ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

[Enoch111]

...it is my responsibility as a twenty first century efficient ideaologist to describe why neither Jehovah nor Christ are genuine deities.

It is your responsibility to seek the truth and then hold fast to it. And the only truth is that which is revealed by God. And as far are God is concerned, the wise men of this world are FOOLS.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I'm sure you're well aware of Paul's own claims that the law is powerless to conform humanity to God's standards, but will inevitably kill instead. We already know a number of purposes, e.g. to reveal God's standard of righteousness as well as pointing to one who will keep it perfectly as well as pay the penalty. That one who keeps it doesn't keep it to establish his righteousness, but because of what the OP would point out is his ontological state. It's all he can do.

shnarkle;
You are trolling now, i.e., attempting to sow discord between me and the kind souls responding to my post on this site. I have taken your advice and placed you on ignore ! Do not make needless trouble with your horrid ''troll'' nonsense.

You made a radically beautiful statement regarding our being precisely the image of a nihilating creator and, then, you fell into a hateful/destructive bent...therefore I am placed, reluctantly, under the necessity to disregard you as a destructive troublemaker...
Duane

 

[shnarkle]

shnarkle;
You are trolling now, i.e., attempting to sow discord between me and the kind souls responding to my post on this site. I have taken your advice and placed you on ignore ! Do not make needless trouble with your horrid ''troll'' nonsense.
Duane

You know what's incredibly ironic? I agree with Spinoza and Sartre. I think what we have here is someone who thinks they understand what they're saying, when the reality is that they haven't comprehended their own argument. I began to suspect this when I noticed that they were repeating themselves as well as using the wrong terminology, e.g. "omnipotent" rather than omniscient, etc.

I've gone to some lengths to show that they're essentially saying nothing different than what the gospel narratives and Paul point out in his letters. This is hardly what anyone would consider trolling, unless of course one has no way to refute what I've posted. The simple fact is that there's no way to refute it when it is in perfect agreement with it. The only thing I disagree with is your conclusion. It simply doesn't follow. It's a Non Sequitur.

I'm not sowing discord either as I'm confident that whoever I was responding to was aware of Paul's teachings.

What your post spotlights is the fact that I actually understand what's really going on, and therefore you know I am about to destroy your argument. I've already done more than enough damage for you to run and ignore my posts, but I will still have no problem tearing your argument apart because it is seriously flawed, most notably in it's ignorance of what the biblical texts actually state. I've already documented that fact from the texts themselves, but still look forward to see if our new member has anything to support his claims. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

It is your responsibility to seek the truth and then hold fast to it. And the only truth is that which is revealed by God. And as far are God is concerned, the wise men of this world are FOOLS.

Enoch111;
See Bertrand Russel on the responsibility of intellectuals.

I have both found and hold what I deem to be truth, and, thereby, I have demonstrated that Jehovah/Christ, by exhibiting error regarding how we humans originate our acts, by mistakenly positing law, are not, cannot be, deity.
Duane

 

[shnarkle]

Enoch111;
See Bertrand Russel on the responsibility of intellectuals.

I have both found and hold what I deem to be truth, and, thereby, I have demonstrated that Jehovah/Christ, by exhibiting error regarding how we humans originate our acts, by mistakenly positing law, are not, cannot be, deity.
Duane

Here's another irony. I've ignored a well known troll, but the new member keeps responding to him while concluding that he's disproven the deity of the biblical God, and ignored my posts which refute his claims.

The sad thing is that I was really getting excited at the prospect that we might actually have a serious topic to discuss, but it looks like it's already fizzled out. I really thought this might know what he was talking about, but upon further scrutiny, it appears that he has probably done a copy and paste, and really doesn't comprehend his own argument to begin with.

 

[shnarkle]

marks;
I have in mind when He commanded Adam and Eve via the famous Thou Shalt Nots, He indubitably expected obedience, else He would not have punished the offenders so harshly.

This is also a common interpretation, but more and more scholars are beginning to see that it isn't harsh at all. It's a metaphor for humanity taking responsibility for their actions. It also shows God's protection due to the fact had they eaten from the tree of life, they would be immortally damned. Unlike fallen celestial beings who are already immortal, mortal humanity has the possibility of salvation.

