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

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

This simply reveals your limited understanding of soteriology. And repeat an argument that has been offered, and rebutted, for centuries only you have managed to state it in a manner that almost sounds intellectual. I say almost, because despite the advanced grammar and words used, us premised on a total misunderstanding of who God is and a misconstruction of motive. I suggest you do some more study in that area.

Self-consistency is the simplest and most rudimentary test for determining whether or not a given construction makes logical sense or not, i.e., of whether or not a position is intelligible. The consideration is one of basic logic and is hardly intellectual, it is merely a matter of fundamental education as Logic 101.

I am actually sorry I came to the realization which I proclaimed and am truly apologetic.

 

[brakelite]

The things of God cannot be understood using human reason.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

The things of God cannot be understood using human reason.

Nonsense; that is a cop out; God especially need make sense to we who are putatively in His image, especially regarding matters of salvation.

 

[DPMartin]

DPMartin;
That is a confused mess of bogus tyrannical jurisprudential propagandistic nonsense. None of us were there in 1789 to consent to the language of the Constitution, and, to claim that we consent by default is to overthrow our absolute freedom to amend the Constitution, and/or to ultimately realize that Constitutional Law is not the ultimate and most efficient means to constituting our American civilization.
Duane Clinton Meehan

like I said then leave if you disagree, otherwise by default you agree to the constitution by staying in the country. you go to Russia you don't get to live by US rules you by default agree to live by Russian rules until you leave that country, otherwise you will suffer the consequence for not obeying or complying to their rules. doesn't really matter what you think or say about it reality remains the same. and this is the reason there are countries with boarders. these people what to live this way and those people want to live that way.

 

[DPMartin]

The things of God cannot be understood using human reason.

but fear of the Lord is the beginning of Knowledge Understanding and Wisdom which is of God. hence if you're paying attention to the Lord you can understand.

and yes your statement is an feeble excuse for ignorance is bliss

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

like I said then leave if you disagree, otherwise by default you agree to the constitution by staying in the country. you go to Russia you don't get to live by US rules you by default agree to live by Russian rules until you leave that country, otherwise you will suffer the consequence for not obeying or complying to their rules. doesn't really matter what you think or say about it reality remains the same. and this is the reason there are countries with boarders. these people what to live this way and those people want to live that way.

Okay, precisely, you've made it clear with the Russia example. What if, in Russia, when under indictment, one did, via expert witnesses, demonstrate to the trial magistrate, beyond any doubt, that law is neither obeyed disobeyed nor broken because language of law is not in fact determinative of the prosecutorial officer proffering indictment, or, of the magistrate arriving at a verdict; ;or, indeed determinative of any human being doing or not doing anything at any time? Might one, then, thereby, relieve one's self of default responsibility to conduct one's self in accordance with a language of law, law which is not, in fact, determinative of/for the origination of human conduct!?
I will not leave America just because the same situation regarding the inefficacy of law obtains, when I can stand up and enunciate the structure of jurisprudential illusion, via a well structured defense.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

but fear of the Lord is the beginning of Knowledge Understanding and Wisdom which is of God. hence if you're paying attention to the Lord you can understand.

and yes your statement is an feeble excuse for ignorance is bliss

Your complete and total reliance on what Christ is purported to have said circa 35 AD, or Paul circa 75 AD, puts your thinking about two thousand years short of a comprehension of current instruments of thought, which you cannot do other than deem as ignorance, because you are so totally stuck in the early portion of the first century! And, you're proud of your backwardness!

 

[DNB]

DNB;
You inundate me with many questions which I will have to reflect upon, though, I can immediately say that although we are agreed that we all possess a sense of right conduct, there is, for sure, no one absolute, final, set of moral standards via which to conduct one's self. There is no final word within the sphere of ethics.

Given that there is no one final and indubitable moral code whereby one can conduct one's self, it cannot in fact ultimately be claimed that Christ is indeed, as He openly claimed: "The Way." When a crucifix was shown to some Amazon Indians they proclaimed that he must have been very stupid indeed to permit himself to be killed in that horrid manner; they possessed an entirely other perspectival view whereby they immediately saw Christ as a fool indeed not to be followed!

