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

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

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.

You always sagaciously know absolutely best Buzzardgrunt! However, you are leaving me out of the equation; you are aiming, on my behalf, at me attaining "communication", fine, commendable; while, all the while you have not considered that I obtain pleasure from exercising my capacity to employ language in a flamboyant mode, its fun; so, buzz-off big shot...
"You always know best Buzzardgrunt!" versus "You always sagaciously know absolutely best Buzzardgrunt!", which of the two conveys the most information?Which is most aesthetic? Which one is most fun? bzz buzz bsybdy...

 

[amadeus]

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.

We may see people who really do love God. Then as we watch them go through trials as bad or worse than those of unbelievers we may ask, "Why"? God answers all necessary questions for anyone who asks for the right reasons with the right attitude. Unbelievers, and some people straddling the fence, cannot understand and they walk away. The few who really understand what is happening [in their trials] hold His hand tighter and may ask for His help, which He will give. Sometimes the help may simply be the means to endure it rather than the removal of any pain and suffering.

You, my friend, still want to know, "why"? You will never get an answer satisfactory to you while you are on the outside looking in... You've seen the failures of others traveling along the best ways men have. You believe you have a better way, but eventually you will understand that it will never work in spite of your best efforts.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

We may see people who really do love God. Then as we watch them go through trials as bad or worse than those of unbelievers we may ask, "Why"? God answers all necessary questions for anyone who asks for the right reasons with the right attitude. Unbelievers, and some people straddling the fence, cannot understand and they walk away. The few who really understand what is happening [in their trials] hold His hand tighter and may ask for His help, which He will give. Sometimes the help may simply be the means to endure it rather than the removal of any pain and suffering.

You, my friend, still want to know, "why"? You will never get an answer satisfactory to you while you are on the outside looking in... You've seen the failures of others traveling along the best ways men have. You believe you have a better way, but eventually you will understand that it will never work in spite of your best efforts.

You Amadeus are expressing a negative and pessimistic view, I remain an optimist. Reasoning with people here is fun and we are mutually communicating and influencing each others perspectives. Many have informed me they agree with my fundamental notion that law is not efficient to supervise men...and I am incrementially getting the opportunity to explain things like that our consciousness is a nothingness whereby the world is revealed as this or that according to our particular personal project; you are projecting a negative outcome for my engagement in precise keeping with the intention you have adopted which deems my endeavor doomed to failure, and, I will not attempt to persuade you otherwise for you are seeing the world in accordance with your own global project, and, that's just fine.
Duane

 

[amadeus]

You Amadeus are expressing a negative and pessimistic view, I remain an optimist.

When it comes to looking at the ways of men working alone or with other men I am very much a pessimist considering well my own experiences and the writings in particular of Solomon in Ecclesiastes where he speaks about "all being vanity". In the following verse he expresses the proper direction to go:

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." Ecc 12:13

That in conjunction with many words from Old Testament prophets plus the New Testament we find an optimistic Way which is where I really do stand. When I speak to unbelievers in particular, and to certain believers at appropriate times, I usually speak of that pessimism because I see no real hope in that direction and want to make that clear. Most people if not at the moment, eventually will recognize this. Beyond this short allotment of time we are given there is no Hope outside of God's Way. A few may have what they consider 'good' lives without God for that short time period, but how large is that group, really? Even being born in a nation as the USA does not assure it. Someone born in Haiti or Bangladesh without much opportunity or above average brain power has little hope on your road.

When understood and followed, God's Way according to His plan is a very optimistic Way.

Reasoning with people here is fun and we are mutually communicating and influencing each others perspectives. Many have informed me they agree with my fundamental notion that law is not efficient to supervise men...and I am incrementially getting the opportunity to explain things like that our consciousness is a nothingness whereby the world is revealed as this or that according to our particular personal project; you are projecting a negative outcome for my engagement in precise keeping with the intention you have adopted which deems my endeavor doomed to failure, and, I will not attempt to persuade you otherwise for you are seeing the world in accordance with your own global project, and, that's just fine.
Duane

Your plan, even if it began to work would only benefit an elite group. The poor of Haiti and Bangladesh and even many poor in the much richer United States would still be left out in the cold.

No, my plan as you call it which is really God's plan allows opportunity for everyone, even though not every one will choose to follow it.

 

[DNB]

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.

