ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

[ScottA]

Duane is obviously cowardly ignoring me.

Anyone else want to tell him he is out of context, that the subject of God is not limited to his intellect nor governed by the terms common to this world, that unless he is willing to learn something more he is wasting his time?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I'm not spouting scripture for you to believe it. I'm presenting a theory that is essentially and effectively no different than the one you're presenting yourself. I'm presenting it to show you that you are misinformed in your premise. The fact that it comes from a letter written by Paul 2000 years ago and now finds itself included in the bible is beside the point. Your theory is proven to be unfounded. That's the point.

I'm not presenting religious delusions here at all. I'm addressing each and every one of your points, while you simply assume I must be some religious zealot because I have shown your premises to be false.

You assume the biblical god introduces law to determine behavior. I have shown repeatedly that this simply isn't the case at all. Yet, this is simply ignored. This is not my opinion. This is what the texts state themselves. Whether I believe them or not is irrelevant to your argument. My argument stands on its own merits. It stands on the fact that you are misinformed and presenting blatant gods of straw. They are fabrications of your own imagination. You have even shown this to be the case by admitting that you see no need to actually document where you're getting these ideas from because the text itself doesn't warrant wasting your time.

So your argument is basically that the description of the biblical god which you derive from second hand hearsay, and doesn't actually match the description of the biblical god is incoherent. I wholeheartedly agree. Moving on from there, we can take the writings of Spinoza and Sartre, and see that they match much of what has actually been written in this anthology of books we refer to as the bible. This seemingly innocuous fact is met by you with contempt, scorn, and petulant indignation. Why this is the case is anyone's guess as you see no reason to present a rebuttal, but instead would rather just spout off about how stupid Christians are. No one who is genuinely interested in this topic cares how stupid or insane Christians are.

Attention Deficit Disorder is becoming an epidemic in first world countries, and really needs to be dealt with before people completely forget why they're even talking in the first place.

shnarkle;
Well, surprise, you are finally comin' round to being somewhat fair minded. So glad, because I am exhausted with your pure opinion(s);and had planned to forget this site... see, per Plato, Socrates regarding the absurdity of arguing via opinion, which is, in his estimation, the most useless mode of human discourse. This, then, is the central rub: "You assume the Biblical God introduces law to determine behavior. I have shown repeatedly that this simply isn't the case at all.", and, therein lies what appears to be a seeming lack of common knowledge regarding what the Bible presents in regard to the Law. The thou-shalt-nots posited unto Adam and Eve; the Mosaic Ten Commandments, were not posited for the sake of Jehovah determining human behavior!? Such a notion defies common sense. Your assertion is outlandish! If "Thou Shalt Not..." is not posited in order to achieve predeterminate determination of human conduct, what end, instead, is the prohibition intended to accomplish? You totally have my attention and, I do not see how you can possibly sophist(icate) your way out of the apparently absurd stance you are taking now! Good luck...remember, you stand here in front of the whole world...maintain fair mindedness.
Duane

 

[shnarkle]

shnarkle;
Well, surprise, you are finally comin' round to being somewhat fair minded. So glad, because I am exhausted with your pure opinion(s);and had planned to forget this site... see, per Plato, Socrates regarding the absurdity of arguing via opinion, which is, in his estimation, the most useless mode of human discourse. This, then, is the central rub: "You assume the Biblical God introduces law to determine behavior. I have shown repeatedly that this simply isn't the case at all.", and, therein lies what appears to be a seeming lack of common knowledge regarding what the Bible presents in regard to the Law. The thou-shalt-nots posited unto Adam and Eve; the Mosaic Ten Commandments, were not posited for the sake of Jehovah determining human behavior!? Such a notion defies common sense. Your assertion is outlandish! If "Thou Shalt Not..." is not posited in order to achieve predeterminate determination of human conduct, what end, instead, is the prohibition intended to accomplish? You totally have my attention and, I do not see how you can possibly sophist(icate) your way out of the apparently absurd stance you are taking now! Good luck...remember, you stand here in front of the whole world...maintain fair mindedness.
Duane

See my first three posts. I present my argument and explain it so there should be no confusion whatsoever. I welcome any questions you may have, as well as looking forward to any answers you may be able to supply to the questions I presented to you already.

