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

[DNB]

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, are we talking semantics here? You simply differentiated between the act, and the motivation. The incentive is loving one another, the results are treating them as yourself. Decency is the act, love is the catalyst. You were unaware?

...thanks, passion will do that (eager to discredit a fallacy).

 

[DNB]

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.

You see, what you're not recognizing, at least not enough, is first, the utter maniacal wickedness in man, which is completely beyond any rational explanation. And secondly, which is related to the first, that there are people who won't even agree with your prescription to attain to the higher ideals, they don't want peace or decency, and just don't care.
For example, try imparting your below quote to Jeffrey Dahmer, Paul Bernado, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, any gang banger out there or porn star or drug dealer or kidnapper , ...
'...We can raise and make our ontological dignity the norm by attaining to a reflective comprehension of our Being...'
You do not have a profound understanding of humanity.

Christians are humble, and recognize who their maker is. They've witnessed what will occur when we try to deny his existence, and live by our own caprice and ideals. The results are what we have now, suicide, divorce, war, bigotry, abuse, gangs, addictions, abandoned children, exploitation. Such noble vocations as police, lawyers, judges and politicians have become synonymous with corruption, exploitation and abuse.
You are both misconstruing and glorifying utterly depraved and sinister wickedness, that no natural causes or sound reason, can justify or explain.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

You see, what you're not recognizing, at least not enough, is first, the utter maniacal wickedness in man, which is completely beyond any rational explanation. And secondly, which is related to the first, that there are people who won't even agree with your prescription to attain to the higher ideals, they don't want peace or decency, and just don't care.
For example, try imparting your below quote to Jeffrey Dahmer, Paul Bernado, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, any gang banger out there or porn star or drug dealer or kidnapper , ...
'...We can raise and make our ontological dignity the norm by attaining to a reflective comprehension of our Being...'
You do not have a profound understanding of humanity.

Christians are humble, and recognize who their maker is. They've witnessed what will occur when we try to deny his existence, and live by our own caprice and ideals. The results are what we have now, suicide, divorce, war, bigotry, abuse, gangs, addictions, abandoned children, exploitation. Such noble vocations as police, lawyers, judges and politicians have become synonymous with corruption, exploitation and abuse.
You are both misconstruing and glorifying utterly depraved and sinister wickedness, that no natural causes or sound reason, can justify or explain.

"You do not have a profound understanding of humanity." My understanding that all determination is negation and that human action originates via the double nihilation is profundity in the sense that I know precisely how freedom operates/originates; whereas you seem to deem a mere listing of man's divers misconducts to equal having an understanding of man, when it only means that you see exactly what is transpiring...so I take it to be insulting when you repeatedly brand me as naïve and lacking profound comprehension of both myself and the human kind.

 

[DNB]

"You do not have a profound understanding of humanity." My understanding that all determination is negation and that human action originates via the double nihilation is profundity in the sense that I know precisely how freedom operates/originates; whereas you seem to deem a mere listing of man's divers misconducts to equal having an understanding of man, when it only means that you see exactly what is transpiring...so I take it to be insulting when you repeatedly brand me as naïve and lacking profound comprehension of both myself and the human kind.

Ok, just summarize, my point was to expose all the atrocities committed by man, as being indicative and definitive. Plus, that man's behaviour is an aberration and antagonistic to his constitution and environment. If these two predicates are correct, then we deem it safe to say that there is an influence upon man, like no other creature, that allows him to deviate from, and ignore, his natural instincts, making him to be, on the large part, a detriment to his society and environment.
So, when one proposes that man should ignore all restraints, and just let his emotions and desires play out as he feels compelled, and that this is the most just and efficacious approach to life. I feel compelled to consider this perspective naive, for, the only type of character that will come on top, is the most brutal. As history has proven in a lawless and apathetic society.
Plus, when someone can regard the universe and not see God, then again, one of us has to be out of our minds, either the theist or the atheist.

 

[marks]

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

So you say.

Are you free? Or are you in slovenly and undgnified obedience to that which is not you?

I'd say the latter. You certainly are not able to do whatever you want. The fact is you live your life in subjection to a variety of expressions of powers that are both beyond your reach and your understanding. You only do what you are allowed to do, and nothing more.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

So you say.

Are you free? Or are you in slovenly and undgnified obedience to that which is not you?

