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

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Submitting to Christ, one gets better and better and be fruitful with joy;

Submitting otherwise, sinners and believers will find out that it gets worse and worse per their sinful nature.

2 Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

I can say that when you do see yourself getting worse and woservituderse, you can call on Jesus to save you from it. I did and He has delivered me and is keeping me even though it looked like it had overcome me, but I reckon it was not too late for me since He has and is keeping me from my sins.

Enow;
Truly appreciate your concern; however I am not convinced that I am a guilty sinful person simply on account of the fact that I am a free being, who refuses to live subaltern to a Christ which I have demonstrated is not in fact deity, via my first OP.

Clearly even Adam and Eve refused to be submerged in an unfree servitude and, their ''sin'' was preferring freedom to serfdom; thus, for Jehovah and for Christians, it is sin to choose freedom over being subaltern, which notion of disobedience as sin/guilt/crime is an absolutely unethical con game, upon which all law is immorally predicated.
Duane

 

[Renniks]

Clearly even Adam and Eve refused to be submerged in an unfree servitude and, their ''sin'' was preferring freedom to serfdom; thus, for Jehovah and for Christians, it is sin to choose freedom over being subaltern, which notion of disobedience as sin/guilt/crime is an absolutely unethical con game, upon which all law is immorally predicated.

You misunderstand what freedom is. Freedom to follow our selfish whims is not freedom at all, it's actually bondage. We go down that road, and many of us have, we end up in bondage to our own lusts. This does not lead to the peace we seek. Just look at all the people who follow after this type of "freedom" and you'll see they end up in self destructive behaviors. Hollywood is like a cautionary tale that show us this reality.

We are saved for freedom. Galations 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be encumbered once more by a yoke of slavery. This freedom is both freedom from the Torah rituals, and freedom from the destruction of sin in our lives.

God knows what is best for us. That is why following him will actually free us from our sinful selves and take us into a glorious freedom. Freedom to follow our own lusts takes us to a pit, where we are bound in chains of our own choosing.

 

[Truth OT]

It is not important which of all societies had or have law, the concern I entertain is that law is not actually an originative source of human conduct, and, we are kidding ourselves when we assert that it is.

Tell if I understand you correctly here. Are you saying that law doesn't breed human conduct but rather the conduct of humans that must coexist creates a setting in which laws become necessary?

 

[Enow]

Enow;
Truly appreciate your concern; however I am not convinced that I am a guilty sinful person simply on account of the fact that I am a free being, who refuses to live subaltern to a Christ which I have demonstrated is not in fact deity, via my first OP.

The law shows why we need the Savior for why the Old Covenant and God's people were chosen to prove. So showing the failure of sinners as a religious willful in keeping the law hardly makes the deity of Jesus Christ non-existent.

Clearly even Adam and Eve refused to be submerged in an unfree servitude and, their ''sin'' was preferring freedom to serfdom; thus, for Jehovah and for Christians, it is sin to choose freedom over being subaltern, which notion of disobedience as sin/guilt/crime is an absolutely unethical con game, upon which all law is immorally predicated.
Duane

Did you notice that when they had eaten the forbidden fruit, they hid from the Lord? Why? Sin drives us from the Holy God.

You can't say they hid because He was angry with them. He asked them why they hid themselves and they said they were naked.

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

It reads to me that free thinkers was what got them both in trouble in the first place; doing that which the Lord told them not to do.

So unless you want to explain how what sinners do make voids the deity of God, it is hardly a fact, brother.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Tell if I understand you correctly here. Are you saying that law doesn't breed human conduct but rather the conduct of humans that must coexist creates a setting in which laws become necessary?

Truth OT;
Excellently put, "...doesn't breed human conduct...", yes, exactly; law does not originate conduct; nor do we individually do acts on the basis of language of law; for, all human determination to action is negation and arises on the basis of what is not yet achieved, never on the basis of what already is, and, law already is.
Since we are mistaken in thinking that law is a determinative agent among human beings, we additionally error in thinking law is necessary for coexistence, for law is no more efficacious to precipitate group action than it is to cause individual acts. I am claiming that we humans are living what I call the ''jurisprudential illusion", wherein we mistakenly name things contained in the world, like law, as reason(s) for our actions, while, all the while, human action arises only on the basis of the recognition of desideratum; and, while law per se originates out of recognition of desideratum, language of law is not efficient to produce a human act.
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

The law shows why we need the Savior for why the Old Covenant and God's people were chosen to prove. So showing the failure of sinners as a religious willful in keeping the law hardly makes the deity of Jesus Christ non-existent.