When the Temple curtain rent upon Christ's death on the cross, the age of Law was surpassed. I advocate becoming reflectively/responsibly free as our means of attaining civilization patterned upon our own ontological structure, instead of constantly outlawing/banning that original ontological structure.
Duane

The ontological structure that is being banned is a corrupt one, not the one freed from corruption. Freedom in the bible is not freedom to choose. We know this because the damned are free to sin all they please. The freedom is freedom from sin. The banning/outlawing is no longer necessary when one has transcended the desires of the flesh. When they transcend their false identity through negation or abolition of the persona. Then all that remains is the perfect reflection of God in, with, and through Christ.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Thank you for the kindheartedness.

As you see above, you are contradicting yourself.

And in all love, i will point out that this is no surprise, as all nihlistic philosphy, unenlightened by the love of God, is doomed to devour itself.

You consistently exhibit confusion.

Precisely how am I contradicting myself!?
Duane

 

[ScottA]

Enoch111;
See Bertrand Russel on the responsibility of intellectuals.

I have both found and hold what I deem to be truth, and, thereby, I have demonstrated that Jehovah/Christ, by exhibiting error regarding how we humans originate our acts, by mistakenly positing law, are not, cannot be, deity.
Duane

Duane,

I see you have gone, and I too need to run. But I wanted to leave you a quick not to consider regarding this above statement:

That is all very good within the context of this world...but it does not even begin to touch upon the greater context of God. What does it matter if a fish who claims that his fishbowl is all there is, knows nothing of the sea? That way of thinking will accomplish nothing.

A different approach is in order.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Your determination to further this argument negates its rationale. Thus disproving its underlying assumptions.

That is so radically silly and nonsensical a pure assertion that it is totally in-credible.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Duane,

I see you have gone, and I too need to run. But I wanted to leave you a quick not to consider regarding this above statement:

That is all very good within the context of this world...but it does not even begin to touch upon the greater context of God. What does it matter if a fish who claims that his fishbowl is all there is, knows nothing of the sea? That way of thinking will accomplish nothing.

A different approach is in order.

So, then, precisely describe this totally different and more efficacious other-worldly approach which you see on the horizon!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

To you it indeed may seem to not be nonsense, but to someone who cannot understand, or has difficulty understanding, what you have written, such as myself, because of the words used, it certainly is meaningless. Who then is helped by that?

Amadeus;
I have spent my entire lifetime encountering writing which is, at first, radically difficult and appears unintelligible, when, really, the writing is not in fact impossible to understand. One can be encountering one's own lacks of vocabulary and instruments of thought, when one encounters a seeming nonsensical writing, which writing is merely, at present, beyond one's extant thinking. Such writings can do one the good of motivating one to work to grow beyond one's ongoing limitations. I wore thesauruses and dictionaries out in my teens, and, now, I have an infinite vocabulary and, degrees in the liberal arts.
I will be glad to attempt to explain whatever you may be interested to pursue regarding my writing, if anything...
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

ScottA;
When you continually employ "this", "that", ''it'', in your sentences, it is nigh impossible to follow what you are attempting to convey. I deem your writing so poor that it is, overall, unintelligible to me. Like I said, I experience you as being nonsensical, i.e., making no sense...I cannot make out what you are referring to when you employ "thises" and "thats", and, seem to be referring to some other realm...yes, you seem, to me, to be, indeed, standing on the other side of the looking glass, Alice...
Duane

 

[amadeus]

Amadeus;
I have spent my entire lifetime encountering writing which is, at first, radically difficult and appears unintelligible, when, really, the writing is not in fact impossible to understand. One can be encountering one's own lacks of vocabulary and instruments of thought, when one encounters a seeming nonsensical writing, which writing is merely, at present, beyond one's extant thinking. Such writings can do one the good of motivating one to work to grow beyond one's ongoing limitations. I wore thesauruses and dictionaries out in my teens, and, now, I have an infinite vocabulary and, degrees in the liberal arts.
I will be glad to attempt to explain whatever you may be interested to pursue regarding my writing, if anything...
Duane

Thank you for your consideration. I could look up the words that I don't readily understand, but it would require some effort and the chances are good at my age that the final result would sooner or later get left by the wayside by my aging brain [76 next month]. Still if I felt it to be an worthwhile endeavor I might do it. The fact is that I know that even understanding perfectly what you wrote would not change my basic position. Where I stand is still very much by a faith which is in the process of becoming knowledge.

I know that you have knowledge as I had knowledge from schooling when I was young. I was never where you are, but that doesn't matter in this. I would suggest that if you have no interest in coming to where I am, that you then apply your knowledge to accomplish whatever good works you are able to see and do among men. What you are trying to do is NOT one of those good works in spite of what you may think. May your eyes one day be opened to see that to which you are now blind.

