ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Again, I would like to point out that the best place to start is at the beginning. My first post is #14.



False. I'm am familiar with Spinoza and Sartre's position as well, and wholeheartedly agree!



I agree, and have never suggested otherwise. Again, try starting from the beginning.



I am not responsible for your persecution complex or whatever form of PTSD one may receive from reading Sartre.



What I see is you parroting scripture; tiresome.



If you don't want to look at it why include it in your premise in the first place? Why do you keep referencing it? I must say, I wholeheartedly agree that the sooner you completely drop it from the discussion, the better. It is completely unnecessary. I only refer to it out of deference to your insistence in including it in your premise, and to point out what the texts actually state. I don't refer to it as authoritative, but simply to point out that they're in agreement with Spinoza's dictum.

Again, if you were to start with my first post (#14), and take each point individually, You might begin to comprehend what I'm actually posting.

I am under the necessity to refer to the Old Testament, all of which I quote is "...Thou shalt not...'', because the Old Testament is the source from which the world takes its awareness of the proposition that Jehovah/Yahweh, and His Son Christ, is the one and only God/Deity.

I looked and looked for your post which gives the numbers of the posts you responded to me with, at the beginning, but cannot find that post. #14 eh, I wanted to read them in full per your reasoning that I can read other lengthy writings, so, I ought read yours, however, you neglect to consider that Sartre's writing is intriguing because of the beautiful way he weaves words and describes constructs, and you do not write in such fascinating style...

By the way, it is radically absurd of you to assert that I do not understand my own thesis, yea, sure...It is really so very radically simple, i.e., determination is negation; Jehovah posits given Thou Shalt Nots as determinative constructs; Jehovah is not deity because He does not exhibit understanding of how human action upsurges. No matter how much you claim that I am wrong in maintaining that Jehovah is positing prohibitive language of law whereby he intended to determine man's behavior, you are incorrect, and, actually have no alternative than to completely assent to my position that Jehovah/Christ are not deity due to their ancient exhibition of lack of understanding of how a human act upsurges. I am not at all incorrect here, no matter how much the prophets and Paul later realized the Law was an inefficacy, Jehovah still made the original error of positing Law as a means to direct men, and, no matter how much you merely assert that I am incorrect, based on your reading of scriptures...you will, ultimately, see reason, for my reasoning is predicated upon an indefeasible dictum.

 

[Waiting on him]

Excellent question!!! We all just assume it is we who are doing these things. When I say "we", I mean humanity in general. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people get so bent out of shape over someone who points out that whatever accomplishment they're being recognized for is something they have no right to take credit. Everyone just assumes that they're engaging in some form of false modesty, but the reality is that there are actually people who are aware of the fact that the person everyone is addressing isn't really who accomplished anything.

Adam is created to reflect God. Instead he reflects himself. Christ comes to reestablish that reflection by negating himself. This is essentially what Spinoza's dictum is all about.

The negation of self reveals God. This is what Christ says, e.g. "When you have seen the son, you have seen the father". He is a perfect reflection of God's will manifesting in the world. More importantly, as all Christians would agree, he does not do this to establish his righteousness or to justify himself, or through the law deterministically. It is the ontological reality. He was born that way, it's what he was born to do. He wasn't just created this way, he is the means of creation itself entering into creation. It's a complete and blatant illustration of Spinoza's dictum which every Christian should have no problem agreeing with.

Excellent post!

 

[shnarkle]

I am under the necessity to refer to the Old Testament,

You are also compelled to preach your deeply held religious beliefs, which just like those you scorn; are founded upon nothing more than your own unsupported assertions.

all of which I quote is "...Thou shalt not...'',

How is this not negation??? How is this not right in line with Spinoza's dictum?

because the Old Testament is the source from which the world takes its awareness of the proposition that Jehovah/Yahweh, and His Son Christ, is the one and only God/Deity.