It boils down to a question of efficiency in attaining one's goals, which is the Buddhist view, i.e., that all of our various approaches to securing our objective, whatever the objective may be, are temporary scaffoldings along the route to approximating our projected end(s); Buddhism, seeing human existence as an ongoing series of approaches to attaining one's overall objective or personal global project, makes perfect sense to me; i.e., there is no one final efficient and efficacious approach to dissolving our difficulties; hence, Christ's prescription to proceed via Love is one of a series of scaffoldings employable while structuring the means to Nirvana.
Duane

The questions were rhetorical, I was simply illustrating the fact that morally is innate, as we both agree, but as far as defining righteousness vs iniquity, or the degree of one offense over another, is a subjective endeavour that requires an absolute ideal or principle to define the criteria and parameters. And this, we believe, is the source of our moral or spiritual constitution, the spirit, God. That is, if one's actions are not derived from love, either for one's neighbour, or one's Creator, then it is a sin. But if there is no God, then there is no love, for creatures that evolved from stardust or protoplasm, or rocks and gasses, are not constituted with such an intangible an abstract entity, that is, the image of God, and thus, the spirit of love.

The Amazonians indians stumbled at the stumbling block,
1 Corinthians 1:20-25
1:20. Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21. For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23. but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24. but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

In other words, Christ did not preach love, as you stated, he preached forgiveness of sins. Primarily, the love that he preached was meant to condemn man, for, no one has loved God with all their heart mind and soul, and no one has loved their neighbour as themselves. All are guilty and condemned.
He died for a reason, not to elicit love, but to evoke repentance. Thus consequently, love is a byproduct of being forgiven.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

The questions were rhetorical, I was simply illustrating the fact that morally is innate, as we both agree, but as far as defining righteousness vs iniquity, or the degree of one offense over another, is a subjective endeavour that requires an absolute ideal or principle to define the criteria and parameters. And this, we believe, is the source of our moral or spiritual constitution, the spirit, God. That is, if one's actions are not derived from love, either for one's neighbour, or one's Creator, then it is a sin. But if there is no God, then there is no love, for creatures that evolved from stardust or protoplasm, or rocks and gasses, are not constituted with such an intangible an abstract entity, that is, the image of God, and thus, the spirit of love.

The Amazonians indians stumbled at the stumbling block,
1 Corinthians 1:20-25
1:20. Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21. For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23. but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24. but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

In other words, Christ did not preach love, as you stated, he preached forgiveness of sins. Primarily, the love that he preached was meant to condemn man, for, no one has loved God with all their heart mind and soul, and no one has loved their neighbour as themselves. All are guilty and condemned.
He died for a reason, not to elicit love, but to evoke repentance. Thus consequently, love is a byproduct of being forgiven.

There are no absolute ideals via which to establish criteria and parameters. All one ever hears is that Christ represented love and posited love as a means of doing one's interpersonal relations. I am surprised you think different.
However, though His dearh was requisite it is the putative resurrection that is central to all Christian considerations...

 

[DNB]

There are no absolute ideals via which to establish criteria and parameters. All one ever hears is that Christ represented love and posited love as a means of doing one's interpersonal relations. I am surprised you think different.
However, though His dearh was requisite it is the putative resurrection that is central to all Christian considerations...

Ok, I assumed that you were better versed in Christian Theology, otherwise I wouldn't have employed such argumentation in my apology.
That was not a slight, just excusing myself for using invalid predicates.
...all the same, I will assert & affirm that Christ preached forgiveness of sins by his death & resurrection, apprehended by faith by the recipient. It was not by the means of love, this is a byproduct of recognizing the grace of God.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

The questions were rhetorical, I was simply illustrating the fact that morally is innate, as we both agree, but as far as defining righteousness vs iniquity, or the degree of one offense over another, is a subjective endeavour that requires an absolute ideal or principle to define the criteria and parameters. And this, we believe, is the source of our moral or spiritual constitution, the spirit, God. That is, if one's actions are not derived from love, either for one's neighbour, or one's Creator, then it is a sin. But if there is no God, then there is no love, for creatures that evolved from stardust or protoplasm, or rocks and gasses, are not constituted with such an intangible an abstract entity, that is, the image of God, and thus, the spirit of love.