 

[ScottA]

So, then, precisely describe this totally different and more efficacious other-worldly approach which you see on the horizon!

If you really want to know, you can and must imagine the possibility that you are and have been like one who is blind debating the reality of sunsets with those who are sighted. Be careful of your response, or you will not see it until it is too late. At which time, as it is written, "every eye will see"...but for those who have chosen against it (against God), that sun/Son will have set.

But that "for instance" is only that. It's me telling you what you are against. You are not going to appreciated it, unless you have a sincere desire to. For example, I have never snow skied. I have no real desire to, and probably never will. So my life will not include something that is undoubtedly at the top of someone else's list. But we're not talking about a recreational activity...we are talking about something more like a caterpillar becoming a butterfly, or a fishbowl fish finding out there is an ocean out there they never knew. The problem is, we are organic beings, and what comes next is not. It is for this reason that I told you that you have been out of context with your logic and your intellect.

This is bigger than you can imagine. The scriptures describe it in this way: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” And you, you can be one with the One in charge, who made the world for a finite purpose amidst an infinite reality--the only actual reality. Actually. From the very beginning He refers to all this as a mere "image." So, what you have thought is real is not, and what you thought did not exist, is the only thing that is real. And likewise, most of it is the opposite of what you are use to.

So, that brings us to the proof. If you demand it as a condition of any kind, you will be disqualified. Why? Because the world was not created for such a purpose. It was only created to deliver that narrative of what already is. You see, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever", and the damage is already done, the die is already cast. You just getting the news doesn't change that. However, you just getting the news and changing...does. You see, the world is God's created media of revelation from Him to us, each in our own time--but the time allotted is all we get. Why? Because it is just an "image"--time, space, and matter (even scientifically) are just an illusion of light and energy. Perhaps you have heard some of the language: "God Almighty", "Let there be Light." Light and energy. Illusion. Which of course make the idea of demanding proof quite laughable...hows the song go? "You wouldn't know a diamond if you held it in your hand?"

But that is not to say there is no proof. The world is proof. But more importantly is the why. Which brings us back to what it is: This is each of our personal opportunity and invitation to come back into the fold of reality, rather than ceasing to exist when the lights go out and your allotted time is up. This is your animated god-pixelated second chance in living color, at reality, at eternity. You can ask the person next to you for directions, but you cannot ask them for what has only been offered to you personally. You decide your own fate...and there are only two choices.

As for asking direction, don't be a fool. If nowhere is where you want to go--don't ask. But really, you should consider the only consistent ribbon of directions recorded throughout all of the history of the world, as proof enough. This is like one of those graphs where one entry is off the chart and all the rest (if you are honest) don't measure up. And what you think are inconsistencies--use your head: Any school of knowledge including the very young and the very learned and everything in between, varies greatly along the path, but ends up at the same conclusion. Your hearing different information from each different level, does not change the truth...even if they appear to disagree. Do kindergarten kids agree with middle school kids? Do students agree with teachers? Do teachers agree with Head Masters? Don't be so foolish with your future.

And don't think that it all is based on unsubstantiated "belief." It's not. That is just the masses. At its core is the only actual knowledge the world has ever known. As for who actually "knows" rather than believes, God decides...which He has done down through all of the ages. That is what the bible is. It is the written testimony of witnesses to whom God has revealed Himself. This I know and attest--because I am one. I did not grow up knowing anything about God, nor did I first believe. I did not. I first knocked on every other door, and only by a process of elimination did I knock on the God door--and lo and behold He answered. In an instant I was caught up in the spirit above the earth and shown many things which I can now attest to you as an eye witness. Then instantly I was returned to my physical body, changed. So, mine is not a story of "belief", but rather of "knowing", of knowledge.

Take care in what you choose.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Here's another irony. I've ignored a well known troll, but the new member keeps responding to him while concluding that he's disproven the deity of the biblical God, and ignored my posts which refute his claims.

The sad thing is that I was really getting excited at the prospect that we might actually have a serious topic to discuss, but it looks like it's already fizzled out. I really thought this might know what he was talking about, but upon further scrutiny, it appears that he has probably done a copy and paste, and really doesn't comprehend his own argument to begin with.

shnarkle;
You have consistently posited ad hominem argument against my person and you do not give viable argument against my position; you have not refuted anything; you merely quote scripture and posit pure assertions absent reasoned supporting argument.