I'd say the latter. You certainly are not able to do whatever you want. The fact is you live your life in subjection to a variety of expressions of powers that are both beyond your reach and your understanding. You only do what you are allowed to do, and nothing more.

You,marks, exhibiting the viewpoint of your pure slavehood in Christ, are too radically ignobly situated, too cocksure I must be a slave alike you, to either apprehend my profound personal reflectively-free-freedom, or, to presume to either describe me or speak for me. Peruse Ch#4 of J. P. Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", titled Freedom, in order to begin to glimpse what my freedom is.

I am what I am not and am not what I am, i.e., I am always engaging my future and surpassing my present, I am obedient to my personal project, which, at the moment I am not yet...

I do exactly and precisely what I want to do all day everyday, and, I do not desire to engage in any behavior that is disallowed by law; I do not drive; do not do illegal drugs; am free from both property and income tax...
DCM

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Ok, just summarize, my point was to expose all the atrocities committed by man, as being indicative and definitive. Plus, that man's behaviour is an aberration and antagonistic to his constitution and environment. If these two predicates are correct, then we deem it safe to say that there is an influence upon man, like no other creature, that allows him to deviate from, and ignore, his natural instincts, making him to be, on the large part, a detriment to his society and environment.
So, when one proposes that man should ignore all restraints, and just let his emotions and desires play out as he feels compelled, and that this is the most just and efficacious approach to life. I feel compelled to consider this perspective naive, for, the only type of character that will come on top, is the most brutal. As history has proven in a lawless and apathetic society.
Plus, when someone can regard the universe and not see God, then again, one of us has to be out of our minds, either the theist or the atheist.

DNA; (I have a new friend since I moved here to KY that is so funny that I laugh for days after hanging out with him, that I am going to start calling him DNK, K for kookoo).
"...when one proposes that man should ignore all restraints, and just let his emotions and desires play out as he feels compelled...", you are putting words in my mouth, I did not say that, I said we ought live in accord with our ontological structure, which structure entails our restraining ourselves and not permitting our emotions and desires to just run rampant, else we could/would alienate others unnecessarily...you continually put words in my mouth and inaccurately exaggerate what I say...however, I tremendously enjoy your thoughtful written responses and, I consciously employed the golden rule today, when phoning in regarding a generator that broke down after only ten days, because you had just been drilling the golden rule into my head!
I am not maintaining that we ought openly disregard law, I am showing how and why law is not, cannot be, determinative of human conduct, and, until people start to understand that, they will continue to participate in the jurisprudential illusion, which deems language of law to be determinative, and/or, deem themselves to be able to determine themselves to action and/or inaction by law.
Duane

 

[amadeus]

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.

I must say that generally when it comes down to many of those bearing the label of Christian it may be as you say. I am sure you have heard the following quotation before:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ", Mahatma Gandhi

Those bearing the label, especially I would guess, who have spent all of their lives in our "civilized" Western societies, gave that man. Gandhi, such an impression of us. I am led to believe what he said not because I am a fan of Gandhi's, but rather because I also have lived such a Western society where supposedly about 80% of the population are Christian. I do not doubt the accuracy of the percentage, but I suspect that very few of them are really striving to be like Jesus. Anyone who really knows very much about Jesus according to the scriptures, and has seen our society [U.S. of A.] also knows that this society does not reflect a place where 80% are really striving to be like Jesus. If they were really doing that that, what a very different place this would be! So I am with Gandhi with regard to the so-called Christians.

I am afraid that your own conclusions with regard to Christians are based mostly on the ones bearing a phony label. There are, however, a few, as Jesus confirmed there would be, moving in or toward the Life which Jesus brought [John 10:10]. The ones, who are moving that Way are likely comparable in number to the only two adult men out of 600,000, who left their slavery in Egypt, and made it all the way into the Promised Land. The remainder died in the wilderness.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matt 10:13-14

 

[marks]

You,marks, exhibiting the viewpoint of your pure slavehood in Christ, are too radically ignobly situated, too cocksure I must be a slave alike you, to either apprehend my profound personal reflectively-free-freedom, or, to presume to either describe me or speak for me. Peruse Ch#4 of J. P. Sartre's "Being and Nothingness", titled Freedom, in order to begin to glimpse what my freedom is.

