So it is not just the presence of a mind that matters either.

Now, at this point, we could note that there is nothing left to Ben’s criteria. But let us be charitable. Let us suppose that Ben was thinking of a creature with a certain *kind* of mind. One that has a certain degree of complexity such that it can have moral rights. I had glossed that earlier by saying that we are looking for *autonomy*. I see no reason not to continue with that gloss.

But the problem, as noted in earlier posts, is that the mere **presence of autonomy isn’t enough. Anesthetized people do not exhibit autonomy, but it is still murder to deliberately kill them without cause.

So what is it that allows us to say of unconscious people that, although we have no evidence of current autonomy, they still count.

Now, if the heavens opened and the voice of God spoke telling me that a 2×4 is autonomous, I’d think twice about laying into it with my Skill-saw. But barring a divine revelation, there are really only two candidates I can use to tell me that a mind is present even though the being in question is unconscious and exhibits no signs of autonomy:

#1 They used to exhibit autonomy in the past
#2 Under normal conditions, it is highly likely that they will exhibit autonomy in the future.

But item #1 won’t work as a criterion for the simple reason that is true of corpses.

And item #1, even if it was of any value (which it isn’t) certainly could not work by itself. You’d still need item #2. The reason is that item #1 does not apply to one-year olds (for example). But no one wants to say that one-year olds have no right to life. If they don’t have a right to life, then there is no such thing as a right to anything.

So it must be item #2 that allows us to extend the rights of autonomy to the unconscious. And it is also quite obvious that that is how we extend the rights of autonomy to one-year olds as well.

But item #2, as already noted, applies to unborn humans at all stages of development, but not to corpses, ununited sperm-egg pairs, still living detached human body parts, chickens and so on.

End Quote.

Overlapping is the topic of Ensoulment ~ First, see the earlier comments here on Ensoulment and, then, also there is Ensoulment via Creationism vs. Ensoulment via Traducianism and also Twinning, Chimeras, Totipotency, Chimerism, Conception (Etc.) which are looked at in the following:

Lastly — Overlapping Segues:

“What Is A Soul?” at https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-soul.html

“What Are You Doing After The Funeral?” ((…a look at Survivalism & Corruptionism…)) at https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/03/so-what-are-you-doing-after-your-funeral.html

“Atheists, Muslim, Christians, Hindus, Etc. All Emote, Perceive, And Intuit Within The Same Irreducible Transcendentals” is at https://metachristianity.com/atheists-muslim-christians-hindus-etc-all-emote-perceive-and-intuit-within-the-same-irreducible-transcendentals/

That carries us into Intuition and Un-Intuition and Metaphysics:

“On Intuitions” by E. Feser at https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-intuitions.html

“Unintuitive Metaphysics” by E. Feser at https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/08/unintuitive-metaphysics.html

David Oderberg On The Embryo:

The Metaphysic Status of the Embryo — Part 1 of 2 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiecEZLQU9ubVphdU0/edit?pli=1
The Metaphysic Status of the Embryo — Part 2 of 2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiecmdYN2lRQm8zdFE/view?pli=1

—END—

The Fallacy Of 30K Denominations And The Reality Of Christendom’s Unity Through The Irreducible Epicenter Of Shared Ontological Real Estate Across All Of Christendom’s Branches

Christianity’s singular metaphysical landscape houses the irreducible Epicenter of Three distinctions in GOD as Trinity and of the All Sufficient Self-Outpouring of God.

That singular “…wellspring of all ontological possibility…“ provides not only Christendom’s Irreducible Epicenter but also such provides Mankind with two unbreakable pillars – namely [1] What God is like in God as per the irreducibly relational vis-à-vis Being in totum as Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life and also [2] What it is that both keeps us in and/or gets us back into relation with God (…nothing less than All Sufficiency, God, His Self-Outpouring, etc…). It is also uncanny that those pillars hold through all possible worlds – both with and without Privation. Once again we mean specifically the irreducible Epicenter of Three distinctions in GOD as Trinity and of the All Sufficient Self-Outpouring of God. We need never waste time mistaking discussions concerning the Aqueducts for discussions concerning the Living Water.

A Complaint About 40K Denominations: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/bible_differences_arent_contradictions_video/#comment-3459072995T

Two Brief Replies — as per both https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/bible_differences_arent_contradictions_video/#comment-3460444067 — and as per https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/bible_differences_arent_contradictions_video/#comment-3462317522

A Followup Complaint:

“…..You accuse me of confusing the shell/core of Christianity, as though there are many differences at the shell level of Christianity but that there is consistency at the core level….”

Brief Reply:

Note that all of those lead into a series of links from the following thread which will be listed a few paragraphs down: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/our_existence_as_relational_beings_points_to_the_trinity

Before going on to look at the fallacy of 30K and 40K denominations, a brief pause to add the following context:

“If you are a scientist and you believe that equips you to comment on how to read the Bible, then don’t complain when theologians comment on the adequacy of various scientific theories. In short, if you don’t know your own lane, don’t gripe when others drive into yours.” (R. Rauser)

Critic’s Reply: “….there’s an asymmetry here that you apparently don’t comprehend — namely 1) scripture being a divine message to everyone including drunkards and prostitutes by the omniscient creator of the universe with the intent to be understood means that _everyone_ is qualified to comment — and also 2) faith heads commenting on science is still wrong regardless of whether or not some scientists comment on the bible rightly or wrongly….”

The problem with the Critic’s reply is that he is excluding the message of Body & Reciprocity & one-another. So-and-so not speaking Hebrew is fine because we have a Body and in the Body there are those who do, and so on. The Critic has a half-narrative. It’s a valid half. But just a half. The key word is reciprocity. That leads us ((then)) to the wider body of Christendom’s general Metaphysic at the core and its various spokes radiating outward from that Epicenter. All of which ((obviously)) frees us of Non-Theism’s forced Brute Facts, this/that forced Reductio Ad Absurdum, its horrific claim that slavery is merely subjectively wrong and ontologically on par with What-Ever, and the incoherent, magical thinking driving the denial of one’s own Mind/Self.

((…both the comment at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/bible_differences_arent_contradictions_video/#comment-3461862398 — and also at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/bible_differences_arent_contradictions_video/#comment-3462471853 are reworked in the following to update hyperlinks which expired due to STR’s format change…))

There is an outer shell of differences surrounding the inner core common to Christendom’s Unity Through The Irreducible Epicenter Of Shared Ontological Real Estate Across All Of Christendom’s Branches — as per concepts from https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/is_god_unfair_stand_to_reason_94/#comment-3472358363 and as per a few concepts from https://randalrauser.com/2019/12/five-reasons-that-christians-unnecessarily-experience-a-crisis-of-faith/#comment-4736707296

It’s interesting, the whole Shell/Core reality. It seems to befuddle our Non-Theist friends. Why? They point to that Epicenter/Radiating-Spokes “as-if” it’s a problem, but really it just brings attention to yet another real-word example of the predictive reliability of Scripture regarding the Church, Knowledge, Fragmentation/Privation, and convergence over time. Apparently the Critic thinks that the Shell/Core reality or the shell around the core in fact *contradicts* the Christian metaphysic vis-à-vis the nature of Mankind’s knowledge of God and the nature of discovery within Privation and temporal becoming. Given that belief on their part it is apparent that they need to read the whole Bible, and not just parts of it.

The “Core” or “Epicenter” of Christendom is not only common to all of Christendom ((…as per Shared ontological real estate across all branches https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/is_god_unfair_stand_to_reason_94/#comment-3472358363 …)) but it is also unique on planet Earth. I say that knowing that our Non-Theist friends like to equate all claims of all religions – an obviously uninformed move, as discussed at https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/overcome-your-cognitive-bias-with-the-50-50-rule/#comment-3994533990 which looks closer at the “Universal Stalemate Straw Man”.

Our Non-Theist friends are of course free to explain for us how the Shell/Core reality is supposed to be a “problem” for the Christian metaphysic with respect to that reality (…the Shell/Core reality…) with respect to the nature of Mankind’s Knowledge of God and the nature of discovery within Privation and temporal becoming ((…perhaps slices of https://randalrauser.com/2019/12/five-reasons-that-christians-unnecessarily-experience-a-crisis-of-faith/#comment-4736707296 …)).

“But There’s 40K Denominations!”

There’s a lively discussion which is in part related to this supposed “problem” for Christendom. So, from that thread, there is List [A] in contradiction with List [B]. It’s a bit tedious, but, given that it’s such a common issue that is raised, though tedious the 2 lists provide at least a “sort-of-helpful” reference of some basic and general complaints/replies that may in some basic or general way be of some utility elsewhere. And, so, “40K Brands!?!“ and List-A juxtaposed to List-B, as in:

List-[A] Comments which imply that there are large swaths of Christendom, perhaps 10’s if not 100’s of millions of Christians, who or which are Unitarian / Binitarian / Polytheistic and so on, and, also, comments which opine about ‘40,000 different denominations….!!’ as if all of that fussing is somehow true and/or somehow equivalent to gaining traction against the reality of the Core / Epicenter which unites Christendom worldwide both in essence and in premise. Meanwhile, List-[B] argues AGAINST that fallacy.

[….Note the initial version was at ((1)) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/bible_differences_arent_contradictions_video/#comment-3462471853 and the lists are from comments out of ((2)) https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/our_existence_as_relational_beings_points_to_the_trinity/ …..]

Here’s List-A Arguing FOR the Fallacy of 40K Brands:

Here’s List [B] Arguing AGAINST That Fallacy:

And Then In General:

And Then A Reminder:

“People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed.” Of what? Well….. of “Mere Christianity”

“….really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks and cranks who do that. As Dr Johnson said, ‘People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed.’ The real job of every moral teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple principles which we are all so anxious not to see; like bringing a horse back and back to the fence it has refused to jump or bringing a child back and back to the bit in its lesson that it wants to shirk…..” ((…from C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity / as per the initial comment from that thread at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/bible_differences_arent_contradictions_video/#comment-3461926660…))

“What about Unitarians & Mormons? Are they Christians?”

First of all, see the above content as much of that content addresses that specific question. However, there is another “layer” which was not actually unpacked in the earlier links/content and so it is worth looking at here.

The reply in general is the same as it is with ANY person, even professing Christians or Atheists and so on. First of all, broadly speaking there is no person who can make claims on the status of the soul of another human being. Professing Christians may be leaning on something quite different than the All-Sufficient even as this or that Non-Christian is Who-Knows-Where today, right now. Second of all, there is only one logically possible Means by which ANY Contingent Being can find Wholeness of “being itself” vis-a-vis the perfection of one’s own being. “What does it mean to be Christian” just is that Leaning-Upon that which is nothing less than All-Sufficient RATHER than on ANY Contingent Terminus as the irreducible source of “one’s very being and fullness thereof”.

However, Unitarians and Mormons appeal to Jesus-The-Contingent-Being as that which is Poured-Out, as that which Fills, and so on. But of course that is the same metaphysical category of terminus as in ANY “paradigmatic conclusion” which plans to bring about the Maximization of Being in/by/through ANY Contingent ANY-thing as the source which itself is in fact not the Aqueduct but is in fact the Water as What-Pours-Into the Hollow/Vacuum of “one’s very being and lack-thereof.”

So let’s see how that appeal unfolds:

Step 1: Evil is not a positive substance but is instead a deficiency of substance ((…deficiency of Being, deficiency of Good, of Life, of Mind, and so on…)) or we can say that Evil is a Hollow or Vacuum that is void of said Substance. That is what the Christian Metaphysic means when it speaks of The-Good and then in turn speaks of “The-Good-Minus-Something” which is to say “Evil is Good’s Privation” or “Evil is a privation of Good”.

When we speak of any such Deficiency, well then what can Pour Out to fill that Hollow/Vacuum? Before we unpack that let’s recall the “Principle of Proportionate Causality” from https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-without-second.html

“To be a tree or to be a stone is merely to participate in “treeness” or “stoneness.” But to *be *at *all – which is the characteristic effect of an act of creation out of nothing – is to participate in *Being *Itself. Now the principle of proportionate causality tells us that whatever is in an effect must be in some way in its cause. And only that which *just *is *Being *Itself can, in this case, be a cause proportionate to the effect, since the effect is not merely to be a tree or to be a stone, but *be *at *all….”

Step 2: The Christian Metaphysic posits a cure for Evil — for Privation. By force of Identity/Logic the cure is nothing less than the *only* *logically* *possible* *Means* by which the aforementioned Hollow or Vacuum or Deficiency could be brought to Non-Existence. And what is that Only-Logically-Possible-Means? Well once we know what is MISSING we then know what must be POURED OUT & INTO said Hollow/Vacuum/Deficiency. If we say that it is “X” which is missing in said Void/Hollow then we find that ONLY that which “Is Itself X” ((so to speak)) or we can say ONLY that which is “X Itself” ((so to speak)) can Pour-Out // Pour-Into and so thereby Fill-Up // End // bring to Non-Entity that Void/Hollow which is itself the Deficiency of “X” ((so to speak)).

Step 3: Logical Necessity & Identity press in through all possible worlds with respect to Evil as we find that said “X” amid said Deficiency by force of Identity/Logic *cannot* *be* anything less than Being Itself poured out — or Goodness Itself poured out — or Life Itself poured out — or All-Sufficiency Himself poured out — or God — vis-à-vis His Own Self-Outpouring — to the bitter Ends of Time & Physicality vis-a-vis all things Adamic — and what that “looks like” is what we see when we turn our gaze upon Christ.

Step 4: Regardless of our explanatory terminus, in the end we have only two options which we can “lean-upon” / “hope-in” with respect to Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3 and those two options are:

((1)) THE Necessary Being ~ All-Sufficiency (…wherein we shout “Thy/Thine/Other”…).

((2)) ANY Contingent Being ~ In-Sufficiency (…wherein we shout “I/Mine/Self”…).

In the end, given the nature of *identity, *love, *necessity, *contingency, and *sufficiency one of those two in fact must descend, must pour out, must give-away, must be debased while the other one of those two must ascend, must be infilled, must drink, must be raised. One must push one’s terms through to their necessary terminus and, therein, we arrive, if we don’t stop too soon, here:

Step 5: Is it rational to be bothered by the fact that contingent beings are in fact contingent and therefore totally (as in *ontic) and eternally (as in *ontic) in need of “That Which Exists Necessarily” / The Necessary Being?

Given what is in fact referenced by Necessary/Being, the option of something akin to, say, [Many Necessary Beings] is a logical impossibility (and a metaphysical absurdity), and, also, the option of something akin to, say, [the contingent being *void* *of* *need*] is a logical impossibility (and a metaphysical absurdity). That is all rather basic, elementary, irreducible, and so on.

Is that particular logical necessity or *fact* somehow *immoral*? Is “reality” immoral because of a logical necessity? Is “reality” immoral because I am not the Necessary Being? Either I am the Necessary Being – God – or else Reality is somehow Immoral? ((..and Etc…))

Recall we are discussing the question of “Is there really only One Way?” But don’t stop unpacking “there”, not yet — let’s keep going:

Step 6: When thought through to the end we find a necessary and unavoidable “Total Insufficiency” with respect to our proverbial “ontic-status” and that seems to bother some of us — but let’s keep going — and so the question is why on earth such a basic feature of reality would bother ANYONE. In fact, some *even* seem to count the fact of that ontic-status of ANY Contingent Any-thing as an Immoral Claim for “…God / Being Itself…” to actually declare to a world He in fact loves.

As bad ((silly)) as that is to fault any such Speech, let’s keep going:

Step 7: Logic forces us to ask: Should God Lie instead? Is the term *need* somehow wrong or immoral? Is the syntax of “One-Logically-Possible-Terminus” somehow wrong or immoral?

*IF* we mean to find wholeness, sufficiency, our true good, our final felicity, the perfection of being ((& so on)) *THEN* all vectors converge as Identity & Logic reveal the nature of what we mean by Necessary Being / Contingent Being, & forces our hand ((else Reductio)).

Step 8: TWO questions press in: ((1)) …from where does the Contingent Being find Eternal Life vis-a-vis one’s own **being **itself…? ((2)) …how can the Contingent Being find Eternal Life BUT FOR the Necessary Being…?

Our hand is forced to conclude that it is All-Sufficiency Himself, and nothing less, by which and through which the Interface of each and every one of those full-on “Ontic Categories” arrives fully intact.

The question is not “Should the truth of that reality — of our necessarily contingent ontic-status – NOT be revealed to Mankind by The Necessary Being?” Rather it is all about HOW that Map is revealed and HOW it transposes into & through All Things Adamic to the very Ends of Time & Physicality ((…see https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/three_reasons_why_people_interpret_the_bible_differently/#comment-3624328389….)).

—END—

Miracles In Other Religions? Eyewitness Testimony? Mermaids? Alien Abductions? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Zeus? Thor? Copycat-Gods? Celestial Teapots?

Unthinking Skeptic Magazine released its latest: What About Miracles In Other Religions? What About Testimony? Mermaids? Alien Abductions? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Zeus? Thor? Copycat-Gods? Celestial Teapots?

Note: Some of the following content is in part taken from discussions in various comment sections and will therefore reflect the usual wording of “you” and “yours” and “me” and “I” and so on. Because there are a few comments fused together there are a few edits along the way in order to provide a more seamless flow.

So, with that qualification, the “SSSFSMCC” Fallacy & The Universal Stalemate strawman:

It seems that neither you nor anyone else here is asserting “Testimony-Alone” so it’s not certain that there’s much there other than a few fallacious straw man premises (….which neither you nor the Christian assert, but which some do try to implicitly sneak in….) as things are unpacked from upstream content and down the “ontic-line”, so to speak. That said, you do on occasion give evidence that your own reliability is faulty when you say something along the lines of, “….Those are the types of testimonies on which belief in the Bible hangs…..” Perhaps there’s some sort of Non-Christian metaphysic you are referring to? It comes up from time to time in your own premises against the Christian Metaphysic. For example you’ll say things like, “The Bible says Men can walk on water!” But of course Scripture does NOT say that — instead there’s the reality of Casual Agents suspending X’s atop water — which is something that happens all the time. You’ve left out that key interface with Being-Itself / God which Scripture claims there within the narrative, and so on as one’s premises are moving both upstream and downstream. And of course leaving out facts isn’t quite honest of you.

Eyewitness claims of this or that eye-witnessed event both by other Non-Religious folks and also by Religious folks in other Religions is all fine as far as it goes, however, for you to argue along the lines of something like the following is fallacious:

“….well there are eyewitness accounts of X so “therefore” I have met the Christian burden of rational belief so WHY don’t Christians believe in those other X’s TOO….?”

All of that misses the point of what testimony is and what testimony is not with respect to the entire narrative surrounding any claim by any claim-maker. Or, we can say this: Within the doxastic experience which we all journey through, and as for rational belief, you’ll have to do more than foist [eyewitnesses] as a challenge unless you do so within the far wider narrative which surrounds any claim by any claim-maker. It always comes back to whichever T.O.E. is under review as each comes as a body of statements which do not exist in a vacuum but are in fact immersed in the whole of reality.

Again for clarity as we move forward: It always comes back to whichever T.O.E. is under review as each comes as a body of statements which do not exist in a vacuum but are in fact immersed in the whole of reality.

The Uninformed Copycat Premise of Another Religious Claim and/or Flying Spaghetti Monster Claim:

Let’s say, oh, something like Sathya Sai Baba, or FSM’s, or Mermaids, or Pasta Bowls, or Flying Over The Moon, or Mormonism, or Islam, or Pantheism, or Atheism, and so on. Okay. As it turns out, that whole approach amounts to an irrational Paradigm Swap against actual premises which are in play.

Whether it’s Sathya Sai Baba or the FSM or Celestial Teapots or Mermaids, and so on, it’s all the same uninformed premise. Let’s call Sathya Sai Baba “SSS” and the Flying Spaghetti Monster “FSM” and all the Copycats “CC”, for a net term of a new blog post over at the Unthinking Skeptic, namely, “SSSFSMCC”.

It’s common for Non-Theists to say that the SSSFSMCC is God and then have the SSSFSMCC do some act X. Like appear in a bowl of pasta instead of a burning bush or raise the dead.

There are two problems with that (fallacious) approach.

The First Problem:

The first is that the SSSFSMCC proposed by the Non-Theist doesn’t have the properties of “Being Itself“, of *GOD*. How do we know that? Well it’s easy, because if that were the case then there’d be evidence of this bowl-bearing, dead-raising, world-making ontological SSSFSMCC and of his 5000 year history-soaked metanarrative. But there isn’t evidence of the bowl-bearing, dead-raising, world-making ontological SSSFSMCC and of his 5000 year history-soaked metanarrative. If one wants to [1st] steal and borrow the full import of “Being Itself” as his (the Non-Theist’s) metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility and then [2nd] state that in fact *that* *god* in fact goes about appearing in past-bowls, an in raising the dead X’s, and in world-making ontological X’s, well then he is going to have show us his evidence that such is the case.

One of the fundamental errors in reasoning over at the Unthinking Skeptic is that the Non-Theist forgets that there are two halves to the equation:

1 — that of logic and reason and logical possibility (etc.) and, then,

2 — that of reality as she actually is in real history, in the real human narrative. While there are arguments and evidence for Scripture’s metanarrative vis-à-vis the ontological history of becoming which constitutes the (real) human narrative in (real) human history, the Non-Theist has not presented any evidence for his bowl-bearing, dead-raising, world-making ontological SSSFSMCC and of his 5000 year history-soaked metanarrative as being a (real) part of that (real) human history.

This is why part of what is missing (one of the “halves”), is this: When it comes to the FSM or to Mermaids or to any other copycat / SSSFSMCC, they never show us their foisted reality of actual historical bodies of historicity which have been demonstrated as accurate for the last 5000-ish years which include that heavy-handed SSSFSMCC factor.

The claims of Atheism with respect to irreducible moral facts are clearly absurd but unless one does the work of unpacking the entire narrative in question (…Non-Theism…) one will not really see the problem. So too if Pantheism or Islam or Mormonism and so on make claims about miracles or irreducible love and so on and that’s all fine as far as it goes, but far more is needed. On must unpack it and carry his premises through till the end. Contrary to the common strawman, the Christian metaphysic does not go as follows: “Eyewitness! Full Stop!”. Nor does it go as follows: “People believed it! Full Stop!” It always comes back to whichever T.O.E. is under review as each comes as a body of statements which do not exist in a vacuum but are in fact immersed in the whole of reality.

The Second Problem:

“A Christian just told me that GOD kept his ice cream cone frozen all day on his kitchen table!”

So what do we do with that claim? Well we do what we always do with all claims. There’s nothing spooky about keeping cream and milk frozen – we do it all the time. We can even freeze a lake and get a whole stadium sub-freezing for ice skating in the middle of summer. Manipulating layers of nature’s fundamental building blocks and creating elements which never existed and/or cellular tissues and so on is what we as casual agents do all the time. It’s called science (…though over at the Unthinking Skeptic the posts and essays often refer to that science as Black Magic and Fairytales….not sure why…). Subatomic particle manipulations and/or atomic rearrangements (and so on) are not the concern per se as we do that sort of frozen-cream thing all the time.

By the way that is one of the many reasons why, say, the Resurrection of Christ is perfectly compatible with the physical sciences vis-à-vis Causal Agents intentionally manipulating and rearranging nature’s fundamental building blocks to build cells and novel elements to add to the Universe’s Periodic Table – and so on – as it is all demonstrable. Obviously all of that lands within physical systems wherein “Physics Can Build Physical Systems Called Animals” (…and so on…) as Non-Theism assures us in its Maps of evolutionary manipulation of and rearranging of nature’s fundamental building blocks – and so on – as it is the case that there’s no general feature of science in any of that which is problematic.

The causal ecosystem changes as agent capacity changes. There’s just no rational need to presuppose no-causal-agent when it comes to such particle rearrangements. That’s all, well, easy, rational, and clean.

So what about the ice cream? Well, so, is there something in Scripture’s narrative that would lead me to believe that *GOD* visited my friend, saved his ice cream cone, froze it, and then kept it from melting all day. Well no. Not at all. In fact the opposite emerges.

It’s common for Non-Theists to change definitions and paradigms and then pretend they didn’t and the Non-Theist gets a star for effort, even though his SSSFSMCC premise fails in the end. The SSSFSMCC just can’t fly because there’s just no reason to believe in said bowl nor in said bowl-bearing-god or in said dead-raising SSSFSMCC.

Again the error there is that the Non-Theist forgets that there are two halves to the equation, that of logic and reason and logical possibility (etc.) and, then, that of reality as she actually is in real history, in the real human narrative.

While there are arguments and evidence for Scripture’s metanarrative vis-à-vis the ontological history of becoming which constitutes the (real) human narrative in (real) human history, the Non-Theist has not presented any evidence for his SSSFSMCC as being a (real) part of that (real) human history.

As for the “acts” of SSSFSMCC such as, say, burning bushes, well we did that in science class in the sixth grade. It was pretty fun stuff. “Magic!” we thought. As for building various cellular structures and neuronal tissues and DBS (…Deep Brain Stimulation…) and getting ever closer to helping stroke patients recover functions, well, science marches on and we’re getting ever closer. Non-Theists still (demonstrably) think about that science of a lame man standing up as Black Magic of course, but then over at the Unthinking Skeptic it’s a bit of free-for-all. Oh dear – what will our Non-Theist friends do if mankind ever rearranges and manipulates a few fundamental particles and invents a new element? “Black Magic!” they’ll shout. Oh….. wait…. didn’t I just read something? God forbid neuroscience ever does it with spinal cord tracts and so on. Oh…wait…. didn’t I just read something?

It’s a good thing Hume and Mackie aren’t alive to see this – the darkest of ages! “But he was lame! And now he can stand! Black Magic! Black Magic!” Between that and DBS (deep brain stimulation) we’ll stop as I don’t want to frighten our Non-Theist friends with all of that Faith-Based scientific-y neuroscience-y stuff. You know, like our burning bush in the sixth grade. As for the SSSFSMCC, well, it’s a premise in want of a fact.

Fortunately, given the fact that the only solutions which the Non-Theist finds personally satisfying will be counted as worthy of his consideration, it should be easy enough for him to protect his own doxastic experience from the intolerable light of pure physicality atop the angelic wings of science.

