« The Essential Nature of the Virgin Conception | Main | Why Doesn’t Mark Say Anything About Jesus’ Birth? »

December 27, 2012


Mr Dey, here is a brilliant idea for you. India suffers from over-population. Its limited resources are being "rationed" among over a billion. So how about we use technology to "limit" the number of people walking around in India to the benefit of the rest? Oh and the set of people to eliminate will include you. Of course, I'm sure you wouldn't mind, right? After all the "fetus" doesn't seem to mind?

I guess we can blame technology for giving us the Internet ... that leads idiots like Mr. Dey to write and publish articles. Good grief!

The bottom line here must be the notion that whatever happens to give me, myself, and I a very fun experience is what is valued. At the end of all discussions that is how we descide things, all things, and every-thing. Though some claim to be Immaterialists, all their philosophy is that of a pure materialism. Adult Jews, Slaves, Babies, Zygotes.... it matters not, as in each situation it is the Self where we find both our Ceiling and our Floor.

Joy is here valued, as it should be, but abnormally so, and has become its own god and therein one's belly or one's phallus or one's fist or one's own particular giggle-factor has ascended in such a way that Love and Truth can no longer be the Ultimate Ethics, for a pleasure-filled lie is preferred to an uncomfortable truth, and so we have our green light should we wish the girl to kill the boy for Love and Truth will not stand should the Self cry otherwise as when such a cry emerges from the Self the Other must die the death meant only for the Self for we know not, or will not know, that should the Self so die, Life will be quite easily tasted and that to the full both by that Self who so dies and by the Other so loved.

You are dualists evidently bent on having others, not convinced of dualism, live as if they were.

Not to live as if they were etc. but, rather, to be honest about their inability to rise above mere taste. They are forever smuggling in.....you have to wonder what is driving that perpetual effort to smuggle...

In other words, shall it be the phallus or the fist? Well, the answer is simply, "Whatever you like....".

But such is never given. It is often Utility, "as if" that is a universal law above mere taste, but, of course, it is sometimes other things besides Utility, but it is never "whatever". I mean, when asked about ultimate terms, Etc. It's like pulling teeth, only, once pulled, they have to be pulled yet again, and yet again, and so on for the smugglers are hard at work. One wonders what drives such a thirst for the smuggled product. The addict claims he must free the theist from his addiction, only, it turns out that in reality it is the other way around.


I'll be honest: I'm not convinced of dualism.

You present a false dichotomy with respect to morality.

" This, however, is a particularly heartless move. It condemns too many girls to lives of great misery and to some to a death penalty for the crime of being born a girl."

So Mr. Dey says that TOO MANY girls will be living lives of great misery and SOME to a death penalty. Does Mr. Dey or any of the parents he wants to have the right to have sex selection abortions know which one of those fetuses are going to be condemned to lives of great misery? The answer would have to be an unequivocal "no"! If sex selection abortions become legal, then some female fetuses will be destroyed who would have eventually become grown women who would have enjoyed the life they had.

We can choose any ice cream or none.

But if we need insulin injections, then it must be.

We can set the table in any way or not at all.

But if we humans want to live, then we need need rules about lying, killing, and stealing.

Ron, our position is not about dualism. We merely say that we're the same kind of being from beginning to end, and that kind of being is valuable. That's no different from conservationists who save Condor eggs, and they wouldn't argue for dualism.

It's actually your position that depends on a sort of dualism. For us, human beings are valuable from start to finish because of the kind of being we are, whether or not we're currently expressing any particular characteristic. For you, human beings are sometimes human bodies only. Then later, at some unspecified time, something magical happens that turns the human bodies into valuable human beings. There's something added later to the human body that makes it a whole human being.

Nice try. Dualism is the only way to make a five-day embryo into the same kind of thing as an adult or a trotted-out toddler.

It's not really enough to say you insist I live as if a dualist. You want me to live as if I were your brand of dualist.

Why is dualism the only way? This isn't about dualism. Rather, it has to do with the idea that we develop, we're not constructed. A car becomes a car when all the right pieces fit together. Before that time, it isn't a car. A human being, on the other hand, is a different kind of thing. It's a whole, complete organism from the start. It is what it is from the beginning, though it continues through different stages from conception to death. And the differences between the stages are not morally relevant. There's no appeal to dualism here.