Precisely who are you accusing of trolling? Me? Who is ''him''? I was unwarrantedly accused of being a troll by the horrid atheists, but I am not here to sow discord, as you are doing, I am here to rationally discuss how our human ontological structure demonstrates that Christ is not deity, because, by positing law He exhibited lack of understanding regarding the modus operandi of the origination of a human act.

You are fizzling out due to your mean accusatory bent, because I will not countenance ignorant and unedifying false argument against my person, instead of against my position. YOU MUST OVERTHROW THE FUNDAMENTAL NOTION THAT ALL HUMAN DETERMINATION IS NEGATION, AND, THAT, YOU CANNOT, WILL NOT, DO.

Now you are reduced to insult. My writing is an original application of Spinoza's dictum and of Sartre's description of the mode of origin of a human act. Your mistaken approach to my writing is an idiosyncratic combination of brilliance and retarded ad hominem nonsense.
Get off my back unless you can objectively approach my thesis without attacking me personally, which I do not think your fundamentally mean personality is capable of doing. You are making me angry, and, that is tort; and, such conduct on your part reveals you as essentially a backward, hateful, fool. I may be able to overcome the nausea you induce. if you could possibly transcend the fog of your delight in making personal attack against me, which ilk of attack is purely stupid.
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Thank you for your consideration. I could look up the words that I don't readily understand, but it would require some effort and the chances are good at my age that the final result would sooner or later get left by the wayside by my aging brain [76 next month]. Still if I felt it to be an worthwhile endeavor I might do it. The fact is that I know that even understanding perfectly what you wrote would not change my basic position. Where I stand is still very much by a faith which is in the process of becoming knowledge.

I know that you have knowledge as I had knowledge from schooling when I was young. I was never where you are, but that doesn't matter in this. I would suggest that if you have no interest in coming to where I am, that you then apply your knowledge to accomplish whatever good works you are able to see and do among men. What you are trying to do is NOT one of those good works in spite of what you may think. May your eyes one day be opened to see that to which you are now blind.

Amadeus;
Yes, indeed, you appear to have missed the boat in regard to securing a vast knowledge of the words which constitute our English language, nonetheless, your huge kind heart is beautifully developed. Of course you can, even now, experience the pleasure of extending your vocabulary even though the rampant energy of youth is passed.
The considerations I am engaging are not a matter or good or evil, rather, of correct and incorrect. Do you think I like being under the necessity of pointing out why Jehovah/Christ are not wholesome deity!? Heavens no. I have been ''saved'' and churchgoing and, bible college student, etc.. I do not obtain joy, but dread. from writing against Christ,i.e., I suffer within the realization that Jehovah/Christ are not deity, but, rather, are the constructions of ignorant biblical prophets/saints.
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

If you really want to know, you can and must imagine the possibility that you are and have been like one who is blind debating the reality of sunsets with those who are sighted. Be careful of your response, or you will not see it until it is too late. At which time, as it is written, "every eye will see"...but for those who have chosen against it (against God), that sun/Son will have set.

But that "for instance" is only that. It's me telling you what you are against. You are not going to appreciated it, unless you have a sincere desire to. For example, I have never snow skied. I have no real desire to, and probably never will. So my life will not include something that is undoubtedly at the top of someone else's list. But we're not talking about a recreational activity...we are talking about something more like a caterpillar becoming a butterfly, or a fishbowl fish founding out there is an ocean out there they never knew. The problem is, we are organic beings, and what comes next is not. It is for this reason that I told you that you have been out of context with your logic and your intellect.

This is bigger than you can imagine. The scriptures describe it in this way: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” And you, you can be one with the One in charge, who made the world for a finite purpose amidst an infinite reality--the only actual reality. Actually. From the very beginning He refers to all this as a mere "image." So, what you have thought is real is not, and what you thought did not exist, is the only thing that is real. And likewise, most of it is the opposite of what you are use to.

So, that brings us to the proof. If you demand it as a condition of any kind, you will be disqualified. Why? Because the world was not created for such a purpose. It was only created to deliver that narrative of what already is. You see, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever", and the damage is already done, the die is already cast. You just getting the news doesn't change that. However, you just getting the news and changing...does. You see, the world is God's created media of revelation from Him to us, each in our own time--but the time allotted is all we get. Why? Because it is just an "image"--time, space, and matter (even scientifically) are just an illusion of light and energy. Perhaps you have heard some of the language: "God Almighty", "Let there be Light." Light and energy. Illusion. Which of course make the idea of demanding proof quite laughable...hows the song go? "You wouldn't know a diamond if you held it in your hand?"

