ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

Okay, smart ass; I am being serious here, while you joke about and thereby demonstrate you are merely a flippant joker and, not a serious student of Jehovah/Christ's questionable authenticity. Okay, later,silly alligator....goodbye flippy clown boy...
Duane

Click to expand...

Now...we're getting somewhere!

Now if that chink in your intellectual armor will let in enough light that we can have an honest and open minded conversation, you stand to learn something you never knew. All you have to do is not keep slamming the door.

I hope you are up for it.

Waiting on him said:

The problem we have Duane is not the authenticity of Christ or His deity, the problem lies in Duane’s inability to be governed. You don’t like the woop down from authority because you believe your above it “to intelligent” better than others because you have nothing better to do with your life than read your dictionary.
You can only mistreat people for so long before they bring in the authorities, and when you stand before the judge then that slick tongue of yours is worthless, even if there’s enough tongue in there for ten rows of teeth.

Click to expand...

It's not that he has nothing better to do with his life than read his dictionary, but that he has nothing better to do than find some new way to use a word, or insert it into a discussion as a means of seeking attention for his ability to use words that most people aren't impressed by in the first place.

This is his default excuse for why no one understands what he's posting. The fact is that we not only understand he's a blow hard with an axe to grind against his phantom god of straw, but that many of us were just like him as well, which only makes it that much more ironic when he lurches, lunges, and bats the air with these pointless accusations that we don't understand what he's posting.

When I was just a small boy, I used to sit with my father and watch Firing Line with Bill Buckley. I was already in the habit of looking up any word I didn't know, and Bill Buckley provided me with a way to not only improve my vocabulary, but to learn about Conservative and Liberal political, economic, and cultural perspectives.

Bill Buckley was on of those guys who literally spent hours at a time reading the dictionary. I did as well, and learned that a person can learn an incredible amount of information not just by reading a dictionary, but simply by learning how to use a good dictionary. I have half a dozen unabridged dictionaries in my house right now.

The thing is that we're not dealing with someone with an extensive vocabulary at all, nor are we dealing with someone who has much of a grasp of Spinoza or Sartre. We're dealing with someone who sees no benefit to speaking plainly. He doesn't want to be understood. He wants people to agree with him, and marvel at his discovery. A convoluted argument is his way of deflecting any need to defend his argument by simply claiming that those who don't agree with him are simply unable to comprehend his intellect.

I spent four years of my college career furiously scribbling notes from professors who could construct arguments that would make your head spin like you had just dropped LSD. My peers and I would spend the next week comparing notes, and tear this professor's argument down to understand it. What we discovered was that his arguments anticipated any and all countervailing arguments, as well as adding in any number of anecdotes that usually were for his amusement only. However, after a week of dissecting his lecture, we would finally get the jokes as well. The point here is that when has spent years endeavoring to understand truly great thinkers, the counterfeits are all that much easier to spot.

Anyone who does a lot of reading should know this. if not, try reading something like The Federalist Papers, or The Iliad or Odyssey, or Milton. What eventually happens is that their sentence structure begins to wear off on you. You will find yourself constructing sentences almost exactly like what you've been reading for the last few weeks.

We're dealing with someone who doesn't read the works of great minds, and we know this because when one spends a great deal of time reading great thinkers, they tend to follow the same sentence structure after a while. Our expert in word salad is incapable of posting simple straightforward sentences, but insists instead on cramming one idea after another. In many cases, stringing one tangential and irrelevant phrase after another while using obscure forms of words that only make him look like the most asinine jack ass.

Here are only a few of his most notable excursions into prattling, redundant verbosity:

"the structure of the being of being human"

"our existential absurdity consists in being beings"

"I just now rationally supplied you with the subtle differential status of my premise per opening versus its nihilation at conclusion,"

"The Bible is not an authoritative reference entity of verifiable historicity."

"it is nauseating from my particular perspectival view."

"I do not find anyone here who can authentically interact with me on the level of a demi-god;"

"I can, with long study, ace any course..."