I guess the point of Ron's comment...

You are dualists evidently bent on having others, not convinced of dualism, live as if they were.
...is that dualists who think Dey is a moron are really just showing their intolerance toward non-dualists.

Well, I'm not a dualist. And I think Dey is a moron (and a horrible writer too).

Tolerance for dualism or non-dualism has little to do with it.

How would it be if I defended Ryan Lanza by declaring that all those who condemned him for the shootings at Sandy Hook were non-solipsists evidently bent on having others, not convinced of non-solipsism, live as if they were?

Does that make those who condemn Ryan Lanza intolerant or something?

And, BTW, dualists, and only dualists, are in a unique position to condone abortion.

For materialists and idealists, no mystic union of mind and body is going to come along to draw a line for them. They can only hang their hats on some uniquely identifying trait or set of traits for all persons.

If you consider the alternatives, that identifying trait is, I think, the capacity, given normal care and feeding, to display autonomous activity in the future. Every other trait is either going to include things, like corpses, that are clearly not persons as persons, or exclude things, like sleepers, as persons who clearly are.

And when you think about it clearly, the capacity for future autonomy does not permit a distinction between the born and unborn.

In contrast, dualists, and only dualists, can say that, in spite of the repeatedly observed natural capacity of fetuses to display autonomous activity in the future, no ensoulment event has yet occurred. Dualists, and only dualists, can claim that the unverifiable ensoulment event occurs literally whenever they like.

Of course, dualists of good will typically link the unobservable ensoulment event with the observable acquisition of a uniquely identifying trait or set of traits that they take to signify personhood.

I also note that from what I gather by perusing his blog, Dey is a Hindu. True, he appears to be of that 'sophisticated' and 'cosmopolitan' type we also see in Christendom that don't actually believe anything that they didn't make up themselves. Dey's apparent Hinduism is, therefore, a pretty slender reed to base any certain conclusion on. Still, he is probably a dualist.

When I had to re-login to post, I noticed that some of my post above re-iterates some of Amy's stuff. I was working on it while Amy and Ron were exchanging posts. But it took me a while, so I'm going to post it (unchanged) anyway...sorry Amy.

Having been to India a few times I can attest to the fact that India has a cultural logic based on different sensibilities than we do in the West. The caste system is officially defunct, but I can attest that even among most Christians it is still ingrained in every aspect of Indian society. That means that different people are worth different, and the same person is considered to have a different value at different stages of life. I'm not justifying it, only explaining it.

The sad thing is that it is the same in the West, only we seem to not be as aware of it. Even among pro-life Christians, we value people who attend church faithfully differently than we value people who are in obvious rebellion against God. We may not fully acknowledge it out of principle ("Everyone is made in the image of God") but we behave that way practically.

So Mr Dey's rationale is unconscionable, but no more so than when we fail to use resources to proclaim the gospel to the lost in favor of pet programs to pamper our local church because we don't value the lost as much as our fellow church members. In fact, it may be far worse to condemn someone to eternal death before they are born again than it is to condemn someone to physical death before they are born the first time.

Your link doesn't work. Try this...


Living organisms are not formed or defined from the outside. They define and form themselves.

This is incoherent.
The whole does not assemble itself; the parts assemble into the whole.
To emphasis the lack of outside agency: the parts 'self-assemble' into the whole.

Our brains 'develop' in the sense that a thing without a brain plus other things self-assemble into a thing with a brain.

'We' don't 'develop' in the sense of a growth or enhancement of a pre-existing thing.

Things with brains and things without brains are different kinds of things. Things with big brains and things with little brains are different kinds of things.

You believe 'we' have a 'soul' that occupies another realm.
Souls entail dualism.
In fact, you believe 'we' have a soul before 'we' have a brain.

(I put we in quotes because speaking of 'we' before there is a brain presumes dualism.)

Having a soul or not would be an important way of carving up the world if it were so.
But it has simply not been shown to be so.

Why is dualism the only way?