So what? Does the fact that one doesn't have to do anything to keep the "thou shalt not..." somehow contradict Spinoza's dictum? If so, where, how, why?

I looked and looked for your post which gives the numbers of the posts you responded to me with, at the beginning, but cannot find that post. #14 eh,

Here is # 14:

Duane Clinton Meehan said: ↑
1. Judaeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture.

Yes. I agree. The law is only there as a guide to point out that they're already on the wrong track. It can't fix them. It can only point out what they would be doing if they had not left the tracks.

2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s authentically deistically created ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure.

Here again, this is right in line with what the biblical texts suggest. The old covenant was useless, whereas the new covenant is based upon a process that is the exact opposite of the old. Under the Old Covenant, man sins because he is a sinner. Under the New Covenant, humanity lives in a sanctified, holy state because they're created that way. A fish doesn't learn to swim so it can be a fish. A fish swims because it is a fish.

3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture,

This isn't the case. This is putting the cart before the horse. Christ points out that one is born from above, and are a new creation created for a life of abundance. That is their ontological destiny.

thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action.

He explicitly points out that it comes directly from the father. He does only what he sees the father doing, and what he does is to empty himself into the world, e.g. "The word became flesh". This emptying is a negation of himself; what he refers to as the necessity of denying oneself.

If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined,

You're using the wrong terminology here. Don't you mean an omniscient God knew a priori?

...in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture; thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity, and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act.

Where does the scripture state human beings are determined in their acts by law? I don't see that at all. What I see is man being determined by his own nature which is at odds with the law. Thus a new nature is required.

4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct,

I agree that some may take this position, but again, I don't see this as what the biblical texts state at all. Do you know where they're getting this idea from? My suspicion is that they're getting this from theologians who don't know what they're talking about.

by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".

This is essentially no different than Paul's point that the law can't save anyone. No one is justified or made righteous by the works of the law.

Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”,

Again, this is blatantly false. A gross misreading of the texts. e.g. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 11:19;36:26; Hebrews 8:9,10

while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of n o n-e x I s t a n t s, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state”, etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever.

Again, this is simply repeating the same thing both Christ and Paul point out which is that no one can be saved by the works of the law. Man's ontological state of defilement precludes him from ever cleaning up or getting his act together.

If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness.

Yep, and this goes beyond your assumption of a consciousness that you possess. It isn't even you who is studying it, but God revealing his consciousness. "You" must negate any sense of self. As the gospel writer puts it; "I must decrease that he may increase".

6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, 1943...
7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”,

And all of this is essentially no different than Christ's doctrine of self denial/self sacrifice. The biblical authors even point out that Christ "empties himself of his divinity, as well as his humanity. Mark's gospel invites his readers to peer into a tomb, but not just any tomb; an empty one. This is the essence of the gospel. A complete abolition of the self, the persona.

 

[shnarkle]

I wanted to read them in full per your reasoning that I can read other lengthy writings, so, I ought read yours,

False. I was simply pointing out that your petulant claims of posts too long to read are patently ridiculous coming from someone who has already read Spinoza and Sartre.

you neglect to consider that Sartre's writing is intriguing because of the beautiful way he weaves words and describes constructs, and you do not write in such fascinating style...

I'm not pretending to be Sartre. I'm not trying to fascinate anyone. I'm simply addressing your post and pointing out a few errors in your premise.

it is radically absurd of you to assert that I do not understand my own thesis,

You don't seem to be able to address my points, nor are you able to clarify anything you've posted beyond simply restating the original claim itself. Restating the argument doesn't advance the argument, but this will surely fall on deaf ears as you insist on repeating it yet again ad nauseum.

Jehovah posits given Thou Shalt Nots as determinative constructs;

You have yet to present any evidence to support this. This is simply presented as a self evident Given. It isn't. The burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence rather than simply assuming this is the case.

Jehovah is not deity because He does not exhibit understanding of how human action upsurges.