Yes, agreed, ...but it's even more tell-tale of something else. The lack of reasoning and awareness that he employs in constructing his sentences, reflects on how unreasonable and misguided his world-view is. ...did he call himself superior and transcendent in previous posts?

 

[Willie T]

Yes, agreed, ...but it's even more tell-tale of something else. The lack of reasoning and awareness that he employs in constructing his sentences, reflects on how unreasonable and misguided his world-view is. ...did he call himself superior and transcendent in previous posts?

A legend in his own mind. LOL

 

[DNB]

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...

Ok, I take back my view on your theistic awareness. You seem to prefer fairy tales over profound insight and edification. The Romans were extremely adept at crucifying men. If there were any hint that the victim was still alive, legs were broken or organs were pierced in order to expedite and ensure the death. After being up for over 24 hours, not eating, being beaten to a pulp, hung on a cross for hours, pierced in the side, then left in a tomb sealed with a rock that even a healthy man could not move, we don't expect that Jesus just got up and walked away on his own accord.
Jesus loved God in a way that is incumbent upon every living creature created in his image, to do. And thus, God highly favoured him, and did not let him remain dead, but raised him to a position higher than any other being created (well deserved). Therefore, by God's grace, faith in him allows us to be raised from the dead also, on Judgement Day.
rhetorical: Who cut-up Isis, and how can an immaterial entity be cut-up. Silly story.

 

[DNB]

[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

Since when did you become a comedian? I thought that we were actually making a little progress?
Being is nothingness? All determination is negation? Freedom is nothingness? Then who the heck wrote this post in an effort to make a point, negation & nothingness?
You made a concerted effort to reply to my post, but you say that your conclusion or thesis is nothing more than a negation? You just wrote 3 paragraphs attempting to define an axiom (i.e. law), and at the end you claim that there are no laws.
I was generalizing, but in essence, your conclusions undermine your observations.

 

[DNB]

[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

I've seen the video. Ehrman believes that Jesus lived, and Price does not. I don't care for either of those two people. But, I forget, who's the flowery speech, Price I assume?

 

[marks]

while, all the while you have not considered that I obtain pleasure from exercising my capacity to employ language in a flamboyant mode, its fun;

I guess this is one of the things I like about you!



You stretch my mind!

Love it!

 

[marks]

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.

Indeed there is a huge difference!

Loving others as ourself is to seek to care for them to the same degree that we seek to care for ourselves.

While . . .

Doing to others as you would have them do unto you, can go past that.

If I love you as I love myself, we share the last cup of coffee ever.

But if I do to you what I would have you do to me, I give you the last cup of coffee ever.

That's if you're a coffee nut like me!

Much love!

 

[marks]

@Duane Clinton Meehan , why do you get out of bed in the morning?

And I don't mean just because that's when it's light . . . what motivates you to do anything at all? Why do you act?

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Since when did you become a comedian? I thought that we were actually making a little progress?
Being is nothingness? All determination is negation? Freedom is nothingness? Then who the heck wrote this post in an effort to make a point, negation & nothingness?
You made a concerted effort to reply to my post, but you say that your conclusion or thesis is nothing more than a negation? You just wrote 3 paragraphs attempting to define an axiom (i.e. law), and at the end you claim that there are no laws.
I was generalizing, but in essence, your conclusions undermine your observations.

DNB(K);
You unfairly/unreasonably accuse me, from your particular idiosyncratic perspectival view, of being ureasoning and unaware; and, then, you exbibit a total unawareness of the reasoning of Baruch Spinoza, whom I discussed very clearly in the OP, regarding his position that determinatio negatio est, which Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre adopted and thus arrived at the notion of human Being being non-Being/Nothingness. That human consciousness is nothing and a total engagement in non-being is not originally Duanie's own thought, it is an historical evolution from Spinoza's dictum. Thus you exhibit a total lack of cognizance of modern existential phenomenological thought, and, ignorantly make fun of the wholly negative fashion wherein consciousness is perceived by modern thinking! Further, you fail to make distinction between jurisprudentially oriented law and existential considerations which are negative principles which constitute human being. I was sharing pearls with you and the best you can do is scoff and poke fun!? Your consciousness is engaged every second of you life in the negation that is determination to act and you apprehend the world precisely upon the ground of the nothingness that is your consciousness. DNB and Willie T constantly mistakenly employ argumentum ad hominem when assessing the theoretical/ontological positions which I posit; whereas, an aware, reasonable, and able thinker would directly polemically engage the intelligibility or lack thereof of the reasonings I set forth. i.e., you exhibit yourselves as unthinking, unreasonable, unaware persons, who cannot seem to get beyond the slovenly habit of arguing against the man instead of his position...I see alienation setting-in, on account of your collective unreasonable, unchristian, and illogical misconduct. I see, this is what I get for calling Willie Buzzardgrunt! Which designation is absolutely one of the funniest quirps I have ever heard.