A non-dualist could say something like...

being alive + having unique human DNA = right to life

DNA? Rights? HuH?
It's not DNA that leads you to treat cats differently from flies.
It's not DNA that leads you to treat men differently from monkeys.
What are you ON about?

From a non-dualist, this not-Mom's-DNA thing just sounds like a kind of whacky moral pedantry.

A dualist can quite rationally offer it as a pious fraud: it might stop an abortion after all.


They can only hang their hats on some uniquely identifying trait or set of traits for all persons.

Or maybe some non-uniquely identifying trait or traits.

Gee, it begins to sound like we're not sure where to draw the line or maybe there is no One Line.


We'd have to work this and other issues out between us without appeal to hypothesised ultimate standards. What a different world that would be!

And we'd have to work out what we mean by 'working it out' too.


We'd have to do ethics and meta-ethics at the same time.

We'd have to face that we don't don't agree about the ultimate answers to questions in these fields or even that such answers exist.


Some make no appeal to universal or ultimate standards. And yet we ask why we are *still* waiting for their ultimate verdict on the slaughter of, say, twenty-something children.

I'm not sure if various folks have yet to give one because they really are honest and figure "whatever...." (in ultimate terms) or, if they see it as evil regardless of what our whim says (on ultimate terms), but, they don't want to say so.

It isn't the living-as-if bit, it's the bit about being up front with what one really is saying about this stuff we call carnage: and then saying it. Some really do believe on honest intellectual grounds that all vectors cross that singular point of origin, and say so. Those who disagree like to say so in lecture halls and such, but rarely while standing in a field full of carnage.

But that is exactly the moment in which one OUGHT to shout at the top of his lungs, "Whatever!" Unless one is a smuggler of sorts in the arena of autohypnosis and anxiolysis.

All vectors lead us out of the material and into that Triune Fabric which both Logic and Love testify of.


Good job of entirely missing the point.

I wasn't making any point about vagueness in the distinction between person and non-person.

The point I was making is that dualists can make their moral category rest on a completely unobservable and unverifiable ensoulment event.

In contrast, monists cannot.

BTW, I grant that the distinction between a person with a full right to life and a non-person with no right to life might be vague. Like the distinction between hairy and bald. What is the line you draw where someone becomes bald? Maybe there isn't one. Maybe there's a process that takes you from one extreme to the other.

That may be true of life as well.

None of that implies anything particularly special or deep about the ethics of life. It certainly does not imply that there are no ultimate standards. Vin Diesel (as Riddick) might exemplify the ultimate standard of baldness. Maybe Hugh Jackman (as Wolverine) represents the ultimate standard of Hairiness. There is definitely an objective difference between Riddick and Wolverine regarding baldness.

For sure, an uncoupled sperm-egg pair has no right to life. normal care and feeding does not get you from that to an autonomous being.

For sure, a fully autonomous being in the midst of his/her autonomous action has a full right to life. As does, for example, a sleeping being with the same capacities where just nudging them awake would trigger similar autonomous behavior.

After a child is first conceived, it takes more than a nudge to get it to full autonomous action. But it does not take more than normal care and feeding to get it there. It has made a huge irreversible step from the one extreme to the other. That should be reflected by a huge irreversible step in the moral regard they receive.

When the materialist forever breaks down into utility and thereby shouts that Truth is of no value other than its ability to give the Self a very fun experience, why do we argue with such folks on the value of anything at all? Life? Ought? No. There is none of that in them. They openly prefer the pleasurable lie to the uncomfortable truth when pressed about what really “matters in life”. That is, if Truth does not benefit one's very fun experience, it is of no value in and of itself, whereas, if a lie does further along our very fun experiences, well then that will be our champion. This is the mindset of those for whom utility is the only appeal. Though some will define utility as a kind of Fun-Factor and others a kind of Power-Push, the end result is the same: it is not Truth which is of any innate value. In fact, nothing is of any innate value at all. That is, except for Fun and/or Power. It is either Fun or Power. I have seen no other ends of a desired sort from the materialists. The phallus and the fist. There are no other vectors. When I hear from these folks that Truth is of no value in and of itself, not really, I find it of little help to appeal to such a moral vacuum to generate any appeal to Life as valuable. Life is not valuable over there where they live. Only Fun Life and only Powerful Life. Fun and Power. Even just Fun. Even just Power. The Self who survives, who comes out on top, is King. To these who think such things Love-Manifest must appear a Freak for He tells us that He who dies, He who ranks last, is King. These materialist will say of Love that it has no innate worth but should it promote the Fun and/or the Power of the Self. And thus we find that there really is no such thing as what most of us mean by Love inside of Materialism, for it is ultimately Self-Perpetuation which sustains it. When the materialist forever opens up the garbage bin and tosses in both Truth and Love we need not think him capable of seeing the glaring light of ten thousand vectors slicing up the skies above his head.