Jehovah is one of the names presented in an anthology of texts which you have already admitted you have not only never read, but have no intention of reading. Is it any wonder, no one can take you seriously?

No matter how much you claim that I am wrong in maintaining that Jehovah is positing prohibitive language of law whereby he intended to determine man's behavior, you are incorrect,

And the $64.00 question is still: Why?

... and, actually have no alternative

I already provided you with the one presented in the texts themselves.

than to completely assent to my position that Jehovah/Christ are not deity due to their ancient exhibition of lack of understanding of how a human act upsurges.

I have never denied you made this claim. I have simply asked you to provide some sort of argument as to why you believe this to begin with. Simply pointing out that this fictional deity presents laws, doesn't cut it.

I am not at all incorrect here,

You're unable to present anything beyond your own assertions.

no matter how much the prophets and Paul later realized the Law was an inefficacy,

They never claimed it was inefficient. They pointed out it was being misused. Your misuse of the law is a prime example of what they were talking about. You would know that if you had bothered to actually read it.

Jehovah still made the original error of positing Law as a means to direct men,

False, and I have already refuted this claim repeatedly. When are you going to address my refutation?

and, no matter how much you merely assert that I am incorrect, based on your reading of scriptures...

Scriptures which I have presented for you to refute. Whenever you're ready. We're all still waiting...

you will, ultimately, see reason, for my reasoning is predicated upon an indefeasible dictum.

You're reasoning is predicated upon an interpretation of texts that you have yet to defend. Again, we're all still just waiting to see your defense. Again, simply repeating your premise does not advance your argument, nor is it a defense for it. That is to simply Beg the Question.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

You are also compelled to preach your deeply held religious beliefs, which just like those you scorn; are founded upon nothing more than your own unsupported assertions.

How is this not negation??? How is this not right in line with Spinoza's dictum?

So what? Does the fact that one doesn't have to do anything to keep the "thou shalt not..." somehow contradict Spinoza's dictum? If so, where, how, why?


Here is # 14:

Yes. I agree. The law is only there as a guide to point out that they're already on the wrong track. It can't fix them. It can only point out what they would be doing if they had not left the tracks.

Here again, this is right in line with what the biblical texts suggest. The old covenant was useless, whereas the new covenant is based upon a process that is the exact opposite of the old. Under the Old Covenant, man sins because he is a sinner. Under the New Covenant, humanity lives in a sanctified, holy state because they're created that way. A fish doesn't learn to swim so it can be a fish. A fish swims because it is a fish.

This isn't the case. This is putting the cart before the horse. Christ points out that one is born from above, and are a new creation created for a life of abundance. That is their ontological destiny.

He explicitly points out that it comes directly from the father. He does only what he sees the father doing, and what he does is to empty himself into the world, e.g. "The word became flesh". This emptying is a negation of himself; what he refers to as the necessity of denying oneself.

You're using the wrong terminology here. Don't you mean an omniscient God knew a priori?

Where does the scripture state human beings are determined in their acts by law? I don't see that at all. What I see is man being determined by his own nature which is at odds with the law. Thus a new nature is required.

I agree that some may take this position, but again, I don't see this as what the biblical texts state at all. Do you know where they're getting this idea from? My suspicion is that they're getting this from theologians who don't know what they're talking about.

This is essentially no different than Paul's point that the law can't save anyone. No one is justified or made righteous by the works of the law.

Again, this is blatantly false. A gross misreading of the texts. e.g. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 11:19;36:26; Hebrews 8:9,10

Again, this is simply repeating the same thing both Christ and Paul point out which is that no one can be saved by the works of the law. Man's ontological state of defilement precludes him from ever cleaning up or getting his act together.

Yep, and this goes beyond your assumption of a consciousness that you possess. It isn't even you who is studying it, but God revealing his consciousness. "You" must negate any sense of self. As the gospel writer puts it; "I must decrease that he may increase".