I have repeatedly pointed out the methodologies presented in the Old and New Testaments. I have presented them, not to preach or seek to convert, but simply to inform you of what the texts actually state. You might notice that none of the other Christians on this site have disagreed with anything I've posted on the matter. They agree not because I'm a Christian, but because the citations are accurate. They probably don't even agree with my position, but they can see that everything I'm pointing out from the biblical texts is accurate.

It may seem like God's laws defy common sense if they have no power to determine behavior, but the biblical authors point this out repeatedly . One need look no further than the news papers to see this is the case. I don't know why you would think this defies common sense when it is right in line with your thesis. if it defies common sense, then it must mean that these laws can determine behavior which you have shown can't be the case.

My point is in simply noting that the biblical authors affirm that fact as well.

This doesn't negate what Spinoza of Sartre are saying. It only highlights that your premise is false, and that the actual facts do not in any way contradict or negate Sartre of Spinoza's claims. They are right in line with them.

Again, if you were to reread what I originally posted, you should see this to be the case. I'm not coming round to being fair minded either. I haven't changed my position in the slightest.

 

[ScottA]

shnarkle;
Well, surprise, you are finally comin' round to being somewhat fair minded. So glad, because I am exhausted with your pure opinion(s);and had planned to forget this site... see, per Plato, Socrates regarding the absurdity of arguing via opinion, which is, in his estimation, the most useless mode of human discourse. This, then, is the central rub: "You assume the Biblical God introduces law to determine behavior. I have shown repeatedly that this simply isn't the case at all.", and, therein lies what appears to be a seeming lack of common knowledge regarding what the Bible presents in regard to the Law. The thou-shalt-nots posited unto Adam and Eve; the Mosaic Ten Commandments, were not posited for the sake of Jehovah determining human behavior!? Such a notion defies common sense. Your assertion is outlandish! If "Thou Shalt Not..." is not posited in order to achieve predeterminate determination of human conduct, what end, instead, is the prohibition intended to accomplish? You totally have my attention and, I do not see how you can possibly sophist(icate) your way out of the apparently absurd stance you are taking now! Good luck...remember, you stand here in front of the whole world...maintain fair mindedness.
Duane

It appears that you have me on "Ignore", but the rest of "the whole world" might still be paying attention. So I will respond anyway even though you have added blinders to your own personal blindness problem:

I have been offering anecdotal examples for you because of your elementary position on the subject matter (God). But it obviously has not been working, so I will express the problem on your own terms: You are out of context. You understand context issues, and this is one exactly. You are trying to understand something outside the realm of your own knowledge and that of the world, with the logic and knowledge that only exists within the realm of your own knowledge and that of the world. There is no way that is going to work, and you should be smart enough to figure out that you are out of context--and yet you have not. Thus, if you should feel that you are not being taken seriously or even being made fun of...it is because you have fallen on your face right from the start. Ironically...you are not being very smart.

Nonetheless, addressing your above points:

1. You are assuming that you are debating against "opinion", and sometimes you are. But at the core of the Christian "belief" is "knowledge" that overrides worldly knowledge. What is missing, is you have not been exposed to that knowledge, and have been left to believe or disbelieve. What you also have not perceived, is that it is intentional...just not in the way you consider things of intent. Godly intent is different, something you do not know about, and therefore, your understanding of just how this all plays out is not at all what you think it is. More on intent later.

2. You are assuming that God's laws were "posit." That is not true, not the case.

3. You apparently do not understand that your use of "common sense" does not apply in this arena. Actually, you come close when you call things "outlandish", for that is exactly the circumstance, the subject is out of this world. And for this reason, you have assumed the intent was to "accomplish" something it was not intended to accomplish at all. On the contrary, the information that you have incorrectly derived your assumption from, is merely information. In other words, you were not reading about history unfolding in the world, you were reading about history that occurred before time, before the foundation of this world. As such, not occurring within time...no, nothing was "posit", and the "intention" was only to reveal the history of godly matters among the history of the world. And if you cannot track with all of this--that is your own
shortcoming (I told you so). Tell me if I need to slow down or elaborate.

