LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN / AN EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF LAW

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

And, you guys doubted when I said some time ago that you were being trolled? LOL

You insist on proceeding by insult. A troll is someone who is purposely attempting to sow discord among the members of a forum. Your constant ad hominem attacks against my person, in company with DNB, are trolling, because you have,together, precipitated discord between yourselves and I via your constant ignominious conduct toward me.

I am engaging members in debate.

See the SICK TO DEATH article at the top of the Home page, which describes the ilk of misconduct which you and DNB commit.

Duane

 

[marks]

marks;
I can maintain that coming back from death is impossible since there has never been a verified/verifiable evidentiary record made of an instance of a return from a bonified death; there is only Christian assertion that Christ did, (no one capable of determining for an absolute certainty He was indeed dead was in the tomb with Him or stayed with Him the entire time and actually saw Him reanimate); Christians who foolishly believe He also walked on the surface of water; Christians who believe in miracles; Christians who's God is merely deemed to be able to make exceptions to the knowns of physics and to the knowns of death, are the only persons, perhaps along with some Jewish, who assert Christ resurrected. Resurrection is mere wishful thinking.
Duane

So then your idea is that resurrection is impossible because no one has been proven to have resurrected.

Can't we in the same breath say that the Big Bang is impossible because no one can prove that anything Big Banged?

Aren't we left only with our own impressions of likelyhood?

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

So then your idea is that resurrection is impossible because no one has been proven to have resurrected.

Can't we in the same breath say that the Big Bang is impossible because no one can prove that anything Big Banged?

Aren't we left only with our own impressions of likelyhood?

Much love!

No, it is not merely my "idea'', it is my knowledge regarding resurrection.

There is evidence we are now, since Dr. Hubble, observing of the bang, which is the fact that we see the universe expanding now; space/time is still expanding in every direction; other galaxies are moving away from us both at the speed of light and faster than the speed of light...

If you want to approach the question statistically and calculate the likelihood of resurrection transpiring,you require a population of instances of resurrection, you require a data base whereby to formulate your hypothesis sub one, hypothesis sub two...there is no population of resurrections whereby to calculate the probability thereof! One putative resurrection, Christ's, is not statistical evidence of either the probability of resurrection or of resurrection per se, marks. Christ raised Lazarus, which is putative resurrection #1; Christ's is putative resurrection #2, two putative resurrections do not constitute a reliable statistical data base via which to depend upon resurrection happening in future.
Duane

 

[marks]

There is evidence we are now, since Dr. Hubble, observing of the bang, which is the fact that we see the universe expanding now; space/time is expanding in every direction; other galaxies are moving away from us both at the speed of light and faster than the speed of light...

If you want to approach the question statistically and calculate the likelihood of resurrection transpiring,you require a population of instances of resurrection, you require a data base whereby to formulate your hypothesis sub one, hypothesis sub two...there is no population of resurrections whereby to calculate the probability thereof!

OK, even so, it's a matter of how we evaluate possibilities, and the credibility we find in our sources. Neither one of us was there to see either event, so we have to use other things.

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

OK, even so, it's a matter of how we evaluate possibilities, and the credibility we find in our sources. Neither one of us was there to see either event, so we have to use other things.

Much love!

You missed my recently edited explanation of how we evaluate possibility...

We now look back on the Egyptian assertion Isis resurrected whole after being cut into pieces as being an absurdity, the same will happen for Christ unless He indeed returns, which I wish He would if indeed He can.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Do you think you could try rewriting that in English? We are all duly impressed, but some people might actually want to know what was said.