“Cause-Da-Bible-Says-So!“

The Non-Theist too often argues as if the Christian starts blind and stays here: “Cause-Da-Bible-Says-So!!” – But that’s false.

Reason as truth-finder makes her relentless demands for lucidity through and through. As folks allow their T.O.E. to be informed by all data points they simply need to gather the facts and follow the evidence, which spans the spectrum from the lens zoomed in near — say — the fact that causal agents can and do rearrange nature’s fundamental building blocks, or such as – say – such things as historicity, genre, context, reason, and logic, to yet farther and wider sight-lines with the lens zoomed out into – say – whatever successes or failures this or that body of claims has within its own respective T.O.E.

Why? Because everything about every T.O.E. just is a matter of [1] truth as correspondence and [2] cumulative cases constructed atop cumulative layers of coherence and [3] convergence of truth claims and [4] avoiding those ever-painful reductions to absurdity.

That’s just a demonstration of the obvious: facts don’t exist in vacuums.

Why? Because reality doesn’t work that way. And reality matters. It always comes back to whichever T.O.E. is under review as each comes as a body of statements which do not exist in a vacuum but are in fact immersed in the whole of reality.

Over at the Unthinking Skeptic the contributors seem to foist their own rather unfortunate mental habit of “-Cause da-Bible!” onto all comments and assume (therefore) that that is the only evidence for Christianity. But that’s false.

Why? Because it always comes back to whichever T.O.E. is under review as each comes as a body of statements which do not exist in a vacuum but are in fact immersed in the whole of reality.

We have to be careful and precise in these discussions. Tossing about wide brushstrokes isn’t enlightening or helpful for understanding one another, not for the Christian you-ward nor for you us-ward. It is not the Christian claim that [Eyewitnesses] is the bar for rational belief with respect to how rational belief worked in the first century and how rational belief works now as we explore the intricacies of the doxastic experience. With respect to the Non-Theist’s conclusion, the Christian claim is not that eyewitnesses are enough for rational belief and therefore the Christian claim as to the Non-Theistic embrace of the No-God paradigm cannot be that the Non-Theist is too set in his ways with respect to eyewitness accounts which contradict Non-Theism.

In General Terms – Resurrection, Celestial Teapots, Zeus, Islam’s Miracles, and Historical Lines

In general terms: It is the case that the Resurrection of Christ is perfectly compatible with the physical sciences vis-à-vis Causal Agents intentionally manipulating and rearranging nature’s fundamental building blocks to build cells and novel elements to add to the Universe’s Periodic Table – and so on – as it is all demonstrable. To put that in terms of three different yet basic observations surrounding physical systems which the Non-Theist and Theist can agree on: A. We know that it’s not impossible to build physical systems by manipulating & rearranging nature’s fundamental building blocks. B. We know that evolution builds things that way. C. We know that Causal Agents (Man) can and do intentionally manipulate & rearrange nature’s fundamental building blocks. Obviously all of that lands within physical systems wherein “Physics Can Yield Physical Systems Called Animals” (…and so on…) as Non-Theism assures us in its Maps of evolutionary manipulation of and rearranging of nature’s fundamental building blocks – and so on (…Dualism aside etc…). As such there’s no general feature of science in any of that which is problematic. Yet, many Non-Theists seem to have some bizarre and generally anti-scientific philosophical biases which say otherwise.

In general terms: The scientific and metaphysical baggage vis-à-vis Celestial Teapots, Thor, & Zeus forces several logical and observational contradictions. Whereas, Jesus, Pilate, Marcus Lepidus, & George Washington simply pass under the lens of standard historicity metrics and aren’t problematic.

In general terms: The metaphysical baggage vis-à-vis Islam’s various explanatory termini forces several logical contradictions, so that Meta-narrative yields less confidence. Whereas, say, the Resurrection of Christ is obviously compatible with the physical sciences and, also, hasn’t the metaphysical baggage of Islam, so that Meta-narrative yields a higher confidence. We will look more at the nature of Causal Agents and Miracles a few paragraphs down from here, but, for some basic context on what initial Q & A might look like with respect to one’s “TOE/s/Theory/s of Everything” and how that would initially inform one’s replies, there’s the following:

“Do you believe that a man named Jesus cured a man’s blindness by spitting into dirt and rubbing said dirt on the blind man’s eyes?” https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/challenge_response_christianity_is_absurd/#comment-2961060233
“It matters, doesn’t it, why one side believes the Bible…” https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/challenge_response_christianity_is_absurd/#comment-2961198320
“Wouldn’t one’s reasons for believing the Bible also be reasons for not believing the Koran?” https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/challenge_response_christianity_is_absurd/#comment-2961296447
“Do Christian & Muslims Worship The Same God? Divergence? Convergence? Both?” is at https://metachristianity.com/do-christians-muslims-worship-the-same-god-divergence-convergence-both/ ((…note that some of its hyperlinks are still being updated as STR’s old platform was removed and links now need to be updated to STR’s Disqus page…))

The Flying Spaghetti Monster & Scientific Realism Are Both Illusion

You asked for justification of “X Degree Confidence” and you were referred to the nature of rational belief vis-à-vis the ontology of Reason Itself and told that all of that IS why so many Christians believe Scripture’s Metanarrative. That is the answer given to your “Why X Degree of Confidence?” The argument from Mind and Reason is long-standing and, yes you say you are unfamiliar with it, which is fine, but then you insist that it not be unpacked in this discussion and even refuse to comment further if it is brought up. But then that makes your request for mutual understanding within “why have confidence in ABCD etc…” disingenuous.

With respect to category there’s no difference between A. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and B. Scientific Realism. So we must ask you – do you believe in either one? Are you “LESS CONFIDENT” in your rejection of one vs. the other?

When it comes to Realism & Antirealism and why the Flying Spaghetti Monster ends in the same category as what Non-Theism ultimately demands from our own confidence in our own First Person Experience of “I-Am” vis-à-vis the illusion of the Intentional Self vis-à-vis Intentionality and so on…), do you believe in either one? Are you “LESS CONFIDENT” in your rejection of one vs. the other? What of Solipsism? Idealism? One needs to have an “expansive” “reach” in one’s metaphysic and the architecture of the Christian Metaphysic provides that explanatory power. Context there is in the following:

A— Sean Carroll, Downward Causation, Churchland, Rosenberg, E. Feser, Mad-Dogs, Kripke, Ross, Freedom, & the Mind/Self – as per https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/overcome-your-cognitive-bias-with-the-50-50-rule/#comment-4351034444

B— Fallacies Physicists Fall For – as per https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/07/fallacies-physicists-fall-for.html

Before unpacking the Universal Stalemate Fallacy – a brief note on falsification:

Disqualification vs. Falsification vs. Certainty:

Most knowledge is not falsifiable in any heavy weight sense. Explanatory power and robust reach both reach a certain critical mass at some point, either in affirmation or in disqualification – as per:

A – https://randalrauser.com/2018/07/are-theological-theories-falsifiable/#comment-3996201304

B – https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-note-on-falsification.html

“…. falsificationism is a rather feeble instrument to wield against theology. And in fact, atheist philosophers have known this for decades, even if New Atheist combox commandos are still catching up…..”

The “Universal Stalemate” Straw Man:

If one wants to affirm such-and-such as one’s proverbial T.O.E. (ToE / etc.) then it’s not any one claim but rather the convergence of multiple metrics revealing a robust explanatory power overall. The metaphysical baggage of the Hindu’s Pantheism, of Spinoza’a Pantheism, of Islam, of Non-Theism(s), of various Deism(s), and so on, all come to the table with this or that X.

From there it’s a matter of following through.

That is the key problem with Celestial Teapots and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and so on. They don’t share the same set of truth-claims with the Christian metaphysic and, so, when one then goes through that work of following through, well, divergence rapidly ensues.

So, when someone presents something like the Celestial Teapot or some other X and states, “Well, see, uummm, like, like what’s the difference?” it just isn’t helpful. It’s either uniformed or else its dishonest and hostile. One has not done any homework or “following through” with various truth-claims and equates all vectors, landing, therefore, in the fallacy of The “Universal Stalemate” Straw Man.

The “Universal Stalemate” Straw Man:

[1] Pantheism?

[2] Spinoza’s?

[3] The Hindu’s?

[4] The irreducible distinctions and divergence amid Islam and Judaism?

[5] The impressive divergence through large swaths of ontological real estate between those in [4] juxtaposed to one another?

[6] The impressive divergence through large swaths of ontological real estate between those in [4] juxtaposed to the Christian metaphysic?

[7] The imaginary stopping points and logical contradictions forced by philosophical naturalism and its twin named Buddhism?

The general theme here can be applied to *any* landscape, however, the primary focus here has to do with a bit of misguided reasoning which often arrives on scene in one of the following forms:

[A] “But Christians disagree! What the heck is THAT all about?” and/or

[B] “But knowledge is fragmented! Therefore No-God!” and/or

[C] “Rapid discovery of knowledge of God by revelation is false because No-God!” and/or

[D] “Slow discovery of knowledge of God through temporal becoming? What the heck is THAT all about?” and/or

[E] “But Christians Sin! What the heck is THAT all about?” and/or

[F] “But knowledge is fragmented! But Christian’s sin! But love!”

[….With respect to [E] and [F] see The “Contingency Defines Necessity” Straw Man Progression …or else… The “Proverbial Key” Progression at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/yes_you_have_a_worldview_stand_to_reason/#comment-3392880362 and see Segue: War and Religion: at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/yes_you_have_a_worldview_stand_to_reason/#comment-3392888561 ….]

General reply:

You have [1] left out premises and you have [2] simply observed that different folks believe different things. In essence you’ve declared a Universal Stalemate. Unfortunately your own premises are included in said universal stalemate. One has to go a little further, or risk saying what amounts to nothing.

Worse: You may actually be equating all claims of all paradigms. What I mean is that you’ve declared your Universal Stalemate as if that is where all thinking stops, as if divergence or disagreement is either a fiction or a problem yet you’ve not shown that divergence or disagreement is a fiction or a problem. Two comments with respect to that overly broad brushstroke:

Firstly:

Equating all truth claims upon the fundamental nature of reality in your Universal Stalemate is an unfortunate move on your part in that you’ve revealed a high degree of unawareness with respect to the several topics you just introduced. Or is it that you intend to insist that everyone should embrace contradictions of logic in their explanatory termini?

With respect to those truth claims upon the fundamental nature of reality have you followed through on,

[1] Pantheism?

[2] Spinoza’s?

[3] The Hindu’s?

[4] The irreducible distinctions and divergence amid Islam and Judaism?

[5] The impressive divergence through large swaths of ontological real estate between those in [4] juxtaposed to one another?

[6] The impressive divergence through large swaths of ontological real estate between those in [4] juxtaposed to the Christian metaphysic?

[7] The imaginary stopping points and logical contradictions forced by philosophical naturalism and its twin named Buddhism?

Is there a reason you’ve left out, well, everything?

Discussions & Disagreements Within Christendom:

You have conflated [A] Christendom’s internal discussions and/or disagreements about The Aqueducts for [B] actual disagreements within Christendom about The Living Water. Or you have equated one to the other. The conclusions you’ve extrapolated with respect to veracity are therefore misguided. Worse than that, there is even a layer of “disagreement equals false on all points” embedded in your analysis, which, in addition to the aforementioned conflations and/or false identity claims, disqualifies your conclusions with respect to veracity. For context on that see the

Christendom’s Unity Through The Irreducible Epicenter Of Shared Ontological Real Estate Across All Of Christendom’s Branches – at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/is_god_unfair_stand_to_reason_94/#comment-3472358363

Malleable Truth? Christian Ethics Change Over Time? The Shell, The Core, 40K Denominations, & Christendom’s Epicenter – at https://metachristianity.com/the-fallacy-of-30k-denominations-and-the-reality-of-christendoms-unity-through-the-irreducible-epicenter/

Secondly:

1 — “…my natural theology aspires to be as system-free as possible….”

2 — “What is your metaphysical system?” This question made me smile. I guess I don’t have one!”

It is worth noting that the Christian metaphysic is not reliant on any “one” metaphysical system. It has the luxury of allowing reason to lead the way. Just as in chemistry or physics, for there also the rational mind continues to embrace, say, “Fact ABC” from “History’s Timeline 777” and as new chemical and physics-based equations come into focus the chemist / physicist is, with reason as his guide, fully rational for holding onto what remains coherent and pulling in from other arenas as well. It’s not “all or nothing” in any genuine sense and that just is the nature of knowledge – and in fact Scripture actually predicts just that kind of interface when it comes to God, Man, Perception, and Insight.

The question of “Are My Theistic Arguments Dependent upon a Metaphysical System?” is at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/are-my-theistic-arguments-dependent-upon-a-metaphysical-system and the short answer is, “Of course not!” But, for clarity, a few brief excerpts follow.

Begin Excerpts:

Question: “I would presume… that you are aware of the different metaphysical systems underpinning your different arguments. How do you reconcile these differences, if at all? What is your metaphysical system? Do you think that it is wise to defend arguments with such different and seemingly incompatible metaphysical assumptions? Doesn’t this just make your case for the existence of God more incoherent? I ask this last question, because it seems to me that many atheists frequently misrepresent theistic arguments, and the biggest problem (I suspect) is ignorance of the metaphysical underpinnings of these arguments.”

Reply: So in answer to your question: I deny that there are “different metaphysical systems underpinning your different arguments.” The arguments, while drawing upon metaphysical concepts and insights which appear in various systems (concepts and insights many of which have become generally or at least widely accepted), are independent of those systems in which these concepts may have been initially enunciated. So there’s no need to “reconcile these differences.” Do I “think that it is wise to defend arguments with such different and seemingly incompatible metaphysical assumptions?” No, but the arguments I defend are characterized, quite deliberately, so as to be as free as possible from extraordinary metaphysical assumptions, not to speak of seemingly incompatible assumptions, so as to broaden their appeal as much as possible. The premises of the various arguments are perfectly coherent, and no one I’m aware of has argued otherwise.

Finally, “What is your metaphysical system?” This question made me smile. I guess I don’t have one! I mean, I’m a theist, a tensed time theorist, a Divine Command theorist, a substance dualist, an anti-realist about abstract objects, and, I suppose, many other things. But I don’t have any sort of system other than the composite of these various commitments. In any case, my natural theology aspires to be as system-free as possible in order to appeal as widely as possible to people of different persuasions.”

End Excerpts.

Summarizing God’s Involvement In All “Miracle/Interface” Landscapes, the problems in the General Non-Theistic approach to Miracle/Interface are obvious. Our Non-Theist friends will often read a few verses and then comment to the Christian something like the following:

“Have you ever read the Bible? Every claim I made, which you deny is there in plain text. I will make just a few examples, quoting the actual Bible, a book you never seem to quote…. (examples given…. X walked on water…. etc….). Again, you can discuss the how all you want. That does not change the fact that the Bible clearly says human beings were walking on water. You can say, “but it was a miracle,” if you like. That still does not change the fact that the Bible says the donkey spoke, it only changes the supposed how. I am not discussing the how. My claim is that the Bible says those things happened. Your claim is that the Bible does not say it can happen. I quoted verses in the Bible where it says it happened…….. You said the Bible does not say human beings walked on water….. Your claim is that the Bible does not say it can happen….“

Now, clearly that re-make of the observation is fallacious, given that the actual observation/premise was as follows:

“Scripture does not say that donkeys or any other animal can talk, in “human” or any other language….. Scripture does not say that “dead bodies” can be reanimated nor do Christians think that is the case (you’ll have to read up on our fun adventures within particle rearrangements and cell-building as science and her bench top march onward)…… Scripture does not say that folks can walk on water….”

Observation: Scripture DOES claim that *GOD* / “Being Itself” can and does intentionally and causally interface with nature’s fundamental building blocks (….like we ourselves do on the bench top…). Scripture does NOT claim that those fundamental building blocks constituting, say, a man, can walk on water.

Humean/Mackiean evidence-free irrationality didn’t know about agents intentionally rearranging nature’s fundamental building blocks (….like we ourselves do on the bench top…). Therefore, it is understandable (sort of) that the Non-Theist’s emotional commitments to yesteryear’s uninformed and anti-scientific premises continue to fuel his move to expunge that science and that syntax from reality – or at least from the reality he wishes for. Whereas, the Christian and ancient Hebrew have always affirmed such science and such syntax for all of it is and always has been both mapped and predicted within the expectations and contours of their metaphysical topography (……dualism is beyond the Non-Theist’s reach and so obviously none of this can help him when it comes to the metaphysical baggage of his definitions relating to Man, Man’s nature(s), “ontological histories of becoming”, and etc….).

Christian observation: “…..Scripture does *not* say that folks can walk on water…” (Etc.). Causal Agents suspending objects atop water happens all the time. Perhaps a step-by-step:

Read the statement: Can.
Read scripture: God.
Read science: Interface.
Read scripture: Interface.

Was God involved? Was “Being Itself” / *GOD* involved?

Or did the muscles and neural circuitry and tissues and subatomic particles do it all by themselves (animals can talk, etc.)? Today’s DBS (Deep Brain Stimulation) would be considered Black Magic by the premises of our Non-Theist friends.

The Non-Theistic approach to miracle/interface does not seem to know what the word “can” means with respect to “folks” in the observation / premise. Or the Non-Theist’s approach just ignores its presence and its meaning. But that approach is merely (then) changing the premise by removing words and then claiming forward progress.

The Non-Theist’s premise must assert that the muscles of tongue and cheek and the neural circuits and tissues and subatomic particles involved were – all – isolated and all alone and void of an interface with *GOD* / “Being Itself” according to Scripture’s metanarrative. But that’s clearly not what Scripture nor science affirm, regardless of the miracle/interface in question. It seems the Non-Theist’s approach to miracle/interface is uninformed with respect to both Scripture and science.

Think of it this way: [1] when we build cells on the bench top or [2] when do we do DBS / deep brain stimulation in the operating room or [3] when we intentionally rearrange subatomic particles on the bench top, the interface in question is there amid (on the one hand) the intentional and causal agent and (on the other hand) nature’s fundamental building blocks. The causal ecosystem is unmistakable. Though off topic here it is the case that the definition of miracle is contingent upon the causal ecosystem and the capacities of the Causal Agents present. Again it’s off topic but a few items for reference vis-à-vis the definition of the term MIRACLES:

Scripture and science affirm all of this. Whereas, Hume and Mackie echo the Non-Theist’s resistance to such facts. Non-Theists certainly are confused. In fact, with intentional subatomic rearrangements now in hand the fact of the “seat of agent causality” demonstrably merged with “intentionally rearranged particles” leaves Hume and Mackie not only speechless but irrelevant. Want a new element? Build it. Want a new cell? Build it. Want a new neural pathway? DBS (deep brain stimulation).

For our Non-Theist friends (or rather, for their approach), a kind of summary:

[1] Scripture affirms the interface in question. If you don’t like that causal ecosystem it’s not the Christian’s problem. Science affirms those same interfaces in that same causal ecosystem just as Scripture affirms them. You’re still irrationally claiming that Scripture does not affirm the reality of that interface in all of your examples. A kind of, no-god-present. Scripture says otherwise as “Being Itself” / *GOD* is presented as involved, present, interfacing, bringing-about. Scripture *does* claim that *GOD* / “Being Itself” can and does intentionally and causally interface with nature’s fundamental building blocks (like we do on the bench top). Scripture does *not* claim that those fundamental building blocks comprising, say, a man, can walk on water.

[2] You are removing the word ‘God’ and you are removing the word ‘can’ (animals ‘can’ talk) from the premise (…scripture does not say animals can talk….) and you are removing Scripture’s (and science’s) affirmed interface. All that approach does is change the premises and terms and foist a straw man.

[3] Because your approach has expunged the content of ‘God’ and ‘Can’ and ‘Interface’ then you are still irrationally claiming that Scripture does not affirm the reality of that interface in all of your examples. A kind of no-god-present. Scripture says otherwise as “Being Itself” / *GOD* is presented as involved, present, interfacing, bringing-about. Or….

[4] In order for you to change the premise and terms you have to pretend the word “can” isn’t there or else you have to pretend it doesn’t mean what it means or else you have to pretend Scripture does not affirm that game-changing interface.

[5] Look at the bench top when we intentionally rearrange subatomic particles. Think about the causal ecosystem. Think about the interfaces in play.

[6] You may want to read up on the Christian term of “Being Itself“.

[7] Which is it? [A] Was God involved? Was “Being Itself” / *GOD* involved? Or, instead, [B] did the muscles and neural circuitry and tissues and subatomic particles do it all by themselves (animals can talk, etc.)? The Non-Theist’s approach to miracle/interface claims “B”, or rather claims that Scripture is affirming “B”. The painfully obvious fallaciousness of that approach is demonstrable. Whereas, Scripture, science, the ancient Hebrew, and the Christian affirm “A”, for in fact “Being Itself” / *GOD* was (is) involved.

A Brief Observation:

*IF* Physicalism — then rebuilding cells is a wide open YES.

*IF* *GOD* — then rebuilding cells is a wide open YES.

There obviously isn’t a violation of nature as we manipulate and rearrange nature’s fundamental vectors, wave functions and so on vis-à-vis the Eons-Old-Syntax of the Christian Metaphysic as per Causal Agents intentionally manipulating and rearranging nature’s fundamental building blocks and elementary particles/fields to make, say, novel elements and add them to the Universe’s Periodic Table. Black Magic for yesterday’s Non-Theistic “Predictions” and Science for the predictions of yesterday’s Christian syntax. We do it all the time of course – stuff like that. Right now. Today. And we’re getting better at it. And we’re just kiddies in the sandbox — never mind what <i>Being-Itself</i> brings to the Table in this Arena.

Overall we are sorry if that reality is something our Non-Theist friends have chosen not to interface with. Sure, they’d rather pretend that their Straw-Men are what the Christian premises ACTUALLY claim rather than interact with the real world as it actually is. It seems reality isn’t for everyone. A lame man walking isn’t comfortable for Hume/Mackie either. But science is marching on. Presuppositions aside, evidence affirms the compatibility of what the physical sciences tell us about reality and the Christian truth claims upon that same reality

Zooming In On The Definition Of Miracle

The definition of miracle is contextually dependent upon the causal ecosystem and Agent Causation is a fundamental part of the content in play. Miracles don’t defy naturalistic impossibility, they defy agent capacity. More specifically, they defy agent causality, or causal agents. The definition of miracle is contingent upon causal context, or the “causal ecosystem”. The definition of “Natural impossibility” changes with the nature of causation, hence as the nature of causal agents change, so too the context of the Naturally Impossible. We can zoom that lens in or we can zoom that lens out of course – fermions (or whatever) in fact *are* in some real sense acted upon – and it all leaves “Being Itself” there doing this or that X and all without violating “nature”.

Causal Agents ((Man)) intentionally manipulate and rearrange nature’s fundamental building blocks to build novel elements and add them to the universe’s periodic table – and “that” is a “miracle” in First Century Palestine just as building Cells from the Ground-To-Benchtop-And-Up and allowing neuronal regeneration and “the lame man stands up once again” is a “miracle” then too. Notice the complete lack of the “logically impossible” when it comes to Causal Agents and their ((our)) intentional “…rearrangement of…” / “…manipulation of…” nature’s fundamental forces / building blocks. One only needs to “Scale Up” all the way to Ultimate Reality vis-à-vis Being Itself.

“The question is: what could conceivably make miracles not just logically possible, but really, historically possible? Clearly the answer is the personal God of theism….” ((…from https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/the-problem-of-miracles-a-historical-and-philosophical-perspective/…))

The following list of Strawman Premises and hyperlinked Comments bring much of that into focus.

First — Three general descriptions:

Silly Premise: Physics Stops At Atomism: “You have a bag full of only hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Jesus shakes it and now it’s full of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen atoms. Where did the C and N atoms come from? I stopped at the most reasonable level of matter necessary to demonstrate the impossibility of turning water to wine. Unless you’re prepared to defend the assertion that Jesus was an alchemist there is no reason to delve further than elements.”

Silly Premise: God vis-à-vis Being Itself is The Same As “A Thought” — “Instantaneously changing water into wine using the power of your thought does contradict science. To do such a thing you would have to somehow create matter from nothing (i.e. you need more than just hydrogen and oxygen atoms to make wine) or you would have to instantaneously create the extra matter from other subatomic particles and/or surrounding energy… with the power of your thought…..”

Silly Premises All The Way Through: Nano-Robots, God Is “A Thought”, Causal Agents Violate Science By Moving Electrons In Car Batteries and By Inventing Novel Elements To Add To The Periodic Table, God Can’t Go Past Atomism Else He’s An Alchemist And Not God, The “Reality” That “Is” A Jar Of Water Begins and Ends At [C, H, & O] – FULL-STOP.

Second — A series of comments in which all of that takes place, and so on:

The Following Are More General:

Epistemological Timelines & Who Said What First

Neither is convertible with mapping Ontological Truth. Pointing to the existence of the Box [Who Said What First] in fact isn’t an argument either Pro/Con ((…https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/overcome-your-cognitive-bias-with-the-50-50-rule/#comment-3989496498…)). Similar content is in “Jewish Beliefs About God” in the setting of Yahwism and Polytheism as per https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/jewish-beliefs-about-god

That is also looked at in “Yahwism? Judaism? Polytheistic Origin? Who Said X First – Full-Stop?” which is at http://disq.us/p/1yewf7v however several of the hyperlinks are to be updated and those (and this) are being retained as place holders pending time to update to their current pages.