Did you notice that when they had eaten the forbidden fruit, they hid from the Lord? Why? Sin drives us from the Holy God.

You can't say they hid because He was angry with them. He asked them why they hid themselves and they said they were naked.

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

It reads to me that free thinkers was what got them both in trouble in the first place; doing that which the Lord told them not to do.

So unless you want to explain how what sinners do make voids the deity of God, it is hardly a fact, brother.

Enow;
No, I am not claiming that what people do in disobedience demonstrates the non-deity of God. I am saying that when Jehovah posited Law as a means of controlling the actions of human persons, He demonstrated thereby that He did not understand the way a human act actually arises in the world, which arising is not, cannot be, grounded in or upon anything already contained in the world, but, rather, in all instances, human action originatively upsurges out of the nothing of human intentionality, whereby persons decide to usher an as yet non-existent personal project into the world; thus exhibiting His lack of understanding of the mode wherein a human act originates, Jehovah shows us that He could not have been our creator, for He does not even actually understand how we tick when we are originating actions in the world.
Duane

 

[Truth OT]

human action arises only on the basis of the recognition of desideratum

I'm not sure I can get on board with this claim seeing as to much of what we do is "motivated" by the subconscious where no recognition our part is involved.

all human determination to action is negation and arises on the basis of what is not yet achieved, never on the basis of what already is, and, law already is.

The use of determination to action indicates conscious maneuvering. I question why you'd assert that negation has anything to do with it. Linking in law with this logic doesn't seem to fit and appears to be a non-sequitur IMO. I think it would help bring clarity and understanding if you'd define what you mean by law so all parties are speaking about the same thing as opposed to talking around one another.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I'm not sure I can get on board with this claim seeing as to much of what we do is "motivated" by the subconscious where no recognition our part is involved.



The use of determination to action indicates conscious maneuvering. I question why you'd assert that negation has anything to do with it. Linking in law with this logic doesn't seem to fit and appears to be a non-sequitur IMO. I think it would help bring clarity and understanding if you'd define what you mean by law so all parties are speaking about the same thing as opposed to talking around one another.

Read all below the title of the short OP which discusses the history of human determination being an entirely negative process, the introduction is off-putting...

Law is published statute; judicial decision; county ordinance; city regulations; the Torah...

There is no such entity as a subconscious, Freud was mistaken; Sartre explains why Freud was wrong in Sartre's '''Being and Nothingness'', 1943.

 

[Truth OT]

There is no such entity as a subconscious

It need not be an entity. It is sort of a catch all descriptive of that which is a non-conscious catalyst causing actions. Example include breathing, shivering, perhaps even random thoughts.

My apologies for getting off on a tangent. The subject is law, so let's place our focus there. What place are you espousing for law within our societies?

 

[Willie T]

Read all below the title of the short OP which discusses the history of human determination being an entirely negative process, the introduction is off-putting...

Law is published statute; judicial decision; county ordinance; city regulations; the Torah...

There is no such entity as a subconscious, Freud was mistaken; Sartre explains why Freud was wrong in Sartre's '''Being and Nothingness'', 1943.

Wow! Talk about burying your head in the sand with semantics. LOL

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

It need not be an entity. It is sort of a catch all descriptive of that which is a non-conscious catalyst causing actions. Example include breathing, shivering, perhaps even random thoughts.

My apologies for getting off on a tangent. The subject is law, so let's place our focus there. What place are you espousing for law within our societies?

You are referring to functions of our autonomic nervous system when what is being addressed is intentional action. Breathing is a function of pressure differentiation which moves the diaphragm.

I place law in a place called failure; an unintended and unwitting failure, but failure nonetheless, for law is an ontologically incorrect approach to attempting to manage human conduct.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Wow! Talk about burying your head in the sand with semantics. LOL

Self-righteous antisocial personality constantly proffering detracting unedifying snide remarks fails to accomplish uplifting contribution to theologically-oriented interaction equals being barbarian instead of Christian.

 

[Truth OT]

I place law in a place called failure; an unintended and unwitting failure, but failure nonetheless, for law is an ontologically incorrect approach to attempting to manage human conduct.

SO does that mean you believe society functions best in a lawless state?

 

[Willie T]

Self-righteous antisocial personality constantly proffering detracting unedifying snide remarks fails to accomplish uplifting contribution to theologically-oriented interaction equals being barbarian instead of Christian.