And all of this is essentially no different than Christ's doctrine of self denial/self sacrifice. The biblical authors even point out that Christ "empties himself of his divinity, as well as his humanity. Mark's gospel invites his readers to peer into a tomb, but not just any tomb; an empty one. This is the essence of the gospel. A complete abolition of the self, the persona.

all of which I quote is "...Thou shalt not...'',

How is this not negation??? How is this not right in line with Spinoza's dictum?

It the attempted negation of a human conduct; however, it is a given because it is extant language which, when spoken, is material sound wave and, when written, is cast in materials like stone or ink on paper. It is standing language of given law and though its objective and origin are negative, it, law, is a positive fact. Law is an attempt to negate a certain human conduct however, that attempted negaation is not determination, i.e., language of law is not a determinative agency; it is being-in-itself existing as carved stone or ink and published paper. Therefore it is not right in line with Spinoza's dictum because, even though of an essentially negative intent, is not determinative. Thus you are not yet fully apprehending the dictum; just because a given linguistic structure is negative it is not necessarily a determination the author made which is in turn determinative of the conduct of the Other.

My spirit says I want to respond to each and every one of your kind points, but if will take much time and work...Thank you.

 

[ScottA]

If you were not so unread you would know that my response is grounded upon Sartre's opening discussion in his Being and Nothingness, 1943, where he critically engages the age old mistaken notion of a hidden reality standing behind appearance...I see Christian notions to be centrally a belief system positing hidden mysterious reality dwelling behind the scenes and out of objective empirical range...silly nonsense...

I responded to every element of your post except some unintelligible bit about my not having some sort of knowledge; not knowing what it is I deny, whereby I presume you are referring to some deep Christian construct(s) dwelling, with Christ, somewhere in some heaven (if there was this heaven dwelling place in the Milky Way, Hubble would have seen the place)...yes, all these considerations are conceptual...and, sir, the very last thing I am is ignorant. Variable IQ in the Superior range wherein I am dumber some days than others, is all, but neither ignant nor ignorant!

I know all that. Which makes you most pitiful, the victim of magicians, robbed of the frame of this greatest of frame stories, an expert among moles, one without the knowledge most valuable, a vegetable, a volunteer stillborn.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I know all that. Which makes you most pitiful, the victim of magicians, robbed of the frame of this greatest of frame stories, an expert among moles, one without the knowledge most valuable, a vegetable, a volunteer stillborn.

You are on ignore forever now...you just cannot, will not, play nice.

 

[ScottA]

You are on ignore forever now...you just cannot, will not, play nice.

Yeah, honesty can be brutal.

Go figure. Stomp your feet, and take your toys and go home.

But, no, I will not tickle your ears for your entertainment. I recommend you get a pet. All you are doing here is using/abusing people, while trying to convince yourself that you are wise and that there is really no elephant in the room.

It's not working.

 

[shnarkle]

Re: "How is this not negation??? How is this not right in line with Spinoza's dictum?"

It the attempted negation of a human conduct;

Please show where the attempt is made to negate human conduct. Please contrast this with Spinoza's dictum. I'm not murdering, I'm not stealing. I'm not coveting my neighbor's belongings. Where are these attempts being made to negate my conduct??? The law that says "thou shalt not steal" is irrelevant to everyone who has never stolen anything. It has no power to determine their conduct. It is right in line with their conduct, not to mention the dictum. those who do steal, do so regardless of the law. These are obvious facts that are nowhere contested in the bible.

it is a given because it is extant language which, when spoken, is material sound wave and, when written, is cast in materials like stone or ink on paper.