Click to expand...

One would only hope he would make an honest attempt to ace a course in bonehead English 101. The being of being? Being beings? It's nihilation at conclusion? Reference entity? Perspectival view? What great works of literature, philosophy, or even junk science exhibits anything that sounds this ridiculous?

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

Waiting;
Is my ratiocination a phenomenon you deem to be merely sophistry, simply due to your lack of familiarity with twentieth century efficient existential ontological thought, i.e., your inability to think with a modern intellectual instrumentation, instead of backwardly thinking via the depassed and middle ages slavish precept of sub-human serfs/subjects living as inferior to and ruled/dominated by Lord and Master? Your pitiful slave mentality is uncomfortable with the ilk of thinking which knows how to be reflectively free; instead, you remain merely pre-reflectively free and, too weak and afraid to embrace the absolute freedom that you actually are. You cannot handle your own human existence, and thus are compelled to implore Christ, a mere hypostatization, to do life for you...shameful...

The above applies to all Christians and all other religiously oriented sapientals who need a God.
Duane

Click to expand...

Does this mean I’m correct, authority is you true issue?

I would have to say his issue is cowardice. Else he would not be ignoring me. Pity.

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

No, inauthoritative authority is my true issue. Neither I nor anyone else can, in actual fact, be governed by ontologically nonsensical constructs like law/scripture...none of us are actually, in reality, governed by language of law/scripture, people are merely deluded in thinking so...
There is mass murder daily in the USA, law does not, cannot, obviate human misconduct, and, law is entirely predicated upon the selfsame ilk of violence whereby killing and jailing constitute the only means and method which law enforcement possesses, making law enforcers, who kill daily too, little better than the murderers and kidnappers which they condemn.

Click to expand...

Galatians 5:22-23 KJV
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, [23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
The above is Christ, lol this is His power the wisdom of this world will never understand it.
The Spirit of God is power surrenders to weakness, against this there is no law.

I believe @shnarkle has tried to share this with you, to be in Christ is an emptying out of yourself in this world

The wise to this world call it foolishness.
Tecarta Bible

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

No, inauthoritative authority is my true issue. Neither I nor anyone else can, in actual fact, be governed by ontologically nonsensical constructs like law/scripture...none of us are actually, in reality, governed by language of law/scripture, people are merely deluded in thinking so...
There is mass murder daily in the USA, law does not, cannot, obviate human misconduct, and, law is entirely predicated upon the selfsame ilk of violence whereby killing and jailing constitute the only means and method which law enforcement possesses, making law enforcers, who kill daily too, little better than the murderers and kidnappers which they condemn.

Click to expand...

Now ask yourself, does Dwayne possess any of these attributes that I listed in post 139. Is this part of your nature?
If your answer is no then do Wayne needs to be governed.

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

shnarkle is not characterizable thus:...the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, [23] Meekness, temperance...How can someone who does not exhibit any of those characteristics pretend to share the knowledge thereof with others!? ridiculous...I have been longsuffering in regard to the mean conduct of persons on this site, but I am not going to make myself nothing and substitute Christ, a dead hypostatization, for my self!, it is absolutely stupid, vain, cowardly, and mistaken to think one can resign one's own being and, believe some false deity will inhabit one's being in one's stead!

Click to expand...

You forgot foolish.

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

shnarkle is not characterizable thus:...the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, [23] Meekness, temperance...How can someone who does not exhibit any of those characteristics pretend to share the knowledge thereof with others!? ridiculous...I have been longsuffering in regard to the mean conduct of persons on this site, but I am not going to make myself nothing and substitute Christ, a dead hypostatization, for my self! It is absolutely stupid, vain, cowardly, delusional, and mistaken, to think one can resign one's own being and, to believe some false deity will inhabit one's being in one's stead!

I just now realized that there is verily a sense wherein it can be said that Christians are insane.

Click to expand...

And as far as @shnarkle os concerned... your just pouting because of the literary whipping he gave you.