The Amazonians indians stumbled at the stumbling block,
1 Corinthians 1:20-25
1:20. Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21. For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23. but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24. but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

In other words, Christ did not preach love, as you stated, he preached forgiveness of sins. Primarily, the love that he preached was meant to condemn man, for, no one has loved God with all their heart mind and soul, and no one has loved their neighbour as themselves. All are guilty and condemned.
He died for a reason, not to elicit love, but to evoke repentance. Thus consequently, love is a byproduct of being forgiven.

Yes, you are correct, He did preach accepting Him for both forgiveness and eternal life. You make things I have not ever correctly understood clear; I see, yes, indeed I do not love others as myself; nonetheless, to expect me to do so is a priori unrealistic, and, thus it is unfair to condemn me and deem me guilty of not doing what I am incapable of doing; precisely as in law wherein I am punished for breaking given law via which I in fact cannot determine myself to do or not do required positive or required negative acts, which punishment is thus inherently unfair/unethical.
(I see, there is DNA, deribonucleicacid, and, there is you, DNB. Excellent humor!)
Here is an extremely cogent discussion of how the way you see Christ is a resultant of consensus achieved at the Council of Nicea

 

[DNB]

Yes, you are correct, He did preach accepting Him for both forgiveness and eternal life. You make things I have not ever correctly understood clear; I see, yes, indeed I do not love others as myself; nonetheless, to expect me to do so is a priori unrealistic, and, thus it is unfair to condemn me and deem me guilty of not doing what I am incapable of doing; precisely as in law wherein I am punished for breaking given law via which I in fact cannot determine myself to do or not do required positive or required negative acts, which punishment is thus inherently unfair/unethical.
(I see, there is DNA, deribonucleicacid, and, there is you, DNB. Excellent humor!)

But, a-priori or theoretically, it is very realistic. For we can easily rationalize its plausibility, by realizing than anything less than treating others as oneself, is hypocritical and a double standard. One does not need to be a theist to appreciate this position.
For, rhetorically speaking, how can I justify stealing from someone, when I won't tolerate anyone stealing from myself? Or being disrespectful to one, when I become indignant when they are contemptuous towards me? Even a child recognizes the conflict and hypocrisy, and the more mature will perceive the narcissism and apathy. Altruism and empathy are, by reason alone, attainable and incumbent, to the point that any contrary behaviour must be deemed as irrational, aberrational and sociopathic. For how else can such behaviour be construed, again, by reason alone?
But even existentially, we've witnessed such noble traits historically, in society enough times, that despite its rarity, we must accept one's obligation and responsibility to behave according to this maxim.
So, that fact that it's been done before, on many occasions, proves its attainability. Plus, the golden rule has been cited by many philosophers throughout the ages, that there are a large contingency of people that endorse and honour such a precept.
You have admitted defeat to such an ideal, either naively, or in denial?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

But, a-priori or theoretically, it is very realistic. For we can easily rationalize its plausibility, by realizing than anything less than treating others as oneself, is hypocritical and a double standard. One does not need to be a theist to appreciate this position.
For, rhetorically speaking, how can I justify stealing from someone, when I won't tolerate anyone stealing from myself? Or being disrespectful to one, when I become indignant when they are contemptuous towards me? Even a child recognizes the conflict and hypocrisy, and the more mature will perceive the narcissism and apathy. Altruism and empathy are, by reason alone, attainable and incumbent, to the point that any contrary behaviour must be deemed as irrational, aberrational and sociopathic. For how else can such behaviour be construed, again, by reason alone?
But even existentially, we've witnessed such noble traits historically, in society enough times, that despite its rarity, we must accept one's obligation and responsibility to behave according to this maxim.
So, that fact that it's been done before, on many occasions, proves its attainability. Plus, the golden rule has been cited by many philosophers throughout the ages, that there are a large contingency of people that endorse and honour such a precept.
You have admitted defeat to such an ideal, either naively, or in denial?