So...the problem has been that you have been looking at things out of context. There is a context of the world, but also a greater context in which the world resides, of which you have been completely unaware and blind to.

But let's stop there so you can tell me if you are getting any of this.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

See my first three posts. I present my argument and explain it so there should be no confusion whatsoever. I welcome any questions you may have, as well as looking forward to any answers you may be able to supply to the questions I presented to you already.

I have repeatedly pointed out the methodologies presented in the Old and New Testaments. I have presented them, not to preach or seek to convert, but simply to inform you of what the texts actually state. You might notice that none of the other Christians on this site have disagreed with anything I've posted on the matter. They agree not because I'm a Christian, but because the citations are accurate. They probably don't even agree with my position, but they can see that everything I'm pointing out from the biblical texts is accurate.

It may seem like God's laws defy common sense if they have no power to determine behavior, but the biblical authors point this out repeatedly . One need look no further than the news papers to see this is the case. I don't know why you would think this defies common sense when it is right in line with your thesis. if it defies common sense, then it must mean that these laws can determine behavior which you have shown can't be the case.

My point is in simply noting that the biblical authors affirm that fact as well.

This doesn't negate what Spinoza of Sartre are saying. It only highlights that your premise is false, and that the actual facts do not in any way contradict or negate Sartre of Spinoza's claims. They are right in line with them.

Again, if you were to reread what I originally posted, you should see this to be the case. I'm not coming round to being fair minded either. I haven't changed my position in the slightest.

I am reluctant to visit your early posts due to their length. What, you say, the authors of the biblical cannon set forth, regards
Law as not an efficacy among men, even given Deuteronomy, wherein Law appears in extensio, and, nonetheless, what they appear to represent Jehovah to be doing, i.e., attempting to subjugate man via a language of law, is, according to you, selfsame, is, to me, self-inconsistent/self-contradictory. Just tell me in a nutshell why you are not positing a contradiction, because it is like having teeth pulled without pain killer to have to read the infinite language of your previous posts. That is why you are perhaps mistakenly claiming no one has disagreed with you, i.e., they have not read your too lengthy posts. You are obviating your own objectives by writing such extensive replies that no one can actually handle
the firehose overpower thereof..

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

It appears that you have me on "Ignore", but the rest of "the whole world" might still be paying attention. So I will respond anyway even though you have added blinders to your own personal blindness problem:

I have been offering anecdotal examples for you because of your elementary position on the subject matter (God). But it obviously has not been working, so I will express the problem on your own terms: You are out of context. You understand context issues, and this is one exactly. You are trying to understand something outside the realm of your own knowledge and that of the world, with the logic and knowledge that only exists within the realm of your own knowledge and that of the world. There is no way that is going to work, and you should be smart enough to figure out that you are out of context--and yet you have not. Thus, if you should feel that you are not being taken seriously or even being made fun of...it is because you have fallen on your face right from the start. Ironically...you are not being very smart.

Nonetheless, addressing your above points:

1. You are assuming that you are debating against "opinion", and sometimes you are. But at the core of the Christian "belief" is "knowledge" that overrides worldly knowledge. What is missing, is you have not been exposed to that knowledge, and have been left to believe or disbelieve. What you also have not perceived, is that it is intentional...just not in the way you consider things of intent. Godly intent is different, something you do not know about, and therefore, your understanding of just how this all plays out is not at all what you think it is. More on intent later.

2. You are assuming that God's laws were "posit." That is not true, not the case.

3. You apparently do not understand that your use of "common sense" does not apply in this arena. Actually, you come close when you call things "outlandish", for that is exactly the circumstance, the subject is out of this world. And for this reason, you have assumed the intent was to "accomplish" something it was not intended to accomplish at all. On the contrary, the information that you have incorrectly derived your assumption from, is merely information. In other words, you were not reading about history unfolding in the world, you were reading about history that occurred before time, before the foundation of this world. As such, not occurring within time...no, nothing was "posit", and the "intention" was only to reveal the history of godly matters among the history of the world. And if you cannot track with all of this--that is your own
shortcoming (I told you so). Tell me if I need to slow down or elaborate.