Well, just look at that, will ya! Duane managed to compose a whole sentence without even once interjecting his pet word, "ontologically." I'm proud of you, Lil' Fella.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

SO does that mean you believe society functions best in a lawless state?

TruthOT;
What I am saying is that that is precisely what we in fact have now, i.e., ''...a lawless state...", on account of the fact that we now delusionally believe our language of law effective to both prompt and block human action, when, actually, law is not efficient to determine persons either to act or forbear action. We attempt to manage our civilization artificially via jurisprudential illusion which is a stark delusion, i.e., via the illusion that given language that is law is an efficacy among men, who, in fact, originate all their actions on the basis of the future they intend to usher into the world, i.e., on the basis of desideratum; absence; lack. Thus, what I am saying is that it ought to be good to outlive functioning inauthentically under jurisprudential illusion and, together, in theoretical dialectical contestation, synthesize an ontologically authentic, honest, alternative mode of doing civilizational civility.

Jehovahs injunction not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, wherein Adam and Eve ultimately disregarded the prohibition and, ingested the prohibited fruit, immediately demonstrated, right off the bat, the ineluctable inefficacy of attempting to enjoin human action, (through promising death), even when attempted by God. Nonetheless, Jehovah proceeded to construct an entire theocratic sociosphere, predicated upon His continued attempt to enjoin human conduct via a language of law; now, the entire world is completely and entirely entangled in the original error of vainly attempting to manage human freedom via a language of law.

Hence, our American civilization is indeed, entirely structured precisely in keeping with the sordid Theocratic paradigm wherein human beings, who cannot in truth be determined to act or forbear action by law, are, nonetheless, mistakenly demanded to do precisely what they are ontologically incapable of doing, and, when any given human being ineluctably fails to be determined to action or inaction by law, that human being is severely punished by being unjustly thrown-out of a maligned sociosphere, (which sphere, overall, lacks knowledge of what it is to be a free human being), into ugly prison.

I am contending that we humans can correctly exit the erroneous state of affairs wherein we ignobly mistakenly attempt to manage human freedom with sordid lawful barbaric punishment(s), simply by being completely authentically honest with ourselves about how human action actually arises, which is not by law.
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Well, just look at that, will ya! Duane managed to compose a whole sentence without even once interjecting his pet word, "ontologically." I'm proud of you, Lil' Fella.

Gee wizz! WillieT is being polite! Irreal!

 

[Truth OT]

alternative mode of doing civilizational civility.

Pro-Me-ism, an condition every "self" has is the main impactor of civility. The fact that a society consists of many selfs having to coexist amid each other's selfish goals and viewpoints is often a detriment to civility. Law regulates what selfish behaviors will and will not be tolerated within a given society. Whether codified or not, laws will exist. They'll just be spoken about using terms like "unwritten rules," "norms," or "mores."

Jehovah proceeded to construct an entire theocratic sociosphere, predicated upon His continued attempt to enjoin human conduct via a language of law;

So say ancient writers. However, the existence and will of this supposed being referred to as Jehovah has not been demonstrated to exist in reality.

 

[Truth OT]

I am contending that we humans can correctly exit the erroneous state of affairs wherein we ignobly mistakenly attempt to manage human freedom with sordid lawful barbaric punishment(s), simply by being completely authentically honest with ourselves about how human action actually arises, which is not by law.

Who's making the case that human action ARISES by law? Law regulates actions, it doesn't cause them. I can agree that punitive measures are not the most effective means to regulate human behavior and we'd do well to rethink our "blood lust" and desire for punishment.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Who's making the case that human action ARISES by law? Law regulates actions, it doesn't cause them. I can agree that punitive measures are not the most effective means to regulate human behavior and we'd do well to rethink our "blood lust" and desire for punishment.

In a traffic ticket case once I had a judge tell me he was bound and determined by law; hence it is practitioners of law who make the case that their actions arise and are caused by law. Just think about a bit, every act of sworn police and prosecutorial officers is claimed to causally arise via law; all persons mistakenly presuppose law causes action and inaction.

It is not consistent to hold that law regulates acts but does not determine that regulation; being regulated is being determined.

 

[marks]

Well, just look at that, will ya! Duane managed to compose a whole sentence without even once interjecting his pet word, "ontologically." I'm proud of you, Lil' Fella.

But I like that word! I learned it from This thread!

Thank you @Duane Clinton Meehan ! Not that it changes me ontologically, but every little bit helps!