But that is not to say there is no proof. The world is proof. But more importantly is the why. Which brings us back to what it is: This is each of our personal opportunity and invitation to come back into the fold of reality, rather than ceasing to exist when the lights go out and your allotted time is up. This is your animated god-pixelated second chance in living color, at reality, at eternity. You can ask the person next to you for directions, but you cannot ask them for what has only been offered to you personally. You decide your own fate...and there are only two choices.

As for asking direction, don't be a fool. If nowhere is where you want to go--don't ask. But really, you should consider the only consistent ribbon of directions recorded throughout all of the history of the world, as proof enough. This is like one of those graphs where one entry is off the chart and all the rest (if you are honest) don't measure up. And what you think are inconsistencies--use your head: Any school of knowledge including the very young and the very learned and everything in between, varies greatly along the path, but ends up at the same conclusion. Your hearing different information from each different level, does not change the truth...even if they appear to disagree. Do kindergarten kids agree with middle school kids? Do students agree with teachers? Do teachers agree with Head Masters? Don't be so foolish with your future.

And don't think that it all is based on unsubstantiated "belief." It's not. That is just the masses. At its core is the only actual knowledge the world has ever known. As for who actually "knows" rather than believes, God decides...which He has done down through all of the ages. That is what the bible is. It is the written testimony of witnesses to whom God has revealed Himself. This I know and attest--because I am one. I did not grow up knowing anything about God, nor did I first believe. I did not. I first knocked on every other door, and only by a process of elimination did I knock on the God door--and lo and behold He answered. In an instant I was caught up in the spirit above the earth and shown many things which I can now attest to you as an eye witness. Then instantly I was returned to my physical body, changed. So, mine is not a story of "belief", but rather of "knowing", of knowledge.

Take care in what you choose.

ScottA;
You babble Sir, on and on, blah, blah, blah little sheep...all over the place...rambling...unfocused...scattered...disconnected...baffling.
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

This is also a common interpretation, but more and more scholars are beginning to see that it isn't harsh at all. It's a metaphor for humanity taking responsibility for their actions. It also shows God's protection due to the fact had they eaten from the tree of life, they would be immortally damned. Unlike fallen celestial beings who are already immortal, mortal humanity has the possibility of salvation.



The ontological structure that is being banned is a corrupt one, not the one freed from corruption. Freedom in the bible is not freedom to choose. We know this because the damned are free to sin all they please. The freedom is freedom from sin. The banning/outlawing is no longer necessary when one has transcended the desires of the flesh. When they transcend their false identity through negation or abolition of the persona. Then all that remains is the perfect reflection of God in, with, and through Christ.

shnarkle;
Yes, indeed, indubitably, you write and think and teach beautifully. Unfortunately, to me, you clearly appear to be brainwashed by unedifying Biblical notions of damnation/sin. We humans will not progress to attainment of genuine civilization until we can muster the fortitude to come face to face with the stark dark reality of what we are, and, reflectively employ what we are to further ourselves, instead of continually vainly railing against what we dreadfully are, via incessantly inanely positing inefficacious law/scripture against our being.
Duane

 

[shnarkle]

You have consistently posited ad hominem argument against my person and you do not give viable argument against my position;you have not refuted anything;

I have addressed your argument in my very first post. Nowhere did I ever address you. I addressed you when you ignored my arguments, and instead chose to address me. That was your initial volley into Ad Hominem.
I not only addressed your position, I agreed with it, or rather agreed with Spinoza and Sartre's position which can be found in the biblical texts themselves as well. I only disagreed with your conclusion which I pointed out did not follow from what Spinoza or Sartre were saying.

you merely quote scripture and posit pure assertions absent reasoned supporting argument.

I quote scripture only to prove that your interpretation of the texts isn't correct. I don't have to present an argument because I don't disagree with the argument presented by Spinoza or Sartre. I only disagree with your conclusions which must have come from the scriptures you're referencing. Although you never actually provide any references from the texts themselves. Of course I quote the texts themselves because you're referring to them. You're referencing the biblical God YHWY, and Christ, and positing that they're not worthy of the divine title. I not only addressed your position, but refuted it with your own presentation of Spinoza, and Sartre, as well as the corrected presentation of the biblical texts as well.

Precisely who are you accusing of trolling? Me? Who is ''him''?