We All Emote, Perceive, Intuit, And Reason Within The Same Pool. And? So What? See https://metachristianity.com/atheists-muslim-christians-hindus-etc-all-emote-perceive-and-intuit-within-the-same-irreducible-transcendentals

Science And Theology: Where The Consonance Really Lies by David Bentley Hart at https://metachristianity.com/science-and-theology-where-the-consonance-really-lies-by-david-bentley-hart/

On Intuitions by E. Feser at https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-intuitions.html

Unintuitive Metaphysics by E. Feser at https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/08/unintuitive-metaphysics.html

God Vs A God Vs Gods Vs The Gods Vs Sky Daddy Vs Santa Clause Vs Imaginary Friend Vs Being Itself Vs Existence Itself Vs Metaphysical Wellspring Of All Ontological Possibility ~ https://metachristianity.com/god-vs-a-god-vs-gods-vs-the-gods-vs-sky-daddy-vs-santa-clause/

—END—

Delay, Second Coming, and Parousia

On “Parousia” and/or “The Delay of The Parousia”

[1 of 8]

We must avoid reasoning in a vacuum with respect to “The Delay of The Parousia”. Broadly speaking the Trio of Scripture, Logic, and Sound Metaphysics forces our hand: It is always, ceaselessly, the marriage of God’s…

(a) Immanence
with God’s
(b) Yet To Fully Actualize
with God’s
(c) “Even Now I stand at the door…”

The How/Why of that? Because Logic. Because Metaphysics. Because Scripture. That Trio. Part of Adulting is reading “whole” “books” or “whole” “metanarratives”. All of that is taken up a bit more in sections 4 and 5 etc. but a few more basic items to start the unpacking:

[A] “Parousia” and/or “…the time is short…”
[B] “…those with wives should live as if they have none…” and/or items in I Corinthians 7.

Those two are often mistakenly equated. Why is that specific “If/Then” amid that duo of “A/B” in fact a mistake? Well, of course the obvious comes to mind (….we cannot jettison “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church” and so on…) but there is far more than that. See the following:

“Those who have wives should live as if they do not (Conflict of Interest)” from the series “Meant to Be” (…genetic fallacies need not be foisted, but instead remain on premises, ideas, syllogisms, conclusions, and so on…) at the following video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sKZMtW6srU&list=PLmrDlLawTuYShINWwEikAN55ol5rEIuHx&index=4&t=0s

[2 of 8]

Observation: John 21: 22-23, Christ and His disciples clearly allowed for Not-Dying over a very *abnormal* amount of time, so much so that Not morphed to Never. The mindset there is undeniable. This follows seamlessly with the same mindset already present throughout the OT where there is the constant of the imminent promise of the coming of The Kingdom. So much so that Hebrews 11 finds the amalgamation of dying while yet *expecting*. From A to Z Scripture’s tone is one of “Behold, I Come!” The inability or unwillingness to read and embrace entire meta-narratives leads to the obvious problems in the analysis of too many of our Non-Theist friends.

[3 of 8]

To avoid reasoning in a vacuum with respect to “Parousia” there is the following:

“Bible Contradiction? When did Jesus say that he would return?” at https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/bible-contradiction-when-did-jesus-say-that-he-would-return/

Again to avoid reasoning in a vacuum with respect to “Parousia“, there are these four links to W.L. Craig:

Was Jesus a failed eschatological prophet: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/was-jesus-a-failed-eschatological-prophet/
Was Jesus wrong: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/q-a-was-jesus-wrong
A little more here from “Doctrine of the Last Things (Part 4)” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-the-last-things/doctrine-of-the-last-things-part-4/
A little more here from “Doctrine of the Last Things (Part 7)” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-the-last-things/the-doctrine-of-the-last-things-part-7/

[4 of 8]

“Was Jesus Wrong About the Time of His Return?” at http://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2015/02/was-jesus-wrong-about-the-time-of-his-return/ is a good essay on the question. Some specific comments from that thread:

Those eight comments are copied in full near the end of this post, under the bold/heading of “Eight Items Regarding The Trio of Scripture, Logic, and Sound Metaphysics which forces our hand: It is always, ceaselessly, I stand at the door…” closer to the end (scroll down if prefer, etc, etc,).

And also https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2015/02/was-jesus-wrong-about-the-time-of-his-return/#comment-112310 along with https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2015/02/was-jesus-wrong-about-the-time-of-his-return/#comment-112326 which together read as follows:

After reading your methods, and Scripture, and Dr. Craig’s systematic method and conclusions, it becomes painfully obvious that your conclusions fail to incorporate nearly as many Scriptures as Dr. Craig’s (Etc.) Your thesis suffers just too many times on just too many nuances with just too many repetitions to do the work of toppling the soundness and coherence of Christ ever Imminent, Christ yet to return, Christ offered for every tongue, and in every tongue, and to the World.

As I noted, I’ve read yours, Craig’s, and Scripture, and I find far more congruence in the Scripture/Craig combo than in the Scripture/JBC combo.

When I take the OT alone, that is the case “for the most part”. When I take the NT alone, that is the case “for the most part”. But when I take the entirety of Scripture with both the OT and NT, well the seams just fade out far more into what begins to approximate a more intellectually satisfying cohesive whole there in milieu of the former combo over and above the milieu of the latter combo. That said, your contribution to my perspective has buttressed me with a new and more thorough awareness of the various lines of tension here, which has been and will continue to be valuable.

And also https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2015/02/was-jesus-wrong-about-the-time-of-his-return/#comment-112315 which (again) has the four links to Craig and reads as follows:

The marriage of the ever-present “ontic-posture”, as it were, of the Imminence of Christ, of God, on the one hand, with the ever-present “ontic-posture”, as it were, of Christ yet-to-actualize, of God yet-to-actualize, on the other hand, is seen throughout the OT, and, just the same, is also seen throughout the NT. Of course the landscape amid God/Man just cannot be anything other than “that landscape” given the ontology of “God” and the ontology of “Man in Privation” and the ontology of “Final Redemption” as all three of those are ceaselessly in-play (because Logic). On the “End of the Ages” then there comes the question of the timing of such finality. On that point Dr. William Craig and others touch on that question and their methodology is intellectually satisfying and also makes more sense of more of Scripture than other more ad hoc attempts. We simply follow Reason & Logic while rejecting Presuppositionalism ((after all we can’t see pre-being nor non-being)) and, so, to slightly paraphrase/borrow from Snowden: We can say that the Metaphysical/Exegetical landscape which brings into harmony the greatest number of verses and ascertained facts while disposing of the greatest number of difficulties with the least amount of strain is the Metaphysical/Exegetical landscape with the highest plausibility.

[5 of 8]

The following is from j.hillclimber:

Begin quote/excerpts:

Google: N.T. Wright delay of the parousia: “The problem of the delay of the parousia is a modern myth. The problem is caused by liberal Christianity’s no longer believing in the resurrection, which means that the weight of God’s activity is pushed forward in time. There’s not much evidence that the early church was anxious about this. First-century Christianity didn’t see itself so much as living in the last days, waiting for the parousia, as living in the first days of God’s new world. We are still awaiting the final outworking of what God accomplished in Jesus, but there are all kinds of signs to show that, though the situation is often bleak, we are in fact on the right road.”

No, N.T. Wright does not claim to understand things better than Paul. He claims to understand what Paul meant, and Wright’s claim in that regard is more credible than that of most other living people. Whatever you may think of Wright, the point is that you need someone well-versed in the cultures of first century Palestine, someone who is not going to naively read the texts according to a 21st century hermeneutic.

To get a sense of the difficulties in interpreting “the end times”, consider the variety of possible translations of Mark 1:15, which I am taking from biblehub.com :

“The time has been fulfilled.”
“The time is fulfilled.”
“The time is now!”
“Time is coming to an end.”

etc.

In light of such difficulties, I am amazed at how confident you are that you know precisely how 1 John 2:18 would have been interpreted by the audience he was addressing.

The way the [Church] has read it is (to my understanding) to say that we are indeed living in “the end times”, in the sense that we are living after the climactic battle of creation. The “last hour” may go on for billions more years, but we need to respond decisively “now” to the outcome of that climactic battle. I respect people who want to make informed arguments to the contrary, but it is not at all obvious to me that this is out of step with what the Biblical authors were trying to get across.

Well, I don’t see how that CCC teaching is a heresy according to Irenaeus, so I guess there is nothing you can do 🙂 .. other than perhaps:

1. Ask me how I reconcile these ideas in my mind, or (more profitably, I suspect),

2. Examine the extensive history of interpretation associated with these ideas. It’s not like those who subsequently articulated Church doctrine were unaware of what Paul, or Irenaeus wrote, and it’s not like they could just slip their own de novo ideas past others who weren’t aware of those writings. They had to make arguments – they had to think through and provide reasons, and argue about, the ways in which new articulations could be set in relation with Church tradition. In the fancy way of saying it, they had to work within a “hermeneutic of continuity”.

What is at stake in Irenaeus’s writing is not whether someone uses the word “heaven”, nor even whether someone phrases things in terms of “souls going to heaven”. The issue is in how we conceive of heaven, what we think that language refers to. What seems clear to me is that Ireneaus is objecting to a vision of “heaven” that “does not admit the salvation of the flesh”.

Umm … the Christians I know do believe in physical resurrection, not in ethereal floating around on clouds with harps ??? We agree with Irenaeus, and with Paul. Christian Eschatology 101 affirms the vision of Revelation 21:1-2, as encapsulated in the Lord’s Prayer, “… on earth as it is in heaven”. The catechism defines heaven as “life in Christ”, and Christ is understood to be physically present both on earth (as things are) and in heaven (as things should be). There is already a bridge (Christ) between the way things are and the way things should be, and the final glory will come when everything passes freely back and forth across that bridge. It’s just a slow infusion rate, is all. If you think you are attacking Christianity as most people I know understand it, you are not.

I also have no clue why your riddle is even a riddle. Your background assumptions seem to be very different from my own, to the point where I really don’t even know where to begin.

For the curious, The New Oxford Annotated Bible (which aspires — successfully, it seems to me — to provide commentary consistent with “mainline” scholarly consensus), comes out fairly strongly against Petrine authorship:

“The tradition that this letter is the work of the apostle Peter was questioned in early times, and internal indications are almost decisive against it. It is dependent upon the Letter of Jude (compare 2.1-8 with Jude 4-16), and the author refers to all the letters of Paul (3.15) in a way that presupposes not only that they had been collected into a corpus, but that they were regarded as equal to “the other scriptures” — conditions which did not exist in the lifetime of Peter. Most scholars therefore regard the letter as the work of one who was deeply indebted to Peter and who published it under his master’s name early in the second century. In this connection the following considerations should be borne in mind. (1) In antiquity pseudonymous authorship was a widely accepted literary convention. Therefore the use of an apostle’s name in reasserting his teaching was not regarded as dishonest but merely a way of reminding the church of what it had received from God through that apostle. (2) The authority of the New Testament books is dependent, not upon their human authorship, but upon their intrinsic significance, which the church, under the guidance of the Spirit, has recognized as the authentic voice of apostolic teaching. For this reason therefore, what is traditionally known as the Second Letter of Peter was included in the canon of Scripture (on the canon, see p. 1170).”

End quote/excerpts.

From that same discussion both https://strangenotions.com/where-is-god-the-problem-of-divine-hiddeness/#comment-2529322669 and https://strangenotions.com/where-is-god-the-problem-of-divine-hiddeness/#comment-2529172816 interact with the following:

Neil Godfrey summarizes Wright’s view pretty well ((…from https://vridar.org/2016/02/20/hurting-can-wright-be-right-this-time/ …))

The Bishop of Durham has broached the idea before but Hurtado’s criticism his directed towards the relatively recent (2013) Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Wright contends that Paul’s teaching that God’s Spirit dwelt in the Church as his Temple could only mean one thing among Jews of Second Temple days: God had returned to dwell on earth with his people. God’s Temple was once again filled with the Glory of God. God, YHWH, had returned to his people in Jesus who was vindicated after the resurrection and that same YHWH now shed his glory on earth in the lives of the saints. Christ is the first to be resurrected and the rest of his brethren will be raised at his final appearance from heaven (the parousia). The (extended) day of that resurrection is now, but God’s promise to return to his people and dwell among them was fulfilled when he came in Jesus and continues now that he lives in his earthly temple, the church. This final event is merely seen as the completion of the renewal that has begun with Christ’s resurrection. Thus there is no “second” coming: God has fulfilled his promise to come to live with his people now.

[6 of 8]

Eight Items Regarding The Trio of Scripture, Logic, and Sound Metaphysics which forces our hand: It is always, ceaselessly, I stand at the door…

1/8

JBC,

Maybe.

The presuppositions would be (I’m sure you well know) –

Firstly – that the sort of person speaking into those ears in the Gospels thusly speaks into all ears – all the time given what is taking place – and by that we mean given that the sort of person speaking is that of God in Christ reconciling the*world* to Himself. And let us add that *God* here is to fully represent that sense of David Harts, “…infinite wellspring of being, consciousness, and bliss that is the source, order, and end of all reality…”.

Secondly, the sort of person speaking into those ears is speaking only into those ears and no others for time and locality are his limits and by that we mean that such would be the sort of person which this or that Critic may presuppose Christ to be.

The language of the Prophets just is the language of Christ and much of what is shared between the two has yet to happen – or even be thought of by His Body the Church. Daniel, Christ, and others leave much yet remaining as God is yet – still – unceasingly – approaching His Body and the World – and the individual. And that language is itself then akin to the language of the book of Revelations which just is the language – again – of God approaching Man – even still – as that peculiar instantiation streams well outside of locality. That Christ has come does not remove Isaiah’s daily seeding of yet new horizons every time we read them. Well, so too with all of Scripture.

That is why “I’ll be back” – full stop – is just out of place and would even be totally inappropriate for the first presupposition, though quite fitting for the second. That is why we expect, on the God-presupposition, what we find: all Christians, both as a Collective and as the Individual, reading these words hear or read *God’s* voice speaking to *them*. That fits with what we expect given that the first presupposition is our starting point. However, given that the second presupposition is one’s starting point one would expect future generations to look at it the way we today look at speeches about the coming of the British. Out of date.

Circularity now arises in both the Critic and the Christian here on Christ’s words given such presuppositions.

So now what?

So, well, now we must allow all of Scripture to weigh in, to speak towards Christ’s language, to apply the whole-show, to assimilate the full meta-narrative and integrate all lines, and so on. Some things may be able to stand on their own – some may not stand but by that afore mentioned integration. The Christian is in the unique and comfortable position of merely fitting this or that seam of this or that verse into the wedding-dress / meta-narrative (as it were) to remain seamless (as it were), whereas, the Critic must dismantle the whole meta-narrative, the whole wedding-dress, should he wish to dismantle the Christian’s one-verse or two-verse seam.

Paul – near the end of his life – tells his friend that he prepares to be poured out – like Christ – having fought a good fight. He too knew Christ is coming soon. As he often prayed for and wrote of even as he spoke of his own ensuing execution.

But then, so what. That’s nothing.

God has been approaching far longer than that. Adam too there in Eden hears those same words there in that fateful protoevangelium spoken by the One True God Who references that fateful “Us” there in His own Being’s singularity. And Adam? Well, like the writers of the NT, he very well may have stated, “….some count it the Lord tarries….” And yet the pronouncement was – is – ever present.

The second presupposition counts slowness one way, the first counts it another way. But Scripture helps us here on a faulty sense of timing relative to such a sure and pressing promise: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all men should come to repentance.”

2/8

JBC,

If you are going to label all imminent-sounding language per presupposition #2, rather than per presupposition #1, then so be it. That’s your choice. It simply does not fit into the Christian’s presupposition, as explained already.

Matthew 16 happened next in chapter 17. We know that because in Matthew it flows right into it, and also, in the second epistles of Peter, Peter recounts how they were with Him on the Mount of that transfiguration and saw the Son of Man “coming in His power”. His Glory, His Transfiguration, His Being amid the I-AM, is all – as already discussed – ever-present. “For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.”

Those standing there in Mathew 16 then saw the Lord Christ coming in His Power in Matthew 17 – according to Peter’s epistle. That approach of course does not need the sort of massaging some other approaches need to get it to “fit” with the “rest of scripture”.

This is odd: “Well, cognitive bias can be funny that way”. If you are going to call a presupposition a bias – that is fine. So the Critic and the Christian start on even ground.

As to an answer about the Lord Christ coming in His Power – Peter already gave the Christian the very substrate he expects to find – assuming that is – that presupposition #1 is valid. And, on top of that, my last post stands even more coherent for all those same reasons we find in Peter’s view of it, with all those other vectors of immanence still nicely intact.

I agree with you on the problem of the meta-narrative – of Scripture’s A – Z, as it were, for the Critic. Dealing with all of scripture as a whole – rather than with one-verse sort of sound-bites – is the sort of *work* the average Critic presupposes to be unnecessary. Like “the coming of the Lord Christ in His Power” over in Peter. That’s just to many pages away – and besides – Christ coming in His Power in Matthew 16 just can’t be what Peter said it was in Matthew 17 – the mere fact that such lines gel quite seamlessly with so much else we find in Scripture’s meta-narrative just cannot be relevant. -Cause presupposition #2.

Well, Presupposition #1 fits much better with what we find.

You seem to want presupposition #2 to work here:

“Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.”

That is pretty straight forward – those of us (he is a Christian speaking to Christians about Christians) who are alive when the Lord comes……. According to presupposition #1, it fits just right. The word “we” there seems to bother you, or is the core of your wanting to undo the whole meta-narrative – like Peter and Christ already haven come in His Power (Etc.) according to Peter (Etc.) But it shouldn’t bother you – just look at the rest of scripture and you’ll see why. If I were to write a letter of comfort to those mourning the death of our own Christian brothers and sisters I would use the very same language. And such a tone would be perfectly accurate with the rest of scripture. The same with “We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed….” – again a Christian, again speaking to Christians about Christians, and again about Christ’s coming. You want it to be like a letter about the coming of the British – applicable in one time and location per presupposition #2. But a Christian writing to Christians would not phrase such a letter in such a way. The Critic needs to answer why that is the case. Scripture repeatedly speaks with that very sort of language – from cover to cover. That’s that pesky meta-narrative the average Critic does not want to look at.

You noted this: “The *only* exception to this is 2 Peter, which you reference here as being helpful.” Yes, but so is the *other* 2 Peter there about the Coming of the Lord in His Power already having occurred – there in Matthew 17. Peter had Christ labeled exactly as Christians today still do, with Christ already haven come in His Power and with Christ being slow to yet come in His Power. And that is what we see in the rest of Scripture too on the language of the Son of Man Coming in His Power. Re-read presupposition # 1 and all its nuances in the last comment and you’ll see why that works out so seamlessly. The Christian finds just that same landscape (as the Old, Original, Church Father, Peter finds) to be expected – predicted – because of Who is speaking, what He is speaking about, how He is speaking, who He is speaking to, and what all of that consistently looks like in Scripture’s cover-to-cover meta-narrative. Peter’s duo-toned Coming/Coming echoes Christ’s duo-toned Coming/Coming. As does so very, very much of scripture. We expect that. All of it. The Critic’s basic presupposition though with all of that – not so much.

A big difference between us seems to be that I don’t see the Critic’s employment of a presupposition as evidence of cognitive dissonance, of pathology, but simply as a categorical working framework congruent with what are likely to be many of his other metaphysical presuppositions. Whereas, you see the Christian’s employment of that same category of framework as evidence of pathology. That’s unfortunate. That you take that tone and track, I mean, on these sort of academic and ontological questions. If one is that opposed to another making “ontic-presuppositions” even as, all the while, one himself goes about making “ontic-presuppositions” also, well, there is another thread here on Scientism one may find helpful.

Logic forces our hand: It is always, ceaselessly, I stand at the door…

3/8

From Tom Gilson:

JBC, the burden of proof lies with you, if you want to claim that Jesus was wrong about the time of his return.

If you don’t want to claim that, then my post, its claims, and the burden of proof really all ought to be irrelevant in your eyes. I mean, why would you care?

Suppose you didn’t care about claiming that Jesus was wrong. Suppose you also succeeded in showing I can’t bear the burden of proof; that I can’t substantiate my claim. What would you have accomplished? You would have shown that I was wrong. Congratulations for that. Meanwhile you’d still be in the state of not caring whether Jesus was right or wrong.

I can live with that outcome. My post was written for people who believe Jesus was wrong.

So what is your position, anyway?

4/8

It’s the same theme over and over. Logic forces our hand: It is always, ceaselessly, I stand at the door…

14 …..which go forth unto the kings of the whole world, to gather them together unto the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. 15 (Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walked naked, and they see his shame.) 16 And they gathered them together into the place which is called in Hebrew Har-magedon…..

Here we see again the Imminence of God – right now, today, always – married to – amalgamated with – prophetic vectors which find the entire world’s citizenship at some locus of history entering into, participating in, experiencing, all the affairs of an Age’s consummation in what appears to be one brief time – less than one life time. Perhaps such all-tongues, such all-nations, as here and in OT lines and …. well…. elsewhere, are as Christ states here and in the Gospels. But then such converging with such a world wide all-inclusive citizenship of perception of Christ in some very real sense would mandate that the name of Christ be preached in all places, and that all such places have some semblance of a working knowledge thereof. Now, such educational achievements to such far reaching distances all taking place – and then – all being followed up by all such places and distances – now aware – all then coming together in a more global arena – and then – all finding themselves again re-converging in some sort tension – well as noted travel was quite slow in the first century…. and the globe was anything but, well, global, and so presupposition #1 seems quite more robust here.

But all of this is a fairly minor example as such is but one part of what is Scripture’s repeating theme of this marriage of God’s ever present Imminence with God’s having yet to come.

“Eat, drink, and be merry – for the End is far away” – just is nonsense on Scripture’s unmistakable thematic genre of God and Mankind.

It is always, ceaselessly, I stand at the door……

5/8

This marriage of the concrete and ceaseless “Imminence of God” with God’s concrete and ceaseless “Yet-To-Actualize” begins in Eden.

From the get-go. God ever at the door – with us – always. God ever pressing upon us the soon to come – always.

It’s seen there in Abraham.
And in Issac.
And Jacob.
It’s there in Israel.
It’s there in all the Prophets.
It’s there in the Gospels.
It’s there in the entire NT.
It’s there in Revelations.
From A to Z. Until a wedding of sorts.

It just is the topography of God amid Man, of Man amid God. Metaphysically and logically speaking, that topography seems unavoidable. In fact, given the ontology of “God” and of “Man in Privation”, nothing else seems to add up. As it happens, there is only one Genre on planet Earth where we find all these vectors casually, comfortably converging.

“Eat, drink, and be merry – for the End is far away” – just is nonsense on Scripture’s unmistakable thematic genre of God and Mankind.

It is always, ceaselessly, “I stand at the door……..”

6/8

We almost missed this comedy:

“Paul clearly connects the parousia to the Roman civilization, stating that the return will come while people are saying “pax et securitas” (peace and safety), a Roman slogan found on coins.”

“Cleary connects…”

Hmm….. so Christ’s reference to coins means that it really is the case – it is the actual state of affairs – that Rome, and not God, actually has ontological control of the metaphysical vectors sustaining the city of Rome – that such actually does belong to Caesar. But what about the book of Romans and such final ownership linked to God yet still?

That’s that silly “no verse is connected to all other verses” presupposition of the Critic once again.

Funny.

Reason in a vacuum.

Like Peter telling us later in life that he saw the Son of Man in His Power. That too has no connection to any other verses. -Cause presupposition #2…..

Just like, “Eat, drink, and be merry for God is far away” ought to be the thematic tone of Scripture “if” it was inspired by God, “if” presupposition #1 housed accuracy, and, so, therefore, because the thematic tone from A to Z is God ever amid Man – ceaseless Imminence – then clearly such a “constant” is proof of error. Surely God would tell Israel to party it up -cause the Messiah is far off all those centuries, and surely God would tell the Church to party it up all those centuries -cause God is far away, -cause that is what God “should” do. But He didn’t. So therefore presupposition #1 is irrational, unreasoned, and incoherent.

That’s even funnier.

Nothing connected to anything else. All verses – like the coin thing – just stand in isolation and “clearly indicate….”

Reason in a vacuum.

7/8

See the links at the end of this paragraph and recall that they are to layer in and atop Peter’s claim to already have seen the Son of Man in His Power, and, also, to layer atop the presupposition of the Critic bizarre claim that scripture’s thematic tone either “is” or “should be” ~ from Eden to Revelations ~ from cover to cover ~ from the Fall to the New Creation ~ the general tone of “Eat, drink and be merry, for God is far away”, and, also, to layer atop the Critic’s bizarre presupposition that all verses stand in isolation from all other verses thus justifying the Critic’s sort of odd presuppositions and bizarre approaches and hence to then claim that, say, Christ’s statement about coins can be used to “…clearly connect…” the actual ontological ownership of Rome to, not God, but to – wait for it – Caesar ~ and so on: Was Jesus a failed eschatological prophet: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/was-jesus-a-failed-eschatological-prophet/ and Was Jesus wrong: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/q-a-was-jesus-wrong

8/8
The Trio of Scripture, Logic, and Sound Metaphysics forces our hand: It is always, ceaselessly, I stand at the door.

JBC,

I’ve learned a lot from you – much I’ve had to look up and read about. Thanks to you I’m not only more educated on several lines here, but I am also out of what were to be many free hours of relaxing. But, that said, and meant, I have not seen anything compelling which grants you enough sway to declare presupposition #1 to be irrational, incoherent, or unreasoned. That is in part do to your methodology, and in part do to content. If the Christian is to find that there is any global reach in Scripture at all, then you’ve a serious problem with your entire thesis. When we allow all verses to speak to all other verses, there is a global reach throughout all tongues of the earth, and all nations of the earth, and all peoples of the earth, and all tribes of the earth, and all….. such that Christ’s words in Revelations cannot be “divorced” from His words in the Gospels such that the words in Eden cannot be divorced from…. such that……. cannot be divorced from….. and so on.

Such “divorce” is seen in your method with the Roman coin (among other places). Your use of the Roman coin and “clearly connects” was absurd given what that method permits one to say of Christ’s statement about coins and Caesar’s ownership, and then how that all ties into the book of Roman’s tie-in to God’s ownership transcending that. Christ’s words about the coin – on your method of not allowing all verses to speak to all verses – could be used to devise some odd doctrine of Caesar’s ownership in some hard and fast sense. Dr. Craig’s methodology in the links is more systematic and robust for many reasons – one of which is allowing Scripture to define Scripture – all verses speaking to all other verses.

Christ’s words in Revelations cannot be divorced from Christ’s words in the Gospels cannot be divorced from Paul’s words on the Roman Coin cannot be divorced from Peter’s words in his epistles cannot be divorced from Eden’s words about Mankind cannot be divorced from the OT prophets words on the Messiah cannot be divorced from….. Imminence which cannot be divorced from….. That is really the only fundamental difference in our two approaches. The Roman Coin thing was an obvious an absurd case on your end which reveals a confused method should we apply that same method to Christ and Caesar but that same method is consistently able to be extricated in your methodology overall. While that method is perfectly in line with presupposition #2, it is quite unsatisfactory for presupposition #1 for a whole array of sound, coherent intellectual reasons in terms of logic, in terms of ontology, and in terms of Scripture such that there are, without question, soundly reasoned and coherent justifications for refusing your conclusions in favor of other more well-rounded, inclusive, conclusions.

