« Unwitting Revolutionary | Main | To the Atheist Who Called Jesus "The Magic Carpenter" (And a Warning to Churches) »

October 31, 2013

Comments

I agree that in discussing this issue that one answer the question of how sin relates to morality. In this video Brett distinguishes between commands and values. It is true that commands may only apply in certain situations or to certain people. Brett uses the example of traffic laws only applying to individuals within that country, but the values that underlie these laws are the same (i.e. regard for human life). Thus, these laws are expressions of the same values, but the expression will vary based on the context. I think this is a helpful distinction.

But I disagree that this solves the underlying challenge. The challenge asks about morality which corresponds more to values in Brett's scheme. This response is inadequate because the values that underlie certain commands in the OT versus in the NT do not seem to match. In some instances they seem to contradict. Brett mentioned an underlying value for various traffic laws is a regard for human life. I agree this is an important value. But some of the commands in the OT seem to disregard this basic value. The commands allowing slavery, requiring a raped woman to marry her rapist, commanding the death of children for the sin of their fathers, and inflicting genocide on a population do not express a value for human life, no matter what the specific contact.

Lack of basic reading comprehension skills seems to be quite a problem for some people.

For example, there is no command anywhere in the Bible that requires a raped woman to marry her rapist. That notion comes from sloppy reading of the text.

“The immorality of rape is immediately given in the seventh of the Ten Commandments “You shall not commit adultery.” Any sexual intercourse outside the bounds of marriage is proscribed by the Bible. So rape is always regarded as immoral in the Bible. That puts a quite different perspective on things.”

“There’s no claim that Israel’s laws were perfect or adequately expressed God’s moral will. Jesus himself regarded the Mosaic law on divorce as inadequate and failing to capture God’s ideal will for marriage ( Matthew 5.31-2 ). Maybe the same was true for rape laws.” (William Lane Craig)

On scripture’s own definition of itself, the laws on all things in the OT cannot be, on necessity, Love’s Perfection. The entire landscape of the Ministry of Death is but Love’s reach into hell on earth, as the fragmentation of Love’s E Pluribus Unum among God-Man / Man-God is but one necessary outcome of Man’s motion into Self and out of Love, out of God, just as, the other necessary fragmentation is that of any notion of E Pluribus Unum amid Mankind, Human Beings. That which is outside of Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum, that topography of one’s eternally sacrificed self is, on necessity, outside of the triune singularity of unity that just is Self / Other / We and is, on God’s definition, hell, the outside. Genesis 3:15 tells of the eventual solution to this vacuum, this void of Love, which is defined in Genesis 3:16. Self void of Other, that fierce imprisonment within the Isolated-Self, can never know, can never taste, the singularity of unity that is this: Self / Other / We. And this is true, on definition per scripture, both in the Vertical there in God-In-Man, Man-In-God, and in the Horizontal there in Man-Man, Person-A / Person B. Unity is, in both of these vectors, in hell on earth, in that vacuum void of love’s whole, necessarily impossible.

We find Love endlessly reaching into hell on Earth and expressing to Man Command-A, and, upon Man’s motioning yet further into hell, yet further away from Love’s Command-A, we find Love, being Love, following Man yet further into hell and giving then, Command-A being on necessity Non-Entity by Man’s motion, Command-B, and ever further in the OT we find Love’s dive into Man’s Self-Created hell on earth. Now, Command A being shattered in Eden, all other Commands are, on Love’s definition, as defined by scripture, void of Moral Excellence on necessity, for Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum both in Man-In-God / God-In-Man and amid Mankind, Human Beings, are, on definition, shattered non-entity. It is Good to tell a man not to inject himself with cocaine. It is also Good to tell the addict to love soberness. But telling the addict to love soberness is not Love’s Perfect Command. We need to think harder about what Love does inside of hell on earth. The Law is Good. Hebrews, and God Himself, all throughout the Old Testament Prophets, tell us the Law will one day be done away with, for, a more excellent some-thing will supersede, supplant, it.

We need to take Love at His Word, both in Eden and in Gethsemane. Love has but one Garden.

Mankind will never again see Unity among Men, Unity with God, short of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15’s amalgamation of Seed’s Seed. Juxtaposition is but enmity, that is to say, juxtaposition is but fragmentation, on definition, and in Love’s E Pluribus Unum there can be no such thing. That is why Genesis 3:15, Word’s Corporeal, that unthinkable business of incarnation, of Seed’s Seed, is the only possible necessity here in the beauty of wisdom for it must be amalgamation that is Love’s solution to hell’s juxtapositions, hell’s fragmentations. On definition yes, but, more so, on necessity.

Love’s Start-Points are Love’s End-Points, as all throughout the OT we find the radical departure from hell on earth foretold as the Wolf and the Lamb, as the Child and the Lion, as All-Nations are once again found within Love’s singularity of Unity that just is that necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum. Husbands, die for your wives: Pre-Genesis 3:16 echoes, on the definitions of the God of the OT, the God of the NT, as Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self, Love’s Eternal Sacrifice Of Self, is Man’s fated Image. Us. E Pluribus Unum.