Amadeus' evaluation of the foibled structure of the conduct of putative Christians is validated by your unfortunate misconduct predicated upon a straightforward ignorance. I proffer you pearls and you respond with abject stupidity; makes me sad.

Duane, A Veritable Legend in His Own Superior Sapientality!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I guess this is one of the things I like about you!



You stretch my mind!

Love it!

Wow, marks, I wholly sincerely appreciate your kind compliments! Cool, mind-stretch! Check out my latest flamboyant critique of DNB and Willie T's ad hominem misconduct toward my person!
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Indeed there is a huge difference!

Loving others as ourself is to seek to care for them to the same degree that we seek to care for ourselves.

While . . .

Doing to others as you would have them do unto you, can go past that.

If I love you as I love myself, we share the last cup of coffee ever.

But if I do to you what I would have you do to me, I give you the last cup of coffee ever.

That's if you're a coffee nut like me!

Much love!

marks;
Thanks a million for your agreement regarding what I see as difference between love and decency.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I've seen the video. Ehrman believes that Jesus lived, and Price does not. I don't care for either of those two people. But, I forget, who's the flowery speech, Price I assume?

Their persons are to be treated with indifference and it is their respective positions that one need reflect upon and critique, they were both reasonable and cogent; that one is plain spoken and the other fancy, is actually irrelevant, and, the eloquent one honestly cannot be rightfully discredited just because he enjoys being flamboyant.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Ok, I take back my view on your theistic awareness. You seem to prefer fairy tales over profound insight and edification. The Romans were extremely adept at crucifying men. If there were any hint that the victim was still alive, legs were broken or organs were pierced in order to expedite and ensure the death. After being up for over 24 hours, not eating, being beaten to a pulp, hung on a cross for hours, pierced in the side, then left in a tomb sealed with a rock that even a healthy man could not move, we don't expect that Jesus just got up and walked away on his own accord.
Jesus loved God in a way that is incumbent upon every living creature created in his image, to do. And thus, God highly favoured him, and did not let him remain dead, but raised him to a position higher than any other being created (well deserved). Therefore, by God's grace, faith in him allows us to be raised from the dead also, on Judgement Day.
rhetorical: Who cut-up Isis, and how can an immaterial entity be cut-up. Silly story.

He who has no idea how absolutely tough and resilient the human body is, and that it repeatedly survives the utmost trauma, lives in a fairy tale, for, there is no such thing as being authentically dead and coming back to life, and, it is a delusional con to assert that there is. The Resurrection is the greatest delusion, apart from Law.
Determination to action via law; coming back to life after dying; both are authentically nonsense and radically extreme wishful thinking. Christians are wholly delusional persons who sincerely believe in absolute absurdity, simply because that absurdity in written in scripture! Is my language plain enough here!?

 

[DNB]

DNB(K);
You unfairly/unreasonably accuse me, from your particular idiosyncratic perspectival view, of being ureasoning and unaware; and, then, you exbibit a total unawareness of the reasoning of Baruch Spinoza, whom I discussed very clearly in the OP, regarding his position that determinatio negatio est, which Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre adopted and thus arrived at the notion of human Being being non-Being/Nothingness. That human consciousness is nothing and a total engagement in non-being is not originally Duanie's own thought, it is an historical evolution from Spinoza's dictum. Thus you exhibit a total lack of cognizance of modern existential phenomenological thought, and, ignorantly make fun of the wholly negative fashion wherein consciousness is perceived by modern thought! Further, you fail to make distinction between jurisprudentially oriented law and existential considerations which are all negative. I was sharing pearls with you and the best you can do is scoff and poke fun!? Your consciousness is engaged every second of you life in the negation that is determination to act and you apprehend the world precisely upon the ground of the nothingness that is your consciousness. DNB and Willie T constantly mistakenly employ argumentum ad hominem when assessing the theoretical/ontological positions which I posit, while, all the while, an aware and reasonable thinker would directly engage the intelligibility or lack thereof of the reasonings I set forth. i.e., you exhibit yourselves as unthinking, unreasonable, unaware persons, who cannot seem to get beyond the slovenly habit of arguing against the man instead of his position...I see alienation setting-in, on account of your collective unreasonable, unchristian, and illogical misconduct. I see, this is what I get for calling Willie Buzzardgrunt! Which designation is absolutely one of the funniest quirps I have ever heard.
Duane, A Veritable Legend in His Own Superior Mind....