End 8 Comments/Etc.

[7 of 8]

In addition to the above 8 comments/excerpts there are the following few items related to the tediously painful reminder that some occasionally need, namely:

Part of Adulting is reading “Whole Books”

From Scott Baker:

“…Key vs. are 3-4 “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”

Of course, the passage and relevant material don’t start there. You really can’t make sense of 1 Cor. without reading the whole thing, but this section at least has to start back in chapter 4 or 5. Paul is offering pastoral counsel to the Church at Corinth. Now, completely relevant is what we know about ancient Corinth. It was a port city famous for the quality and abundance of its wine and its prostitutes. It was destroyed by Rome and resettled by veterans from Julius Caesar’s campaigns by the time of Paul. Corinth was a hyper-sexualized city filled with rough folks. In chapter 5, Paul is admonishing them for tolerating flagrant sexual immorality in their community. So we can banish the idea that the problem Paul is addressing is prudishness or reticence.

****Key: But, and this is key, Paul *is* addressing questions the Corinthians sent to him in what he says in ch. 7. He’s not pontificating, he’s answering a specific question. What is the question?

1 Cor. 7:1 “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman.'”

The problem Paul is addressing is asceticism, and it’s the women who are being deprived. Paul’s instructions in 3-4 about not withholding conjugal rights is countering the Corinthian idea (totally understandable given their pagan sex-soaked context!) that asceticism is a higher form of holiness, which their men were espousing.

Sex in marriages is ceasing out of a misplaced desire to be more devoted to God. Paul is NOT addressing the natural waxing and waning of sexual desire because of illness, injury, trauma, fatigue, childbearing, or the thousand other things that affect a human sex drive. This helps make much more sense of v. 5, “Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control.”

And then, the chef’s kiss is v. 6, “This I say by way of concession, not of command.”

Look, men, if you’re out there telling your wife she has to have sex with you or she’s displeasing God, you’re wrong in every way it’s possible to be wrong.

Paul is offering pastoral counsel here, not delivering tablets from Mt. Sinai, and his counsel is about mutuality, care, and looking out for each other’s faith. That’s why ch. 7 goes with ch. 8 about food sacrificed to idols. It’s the same kind of counsel!

That’s what ch. 11 is about too, not subordinating women. That’s what “the body of Christ” is about in ch. 12. And that’s how the letter can arrive at the paean to love in ch. 13. I’m not a marriage counselor, but this just isn’t about “men’s needs.” At all. It’s more about the inherent goodness of creation and our embodiment of God’s temple (6:19). The Spirit is already with us; we need not entice her with asceticism.

Beyond all that, you couldn’t torture out of me a confession that I was so bad at being a husband that I have to threaten my wife with damnation to get her to be with me, and these guys are just volunteering that information all over Beyoncé’s internet. In addition to embarrassing themselves and shaming their wives, they’re badly twisting the message of the Scriptures here. If you’re using 1 Cor. 7:3-4 to say wives MUST sex on demand, get help, and stop taking the Lord’s name in vain…”

End quote from Scott Baker.

And Again:

Part of Adulting is reading “Whole Books”

The same book tells us that if we do not work and provide for our families we ought not eat, yet also mentions detachment As-If-No-Tomorrow, just as the same book claims Marriage and Spouse and Child are all Gifts and that Marriage is a Mirror of Christ and the Chruch, even as it speaks of Remaining Single As-If-No-Tomorrow, and so on. Part of Adulting comes in here, as follows:

Adults don’t read “900 pages of a historical work” or “900 pages of a philosophical work” by reading a few paragraphs and then boldly shouting,

“See! I’ve read enough in these five pages! The other 895 pages are not relevant! The Metanarrative / Context / Subtext of this 900 page philosophical work can be summarized as “See Spot Run! It’s nonsense!”

From https://www.theologyofwork.org/new-testament/1-corinthians/maintain-the-proper-perspective-1-cor-729-31/ is the following excerpt:

“…Paul addresses the question of whether the promised return of the Lord implies that Christians should abandon ordinary daily life, including work… Paul’s logic will be easier to understand if we recognize that 1 Cor. 7:29 does not indicate merely that “the time is short” in the sense that Jesus’ second coming is almost here. Paul uses a verb here that describes how an object is pushed together (synestalmenos), so that it becomes shorter or smaller as a whole. “Time has been compressed” might be a better translation, as suggested by the NASB rendering, or “Time has been shortened.”

What Paul apparently means is that since Christ has come, the end of the vast expanse of time has at last become visible. “The future outcome of this world has become crystal clear,” writes scholar David E. Garland.[1] 1 Cor. 7:31 explains that “the present form of this world is passing away.” The “present form” has the sense of “the way things are” in our fallen world of damaged social and economic relationships. Paul wants his readers to understand that Christ’s coming has already effected a change in the very fabric of life. The values and aspirations that are simply taken for granted in the present way of doing things are no longer operative for believers.

The proper response to the compression of time is not to cease working but to work differently. The old attitudes toward everyday life and its affairs must be replaced. This brings us back to the paradoxical statements in 1 Corinthians 7:29–31. We should buy, yet be as though we have no possessions. We should deal with the world as though not dealing with the world as we know it. That is, we may make use of the things this world has to offer, but we shouldn’t accept the world’s values and principles when they get in the way of God’s kingdom. The things we buy, we should employ for the good of others instead of holding tightly to them. When we bargain in the market, we should seek the good of the person from whom we buy, not just our own interests. In other words, Paul is calling believers to “a radically new understanding of their relationship to the world…”

End excerpt.

From https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/third-sunday-after-epiphany-2/commentary-on-1-corinthians-729-31-3 is the following excerpt:

“…The eschatological time

Paul understands what has happened in Christ inside an apocalyptic framework, which contemporary Christians might no longer share. For Christians today, it is often the case that their relationship with Jesus Christ means salvation (present and/or future) and reconciliation to God. It might also provide a moral orientation to their life. For Paul, what happened with Christ, both his death on the cross and his being raised by God, is first and foremost an apocalyptic event. It inaugurates the end. Paul was convinced that, now that Christ has come and has displayed perfect obedience in his death, the end was very near. For Paul, the end means that this world as human beings knew it was soon going to disappear and be replaced with a new creation, a restored creation. For Paul, the event of Christ means that the Christ believers now live in a new aeon, a new time period.

In this new aeon, they are the first representatives of this new, restored, saved creation and thus have a responsibility to behave as eschatological Christ believers. They are, to use Pauline language, the first fruits of the new creation, of what will happen when the world is entirely restored and saved (Romans 8:18-25). Because of the Christ believers’ particular position in time, they have a responsibility to behave in a certain manner. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is trying to establish this behavior in regard to marriage.

As if not

In the section of 1 Corinthians 7 that is under scrutiny, Paul broadens the discussion, and establishes a model behavior for his addressees. This model behavior is qualified by an attitude of “as if not” (os men): whatever the behavior or the quality concerned, the person should act as if that behavior did not really exist or matter. Paul’s examples of behavior “as if not” are framed by two affirmations about what time it is. In 1 Corinthians 7:29, Paul writes, “the appointed time has grown short,” and in 1 Corinthians 7:31, he says, “For the present form of this world is passing away.” Thus if one correctly understands where one stands in relationship to cosmological time, one should be in a position to correctly understand what Paul asks when he demands that one behaves “as if not.”

I find this section and the examples Paul uses puzzling: he discusses those who are married, those who are crying, those who are rejoicing, those who are involved in commercial transaction, and finally those who benefit from the world. There seems to be no clear logic to Paul’s enumeration, and no clear relationship between the different categories. The categories are also far from exhaustive. Previously, he had added circumcision and slavery to the type of situations that should not be modified. But in the case of circumcision and slavery, Paul seemed to say that there are matters of indifference. One should not bother one way or another. Here, with the “as if not,” Paul seems to introduce another nuance. One can continue engaging in whatever behavior, but one should engage in it “as if not.” What does this mean? And how do you do it?

Before I propose on reflection on that, I should probably insist that you can only engage in “as if not” behavior at the end, in the apocalyptic age. That was Paul’s conviction: he truly believed the end had started, and this belief deeply shaped the way he wants to organize his communities. In particular, they are not meant to last. Thus, we have to be profoundly aware that we are no longer in Paul’s context at all. The end did not come in the first century, and the Christ-believers’ communities developed in Christian churches that definitely became lasting.

Agamben on “as if not”

In his commentary on the first verse of the epistle to the Romans, the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben proposes a reflection on the concept of “calling,” of “vocation,” in relationship to this living “as if not” that Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians.¹ For Agamben, living “as if not” is characteristic of the messianic time, and related to the concept of vocation, of calling. Agamben defines the “as if not” as a technical term for Paul: it prepares the end of each condition, whatever it might be. This is why Paul can frame the appeal to the “as if not” by a reference to the passing of the present form of this world (1 Corinthians 7:31). In this sense, each condition is relativized.

It also, as Agamben points out, clarifies why Paul mentions “those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it.” This, according to Agamben, defines messianic vocation: it is a potentiality that one can employ, and yet never possess. In the apocalyptic time, each condition (freedom, slavery, marriage, celibacy, circumcision, uncircumcision) can be used, but it can never be owned. It cancels the hold that the world can have on each one of us, not by revolting against it, but by simply cancelling it.²This can only truly happen, however, if the Christ believers are aware of what time it is…”

End excerpt.

[8 of 8]

Then the following excerpts from “No Enduring City: The Gospel Both Created & Destroyed Christendom” at https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/08/no-enduring-city

“…the Gospel was never bound to the historical fate of any political or social order, but always claimed to enjoy a transcendence of all times and places…”

“…So perhaps the best moral sense Christians can make of the story of Christendom now, from the special vantage of its aftermath, is to recall that the Gospel was never bound to the historical fate of any political or social order, but always claimed to enjoy a transcendence of all times and places. Perhaps its presence in human history should always be shatteringly angelic: It announces, even over against one’s most cherished expectations of the present or the future, a truth that breaks in upon history, ever and again, always changing or even destroying the former things in order to make all things new. That being so, surely modern Christians should find some joy in being forced to remember that they are citizens of a Kingdom not of this world, that here they have no enduring city, and that they are called to live as strangers and pilgrims on the earth…”

END

Thomas Aquinas Case for Tolerance

At Aquinas Online Joseph M. Magee, Ph.D. interacts with A Theory Of Justice by J. Rawls and shows why Human Laws should, per Thomas Aquinas, advocate tolerance.

—Begin Quote/Excerpt—

In his influential work, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls accuses Thomas Aquinas of not advocating “even a limited tolerance.” (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), p.216) It seems plausible to accuse Rawls in this matter of a superficial reading of Thomas, depending on one passage in the http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3 without placing that passage in its larger context. Upon closer examination, one can see that Thomas in fact advocates more than just a limited tolerance, while explicating that a true theory of tolerance is not a theory of neutrality, but rather an admission that the objects of toleration are not themselves positive goods.

For Thomas, all law derives its legitimacy from the eternal law in God. The eternal law is the wisdom of God which guides all the events in the universe. Each person participates in the eternal law via the natural law inscribed within his heart, as man is created in the divine image (… http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html …). Human laws should reflect the natural law, but they are not identical to it. “The natural law is a participation in us of the eternal law: while human law falls short of the eternal law.” (… http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm#article2 …) Because the scope of human law is narrower than that of natural law, it cannot regulate every human action.

Human law is not for the already virtuous, but rather for those still needing formation in virtue. This purpose contains within itself the seeds for toleration. Due to the fact that most people are still struggling to be virtuous, human laws should not be so stringent as to discourage persons on the road to virtue. Thomas suggests that human law should guide citizens, without overwhelming them:

Quote: The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz., that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils… (… http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm#article2 …)

The evil actions of imperfect men which Thomas refers to are those actions which do not threaten the common good; clearly, Thomas does not wish to allow all evils. There are some evils, such as murder, which are so grave that they threaten the very stability of the community and cannot be tolerated. This passage seems to indicate, however, that Thomas would not favor a coercive state.

Moreover, Thomas takes into account the diversity of customs in different polities. He states that “…law should be possible both according to nature, and according to the customs of the country.”(Ibid., a. 2 co.) Man’s nature is fallen; thus, he is not capable of total perfection and he is prone to sin. The law should not regulate for man behavior which would be possible only for angels. Furthermore, custom is deeply rooted in every culture and to fashion laws which take no account of custom will only isolate citizens and earn resentment for the law. Custom is an important unifying force in any polity, and ought to be used for benefit, not suppressed. Thomas shows a respect for the diversity of custom, and does not seem to insist that the state be a homogenous community. In fact, he places custom on a quasi- equal footing with human law: “…custom has the force of law, abolishes law, and is the interpreter of law.” (… http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article3 …) He is quick to add, however, that custom (like human law) can never oppose the natural law. (Ibid., ad 1)

As was said previously, human law must gradually guide citizens to virtue. More than that, it cannot even prohibit all evils, simply because this would set up an ideal which many citizens would not be able to reach. Rather, human laws should only prohibit those vices”…from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained…” (… http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm#article2 …) Rawls himself would admit that not everything can be tolerated since “liberty is governed by the necessary conditions for liberty itself.”( Rawls, op. cit., p. 215) Since human law does not, and should not, forbid every evil, it follows that the state tolerates those vices not forbidden. Thomas makes this very clear:

Quote…those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii.4): “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” (… http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article11 …)

This passage occurs in response to the question of whether the rites of certain unbelievers (such as the Jews) should be tolerated, which Thomas answers in the affirmative:

Quote: Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided. (Ibid.)

Even in this passage, however, Thomas has reservations about tolerating those rites of unbelievers which are neither true nor spiritually valuable. He only allows for such rites to be tolerated “in order to avoid an evil, for instance the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually convert to the faith.”(Ibid.) To return to the brief statement about prostitution, it is especially striking because it shows Thomas’ willingness to tolerate a serious evil for the sake of civil order. Surely, this is a case of more than limited tolerance!

Thomas locates the need for tolerance in the eternal law itself. Advocating that human government should imitate the divine rule, Thomas reminds us:

Quote: Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. (Ibid.)

This was the principle which Thomas invoked to justify the toleration of harlots. It shows that his belief in tolerance is not merely a pragmatic one, but is deeply embedded in his view of man as one who participates in the eternal law.

We can see an inherent case for tolerance built into the Thomistic anthropology. In contemporary liberal theory, tolerance is justified on the basis of the current diversity in society. The flip side of this diversity is individuality, which requires liberty. In order for all persons to exercise their liberty, the state must tolerate those freely chosen actions of citizens of which it disapproves. (William Galston, Liberal Purposes, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p.222) We can see the beginnings of such a position in Thomas’ doctrine of free will. According to the Thomistic doctrine, all persons have freedom to choose among apparent goods, and this includes the possibility of choosing real evils. God does not prevent us from erring, but rather allows (tolerates) our faults for the sake of our freedom. Even though He has the power to prevent or to even destroy all evil, He does not do so:

Quote: Since, therefore, the will is an active principle, not determined to one thing, but having an indifferent relation to many things, God so moves it that He does not determine it of necessity to one thing, but its movement remains contingent and not necessary…. (… http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2010.htm#article4 …)

Since God respects man’s liberty, on Thomistic principles, so should the state.

Furthermore, as we have already seen, (… http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm#article2 …) not all persons are equal in virtue. Different people are at various stages of moral development, which is one reason why Thomas argues that human law should not be too idealistic. Thomas allows for the moral diversity of persons (as well as the diversity of customs), and teaches tolerance towards those imperfect in virtue.

Thus far, it seems as if Rawls’ criticism is entirely unfounded. We have yet, however, to investigate the singular passage from the Summa which prompts his criticism. This is Thomas’ infamous question as to whether heretics should be tolerated. Thomas responds:

Quote: Wherefore if forgers or money and other evil-doers are forewith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated, but even put to death. (… http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3 …)

Rawls attacks this passage as being an affront to liberty, and also as being unfair since the danger of heresy is a matter of faith:

Quote: …Aquinas justifies the death penalty for heretics on the ground that it is a far graver matter to corrupt the faith, which is the life of the soul, than to counterfeit money. So if it is just to put to death forgers and criminals, heretics may a fortiori be similiarly dealt with. (Rawls, op.cit.,p.215)

First of all, we must closely examine Thomas’ actual words. He is not directly advocating the death penalty for heretics. Rather, he is setting up a conditional: if forgers and the like are executed under the law, then heretics should, with much more justification, be likewise punished. Thomas himself does not directly advocate that forgers should be killed; he is merely describing how they were dealt with within his own society. Forgers are not executed in modern, liberal democracies; we reserve the death penalty for our most heinous murderers. In medieval society, however, many lesser crimes were punishable by death. Heresy, which endangers a person’s eternal salvation, surely is a greater evil than forgery. Furthermore, Thomas reserves the execution of heretics to the secular authority. Today, with our total separation of Church and State, the secular authority would have no concern with heretics. Perhaps, medieval society, which was based on the divine right of kings, or England under Henry VIII, would be threatened politically by religious dissenters. Our own society would experience no such threat. Thomas’ seeming intolerance to heresy, a matter of faith, is simply irrelevent in a liberal democracy–and, as such, need not stand up to Rawls’ criticism.

If, however, we examine the Thomistic doctrine on the death penalty in general, we can see that he only favors it when the common good is in immediate danger:

Quote: Therefore, if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good…. (… http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2 …)

In the same place, however, Thomas adds that evil-doers should be tolerated if their destruction would harm the virtuous:

Quote: Wherefore Our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked.(Ibid., ad. 1)

It should be clear from the forgoing that Rawls’ accusation that Thomas is intolerant is superficial and false. Thomas advocates tolerance of the rites of unbelievers and even of such evils as prostitution. Moreover, the Thomistic theory of free will and the relationship of God to the free choices of man provides an even stronger basis for toleration than does Rawls’ more pragmatic doctrine.

Written by Joseph M. Magee, Ph.D.
From http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/tolernce.html
Homepage of http://www.aquinasonline.com/

—End Quote/Excerpt—

Additionally:

Scholastics Contra Racism at https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/09/scholastics-contra-racism.html

Also, a few inroads into the Imago Dei vis-à-vis The Trinitarian Life:

Quote:

“To return, then, to this essay’s beginning: if it is so that this is how the divine image is constituted in us—as the play of God’s glory gathering in the mirror of our nature—and that it is a Trinitarian image, then, in considering how God reveals himself in the economy of creation and salvation, we must ultimately find ourselves far beyond all simple oppositions between “social” and “psychological” Trinitarianism, or between “personalism” and “essentialism,” or—most certainly—between Greeks and Latins. Just as we must resist every temptation toward those twin reductions of the human essence to either simply society or simply ego (which are vapid as abstractions and vicious as ideologies), we must surely avoid reducing our understanding of God to rudimentary images of either confederacy or subjectivity. In our own souls, in their absolute implication within one another of the exterior and the interior, we discover—without grasping—an icon of that infinite transparency of the divine persons within and to one another that is also the infinite depth of each divine person’s distinctness. On the one hand, it seems we must understand this infinite coincidence in God of relation and identity by reflecting upon the unity of the soul’s motion outward toward expression and inward toward thought (however we may wish to employ “social” models, in themselves they can offer only pictures of extrinsic accommodations between monads, or perhaps of the “transparency” of collective identity, but in neither case can such models account for the mysterious complexity and amphibology of personality, or for the reality of the soul’s unity within difference); but, on the other hand, for Gregory no less than for Augustine, the turn inward proves to be, in a still more radical sense, a turn outward: I am an openness whose depth does not belong to me, but to the boundless light that creates me, and whose identity is then given me as other. And as the otherness of God is the soul’s true depth, she can possess no identity apart from the otherness of the neighbor; and both the soul’s otherness from God and the otherness of each soul from every other reflect the mystery of God’s act of “othering” himself within his infinite unity.”

End Quote ((…from David Bentley Hart’s The Hidden and the Manifest…))

The following is an excerpt from Bradly Mason https://alsoacarpenter.com/

Quote/Excerpt:

“…Thomas Aquinas’ answer to, “Is Christ the Head of all mankind?”, Summa III, q. 8, a. 3, is also very important to developing a proper social doctrine. His answer is, of course, yes, Christ is the Head of ALL humanity, not just some. He presumes, to begin with, that Christ is incarnate for ALL mankind, which is unquestionably true according to the ecumenical Creed’s and council’s of the Church. Assuming this premise, Thomas can rightly argue to Christ’s headship of all mankind. In sum, by bearing the substance of man, the human nature, Christ was made like all men—whether predestined to glory or not—in every respect, save sin. As such, all men in this life are potentially His brethren, being of like nature with Him. Just as we all have shared the like nature of the first Adam, so Christ has become the “Second Adam” and the “Last Adam” by assuming the same nature into His own person. As all men share in the self-same human nature that Christ even now bears, so all men are capable of union with Him and thus are all potentially so, should they only receive and believe His gospel. While only those predestined will ultimately be united to Christ by faith and love unto glory (reducing the natural potentiality to mystical actuality), the fact that Christ has borne the flesh of all mankind unites the whole of humanity around the new and perfect man, the Head of all creation, our Lord Jesus Christ. So, what does this have to do with social doctrine? It means that all mankind, whether in Christ mystically or not, are united with Christ and under His headship according to their very humanity—that is, according to the human nature that all men share with Jesus. As such, ALL HUMAN also share equally in the dignity of His human nature, fully displayed in His Incarnation, death, and resurrection. The Gospel does not destroy the unified image of God in man. Rather, the Gospel brings this image to its ultimate end, viz., our Lord Jesus Christ. And even as our incarnate God now bears the human nature itself, so He bears the nature of the Jew, the Greek, the African, the European, and any other category of Adam’s offspring we care to construct, WHETHER IN OR OUT OF THE CHURCH. As Christians, we must therefore share the same ethic of our Savior toward all men, whether Christian or not. He who “loved the world” and therefore “gave His only begotten Son” to bear the nature of every tribe, nation, and tongue in turn explicitly requires the same self-sacrificial love of us: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:43-48). To be sure, if we limit the scope of Christ’s person and work to the Church and the already redeemed, we are likely to limit the scope of His common grace to all mankind. As He has borne the flesh of all, He has thereby dignified the nature of all, making every member of the human race not only a fit object of His redemption, but also a fit object of every Christian’s reconciliatory affections and energies…”

End Quote/Excerpts.

Possible Overlap: https://www.amazon.com/Mystical-as-Political-Aristotle-Papanikolaou-ebook/dp/B01D4TAWWY

—END—

Marriage And The Perfection of Reciprocity

SECTION 1 of 6

Is the proper End of Man something akin to an ontology of love’s fullness? Is the proper End of all things Adamic in something akin to an ontology of reciprocity’s perfection? If love’s fullness & reciprocity’s perfection is in fact “The Adamic’s” Final Felicity || True Good then is it possible for Marriage amid many men and many women to find Closure therein? What about Marriage amid simply [One & One] regardless of whether or not the fully Masculine||Feminine finds Closure therein? What about Marriage amid [Male||Female]?

Reciprocity’s peculiar realization of singularity amid the Masculine / Feminine arrives within the egalitarian milieu of the syntax of all things Edenic per the Christian metaphysic. Can reality’s landing zone of singularity within the perfection of love’s reciprocity in fact justify a landing zone amid the Masculine||Feminine?

Can we in fact define such a thing as “a” human nature?

Define “a” Human Nature via Define Human as per 1. http://disq.us/p/1myouin and 2. http://disq.us/p/1myow7u and 3. http://disq.us/p/1mypdb9 and 4. http://disq.us/p/1n1pe0o Most of those are within the content of “Imago Dei and Closure In An Actual Human Nature and Rejecting The Eternally Open Ended” at https://metachristianity.com/imago-dei-and-closure-in-an-actual-human-nature-and-rejecting-the-eternally-open-ended/

On Non-Theism such a question lands, obviously, in that which is necessarily and eternally open ended. Biology is one slice of that and, in isolation, affirms that same eternally open ended topography. Then, just as obvious, the metaphysical topography of the Imago Dei avoids that lack of closure in and of the illusory and, instead, arrives at ontic-cloure as irreducible transcendentals press in.

All of that is simply the two landscapes of Non-Theism and Theism, of the failure to traverse (…on the one hand…) and of the successful traversal (…on the other hand…) of the ontological convertibility of the necessary transcendentals (…as per https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/ which looks at the means and ends of that Golden Thread of Reciprocity…) and is, on its own, enough to end the conversation with respect to whether or not we can in fact speak of ontic-closure.

Precision with respect to the Questions/Premises on the table:

A. Do We Genuinely Believe, Know, & Affirm That Love Is Reality’s Irreducible Ethic?

B1. The Non-Theist must be willing to open up his own premises to actual scrutiny for whether we travel upstream or whether we travel downstream, where love is concerned all Non-Theism(s) find that love itself is by necessity lost, finally, to non-being at some ontological seam somewhere. As per B2 & B3.

B2. Reality’s Irreducible & Concrete Furniture sums to the Fundamental Nature of Indifference via the Singularity that is the Metaphysical Wellspring of all ontological possibility — namely The Quantum Wave Function Full-Stop.

B3. Reality’s Irreducible & Concrete Furniture sums to Being Itself as Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life.

C. The question on the table is with respect to the realities within the contingent being, with respect to the frail and the mutable vis-à-vis all things Adamic. The illusory just won’t do.

D. Both the Non-Theist and Theist here mean to speak, not of Non-Being, but of Being. Nowhere does this press upon us more relentlessly than in the elemental and irreducible processions constituting Love and Logic, or Reciprocity and Reason. Therein the “Non-”of Non-Theism becomes manifestly infinite.