If we think Love does not follow Man into hell on earth in the OT, then we do not comprehend Christ in the NT.

We find Christ in the OT, incognito within the Father, and we find the Father in the NT, incognito within Christ, diving into hell on earth, as Power, necessarily void of Love’s Whole within hell’s geography, goes about redeeming Man, pulling Man, out of the insanity of Leviticus 18’s burning daughters and sons on heaps of fires in sacrifice, found in all nations, and into Love’s Means to Love’s Ends, which is, and can only be, Himself. The only solution to a vacuum void of Love on definition is for Love to pour Himself into that vacuum, on definition. Love must spread His Arms wide, and pour Himself out, on definition, according to scripture’s A to Z.

“.....how much effort have you really made to understand these laws in the cultural context of the ancient Near East? None at all, I suspect; you probably got these passages from some free-thought publication or website and repeat them here with little attempt to understand them. By contrast, Paul Copan in his Is God a Moral Monster? (Baker: 2010) deals with these passages in their historical context, thereby shedding light on their meaning (pp. 118-119). Copan observes that there are three cases considered here:


1. Consensual sex between a man and a woman who is engaged to another man, which was a violation of marriage ( Deuteronomy 22.23 ). Both parties were to be executed.


2. Rape of a woman who is engaged to another man ( Deuteronomy 22.25 ). Only the rapist is executed; the woman is an innocent victim.


3. Seduction of a young woman who is not engaged to another man Deuteronomy 22.28 ; (cf . Exodus 22.16-17 ). The seducer is obliged to marry the young woman and provide for her, if she will have him; otherwise her father may refuse him and demand payment......”

“In short, rape was a capital crime in ancient Israel. As for Leviticus 20:13, this verse prescribes the death penalty for consensual sexual intercourse between two men; that you interpret this passage to condemn a child who is assaulted by a pedophile only shows how tendentious your exegesis is.” (William Lane Craig)


Deuteronomy 22:28 is what one critic refers to, and, that only brings us back to Exodus 22:17, for no marriage need occur at all, and that only brings us back to what Love defines as hell on earth in Genesis 3:16: inequality among people, this person dominating some other person, void of what the OT prophets foretold as Love’s End-Points, that beautiful Landscape found in Love’s Starting Points prior to Genesis 3:16: E Pluribus Unum.


It is difficult for the skeptic, for all of us, to consider all that Love defines as the Outside, as Dark to be, on scripture’s own definition, the outside. Hebrews 4 and the OT both describe Man’s final Rest as something very, very different than anything Joshua could ever offer to Israel, not to mention to All-Nations, and of course both the OT and Hebrews 4 tell us that Love’s Rest just is not found, cannot be found, on necessity, in the outside.

These are but a few vectors and methods whereby we apply Love’s [A to Z] to definitions and fragments as we avoid one-verse-thinking applied to a few verses. All such cherry-picking of verses, all such unsophisticated fury against Love expressed by Atheists and Skeptics who apply OT landscapes quite easily suffer the same absorption into non-entity under Love’s Own Self-Definitions. Some critics seem to think scripture will turn on itself and magically produce Love and Life and Sanity out of the vacuum which Love Himself has vouched can and will only yield lovelessness, death, and insanity. But of course we all know that vacuums are contingent on some larger Whole and cannot themselves explain, account for, anything. Vacuums cannot be used to explain vacuums, to account for vacuums. Hell on Earth spoken of in Genesis 3:16 by our Great Abolitionist is but the dark outside, per His definition, a vacuum void of Love’s Whole, the fruits of Love's Fragmentation there in Eden, which is but Love’s Execution, which, as it turns out, will be both our death (love’s execution by Man there in Eden) and our hope (Love’s Execution by Love there in Gethsemane), both our hell, on definition, and our emancipation, on definition. John 3:16 tells of our Great Abolitionist's Passion, the beginning of hell’s undoing, which Love first speaks of in Genesis 3:15, thus defining Genesis 3:16, John 3:16, and the hell in between. Making sense out of the hell there in between Love's two executions found inside of Eden and Gethsemane requires that we take Love at His Word and embrace the Whole, the [A to Z] of Love’s expressly stated Start-Points and End-Points which we find in scripture’s own definitions.


The Whole is this: the singularity of Unity that just is Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum amid and among all that is Self and all that is Other and all which these Two Distincts by embrace necessarily beget, Love’s Third Distinct: the Singular-Us.

That is God. That is Love. On definition and necessity. That is the Beginning. That is the Ending. On definition and necessity.

All else is, as Jesus, Word’s Own Corporeal, points out, not the whole of love’s marriage, not the whole of love’s A to Z. And how can it be? As we look into Eden and Gethsemane we discover that while Uncreated Love never changes, Man in his fragmented disunion can never see or comprehend the Whole, nor reach the Whole, nor be given the Whole, on necessity given In-Sufficiency’s non-capacity for All-Sufficiency. And that is so simply because Vacuums are not magic, and are themselves contingent on some larger whole, and thus Love must pour Himself out, and into, lovelessness should Man ever hope to find that Rest that just is E Pluribus Unum.