We were discussing the impossibility of loving another as myself, and I held being condemned for being ontologically unable to do so as unethical; you switch to consideration of treating others per the golden rule, which I assuredly can do; while I was hoping for your learned response to my allegation that it is ethically improper to condemn/punish human beings within states of affairs wherein they are bereft of capacity to do that which is being incorrectly demanded of them. You do not, cannot, defeat my ascription of unethic via entirely changing the subject.

 

[Willie T]

We were discussing the impossibility of loving another as myself, and I held being condemned for being ontologically unable to do so as unethical; you switch to consideration of treating others per the golden rule, which I assuredly can do; while I was hoping for your learned response to my allegation that it is ethically improper to condemn/punish human beings within states of affairs wherein they are bereft of capacity to do that which is being incorrectly demanded of them. You do not, cannot, defeat my ascription of unethic via entirely changing the subject.

When are you going to learn to write? All that...….. just to say you think God is unfair?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

When are you going to learn to write? All that...….. just to say you think God is unfair?

Willie;
I will never ever learn to write absent your continual surreptitious scrutiny of my language and, unless you deign to impart your infinite capacity for linguistic communication unto me; while, all the while, I am doing far more than asserting unfairness; I am giving precise reason(s) why certain oxymoronic structures continually posited by God are mistaken pieces of unreason; failures of understanding of our human ontological structure and, ongoing exhibitions of the inauthenticity of the common claim that Jehovah/Christ are deities. However, how can one Wille T, who mistakenly identifies the process of member interchange in a dialectically mediated progression toward consensus, as trolling, possibly teach the transcendently great Duanie anything!?
Duanie

 

[DNB]

We were discussing the impossibility of loving another as myself, and I held being condemned for being ontologically unable to do so as unethical; you switch to consideration of treating others per the golden rule, which I assuredly can do; while I was hoping for your learned response to my allegation that it is ethically improper to condemn/punish human beings within states of affairs wherein they are bereft of capacity to do that which is being incorrectly demanded of them. You do not, cannot, defeat my ascription of unethic via entirely changing the subject.

Duane, i'm sorry, but why are you differentiating between loving others as yourself, and the Golden Rule? They are the same thing. Is this another mistaken identity issue? That's exactly what the golden rule is, to treat others as you would like them to treat you. Does this change your response?
So, that you admitted to being able to do apply the Golden Rule in your life ('...which I assuredly can do...'), then from where does your accusation of injustice on God's part, for holding us accountable, based on this requisition?
Are we talking the same thing, for I cannot see where I changed the subject?

...and just for the record, not all Christians consider the creeds of Nicaea, nor any of the other ecumenical councils, as God given dogma. I personally, although a Christian, firmly reject and denounce the Christological conclusions and credal formulations of these councils.

 

[DNB]

Duane, the issue is that you are equating good and evil as natural human inclinations, that should neither be suppressed or embraced, but allowed to follow an unimpeded course derived from indiscriminate human action.
But, you fail to see the utter depravity of wickedness, and glorious virtue of altruism, compassion and love. They are not comparable, nor of equal efficacy and pragmatism.
Man's behaviour throughout history has delineated that there is a transcendent force acting upon him, that defies rationale and his natural environment. Although it's a veritable fact that man's intelligence is of greater capacity than any other creature on earth, his actions, inexplicably, prove otherwise. For what possible pragmatic reason, would a man smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, drink himself to death, or gamble his life away? He clearly is not following the course that natural selection would dictate. How is it possible that one derives pleasure from torturing others, raping someone, kidnapping, or committing genocide? On what grounds would someone despise another simply for the colour of their skin? What about all the wars, chemical and nuclear weapons?
Undeniably Duane, there are evil forces in the spiritual realms, that can make an extremely competent and rational being, turn into an utterly depraved, demented and inept, cowardly fool, that has become both indicative & definitive of mankind's behaviour throughout history. This is not a being acting in a symbiotic manner towards his fellow creatures, and his environment, as a purely secular universe would demand.