"We'd have to face that we don't don't agree about the ultimate answers to questions in these fields or even that such answers exist."

In that case, it is best to err on the side of caution and vote for the preservation of all human life, born and unborn on the very grounds you offer. Doing so, even on your view, picks the lesser of two evils and the greater good on the opposing view.

In contrast, dualists, and only dualists, can say that, in spite of the repeatedly observed natural capacity of fetuses to display autonomous activity in the future, no ensoulment event has yet occurred. Dualists, and only dualists, can claim that the unverifiable ensoulment event occurs literally whenever they like.

Well said, WL.


When I miss the point, I'll let you know.


From ABC News, Dec. 15, 2006

""Today, we have the odd distinction of having lost 10 million girl children in the past 20 years," Chowdhury told a seminar in Delhi University. "Who has killed these girl children? Their own parents." In some states, the minister said, newborn girls have been killed by pouring sand or tobacco juice into their nostrils. "The minute the child is born and she opens her mouth to cry, they put sand into her mouth and her nostrils so she chokes and dies," Chowdhury said, referring to cases in the western desert state of Rajasthan. "They bury infants into pots alive and bury the pots. They put tobacco into her mouth. They hang them upside down like a bunch of flowers to dry," she said."

No concern, infanticide will be the method, the status quo, if not abortion. They want the killing to be sanitized, even if less rewarding than hanging the dead corpses to dry.

soon feminists here will demand the same thing and the gov will do so

and soon some egals will label it as christian as they already do with abortion

Truth itself cannot be labeled, in a purely materialist framework, as “valuable in and of itself”. That is to say, Truth, or anything at all, is not “Innately of Worth” outside of and beyond Man. Value is not a some-thing which transcends Man, thus leaving Man beneath it, indebted to it. Now, it is not Truth alone of which we say this, but all things. Life. Pain. Joy. Love. Truth. Ought-Not. And for the very same reasons within materialism we find that Error, Lies, and anything at all, if they should further whatever agenda Man is in some particular moment championing, such as Utility, or Fun, or Power, or Survival, or “whatever”, are championed as Valuable, and even “Good” in the Materialistic sense of that word “good”.

This is our window into the fact that a pleasurable lie can easily be preferable to an uncomfortable truth. We are in search of Good Experiences, and nothing more. Of course “good” often does mean all sorts of ugly, horrible things. The masses shout of slavery “Tis Good!”. Of infanticide, “Tis Good!”. And so on, and so on. The Ultimate Ethic is in no way and is by no means Love. The Ultimate Ethic is in fact Love, only, not in the kingdom of Man’s Isolated-Self that is that fierce imprisonment of the Pure-I. Love shouts “Thine and not Mine”, “Thy Will and not My Will”, “Other and not Self” whereas in materialism it is Man’s Self, and only Man’s Self, which is valued.

“Truth is in and of itself valuable” is a lie here inside of materialism for there just is no ground in which to plant such a Tree as that. This business of “in and of itself” with regards to the valued is simply non-existent for such necessitates Value transcending Man. And, thus, we cannot come to the table with, “But infanticide? Don’t you see how ugly that is?” or other such appeals to some kind of innate ought which transcends Man. Nothing transcends the Self here. The notion of Love’s uncreated and eternal Other wherein Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self pours Himself out for the Beloved is, in Man’s Kingdom, the real lie and the one lie which the Self can never champion, for Love, that is, Actual-Love, is the most costly reality in all possible worlds, and the Self who cannot dive into Other will not permit such a death of one’s Self.