Intimacy speaks of that which fully reciprocates and, in all its forms, the fuller the love the fuller that giving-away of one’s very life and being amid the “other” and, just the same, the fuller the love the fuller that receiving into one’s very life and being amid the “other“. Two brief observations with respect to the semantic intent in all of that:

a. …the syntax of such can of course carry a conversation into the interfaces of God & Man as per the proverbial self/other, and so on, and….

b. …the syntax can also carry a conversation into the current topic, namely the interfaces amid the proverbial “Adamic” in the setting of Marriage…

That said, it is obvious that in all its forms (…parent, child, friend, spouse, and so on…) love houses such progressions – *however* – there is a fullness of intimacy amid the entirety of being which is one thing or reality and which is not some other thing or reality, and that “form” of love’s intimacy is what Scripture’s singular metaphysic terms Marriage. We arrive necessarily in a discussion of nothing less than Ontology, Heavy Metaphysics, Knowledge, and Divine Communique as all Necessary Transcendentals stream from the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility – from the Trinitarian Life vis-à-vis reality’s only Blueprint for love’s timeless reciprocity – termed Imago Dei.

We are speaking, then, here, not of God and Man, but, rather, of the fullness of love within marriage here inside of our own contingent and mutable lives as that concept of fullness of love carries us into the concept of and reality of the perfection of reciprocity. With God we find *no* limit to His Self-Giving in the sense that for “God” to in fact “do so” is for that which is in fact “The Necessary & Sufficient” in all vectors to “do so”, that which is The Always & The Already therein sums to Absolute Being as Timeless Reciprocity as Ceaseless Self-Giving as Singularity as Pure Act as the Metaphysical Wellspring of all Ontological Possibility. But “that” is more a discussion of “God” and of “Imago Dei” in the fullness of “Imago Dei” which is not quite THIS topic, although this topic does overlap in part with contours of the Imago Dei-In-Full.

So, again, we are speaking here not of God and Man, or of God-In-Man / Man-In-God (…that *is* a discussion within the Christian metaphysic, but it is not (exactly) *this* discussion…), but, rather, of another ontic-category of Fullness vis-à-vis the term and metaphysic of “love & marriage”.

Therefore here, then, the syntax of, “…..Intimacy speaks of that which fully reciprocates and, in all its forms, the fuller the love the fuller that giving-away of one’s very life and being amid the “other” and, just the same, the fuller the love the fuller that receiving into one’s very life and being amid the “other“…..” is syntax which speaks towards something “like” the following which begins to take shape in our semantic intent:

There is a limit to my own self-giving. I have myself to give. The maximum “…giving-away of one’s very life and being…” which I can pour out, of my own self, is my whole self.

There is a maximum “…receiving into one’s very life and being…” in the other self or in another self should that self in fact be the (genuine) recipient of my own giving of my whole self.

& therefore….

The fullness of reciprocity necessarily entails, then, One + One. Not only that, but, also, given the non-expendable transcendentals of the Whole of the Adamic, all such transcendentals necessarily convert into contours of all that is the fully Feminine and the fully Masculine. We cannot deny the reality of Privations & Degrees & Decrements & Dilutions but we mean here to speak of Means & Ends and Closure with respect to fullness vis-à-vis the perfection of being vis-à-vis the perfection of reciprocity vis-à-vis the Blueprint of all things Adamic vis-à-vis Reality’s Irreducible & Concrete Furniture which necessarily sums to Being Itself as Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life.

& therefore….

Should perfect reciprocity be a proper end of man then we immediately perceive the incredible and misplaced ego in the Man who declares himself able to give away that proverbial “one-whole-self” – namely himself of course – to many other selves and yet still expect to find love’s fullness of reciprocity fully realized. The reason the New Testament syntax begins to echo Eden’s syntax with the One + One there becomes glaringly obvious as all other combinations & permutations & progressions can only survive in the company of some degree of self-ish-ness. The inevitable Fruit/Yield of such formulas begin to surface, eventually, as sums within the arenas of Privations & Degrees & Decrements & Dilutions in the immediate and express and final fullness of reciprocity.

Reasoning through to lucidity: If love is the highest ethic (…and it is…) and if perfect reciprocity is a proper end of man (…and it is…), then – it is true that the highest intimacy lands in *two* who in the perfection of reciprocity become *one*. A and B ceaselessly beget C. To put it another way: self and other ceaselessly beget the singular us or the singular “one-another“. It is uncanny but A is not B and B is not C and C is neither A nor B even as ontological singularity arrives. Again we are speaking here of the contingent being, of the Adamic and *not* of Trinity but nonetheless it is, still, uncanny how we find such an Image of the Triune God “therein”.

That *form* of love is what Scripture’s singular metaphysic terms Marriage and we find that only *dilution* of fullness awaits all other combinations, all other progressions, all but that uncanny Blueprint of *two* becoming *one*. The ontological topography there reflects an image as it were of love’s necessary, irreducible, and timeless reciprocity vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life in Whom it is also the case that A is not B and B is not C and C is neither A nor B – in nothing less than an Ontic-Singularity. […Mapping Reality via https://metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/ ..]

In fact D. B. Hart and many others in various ways allude to the Trinitarian Life with referents such as the “…eternal one-another…” in mapping reality’s concrete furniture in and by Being Itself / God.

A Problem Arises:

Part of the “Eureka” which is given as a “metric” by which to “find-our-way” by some is that there is now a new ethic emerging which displaces an old ethic, because it’s new, and, then, on the other side of that blind-foist, we find another blind-foist as all of it is turned 180 degrees by some proverbial Theists and, so, this or that old ethic is the “metric” by which to “find-our-way”, because it’s old.

The proverbial Non-Theist foists “What-Is-Said-Today” while too many (proverbial) Theists foist “What-Was-Said-Yesterday“. However, each in their own right do no better than the other as both of those sum to nothing better than Command-Full-Stop as the definition of The Good and of The Beautiful, and so on (…wait for it…).

Shouting “New!” and shouting “Old!” both equate to intellectual dishonesty and ethical laziness. The Shout of Because-Old! cannot avoid the fact that Scripture defines Sinai as FAR LESS than God’s Eternal Ideal for Mankind is coherent with the fact that Scripture defines The Whole by something far, far beyond Sinai. Whereas, the Non-Theist’s shout of Because-New! cannot avoid the fact that all of its explanatory stopping points are forever immersed within the illusory and therein all “factual distinction” is eventually subsumed within the illusory shadows of non-being.

As it turns out, “New” is not so new after all. Added to that is the fact that neither the fact of and shout of “Old” nor the fact of and shout of “New” merit the rational mind’s embrace.

Each still may or may not have a valid argument, however, reality’s irreducible substratum — God — or what some refer to as The Always and The Already — necessarily precedes and outdistances all such contingent Start/Stop points (…as per https://metachristianity.com/absolute-reference-frame-pure-act-incarnation-time/ ..). Hence all such contingent Reference Frames or Start/Stop points are, if left in isolation, merely carrying us to a place in which the premise is again a replay of earlier concepts embraced by the norms of various “days” ad infinitum. Hence “new” isn’t justified given the history of human peaks/nadirs and even more “ontic” (…so to speak…) is this: “new” with respect to any slice of Privation is a logical impossibility. We must be more careful for “It’s New” isn’t enough to justify any X and for all the same reasons that “It’s Old” isn’t enough to justify any X. On pain of circularity – on pain of the illusory – our metrics must both precede and outdistance all such normative shifts. Reducibility, contingency, and mutability just won’t do as any ontic category of a cosmically and finally illusory Good contradicts and therein offends observational reality and therefore offends reason, logic, and love.

The necessary transcendentals which permit us to even suggest that “Man” has any such proper ends as The Perfection of Reciprocity at once compels Traversing the Trinitarian Life in Defining Love’s Ontology and that therein, at some ontological seam somewhere, disqualifies all Non-Theistic paradigms in that proverbial Reach for that Golden Thread of Reciprocity (…as per the earlier link to https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/ ..). “IF” such irreducible transcendentals exist “THEN” it is God from start to finish for the obvious reason that any sort of Half-Narrative and/or Half-Ontic becomes impossible (….the reason why is simply because to attempt to claim the reality of an “ontological cul-de-sac” is to attempt to claim the reality of a metaphysical absurdity…).

In all of this we come upon reality’s only Blueprint of love’s timeless reciprocity and upon reason and upon the fullness of ontic-means and ontic-ends as the eternal Processions of the Trinitarian Life (God / Trinity / Being Itself ) provide us with the following ontology:

The irreducibly rational just is ontologically seamless with the irreducibly beautiful which just is ontologically seamless with the irreducibly moral which just is ontologically seamless with love’s indestructible self-giving — which is itself seamless with the Divine Mind — which is itself seamless with Infinite Consciousness amid Divine Simplicity – which compels us into a thoroughly Trinitarian Metaphysic – and we are thereby compelled into an Adamic landscape wherein the perfection of Reason just is the perfection of Consciousness, which just is the perfection of Love, which just is the perfection of Being.

The Perfection of Reciprocity carries us into Love’s Ceaseless Self-Giving within all things Adamic — and such carries us, whether we travel upstream or downstream, into the Imago Dei, and such carries us, whether we travel upstream or downstream, into the immutable contours of the Trinitarian Life, into the very means and ends of Being Itself — into God.

SECTION 2 of 6

“…..if reason’s primordial orientation is indeed toward total intelligibility and perfect truth, then it is essentially a kind of ecstasy of the mind toward an end beyond the limits of nature. It is an impossibly extravagant appetite, a longing that can be sated only by a fullness that can never be reached in the world, but that ceaselessly opens up the world to consciousness. To speak of God, however, as infinite consciousness, which is identical to infinite being, is to say that in Him the ecstasy of mind is also the perfect satiety of achieved knowledge, of perfect wisdom. God is both the knower and the known, infinite intelligence and infinite intelligibility. This is to say that, in Him, rational appetite is perfectly fulfilled, and consciousness perfectly possesses the end it desires. And this, of course, is perfect bliss…

…the concept of being is one of power: the power of actuality, the capacity to affect or to be affected. To be is to act. This definition already implies that, in its fullness, being must also be consciousness, because the highest power to act — and hence the most unconditioned and unconstrained reality of being — is rational mind. Absolute being, therefore, must be absolute mind. Or, in simpler terms, the greater the degree of something’s actuality, the greater the degree of its consciousness, and so infinite actuality is necessarily infinite consciousness. That, at least, is one way of trying to describe another essential logical intuition that recurs in various forms throughout the great theistic metaphysical systems. It is the conviction that in God lies at once the deepest truth of mind and the most universal truth of existence, and that for this reason the world can truly be known by us. Whatever else one might call this vision of things, it is most certainly, in a very real sense, a kind of “total rationalism.” (D.B. Hart)

We come, then, to the question on the table with respect to the realities within the contingent being, with respect to the frail and the mutable vis-à-vis all things Adamic as per something in the ontic-zip-code of this: Love’s Timeless Reciprocity ↔ Self/Other ↔ the convertibility of the Necessary Transcendentals.

Being vs. Non-Being & Reality vs. The Illusory

Those affairs of Non-Being / The Illusory are quite contrary to our own observations, our own concerns, and our own ethic. The path to lucidity just is the path to unicity wherein both the irreducibly rational and the irreducibly moral are in fact an ontic-singularity with respect to Love, Reason, Reality, and The Golden Thread of Reciprocity.

“…For God to pour himself out, then, as the man Jesus, is not a venture outside the trinitarian life of indestructible love, but in fact quite the reverse: it is the act by which creation is seized up into the sheer invincible pertinacity of that love, which reaches down to gather us into its triune motion…” (D. B. Hart)

Reductio Ad Absurdum ↔ Reductio Ad Deum

An immutable and cruciform love housed within the ceaseless and Self-Giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum vis-à-vis Infinite Consciousness logically forces an unavoidable Reductio Ad Deum. Such contours carry reason towards reality’s irreducible substratum within love’s timeless reciprocity amid those uncanny Trinitarian processions housed in “Being Itself” (…again as per https://metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/ ..). Timeless Self-Giving with respect to “Being Itself” forces our hand. The “term” and “definition” with respect to “GOD” thereby referents, in fact, nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being vis-à-vis love’s timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum.

That is the proverbial umbrella beneath which all other definitions in fact live and move and have – obtain – their “being”.

The many variations of Non-Theistic and Deistic brands do not merely lack the following ontology in their search for closure, but, rather, such metaphysical landscapes in fact necessarily expunge it — whereas — in relation to the following ontological closure — there is only one genre — ever — which has entered the consciousness of mankind and which has satisfied reason’s demands for lucidity from A ↔ Z — as per the following:

Timeless Self-Giving is not the Contingent, but the Necessary, just as that same Ceaseless Diffusiveness of Self is not the Mutable, but the Irreducible. That thoroughly Trinitarian Metaphysic finds Reason’s Terminus in and with the Non-Malleable topography of the Christian’s A ↔ Z ~ which just is the Trinitarian Life.

In and by and through *those* paradigmatic explanatory termini we find amid love’s timeless reciprocity the peculiar syntax of Self-Giving as the referents of “Ontic-Continuum” and “Metanarrative” weigh in and, again, thereby referents nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being vis-à-vis love’s timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum —

“…..the cross of Christ does not determine the nature of divine love, but rather manifests it, because there is a more original outpouring of God that – without needing to submit itself to the order of sacrifice that builds crosses – always already surpasses every abyss of godforsakenness and pain that sin can impose between the world and God: an outpouring that is in its proper nature indefectible happiness…. For God to pour himself out, then, as the man Jesus, is not a venture outside the trinitarian life of indestructible love, but in fact quite the reverse: it is the act by which creation is seized up into the sheer invincible pertinacity of that love, which reaches down to gather us into its triune motion…” (D.B. Hart)

Again: That is the proverbial umbrella beneath which all other definitions in fact live and move and have – obtain – their “being”.

The Egalitarian One-Another

Within and of all things Adamic it is in and by and through the express paradigmatic explanatory termini explored so far that we find the egalitarian “one-another“, an egalitarian “self/other“, an egalitarian realization of singularity in “self/non-self” and the form of love’s “begetting” through reciprocity’s embrace there in “The Edenic” with respect to all things Adamic.

All such vectors there (…in “The Edenic“…) are declared to be good (…condoned and a slice of the Good but not the Whole of the Good…) even as we find reciprocity’s peculiar realization of singularity termed Adam/Eve vis-à-vis an uncanny unicity amid Self/Other. Such streams from the Trinitarian Life in and through “Let Us Create Man in Our Image…” ↔ But wait ↔

Eden is neither Privation nor God’s Eternal Ideal and, therefore, we find in Eden *two* outward facing Doors / Trees (…the one into Privation and the other into God’s Eternal Life, His Final Good for all things Adamic…).

Well what then?

Said Imago Dei first becomes and then awakes and all within an ontology which finds *two* outward facing doors with respect to “ontic-change”, one into God’s Eternal Ideal (…Tree / Life, the “Whole” Good and not that earlier condoned slice of the Good which Scripture referents as ‘Eden’….) and the other into various landscapes of another Tree (…less than Ideal, slices of Privation, that which is Privation itself, that which is tolerated, that which finds His Wide Open Embrace in and through yet another *two* outward facing Doors/Trees all over again as all lines converge in Christ yet again….).

The Immutable Trinitarian Life ↔ Reciprocity ↔ Self-Giving converge in the Egalitarian One-Another. We find that in fact love begets yet more love as all definitions of the Imago Dei begin and end in the triune God as love’s Self-Giving subsumes reality’s irreducible substratum.

A Few Areas of Overlapping Ontic Real Estate:

Reciprocity’s peculiar realization of singularity amid the Masculine/ Feminine arrives within the egalitarian milieu of Edenic syntax. That milieu, according to the definition of Scripture’s metanarrative, of course undergoes a radical “ontic-change” in traversing Genesis 1 ↔ Genesis 3 ↔ John 3 as such contours are fractured and vectors of enmity emerge, and, also, it is the work of *Christ* — of All-Sufficiency’s Own Self-Outpouring — by which we find an Open Door through which He begins restoring not only that egalitarian syntax but far more.

…There is, hidden or flaunted, a sword between the sexes till an entire marriage reconciles them. It is arrogance in us to call frankness, fairness, and chivalry ‘masculine’ when we see them in a woman; it is arrogance in them to describe a man’s sensitiveness or tact or tenderness as ‘feminine.’ But also what poor, warped fragments of humanity most mere men and mere women must be to make the implications of that arrogance plausible. Marriage heals this. Jointly the two become fully human. ‘In the image of God created He them.’ Thus, by a paradox, this carnival of sexuality leads us out beyond our sexes… (C.S. Lewis —from A Grief Observed)

It is not an entirely unexpected realization that the only lucid path from A to Z without the willful annihilation of love’s necessary metaphysic is the path which we find, in unmistakable clarity, defined by Christendom’s thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic vis-à-vis Trinity. That is to say that if Pantheism or if Allah or if Non-Theism – and so on down the “ontic-line” – then the singular metanarrative of “Love and Necessity” literally cannot be written, and – in fact – cannot be at all.

While the explanatory termini of Ruse, Hume, Carroll, Rosenberg, and others speak to the finally illusory vectors of “Moral Facts”, what wew in fact mean to referent is not Non-Being but, rather, of Being. Therein when we speak of Truth “qua Truth“, as they say, we don’t referent such illusory trades and equivocations as found within the explanatory terminus of Non-Theism. In the Christian metanarrative we find in and by and of and through the Trinitarian Life nothing less than love’s timeless Self-Giving and irreducible Diffusiveness of the Ontic Self with respect to …being itself… and — thereby – The Always and The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above – namely “Love & Necessity” arrives as an ontic *singularity*.

To be Truly Human is to be, or to become, by whatever means, Fully Human. Non-Theism has no such means, no such closure. It is that pesky and weighty bit about *Fully* wherein all lines converge or else diverge. There is talk of such Truly/Fully when we begin to speak of *Christ* of course, however, that brings in all sorts of other topics (…in part as per https://metachristianity.com/absolute-reference-frame-pure-act-incarnation-time/ ..).

The Divine Decree of the Imago Dei

The Immaterial (whatever that is) is not, and cannot be, made up of, and therefore reduced to, covalent bonds vis-à-vis Material (whatever that is). Perseveration with/upon Biology-Full-Stop when discussing the Imago Dei is (therefore) entirely misguided. “God-Breathes” does not means God has lungs, and so on. It’s a curious thing to observe A. so many of our Non-Theist friends carefully set up all of his or her Metrics and Calibrations there in a sort of Physicalism (or whatever) and then B. go about trying to fit the Christian’s entire metaphysical landscape into those Metrics and Calibrations only to then C. find it surprising or else odd that there is “difficulty” within “lining up” their respective “surfaces” (…of course a select few are knowingly doing so and therein such intentional re-defining of another’s premises amounts to nothing more than the proverbial Dog and Pony Show…).

Therefore: The Corporeal’s ontological history of becoming and the Imago Dei’s ontological history of becoming are not and cannot be wholly ↔ interchangeable given the sorts of ontic real estate each respectively traverses.

There’s a reason the Corporeal is found lifeless outside of Eden. Made of the ground.

There’s a reason the Breath of God births Life, the Imago Dei. Still outside of Eden.

There’s a reason it is only then that the Adamic and the Edenic converge.

There’s a reason Eden cannot remain, is not God’s Ideal, and has two *outward* facing Doors/Trees, each necessitating a radical “ontic-change”.

Overlapping real estate once more:

Reciprocity’s peculiar realization of singularity amid the Masculine / Feminine arrives within the egalitarian milieu of Edenic syntax. That milieu, according to the definition of Scripture’s metanarrative, of course undergoes a radical “ontic-change” in traversing Genesis 1 ↔ Genesis 3 ↔ John 3 as such contours are fractured and vectors of enmity emerge, and, also, it is the work of *Christ* — of All-Sufficiency’s Own Self-Outpouring — by which we find an Open Door through which He begins restoring not only that egalitarian syntax but far more.

SECTION 3 of 6

Marriage In Ephesians: The Submission Competition

Andy Stanley of Northpoint Ministries has a series called “What Happy Couples Know” (…four parts at http://northpoint.org/messages/what-happy-couples-know/ ..) and the following is an excerpt from part two:

“….submission to one another bothers us…… [submit to one another]… I’m so glad it bothers you and …I’m just going to leave it up here to bother you. In fact, some of you would say “Aha, that’s why I quit going to church. That verse, right there, is why I quit going to church. That whole idea is why I don’t like Christians.“ I am so glad you are watching or listening or in church today… this is so transformational and I love talking about this. Our English Bibles are translations from Greek text and there were groupings of Greek text all over the East. And the oldest text, the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, the oldest manuscripts of the Apostle Paul’s letters, interestingly enough, if you took this verse and you translate it literally here’s what it would say. It would say: “Wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord.”

There’s no verb in this statement, in the oldest Greek manuscripts. There’s no verb. The word “submit” isn’t there. Now, before I explain why it’s not there, I want to explain something else, and this is so important. When the Apostle Paul’s first century audience heard him teach about women submitting to their husbands, and I’ll tell you where the verb came from in just a second, when the first century audience heard the Apostle Paul talk about women and wives submitting to their husbands, where as we go “What?” and “Huh?” Their response was “Duh,” not “Huh.” They weren’t like “What?” They were like “Well yeah, tell us something we don’t know.” They had no choice. This wasn’t new information. This wasn’t even a big deal, this was common ground. This didn’t surprise anyone in Jesus’ audience and ladies, believe it or not, no one was offended because men in that culture, both the Roman culture and Greek culture, and then the Jews had a version of this, men in that culture had something that’s referred to as “Patria Potestas”. These two words put together meant they had legal jurisdiction over their children and they had legal jurisdiction over their wives. Essentially their wives belong to them.

So, why no verb in the oldest Greek text? Why isn’t there a verb in this verse? And the answer is, the verb comes from the verse before. And this was a typical kind of Greek grammatical way of doing things, that you make a statement with the verb and then in the next statement you just infer the verb. You don’t include it, you just take your verb from what came before. That submit, the verb submit, is actually inferred from the verse that came before. So, we should ask “What was the verse that came before that gives us the verb for this verse?” And my friends, you’re looking up here, this is a game changer. Here’s what Paul said before he told “Wives submit to their husbands.” Here’s the verse that sets the tone for everything that follows, here’s our verb “Submit to one another out of,” and there it is again, every time the Apostle Paul tells us to do something he points us back to Jesus.

So when Paul says “Wives submit to your husbands.” That’s like “Right, because if we don’t he’ll sell us, he’ll trade us, he’ll have us arrested, he’ll accuse us of some crime and there won’t be any witnesses, eye witnesses to show up to dispute the claim. And of course we submit to our husbands.” So this was not a big deal to them, but here’s the cool thing, it’s a big deal to us. And the reason it’s a big deal to us is what comes later in the text. Not the Old Testament, not the 10 commandments. Jesus.

“As God through Christ has done something extraordinary for you, you are to demonstrate that same kind of love in your relationships with each other, including romantic relationships, including marriage. You are to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ.”

In other words, the submission (guys get ready) is mutual. And this word “reverence” is a sense of awe. In other words, in light of all that God has done for you, in light of the awe that comes with “Oh my gosh, you forgave me, you’ve died for my sins, you’ve forgiven me in spite of myself, and all the times I’ve gone back on my promises.” All that awe is to be translated, not simply to church attendance and not simply to singing worship songs to the invisible God in the sky, that energy is to be translated into love for others people.

This is why Christian marriage is a submission competition….

SECTION 4 of 6

Obtaining The Actual “The-Metric” In Any Narrative

The Part, The Whole, The Sub-narrative, & The Meta-narrative

In this section the lens is on the Egalitarian Metrics of Scripture’s Metanarrative wherein we find an Ontology which in fact outdistances any “map” which sums to biological markers “full-stop”. Most misinformation in this arena stems from failing to see the obvious: In both the OT and the NT landscapes we find things such as Judges (…the leaders of Israel…) and Prophets and Teachers populated by both Men and Women and, therein, it becomes immediately apparent that, on Scripture’s definitions, on Scripture’s termini, we cannot Start/Stop at [Male/Female Full-Stop]. If that were the case then God could not and/or would not move through [Female-Full-Stop]. Another key nuance which is beyond the topic here is that we cannot define The Necessary, the Immutable, the Timeless (and Etc.) by the metrics forced by Privation nor by the Contingent & Mutable.

The actual Start/Stop termini clearly, then, precede and outperform one’s sex (male or female) just as, per the OT narrative, the Non-Jew, the Prostitute, the Outsider, and so on are all included in the lineage of Christ and therein we find that Race is, also, unable to function as any sort of Meaning-Maker (…at least according to Scripture’s Metanarrative…). And, so, given such Metrics with respect to various termini we can then move into “one-verse” arenas with that far wider lens. Such as:

“A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man… in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God…..” (1 Corinthians 11)

What is too often left out is A. the affairs of Privation (…on the one hand…) and B. the affairs of the fact that nothing in Scripture lives and/or dies on ONE verse or on “a” verse (on the other hand) and C. the specific cultural/historical happenstances, problems, and temporal metrics within which semantic intent begins its trajectory. Just as Privation is “Context” that cannot be expunged, so too is the Whole of Scripture also “Context” which cannot be expunged.

Race and Sex are, in the OT and NT, unable to provide us with Meaning-Makers vis-à-vis Start/Stop points as both are in unmistakable fashion tossed aside by God when something else, something higher presses in.

1 Corinthians 11:7 there needs to keep going and carry things to the A and Z of how Scripture defines the Male/Female relation with the following sorts of questions:

1. How is the Logos of God not also God?

2. Without the paradigm of the reality’s only Blueprint of ceaseless self-giving amid self/other (…the Trinitarian Life…), how is one to demonstrate a justification of both irreducible value and irreducible equality?

3. “….neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God…. (I Corinthians 11:12)

Even more enlightening is the fact that Paul tells Christen Women to prophesy with authority in church in one verse while in another verse Paul is telling Christian Women not to talk in church. Women are A. Prophets of God in Church and can say to all the Men, “Thus Says G-O-D” and, also, B. Women cannot talk in Church. Here we find the same OT lines of Judges / National Leaders alluded to earlier. One must simply stop and think for about five seconds. This isn’t complicated. The concept of [One-Verse-Metanarrative] just is the concept of [One-Verse-Theology] and as such is rationally rejected.