The viability of law as a motivational force exercised on a basis of punishment, purportedly efficient to make and maintain decent civil interpersonal conduct, is questionable in terms of the incorrectness of scholars of jurisprudence in regard to a supposedly conduct-originative law linguistic, whereby language of law is mistakenly deemed to be a conduct-determinative causal force among men, thus, both jurisprudential scholarship and extant language of law exhibit vacuity in regard to the actual ontological mode whereby a human act originates; hence all current jurisprudence/law clearly appears to be confused and unintelligible at the level of the ontological mode of the origination of a human act, and therefore, law, as a mistakenly presupposed determinative efficacy among men, is subject to being re-modeled to prevent ultimately being discarded as a non-viable means to having and doing civilizational civility:

 

[Willie T]

You're on a roll, Duane. Your very first nonsensical sentence written on this forum was only 128 words.... You managed 137 with this one.

 

[bbyrd009]

ha i gotta admit "civilizational civility" is quite the ending, does somewhat seem like a lot of words are being used to say the law is not adequate

 

[marks]

You're on a roll, Duane. Your very first nonsensical sentence written on this forum was only 128 words.... You managed 137 with this one.

He Willie,

I think what he's saying is that Laws won't make people act any better, since it's not what motivates them, and God should have known better, and that's why they have to keep being changed, trying to "catch up to man's reality".

@Duane Clinton Meehan , have I got it right?

My response is that God DID know better, and He always said the Law would never do what needed to be done, rather, a new creation was needed. A completely new ontological structure with it's own way.

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

ha i gotta admit "civilizational civility" is quite the ending, does somewhat seem like a lot of words are being used to say the law is not adequate

bbyrd009;
I am not merely maintaining that law is inadequate, I am saying that it is a misnomer and complete failure, and, I am explaining precisely why it is a failure, and, am suggesting that we may possibly re-model mere failing law, via employing our human ontological structure as pattern for possibly rebuilding our approach to the nigh insurmountable task of attempting to control our passions.

''Civilizational civility'' is a striking phrase built in an attempt to pre-figure a possible future, as is the entire essay.
Duane

 

[bbyrd009]

bbyrd009;
I am not merely maintaining that law is inadequate, I am saying that it is a misnomer and complete failure, and, I am explaining precisely why it is a failure, and, am suggesting that we may possibly re-model mere failing law, via employing our human ontological structure as pattern for possibly rebuilding our approach to the nigh insurmountable task of attempting to control our passions.
Duane

wadr do you think you have a better model than grace? why reinvent the wheel?

and i suggest that even though the law is inadequate, recognizing that is most of the battle? Bc the law is also holy, in what might seem an oxymoron; a 20mph speed limit in a school zone is more or less broadly accepted as a good idea, yes? But that doesnt mean that 5 mph might not be called for at times, or for that matter, 40 mph.

so, has the law in that case "failed?" Of course not! The law serves as a master, that...hey, deja vu, we already have a passage for this, right?

and our current law even recognizes this, the limitations of the law, which is why we dont arrest husbands that are fathers-to-be who find themselves doing 40 mph through school zones, and etc, we give them escorts, right. Jurors are legally allowed to completely ignore established case law and render whatever verdict they deem fair. Et al

so dont get me wrong, Capital Idea, already been done wadr

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

You're on a roll, Duane. Your very first nonsensical sentence written on this forum was only 128 words.... You managed 137 with this one.

Grunt;
My original paragraph made sense; the rewrite makes sense; you pretend not to be able to follow either; your claimed inability to fathom what is being proposed by the language employed is, perhaps, ascribable to a lack of intellectual instrumentation on your part, because, I consistently submit perfection and cogent thinking, and, you consistently prefer to convey insult, no matter what...

Perhaps the paragraph will continually pair-down, until a simplicity is attained that even a wholly basal intelligence will apprehend...

However, the responsibility for your claimed failure to be able to understand me is entirely mine, for I am having extreme difficulty condescending to the point where I am not habitually writing for philosophy majors and Philosophy PhD's, which one is under the necessity to constantly do, while pursuing degrees in philosophy.
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

He Willie,

I think what he's saying is that Laws won't make people act any better, since it's not what motivates them, and God should have known better, and that's why they have to keep being changed, trying to "catch up to man's reality".