Such is Eden. And the only road out of Eden and into Love is Gethsemane, on definition, that eternal sacrifice of all that is Self, which we find Love Himself in and by delight doing, pouring Himself out for His beloved, which is you and I and us, on definition.

Brett says his 12 year old son Michah (2:54)& his 2 year old son Michah (3:12)at these spots in the video.

SCbrownlhrm,

Yes, I have spent a good amount of time trying to understanding the Ancient Near-Eastern context of the Hebrew Bible, including studying at seminary.
I suggest that you read Thom Stark's book Is God a Moral Compromiser?, especially p.127-134, where Stark shows that Copan's response to the rape passages is inadequate. Even if you could show Deu.22:28-29 and Ex.22:16 do not command what they seem to clearly command, this still leaves other passages commanding the death of children for the sin of their fathers, and inflicting genocide on a population.

Caleb,


What do you expect to find inside of Man’s Privation as it relates to Power’s proximity void of Love’s E Pluribus Unum? On definition, Man inside of the Dark Outside, inside of Hell on Earth, has no capacity for Unity amid Man-In-God, God-In-Man, nor for Unity amid and among Man-Man, as the very topography you desire is, on definition, shattered non-entity inside of the Outside.


You seem to think the teachings to an addict about all the ugly, hellish options available to him inside of that addiction somehow constitute teachings on running marathons.


But they are no “new teaching”, and are but light upon his addiction, there inside of the addict’s Outside, inside of his Hell on Earth. Love teaches, on definition, a very different Landscape than you seem to imply in your definitions. You seem to disagree with Scripture’s definitions of Actuality.


We are not interested in [M, N, R].


We are interested in Love’s [A to Z].


Man in Isolation does not constitute Genesis 3:15 for such cannot be mere Juxtaposition, on necessity, and must be, on necessity, Amalgamation.


All things outside of Amalgamation cannot be Moral Excellence, and can only be mere descriptions to the addict of his hellish options inside of his isolation, inside of his addiction; the ceiling and floor of which are but, on definition, Non-Love, Power void any and all Emancipation from addiction. Such is necessary by definition given Love's ontological geography within Love's necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum there inside of Eden and Gethsemane.


Vacuums, void of X, cannot account for the Vacuum itself, nor for the X. Such things are contingent on a Larger Whole, necessarily.

Caleb,

You seem to mistake Commands inside of the Outside, inside of Hell, as Prescriptive.


Yet Love's topography tells us such are merely Descriptives given to an addict of his condition outside of Love's E Pleuribus Unum.


>> The commands ... commanding the death of children for the sin of their fathers, and inflicting genocide on a population do not express a value for human life, no matter what the specific contact.

The main complains of the ethos of the OT God (which is the NT God, so let us not persist in this faulty dichotomy) is structured on inconsistency. For example, little censure is given to the military campaigns of Seti I, Ramses II, and Merneptah in the 1300-1200's B.C., other than to imply that a Israelite presence could not have developed in the era of the Judges (other than this activity featured movement of Egyptian forces along the coast and into areas of northern Palestine barely under the control of the northern tribes, never advancing into the Shephelah). The war monuments spoke of the desolation, plundering, carrying off of populations and property. Merneptah's stele even spoke of his genocide of Israel (fairly inaccurate). The genocide of the Canaanites (again, as they continued to influence the Israelites in following generations, fairly inaccurate)was a divine co-opting of God of the then humanistic practice of supplanting cultures by conquest. Israel could not gain the Land of Promise by pacifist means. But the ouster of the Canaanites was yet one more historical case of a decadent culture removed (God spoke of this expulsion in Gen. 15: 16). More important than this is Israel's role in the same equation. Expulsion from the land would be that nation's fate if they engaged in the same decadence (Dt. 28: 64). The Assyrian would be the rod of God's anger (Is. 10: 5), a rod that could easily be broken (Nahum). What this is is a historical principle of rise and decline of nations, decadent Romans thrust out by vigorous barbarians.

>> commanding the death of children for the sin of their fathers.

Again, a case of not reading for understanding. This is presented in Exodus 20, as prologue to the Ten Commandments. Punishing the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generation is contrasted with showing love to a thousand generations of those who love and obey God's commands. Why the vast difference in the number of generations? The range of time in three or four generations could be the lifespan of remembrance of a single person. This would include those who would be leaving history to those entering. All these would display a disregard for God and a defiance for His decrees. Thus it would be a case of a lifestyle promoted from one generation to another, children punished for the sins of the father who taught them to refuse God. This persistent rebellion could be fostered from generation to generation into perpetuity. Yet it could be broken at any generation with the act of repentance. This understanding is lost on the critic who uses a compelling literalism that one would accuse a fundamentalist. Such a person would understand this notion of sinful lifestyles passed on from generation to generation. Why not the secularist who searches for and cherry-picks and overemphasizes such matters?


Caleb you seemed to miss both the subtext and the context.


Deuteronomy 22:28 only brings us back to Exodus 22:17, for no marriage need occur at all, and that only brings us back to what Love defines as hell on earth in Genesis 3:16: inequality among people, this person dominating some other person, void of what the OT prophets foretold as Love’s End-Points, that beautiful Landscape found in Love’s Starting Points prior to Genesis 3:16: Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum.