A peculiar observation in all of that is what the “Most Restrictive” margins of Scripture in fact reveal:

Whether Or Not we affirm the Form of Male-Pastor-Only (…and so on…) we are faced with the fact that we can say “Yes” to “that” but we cannot tack-onto its end anything that is a “Full Stop” or a “Period” and the reason is that on Scripture’s narrative in both the OT and NT we find that there simply are Times/Circumstances which do not permit “that” (…for whatever reason…) and therein upon the World Stage it is necessary that God reserves THAT “tacking-onto of ends/periods” for Himself and in fact “HE” does out-reach “IT”. And we expect that for all of the aforementioned reasons — namely that Biology & Race and so on are not the Full-Stop Meaning-Makers of the Christian Metaphysic.

A very basic outline of all of that could go something like this:

God is not going to Not-Speak within any set of counterfactual / factual /circumstance (…etc…) should this or that Male be un-ready but will instead Employ/Speak-Through His Willing Child there on-scene whether such is Male or Female. Again we are casting this as the “Most Restrictive” we have any intellectual right to insist upon given Scripture’s actual Margins/Narrative (…given the most verses in summation with the least amount of strain and the most connecting of the most dots…). While there are others who aim for far more, they may be correct, or not, but that is not the topic “here”. Rather, the topic here is the “Margin/Bracket” of “Reach” which we find within Biology and Race as “Meaning Makers”.

But then doesn’t all of that Church-Office stuff also impact the nature of marriage?

The Male-Pastor-Only folks need not find concern/worry with respect to the Nature of Marriage which such Church-Office metrics can reach Notice that the Ontological Map we are discovering points us to topography which prevents us from Conflating or Equating A. the nature of Church Ministry/Office to B. the nature of Marriage as all lines begin to comport with Eden’s initial topographic map. Notice that that same map finds Union & Marriage amid the aforementioned fully Masculine & fully Feminine even as that same map finds a metric of shared Duty with respect to Ministry/Office regarding the affairs of “Go Out And Subdue” (…and so on…). To Conflate/Equate “A” vs. “B” there is to forfeit coherence.

There are no “contradictions” given the fact that the context both of Privation and of Scripture’s Metanarrative carry all vectors through to coherence. More-Than-One-Verse carries us forward into such things as: What is the Corinthian culture of shame and honor? Do we even care? Or do we just stop thinking, stop reading, and boldly declare some sort of silly comment such as, “See! Paul is confused! Proof of Woman-Rule! But then Proof of Woman-Be-Ruled! See! That’s proof of No-God!” All such Hard-Stops merely reason “As-If” there is no such thing as History, Culture, Conceptual Ceilings, Sub-Narrative, Narrative, and Meta-Narrative.

But, the actual question is this: Is that a reliable Start/Stop point which arrives from pulling in all data from all points? Of course not.

Tedious and, so, a better way: We read the whole book, from A to Z and recall that each [“a” verse] premise is in fact a slice of a much larger, wider, narrative and hence of a much broader Metanarrative as all sub-narratives are from the get-go unable to outreach or out-define the definitions of the far wider Metanarrative. Without the right *metanarrative* the verse which such fallacies are quoting actually cannot “say” anything at all.

Scripture’s [~Pro-ABC Metanarrative~] cannot – by simple force of logic with respect to round squares – contain any [~Anti-ABC content~]. In the OT and NT we find that the affairs of one’s Sin and of one’s Race and of one’s Sex are both preceded and also outdistanced by Start/Stop termini which themselves clearly precede and outperform all such frail and contingent lines, lines which are in and of themselves unable to function as any sort of Meaning-Maker. And we are not surprised by Scripture’s convergence at such a locus/focus because that is what we expect given that, by force of logic, Meaning necessarily flows downhill, streaming from the Necessary and Immutable and into the Contingent and Mutable.

A Few Examples Of All OF That:

There is a bit of levity intended here but its helpful in that the following dialogue between “A” and “B” helps reveal a few key layers:

[A] It is true that my wife’s body is my property.

There is this question: Is that a balanced and proper “read” of “Scripture’s reply” to the question of, say:

[B] “What is the relational milieu of Husband/Wife? Whence all the premises which reveal that my own body is my wife’s property?”

Well, to start, is [A] in fact *true*? Sure. Yes. Okay. Is [A] a proper reply to [B]? Well no – Of course not.

Are there female Prophets, Judges, Teachers, and Mouths-Of-God in both the OT and the NT? Yes, of course.

Do the Masculine & Feminine each carry, house, and deliver *identical* transcendentals? Of course not.

The “read” inferred by [A] is anemic and misguided with respect to [B]. It states a truth while leaving out many truths (…wait for it…).

Recall that given the question in [B] of “What is the relational milieu of Husband/Wife? Whence all the premises which reveal that my own body is my wife’s property?” – the reply in [A] of, “It is true that my wife’s body is my property” must add the rest and go on and keep speaking. We must add of course the obvious: It is true that I am my wife’s property. We must add of course that there female Prophets, Judges, Teachers, and Mouths-Of-God in both the OT and the NT. And we must recall that we are speaking here of things as per the “Lens” of Conditions From Within Privation which will of course impact our contingent & temporal means & ends & metrics.

Why? Isn’t [A] *true*? Well, sort of, and for obvious reasons [A] is NOT any kind of “answer” to the question which [B] asks, which is the relational milieu of Husband/Wife. “Sort-Of” must add the rest vis-à-vis the fact that “Sort-Of” must go on and keep speaking.

What Does Adding “The-Rest” Actually Look Like?

Again a bit of levity here but a brief dialogue between the “Part” and the “Whole” or we can say between Mr. Part & Mr. Whole, so to speak:

Mr. Part: The-Metric is that Scripture tells wives to submit to their husband. Scripture states that it is Being-Female which places the The-Limit and is The-Metric ↔ therefore ↔ there are no women prophets nor women teachers nor women judges nor “Non-The-Metric” dispensing “God Says X” to the world in any Formal Role assigned by God.

Mr. Whole: False.

Mr. Part: But….but that’s true.

Mr. Whole: No, it is not “true” in the sense you’re implying. Scripture tells the Man to submit and serve ↔ and ↔ it tells the woman likewise, and the OT and NT are populated with speaking-women dispensing “God Says X”” in Formal Roles assigned by God. “The-Metric” escapes your lens.

Mr. Part: Well yeah but that still says implies sexism: the woman has to submit, women cannot say “God Says X” in any Formal Role assigned by God. *That* is The-Metric.

Mr. Whole: Only if you take the proverbial one-verse lens, or the proverbial one-chapter lens. You have to take the Whole that is the Singularity of Scripture’s A ↔ Z. Once again, “The-Metric” escapes your lens.

Mr. Part: But… well yeah but…. but…

Mr. Whole: No buts.

Mr. Part: No, what I means is, but…. But…

Mr. Whole: No buts. There is no such thing as a “half” or a “part” of “a”narrative which is “True” in the sense you’re foisting. There is no such thing, in that sense, as a “part” of Scripture. “Sexism” is non-entity. Once again, “The-Metric” escapes your lens.

Mr. Part: But…. but woman is the glory of man… that’s why her body is the husband’s property…!!

Mr. Whole: actually ↔ the husband’s body is the property of the wife ↔ as glory outreaches glory ↔ as in Christ ↔ man is not independent of woman ↔ as woman came from man ↔ so also man is born of woman ↔ leaving all Glory in something *else* as our Ontic of A ↔ Z. Once again, “The-Metric” escapes your lens.

Obtaining The Correct Lens Between Part vs. Whole:

The Non-Theistic fallacious “Part” is forever falling down because of its difficulty with a. the concept of sub-narrative vs. meta-narrative and b. its premises are forever doing the following:

[1] They fallaciously equate what the Christian metaphysic defines as a. Privation to what it is not, namely b. Wholeness.

[2] They fallaciously equate a. the Privation of God’s Will to what it is not, namely b. the Actualization of God’s Will.

[3] They fallaciously equate a. the Privation of The Good to what it is not, namely b. the Actualization of The Good.

Again — Obtaining the Correct Lens:

Notice the obvious: the “Whole” rationally refuses any “answer/reply” which does not make the intellectual effort to add in all ↔ vectors ↔ vis-à-vis “submit one to another”, and, for all the same reasons, the “Whole” rationally refuses any “answer/reply” which does not make the intellectual effort to add in the Entire ↔ Speaking ↔ Women ↔ [SET] ↔ populating scripture ↔ and to add in the [SET] of ….and the [SET] of ….and so on ↔ and so on.

That is the Why/How of obtaining Scripture’s ↔ Actual ↔ “The-Metric“. One must read all lines through the proper *Lens*.

Overlapping real estate once more:

Doesn’t the OT say that the man’s seed, menstruation, and the birth of a child are all “dirty” and require “sacrifice”?

First of all, the fallacy of “Sinai Full Stop” is laughable in that it treats Sinai “as-if” it is in some spooky way God’s Literal & Eternal Ideal for all of Mankind – forever. Enough said. Meanwhile, the following quote/excerpt sheds light on that specific question.

Begin Quote/Excerpt:

The Christian New Testament sheds some light.

The sin which Adam committed in the Garden of Eden had resulted in his separation from God’s life. That is, Adam was condemned to death (Gen 2:16-17). His immediate separation from God resulted in spiritual death, i.e., his access to the tree of (eternal) life was terminated according to Genesis 3:22-23. So Adam’s spiritual death eventuated in his physical death: thus we read, “. . . ashes to ashes, dust to dust” (Gen 3:19).

When human beings are born, this spiritual death is transmitted to each human being, and thus each human is born spiritually dead (Rom 5:12). Of course, like what happened to Adam, all human beings eventuate in physical death also.

In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) death is “dirty.” Thus dead bodies (whether animal or human) are “dirty.” Any creatures that thrive on dead waste –for example scavengers– are also “dirty.”

So when human beings are born, the transmission of spiritual death is “dirty.” Therefore sex is not dirty in the Hebrew Bible, instead what is “dirty” is the spiritual death, which is transmitted from parents to children.

For example, the emission of the man’s seed (Lev 15:16-17) and even women’s menstruation (Lev 15:19-24) are “dirty” not because they are functions of the body fluids of sexual organs, but because spiritual death is procreated through these activities of the human body. Sex therefore is not “dirty” in the Bible. What is “dirty” is spiritual death. As noted above, spiritual death eventuates in physical death, which is “dirty” as we noted. Death is “dirty.”

In the Christian New Testament, spiritual death is washed away clean with eternal life (water). This living water is available, because sins/transgressions were removed through the sacrifice for sin.

That is, the eternal life of God was incarnated in flesh, but without the transmission of spiritual death–that is, the “father” of Jesus was not a spiritually dead mortal man, but the living God. As the sacrificial lamb for sin he was therefore not “dirty” because he was NOT spiritually dead. He was born the eternal life of God incarnated in human flesh, thus as the lamb he was without spot or blemish (1 Pet 1:19) — he was not “dirty.” When his body was made to be sin, it was then that he therefore had died.

But while his body was sufficient to be judged for sins, it was his eternal life that had “abolished” spiritual death (2 Tim 1:10 in NASB) and therefore his subsequent physical resurrection had followed. That is, his body was the sacrifice for sin, but his eternal life was at one and the same time “indestructible” (Heb 7:16 in NASB) — it was therefore “impossible” for death to hold him (Acts 2:24). So the sinner, whose sins were judged through the body of Jesus, could also receive the “washing” of the living water of eternal life through him. The birth of spiritual life through him is thus termed to be “born again” (Jn 3:3-7 and 1 Pet 1:3).

This birth however is not “dirty” like the birthing of the flesh, but is clean because the birthing is eternal life through the Spirit of God, who removes spiritual death with the water of eternal life (Titus 3:5). This baptism (washing) in eternal life removes the spiritual death of Adam.

As a closing observation, when seminal emissions occurred, or when menstruation occurred (unrelated to any birth), then interestingly enough it was only “water” which was the means of cleansing (cf. Lev 15:16-17 and Lev 15:19-24, respectively). But when an actual birth occurred with the woman, there was an offering for sin (Lev 12:1-8), because the “sin” is Adam’s disobedience, which creates spiritual death in the newborn baby. The condemnation of Adam’s sin (spiritual death) is therefore transmitted to each and every human being (Rom 5:12). Jesus died to take away sins and transgressions, and in turn, to provide eternal life, which removes the spiritual death.

Thus the Christian New Testament sheds light why a sin sacrifice was required after the birth of a child in Leviticus 12:1-8.

End quote (…from a comment on Stack Exchange…)

Overlapping real estate once more:

SECTION 5 of 6

The following is a paraphrase of a discussion which has obvious relevance to the wider topic under review with respect to the interfaces amid Masculine/Feminine and where such contours arrive within the topography of the ontology of all things Adamic with respect to Reciprocity’s Perfection:

One article commented: “….sexual activity between minors and adults is condemned because children or minors’ brains are not developed enough to fully understand sexuality….” But then the next article comments: “….teens & even toddlers have the right to gender reassignment surgery because they can understand the nuances of sexuality…..”

A third article comments: “….over fifty years of science confirms the conclusion that children do better when raised by a male and a female as each brings a unique set of influences to bear upon the child in her formative years….” But then a fourth article comments: “….when deciding about which parenting environment is better for the child it is unethical ask if we are placing the child with two Moms or two Dads or with a Mom and Dad……”

When I worked as a teacher in kindergarten we insisted the students eat their healthy snacks first because when left to their own devices they would eat only junk food. We made this decision for them since we assumed they weren’t capable of making it themselves. And yet, we are now saying that they can choose their gender? When they can’t even choose their healthy snacks?

It is frustrating that the science of the brain is used in one case and then thrown out in the next. I’ve noticed that science and fact used to be the Go-To for Secularism, dictating how one should operate in the world with no questions asked….. but now secularism rebels against science and fact depending on the agenda. I suppose that is not surprising in that we tend towards doing whatever suits us. In fact just as secularism struggles not to rebel against science and fact so too we as Christians struggle not to rebel against our God….. it’s a dual problem grounded in our own tendencies….”

There are a few relevant segues between that last quote and the following quote which provide some context with respect to convergence. It is a bit long so it is bracketed between “begin / end quote/excerpt” to help identify its start/stop:

—Begin Quote/Excerpt→→

Many of our teens have lived through the harm of the absence of their father, just as, many of our teens have lived through the harm of the absence of their mother. For those who have, the emotional and intellectual impact of our humanity’s essence is, simply, painful and immediate and tangible. In short: it’s real. In the same way, many teens have had to suffer through the absence of people’s grace in their own journey should they themselves or perhaps one of their parents have struggled with same-sex attractions. This dichotomy is informative for our teens – who will and do encounter these sorts of experiences. And if they have not experienced such, they will have friends who have and perhaps are right now walking through such experiences.

Therefore, for our Teens who have had to live through any of the above, or have friends who have had to live through such, recall that in all of our interfaces with each other there are the unavoidable realities of Essence and of Grace and we must honor both if we are to mature into the image of Christ – Himself full of Truth, full of Grace.

As we will see, Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. appealed to our humanity’s essence (one can read about “essentialism”) and informed the world stage that ignoring the fundamental truths of our human essences led some to claim a “difference” between Blacks/ Whites, between African Americans and Caucasians. We cannot expect to fully actualize Mankind’s Good when we thusly ignore, out of fear, out of an uninformed mindset, out of a felt-degree of anger or hatred, or out of all of the above, the elementary truths of Mankind’s essence, and that is why Pastor MLK got it right – his essentialism finally out-distancing such misguided thinking.

But there is also this: Pastor King lived in and by Grace towards all – Hard Stop – even to his own hurt.

What does this all “look like” in the real world? Here’s a bit of “unpacking” with respect to such contours amid Essence and Grace:

I visited a grade school (1st and 2nd grade) in an impoverished area and recall the (all women) teachers essentially pleading with me to return. That felt good until I learned why the request came. The children in that class were, for the most part, fatherless and me, as a male, had, these teachers felt, a certain “some-thing” which their young impressions painfully needed, but were lacking. They didn’t need me to be a rocket scientist. They needed something far more expensive – they knew their young students needed a generator, an image, a model of appropriate and consistent male-impressions, as it were. And the community in question in this impoverished area knew all too well the unfortunate reality of gambling away the greater for the lesser. It still “felt good” to be asked to return as often as possible – though for unexpected reasons.

We’re forever seeing hints of this leaking onto the floor in all sorts of places.

Not long ago while watching the BET awards there was, buried in the midst of the pageantry, a comment on the (factual) problem of the absent father – which (apparently) seemed important enough to drop into the mix of a live recording. Everyone understands or gets that reality – as it’s just palpable, measurable. All the affairs of our children’s masculinization and of our children’s feminization carry us unavoidably into the inescapable problem of the absent father over there and the absent mother over here, and so on. All of that is clear, observable, and all of that is so unfortunate that communities champion those who fight to untie such painful knots in the next generation of young parents. All of these are robust lines of hard data in an arena which is championed by all sides here and such (unfortunate) data presents us with something from which nearly no one dissents.

For intelligent, data-driven reasons — because it’s true — The social sciences consistently echo that data when we look at other combinations and permutations.

The child’s potential need not be fully actualized as it is painfully and unfortunately obvious that we all enter our world already in possession of potential which our world, the world we enter, is, quite often, unsuccessful in fully actualizing. When it comes to the maximal potential of a child’s plasticity as such relates to the fullest actualization of the child’s emotional intelligence amid the sexes, we come to an uncanny observation:

Early submersion within an ongoing, stable, and emotionally perceptive environment insightfully exhibiting that which is fully human inside of the robustly feminine milieu amalgamated with the robustly masculine milieu measurably provides the sort of stimuli and personal interfaces which are in the end necessary to maximally elicit the child’s embryonic (plasticity) intuitiveness. Mechanistically speaking, such caring reciprocity recurrently interfacing amid those distinct milieus (feminine/masculine) are then applied to, or impact upon, the child’s highly plastic potential and that (as it relates to the child’s future capacity for emotionally intelligent adult interfacing amid the sexes) houses our most credible, repeatable, and balanced consistency.

It seems that we have two approaches which allow us to arrive at that location – that of final causes (the God paradigm) and that of the latent potentiality of an already-present and deeply embedded neuro-biological network (reductionist, no-god paradigm) as the “end of the line”, as it were. In both we find an uncanny degree of convergence. The reductionist (no-God paradigm) who appeals to neurobiology as the end of line where our humanity’s employable substrate is concerned finds all the evidence of his stimuli-outcome trajectories converging in all of the same locations as those trajectories predicted by final causes (the God paradigm).

We find no effective difference in what provides the child’s plasticity the greatest opportunity of fullness in a robust development of the child’s emotional intelligence across the full range of the robustly feminine to the robustly masculine as the child progresses to a fully functional adult. The relational landscape which provides that early childhood plasticity with the highest degree of actualization is the stable, ongoing, emotionally intelligent, and caring environment of submersion in the singular atmosphere which is itself constituted of the fully feminine milieu amalgamated with the fully masculine milieu.

That singularity sums to the relational milieu which is the factual some-thing found in the real world as granting our children the most predictable degree of success. As already noted, none of this is to say that other combinations or permutations don’t get by, often quite well – they do – but we are speaking here of the fullness of range of what just is our humanity’s fundamental essence as it relates to childhood’s early plasticity and a robust emotional intelligence amid the sexes.

The data on children raised with one parent is relevant in a few ways here. Children raised by the single father are found to be less aware of, and more likely to possess some degree of maladroitness in, many relational contexts where the feminine is concerned. And the reverse is seen in those raised by the single mother. This of course does not amount to simple dysfunction, but rather to degrees of awareness, to degrees of ability to fully interact in and with and by our humanity’s full range of potential, of capacity as all the affairs of masculinization and of feminization come to the forefront. Obviously this can be in part overcome by emersion – from day one – with a wider circle of close – daily – contacts (it takes a village, so to speak). However, we still, even there, do not seem able to find that which factually equals that which is yielded by the daily intimacy of the home submerged in the masculine/feminine of father/mother as our own humanity’s fully feminine to fully masculine range weighs in on childhood plasticity.

This is why everybody champions those in this generation who make real efforts to spare the next generation from that fragmentation of the whole. Ignoring the fundamental truths of our human essences led some to claim a “difference” between Blacks/ Whites, between African Americans and Caucasians. We cannot expect to fully actualize Mankind’s Good when we thusly ignore, out of fear, out of an uninformed mindset, out of a felt-degree of anger or hatred, or out of all of the above, the elementary truths of Mankind’s essence, and that is why Pastor MLK got it right – his essentialism finally out-distancing such misguided thinking. We cannot evade reality and expect to find something worth having and Pastor MLK Jr. pressed in on that fact. It is a peculiar danger that (perhaps) of late that same intentional shunning of, willful neglect of, even disenfranchising of, key fundamental essences of our humanity where our children are concerned may be evolving, and the price there can only sum to those which Pastor MLK taught us so well. Such a repeat of yesterday’s unfortunate approach to Mankind can, and ultimately must, bring equal forms of genuine psychological harm and human misguidedness and those then must in return bring some new layer of emotional harm, and those then must bring yet some new layer of….. and so on. Such is the danger of ignoring what we’ve learned from our past mistakes if and when we claim “sameness” among a collection of different milieus found in-play atop early childhood plasticity. Ignoring the essence of our humanity didn’t help mankind amid “Black / White” issues and, in fact, it ended in the actualization of the antithesis of the Good – that is to say – it was ultimately unloving. Repeating now with our children that very same fear-driven mistake, that very same dis-invitation of yet another key slice of our elementary essence, cannot, ultimately, end in that which sums to loving our children.

Not factually, that is.

Dis-inviting truths about our humanity from the assembly cannot serve humanity in the long run. No one, none of us, can move forward in a degree of auto-hypnosis or in some degree of wish-fulfillment and expect to succeed. We simply cannot commit the same emotional and intellectual crimes of the past and expect to find our fullest humanity.

As already noted, adoption is wonderful, and two parents there seems to be more promising than one. *Any* stability is better than none, and so on in said degrees and where there are degrees there are, painfully for our children should we repeat the mistakes of the past, the grave potential of wasted opportunities – opportunities excluded or dis-invited or marginalized merely out of fear, out of an uninformed mindset, out of a felt-degree of anger or hatred, or out of all of the above. Once again, the early plasticity specifically under review is with nearly across the board consensus most fully actualized by the early submersion within an ongoing, stable, and emotionally perceptive environment insightfully exhibiting that which is fully human inside of the robustly feminine milieu amalgamated with the robustly masculine milieu because such measurably provides the sort of stimuli and personal interfaces which are in the end necessary to maximally elicit the child’s embryonic (early plasticity) intuitiveness. Mechanistically speaking, such caring reciprocity recurrently interfacing amid those distinct milieus (feminine/masculine) are then applied to, or impact upon, the child’s highly plastic potential and that (as it relates to the child’s future capacity for emotionally intelligent adult interfacing amid the sexes) houses our most credible, repeatable, and balanced consistency. There are (unquestionably) *degrees*, that is to say, there is so-so, there is okay, there is better, and then there is the “best chance for the highest degree of actualization” or the ideal milieu relative to the child’s plasticity and his or her future emotional intelligence amid the sexes as a functional adult.

Of course, just because “X” for various reasons offers the highest possible chance for actualization of that robust emotional intelligence amid the sexes does *not* mean that good functionality is not obtainable with “X-minus-some-thing”. We all get by with various levels of discomfort or unawareness or uneasiness, or what have you, amid something less than fully healthy interfaces as adults. But being functional has gradations, or layers, or degrees, as it were. We find here an unfortunate reality on the part of one certain narrative in the denial of such layering in our humanity as it develops. Where that narrative of late is (perhaps) concerned, as Pastor MLK taught us all so well, dis-inviting truths about our humanity from the assembly cannot serve humanity in the long run. No one, none of us, can move forward in some degree of auto-hypnosis or in some degree of wish-fulfillment and expect to succeed. We simply cannot commit the emotional and intellectual crimes of the past and expect to find our fullest humanity. The very essence of what makes us fully human was ignored and that made-up-reality was used to show a supposed “difference” amid Black and White human beings. Just the same, genuine opportunity for the child’s best shot at actualizing the full range of masculine/feminine emotional intelligence is always awaiting the child upon his or her entry into the world and, for all the same reasons which Pastor MLK taught us, dis-inviting truths about our humanity from the assembly cannot serve humanity in the long run. No one, none of us, can move forward in some degree of auto-hypnosis or in some degree of wish-fulfillment and expect to succeed. We simply cannot commit the emotional and intellectual crimes of the past and expect to find our fullest humanity. The very essence of what makes us fully human cannot be ignored as we just cannot seek a reality that is “as we wish it were” and attempt to (thereby) show “sameness” amid factually different milieus of robust emotional opportunity in-play atop early childhood plasticity.

As noted elsewhere, where the child’s future is concerned, *any* stability is better than no stability, and that less/more merges unavoidably into palpable degrees of opportunity for the child. But similarity is not sameness and (unfortunately for all of us) we have a wide array of converging data from which very few dissent which affirms what every school teacher and single parent know, which is that we simply cannot find elsewhere that which factually equates to the daily intimacy of the home submerged in the masculine/feminine milieu afforded by the singularity of father/mother as our own humanity’s fully feminine to fully masculine range weigh in on childhood plasticity and future emotional intelligence amid the sexes.

As noted, other combinations or permutations do well enough – but we are speaking here of a sort of identity claim – that A and B are identical realities where early childhood plasticity amid the full range of masculine/feminine emotional intelligence weighs in vis-à-vis the child’s opportunity. Observational reality seems to be declaring such to be (in at least some vectors of crucial import) a factually flawed identity claim. We must proceed slowly, with eyes wide open, if and when we make appeals to childhood stability vis-à-vis the family.

Marriage is one thing, and, indeed, Thomas Aquinas on “Tolerance and Law” may apply. But marriage is not “the whole show” – that is to say that marriage is not the whole show if and when we mean to invoke the essence of early childhood plasticity. That essence has (unfortunately for all of us) eons of data which are simply unavoidable.