When Love Manifests we find Him spreading His arms wide, and pouring Himself out, and this for His Beloved, who is all of us, the created other, every created other. He shows us the Way.


The 'care and feeding' you speak of, regardless of what effort it takes to provide, changes the nature of the thing cared for and fed.

Recognizing that a 5DE (five-day embryo) has a different nature from an adult human (or a younger one) is a reasonable way to carve up the moral world.

It is just exactly the way we make moral distinctions between living and non-living, sentient and non-sentient, fly and horse, egg (fertilized or not) and chicken.

In these cases we don't even consider the question: What DNA does it have? That's why this

And it has a unique DNA “fingerprint” and integrates its own body systems for the good of the whole. How can we say it’s not a distinct organism? It’s DNA is distinctly human and its parents are human beings. How can this living organism not be human?
doesn't sound like part of a moral argument.

Attempting to say a 5DE is the same kind of thing as an adult human (or a younger one) because it has the same kind of DNA is special pleading.


What makes a 35 week old fetus any different or more valuable?

You have no moral universe to live in, thus, you have no moral framework to invoke other than "My Own Very Fun Experience" at bottom. In ultimate terms, you are attempting a cheat because you give no grounds for us to differentiate your 35 week old from the 35 year old other than Whim. I mean, you really cannnot get "beyond" that line in the sand, can you? It is okay that you cannot, I just want to be sure that you are not attempting some smuggling in of ANY thing "better" than that line in your own sandy beach.

I want to be sure we are being honest here.

Of course the Theist must give his line as well. But, the A-theist must think, or assert, that any line whatsoever exists. I mean, other than Self and all that, etc.....

Once that becomes clear, there are all sorts of vectors which testify of the Immaterial and of Ought, but, assertion of such oughts only make sense in a moral universe.


The Chinese with their "only one child law" has produced a society where the outnumbered men have no one to marry now. May happen on India one day, and there will be no problem of overpopulation in the not too distant future.

No amount of normal care and feeding will make an uncoupled sperm-egg pair into a person. Much more is needed...the odds for any given uncoupled pair are pretty long.

After you have a being with unique DNA, you've taken that massive irreversible step I was referring to.

We don't value an ADULT chicken for its DNA or for any reason. We value Human Life based on *everything* about that Human. We don't cut off a human leg for no “good” reason and that is not because the cells in that leg have human DNA, but because we value *All Things Human*. Period. And that Singular Organism begins as a Zygote which houses within it All-Things-Human and ends, well, whenever life leaves it. The Line therein is unbroken.

The Human Leg, the Human Eye, the Human *whatever* is valued. This is in contrast to the non-theistic world view which cannot value anything in a field of Human carnage and can only say with intellectual honesty on ultimate terms, “Whatever!”

It seems “Whatever” is claimed by both sides, but for very different reasons.

We need to be clear on this.

The atheists have nothing “beyond” this whim stuff to appeal to.

The theist does.

Whatever is Human is of innate value regardless of what our various whims say. The value transcends Man’s whim.

Atheists cannot really believe that without engaging in either autyohypnosis or a self-induced anxiolytic lie.

The Atheist wants to assert that Human Life has innate worth, but he cannot make it stick. Nothing transcends Man’s Self in that framework.

“Whatever” is shouted by both. The theist shouts that *whatever* is human is of intrinsic value and such value is not indebted to Man’s whim, but rather Man’s whim is indebted to that Value. The Atheist can only offer the ultimate terms of “Whatever you or I like!” as he stands amid a field of human carnage.

On Ultimate Terms about Life’s Value, the word *whatever* is used by both, but in polar opposite fashions.

As for the unbroken line and as for what is actually the crime when we murder an adult, and how all that translates to *whatever* is Human, from Zygote to Death and even beyond Death, there is a nice thread here at STR under the title OP of, “The Moral Pro-Life Case”.


Which would you put in a blender?

Check all that apply.

_ Egg, fertilized, chicken
_ Hen, laid egg above
_ Tea, Earl Grey, hot

It's all a matter of taste. All of the above. None of the abve.


BTW Ron, Changing the nature of the thing cared for and fed is precisely what normal care and feeding does not do. That's what makes it normal.