I am what I am not and am not what I am, i.e., I am always engaging my future and surpassing my present, I am obedient to my personal project, which, at the moment I am not yet...

I do exactly and precisely what I want to do all day everyday, and, I do not desire to engage in any behavior that is disallowed by law; I do not drive; do not do illegal drugs; am free from both property and income tax...
DCM

Actually, you are describing everyone. I mean, not necessarily the social taboos as those change, you seem neatly synced to yours as you keep them all, apparently.

I like this part:

I am always engaging my future and surpassing my present,

But I'd have to say that everyone does that, and I call it life experience. We are always leaving a past that ceases to exist that moment into a future that we can never see.

Everyone does precisely what they want to do all the time.

Well. Not quite.

The obvious are, for instance, flying without assistance to the moon. Or swimming unaided to the bottom of the sea. I hope to do that one day.

Choose that however you may, still you cannot.

Things that are contrary to your biology.

Then, biology goes deeper. You are not able to stop breathing as a matter of choice. Invariably your body will take over, and allow you to breathe.

You cannot know the generation after your death, and those after them cannot know you. And you do not have power in the day of your death.

Your choices are complete irrelevant in these matters. These are metaphysical constraints imposed upon you. There are more.

And within these constraints, you can do anything and everything you want to. Just like everyone. But only within the imposed constraints.

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Ok, just summarize, my point was to expose all the atrocities committed by man, as being indicative and definitive. Plus, that man's behaviour is an aberration and antagonistic to his constitution and environment. If these two predicates are correct, then we deem it safe to say that there is an influence upon man, like no other creature, that allows him to deviate from, and ignore, his natural instincts, making him to be, on the large part, a detriment to his society and environment.
So, when one proposes that man should ignore all restraints, and just let his emotions and desires play out as he feels compelled, and that this is the most just and efficacious approach to life. I feel compelled to consider this perspective naive, for, the only type of character that will come on top, is the most brutal. As history has proven in a lawless and apathetic society.
Plus, when someone can regard the universe and not see God, then again, one of us has to be out of our minds, either the theist or the atheist.

"...when someone can regard the universe and not see God..."; when I peruse our cosmos it is crystal clear that there is a radical intelligence wholly beyond ours that is woven into the fabric of space/time , which has structured our being; however, it is not Jehovah/Christ/Holy Spirit, which putative deities are hypostatizations stemming from ancient Egyptian precise counterparts.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Actually, you are describing everyone. I mean, not necessarily the social taboos as those change, you seem neatly synced to yours as you keep them all, apparently.

I like this part:

I am always engaging my future and surpassing my present,

But I'd have to say that everyone does that, and I call it life experience. We are always leaving a past that ceases to exist that moment into a future that we can never see.

Everyone does precisely what they want to do all the time.

Well. Not quite.

The obvious are, for instance, flying without assistance to the moon. Or swimming unaided to the bottom of the sea. I hope to do that one day.

Choose that however you may, still you cannot.

Things that are contrary to your biology.

Then, biology goes deeper. You are not able to stop breathing as a matter of choice. Invariably your body will take over, and allow you to breathe.

You cannot know the generation after your death, and those after them cannot know you. And you do not have power in the day of your death.

Your choices are complete irrelevant in these matters. These are metaphysical constraints imposed upon you. There are more.

And within these constraints, you can do anything and everything you want to. Just like everyone. But only within the imposed constraints.

Much love!

Exactly precisely one hundred percent right on; you are clearly omniscient, yes everyone is exactly as you just said.

You are extremely quick whitted and I hope I continue to hear from you.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I must say that generally when it comes down to many of those bearing the label of Christian it may be as you say. I am sure you have heard the following quotation before:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ", Mahatma Gandhi

Those bearing the label, especially I would guess, who have spent all of their lives in our "civilized" Western societies, gave that man. Gandhi, such an impression of us. I am led to believe what he said not because I am a fan of Gandhi's, but rather because I also have lived such a Western society where supposedly about 80% of the population are Christian. I do not doubt the accuracy of the percentage, but I suspect that very few of them are really striving to be like Jesus. Anyone who really knows very much about Jesus according to the scriptures, and has seen our society [U.S. of A.] also knows that this society does not reflect a place where 80% are really striving to be like Jesus. If they were really doing that that, what a very different place this would be! So I am with Gandhi with regard to the so-called Christians.