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

It is absolutely stupid, vain, cowardly, delusional, and mistaken, to think one can resign one's own being and, to believe some false deity will inhabit one's being in one's stead!

Click to expand...

Any half way decent textbook on early childhood development will confirm what most attentive parents already know, which is the fact that one's sense of self, their identity, or persona is nothing but an abstract construction of the mind. It is nothing more than an idea, and one which some still believe is more real than the idea of God. The fact is, they are both just ideas.

No one is born with a sense of self. It must be developed over time as a child develops. With some people, this sense of self becomes fragmented due to mental, emotional, or physical abuse. Others are sometimes snatched from their parents and taken to a monestary where they are brought up to believe they are the reincarnation of some realized being.

The bottom line is that very few people ever discover who they really are. They spend their entire lives believing they are the persona they have created to present to the world. It is nothing but a mask. This is literally the definition of the term.

The ground of being is an undisputed fact, and everything that exists, comes into existence, and yet the things themselves are considered more real than the foundation they are built upon. These silly ideas that are fabricated by the mind take on a life of their own as they stomp, and snort, and sulk, knowing deep down they're not real, and never can be. For some unknown reason, they feel some fleeting sense of adulation or satisfaction in nudging some competing idea out of the way, never noticing that whatever idea reigns in their mind is still nothing more than an idea, an idea that they believe is who they are, and that it is theirs. They cherish these ideas as things to be possessed.

Our sophomoric, self indulgent, self adulation only spotlights that what we think we know will never lead to realization. Authentic knowledge is not an epistemological activity, but an ontological state. One cannot reach being through any epistemological process, regardless of how sophisticated it may appear. An immediate awareness of reality is easily severed by mediating reality through the intellect. The intellect only serves to separate us from reality. By definition, a reflection can never be what is reflected.

All the theories yet to be discovered will never remove the barriers which separate the mind from reality. Pointing out this fact doesn't magically allow one access to an immediate awareness of reality, it only replaces one barrier with another, or in this case, builds a new one on top of all those that came before it.

Pretending one can exclude one's own arbitrary deterministic ideas from those that precede them not only highlights that logical fallacy, but assumes they are theirs to begin with. No one has ever been able to prove otherwise. The best anyone can do is to conflate identification with identity.

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

No, inauthoritative authority is my true issue.

Click to expand...

As they used to say, "He's got issues". You falsely accuse me of introducing the scriptures as authoritative, when the ONLY reason I bring them up at all is because YOU introduced them into the mix in the first place. I don't disagree with your conclusion. I only disagree with the fact that you are propping up a straw god to knock over, one who you believe introduces law to govern human behavior, when the fact is that the scriptures you claim, clearly point out that the law was never intended to govern humanity in the first place. Your only reply to this is to admit that you have no knowledge of them because your ignorance of the texts proves their lack of authority. That's not reasonable or logical.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which if proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation" - Herbert Spencer

Neither I nor anyone else can, in actual fact, be governed by ontologically nonsensical constructs like law/scripture...

Click to expand...

Paul, who wrote most of the new testament, and was instructed in the law as a Pharisee, says the EXACT same thing repeatedly in his letters. This is a fundamental tenet of Christianity's doctrine of grace as contrasted with the law. This fact will be affirmed by practically all Christians on this forum, and yet your response is to simply ignore this fact.

none of us are actually, in reality, governed by language of law/scripture, people are merely deluded in thinking so...

Click to expand...

The fact is that the language one uses determines how one thinks. To assume your thoughts can allow you to meaningfully use language however you please only spotlights what a pointless endeavor you have set for yourself. Again, Paul makes this same point when he asks what possible purpose there could be in talking if no one understands what you're saying? Even the gods have enough sense to dumb it down so their creation can understand what they're talking about.

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

You have not refuted anything whatsoever, what, just because you say so!? Your posts are too too long and rambling; I can seldom if ever even finish reading any one of them! Shorten-up your mere pure assertions and, give me short, concise, referenced, refutation that is not mere assertion.