If you can't comprehend a simple request to support WHY YOU BELIEVE THIS FICTIONAL GOD IS ATTEMPTING TO USE LAW DETERMINISTICALLY, then you are presenting it as a Given. It isn't a Given. This is your assumption. To then pretend that we're all a bunch of morons who don't believe the law even exists in whatever form seems most convenient is patently ridiculous. We're all familiar with the Law being given to Moses. We know the law was given to Moses, or if you prefer to obsess over silly nonsense; the fictional god gave the fictional law to the fictional Moses in the fictional story. Either way, pointing out that the law exists doesn't cut it. Nobody is denying the existence of the law.

though its objective and origin are negative, it, law, is a positive fact.

Again. See above.

Law is an attempt to negate a certain human conduct however,

Well then let's apply this to your human conduct. The law attempts to negate necrophilia. How successful is that law with you? Has it been completely useless in its attempt to negate your conduct, or is it right in line with your conduct? Please apply this example to your thesis. Plug it in, and explain where in the text that law is attempting to determine your behavior.

that attempted negaation is not determination, i.e., language of law is not a determinative agency;

Again, you're the only one making this claim in the first place. No one is arguing otherwise. The texts themselves even point this out. The fictional deity says, "WHEN you transgress my laws...etc."(Joshua 23:16) The fictional deity is under absolutely no delusions that these laws are going to determine their behavior. There isn't a single page in that entire tome that says otherwise. The burden of proof is upon you to provide anything from the bible to support these claims. Where do you see anything in the texts that claim the law determines behavior?

Even when Moses comes down from the Mount, and sees the Israelites worshipping the golden calf, the best thing he can do is to simply smash the tablets into pieces. Do you somehow interpret this to be some way to determine their behavior? Doesn't this actually indicate just the opposite? They're behavior negates the law into a heap of rubble.

it is being-in-itself existing as carved stone or ink and published paper.

Again, no one is disputing the existence of the law. Please try to address what I'm actually posting.

Therefore it is not right in line with Spinoza's dictum because, even though of an essentially negative intent, is not determinative.

This is a pointless tautology. Again, no one else is claiming that the law is determinative. You're the only one making this claim, and the only thing you've provided so far is your own conjecture based upon nothing other than the fact that the law is referred to somewhere in the bible. Again, we're all well aware of the existence of the law in the bible. That's not the point.

just because a given linguistic structure is negative it is not necessarily a determination

WHERE HAVE I EVER CLAIMED IT WAS?????????

the author made which is in turn determinative of the conduct of the Other.

What in the name of Tartarus are you talking about now? Why are you capitalizing "Other"? Is that supposed to be referring to the deity? Is this some sort of reference to a recent M. Night Shama lama ding dong movie? So is it determinative of the conduct of the other, or not? What is your claim, and why? What's your point here? Are you trying to point out that when someone steals, they don't do it because there's a law against stealing, but simply because they need to steal? My suspicion is that you're trying to say that they don't steal, not because there is a law against stealing, but because their ontological disposition prevents them from stealing. Maybe it's a completely different point?

For anyone serious about presenting a cogent argument or thesis, I highly recommend Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style". This tome is indispensable in allowing one to hone their ability to communicate effectively. No one, and I mean no one is impressed by the usage of: awkward adverbs; participial phrases at the beginning of sentences that don't necessarily refer to the grammatical subject; needless words, or qualifiers; overwriting; or overstating, etc.. The elementary rules of usage are notoriously absent from elementary, high school and even college level curriculum today. This is no excuse to ignore them, especially if one is genuinely interested in being understood.

The fact that we're dealing with negation presents obvious problems when one is making positive statements or affirmations concerning this topic. The fact that one's positive statements or affirmations are effectively no different than the law claimed to be an attempt to change human conduct hasn't escaped anyone's notice, and yet this elephant in the room goes ignored as well. You've taken a bit of a cavalier attitude toward the subject which indicates that you're not really all that serious about getting your ideas across.

I am familiar with the position of Spinoza as well as Sartre. I am also familiar with your premise. I have endeavored to point out a quite obvious error that can only come from never bothering to look at the texts themselves. Coincidently, this is precisely why you have made this assertion The fact that you admit it, and don't see why this is relevant, indicates you have conceded the argument without even knowing it.