Where in the OT Law Code, that Ministry of Death, do we find the Command, the Prescriptive, for Genesis 3:15?


It doesn’t exist.


And yet Moral Excellence can only be found there.

Love promises in Genesis 3:15 not Juxtaposition as the solution to this vacuum void of Love’s E Pluribus Unum, the Unity He, and all of us, seek in all vectors, which Love seeks for Man, but, Love tells us the solution to what Love defines as Man inside of the Outside, as Man inside of Hell on Earth, as all that lies Post-Fall and Pre-Seed’s Seed in Amalgamation, as just that: Amalgamation. Man cannot in Isolation destroy Sin, destroy Evil. If the critic reads Genesis 3:15 and thinks Scripture teaches such about Man in Privation, he discards Scripture’s own definitions of Actuality. Seed’s Seed will destroy Evil, and such leads to that unthinkable business of Amalgamation, on necessity, that Landscape of Man-In-God, God-In-Man, Uncreated-Created, Timelessness-Time, of Incarnation inside that Unity of E Pluribus Unum, which we find in Eden and in Gethsemane.

And yet the critic thinks to define hell on earth, void of that Amalgamation, as the promised land and simply discards Scripture’s own definitions of Actuality. While [M, N, R] are helpful, we must embrace Love’s [A to Z], lest we error in our thinking.

Whatever is outside of the Prescriptive for Moral Excellence is but that Descriptive of Man in his condition where we find Power telling Man, not how to achieve Genesis 3:15, but describing to him exactly what ugly and hellish options are available to him (If-Then Ceilings and Floors inside of Lovelessness) and exactly where his feet are walking there inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on Earth. The Best man will find inside of lovelessness is a few more crops, some more rain, a few less wars, and perhaps living about a hundred years or so. The critic thinks that is Immutable Love’s plan for Mankind described in Let Us make Man in Our Image, in Genesis 3:15, and all throughout the OT Prophets as they describe a yet to come far more excellent set of definitions as the Child and the Lion, the Wolf and the Lamb, and all Men of all Nations actualized into what is Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum.

There is no Prescriptive for Genesis 3:15 found in the Law of Moses. Thus, Moral Excellence awaits Mankind in some other place. The Law is but Love’s Descriptive to Mankind on exactly what stones he has available beneath his feet there inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on Earth, on ontological necessity.

We thirst for Love’s Unity in all vectors, for Love’s Plurality of Singularity, for we intuit the Whole, and the Whole is this: the singularity of Unity that just is Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum amid and among Love’s first distinct, all that is Self, and amid and among Love’s second distinct, all that is Other, and, finally, all which these Two Distincts by embrace necessarily beget, Love’s Third Distinct: the Singular-Us that just is E Pluribus Unum. That necessarily triune topography is Love. God just is Love. That is the Beginning. That is the End. All which is outside of Love is, on definition and ontological necessity, Non-Love, the Outside, the Dark, that Lovelessness which just is Hell. That is how Scripture defines Actuality.

Any set of definitions which fail to satisfy that A and that Z are but fragments arbitrarily ripped out of the Whole and incoherently applied to actuality, and therein lead to only one thing: error. As C.S. Lewis comments, such fragments are wrenched out of Whole and then swollen to madness and incoherence by isolation. Love defines the OT topography outside of Eden as Descriptive of hell on earth in and by ontological necessity, as the Outside by definition, as Lovelessness by nature. Love defines the Amalgamation of Love’s necessarily triune topography as Prescriptive in and by ontology’s E Pluribus Unum. Any set of definitions which fails to define Actuality on these terms is not a scriptural definition of Love’s Story.

The critic seems to discard Love’s Own definitions of Actuality and then proceed to talk as if he has defined Love’s definitions of Actuality. Now, that is quite nonsensical.


The problem with Man in Privation, void of Love’s community that just is E Pluribus Unum, is just that: Man is in a vacuum necessarily not amalgamated within, Uncreated Love. All that is left him is God’s Power, on necessary contingency in the thing we call existence. Power void of Love has only a few options at this point, there in what must on necessity follow Genesis 3:16.


1) Power can utterly forsake Man in his Privation there inside his chosen world that just is love-less-ness. Now, the technical term for that condition would be “hell”. Such would be the end, perhaps, of Man, or, perhaps not of Man, but, most certainly, of Man’s hope for immutable goodness.


2) Power can approach in utter proximity into that love-less-ness and, all physicality, should such occur, will simply be annihilated for In-Sufficiency wrapped up inside of All-Sufficiency cannot go on existing, for, it cannot be said of God, of All-Sufficiency, “Look, there in God, there is that in-sufficiency”, and that on necessity.

3) Power can do what He did and, in proximity, void of intimacy, necessarily aggravate and hasten, by proximity, death, though, by void of intimacy, spare Man his end. Here we see all the business of Jesus reference to Marriage’s Intimacy as it was prior to Genesis 3:16 and Power’s necessary restraint prior to John 3:16. Scripture calls the Law of Moses the Ministry of Death for a reason. Such is death restrained, not life fashioned.


