ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,447
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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
I've already extended my knowledge in different ways in areas which I know you have not encountered although you might dispute that. Each day I talk with God and hear from God... and perhaps in your own past you have had a small taste of that now set aside by your conclusions. Each day I also read the scriptures in German and Spanish as well as English to get some different perspectives, but that is NOT ultimately where the truth that I have originates. God simply uses those things within me as I allow Him to do so. This is as per what some call "free will".

You say that you do not like pointing out where God/ Jehovah/Christ are not wholesome deity, or even not deity at all, as if that settled the matter. For you perhaps it does settle it, but have you not also considered that even with your education and your apparent gift in the use of your mental powers and your command of English, that there really might be one, that is One, that could put it all together better than you? If there were a Being with what we might designate as infinitely greater abilities than yours, could He not set up everything that even some believing Christians may confess either correctly and/or sometimes in error along with what you have encountered in your research also on purpose for His own reasons?

What I see is a God who looks at the hearts of men to see what each one has done, or is doing, with everything provided to him. This includes time, money, circumstances and brain power [IQ or something like that] and/or the lack thereof in such categories. Based on what He sees there are results. The poorest Haitian with the lowest of IQs and no education is weighed against the smartest of Americans born to a family of great material riches fairly. God alone is capable in such a task. Any man will fail because he comprehends ultimately so little.


Of course you have perhaps considered and dismissed all of this because you have logically gone through everything you can as well as you can and have come up with what you have. No possibility that a Being greater than you could also let you walk into delusion because your ultimate purposes miss His point?

I will only cite a couple of scriptures even though you may have already considered them in coming up with your conclusions:

A possibility of where you are:

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" II Thess 2:10-11


And then again a place to begin:

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb 11:6

These things may appear to you as what you would call "circular reasoning", but that presumes that there is no God who made it all this way for His purposes... which He shares in the measure He does with those who start in the right place with the right attitude [spirit or Spirit] as it suits His purpose... that is according to His will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: faithfulness

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
Perhaps another reason to give Law is to ultimately transcend Law, via uplifting human consciousness up to Christ's higher strategy of Love. 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

Hi Duane, Interesting reply!

Following your ontological theme, have you considered that the commandment given Adam, and the result of disobedience, has more to do with changed natures?

If indeed the change wrought by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree was to change Adam's ontological makeup, then death may simply by the natural result of eating that fruit, the consequence of the action.

What happened next was remedial, in God cursing the ground, and all He pronounced to Adam and Eve. God removed from His creation it's ability to produce true meaningful worth.

The written Law, then, shows the separation between God's original design, thou shalt not covet, and what mankind has come to, that when you tell man that, he simply begins to covet more. But the change of man's nature is deadly, and so God desires to rescue man, but not against his will.

So the written Law shows man the corruption of his current nature, so that he will see the need for something more.

The Law was given for two reasons. One was to provide a means by which a certain people group, through attempted and half-hearted obedience to the Law, that this nation would be preserved and not self-destruct by increasing corruption, so that the Messiah would come through that people.

The second reason was to show the need for that Messiah, who would fix our ontological problem.

When you consider that God created man a certain way, and that man has been ontologically changed, you have to address a couple of things. One is that to be made right, you need to change man again. The other is that do accomplish this change, you need to reach into his new corrupted nature to make contact. Not the original nature that knows God, but a corrupted nature that fights against God.

Rather than banning an original structure, the written Law regulates a corruption of the original, as a part of what God is doing in order to bring us to yet a third ontological structure. Once in this third structure, there is no regulation, and we are to act freely out of that structure, as it is based in the same structure as God Himself.

Your thoughts?

Much love!
 

Duane Clinton Meehan

Active Member
Nov 18, 2019
306
56
28
78
Lebanon, KY
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
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.
shnarkle;
Okay, in you most recent and radically extensive response you claim that you addressed and overturned my fundamental position in your first post to me.
I am perusing your first post and what I see is that you do not precisely apprehend what I am claiming, have missed my basic contention, and, you immediately go on to discuss what scripture states Law cannot do. My fundamental contention has nothing to do with biblical scripture which states that God's law cannot "fix'' persons.

I am maintaining that Jehovah was in error per the fact that He originally chose to posit law and direct law unto man, for, man's actions upsurge ex nihilo and not on the basis of any given state of affairs like law.

To keep saying that Paul said such and such, and that I already know Paul's position (which I truly do not), and, therefore, that my position is mistaken,is wrong on your part. All scriptural considerations, subsequent to Jehovah originally positing law, regarding what law is efficient and not efficient to achieve is irrelevant, because, what I am holding is that at the very outset Jehovah erred by conceiving language of law as an efficacy among men efficient for prohibiting certain acts;--it is the original error of even making law for man upon which I am focused.

Your responses are so extensive that one cannot readily write response to your entire texts; lets just stick for now to being clear with each other regarding what my fundamental contention is.

Your bright mind is a radically valuable asset to me and, I am unhappy that you immediately alienated me with the troll nonsense.