@Duane Clinton Meehan , have I got it right?

My response is that God DID know better, and He always said the Law would never do what needed to be done, rather, a new creation was needed. A completely new ontological structure with it's own way.

Much love!

marks;
Wow, beautifully written and precisely/incisively thought-out; excellent; however I am not suggesting laws merely be changed, rather, I am suggesting that via resisting and doing a theoretical destruction of the very notion of law, we humans may dialectically arrive at another approach to attaining civilizational civility, even though we are, ontologically, killers able to conduct ourselves absolutely outrageously and totally inacceptably. And the magistrate who hurts the convicted defendant via some horrible punishment is conducting himself, in the name of law, in a manner wholly analogous to that for which he is doing punishment-harm to the convicted person...
Duane

 

[bbyrd009]

marks;
I can maintain that coming back from death is impossible since there has never been a verified/verifiable evidentiary record made of an instance of a return from a bonified death; there is only Christian pure assertion that Christ did, (no one capable of determining for an absolute certainty He was indeed dead was in the tomb with Him or stayed with Him the entire time and actually saw Him reanimate); Christians who foolishly believe He also walked on the surface of water; Christians who believe in miracles; Christians who's God is merely deemed to be able to make exceptions to the knowns of physics and to the knowns of death, are the only persons, perhaps along with some Jewish, who assert Christ resurrected. Resurrection is mere wishful thinking.
Duane

speaking literally, i likely agree, but Scripture is prolly not written to be read that way anyway? Wisdom is hidden form the wise? And wadr imo defibrillators have brought many, many ppl back from "bonafied death?"

 

[Willie T]

Grunt;
My original paragraph made sense; the rewrite makes sense; you pretend not to be able to follow either; your claimed inability to fathom what is being proposed by the language employed is, perhaps, ascribable to a lack of intellectual instrumentation on your part, because, I consistently submit perfection and cogent thinking, and, you consistently prefer to convey insult, no matter what...

Perhaps the paragraph will continually pair-down, until a simplicity is attained that even a wholly basal intelligence will apprehend...
Duane

Uh...….. It's "pare-down", not PAIR-down.

 

[marks]

marks;
Wow, beautifully written and precisely/incisively thought-out; excellent; however I am not suggesting laws merely be changed, rather,

Right, I only mention that as an internal evidence of your assertion.

I am suggesting that via resisting and doing a theoretical destruction of the very notion of law, we humans may dialectically arrive at another approach to attaining civilizational civility, even though we are, ontologically, killers able to conduct ourselves absolutely outrageously and totally inacceptably. And the magistrate who hurts the convicted defendant via some horrible punishment is conducting himself, in the name of law, in a manner wholly analogous to that for which he is doing punishment-harm to the convicted person...
Duane

The judge who orders violence does himself do violence, is that right?

This part:

we humans may dialectically arrive at another approach to attaining civilizational civility, even though we are, ontologically, killers able to conduct ourselves absolutely outrageously and totally inacceptably.

Rather optomistic, wouldn't you say?

This is why I maintain we require a completely new ontological structure.

I think we may have a lot in common about how we think of things, only that we have arrived at different solutions.

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

wadr do you think you have a better model than grace? why reinvent the wheel?

and i suggest that even though the law is inadequate, recognizing that is most of the battle? Bc the law is also holy, in what might seem an oxymoron; a 20mph speed limit in a school zone is more or less broadly accepted as a good idea, yes? But that doesnt mean that 5 mph might not be called for at times, or for that matter, 40 mph.

so, has the law in that case "failed?" Of course not! The law serves as a master, that...hey, deja vu, we already have a passage for this, right?