None of those motions redeems, or, changes, or saves Man from his isolation. Only one of those motions prepares Man for such.


The only option for Power which can undo, redeem, Genesis 3:16 is John 3:16. Nothing else re-creates, births, begets, amalgamates Man-In-God, God-In-Man. Man must be able to motion inward and find, not his own In-Sufficiency, but, Uncreated Love’s All-Sufficiency, and in every direction. Juxtaposition can only bring death (and it did just that) whereas, Amalgamation is the only hope for Man in Privation.


Man assassinated Love there in Genesis, though, Love did not forsake Man. Man assassinated Love there in John, though, Love did not forsake Man. God did not forsake Man to his chosen Privation there in either of love’s two executions at Man’s hands. Nor did God draw near in utter proximity in raw, unadulterated Power void of Love and therein necessarily annihilate all physicality.


Power did something else. Something far, far better than utterly forsake, and, something far, far more merciful than kill across the board. Instead, Love draws near and incognito redeems the world to Himself, and though Power’s proximity to the world can only mean, not less-death, but must mean by proximity of Power to Man’s Vacuum merely more death to any Man found in Privation, which means on necessity to all Men everywhere, we find in this act of Mercy that which means, in the end, less death to all of Mankind and that which means Man’s hope ultimately for we know that juxtaposition must necessarily give way to amalgamation if death is to ever give way to life. And though Love is on necessity found behind a veil, hidden atop His Mercy Seat, out of reach, such is through the repulsiveness of endless sacrifices Power’s restraint of death for death, eye for eye, life for life, until in Time’s fullness Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self says of all of the above, “I have no delight in any of this. Prepare for Me a Body”, as He echoes His distaste for the dark outside found in Genesis 3:16, and annihilates not only Man’s slavery within that hell on earth but also by His Endless Life forever fills all vacuums, forever unveils the Mystery of what Man-In-God, God-In-Man just is there within that amalgamation that just is love’s E Pluribus Unum.


He told us He would thus Actualize back there in Genesis 3:15, as the hell on earth about to ensue by our own hand in Genesis 3:16 is necessarily actualized, and that is why His Actualization there in John 3:16, spoken by Love in Timelessness, is found in all its physicality here within Time. We find in our Slavery yet another example of the coherence of [Un-Willed Actualization] contained within [All-Possibilities] which is but some small part within that far wider actuality that just is [God]. Love Himself, our Great Abolitionist, pours Himself out that such vacuums need not, necessarily speaking, ever exist for any of us. If we are Slaves, it seems we are so by our own hands, though we need not be necessarily, and, if we are Free, it seems we are so only by His Hand and that necessarily.

There is no Command, no Prescriptive for Genesis 3:15 found in the Law of Moses. Thus, Moral Excellence awaits Mankind in some other place.


But then, that is the entire story of Eden and Gethsemane, of all the OT Prophets, of the book of Hebrews, and of Word’s Corporeal in John chapter one. Of scripture’s entire A to Z.


Non-Love, Non-Unity, is ugly. The Outside is ugly. Hell is ugly.


All the distaste we have for such is found to be in agreement with God’s Own definitions of such from Genesis to Revelations.


Where in the OT Law Code do we find the Prescriptive for Genesis 3:15’s Seed’s Seed, Amalgamation?


It doesn’t exist.


The OT defines the OT as some lesser good, and not as Excellence, just as, telling addicts about all their limited arrays of hellish options available within their addiction is Good in and of itself, yet such has nothing to do with curing the addict. The Prescriptive for his cure is something very, very different than the Descriptive of the Floor beneath his feet and the Ceiling above his head there inside of his Outside, there inside of his Hell on earth.
Scripture is clear: The Law of Moses provides no Command, no Prescriptive, for Genesis 3:15. The Law is but Love’s Descriptive to Mankind on exactly what stones he has available beneath his feet there inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on Earth, on ontological necessity.


Love’s Prescriptive for Life, for Moral Excellence, is found inside of His Own Means, which is Himself, and inside of His Own Ends, which is Himself.


Whatever is outside of that Prescriptive for Moral Excellence is but that Descriptive of Man in his condition of the Isolated-I, void of Love’s I-You, where we find Power telling Man, not how to achieve Genesis 3:15, but describing to him exactly what ugly and hellish options are available to him (If-Then Ceilings and Floors inside of Lovelessness) and exactly where his feet are walking there inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on Earth. If-Then’s inside of Death are quite, well, ugly.


What do we expect to find in hell on earth? Good crops? Full rivers? Well, let’s say we have those. Okay then. We’re done? Love is done with Mankind?


Well, then, if that is our definition of Love’s Image, of Immutable Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum, which Love defines as Man’s Final Felicity there in Eden, and in Gethsemane, then we simply disagree with God.


What do we expect from Power void of Love, on definition? Or, do we perhaps define Love’s Whole as Law-Keeping and good crops? Well, if we do, then we define things differently than Love, on necessity.