Essence yes, but, still, we must be moving towards Grace:

The crimes against African Americans which were fueled by our own willful dis-invitation of the fundamental realities of our own human essence created a painful, genuine, and preventable shortfall in the very substance of our humanity and, fortunately, we were gifted with the likes of Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. to brilliantly help lead us out of such error as he, thankfully, got it right. That is to say, Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. taught us with unmistakable clarity that when false narratives built atop fear, an uninformed mindset, a felt-degree of anger or hatred, or all of the above, begin to succeed they are themselves fated to come down on the wrong side of history – time and truth just do have that peculiar sort of relationship. History is both our teacher and a kind of proof in this arena. Narratives built atop our own self-deception or our own hope to have reality live up to what we wish it to be, rather than what it actually is vis-à-vis humanity’s essence just cannot endure over time. Eventually the truth of our humanity rises and we’ve seen these principles of Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. play out over and over again on the world stage – for millennia.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons many of us find ourselves embracing the metaphysical paradigm which converges in Christ – simply on the grounds of grace’s embrace of every last one of us – and – simply on the grounds that reality does in fact have a true narrative, perhaps up ahead of us, perhaps within us, or perhaps both – and – simply on the grounds of reason’s categorical imperative to embrace reality’s true narrative – to experience His unquenchable instantiation.

Many of us need to beware here, lest we offend grace, and, for all the same reasons, others of us need to beware here, lest we offend various truths of our own human essence. On whatever topic may arise we press – it’s difficult – to use caution in our own interior navigations of our own tendencies both towards and away from grace, and, just the same, in our own tendencies both towards and away from truth. We cannot offend grace towards our own selves and towards one another and think our narrative will – ultimately – flourish. We cannot offend truth towards our own selves and towards one another and think our narrative will – ultimately – flourish. Such shortsightedness has been found wanting upon the world stage – over and over again. History seems to reveal our final causes vis-à-vis our humanity’s essence surfacing – ever spying somewhere within us – ever spying somewhere up ahead of us – the unquenchable instantiation of the God Who is love. On such navigations amid grace and truth I’ve proven to be an inept sailor. Fortunately though, He holds all things and outdistances me. We are, it seems, not on the side of any Will-To-Power in any ipso facto sense, nor are we on the side of any Temporal Brand per se, but rather we are on the side of reality’s singular metanarrative, that is to say, we are on the side of Grace in all directions – towards all – Hard Stop – and – in the same sense – we are on the side of Truth in all directions – towards all – Hard Stop. Grace and Truth as an actual singularity. That is the Narrative Whose Name is The-Real as we find all such lines seamlessly converging in Christ.

Ⓓisclaimer: This need not be, and indeed is not, at all, a statement on legality, rather, this is merely an observation of our own human essence and of the contours of grace.

—End Quote/Excerpt—

Before moving to Section 6 of 6, two brief observations:

Quote: “My personal choice is to point to the way that a family of a mother and father is that which is most optimal for a child. By a man and woman unit, we affirm that being a man and being a woman both mean something. Of course, that’s further philosophical work that is for another time.” End quote ((…from https://carm.org/absolute-morality-and-homosexuality …))

And then also:

Quote ((italics added)) “In Matthew 19, Jesus is confronted by some Pharisees about Moses allowing divorce. Jesus made an argument that God’s original intention for marriage was for it to be permanent. His argument was based on how God originally made Adam and Eve. He said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” Since Jesus grounded his argument in Adam and Eve being made male and female and becoming one flesh, this would not only rule out divorce, but it would also rule out same sex unions because God originally made them male and female to form a complimentary pair. That was God’s original intention for marriage. So Jesus was implicitly condemning same sex unions in this passage, too.” End quote ((italics added)) ((…from http://philochristos.blogspot.com/2019/11/does-bible-condemn-homosexuality.html …))

SECTION 6 of 6

In closing we will (…intentionally so as to retain what each step has discovered…) state once again those initial contours of love’s perfection of reciprocity mentioned at the start:

The syntax of, “…..Intimacy speaks of that which fully reciprocates and in all its forms the fuller the love the fuller that giving-away of one’s very life and being amid the “other” and, just the same, the fuller the love the fuller that receiving into one’s very life and being amid the “other“…..” speaks towards something “like” the following which begins to take shape in our syntax:

There is a limit to my own self-giving. I have myself to give. The maximum “…giving-away of one’s very life and being…” which I can pour out, of my own self, is my whole self.

& therefore….

The fullness of reciprocity necessarily entails, then, One + One. Not only that, but, given the non-expendable transcendentals of the Whole of the Adamic, all such transcendentals necessarily convert into contours of all that is the fully Feminine and the fully Masculine.

It is from within the margins vis-a-vis the whole wherein we find the necessary Ontic by which the relevant Epistemic in fact emerges and it is that Traversal or that Transposition (…as per https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/05/lewis-on-transposition.html …) in and by and through the convertibility of the necessary transcendentals where we come upon the affairs of that syntax of whole/wholeness.

Given the reality of this or that whole we therefore unavoidably arrive — at some seam or at some point or at some ontic-array of loci — at the syntax of Degree. It is there where we begin to discover closure as the epistemic of degree flourishes only upon the proverbial coattails of the whole.

Therein we come again to Genesis’ uncanny Trinitarian Life vis-a-vis the Ontic of Ceaseless Reciprocity and, also, therein we come necessarily yet again to Genesis’ reflection of that very Image vis-a-vis the Imago Dei arriving in and by and through the fullness of reciprocity which necessarily entails the entire arena of One + One and, not only that, but, given the non-expendable transcendentals of the Whole of the Adamic, all such transcendentals necessarily convert into contours of all that is the fully Feminine and the fully Masculine.

& therefore….

Should perfect reciprocity be a proper end of man then we immediately perceive the incredible and misplaced ego in the Man who declares himself able to give away that proverbial “one-whole-self” – namely himself of course – to many other selves and yet still expect to find love’s fullness of reciprocity fully realized. Should the Man love her fully, perfectly, well then he cannot have another. And so too in the reverse. And, just the same, and for all the same reasons, we begin to find the same category of that misplaced ego in the Man who declares himself able to give away that golden thread of reciprocity’s fullness in and by Degrees vis-a-vis Fullness as we approach fully Feminine and the fully Masculine.

All of Me I Give To Thee — It is uncanny as we begin to discover all over again the reasons behind the New Testament syntax unmistakably echoing Eden’s syntax amid the One + One and, just the same, and for all the same reasons, the landscape there becomes obvious as all other combinations and/or degrees can only survive in the company of some degree of something akin to some form of self-ish-ness.

Reasoning through to lucidity: If love is the highest ethic (…and it is…) and if perfect reciprocity is a proper end of man (…and it is…), then – it is true that the most distal reaches of love’s perfection — of love’s intimacy — lands in *two* who in the perfection of reciprocity become *one* and, just the same, in all such progressions we find that Clarity’s reach pushes through to her final terminus in and by her own beautiful lucidity with respect to the fully Feminine and the fully Masculine.

A and B ceaselessly beget C. To put it another way: self and other ceaselessly beget the singular us or the singular “one-another“. It is uncanny but A is not B and B is not C and C is neither A nor B even as ontological singularity arrives. Again we are speaking here of the contingent being, of the Adamic and *not* of Trinity but nonetheless it is, still, uncanny.

That *form* of love is what Scripture’s singular metaphysic terms Marriage and we find that only *dilution* of fullness awaits all other combinations, all other progressions, all but that uncanny Blueprint of *two* becoming *one* amid love’s fullest transposition amid all things Adamic. The ontological topography there reflects an image as it were of love’s necessary, irreducible, and timeless reciprocity vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life in Whom it is also the case that A is not B and B is not C and C is neither A nor B – in nothing less than an Ontic-Singularity. […Mapping Reality via https://metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/ ..]

In fact D. B. Hart and many others throughout history have in various ways alluded to the Trinitarian Life and the Good in and of and by an Eternal Diffusiveness of Self with referents such as the “…eternal one-another…” in mapping reality’s concrete furniture in and by what some term as The Always and The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above — namely “Love & Necessity” as nothing less than a singularity — that which carries us into the very means and ends of Being Itself — that which carries us first towards and finally into God.

Moral Ontology vis-à-vis The Ontological History of Reason Itself

The Ontology of Reason? Moral Ontology? Irreducible Moral Facts vis-à-vis Reasoning through reality’s Concrete Furniture? When it comes to Love Itself and to Reality’s Highest Ethic vis-à-vis the fundamental nature of reality’s concrete furniture we find that such (necessarily) sums to a Singularity vis-à-vis nothing less than Being Itself as Ceaseless Self-Giving. It is obviously Non-Theism’s painfully necessary metaphysical reality that all its own explanatory termini with respect to such contours are constituted of tediously complex self-negations amid ultimately fictitious “As-If’s” ending in the pains of metaphysical elimination immersed within autohypnosis wrapped up inside of Noble Lies and as such factually fail to do the necessary “ontic-work”.

Non-Theism cannot follow / trace its own brands of “moral ontology” from reality’s concrete furniture all the way up to mind-dependent abstractions. But then that is not an “ontology” if it hasn’t the Means/Ends vis-à-vis [Moral Facts] to offer “that” through & through. By that we mean that to go about one’s Moral Ontology while excluding the wider Map of Physics forces us to ask: How? Typically there is a kind of anti-scientific move by our Non-Theist friends as they go about claiming that Moral Facts cannot be reduced to Physics – that there is some other “category” which is not itself entirely subsumed by, defined by, the Map we call physics. That typically lands in a cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac is supposed to have its own “ontology” which is (somehow) insulated from and immune to the “ontology” of reality outside of said cul-de-sac. And said cul-de-sac is (typically) within the cerebral cortex of sentient creatures. Now, that “walling-off” or “slicing-out” of that proverbial “cerebral cortex” and arbitrarily treating “it” as if “it” has “its” own “fundamental nature” is entirely a circularity neatly & arbitrarily isolated from the Non-Theist’s paradigm’s fundamental & irreducible rock-bottom.

Eventually when faced with what amounts to an obvious circularity as our Non-Theist friends flip-flop and allow our widest maps to define our terms and, so, then we ask: When it comes to describing the “stuff” which our sentience emerged “out-of” (….Gravity or QM or whatever one may posit as one’s fountainhead…) is that stuff or “whatever” something which is itself sentient? If not then we find that one’s Map of sentience is, eventually, self-referencing, which again lands one in a circular map. IF, however, one were to include the wider Map of Physics & allow it to subsume one’s narrower Map of properties v. sentience, well then one finds the honesty of the likes of Sam Harris and Sean Carroll (and many others) for whom the margins of Physics force the inevitable: “The “I” or “Self” is – at bottom – illusion” – and so on and so on. What that does to “Moral Facts” becomes immediately obvious with respect to landing – not in being – but rather in the illusory shadows of non-being.

The tendency looks something like this: Create a nice and tidy cul-de-sac by avoiding the inclusion of the much wider Map of Physics in one’s Moral Ontology and thereby avoid allowing that far wider Map to subsume one’s far more narrow Map of the ontological history of sentience. That of course creates an “ontic-box” which is artificially separated-out from the fundamental nature of reality as per the Map of physics – and the result is simply that one has developed a circular “moral ontology” that begins and ends within self-reference and not in reality’s actual explanatory termini.

Recall that the only reason the Non-Theist avoids Physics is to avoid losing the hard-stop of the wall of his artificial cul-de-sac, because without that wall then love itself does not find that irreducible hard stop but finds instead the Irreducible Indifference vis-à-vis the Fundamental Nature of the Ocean Outside which we referent as “Reality” (….Cosmos, QM, whatever….).

The belief in play there with respect to Sentience v. Self v. Intentionality v. Self-Giving v. Lovev. Moral Facts is a strange form of circular-talk which claims that Moral Ontology can somehow “happen” in a vacuum void of Physics – as if on Non-Theism the Map of our own body of emotions and neurons is not ITSELF entirely subsumed by and defined by that far wider Map (Physics).

That yields an entirely self-referencing set of premises when making all of those arbitrary cuts which of course begs the question on what is good, how it is good, and why it is good, and in fact what “good” in fact “is” vis-à-vis this or that irreducible-hard-stop. And it is that last point there, the “is” and the “irreducible” and the “hard-stop” which forces our Non-Theist friends to insist on that cul-de-sac – for without those arbitrary walls one finds one’s very Self and therein Love Itself giving way to – not the hard-stop of the cul-de-sac’s walls – but instead the fundamental nature of the Wider Ocean v. Reality outside of the cul-de-sac in which and by which we find all that the cul-de-sac is, has, or even can be vis-à-vis any syntax of any category of “fundamental nature”.

When we describe “the ontology of trees” that is a narrative of (some phrase it this way) “the history of the becoming” wrt trees, or some phrase it “the history of the Tree’s becoming” and the word “becoming” is key as it tells us that the essence of and fundamental reality of “Tree” is not something irreducible and timeless but instead suffers from non-being at some point in the history of “reality” (….the universe on Non-Theism…) and then “becomes” (…or we can say “becomes real”…) and eventually fades again into non-being (….trees emerged and so are not irreducible and timeless…). The Ontology Of Trees is NOT “…what we find right here inside of the living experience of trees…“.

IF that is all one has then one does NOT have anything that is actually Ontological but instead one has an entirely self-referencing and circular map. And circular Maps cannot tell us anything about the fundamental essence of Trees as we’ve no contextual sight, no ontology, no physics, and we may actually believe that what causes Water to go to the leaves is something other than [Gravity, Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces, and Electromagnetic Forces] – believing perhaps in something like “Better/Worse” vis-à-vis “Flourishing” and so on.

Recall that the only reason the Non-Theist avoids Physics is to avoid loosing the hard-stop of the wall of his artificial cul-de-sac, because without that wall then love itself does not find that irreducible hard stop but finds instead the Irreducible Indifference vis-à-vis the Fundamental Nature of the Ocean Outside which we referent as “Reality” (….Cosmos, QM, whatever….).

Well with Moral Facts the same narrative applies as in fact what causes Water to go into leaves has nothing within it of Better/Worse and how do we know those facts? We know those facts from the ontological history of trees and NOT by self-referencing slices of Tree against Tree via the circularity of “life-good-death-bad” or of “better/worse” or of “flourish”.

With Moral Facts the same narrative applies with respect to essence and content and the fundamental nature of ANY vector. The reason the growing pool of Non-Theists claim there are NOT any vectors which sum to Objective Moral Facts is b/c of a Nominalism grounded in Non-Theism’s only available Map of Moral Ontology.

Knowledge Gaps cannot help the Non-Theist who foists the reality of Moral Facts simply because he has told us that physics isn’t relevant to moral facts (….as moral facts are mind-dependent abstractions…) and that those abstractions represent Objective Facts. But if Mind-Dependent Abstractions do not reduce to Physics then one is left with [Objective] [Physics-Free] [Moral Facts]. That of course isn’t tenable given Metaphysical Naturalism. Recall that the only reason the Non-Theist avoids Physics is to avoid loosing the hard-stop of the wall of his artificial cul-de-sac, because without that wall then love itself does not find that irreducible hard stop but finds instead the Irreducible Indifference vis-à-vis the Fundamental Nature of the Ocean Outside which we referent as “Reality” (….Cosmos, QM, whatever….).

The “disconnect” between reality’s concrete furniture (on the one hand) and Abstractions v. Moral Facts (on the other hand) is a product of the illusory nature of moral claims when attempting to define them as *Objective* features rather than *Subjective* features of reality. Mind dependent abstractions such as Logic or Good or Mathematics and Etc. are not immune to one’s ontological history. That’s why scientific realism fails. Perhaps the following context:

Anti-Realism and Truth – https://www.reasonablefaith…
Fallacies Physicists Fall For – https://edwardfeser.blogspo…
Propositional Truth – Who Needs It? – https://www.reasonablefaith…
Absolute creationism and divine conceptualism – https://www.reasonablefaith…
God and Abstract Objects – https://www.reasonablefaith…

Overlapping Themes:

1— Love, Reason, Reality, And The Golden Thread Of Reciprocity — at https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/

2— Moral Ontology Vis-À-Vis The Ontological History Of Reason Itself — at https://metachristianity.com/moral-ontology-vis-a-vis-the-ontological-history-of-reason-itself/

Reality’s Irreducible Rock Bottom “vs.” Presupposition

Moral Facts? Logic? Reason Itself? Mind? Abstraction? Are THOSE reality’s concrete furniture? One reason that “Logic” and “Abstraction” and Etc. are all relevant to this discussion on Moral Facts is that Moral Facts are in the same category and therefore must survive the same exacting demands. Despite that fact our Non-Theist friends often Challenge Logic along the same line as they Challenge Moral Fact and while that is honest on their part it is interesting that the they seem unaware ((…or unconcerned…)) with the cost of that choice. And it is a choice of course as other options are immediately available.

The Form of the Challenge which our Non-Theist friends present with respect to the fundamental nature of Logic typically shows up along the following lines:

A— “….If Logic ends in God then God must be subject to Logic and so God is not God, or else God is metaphysically free to be Non-Logic and therefore able to make round-squares such that [A = Non-A] is true in some possible world….or something like that….”

B— That which is “Logic Itself” is either 1. itself under the Laws of Logic or else 2. It (logic) can be, or is metaphysically free to be, Non-Logic.

Notice that the problem with that approach in [A] and [B] is the same problem with all contingent abstractions of all contingent minds and that is true whether one makes the attempt with Logic Itself or with Being-Itself or with The-Good Itself or with Reason-Itself or with Mind Itself and — lest we move to fast — it also holds if/when one makes the attempt with “I/Self” or with one’s First Person Experience vis-à-vis one’s one perceived “Irreducible-I-Am” vis-à-vis that which is nothing less than “Self” vis-à-vis “i-am” / “i-reason” / “i-intend” / “i-exist” and so on.

Notice that in both [A] and [B] the challenge redefines that which “God-Is” into that which “God-Has” such that THEN — and ONLY then — it can be said that Something Is Above/Beneath Something Else such that “…God must be subject to Logic and so God is not God, or else God is metaphysically free to be Non-Logic…” and so on as per [A] and [B] above. When the Christian speaks of “God” as “Being Itself” it is for a reason as that which “Has Being” cannot be ((…in any coherent sense…)) the Ground of All Being.

Obviously both [A] and [B] employ the syntax of the following:

A2— Logic-Is-Subject-To-Logic and/or

B2— Logic-Is-Beneath-Logic and/or

C2— Logic-Is-Metaphysically-Free-To-Be-Non-Logic or else Logic is not Logic.

Which then forces / sums to the following:

D2— “X Is Subject To X“ akin to
E2— “X Is Beneath X“ akin to

F2— “Being Itself Is Subject To Being Itself” akin to
F2— “Being Itself Is Beneath Being Itself” akin to

G2— “X Is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-X” akin to
H2— “Being Itself Is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-Being”

Those are of course are nonsensical identity claims and we rationally say of all such syntax:

— 1— None of them have anything to do with the Christian Metaphysic

— 2— All of them are themselves logical absurdities

Notice that “Getting In Behind/Beneath Oneself” is not coherent such that “We Mean To Apply Logic’s Force To Pre-Logic” is not coherent. “Presupposition” is not possible UNLESS and UNTIL the Critic can coherently pull-off A2 through H2. But of course the Non-Theist cannot pull-off those Nonsensical Identity Claims. It is not clear what our Non-Theist friends mean with respect to Reason/Mind when they accuse the Christian of Pre-Supposing by getting in Pre-Being and getting in Pre-Mind and getting in Pre-Reason and getting in Pre-Perception vis-à-vis getting in Pre-The-Intentional Self.

Think it through: It becomes unavoidable as to WHY the Christian does not and in fact CANNOT Start/Stop in any such Pre-ANY-thing given that the very notion of Pre-Being collapses into a metaphysical absurdity. Indeed once we apply the UNDOING of those Nonsensical Identity Claims of A2 through H2 ((…which were only the result of fallacious re-inventions / fallacious strawmen of actual Christian premises/definitions…)) we find the express Start/Stop or the express A—Z of the Christian Paradigm vis-à-vis Reason Itself as Being Itself vis-à-vis Goodness Itself as Being Itself vis-à-vis Logic Itself as Being Itself vis-à-vis Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving as Being in totum || Being Itself vis-à-vis All Processions as The Trinitarian Life.

Arbitrary Slices And Pockets Of Pretend Fundamental Natures

Where Non-Theism gets Morality Wrong is in “foisting” or “assuming” that one can 1. zoom in on an arbitrarily isolated cul-de-sac within 2. a narrow slice of the Milky Way and 3.merely label it “Sentience” and 4. foist a blind axiom of “Flourishing” and somehow 5. claim one is a Moral Realist.

There again Non-Theism cannot follow / trace its own brands of “moral ontology” from reality’s concrete furniture all the way up to mind-dependent abstractions and “that” then is NOT an “ontology” as it hasn’t the Means/Ends v. [Moral Facts] to do THAT through & through.

In all of this we find of course not only the fateful deaths which circularity itself brings but also the pains of illusion which that circularity was seeking to avoid – namely the revelation that Reason Itself is traded away for this or that reductio ad absurdum and, without so much as a pause, our Non-Theist friends merely offer what cannot be less than their blasé and Eternal Shrug and continue speaking – continue acting as-if we CAN and OUGHT get together to Find Moral Facts vis-à-vis reasoning through reality’s concrete furniture.

Unfortunately the only lucid REPLY to such inexplicable autohypnosis is to politely remind our Non-Theist friends that with respect to Theism and/or Moral Facts there cannot be any defenses of such concepts coming from the Christian (…in fact anyone…) unless and until the Non-Theist first demonstrates that they reject whatever terminus ends up necessitating any Reductio Ad Absurdum and can therein value something else more than Reductio – namely Reason Itself and thereby arrive at the Table with a Currency by which one can in fact Reason meaningfully.

With respect to Intentionality vis-à-vis the Intentional Self/Mind we find that increasingly larger swaths of our Non-Theist friends are (rightly, justifiably) admitting their own paradigm’s inability to retain the tool of reason itself throughout its ontological history and therein avoid Circularity and achieve Closure – and – then – without even a pause – they nonchalantly shrug it off and claim that they can and humanity can come and reason together vis-à-vis finding truth vis-à-vis the tool of reason.

Given this or that A. Reductio or B. Brute Fact or C. Contradiction which Non-Theism’s various attempts land in – given that – there is no good reason for the Non-Theist to think that “we” much less “he” can rationally claim to Reason Through Reality and that is simply because of the fact that to reason atop A. Reductio or to reason atop B. Brute Fact or to reason atop C. Contradiction – is in fact itself yet still another forced reductio ab absurdum.

Additionally and a bit ironically widely published voices are heard nonchalantly conceding something in the general zip code of the following:

Non-Theism’s Eternal Shrug: “….Yeah, sure, all available roads end in cul-de-sacs vis-à-vis circularity and/or in Reductioand/or in B. Brute Fact and/or in C. Contradiction given on our own terms and, yeah sure, it is all in the End some category of absurdity on our own terms, but it’s enough to get by on here and now….. so come on man… Man-Up and let’s Reason Through Reality’s Concrete Furniture and together discover Moral Facts….”

After which those same voices (…like our Non-Theist friends described a few paragraphs earlier…) nonchalantly shrug it off and claim that they can and we can and humanity can come and reason together vis-à-vis finding truth vis-à-vis the tool of reason – as the cycle of self-talk and autohypnotic shrugs repeats itself.

Unfortunately for our Non-Theist friends what they are asking themselves and the Christian to do is to arrive at the Table without the necessary and sufficient Currency given the stated task or goal. At that point it becomes necessary to speak of those goals and to establish a fixed and lucid Goalpost – which would go something like the following:

We politely remind our Non-Theist friends that with respect to Theism and/or Moral Facts there cannot be any defenses of such concepts coming from the Christian (…in fact anyone…) unless and until the Non-Theist first demonstrates that they reject whatever terminus ends up necessitating any Reductio Ad Absurdum and can therein value something else more than Reductio – namely Reason Itself and thereby arrive at the Table with a Currency by which one can in fact Reason meaningfully.

Over and over again our Non-Theist friends come to the proverbial Fork in the Road or “Y” in the road at which there would be “Reality” such that down one “Path” at the Fork or down one “Arm” at the “Y” it is the case that the express being itself of that which is Reason Itself is not retained in its own ontological history but is instead found inexplicably coming out of – emerging out of – non-being only to then again fade again back into non-being as the Magical Story of Non-Being Sourcing Being ends Non-Theism’s Self-Soothing fairytale with following ending:

“Yeah, sure, all available roads end in cul-de-sacs vis-à-vis circularity and/or in Reductioand/or in B. Brute Fact and/or in C. Contradiction given on our own terms and, yeah sure, it is all in the End some category of absurdity on our own terms, but it’s enough to get by on here and now….. so come on man… Man-Up and let’s Reason Through Reality’s Concrete Furniture and together discover Moral Facts.”

All attempts to ground reason without landing in Reductio / Brute Fact / Contradiction are conceded such that the Ocean atop which all Ships sail – namely Reason – is found to have an “Edge” such that the Ocean is found to cover – not a Globe but instead a Flat Surface with a fateful Edge. While the Christian reminds the Non-Theist that there is another “Path” at the Fork or another “Arm” at the “Y” in the road, the Non-Theist insists that there is in fact only one valid “Path” to the “Fork” such that the “Fork” is itself an illusion – or that there is only one valid “Arm” to the “Y” such that the “Y” itself is an illusion.

Even more peculiar is the fact that all such insistence on illusory ends arrives at the very same time that our Non-Theist friends are insisting that we Come And Reason Together so that we can “discover” “moral facts” vis-à-vis “reality” and reality’s concrete furniture.

Obviously the simple point of the “Y” is that the Non-Theist in fact insists that there is in fact only ONE valid Path or Arm and that it carries us to that catastrophic End or Edge of Reason Itself with respect to its own/actual Being such that Reason’s “being” is in fact non-actual and therein Reason lands in Non-Being, which “just is” all the stuff of Illusion/The-Illusory. That same Non-Being is found yielding the proverbial Map of the “Flat Earth” via that proverbial “Edge” of Reason (…as briefly looked at in the content of https://metachristianity.com/atheism-world-flat-none-non-non-theist/ …).

