Although I agree with all you expressed, this was particularly gripping...throat-grabbingly true:
“They [government] seek to exercise...the power of command over each and every mortal in every particular of his life. There is nothing in the “private sphere” that cannot be politicized. Indeed, the private sphere has been practically abolished — along with God and man and what Christians call sin. “
Immediately, I thought of the famous quote attributed to Dostoyevsky: “Without God, everything is permitted.”
No God, no Law, no Savior, no Cross, no FirstFruits Man, no Pentecost, no Truth, no Grace, no New Creation.
Just raw depraved power, serving itself.
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
This to me, dear thouworm, is the very touchstone of God’s Logos — His truth, His wisdom made manifest in the world of created Nature.
Of course, not everybody would agree with me here. For not everybody would agree on what is meant by “clearly seen” in the above passage.
The problem is exacerbated by the seeming fact that the meaning of the ideas of “sight” and “vision” — the means of “seeing” in the fullest sense — have been relentlessly reduced in the post-modern world. Today such words commonly are taken to refer to direct observation by an observer, as technologically aided, of self-selected, intended objects, processed via the optic apparatus thus to provide data for “the brain.”
In short, people who use these words in this way are entirely captured in the world susceptible to human direct perception. Which is clearly the material world, wherein “matter” [I’m still waiting for the definition of that word] is absolutely fundamental; it “evolves” by chance, that is, randomly, over practically infinite time. It is constrained only by the very un-random physical/chemical/mechanical laws of Nature. [I’m still waiting to hear where these laws come from]. Then the great leap into total irrationality (IMHO) occurs: What is not susceptible to “direct” perception on the basis of this abstract reduction does not exist.
And yet, what a desecration of the historical meanings of these words “sight” and “vision!” They do not omit “direct perception” within their meaning. But it is only a fairly minor part. The main thing is “sight” and “vision” historically [ever since Athens and Jerusalem] have implied the existence of another, qualitatively different — call it self-transcendent, or spiritual — extension or dimension, wherein the acts of perception and also of apperception — interior movements of the mind engaged in rational thought — can be reconciled as human reason. And can be validated as such by correspondence to Romans 1:20.
Howver, while I find Romans 1:20 thrillingly liberating, I gather others may feel that, as a criterion of truth — which just naturally entails moral considerations — it is far too constraining on their own ambitions and purposes.
You were so right to cite Dostoevsky on this very point: “If God does not exist, then all things are permissible.” The statement has been attributed to Ivan, in Brothers Karamazov — who is the narrator of the chapter, “The Grand Inquisitor.” His brother, Alyosha, who was in praparation to become a monk under the tutelege of Father Zossima, was stunned by Ivan’s “poem.” Indeed, it is a harrowing experience to read it even today. But Dostoevsky rebukes Ivan’s very nasty piece of business in a subsequent chapter, “The Marriage at Cana.” This chapter is replete with wondrous epiphanies…. But I digress, and must wrap up.
In closing, it is my belief (FWIW) that persons who deny God are in a very strange existential position: In their denial of God, they do not “kill” God; they just put Him in “eclipse” WRT their observational position — i.e., into a position where they can no longer “see” him. Somehow, they find this exercise “liberating.” But what they are really doing is cutting themselves off from the ground of their own Being, Truth, and Justice.
God does not cease to exist just because Man has lost faith in Him.
The faithless declare themselves to Him:
21 because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.Thank you so much for writing, dear thouworm! It’s good to hear from you, it’s been a while.