But not only is this spiritual dimension evident in evil behaviour, but also in acts of virtue. For there is no rhyme or reason either, as to why someone would give their life for another, donate to a cause, or help an old lady across the street, when there is circumstantially, no vested interest in doing so. And yet, it happens every day.

Can one honestly state that this is simply the universe unfolding in it's most natural and harmonious manner, that one would expect from a purely physical and material derivation? Or rather, can one actually deny that the world, society, mankind and anthropology, has proven that there is clearly a transcendent influence upon human beings, that has either raised him above and beyond what his rugged environment would dictate, or completely confounded, impeded and deranged his progress and development, as one who is a product of his universe?

Your proposal to let man just be man, without honouring and obeying his maker, reveals an ignorance in what man actually is, and the influences that act upon him.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Duane, i'm sorry, but why are you differentiating between loving others as yourself, and the Golden Rule? They are the same thing. Is this another mistaken identity issue? That's exactly what the golden rule is, to treat others as you would like them to treat you. Does this change your response?
So, that you admitted to being able to do apply the Golden Rule in your life ('...which I assuredly can do...'), then from where does your accusation of injustice on God's part, for holding us accountable, based on this requisition?
Are we talking the same thing, for I cannot see where I changed the subject?

...and just for the record, not all Christians consider the creeds of Nicaea, nor any of the other ecumenical councils, as God given dogma. I personally, although a Christian, firmly reject and denounce the Christological conclusions and credal formulations of these councils.

It totally blows my mind that my treating you as I would myself be treated, and, loving you as I do myself are, to you, identical; for me there is a big difference, totally! Decency is one thing and Love is another; hence difference; thus, differentiation.

The last sentence you wrote regarding the council is beautifully structured with the wording just beautifully articulated as well...

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Duane, the issue is that you are equating good and evil as natural human inclinations, that should neither be suppressed or embraced, but allowed to follow an unimpeded course derived from indiscriminate human action.
But, you fail to see the utter depravity of wickedness, and glorious virtue of altruism, compassion and love. They are not comparable, nor of equal efficacy and pragmatism.
Man's behaviour throughout history has delineated that there is a transcendent force acting upon him, that defies rationale and his natural environment. Although it's a veritable fact that man's intelligence is of greater capacity than any other creature on earth, his actions, inexplicably, prove otherwise. For what possible pragmatic reason, would a man smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, drink himself to death, or gamble his life away? He clearly is not following the course that natural selection would dictate. How is it possible that one derives pleasure from torturing others, raping someone, kidnapping, or committing genocide? On what grounds would someone despise another simply for the colour of their skin? What about all the wars, chemical and nuclear weapons?
Undeniably Duane, there are evil forces in the spiritual realms, that can make an extremely competent and rational being, turn into an utterly depraved, demented and inept, cowardly fool, that has become both indicative & definitive of mankind's behaviour throughout history. This is not a being acting in a symbiotic manner towards his fellow creatures, and his environment, as a purely secular universe would demand.

But not only is this spiritual dimension evident in evil behaviour, but also in acts of virtue. For there is no rhyme or reason either, as to why someone would give their life for another, donate to a cause, or help an old lady across the street, when there is circumstantially, no vested interest in doing so. And yet, it happens every day.

Can one honestly state that this is simply the universe unfolding in it's most natural and harmonious manner, that one would expect from a purely physical and material derivation? Or rather, can one actually deny that the world, society, mankind and anthropology, has proven that there is clearly a transcendent influence upon human beings, that has either raised him above and beyond what his rugged environment would dictate, or completely confounded, impeded and deranged his progress and development, as one who is a product of his universe?