Yes, you never addressed my arguments. You simply dismissed them without refuting them. To then accuse me of sowing discord is blatantly false as I simply supported my position from the texts themselves.

I was unwarrantedly accused of being a troll by the horrid atheists, but I am not here to sow discord, as you are doing,

You are still addressing me rather than the content of my posts. That is sowing discord by making these pointless accusations.

I am here to rationally discuss how our human ontological structure demonstrates that Christ is not deity,

I'm familiar with your argument. You needn't repeat yourself. This doesn't advance your argument. I have already pointed out that your conclusion does not follow from your argument because your argument is flawed. It is based upon a misreading of the texts which you seem unwilling to even address.

because, by positing law He exhibited lack of understanding regarding the modus operandi of the origination of a human act.

I already addressed this false accusation as well. I pointed out that his presentation of the modus operandi doesn't rely upon the institution of the law, nor in one's ability to carry it out, but exclusively upon his ontological state which he refers to as originating in "my father", "born of spiritual water", etc. He goes so far as to point out that the reason people disobey the law isn't because they break one law after another, but because of their ontological state of defilement (See Matthew 7:1-19 for more)

You are fizzling out due to your mean accusatory bent, because I will not countenance ignorant and unedifying false argument against my person, instead of against my position.

Please accept my humble apologies for anything that you may have interpreted as accusatory to your person. Now that that's settled, how about addressing my arguments?

YOU MUST OVERTHROW THE FUNDAMENTAL NOTION THAT ALL HUMAN DETERMINATION IS NEGATION, AND, THAT, YOU CANNOT, WILL NOT, DO.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Spinoza claimed "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure", Now you're claiming this notion must be overthrown? Why?

My writing is an original application of Spinoza's dictum and of Sartre's description of the mode of origin of a human act.

I think the biblical authors beat you to it by over 2000 years. There's nothing new under the sun.

Your mistaken approach to my writing is an idiosyncratic combination of brilliance and retarded ad hominem nonsense.

My approach stands on its own merits. Your critique doesn't address those merits, much less refute it.

Get off my back unless you can objectively approach my thesis without attacking me personally,

Please review my first post to see that I address not only the fact that Spinoza and Sartre are in agreement with the biblical authors, but that your interpretation is false. At no time do I address you, but only your arguments.

which I do not think your fundamentally mean personality is capable of doing.

This also doesn't address my arguments.

You are making me angry, and, that is tort; and, such conduct on your part reveals you as essentially a backward, hateful, fool.

This is blatant Ad Hominem, but more importantly, your determination to anger is an entirely negative procedure. It arises, not from the content of my post, but ex nihilo. This is Sartre's and Spinoza's position, and presumably you still claim it as yours as well, no?

I may be able to overcome the nausea you induce.

This seems to be something you beleive is linguistically determinative. There is no point in articulating it in the first place, especially when it has nothing to do with your argument to begin with.

if you could possibly transcend the fog of your delight in making personal attack against me, which ilk of attack is purely stupid.

You seem to believe this is based upon an existing state of affairs; it clearly isn't. I need only remind you of your own position of negation to prove it. Again, perhaps if you referred back to the actual topic which you have presented, you may find this line of inquiry more productive.

 

[shnarkle]

shnarkle;
Yes, indeed, indubitably, you write and think and teach beautifully. Unfortunately, to me, you clearly appear to be brainwashed by unedifying Biblical notions of damnation/sin.

Please document how you come to this conclusion from what I've posted so far. I think you're taking a number of liberties in interpretation as well as making false assumptions.

We humans will not progress to attainment of genuine civilization until we can muster the fortitude to come face to face with the stark dark reality of what we are,

Which is? Go ahead and spell it out for those who may not be following along with these vague generalizations.

and, reflectively employ what we are to further ourselves,

Please document where in the history of mankind, anyone has not been employed with furthering themselves. What are you referring to when you say "what"?

instead of continually vainly railing against what we dreadfully are,

Again, we are dreadfully "what"? What do you mean by "what"?

... via incessantly inanely positing inefficacious law/scripture against our being.
Duane

This is your assumption. I don't see any negative consequences arising from refraining from murdering others, stealing from others, raping others. Moreover, for those who are incapable of grasping the position of Spinoza or Sartre, what alternative do you propose that is more efficacious than codified law? Again, I agree that an ontological awareness clarifies reality, but not everyone is able to attain that right now. Simply articulating it is no different than supplying us with more scripture which you yourself agree is pointless.