Click to expand...

Here's my first post on this thread. I took your points one by one, and not only addressed them, but made polite and straightforward inquiry to clarify what you were posting. You chose to ignore any and all questions presented, not to mention the arguments presented refuting your claims, but then chose to engage immediately in Ad Hominem, and trolling. This is not just unprofessional, but insulting.

Here again are my points which you have yet to address:

Duane Clinton Meehan said: ↑
"1. Judaeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture."

Yes. I agree. The law is only there as a guide to point out that they're already on the wrong track. It can't fix them. It can only point out what they would be doing if they had not left the tracks.

"2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s authentically deistically created ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure."

Here again, this is right in line with what the biblical texts suggest. The old covenant was useless, whereas the new covenant is based upon a process that is the exact opposite of the old. Under the Old Covenant, man sins because he is a sinner. Under the New Covenant, humanity lives in a sanctified, holy state because they're created that way. A fish doesn't learn to swim so it can be a fish. A fish swims because it is a fish.

"3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture,"

This isn't the case. This is putting the cart before the horse. Christ points out that one is born from above, and are a new creation created for a life of abundance. That is their ontological destiny.

"thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."

He explicitly points out that it comes directly from the father. He does only what he sees the father doing, and what he does is to empty himself into the world, e.g. "The word became flesh". This emptying is a negation of himself; what he refers to as the necessity of denying oneself.

"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined,"

You're using the wrong terminology here. Don't you mean an omniscient God knew a priori?

"...in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture; thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity, and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act."

Where does the scripture state human beings are determined in their acts by law? I don't see that at all. What I see is man being determined by his own nature which is at odds with the law. Thus a new nature is required.

"4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct,"

I agree that some may take this position, but again, I don't see this as what the biblical texts state at all. Do you know where they're getting this idea from? My suspicion is that they're getting this from theologians who don't know what they're talking about.

"by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law"."

This is essentially no different than Paul's point that the law can't save anyone. No one is justified or made righteous by the works of the law.

"Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”,"

Again, this is blatantly false. A gross misreading of the texts. e.g. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 11:19;36:26; Hebrews 8:9,10

"while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of n o n-e x I s t a n t s, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state”, etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever."

Again, this is simply repeating the same thing both Christ and Paul point out which is that no one can be saved by the works of the law. Man's ontological state of defilement precludes him from ever cleaning up or getting his act together.

"If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness."

Yep, and this goes beyond your assumption of a consciousness that you possess. It isn't even you who is studying it, but God revealing his consciousness. "You" must negate any sense of self. As the gospel writer puts it; "I must decrease that he may increase".

"6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, 1943...
7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”,"

And all of this is essentially no different than Christ's doctrine of self denial/self sacrifice. The biblical authors even point out that Christ "empties himself of his divinity, as well as his humanity. Mark's gospel invites his readers to peer into a tomb, but not just any tomb; an empty one. This is the essence of the gospel. A complete abolition of the self, the persona.



So far, the only thing we hear in response is a much more profound rendition of Simon and Garfunkal's "The Sound of Silence"

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

You merely set forth your mere personal opinions;

Click to expand...

My opinions are based upon the text which you are ignoring to come to your false conclusions.

Here's a prime example:

Duane Clinton Meehan said: ↑
a human being, who determines to act or forbear action purely on the basis of what is not yet achieved, and, never, ever, on the basis of what already is..."

Exactly! This is what it truly means to be the image of God. This is to live as God lives. To acts exactly as God acts. God creates ex nihilo. He doesn't create based upon what already is. God does not rest from exhaustion, but from achievement.

Your response? <crickets chirping>

Duane Clinton Meehan said:

He did not whip me, he merely gave his own mere opinions in a world wherein scholarly debate is predicated upon theoretically founded dialectic; spouting scripture does not rise to the level of theoreticall

Click to expand...

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.