To then mistakenly assume I must be some rude Christian is yet pointless Ad Hominem. I'm not only not a Christian, I have no doubt that God CAN'T exist. Therefore I'm not even an atheist as atheists never make that claim. Perhaps you may not have noticed that my claim is disturbingly similar to the dictum of Spinoza.

I have repeatedly asked you to supply some sort of argument to support these claims which I have repeatedly addressed, and refuted. This doesn't refute what Spinoza or Sartre are saying in the slightest. It doesn't refute any of the claims you see in their writings. It doesn't even refute a number of your own conclusions. It most definitely refutes your false premise which ultimately seems pointless to begin with. It is completely unnecessary as the texts I have already provided plainly show that they are right in line with the dictum.
Your responses are just a long-winded version of: "No it isn't", followed by the customary repeated assertions which no one else has forgotten.

 

[shnarkle]

You are on ignore forever now...you just cannot, will not, play nice.

I don't know who you just "ignored" because I must have ignored them as well. It's been quite a while since I've ignored anyone so I'm really long overdue.

Given that your posts are infused with such blazing, incandescent incompetence that dogs will try to roll in it, and this discussion with you has been so overwhelmingly pointless. See ya never.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I don't know who you just "ignored" because I must have ignored them as well. It's been quite a while since I've ignored anyone so I'm really long overdue.

Given that your posts are infused with such blazing, incandescent incompetence that dogs will try to roll in it, and this discussion with you has been so overwhelmingly pointless. See ya never.

It was ScottA that got put back on ignore for calling me horrid names. Yea, fine, your entire linguistic structure has totally changed since you encountered me. You and ScottA are more ill-behaved/unmannered than the Atheists who were so totally horrid. I dreaded the prospect of viewing this post, thought it might be an interesting response to my explanation of why law is not in alignment with the dictum...a vain expectation...Grow up scripturally brainwashed person. A Glad Goodbye.

 

[ScottA]

It was ScottA that got put back on ignore for calling me horrid names. Yea, fine, your entire linguistic structure has totally changed since you encountered me. You and ScottA are more ill-behaved/unmannered than the Atheists who were so totally horrid. I dreaded the prospect of viewing this post, thought it might be an interesting response to my explanation of why law is not in alignment with the dictum...a vain expectation...Grow up scripturally brainwashed person. A Glad Goodbye.

Unfortunately for you, we were simply sharing our witness of life after this, a completely separate area of knowledge you refused to consider; and by thinking you have won, you have lost eternity. Before you was life and death, and you chose death. Another one bites the dust.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Why not take this to an Agnostic or Atheistic forum where they will revel in this nonsense? Christians don't need Agnostics telling them how *wrong* they are.

Further reference Enoch111's earlier post regarding Blue Green Earth's brilliant treatise appearing in this Christian Apologetics Forum,
wherein Enoch111 attempts to drive Blue Green off the forum, to which I said, and now, again, say:

The radically beautifully constructed metered mode of sentence structure whereby the author of the resurrection claims essay articulates his several proposals, exhibits his rationally superior sapientality as infinitely abundantly rich and godlike, while the backward ignorant and blindly intolerant Enoch111, via a stupid bigoted evil hatefulness, exhibits naught but pure imbecility and failure to fathom and practice simple Christian charity, which imbecility/failure constitutes precisely an entirely satanistic excursion into repugnant mal-conduct.