But we (the critic) seem inclined to prefer that definition of Man inside of the Outside, inside of hell on earth, of Eye for Eye, of Burnt Child for Burnt Child, of Life for Life, as the Whole and as Love’s Moral Excellence, on definition. Very well then. We’ll disagree with God’s definitions of [A to Z] and call that ugly, hellish landscape our moral excellence, though, of course, we must be made aware that while that may be our definition of “moral excellence”, it is not God’s, that is to say, it is not Love’s definition of Moral Excellence as presented in Scripture’s A to Z.


So let’s go there, to our definition of moral excellence. Let’s go to what Love defines as the outside, as dark, as Lovelessness, on definition, as all that lies between Post-Fall and Pre-Amalgamation, Post-Eden and Pre-Gethsemane.


Here we go…. Apologies for the word count but it’s worth it to draw out the incoherence of the critics’ thinking: Prescriptive-s are nowhere to be found, for Love’s Excellence lies in Amalgamation and, on ontological necessity, cannot be found in mere Juxtaposition. All that is left is Power’s Descriptive-s on Mankind’s limited array of ugly and hellish options inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on Earth. And the best we are going to find is a few less wars, good crops, and enough water for the village. And maybe we’ll live for a hundred or so years. Sound familiar? Is this Love’s Final Felicity for Mankind? Mankind’s own hand, that is to say, Man’s Self, produces its own fruit inside of that same Self in its own isolation. The Law is given to Man in this hellish condition to shed light on his location, to show Man where his foot is actually treading, to enlighten Man and therein to describe that process of walking inside of the Outside.


That is what the Law “is”. That is its function. It is not given to give life, but is given to shine a light on death’s actuality. Life for Life. Death for Death. Mankind’s Burnt Children yield’s Mankind’s Burnt Children there in hell on earth, there in Justice void Love’s Grace, on definition. Life-Taken yields Life-Taken there in hell on earth, there in Justice void Love’s Grace, on definition. This is promised to Israel just as it is promised to all nations, for this is, on Love’s definitions, the condition, the status, of Mankind.


We find no favoritism here, unfortunately for the critic. Israel finds this very same Ceiling/Floor, time after time after time in the OT as all of Mankind is in this condition, and thus we find Israel over and over again suffering the same weight of hell as the rest of the nations, on the very same grounds.


Let’s go a bit further into hell’s geography. On definition. We (the critic) seem to think that this entire topography in the Law is a “new thing God is doing outside of Eden”. We must take care at this juncture not to misread “promise” or “command” or “if-then”. This isn’t some new-some-thing which God is doing outside of Eden in Man’s hell on earth, as we find no Prescriptive for Genesis 3:15’s necessary Amalgamation anywhere inside of Command, inside of If-Then, as such lies only within Prophecy, within Man’s future as Timelessness-Time ultimately Amalgamate. These Laws, these Promises of Burnt Child for Burnt Child, of Life for Life, of Death for Death, of If-Then, are at best some more crops and some more water and a few less wars if we stop burning our kids in fires, or, if we do what all nations where doing there in Leviticus 18’s insanity and burn our kids in fires, then, fewer crops, less water, and some more wars. Life for Life. Death for Death. Adult for Adult. Child for Child. Societies which take their kids and burn them find no hope inside of Hell on Earth, because Descriptive-s offer no hope.


They, Descriptive-s, merely describe to Man his Reality, his Hell, his condition. That is what the Law “is”. A Schoolmaster. Societies that burn their kids cease to exist. That is the If-Then of burning kids in fires. In Hell on Earth, when we burn our kids in fires, we eventually cease to exist. It’s not hard or complex logic. It’s merely descriptive. Killing our offspring equals no future…. That’s not hard…. Not complex….it’s just Descriptive of ceilings and floors there inside of the Outside, inside of Lovelessness.


No cure is offered. The critic looking for a “cure” in “Law” is rejecting the necessarily triune landscape of Immutable Love’s I-You-Us amalgamation.


A to Z.


What about Mercy? Again, telling addicts to love soberness is good, but such is not teaching the excellence of triathlons. Mercy and Love void of justice is very, very Good “in itself”, because Mercy/Love is good “in itself”. Even Perfect if from Love Himself, Mercy Himself. Perfect Mercy aborts Perfect Justice on Love’s Cross. Now, the critic must then deal with the reverse side of that coin: Justice void of Mercy is very, very Good “in itself”, because Justice is good “in itself”. Even Perfect if from Justice Himself. Perfect Justice aborts Perfect Mercy on Love’s Cross.


A to Z.


But inside of Lovelessness, where can Love be found? There is but Justice available to Man there inside of what scripture defines as lovelessness, as the Outside, as Hell on Earth. Ontology’s definitions.


Justice void of Love? When we find Justice void of Love we have, yet again, the Descriptive simply because all of that in the Law-Code is not a “new thing God is doing outside of Eden” and thus nothing there is new in the Law-Code, but rather, such is but the description of Mankind’s very present condition outside of Eden, and, all the Law-Code does is bring the Self’s Privation to light. That is to say, the Law is not a “promise of new things” outside of Eden, but is, on Scripture’s own, Love’s own, definitions (which the critic discards), God’s description to Man in Isolation, void of E Pluribus Unum, void of Moral Excellence, of exactly where Man is and exactly what is available to Man inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on earth.
It may be worth repeating: Love defines the OT topography outside of Eden as Descriptive of hell on earth in and by ontological necessity, as the Outside by definition, as Lovelessness by nature. Love defines the Amalgamation of Love’s necessarily triune topography as Prescriptive in and by ontology’s E Pluribus Unum. Any set of definitions which fails to define Actuality on these terms is not a scriptural definition of Love’s Story.