I just had lunch. My nature was not changed by that. My accidents may have been changed. I went from being hungry to being satisfied, for example. But no one who had seen me before lunch and then saw me after were say. "Oh Dear! WL has been destroyed and replaced by something with an entirely different nature!"

When a woman gives birth, the doctor does not say to her "I'm sorry we lost the baby you have been carrying, but here's another thing that turned up in its place." That's because the nature of the child has not changed.

And this is true right from the start. What is it that did not miscarry but was born instead when I was born? It was me. My nature has not changed since I've been conceived. Only my accidents have changed.

"And this is true right from the start."

Right on WL, this is not even a challenge-able fact even by a materialist-that the being begun as a zygote is the same being through all life stages.

If we were talking about seeds to plants, or egg to chicken, there'd almost certainly be harmony in admitting that normal care and feeding does nothing to change the nature of the being, or that to deny either is to kill that being.

There is an undeniable continuity of being, in life cycle. Sometimes hard to see, like when a butterfly lays eggs and a caterpillar results only to cocoon itself as pupa, then emerge in the adult stage again as butterfly. Even purely materialist scientists uphold a continuity of being that the egg laid will, if allowed to develop, end its life as a butterfly. With the modern tools of biological investigation, this continuity of human being is even visualized and proved that nothing external is added to this being, making it a different being, or changing its nature.

Accidental features do not change essential nature as noted by WL. A human being or any other being is not defined by the accidental properties. [Execpt, strangely, by those motivated to deny human life for convenience sake--even then, these struggle to determine which accidental properties will do the job--without looking silly--this being arbitrariness defined. Even better, here quoted is an online dictionary definition of what is practiced by these motivated ignoramus'(or is that ignorami?)]

"adj. 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"

The reality of far too many adult human beings, not to mention a whole populace of younger human beings found along that unbroken line of continuity:

This is Atheism’s entire Moral Milieu above which it cannot rise: “……if we humans want to live, then we need rules about lying, killing, and stealing….”

Survive. There is here an objective, observable value to bridge building. Anything less is abhorred by Atheism as a lie within Subjectivity. “You can’t show me that in my microscope!” is the cry of Atheism when told of the innate worth of a human being which transcends humanity’s self-described definitions.

However, I myself am too frail to build bridges. In fact, I am too frail to be of any benefit whatsoever to the human game of survival.

I am Need.

I sit in a chair all day. I cannot stand up. I cannot assist in the game of chance. And this is how I see past atheism’s lie. Atheism tells me I am of no value based on its Moral Milieu: I have no utility. “We want to live! Can you help!?”

No. Not in the least. I am Need.

And yet I “know” something. A fact.

And that fact is this: I am valuable.

Fact: I exist.
Fact: I have nothing to offer.
Fact: I am valuable.

This is the Triad which Atheism cannot swallow down whole without engaging in either autohypnosis or some sort of self-induced anxiolytic lie.

God comes to us Manifest One-on-one, and He calls Himself Love. He tells us the least and the weakest, the filthiest and the foulest, are infinitely valuable. And He calls this business about survival a lie. He tells us the Self who Dies is King. The Self who suffers loss is King. In His Kingdom it is Other and not Self. Self-Perpetuation is in His Kingdom the Infinite Fall out of Life and into Isolation, which He calls Death. There on a Hill we find Him, arms spread wide, pouring Himself out for His Beloved and therein Love’s Eternally-Sacrificed-Self is the fulfillment of all hopes, the perfection of all philosophy, the interpreter of all revelations, and the key to all the seeming contradictions of truth in the physical and moral world. (Miller paraphrased)

Perhaps it is worth mentioning:

Fact: I exist.
Fact: I have nothing to offer.
Fact: I am valuable.

Long after we leave the absurdity of atheism behind us, we are left still with this Troublesome Triad. Before the Living God who just Is-Truth, who just Is-Righteousness, I awake to find myself simply “here”.

I exist.

In all my own interior and exterior tangents I find but a single and perpetual one-way incline; it is something *ugly* even to my own taste buds on my own tongue within my own mouth. I find here this: Sin.

It is that I sin.

But it is more than that.

It is this: I am sin.