I am studying your very last response further, however, we need, like I said, get clear regarding precisely what I am claiming regarding Jehovah's mistaken idea to apply law to man...
Duane
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,693
5,574
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ScottA;
You babble Sir, on and on, blah, blah, blah little sheep...all over the place...rambling...unfocused...scattered...disconnected...baffling.
Duane
No, that is your reflection.

Remember...it is you who only see the fishbowl and not the sea, who does not see the sunset. The babbling is immense only because it represents all that you do not see. And with that outlook...in the end you will only see the dusk as it drops beneath the horizon of the gift you let slip away.

Nonetheless, I have told you Duane, the truth. So be it.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
you do not precisely apprehend what I am claiming, have missed my basic contention, and,
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."

I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe the man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.

"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;"

True. Again, to assume this to be the case of the biblical authors is false.

"...thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity,"

I disagree for the salient reason that you have not supplied one single verse to support this claim while I have supplied you with at least three direct citations as well as numerous other references not directly cited, but so well known by those familiar with the texts as to make citations superfluous.

I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the biblical god who you are claiming can't be divine because of what he supposedly states through the biblical writers. This isn't usually considered an unrealistic assumption.

"...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."

You have supplied nothing from the biblical texts to support this claim.

you immediately go on to discuss what scripture states Law cannot do.
Yes, I do this to support my claim as well as to show that your claim is nonsensical to those who wrote these texts. The entire Old Testament is literally a testament to the fact that laws kept cannot save or determine anyone's fate. Paul literally points this out by contrasting the results of the old method (this would be the one you think God instituted to determine people) with the New which is determined by one's recognition of their own ontological state which literally renders the Mosaic law obsolete. Again, this is only relevant to those who see what Spinoza or Sartre are pointing out.
My fundamental contention has nothing to do with biblical scripture which states that God's law cannot "fix'' persons.
Here again, you seem to be contradicting yourself again. You might be able to clear this up with more punctuation. God's law cannot fix anyone which is effectively no different than pointing out it can't determine anyone either.

I am maintaining that Jehovah was in error per the fact that He originally chose to posit law and direct law unto man,
Again I'm familiar with your claims. I am pointing out that this is not the claim of Jehovah to begin with. He is not directing law to men. He is stating an ontological fact which humanity ignores to their own detriment.
... for, man's actions upsurge ex nihilo and not on the basis of any given state of affairs like law.
Again, I totally agree. I have not forgotten this fact either.
To keep saying that Paul said such and such, and that I already know Paul's position (which I truly do not),
This is an odd admission due to the fact that he has a superior grasp of the texts; one that sheds significant light on just why your claims make no sense.
... and, therefore, that my position is mistaken,is wrong on your part.
No. it's the reason I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument. Again, the flaw is in assuming that God is directing humanity by his law. This is an assumption on your part. It is a false assumption.
All scriptural considerations, subsequent to Jehovah originally positing law, regarding what law is efficient and not efficient to achieve is irrelevant,
It is relevant in that you are the one who is assuming that God posited law to determine humanity. He didn't. He posited law to show that in a presumed fallen ontological state, humanity will never be able to determine anything by the law.
because, what I am holding is that at the very outset Jehovah erred by conceiving language of law as an efficacy among men efficient for prohibiting certain acts;
And this is a blatant Strawman argument as well as Begging the Question. You are assuming this is what JHVH did. HE didn't. We have the entire Old Testament proving this can't be the case, and that those who do attempt this methodology are doomed to failure. Again, Paul spotlights this fact in his letters.
--it is the original error of even making law for man upon which I am focused.
I am focusing on the fact that this is an error on your part due to the fact that God did not institute the law to save humanity, but to point out their presumed as well as actual ontological state.
Your responses are so extensive that one cannot readily write response to your entire texts;
You don't seem to have any trouble producing a wall of text focusing on irrelevant considerations. Take them one at a time.
lets just stick for now to being clear with each other regarding what my fundamental contention is.
I'm quite clear on your fundamental assumptions. Here they are again with my contentions:
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."
I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe that man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.
"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;
True. Again, to assume this to be the case is false. It is a Strawman argument.
I am unhappy that you immediately alienated me with the troll nonsense.
I must say that I was disappointed that you completely ignored the content of my original posts altogether, and instead sought to accuse me of sowing discord on this forum. What goes around comes around. One doesn't need to be a Christian to assume the validity of the golden rule which states that one treat others the way they wish to be treated. I am simply complying with that assumption. If you wish to be treated better than you treat others, you've come to the wrong place.
we need, [to] get clear... what I am claiming regarding Jehovah's mistaken idea to apply law to man...

Here it is again:

You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."

I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe the man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.

"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;"

True. Again, to assume this to be the case is false.

"...thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity,

I disagree for the salient reason that you have not supplied one single verse to support this claim while I have supplied you with at least three direct citations as well as numerous other references not directly cited, but so well known by those familiar with the texts as to make citations superfluous. I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the biblical god who you are claiming can't be divine because of what he supposedly states through the biblical writers, but this isn't usually considered an unrealistic assumption.

"...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."