“Moral Ontology” & “The Ontology of Reason”

The phrase “Moral Ontology” is used when the topic is this or that analysis of the fundamental nature of “Morality” and, in the same way, here in the discussion of the fundamental nature of “Reason” we find the phrase of the “Ontology of Reason”. Often our Non-Theist friends will insist that Non-Theism CAN provide the tools to seamlessly employ “Reason”. But of course showing that one (…or one’s paradigm…) has the tools to employ Reason-Itself necessitates that one unpack a coherent Ontology of Reason, or, at the very least, demonstrate a willingness to not settle for anything which ruins that Ontology by employing vectors which land in Brute Fact or Contradiction or Circularity or a reductio ad absurdum, which will thereby demonstrate that one values Reason-Itself as more valuable than Contradiction / Reductio / Brute Fact.

That often segues into a key problem (…equivocation really…) which is that our Non-Theist friends will often appeal to Gaps-In-Knowledge and claim to be “holding out” for that as-of-yet-unknown which will allow Non-Theism to claim and land in some irreducible (…non-illusory vis-à-vis being…) vector of Reason Itself coherently. The reason (…no pun intended…) that is even in principle an eventual equivocation is this: to hold out for “that” necessarily entails that one is in fact holding out for nothing less than Irreducible Reason Itself vis-à-vis the Irreducible Intentional Self/Mind vis-à-vis Irreducible Being Itself as there we find that which does not land, at some point in Reason’s Ontological History of Becoming, in the illusory shadows of non-being.

Non-Theism values what it must and so our Non-Theist friends have premises which reflect that as they challenge the fact that both Reason & Reciprocity – or Logic & Love – can be found in an Ontology which retains Both in an “ontic singularity”. But if they are correct well than that of course would mean that at some point in the ontological history of of Love / Reason one is forced to affirm terms which divest Reason from Love and which divest Love from Reason.

Therein Non-Theism again must void-out any metaphysical singularity (….along the lines of Being Itself as Reason Itself as Timeless Self-Giving…) which coherently sources both Love and Reason without losing either to Reductio / Brute Fact / Contradiction. An interesting observation is that it is not only here in this topic where Metaphysical Convergence vis-à-vis Singularity is traded away at some point and therein Reason / Love are each divested of the other, but, also, we find this treatment of ontological histories when it comes to Non-Theism’s treatment of Mind & Matter. Mind becomes its own ultimate even as Matter becomes its own ultimate and that same “Side-By-Side-Duo” approach of settling for something other than a full-on convergence is employed. Of course both of those in the end insist on [Two Ultimate Realities] which of course eventually collapses into a metaphysical absurdity.

The Value-System which claims to employ reason in order to find moral facts and to do so all WHILE doubting that it’s possible to retain coherence in the form of Ontological Continuity vis-à-vis Singularity vis-à-vis Convergence is, in the end, putting the Cart before the Horse – and so leaves one in need of Reason’s Ontology. The failure here is both one of reason/intellect and one of morality in that to knowingly do “that” is to knowingly put the Cart before the Horse and that intentional move is NOT akin to being “….sincerely mistaken….”. Instead it sums to that “Eternal Shrug” described in earlier discussions which in part is knowingly settling for, picking up, and moving forward with yet another reductio ad absurdum and, just as bad, it is only by trading away the coherence which comes in the form of ontological (…one could say metaphysical perhaps…) Singularity vis-à-vis Convergence in the Ontology of Reason & Love that one actually gets their hands around said reductio in the first place.

Non-Theism’s Ontology of Reason by which we are to Reason Our Way To Moral Facts is [at worst] guilty of knowingly embracing Brute Fact and/or Absurdity and/or Contradiction. That “at-worst” leaves its premises without the intellectual or moral currency to claim that we can reason through reality’s concrete furniture and discover a lucid Ontology of Reason much less a lucid Moral Ontology. Whereas, [at best] Non-Theism is forever placing “Let’s Reason To Moral Facts” before, ahead of, in front of, its own “Let’s Defend and Value Reason v. Reason’s Ontology…..”.

There again it is the case that at-best Non-Theism has a reversed Cart/Horse and so does not have the intellectual currency to claim that one can reason through reality’s concrete furniture and discover a lucid ontology of Reason and of Moral Facts.

Does Non-Theism / Atheism 1. cause Cosmic Indifference or 2.comport with Cosmic Indifference wrt Atheism’s explanatory terminus? Clearly 1 is fallacious. Clearly 2 is absolute.

Whereas, it is logically impossible for indestructible love in ceaseless reciprocity v. the Trinitarian Life to 1. cause Cosmic Indifference or to 2. comport with Cosmic Indifference wrt the explanatory terminus of Life’s “A” to “Z”.

“Ultimate Reality” and therein all Fact is going to be, and *is*, defined by that which exists irreducibly, by the “Always & Already”. Not by frail and mutable contingencies such as me or you or some other relative or friend or enemy.

Context:

1— Reason & Truth-Finding & Moral Facts
2— Hume & Harris & Fincke
3— Mathematical–Continuum & Identity–Relation
4— at http://disq.us/p/1yf4p2u (…copy/pasted several paragraphs down…)

Reason Itself, Mind Itself, Self-Giving, & Moral Facts:

Reason reveals and unmasks the many absurdities within Non-Theism’s / Metaphysical Naturalism’s many varieties of syntax landing within the fundamentally illusive [Self] or “I”. Mind itself and Thought itself there sums to “I can think/choose/reason, but I cannot think what to think, choose what to choose, reason what to reason.” There the Currency of [reasoning] ultimately emerges as never having emerged at all — as non-emergent — as non-being. Non-Theists such as Harris, Carroll, Rosenberg, Churchland, and of course many other widely published Non-Theists agree with the Christian Metaphysic with respect to what we find “…given metaphysical naturalism…” (and so on). Whereas, on the Christian Metaphysic, reason’s ontology comes upon reality’s concrete furniture vis-à-vis Reason-Itself as Being-Itself (and so on).

The Christian Metaphysic and Non-Theism there converge and agree that one cannot rationally land within the illusory shadows of non-being vis-à-vis those Currencies just described which ultimately emerge as never having emerged at all — as non-emergent — as non-being, even as they converge and agree that once one has arrived within Irreducible Mind one has arrived in Theism. It is there that all Non-Theistic premises pay the price of valuing the topography of No-God above the topography of Reason Itself as they are forced to avoid claims of Realism vis-à-vis Reality’s Concrete Furniture vis-à-vis Irreducible Mind just as they are forced to avoid the subtle equivocations within claims that “THAT” can be or is in fact contingent and mutable (…Cartesian Demon, the Matrix, the 4D Block’s embedded conscious observer, Neuro-Physics, Idealism, Brain In A Vat, and so on…), and thereby in principle available within Metaphysical Naturalism — for the simple reason that all such combinations and permutations can only be made on pain of contradiction, circularity, and, all over again, reductio ad absurdum.

Ultimately all paradigms, including all forms of Non-Theism(s), must follow through on their respective metaphysical / explanatory termini vis-à-vis Reason & Reciprocity — or vis-à-vis Logic & Love — such that each must traverse their respective Maps ever outward and upward — and outward and upward still again — and still again — until one’s epistemic gives way to one’s ontology and one’s ontology gives way to one’s metaphysic and – in the case of all forms of Non-Theism – one’s metaphysic vis-à-vis Reason & Love in/as Being gives way to Non-Being – as per illusion. The concept of this or that fundamental nature vis-à-vis being somehow emerging from non-being gives-way to what it always housed and collapses into a metaphysical absurdity — namely the syntax of non-being vis-à-vis the syntax of the illusory-fundamental-nature-of vis-à-vis the syntax of illusion.

Contra that unfortunate reductio ad absurdum within Non-Theism, the explanatory distinction which the Christian Metaphysic enjoys is that the Christian spies within Reason & Reciprocity — within Logic & Love — that which when followed through and through to the irreducible contours of being itself vis-à-vis reality’s concrete furniture in fact reveals that Reason Itself has no Edge/Bottom — no terminus other than Being — even as Reciprocity Itself has no Edge/Bottom — no terminus other than Being — even as Reason & Reciprocity or Logic & Love arrive in a Metaphysical Singularity which has no Edge/Bottom — no terminus other than Being Itself. It is there vis-à-vis the robust lucidity of the Redutio Ad Deum that the Christian rationally rejects Non-Theism’s unavoidable Reductio Ad Absurdum.

A— Here with respect to Mind it is the case that reason cannot find (on Non-Theism) the distinction of irreducible intentionality vis-à-vis the Intentional Self/Mind such that the Mind is lost – literally.

B— Similarly, in the discussion of objective moral facts the terminal problem Non-Theism faces is that of reason not finding irreducible self-giving (…as per https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/ …) via-a-vis reality’s concrete furniture such that objective moral facts are lost – literally.

C— We find that AS the Intentional Self/Mind goes SO TOO goes Moral Facts and it’s obvious WHY that is the case, as per…

D— WHY that is the case is obvious as only a minute of reflection reveals that in both cases it is the same necessary ontological substrate which one must account for.

ANY “contingent” terminus (…Cartesian Demon, the Matrix, the 4D Block’s embedded conscious observer, Neuro-Physics, Idealism, Brain In A Vat, and so on…) cannot self-account, and, just the same, ANY contingent terminus with respect to “love / self / giving” and with respect to “self / intend / mind” cannot self-account. As the Contingent Conscious Observer in our own selves, it is the case that our own self-existence cannot provide its own terminus of explanation with respect to reality’s concrete furniture and therein any notion of “Fact” is, IF left off there (….akin to “Full Stop”…) illusory at first, and absurd in the end as the notion of trading on non-being forces the reductio ad absurdum. We come there to Being Itself as Reason Itself as Mind Itself as Love Itself in the uncanny syntax of Singularity.

Non-Theists On Non-Theism’s Moral Ontology:

A— “The lack of an ultimate objective scientific grounding for morality can be worrisome. It implies that people with whom we have moral disagreements—whether it’s […insert any evil here…] or schoolyard bullies who beat up smaller children—aren’t wrong in the same sense that it’s wrong to deny Darwinian evolution or the expansion of the universe….But that’s how the world is.” (S. Carroll)

F— “Pressing on through Alex Rosenberg’s The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, we come to Rosenberg’s treatment of morality. Followed out consistently, Rosenberg says, scientism entails nihilism. As Rosenberg is keen to emphasize, this is not the same as moral relativism or moral skepticism. It is not the claim that moral truth is relative, or that it is real but unknowable. Nor is it the claim that everything is morally permitted. It is a far more radical and disturbing claim than any of these views. Nihilism, as Rosenberg understands it, is the view that there is no such thing as being “morally permitted” or “morally prohibited” in the first place. For there is, given Rosenberg’s scientism, no intrinsic value in the world of the sort that is necessary for morality to be intelligible. Morality — not just commonsense or traditional morality, not just religious morality, but all morality, morality as such, including any purported secular, liberal, permissive morality — is therefore an illusion.” (…from https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/02/reading-rosenberg-part-vii.html )

Meanwhile:

Lauding Truth & Lauding Noble Lies – http://disq.us/p/1w6epee

Auschwitz in Non-Theism’s fatality:

1. http://disq.us/p/1d70xkw

2. http://disq.us/p/1dbow36

3. http://disq.us/p/1wq43ok

Another lens: https://www.thinkingchristi… which is in a comment section and opens with the following:

8. scbrownlhrm says:
June 29, 2018 at 5:26 am
Christianity is a non-totalitarian metanarrative……

The Copy/Paste of “Reason & Truth-Finding & Moral Facts / Hume & Harris & Fincke / Mathematical–Continuum & Identity–Relation” begins here and note that it is from a discussion and so the syntax of “you/I/my/yours/our” and so on is retained:

Reason & Truth-Finding & Moral Facts
Hume & Harris & Fincke
Mathematical–Continuum & Identity–Relation

“Is it a pre-requisite that I assimilate and understand your premises before we can begin unpacking moral questions?”

It’s actually the opposite. You need to clarify your own premises in order to discuss moral reasoning and the proverbial ought-do-otherwise. Obviously we’re building on the items listed inhttp://disq.us/p/1y9re0s and in http://disq.us/p/1yf6avj and, so, about 95% of what remains will be focused on two areas within your body of premises which are still a bit unclear. The last 5% at the end will close with a statement, not an argument, of what Reason finds “given” the Christian God. So let’s start with those two on your side of the proverbial equation:

A key equivocation in your premises is in relation to Hume’s claim that there is no preference (…appetite or goal or preference…) which is contrary to reason — and Hume gives his examples that it is not “contrary to reason” or it is not irrational to prefer the destruction of the world to the scratching of one’s finger — just as it is not irrational to seek one’s one lesser good instead of one’s own greater good given this or that preference for some other end or goal (Etc.). For Hume it was Passion/Feeling which ground morality such that there is no moral reasoning, there is only moral appetite-ing, so to speak. Different things lead different folks to pleasurable feelings rather than unwanted feelings.

“….is to ought….. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason…..”(Hume)

Identity Is A Necessary Relation:

Sam Harris affirms Hume, although perhaps not intentionally, as William Lane Craig shows. In the following excerpt we come again, as we must, to identity, to the syntax of

“….There is no possible world in which some entity A is not identical to A. So if there is any possible world in which A is not identical to B, it follows that A is not in fact identical to B…..”

From https://www.reasonablefaith… is the following from Craig:

Begin Excerpt:

“….Therefore, [Harris] concludes, “It makes no sense … to ask whether maximizing well-being is ‘good’.” Why not? Because he’s redefined the word “good” to mean the well-being of conscious creatures. So to ask, “Why is maximizing creatures’ well-being good?” is on his definition the same as asking, “Why does maximizing creatures’ well-being maximize creatures’ well-being?” It is simply a tautology — talking in a circle. Thus, Harris has “solved” his problem simply by redefining his terms. It is mere word play.

At the end of the day Harris is not really talking about moral values. He is just talking about what’s conducive to the flourishing of sentient life on this planet. Seen in this light, his claim that science can tell us a great deal about what contributes to human flourishing is hardly controversial. Of course, it can — just as it can tell us what is conducive to the flourishing of corn or mosquitoes or bacteria. His so-called “moral landscape” picturing the highs and lows of human flourishing is not really a moral landscape at all.

On the next to last page of his book, Harris more or less admits this. For he makes the telling admission that if people such as rapists, liars, and thieves could be just as happy as good people, then his moral landscape would no longer be a moral landscape; rather it would just be a continuum of well-being, whose peaks are occupied by good and evil people alike. What is interesting about this is that earlier in the book Harris observed that about 3 million Americans are psychopathic, that is to say, they do not care about the mental states of others. On the contrary, they enjoy inflicting pain on other people.

This implies that we can conceive of a possible world in which the continuum of human well-being is not a moral landscape. The peaks of well-being could be occupied by evil people. But this entails that in the actual world the continuum of well-being and the moral landscape are not identical either. For identity is a necessary relation. There is no possible world in which some entity A is not identical to A. So if there is any possible world in which A is not identical to B, it follows that A is not in fact identical to B. Since it’s possible that human well-being and moral goodness are not identical, it follows necessarily that human well-being and moral goodness are not the same, as Harris has asserted. By granting that it’s possible that the continuum of well-being is not identical to the moral landscape, Harris has rendered his view logically incoherent.

Thus, Harris has failed to solve the “value problem.” He has not provided any justification or explanation of why, on atheism, objective moral values would exist at all. His so-called solution is just a semantic trick of providing an arbitrary and idiosyncratic redefinition of the words “good” and “evil” in non-moral terms…..”

End Excerpt.

[…Note: Several of the remaining parts along the way here are from discussions with our Non-Theist friends and retain the syntax of “you / my / your / our” and so on…]

The entire state of affairs there with respect to Peaks/Nadirs populating various foci along a Continuum unmasks the false identity claim within the following claim of yours (or what seems to be your claim), which you’ve not quite resolved yet. That is with respect to what Reason finds “IF-God” vs. “IF-No-God”.

1— “IF God Exist” (etc.) THEN Reason finds DIFFERENT Facts wrt reality’s concrete furniture.

…vs…

2— “Even If God Exists” (etc.) THEN Reason STILL finds the SAME concrete furniture wrt reality.

So far you seem to claim 2. Yet can you?

So far with respect to Identity it is the case that “A” is not “Non-A”such that your “2” there is untenable “IF” Reason finds Being Itself of / as the Trinitarian Life vis-à-vis Being in love’s ceaseless Self-Giving (…and Etc…). It’s fine to object and say No-God-Therefore-No-Difference.

However, there still seems to be residual fragments of equivocation (…in your premises…) with respect to Reason and her role of Truth-Finding given that you seem to side with “2” instead of “1”.

A bit more on this whole state of affairs:

“….Now if moral values don’t exist then it’s not like ethical propositions are mind-dependent; rather they are meaningless. If good and evil do not exist then the proposition “Punishing people is evil” is simply meaningless. As is a proposition about the DNA of unicorns. Some atheists resort to changing the meaning of words and argue that “when we say that some deed is evil what we really mean is that we experience that deed as very distasteful – when we speak about evil we mean feelings that our brain produces as the result of sociobiological causes”. But as a matter of fact this is not at all what we mean by “evil”. And I say it would be best not to follow atheists in their confusing word-games….” (…from http://edwardfeser.blogspot… …)

Those examples leave no wiggle-room. If one is going to claim as Non-Theism demonstrably does in its most robust vectors (….in addition to Hume & Harris also see http://disq.us/p/1y84cou …) that the rational mind (…that Reason as truth-finder….) cannot find some fundamental grain to reality which one in fact runs one’s hand against should one prefer / chase-after “Goal X” instead of “Goal X2” then one affirms that the Psychopath has different feelings, but not irrational feelings (..Goal X vs. Goal X2..).

And that is where here Hume (…and we can say Harris with him…) surfaces again finding in the Psychopath no ought-not with respect to Reason as the Rational Man finds no immoral feelings (..no ought / ought-not between or among or amid Goal X vs. Goal X2..) such that the Psychopath is not, and in fact cannot even in principle be that which we would describe as Morally Unreasonable.

That is Non-Theism’s Currency vis-à-vis Moral Reason-ing. A Mathematical Continuum & Peaks/Nadirs. Full Stop. Atheist philosopher and blogger Daniel Fincke comments:

“…Teleology should not be at all out of bounds for atheists. Teleologists do not need to posit that there is an intelligent goal-giver who gives natural beings purposes to fulfill, as many theists think…..

….I am an atheistic virtue ethicist requiring no divine agency for the teleological dimensions of my ethics to make minimal sense and have minimal coherence. I am just describing purely naturalistically occurring patterns as universals or forms. I am saying that since humans’ very natures are constituted by a specific set of powers, fulfilling them is incumbent on humans as the beings that we are. It is irrational and a practical contradiction to destroy the very precondition of our own being (all things being equal). We have a rational imperative instead to flourish maximally powerfully according to the powers which constitute us ourselves….” (…excerpt from https://edwardfeser.blogspo… …)

That fatal move of his “…I am just describing purely naturalistically occurring patterns as universals or forms….” just is one more repetition of Equivocation© wrapped up in Conflation© and heavily seasoned with dashes of Question-Begging’s© best spices as it all circles back again to Non-Theism’s fundamental rock-bottom which Reason finds: A Mathematical Continuum & Peaks/Nadirs. Hard-Stop.

Any Moral Ontology which begins and ends in the Contingent, in the Mutable, in the eternally open-ended will always take us to this same Currency. Another way to say it is to say that amid Appetites / Goals we find all of our syntax swimming to nowhere in particular there inside our skulls, awash in an ocean of trillions of little isolated [Pockets of Physics] eternally converging and colliding and diverging — and “that” “ontology” never can get us to ontic–distinctions (….as per http://disq.us/p/1yc63r5 etc…). In fact “that’ “ontology” is not even an ontology at all given the obvious fact that “Physics” (…and cosmology…) is not convertible with “Ontology” in the wider sense and so of course in these thinner slices of arbitrary cutting points that is unchanged.

That all, in the end, leaves Non-Theism sort of rehashing and rephrasing Hume as we discover that the phrase “Morally Unreasonable” is unintelligible within Non-Theism. There is no such thing (….see both a. http://disq.us/p/1y84cou and also b.http://disq.us/p/1w6epee …).

Sitting At The Table Attempting To Morally Reason:

So far these are two problems within your own body of premises with respect to sitting at the table and reasoning through this or that prescriptive instead of this or that descriptive.

The first of those is that you claim to be able to finance a Seat at the Table in which Moral Reasoning takes place when in fact Reason finds no relevant Facts, no ought/ought-not soaked in and through Goal-X & Goal-X2. The Prescriptive is illusory there and another “reason” why is that your terms are unavoidably beginning and ending within the Contingent, the Mutable, the eternally open-ended. For all the reasons given above (…and earlier items via http://disq.us/p/1y9re0s …) we find that Non-Theism provides no factual Moral Ontology.

The second of those is the specific issue mentioned earlier with respect to the following, as you seem to be holding a bit of room for something like two here:

1— “IF God Exist” (etc.) THEN Reason finds DIFFERENT Facts wrt reality’s concrete furniture.

…vs…

2— “Even If God Exists” (etc.) THEN Reason STILL finds the SAME concrete furniture wrt reality.

But is that (…2…) the case?

So far with respect to Identity, it is the case that “A” is not “Non-A” such that your “2” there is untenable “IF” Reason finds Being Itself of / as the Trinitarian Life vis-à-vis Being in love’s ceaseless Self-Giving (…and Etc…). It’s fine to object and say No-God-Therefore-No-Difference. However, there still seems to be residual fragments of equivocation wit respect to Reason and her role of Truth-Finding if you equate v. identity that which is Being Itself v. the Divine Mind (and Etc.) to that which is nature’s four fundamental forces (Gravitational, Strong/Weak Nuclear, & Electromagnetic).

The Christian Metaphysic & The Explanatory Terminus:

Every metaphysic has one (…explanatory terminus…) and the proverbial A and Z of one’s Metaphysic either will or will not provide a seamless and lucid ontology with respect to The Good and Reason. Where Non-Theism there fails, awash in a sea of reductio’s, it forfeits the convertibility of the necessary transcendentals (…see https://metachristianity.com/reason-reality-golden-thread-reciprocity/ ….).

The following is not an argument defending what D.B. Hart refers to as “….the eternal one-another…” vis-à-vis nothing less than The Trinitarian Life, but, rather, it is a statement of what Reason in fact interfaces with in her role as Truth-Finder “given” the Christian God:

Being Itself in/by/as love’s Timeless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Ontic-Self in totum:

A1. http://disq.us/p/1wq6j96
A2. http://disq.us/p/1xr6yav
A3. http://disq.us/p/1w3l3fn

B1. http://disq.us/p/1mvz63h
B2. http://disq.us/p/1n7mcb3
B3. http://disq.us/p/1mw1zyl
B4. http://disq.us/p/1k7x907
B5. http://disq.us/p/1vhn4fo

C1. http://disq.us/p/1wq52v5
D1. http://disq.us/p/1y85jdc

Three quotes of David Bentley Hart with respect some of the more esoteric ontic-tensions between Being Itself as such and the contingent reality we observe and which the Trinitarian Life resolves:

E1. https://str.typepad.com/web…
E2. https://str.typepad.com/web…
E3. https://str.typepad.com/web…

A clipped assembling of related and nascent contemplations blended with selective paraphrases and manipulations of Garrigou-Lagrange’s “The Trinity and God the Creator”– a book which is neither recommended here nor the reverse here – mingled with embryonic ruminations, random pontifications, and underdeveloped reflections on the silhouettes of metaphysics, necessity, and the Triune God vis-à-vis the fact that Perfect Goodness is essentially diffusive of itself and where reason finds the necessary means and ends of Act void of Cause in seamless union with The Good’s Ontic Diffusiveness void of Contingency:

F1. https://str.typepad.com/weblog/2016/01/the-deity-of-christ-and-the-reality-of-the-trinity.html?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08ad5e39970d#comment-6a00d83451d2ba69e201bb08ad5e39970d which opens with the following:

More logical compulsion:

Trinity:

The problem for all Non-Triune metaphysical explanatory termini is their intrinsic and constitutional incoherence vis-à-vis The Necessary.

As in:

A clipped assembling of related and nascent contemplations blended with selective paraphrases and manipulations of Garrigou-Lagrange’s “The Trinity and God the Creator”– a book which is neither recommended here nor the reverse here – mingled with embryonic ruminations, random pontifications, and underdeveloped reflections on the silhouettes of metaphysics, necessity, and the Triune God:

That which sums to the Necessary realizes satisfaction in Trinity – that is to say – the means and ends of Actvoid of Cause and of the Perfect Good’s diffusiveness void of Contingency surface as the fundamental shape of reality. The Necessary carries us to the Triune in all that we spy, whether such be the contours of being or of life or of act or of intention or of some other contour of being. That which causes the universe from withoutrather than from within appears before us void of contingency’s potentiality in need of this or that actualization and begins to come into focus. Trinity reveals to us the very contours of, not causation, but of transposition within and by all that sums to Mind’s lucidity even as we encounter that which sums to the essence of relational collocation in all that sums to the very delineation of Person as love’s filiation void of causation establishes its incantation of ceaseless reciprocity………..

The mixed ingredients of a. Aristotle mixed with b. David Bentley Hart mixed with c. Fred Sanders mixed with d. Susanna Wesley’s skirmish with Aristotle in which Aristotle supposes God must eternally be communicating good to something or other, and e. Scott Ryan’s open-door to an actual infinite vis-à-vis the Father-Son series (contra the per se series) all come together at:

G1. https://str.typepad.com/web… with a paragraph correction following it at
G2. https://str.typepad.com/web…

H1. This comment’s content is extended a bit in the comment which follows it in the order of the discussion here, which is at Reason, Moral Facts, Logic, the Ethic of Love, & Trinity ≠ No-God at http://disq.us/p/1yi9win

H2. Added Context: The Currency of Moral Reasoning — at a. http://disq.us/p/1y9re0s and then continued at b. http://disq.us/p/1yf6avj

End Copy/Paste of “Reason & Truth-Finding & Moral Facts / Hume & Harris & Fincke / Mathematical–Continuum & Identity–Relation”.

And on it goes vis-à-vis Non-Theism’s Moral Ontology vis-à-vis Non-Theism’s Ontology of Reason vis-à-vis Non-Theism’s Ontology of the Intentional Self/Mind as per earlier discussions.