I am afraid that your own conclusions with regard to Christians are based mostly on the ones bearing a phony label. There are, however, a few, as Jesus confirmed there would be, moving in or toward the Life which Jesus brought [John 10:10]. The ones, who are moving that Way are likely comparable in number to the only two adult men out of 600,000, who left their slavery in Egypt, and made it all the way into the Promised Land. The remainder died in the wilderness.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matt 10:13-14

Amadeus;
No, have never encountered that Gandhi statement before, it is beautiful!

I studied Buddhism under a Brahmin Indian PhD in Philosophy and Literature named Amil Kumar Sarkar; he was real old at the time and is surely no longer with us now; he wrote a book entitled "The Seven Phases of Buddhist Thought"", and, I think, out of all the religions in the world, the perspectives of the Buddhists are the most sympatico with my personhood.

I enjoyed your estimation of our Christian countrymen; when I was a Christian I did more unlawful and antisocial acts than at any other time in my life; I stole; did drugs; fornicated; speeded; all while teaching Sunday school and preaching; yes, Christians can indeed be no good, I know.
Duane

 

[amadeus]

Amadeus;
No, have never encountered that Gandhi statement before, it is beautiful!

I studied Buddhism under an Brahmin Indian PhD in Philosophy and Literature named Amil Kumar Sarkar; he was real old at the time and is surely no longer with us now; he wrote a book entitled "The Seven Phases of Buddhist Thought"", and, I think, out of all the religions in the world, the perspectives of the Buddhists are the most sympatico with my personhood.

I enjoyed your estimation of our Christian countrymen; when I was a Christian I did more unlawful and antisocial acts than at any other time in my life; I stole; did drugs; fornicated; speeded; all while teaching Sunday school and preaching; yes, Christians can indeed be no good, I know.
Duane

I can have more understanding and charity toward the young people are there in the churches today simply because their parents and their parents brought them into their situation. The older folks who started putting on a façade years ago will have no such excuse. Yes, there are exceptions, but that is the trouble... the exceptions are the few.

When I was a young church goer, Catholic at the time, I really tried often unsuccessfully to be the exception there. I knew my companions at the time, often did not even try. Then I was outside church of any kind for a bit better than 10 years in my 20's. At age 32 I had a life changing experience. I've a lot of ups and downs since then, but I am holding on... recognizing my own shortcomings still.

Even Jesus himself let us know, if we have been paying attention, by allowing his own mistreatment, just how most people are when push comes to shove. Initially, they came to hear him by the thousands. They also came to him for the physical healings, or for the free bread when he multiplied and fed the multitudes. But when things started getting tough toward the end of his ministry and his message became a bit more difficult to understand and accept, many of the fair weather believers left him... Even some close followers would desert him when their own natural lives were in danger. Then he allowed himself to be taken, to be tortured and killed. Not too many "Christians" I guess seriously consider or expect to suffer persecution:

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matt 5:11

"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." John 15:20

Those many bearing a phony Christian label may not be persecuted like that because men in many places have effectively changed the definition of Christianity and found for made themselves loopholes and beliefs which they say are supported by the scriptures which exempt them from those things. Even some of the Bible students seem to forget or not understand these words:

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

In the United States and other western "civilized Christian" nations people have been "given much" more than anyone else claiming to be Christian. Yet when it comes down to it, how many are really going to be able to give back the "much is required", when it means their life style and even their physical lives?

I guess you may not like this message any more than many of them!

 

[DNB]

DNA; (I have a new friend since I moved here to KY that is so funny that I laugh for days after hanging out with him, that I am going to start calling him DNK, K for kookoo).
"...when one proposes that man should ignore all restraints, and just let his emotions and desires play out as he feels compelled...", you are putting words in my mouth, I did not say that, I said we ought live in accord with our ontological structure, which structure entails our restraining ourselves and not permitting our emotions and desires to just run rampant, else we could/would alienate others unnecessarily...you continually put words in my mouth and inaccurately exaggerate what I say...however, I tremendously enjoy your thoughtful written responses and, I consciously employed the golden rule today, when phoning in regarding a generator that broke down after only ten days, because you had just been drilling the golden rule into my head!
I am not maintaining that we ought openly disregard law, I am showing how and why law is not, cannot be, determinative of human conduct, and, until people start to understand that, they will continue to participate in the jurisprudential illusion, which deems language of law to be determinative, and/or, deem themselves to be able to determine themselves to action and/or inaction by law.
Duane