So...the problem has been that you have been looking at things out of context. There is a context of the world, but also a greater context in which the world resides, of which you have been completely unaware and blind to.

But let's stop there so you can tell me if you are getting any of this.

ScottA;
Yes, absolutely,precisely, I am wholly and completely and entirely/essentially/radically "out of the context" of the prattling ontologically nonsensical foolishness whereby Jehovah attempts to pose as a deity to man via a language of law which does not, cannot, direct human behavior. I am employing a radically Other intellectual instrumentation whereby, in my estimation, I have done a theoretical/ontological destruction of Biblical Law/Scripture as a pretended efficacy among men.
Your post, a large part of which I just read, does not come off as senseless as your previous, and, I do sincerely appreciate your interest in what is transpiring between shnarkle and me. Thank you.
I tried to respond to you, I believe it was you, when you suggested the neologism, to say it was too unintelligible and too unusual, but, it was so confusing with you on ignore, that I could not reply. You are now off ignore.
Duane

 

[ScottA]

ScottA;
Yes, absolutely,precisely, I am wholly and completely and entirely/essentially/radically "out of the context" of the prattling ontologically nonsensical foolishness whereby Jehovah attempts to pose as a deity to man via a language of law which does not, cannot, direct human behavior. I am employing a radically Other intellectual instrumentation whereby, in my estimation, I have done a theoretical/ontological destruction of Biblical Law/Scripture as a pretended efficacy among men.
Your post, a large part of which I just read, does not come off as senseless as your previous, and, I do sincerely appreciate your interest in what is transpiring between shnarkle and me. Thank you.
I tried to respond to you, I believe it was you, when you suggested the neologism, to say it was too unintelligible and too unusual, but, it was so confusing with you on ignore, that I could not reply. You are now off ignore.
Duane

Okay, so how do we get past you disregarding everything you do not have knowledge of as being "nonsensical", etc., etc.? Why is it that you cannot (or will not) intellectually comprehend a circumstance where there is a realm beyond the one you are immersed in? That is why I went from anecdotal examples to context...which is bizarre, because whether child or intellectual, who cannot understand the idea and logic of such things as a fish having no knowledge of deserts might as much as deny they exist, and that they are or could be wrong?

Do you not get that this is not a case of apples to apples?

So I have to ask, what did you hope to accomplish? Did you just want to debate an incomparable issue without all the information, or did you hope to gain the missing information? Because, thus far, it would appear that you just mean to deny the existence of God based on the part of the information that you are versed in, to preach, and point the finger. It is clear that you are convinced that given the information you have that your case against God is solid. You have already convinced us that you believe what you say. But what is the point if you don't want to hear anything more, as it appears that you do not?

 

[Waiting on him]

Okay, so how do we get past you disregarding everything you do not have knowledge of as being "nonsensical", etc., etc.? Why is it that you cannot (or will not) intellectually comprehend a circumstance where there is a realm beyond the one you are immersed in? That is why I went from anecdotal examples to context...which is bizarre, because whether child or intellectual, who cannot understand the idea that a fish having no knowledge of deserts might as much as deny they exist, and that they are or could be wrong?

Do you not get that this is not a case of apples to apples?

So I have to ask, what did you hope to accomplish? Did you just want to debate an incomparable issue without all the information, or did you hope to gain the missing information? Because, thus far, it would appear that you just mean to deny the existence of God based on the part of the information that you are versed in, to preach, and point that finger. It is clear that you are convinced that given the information you have that your case against God is solid. You have already convinced us that you believe what you say. But what is the point, if you don't want to hear anything more, as it appears that you do not?

Interesting, the fish says there’s no possible way a desert could exist, could make a pretty strong argument.

 

[ScottA]

Interesting, the fish says there’s no possible way a desert could exist, could make a pretty strong argument.

Oh, and it gets worse!

There is of course no need for a fish to ever learn of or have anything to do with the desert. But...if that fish has any intentions of ever climbing out of the sea and growing legs...well, he might want to look at it differently.