Enoch111's regretful misconduct illustrates the fact that the particular ilk of religious endeavor, wherein a central paradigm contention/conflict putatively continually transpires, between a God and a Satan/Devil, fosters, via pea-brained zealots alike Enoch111, division, enmity, and alienation among human beings. Blue Green Earth is merely exercising a poetic human rationality, whereby he posited a perfectly objective and balanced presentation, given for the sake of prompting Christians to reflect upon possible error entailed in the commonly accepted description of what transpired regarding Christ's resurrection, reflectively predicated upon Paul's letters, which letters constitute the earliest known references to Christ's death/resurrection sufferings.
Duane

 

[Enoch111]

...while the backward ignorant and blindly intolerant Enoch111, via a stupid bigoted evil hatefulness, exhibits naught but pure imbecility and failure to fathom and practice simple Christian charity...

Whenever anyone is attacked for speaking the truth (as seen in this attack on myself) it simply means that something has hit home.

For all your fancy wording, the bottom line is that you and BGE do not believe God and Christ. And those who refuse to acknowledge or believe God are regarded by fools by God Himself.

Christian charity and Christian truth go hand in hand. And this is seen in the words of the apostle of love -- John -- who said this: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [of Christ], receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

The doctrine of Christ includes the solid doctrine of the resurrection of Christ as a historical event of unfathomable importance.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Whenever anyone is attacked for speaking the truth (as seen in this attack on myself) it simply means that something has hit home.

For all your fancy wording, the bottom line is that you and BGE do not believe God and Christ. And those who refuse to acknowledge or believe God are regarded by fools by God Himself.

Christian charity and Christian truth go hand in hand. And this is seen in the words of the apostle of love -- John -- who said this: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [of Christ], receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

The doctrine of Christ includes the solid doctrine of the resurrection of Christ as a historical event of unfathomable importance.

Enoch111;
Nothing has ''hit home'' here other than the total unacceptability of your vain and useless attempt to stifle the free expression and interchange of divers perspectival views via this excellent forum.

You unwittingly witness against your own "belief" in Christ, for, when you state that you believe, you proclaim doubt, for when one merely believes something, one signifies that one is not certain of what one is proffering as a certainty. Your exhibition of hateful attempted obviation of freedom of expression by agnostics and atheists is precisely the evil which you yourself rail against, only further demonstrating my contention that Christians are insane persons. You're nuts if you think this forum, open to the world, is your "house", that's really stupid!

 

[Steve Owen]

Steve;
Actually, in reality, there is no verifiable historicity indubitably establishing the death and resurrection of Christ. Don't you know that?

If you knew anything about history you would know that to have two contemporary sources reporting the same event in a similar way is regarded as reliable evidence. You will know that there are no fewer than four Gospels, plus the Apostles Paul and Peter, and the writer to the Hebrews, reporting the death and resurrection of Christ. Modern historians are in no doubt that all of them wrote in the 1st Century. Therefore the death and resurrection of Christ are historically established, even without drawing upon Josephus.

Anyway, during all of this healthy dialectical interaction with Christians severally defending their manifold beliefs, I realized that the rationale of positing that it is not possible for given factual states of affairs to have efficacy among men for the originative upsurge of human endeavor, has further led me ,hence, to see that the blood of the Lamb and His resurrection, even if it were an absolutely verified/verifiable established historical fact, is NOT, precisely because it is/was a given factual state of affairs, efficient to do, to determine, the salvation of mankind, precisely because all determination is negation, i.e., is an upsurge out of what is not yet/future, and, Christ's sacrifice is dead, over, past, not future...
So, then, the question upsurges: What ilk of what is not is efficient for the salvation of mankind? And, the answer to said question is that it is our very own human ontological freedom which is mode and means of human salvation, for human ontological freedom is a determinative nothingness, an efficacious not yet future, and, it is via the attainment of a reflective comprehension of the structure and modus operandi our ontological build that we will save ourselves from our pre-reflectively free selves and, possibly usher-in a heavenly reflectively free mode of human civilization, wherein failing inefficacious Law can effectively be surpassed unto equanimity. Our salvation is our ontological freedom lived at the reflective level.
Duane

Mumbo-jumbo from start to finish.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

If you knew anything about history you would know that to have two contemporary sources reporting the same event in a similar way is regarded as reliable evidence. You will know that there are no fewer than four Gospels, plus the Apostles Paul and Peter, and the writer to the Hebrews, reporting the death and resurrection of Christ. Modern historians are in no doubt that all of them wrote in the 1st Century. Therefore the death and resurrection of Christ are historically established, even without drawing upon Josephus.