ok, well sorry if i have misconstrued your position, but, i must say, there appears to be a conflict in some of your own understandings. As much as the Golden Rule was considered to be different than treating others as oneself, equally, denouncing law in one context, but then imposing it in another, seems confusing and contradictory. I was saying to allow God to decide right from wrong, as we would not even comprehend the concept of morality if we were not endowed with his spirit. I do not believe that any other creature on earth has this awareness.
If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that, a written law, either by human legislation or divine imposition, is antithetical to human evolution and progress. But that man, by his own accord, must apply discretion to his actions, thus, making himself his own private legislator? i.e. '...which structure entails our restraining ourselves and not permitting our emotions and desires to just run rampant, else we could/would alienate others unnecessarily...'
It's like we both agree that man cannot act selfishly or indiscriminately, and must apply constraints to his basal propensities. So then, the only difference is, you resent God's authority over man, and prefer self-determination. ...of course, this is because you don't believe that he exists.
If I'm correct in my previous conclusions, I can only see utter chaos stemming from such a personal, subjective and arbitrary governance. For, it's like I said before, there are people who live in this world, that wouldn't even agree that peace and love are the best policies for human conduct. For what agreement can there be between Ghandi and Hitler, or Déscartes and Napolean, Confucious and Ghengis Khan, Mother Theresa and Mussolini, Caesar and Socrates?
This, is the intrinsic problem, ...man is not qualified to govern himself.

 

[DNB]

"...when someone can regard the universe and not see God..."; when I peruse our cosmos it is crystal clear that there is a radical intelligence wholly beyond ours that is woven into the fabric of space/time , which has structured our being; however, it is not Jehovah/Christ/Holy Spirit, which putative deities are hypostatizations stemming from ancient Egyptian precise counterparts.

Ok, I'm gladly mistaken then, you have an awareness of a transcendent being who created and controls the cosmos. ...but the comparison between Jehovah of the Judeo-Christian Bible, and the deities of Egypt or other mythologies, is just an over generalization and simplification.
Christ as the first-born of all creation, and the first-born from the dead, is an extremely profound principle, that truly defies and transcends any man-made construct ....and again, no trinitarian or modalistic sentiments or convictions from me.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

ok, well sorry if i have misconstrued your position, but, i must say, there appears to be a conflict in some of your own understandings. As much as the Golden Rule was considered to be different than treating others as oneself, equally, denouncing law in one context, but then imposing it in another, seems confusing and contradictory. I was saying to allow God to decide right from wrong, as we would not even comprehend the concept of morality if we were not endowed with his spirit. I do not believe that any other creature on earth has this awareness.
If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that, a written law, either by human legislation or divine imposition, is antithetical to human evolution and progress. But that man, by his own accord, must apply discretion to his actions, thus, making himself his own private legislator? i.e. '...which structure entails our restraining ourselves and not permitting our emotions and desires to just run rampant, else we could/would alienate others unnecessarily...'
It's like we both agree that man cannot act selfishly or indiscriminately, and must apply constraints to his basal propensities. So then, the only difference is, you resent God's authority over man, and prefer self-determination. ...of course, this is because you don't believe that he exists.
If I'm correct in my previous conclusions, I can only see utter chaos stemming from such a personal, subjective and arbitrary governance. For, it's like I said before, there are people who live in this world, that wouldn't even agree that peace and love are the best policies for human conduct. For what agreement can there be between Ghandi and Hitler, or Déscartes and Napolean, Confucious and Ghengis Khan, Mother Theresa and Mussolini, Caesar and Socrates?
This, is the intrinsic problem, ...man is not qualified to govern himself.