 

[Waiting on him]

 

[shnarkle]

I am reluctant to visit your early posts due to their length. What, you say, the authors of the biblical cannon set forth, regards
Law as not an efficacy among men, even given Deuteronomy, wherein Law appears in extensio, and, nonetheless, what they appear to represent Jehovah to be doing, i.e., attempting to subjugate man via a language of law, is, according to you, selfsame, is, to me, self-inconsistent/self-contradictory. Just tell me in a nutshell why you are not positing a contradiction, because it is like having teeth pulled without pain killer to have to read the infinite language of your previous posts. That is why you are perhaps mistakenly claiming no one has disagreed with you, i.e., they have not read your too lengthy posts. You are obviating your own objectives by writing such extensive replies that no one can actually handle
the firehose overpower thereof..

Just take the first point of the first post. How about that for starters? Each point builds on the one before it. Take them one at a time, and you should see that there is nothing confusing or overwhelming in any of them. Anyone who can sit down and read Spinoza or Sartre will have no problem reading a short post from me.

 

[Waiting on him]

Listened to this man years ago, Chucks with the Lord now, but had a strong ministry for many years. He was an information scientist for the military in his earlier years.

 

[Waiting on him]

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Okay, so how do we get past you disregarding everything you do not have knowledge of as being "nonsensical", etc., etc.? Why is it that you cannot (or will not) intellectually comprehend a circumstance where there is a realm beyond the one you are immersed in? That is why I went from anecdotal examples to context...which is bizarre, because whether child or intellectual, who cannot understand the idea and logic of such things as a fish having no knowledge of deserts might as much as deny they exist, and that they are or could be wrong?

Do you not get that this is not a case of apples to apples?

So I have to ask, what did you hope to accomplish? Did you just want to debate an incomparable issue without all the information, or did you hope to gain the missing information? Because, thus far, it would appear that you just mean to deny the existence of God based on the part of the information that you are versed in, to preach, and point the finger. It is clear that you are convinced that given the information you have that your case against God is solid. You have already convinced us that you believe what you say. But what is the point, if you don't want to hear anything more, as it appears that you do not?

Disregarding? I regard that which I have disproven on the ontological plane, i.e., disproven Jehovah/Christ as deity, simply in order to point out to men that their belief Christ is deity is wrong, and, TO SET FORTH A PHILOSOPHICAL/ ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF JEHOVAH/CHRIST AS GOD, and to give man the precise reason why law is an inefficacy, and, for the sake of attaining reputation.
There is no realm somewhere behind some curtain or existing somewhere unseen. There are no fish asking questions or making denials; such attempted examples do not illustrate anything! I want to accomplish the/a groundwork whereby man may transcend his religious delusionality and, foremost, I want to reason with man to lead man to face up to the fact that law is not, cannot be, a means of attaining civilization, on account of our ontological structure, which does not, cannot, undertake action/inaction on the basis of given states of affairs, and language of law is a given.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Listened to this man years ago, Chucks with the Lord now, but had a strong ministry for many years. He was an information scientist for the military in his earlier years.

Wanting;
There are no worlds/dimensions behind the scene. Appearance is reality.
Duane

 

[Waiting on him]

Wanting;
There are no worlds/dimensions behind the scene. Appearance is reality.
Duane

Agreed, so you can’t know my reality because you don’t see how things appear to me.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

In an earlier response I stated that when the temple curtain rent at the moment Christ died on the cross the Law was depassed. Nonetheless, we are a Christian nation here in America which attempts to mediate our sociosphere via endlessly positing law which does not, cannot, determine/motivate human behavior; and, I describe an alternative mode of having civilization.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Agreed, so you can’t know my reality because you don’t see how things appear to me.

That there is no reality behind appearance is not the same as me not being able to see/know your interiority!

 

[Waiting on him]

In an earlier response I stated that when the temple curtain rent at the moment Christ died on the cross the Law was depassed. Nonetheless, we are a Christian nation here in America which attempts to mediate our sociosphere via endlessly positing law which does not, cannot, determine/motivate human behavior; and, I describe an alternative mode of having civilization.

The mosaic law was never intended to justify anyone it was only given to show men what filthy savages they were. As I posted earlier I believe 139, there is no law against the attributes of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Waiting on him]

That there is no reality behind appearance is not the same as me not being able to see/know your interiority!

You don’t even know your own interiority.