The critic thinks the Law-Code is supposed to be a description of Moral Excellence rather than Love’s Instrument to shed light on Man’s Condition, on exactly where Man is and on exactly what is available to Man inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on earth. That is because the critic discards Love’s Own definitions.


And what of Moral Excellence? Well, we won’t find it in Man’s Privation. Yet the critic seems to think that Love describing to Man Man’s own hell on earth should be offering to Man Moral Excellence.


But how can it? This is Man’s hell, his Isolation, not Love’s Topography. As we gaze into Eden and Gethsemane we discover that Immutable Love’s necessarily trine E Pluribus Unum remains Unchanging, all the while Man’s perception of such is ever changing, on necessity. Yet Love reaches into Hell there in Genesis 3:15’s promise of what must be, on necessity, the Amalgamation of God-In-Man, Man-In-God, Uncreated-Created, for we all know Fallen-Man, or even Unfallen-Man, cannot defeat Evil itself in isolation (on Love’s definition) for Evil is that very isolation void of Love’s Whole, on definition. Yet these definitions of Love’s [A to Z] the critic discards. “Sin crouches at your door and desires to have you, you will master it, or it will master you.” Our Great Abolitionist tells Man of Man’s enslavement there inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on Earth. The First Adam and the Last Adam must motion out of Self and into Other, for, what hope has Man’s Self in Isolation?


And what of Love in Hell on earth, what of Moral Excellence?


We find Love endlessly reaching into hell on Earth and expressing to Man Command-A, and, upon Man’s motioning yet further into hell, yet further away from Love’s Command-A, we find Love, being Love, following Man yet further into hell and giving then, Command-A being on necessity Non-Entity by Man’s motion, Command-B, and ever further into Hell on earth we spy out in the OT Love’s dive into Man’s Privation describing Man’s ever worsening condition. Now, Command A being shattered in Eden, Gethsemane is now out of reach, Love’s motion out of Self and into Other is out of reach, is non-entity, and all other Commands are, on Love’s definition, as defined by scripture, void of Moral Excellence on necessity, for Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum both in Man-In-God / God-In-Man and amid Mankind, Human Beings, are, on definition, shattered non-entity. All that follows inside of the outside, inside of hell on earth, is not “new” but is simply a description of Man’s Condition, of what is available to Man in his hell, of where Man is inside of the Outside.


It is Good to tell a man not to inject himself with cocaine. It is also Good to tell the addict to love soberness. It is also necessary that Lovelessness can only yield, at best, good crops and enough water for the village. And, Raw, Unadulterated, Justice is, on its own merits, by definition, Good. Justice void of Love we say? Well, that is the point of Law’s Ministry of Death, on definition. It’s ugly, it’s dark, it’s Outside of Love, and, God agrees. Hell on earth just is ugly.



But, of course, the critic discards, or ignores, Love’s definitions.


“If you inject cocaine, you’ll die. If you don’t, you’ll be healthy enough to have good crops and the land will give you food and the sky will give you water to drink.” Huh? Wow. So that’s it? That’s Mankind’s Final Felicity predicted by Love’s Immutable Image? Love’s Image fully actualized? The Amalgamation prophesied in Genesis 3:15? It’s not even close and yet this is the critic’s definition, and some of ours, but such is not God’s definitions. The Law is not some “new thing God is doing outside of Eden”. Such is but Love’s Light to Man’s Conscience on his condition. We need to think harder about what Love does inside of hell on earth. The Law is Good in so far as it goes, but describing to an addict all of his available options inside of his addiction, inside of the Outside, inside of his Hell on Earth has nothing to do with Moral Excellence, on Scripture’s own definitions, which the critic ignores. Hebrews and God Himself all throughout the Old Testament Prophets tell us the Law will one day be done away with, for, a more excellent some-thing will supersede, supplant, it.


What of Leviticus 18? Well, since the critic seems to think the Law is Moral Excellence, even though Love’s Own definitions disagree with him, let’s take a look:


“You shall not give any of your children to pass through the fire and sacrifice them to the fire god.”


Well? Inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on Earth, inside of the Self void of Other, void of Love’s Amalgamation of “I-You-We” within the triune E Pluribus Unum, we find raw, unadulterated justice in brutally vivid juxtaposition to the Self in Isolation. Therein, whether it be Israel or some other Nation, burning children alive yields a lot of dead children. Life for Life. Death for Death. Eye for Eye. Descriptive. That is the Floor and the Ceiling of Lovelessness, of the Outside, of Hell on Earth.


Again, Genesis 3:15 is not Juxtaposition, it is Prescriptive of Amalgamation. All else cannot be Moral Excellence.