Your proposal to let man just be man, without honouring and obeying his maker, reveals an ignorance in what man actually is, and the influences that act upon him.

Yes we are a radical lived contradiction. We humans can resolve our extant nobility/ignobility contradiction only by ourselves.

No, we are not in motion moved by some transcendent spirit unto which a slovenly undignified and ignoble obedience is obligatory.

We, you and I, ought interact regarding what being reflectively ontologically free is, which is a means to consistently living our nobility in high fashion, and not as slave to either vain laws or a non-existent Deity. We can raise and make our ontological dignity the norm by attaining to a reflective comprehension of our Being; not by expecting a radically murderous God to in motion move us unto civil decency via a nebulous behind-the-curtain Spirit. Yes, indeed, I am, we are , the highest resultant of the cosmos wherein we are suspended, and we face the task of continually pulling our sapientality upward by our bootstraps. We have beautiful possibilities as free humans, not as vassals to some mysterious indeterminate spirit via mere faith/uncertainty.

Christians absolutely refuse and are deathly afraid to be free; preferring to be slaves to an imagined God who's overall weltanschauung is a mass of self-inconsistent nonsense, which Christians lack the education and reflection to recognize.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Duane, the issue is that you are equating good and evil as natural human inclinations, that should neither be suppressed or embraced, but allowed to follow an unimpeded course derived from indiscriminate human action.
But, you fail to see the utter depravity of wickedness, and glorious virtue of altruism, compassion and love. They are not comparable, nor of equal efficacy and pragmatism.
Man's behaviour throughout history has delineated that there is a transcendent force acting upon him, that defies rationale and his natural environment. Although it's a veritable fact that man's intelligence is of greater capacity than any other creature on earth, his actions, inexplicably, prove otherwise. For what possible pragmatic reason, would a man smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, drink himself to death, or gamble his life away? He clearly is not following the course that natural selection would dictate. How is it possible that one derives pleasure from torturing others, raping someone, kidnapping, or committing genocide? On what grounds would someone despise another simply for the colour of their skin? What about all the wars, chemical and nuclear weapons?
Undeniably Duane, there are evil forces in the spiritual realms, that can make an extremely competent and rational being, turn into an utterly depraved, demented and inept, cowardly fool, that has become both indicative & definitive of mankind's behaviour throughout history. This is not a being acting in a symbiotic manner towards his fellow creatures, and his environment, as a purely secular universe would demand.

But not only is this spiritual dimension evident in evil behaviour, but also in acts of virtue. For there is no rhyme or reason either, as to why someone would give their life for another, donate to a cause, or help an old lady across the street, when there is circumstantially, no vested interest in doing so. And yet, it happens every day.

Can one honestly state that this is simply the universe unfolding in it's most natural and harmonious manner, that one would expect from a purely physical and material derivation? Or rather, can one actually deny that the world, society, mankind and anthropology, has proven that there is clearly a transcendent influence upon human beings, that has either raised him above and beyond what his rugged environment would dictate, or completely confounded, impeded and deranged his progress and development, as one who is a product of his universe?

Your proposal to let man just be man, without honouring and obeying his maker, reveals an ignorance in what man actually is, and the influences that act upon him.

Duane, the issue is that you are equating good and evil [No, not good/evil, I am equating all our ontological/leopard-spot characteristics such as killing; loving; sense of right...];as natural [No, we are a freedom devoid of a set nature] human inclinations, that should neither be suppressed or embraced [No, we ought suppress/embrace our metasable ontological conduct capacities according to circumstances], but allowed to follow an unimpeded [No, impeded by the capacity of the Other to instantly kill any person taking maligned hostile action]course derived from indiscriminate human action.

But, you fail to see the utter depravity of wickedness [No, I see the depravity/wickedness and have constantly survived it since I was slammed on the head by a brick when I was three...], and glorious virtue of altruism, compassion and love. They are not comparable [They are equally human and equally efficacious], nor of equal efficacy and pragmatism...