I Lie. I cheat. I massage Truth until it serves my Self. I take. I lash out. I snap and bite and two-face my way into whatever it is my own momentary appetites crave. I sin against light. Well, the laundry list reads endlessly……..

In His Kingdom I have nothing to offer. Zero. I am Need. Only it is worse: I am a Living Offense. There is in Love’s Kingdom more than just “existing”, more than just “surviving”. There is over there something *Good*, something *Lovely*, something *Wonderful* and herein mere existence just will not do. I survive, I exist, yet, I taste of myself this peculiar Living Offense. Normal care and feeding will not get me beyond Need, beyond Offense and into a place where I can build bridges in Love’s Kingdom. No. I am a perpetual one-way incline comprised of Confused and Mutable Semantics embedded within an unrecognizable Language speaking words which are suffocating me. I am Need. I am Sin. I am Guilt. I find in myself a Living Offense to all which the God called Love calls Light.

No. No amount of normal care and feeding will grant me utility in Love’s Infinite Kingdom.
There is nothing to do here. There is nothing here to salvage. It must be an execution.

I find there in Love’s Cross the merging of all these infinities as someone who knows no sin there becomes sin and someone who knows no life there is re-created and born anew. Perfect Wrath. Perfect Ransom. In all these things we see Love’s peculiar Eternally Sacrificed Self in Whom we find His eternal merging of death and life, justice and mercy, law and liberty, wrath and ransom, suffering and joy, Word and Flesh, Truth and Corporeal, Immaterial and Material, God-In-Man and Man-In-God comprised now and forever of His immutable semantics mechanized within that everlasting and perpetual one-way incline assembled by Love’s eternal Language of the Everywhere and Always.


In my post above which begins with "The reality of far too many adult human beings", I offer the common reality of many adults long past "utility", and do not mean to offer that I myself am that wheel chair bound person, etc. I am fortunate that for now my eyes work, my legs work, and so forth. But I know too many for whom this is not the case. The blind, the mentally challenged. And so on. These are those who are so debilitated that their only “worth” is found inside of Love. They do not build bridges. Fortunately they live here in a place with a partially Christianized conscience rather than in the Atheistic conscience of the 1940’s in which the crippled, the mentally challenged, the old, and even the Jews just could not build enough bridges fast enough.