Raw, unadulterated Justice void of Love’s Grace, on definition. But if all of mankind is inside of the Outside, inside of hell on earth, then, well, it is “Mankind” that is in play here inside of the outside, and, Power void of Love gives the addict very few options, and no fully healthy options. This set of ugly, hellish options is what Love defines as hell on earth, on ontological necessity given Love’s Whole of E Pluribus Unum. The critics may feel free to define the Outside’s Descriptive as Moral Excellence, but Love, God, disagrees with him.


We must be careful here. Again, it’s the same lesson. This is not some “new thing God is fashioning outside of Eden”. This is but Love’s description to the Addict of the Addicts condition and of what is available to the Addict inside of the Outside, inside of hell on earth. Good crops and rain, or, bad crops and less rain. Life for Life, Death for Death. Men who burn, sacrifice, their sons and daughters in fires will see their sons and daughters in fires, all at Man’s own hand. Man in fragmentation juxtaposed to Man, never in Unity, void of E Pluribus Unum. Those who get along will have fewer deaths and more rain and better crops. That’s it. That’s all that is available to Mankind. That’s the Floor and the Ceiling of hell on earth. And, of course, we cannot forget to include the nuance of our Nature in all of this, that we, in isolation, never can defeat our own nature, much less Evil itself. Love gives us these definitions. Utopia? Impossible. Moral Excellence? Impossible.


Leviticus: “By all these things all the nations are defiled which I am casting out before you.”


Every nation, including Israel is subject to Mankind’s Condition. We find no favorites with God. When Israel burns their children in fires in some religious service to some god, they get, well, dead children, less crops, less rain. Life for Life. Death for Death. Ceiling. Floor. Void of a cure for man’s condition.


We find no favorites in this simply because Mankind is Mankind, on definition. Yet the critic seems to discard Love’s Own definitions, as if Israel never did fall under this Ceiling, or stand on this Floor, inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on Earth, as if Israel just went about immune to these definitions and consequences inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on earth. Well, God disagrees with the critic and defines “mankind” as, well, “mankind”.


“…..therefore I visit the iniquity of it upon it, and the land itself vomits out her inhabitants…. all these abominations have the men of the land done who were before you….”


Mankind is Mankind. Floor. Ceiling. Nothing here has anything to do with Moral Excellence. How does telling a cocaine addict of his options within his addiction have anything to do with teaching him about running marathons? Cocaine addicts can’t run a marathon. Telling an addict to love soberness is several steps away from instructions on how to run a marathon. All throughout the OT prophets we find Love describing the Day when the Old will pass away and the New will replace it. The OT calls the OT less than excellent. Just like the NT does. Just like we all do. Love views ugly as, well, ugly. The Outside, the Non-Love is but Hell on Earth. But the critic just waves his hand and tries to brush Love’s definitions under the rug.


Love’s Own definitions. Scripture’s own definitions. Not [M, N, R], but, rather, Love’s [A to Z]. A is this: E Pluribus Unum. Z is this: E Pluribus Unum. Man’s Privation in between is but Man inside of the Outside, inside of Hell on Earth.


It’s not very complex logic. Genesis 3:15 is not very complex logic.


“Do none of these things lest the land spew you (Israel) out when you defile it as it spewed out the nation that was before you.”


And there it is again. No favoritism. We find no favoritism with Love’s descriptions to Mankind, for, all addicts are, well, addicts, so to speak.


Floor. Ceiling.

Atheist’s keep talking about this flavor of altruism as if it is our salvation, the best available for flourishing. They echo the Law Code in that thinking, as if the Ceiling and the Floor we’ve been describing here is THE-BEST reality has to offer: and of course inside of Atheism, inside of the Outside, void of Immutable Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum, that is exactly the case. The Atheist is, in that line of thinking, not far removed from the Law, though he claims to hate that line of thinking. But, that line of thinking is all that is available there inside of the Outside. A few more crops, some more rain, a few less wars. The epistemology of Atheism’s version of course never does find coherent ontology to stand upon, unlike what we find in Scripture’s set of definitions within its own self-defined [A to Z].

Genesis to Revelations presents a radically different accounting of Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum as the Beginning and the End, as the A and the Z, as the Supreme Ethic on ontological necessity, and as the Final Felicity of Mankind fashioned within Love’s “Let Us Make Man in Our Image”. In Scripture’s self-defined Start-Points and End-Points we discover that Love is the supreme Ethic in and by ontological necessity for Love is the supreme Ethic in all possible worlds, in and by Immutable Love's necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum. And what exactly is this God Who is Love? Such just is the singularity of Unity that just is Love’s necessarily triune E Pluribus Unum amid and among Love’s First Distinct, all that is Self, and amid and among Love’s Second Distinct, all that is Other, and, finally, all which these Two Distincts by embrace necessarily beget, Love’s Third Distinct: the Singular-Us that just is E Pluribus Unum. That necessarily triune topography is Love. God just is Love. That is the Beginning. That is the End. All which is outside of Love is, on definition and ontological necessity, Non-Unity, Non-Love, Non-Amalgamation, mere Juxtaposition in Fragmentation, the Outside, the Dark, that which is, on definition, Lovelessness. That is how Scripture defines Actuality.


The comments to this entry are closed.