[there appears to be a conflict in some of your own understandings. As much as the Golden Rule was considered to be different than treating others as oneself, equally, denouncing law in one context, but then imposing it in another, seems confusing and contradictory] No, I correctly deemed treating other's as one would have one's self be treated to be totally different from what you proclaim is the impossibility to love the other as one loves one's self. I have posited a rational theoretical defeasement of the notion of law, and, I am careful not to appear to be advocating that people run out, therefore, and violate extant law, which is not a state of affairs wherein simultaneously on the one hand I am against, and, on the other for law. I personally am against the mistaken notion of law but I am not going to advocate contemporary persons do crimes; do you begin to see the differentiation therein? I am not both for and against law; I am against law and against persons going against current law because I am not attempting to precipitate what everyone expects would be a horrendous chaos ensuing upon the abandonment of law. We are essentially without law even now, because law is not in fact an efficacy for either precipitating or obviating human conduct; however, I will not subject myself to the criminal charge of inciting the grassroots to rebellion; I do not covet a rebellion, I covet men apprehending why law is not efficient to determine human action and inaction, for, then, what will transpire is yet to be constructed via the dialectical progression of the evolution of the human sociosphere.

Here is a rather interesting longwinded debate regarding whether or not Jesus existed

One of the debaters speaks plainly and the other is complexly erudite and flowery in his language, which has made it clear to me how I come off to others, for the guy who uses a complex unplain vocabulary comes off somewhat less credible on that account during his presentation.
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Ok, I'm gladly mistaken then, you have an awareness of a transcendent being who created and controls the cosmos. ...but the comparison between Jehovah of the Judeo-Christian Bible, and the deities of Egypt or other mythologies, is just an over generalization and simplification.
Christ as the first-born of all creation, and the first-born from the dead, is an extremely profound principle, that truly defies and transcends any man-made construct ....and again, no trinitarian or modalistic sentiments or convictions from me.

No, I am not suggesting a transcendent Being in the Heavens, rather, I am absolutely certain of a radically intelligent conatus which is part and parcel of the fabric of the Cosmos and knows how to construct our DNA and all the stars which turned to dust and subsequently became our DNA...
I am referring to the ancient Egyptian religion commonly observed among everyday Egyptians wherein the God, Isis?, is cut up into little pieces and then resurrects back into a whole living being.
In regard to the Christ's resurrection I think it very possible that He did not die in the first place, was not dead when placed in the tomb...tests for determining whether or not someone is dead have become more efficient for accurately determining death over the centuries...it was once the test to place a mirror in front of the putatively deceased person's nose to see if the mirror fogged or not...whatever test was used to determine that Jesus was dead could have failed; thus, He may not in fact have returned from death, as we historically have so readily believed...

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

ok, well sorry if i have misconstrued your position, but, i must say, there appears to be a conflict in some of your own understandings. As much as the Golden Rule was considered to be different than treating others as oneself, equally, denouncing law in one context, but then imposing it in another, seems confusing and contradictory. I was saying to allow God to decide right from wrong, as we would not even comprehend the concept of morality if we were not endowed with his spirit. I do not believe that any other creature on earth has this awareness.
If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that, a written law, either by human legislation or divine imposition, is antithetical to human evolution and progress. But that man, by his own accord, must apply discretion to his actions, thus, making himself his own private legislator? i.e. '...which structure entails our restraining ourselves and not permitting our emotions and desires to just run rampant, else we could/would alienate others unnecessarily...'
It's like we both agree that man cannot act selfishly or indiscriminately, and must apply constraints to his basal propensities. So then, the only difference is, you resent God's authority over man, and prefer self-determination. ...of course, this is because you don't believe that he exists.
If I'm correct in my previous conclusions, I can only see utter chaos stemming from such a personal, subjective and arbitrary governance. For, it's like I said before, there are people who live in this world, that wouldn't even agree that peace and love are the best policies for human conduct. For what agreement can there be between Ghandi and Hitler, or Déscartes and Napolean, Confucious and Ghengis Khan, Mother Theresa and Mussolini, Caesar and Socrates?
This, is the intrinsic problem, ...man is not qualified to govern himself.