There comes a time when an induction to one's character is required, as to warn them of what their convictions are evoking within them.
I have a cursory familiarity of the variety of philosophical pretenses and misguided delusions, that many infamous academics hold. When such esoteric nomenclature and contradicting conundrums are required to impart, what every single human that has ever lived, has experienced through life, then I must mock both the investigative process and the conclusion.
For, it is when an impartation can appeal to even the simplest of minds, then you have veritably discovered the truth behind what it is to be human.
We are manifestly creatures endowed with a spiritual dimension and awareness, for the hedonism, pretense and self-defeating wickedness that man is guilty of, completely defying his faculties of reason, is without contest, evidence to this fact. So that whenever I hear an explanation as to man's constitution, that ignores or denies this fact, I cannot regard the expositor seriously. But rather, I am convinced that his convictions are based on shallowness of thought and pretense.

 

[DNB]

Their persons are to be treated with indifference and it is their respective positions that one need reflect upon and critique, they were both reasonable and cogent; that one is plain spoken and the other fancy, is actually irrelevant, and, the eloquent one honestly cannot be rightfully discredited just because he enjoys being flamboyant.

I meant that I don't care for them because I've heard and understood their world views, especially Ehrman who I've watched several times. I have no idea of their personalities. Ehrman's facts are historically accurate, his conclusions are shallow and naive. Price sounds like a simpleton (not academically, but wisdom wise).

 

[DNB]

He who has no idea how absolutely tough and resilient the human body is, and that it repeatedly survives the utmost trauma, lives in a fairy tale, for, there is no such thing as being authentically dead and coming back to life, and, it is a delusional con to assert that there is. The Resurrection is the greatest delusion, apart from Law.
Determination to action via law; coming back to life after dying; both are authentically nonsense and radically extreme wishful thinking. Christians are wholly delusional persons who sincerely believe in absolute absurdity, simply because that absurdity in written in scripture! Is my language plain enough here!?

Yes, it is very plain, and I appreciate your candor, ...as you see, i have been employing the same unmitigated speech when i feel that it is warranted, and thus, give license to others to do the same (when it's done in a serious and concerned tone).
In the realm of spirituality, one does not consider the miraculous, or the suspension of physical laws, as outrageous or implausible. Especially, when the purpose and wisdom behind the supernatural act, is justified.
Now, watch me speak in a manner that even a child can understand.
Everyone is utterly appalled by the atrocities that we see committed by man. Not other creature on earth has this repulsion or indignation towards their species, or any other genus, only humans. Please tell me that you see a significant constitutional issue with this fact.
Thus, we have now entered into the realm of morality, which is the crux of the entire issue, which is where God, sin & righteousness, justice and redemption, invariably and imperatively come into play.
You, on the other hand, prefer to speak of man's freedom against the imposition of law, and the nothingness of something, as though that you feel that you've discovered the keys to emancipation. And yet, you can't stop contradicting yourself.
Determination to law, is no determination at all? What about heeding good advice, being dissuaded from a bad move. Does one's suggestion impede my freedom? Law is the same thing, prudent guidelines.
And, you still can't tell the difference between obeying a rule, and the grounds behind the rule? i.e. Treating others as yourself, is derived from loving them as yourself. We're not talking about an inordinate or amorous love, but a sober and tempered admiration and respect for one another (which does include rebuking and correction).

Why don't you stop and ask yourself why laws are implemented throughout history, throughout the world, in the first place? And I don't want to hear about societal necessities or conformaties. But rather, that it is an intrinsic guideline within man that controls his self-anihilistic tendencies.
Laws are holy, because the flesh is unbridled and the spirit is defiant.
You should throw away Spinoza and Hegel, and pick up Paul and Peter...