and our current law even recognizes this, the limitations of the law, which is why we dont arrest husbands that are fathers-to-be who find themselves doing 40 mph through school zones, and etc, we give them escorts, right. Jurors are legally allowed to completely ignore established case law and render whatever verdict they deem fair. Et al

so dont get me wrong, Capital Idea, already been done wadr

Yes, in a sense I am proffering a more efficient model for civilization, wherein we humans do not continually rail against and prohibit precisely what we are as beings, via naming our habitual conduct ''sin''. An absolutely authentic ''grace'' would be structured such that man can simultaneously be both precisely what he is ontologically, and, establish a civil civilization upon the basis of and in accordance with the horrid behavioral capacity which constitutes our ontological structure, i.e., our only absolute power is killing, and, if you know that, within an absolutely free civilization wherein anything goes, I can freely kill you if you exhibit serious misconduct unto me, you will rapidly straighten-up-and-fly-it-right at all times. The cogent example which another member gave earlier, wherein in Yugoslavia a state of affairs was reached in which people were spontaneously killing others in order to prevent the possibility of themselves being killed, is a radically idiosyncratic and psychopathic state of affairs which cannot maintain, for one cannot kill others in the neighborhood without very quickly coming to an end one's self.
Duane

 

[marks]

Yes, in a sense I am proffering a more efficient model for civilization, wherein we humans do not continually rail against and prohibit precisely what we are as beings, via naming our habitual conduct ''sin''. An absolutely authentic ''grace'' would be structured such that man can simultaneously be both precisely what he is ontologically, and, establish a civil civilization upon the basis of and in accordance with the horrid behavioral capacity which constitutes our ontological structure, i.e., our only absolute power is killing, and, if you know that, within an absolutely free civilization wherein anything goes, I can freely kill you if you exhibit serious misconduct unto me, you will rapidly straighten-up-and-fly-it-right at all times. The cogent example which another member gave earlier, wherein in Yugoslavia a state of affairs was reached in which people were spontaneously killing others in order to prevent the possibility of themselves being killed, is a radically idiosyncratic and psychopathic state of affairs which cannot maintain, for one cannot kill others in the neighborhood without very quickly coming to an end one's self.
Duane

Your model depends on certain qualities existing in man that I don't think are there.

Let's consider a radically free civilization of man, in which all behaviors are allowed. I posit that man cannot create, and has limited ability to organize, and that man has greater ability to disorganize.

Few people can build, but anyone can destroy. You can't make a flower, but you can destroy a flower. If that is the case, then I think the destructiveness of man will outpace man's ability and desire to build, and will result in total destruction.

I don't think Yugoslavia is far off the mark.

If I want to do what I want, and the only thing stopping me is killing you, then how does that make me stop wanting what I want?

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Right, I only mention that as an internal evidence of your assertion.



The judge who orders violence does himself do violence, is that right?

This part:

we humans may dialectically arrive at another approach to attaining civilizational civility, even though we are, ontologically, killers able to conduct ourselves absolutely outrageously and totally inacceptably.

Rather optomistic, wouldn't you say?

This is why I maintain we require a completely new ontological structure.


I think we may have a lot in common about how we think of things, only that we have arrived at different solutions.

Much love!

Right, the Judge is acting self-inconsistently, contradictorily, stupidly; he is being precisely the violent predator that he is; who sordidly makes his very living via doing violence to other human beings, in the name of a language of law which, in fact, is not efficient to induce either the punished person, or the Judge, to do, or, not do, a single solitary thing. The Judge is suffering from what I call jurisprudential illusion, which is actually delusion (but I am just being polite by employing 'illusion'). The Judge is a delusional nut case hurting another human being, via the ugliest con game ever devised on the face of this earth, i.e., via the violently venal practice of "law".
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Uh...….. It's "pare-down", not PAIR-down.

Willie T;
Precisely! Wow, what an embarrassment, the great Duane-deity slipped/erred and, for a mere nanosecond, appeared to be a mere human; I am sincerely ashamed of myself; which, anyway, is precisely where Willie T wants me, i.e., as a foibled shameful failure of a being...Are you happy now!? I hope so; and, it makes me appreciate error, since it indeed gives the Other gratification. Gratifying error...
Duane