[If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that, a written law, either by human legislation or divine imposition, is antithetical to human evolution and progress. But that man, by his own accord, must apply discretion to his actions, thus, making himself his own private legislator?] Yes to your first sentence of the paragraph; given that we are a progress, an evolution to a higher and higher state, we cannot advance ourselves via absolutely mistaken theoretical constructs like law; like Jehovah/Jesus as Deity. No to the second, I do not legislate when I forbear action, rather, I nihilate, i.e., I make nothing. Love and the golden rule are indeed good policies; man can govern himself, but not by ontologically unintelligible theoretical constructions, rather, by attaining to a reflective comprehension of the nililative structure of his absolute ontological freedom. I govern myself at every instant, constantly deciding to pursue this or that intention, this or that project, which derive from and arise via my freedom, i.e., via my nothingness. My Being is non-Being; Consciousness is nothingness/non-Being; study Heidegger and Sartre...
Heidegger describes man as an empty stage whereupon Being appears, and man, Speaks (names/describes) Being, which is precisely what Adam did in the Garden...Human consciousness supports/founds Being as the Nothingness wherein Being is seen, i.e., all determination is negation, the simplest example is the Gestalt...Being appears as this or that within a sphere of non-being/nothing. Man is the sphere of nothingness wherein/whereby Being (i.e., all that is not Man) upsurges (Helen). Do you begin to get the drift here DNA?
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I can have more understanding and charity toward the young people are there in the churches today simply because their parents and their parents brought them into their situation. The older folks who started putting on a façade years ago will have no such excuse. Yes, there are exceptions, but that is the trouble... the exceptions are the few.

When I was a young church goer, Catholic at the time, I really tried often unsuccessfully to be the exception there. I knew my companions at the time, often did not even try. Then I was outside church of any kind for a bit better than 10 years in my 20's. At age 32 I had a life changing experience. I've a lot of ups and downs since then, but I am holding on... recognizing my own shortcomings still.

Even Jesus himself let us know, if we have been paying attention, by allowing his own mistreatment, just how most people are when push comes to shove. Initially, they came to hear him by the thousands. They also came to him for the physical healings, or for the free bread when he multiplied and fed the multitudes. But when things started getting tough toward the end of his ministry and his message became a bit more difficult to understand and accept, many of the fair weather believers left him... Even some close followers would desert him when their own natural lives were in danger. Then he allowed himself to be taken, to be tortured and killed. Not too many "Christians" I guess seriously consider or expect to suffer persecution:

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Matt 5:11

"Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." John 15:20

Those many bearing a phony Christian label may not be persecuted like that because men in many places have effectively changed the definition of Christianity and found for made themselves loopholes and beliefs which they say are supported by the scriptures which exempt them from those things. Even some of the Bible students seem to forget or not understand these words:

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

In the United States and other western "civilized Christian" nations people have been "given much" more than anyone else claiming to be Christian. Yet when it comes down to it, how many are really going to be able to give back the "much is required", when it means their life style and even their physical lives?

I guess you may not like this message any more than many of them!

I was once with a girl who's mom was a Catholic. I was surprised to see that mom was a serious student of the Gospels and attended retreats for the sake of long and quiet study of the Testament she so deeply loved.

 

[Willie T]

[there appears to be a conflict in some of your own understandings. As much as the Golden Rule was considered to be different than treating others as oneself, equally, denouncing law in one context, but then imposing it in another, seems confusing and contradictory] No, I correctly deemed treating other's as one would have one's self be treated to be totally different from what you proclaim is the impossibility to love the other as one loves one's self. I have posited a rational theoretical defeasement of the notion of law, and, I am careful not to appear to be advocating that people run out, therefore, and violate extant law, which is not a state of affairs wherein simultaneously on the one hand I am against, and, on the other for law. I personally am against the mistaken notion of law but I am not going to advocate contemporary persons do crimes; do you begin to see the differentiation therein? I am not both for and against law; I am against law and against persons going against current law because I am not attempting to precipitate what everyone expects would be a horrendous chaos ensuing upon the abandonment of law. We are essentially without law even now, because law is not in fact an efficacy for either precipitating or obviating human conduct; however, I will not subject myself to the criminal charge of inciting the grassroots to rebellion; I do not covet a rebellion, I covet men apprehending why law is not efficient to determine human action and inaction, for, then, what will transpire is yet to be constructed via the dialectical progression of the evolution of the human sociosphere.

Here is a rather interesting longwinded debate regarding whether or not Jesus existed

One of the debaters speaks plainly and the other is complexly erudite and flowery in his language, which has made it clear to me how I come off to others, for the guy who uses a complex unplain vocabulary comes off somewhat less credible on that account during his presentation.
Duane

And the light bulb appears!!! (But can Duane see it?) It honestly takes more effort and skill to learn to truly communicate, than it does to memorize a bag of vocabulary.