The Truth of all things is shouting at us. We have glaring confirmations to declare an innate value in life transcending ourselves for evidence is everywhere both within and without as uncountable voices flood the world screaming Love’s pronouncements. M-Theory’s mathematically incomprehensible Triune Topography emerges fated to a fabric of Omnipresence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience. Epistemology itself is laced all through with its own Triune Topography as the Self knows within the Self and within Relation and by Relation and these are so with both the Known and with the Keeps-On-Knowing. Ontology reveals its Triune Topography within Being’s singular and pleural amid the I and the You and the singular I-You for Being itself regresses to Love's embrace among the I and the You wherein the Singular-We streams uncreated. An Uncaused-Cause of the Just-Is type testifying by Self-Evidence that it just is a sort of Everlasting Free Lunch emerges as Necessary regardless of which vectors break through as No-Thing ever escapes Necessity's uncaused IS which forever shouts through all known vectors I-AM. Logic feigns a regress to Self-Evidence and is found sustained quite easily within Epistemology’s Triune Topography. Through all these windows our Uncaused-Cause is Self-Evident as a necessary Everlasting Free Lunch emerging atop a sort of terrain that has multiple yet perfect fronts all of which comprise a singular whole and all available evidence points towards the Immaterial as the source of this Everlasting IS which exacting Necessity inflexibly testifies of. We find in all this that there are strong vectors emerging from the Other and Outer which echo a staunchly Triune, Immaterial, Eternal Uncaused Cause. We find patterns of such a Triune Topography mechanized within the immutable semantics of a perpetual one-way incline in an eternal language comprised of Word’s material manifest wherein Truth precedes Corporeal. In all these things Love’s own Triune Topography casually ebbs and flows quite unobstructed and buoys up illumination of what Necessarily Exists. From Timelessness and into Time and back again into Timelessness these self-evident Triune patterns swallow up whole all of our formulas of infinities, all of our equations of pain, all of our rules of suffering, all of our blueprints of the purely human, all of our diagrams of multi-verses, and all of our prescriptions of the purely inhuman, and in all these the Triune holds fast to the satisfaction of coherence as it houses Multiple Perfect Distincts which effortlessly furnish us with their singular reality laced with ports and bays saturated with Ships that easily set sail and satisfy the demands of all these equations and serenely traverse all ad infinitums. In this set of patterns the entirety of vectors merge unhindered as all threads converge on Love’s Cross within that peculiar Eternally Sacrificed Self in Whom we find Power’s eternal merging of death and life, justice and mercy, law and liberty, wrath and ransom, suffering and joy, Word and Flesh, Truth and Corporeal, Immaterial and Material, God-In-Man and Man-In-God and in Whom both Logic and Love confirm the Triune Topography of Epistemology and of Ontology, of Will and of Love, and even of Perfection itself and thereby brings us to our Necessary End of all Ad Infinitums comprised yet again of those immutable semantics mechanized within that perpetual one-way incline assembled by the eternal language of the Everywhere and Always. Love’s embrace breaks through in the Triune God as in Him the I forever embraces the You and eternally begets the Singular-We. At an infinite speed all these vectors pierce the triad of Mind and Spirit and Body for an inescapable vacuum left in every vector’s wake reaches through eternity’s triune fabric and pulls Generation out of Timelessness and into the fated genesis of granted Will’s motion into the Created Self or into the Uncreated Other whereby the Zeal of the Created plunges The-Now into Time’s Degeneration in which Joy and Pain, Mercy and Justice are hurled into Regeneration’s return to Timelessness. The Zeal of the Uncreated withstands all Offenses for we are Dead, and not only Dead, but embalmed within Regeneration, and not only embalmed within Regeneration but also Alive in Re-Creation’s Delight and these three Ages thrice emerge in Mind, thrice emerge in Body, and thrice emerge in Spirit. Within His embrace my soul awakes to the sound of three harmonious contradictions wherein my soul’s bedrock called Existence testifies of incessant Need which itself testifies of unending Joy as it discovers that though it has but Nothing to offer, and in fact offers up Offense, the Uncreated Beloved declares this soul to be of an everlasting Value. The Uncreated Beloved here Manifests face to face and spreads His arms wide high atop that Tree called Life and pours Himself out and this He does for Love’s I and You and We. These infinite sets of triune patterns of a singular whole freely self-manifesting in these fashions fully account for all that we see, all that we observe, all that we perceive, all that we feel, all that we cry, and all that we scream out as we soar to our highest within Ivy Tower armchairs and as we descend to our lowest stumbling over corpses in all our fields of carnage. Tens of thousands of strong vectors and in fact all vectors whatsoever slice up the skies above our heads with the glaring light of the Truth of all things.

To many folks who hold to the view it really does not matter what the reason for an abortion is performed since we are just talking about something that is not actually a human being until birth, it is unlikely that they will be persuaded by many flowery arguments unless they include some kind of direct approach to proving that the unborn qualifies as an actual child. I think there is a way to approach this that might have the desired effect of making them rethink their view...I hope.

"What would you say makes a mother a mother? Could it be that doing the things that a mother does makes her a mother? Caring for her child would make a woman a mother...wouldn't you say? Does a pregnant woman care for her child while it occupies her womb? Does not that caring for her child make her a mother even then? To deny this you would have to claim that she is not caring for her child by providing her with food and oxygen and warmth and a safe environment necessary for her to grow and develop. Is she not in fact doing all the things that actually makes a mother a mother even before the child is born? But a mother cannot be a mother without a child, nor can she engage in activities attributed to mothers without a child. Yet it is quite scientifically clear that every pregnant woman engages in the activities attributed to mothers and thus they are, by definition, mothers and thus the unborn are by definition children that are receiving care from their mothers as they are developing in the womb. The unborn are children and those that carry them prior to birth are mothers. If you can show that you have one, then you can show that you have the other as you cannot have one without the other."

The title says it all: that's exactly the position one might expect an economist to take; it's the logical position for an economist to take. But since when is the Kingdom of God supposed to be run by economists, or the decisions of God's people dictated by economic concerns?

The comments to this entry are closed.