Mumbo-jumbo from start to finish.

''So, then, the question upsurges: What ilk of what-is-not is efficient for the salvation of mankind? And, the answer to said question is that it is our very own human ontological freedom which is pattern, mode, and means of human salvation, for human ontological freedom is a determinative nothingness, an efficacious not yet future, and, it is via the attainment of a reflective comprehension of the structure and modus operandi our ontological build that we will save ourselves from our pre-reflectively free selves and, possibly usher-in a heavenly reflectively free mode of human civilization, wherein failing inefficacious Law can effectively be surpassed unto equanimity. Our salvation is our ontological freedom lived at the reflective level.''
You simply are not intellectually instrumented, i.e., you do not have the educational background to follow along with twentieth century efficient existential ontological theory of the mode wherein human action actually originates, and, therefore, when I employ the model of the doubly nihilative movement of the upsurge of a human act, your intellect perceives my language as mumbo-jumbo. The problem is that you are not able, at this point, to follow recent thinking regarding how a human act originates, and, that you thus lash-out in a highly ignorant manner, against that which you do not, cannot, understand. You do not possess a reflective understanding of the operative structure of your own human freedom, thus, you cannot possibly follow/understand my modern theory of salvation via the attainment of reflective ontological freedom. Fine, so be it, whatever...
Duane

 

[Helen]

more gobbledygook...

And how many ( apart from you...) starts with -"''So, then, the question upsurges: What ilk of what-is-not is efficient for the salvation of mankind? "

Upsurges !! ??
You are still trying to impress us by trying to sound 'all wise and learned'.
I can tell you ...it ain't working!!

 

[Willie T]

more gobbledygook...

And how many ( apart from you...) starts with -"''So, then, the question upsurges: What ilk of what-is-not is efficient for the salvation of mankind? "

Upsurges !! ??
You are still trying to impress us by trying to sound 'all wise and learned'.
I can tell you ...it ain't working!!

Maybe we gotta give him a break. The poor guy lives out in the middle of nowhere (if he still lives off of "Loop Road") and probably doesn't have too many people to impress. He did write a book a few years ago, but it is the kind few regular people would read, so that likely brought him little in the way of a fan club.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

more gobbledygook...

And how many ( apart from you...) starts with -"''So, then, the question upsurges: What ilk of what-is-not is efficient for the salvation of mankind? "

Upsurges !! ??
You are still trying to impress us by trying to sound 'all wise and learned'.
I can tell you ...it ain't working!!

Sound!? What Sound? I am not making any sound. I am not "trying", I am. When are you going to leave me out of it and focus on the positions I am presenting? You continually error by arguing against the man, not his position. I do not write to impress, rather, to put forward my original thought. Nonetheless, my writing is impressive, even though you haven't a prayer of understanding it! I love the term 'upsurge', its beautiful and descriptive; so what that I am the only person whom you have ever seen use the term!? Do I have Helen's permission to be the personality that I am and to write in the manner I choose? Apparently not. Do I require Helen's permission to proceed with my writing projects? Please give me permission. I am just being me, Duane; absent Helen's approval; wow...perhaps Helen possesses a purely prohibitional weltanschauung from being continually immersed in totally prohibitive scripture...and, Helen is so immersed in Christ's personality that she thinks strictly in terms of a person's personality and cannot possibly do objective thought regarding a written script, always seeing personality above all else! However, I am sure that when Helen reads any author of any book of the bible she does not question a single solitary thing about the author's person, or, choice of words...Helen entertains some ilk of prejudice against Duane.
Duane