You have supplied nothing from the biblical texts to support this claim. You appear to be assuming this, perhaps from secondhand hearsay.
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,795
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
If the ontological mode of upsurge in inherent truisms surpasses the need for diachromatic stasis in unlimited auras of internal disputes, the resultant cacaphony caused by this ipso facto chain reaction of dubious origin, allows brain synapses to misfire at astonishing levels heretofore unrecognized in the study of phenomenon associated with existential debates of psychic doubts.

This cannot be overstressed.
 

Duane Clinton Meehan

Active Member
Nov 18, 2019
306
56
28
78
Lebanon, KY
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."

I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe the man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.

"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;"

True. Again, to assume this to be the case of the biblical authors is false.

"...thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity,"

I disagree for the salient reason that you have not supplied one single verse to support this claim while I have supplied you with at least three direct citations as well as numerous other references not directly cited, but so well known by those familiar with the texts as to make citations superfluous.

I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the biblical god who you are claiming can't be divine because of what he supposedly states through the biblical writers. This isn't usually considered an unrealistic assumption.

"...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."

You have supplied nothing from the biblical texts to support this claim.


Yes, I do this to support my claim as well as to show that your claim is nonsensical to those who wrote these texts. The entire Old Testament is literally a testament to the fact that laws kept cannot save or determine anyone's fate. Paul literally points this out by contrasting the results of the old method (this would be the one you think God instituted to determine people) with the New which is determined by one's recognition of their own ontological state which literally renders the Mosaic law obsolete. Again, this is only relevant to those who see what Spinoza or Sartre are pointing out.

Here again, you seem to be contradicting yourself again. You might be able to clear this up with more punctuation. God's law cannot fix anyone which is effectively no different than pointing out it can't determine anyone either.


Again I'm familiar with your claims. I am pointing out that this is not the claim of Jehovah to begin with. He is not directing law to men. He is stating an ontological fact which humanity ignores to their own detriment.

Again, I totally agree. I have not forgotten this fact either.

This is an odd admission due to the fact that he has a superior grasp of the texts; one that sheds significant light on just why your claims make no sense.

No. it's the reason I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument. Again, the flaw is in assuming that God is directing humanity by his law. This is an assumption on your part. It is a false assumption.

It is relevant in that you are the one who is assuming that God posited law to determine humanity. He didn't. He posited law to show that in a presumed fallen ontological state, humanity will never be able to determine anything by the law.

And this is a blatant Strawman argument as well as Begging the Question. You are assuming this is what JHVH did. HE didn't. We have the entire Old Testament proving this can't be the case, and that those who do attempt this methodology are doomed to failure. Again, Paul spotlights this fact in his letters.

I am focusing on the fact that this is an error on your part due to the fact that God did not institute the law to save humanity, but to point out their presumed as well as actual ontological state.

You don't seem to have any trouble producing a wall of text focusing on irrelevant considerations. Take them one at a time.

I'm quite clear on your fundamental assumptions. Here they are again with my contentions:
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."
I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe that man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.
"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;
True. Again, to assume this to be the case is false. It is a Strawman argument.

I must say that I was disappointed that you completely ignored the content of my original posts altogether, and instead sought to accuse me of sowing discord on this forum. What goes around comes around. One doesn't need to be a Christian to assume the validity of the golden rule which states that one treat others the way they wish to be treated. I am simply complying with that assumption. If you wish to be treated better than you treat others, you've come to the wrong place.


Here it is again:

You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."

I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe the man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.

"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;"

True. Again, to assume this to be the case is false.

"...thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity,

I disagree for the salient reason that you have not supplied one single verse to support this claim while I have supplied you with at least three direct citations as well as numerous other references not directly cited, but so well known by those familiar with the texts as to make citations superfluous. I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the biblical god who you are claiming can't be divine because of what he supposedly states through the biblical writers, but this isn't usually considered an unrealistic assumption.

"...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."

You have supplied nothing from the biblical texts to support this claim. You appear to be assuming this, perhaps from secondhand hearsay.
shnarkle;
Mine is not a strawman argument. I am not setting up some Duane-conjured deistic entity in order to subsequently perform a theoretical destruction thereof. I am referring to the Jehovah whom men have been deeming deity for thousands of years.

I have not read your entire last post, however it appears you agree with a lot...I have not entirely read most of your radically extensive responses, which responses per se I appreciate very much.

By the way it angers me that you accuse me of not understanding Sartre! Perhaps it is because you do not understand his writing; like you misapprehended mine...

The very last thing I would attempt would be to support my contention via scripture; such has never ever crossed my mind! Scripture is not the final word on everything. In fact, scripture is radically behind the times and backward in regard to what makes humans tick ontologically.
Duane
 

Duane Clinton Meehan

Active Member
Nov 18, 2019
306
56
28
78
Lebanon, KY
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
If the ontological mode of upsurge in inherent truisms surpasses the need for diachromatic stasis in unlimited auras of internal disputes, the resultant cacaphony caused by this ipso facto chain reaction of dubious origin, allows brain synapses to misfire at astonishing levels heretofore unrecognized in the study of phenomenon associated with existential debates of psychic doubts.

This cannot be overstressed.
Episkopos;
Wow man, you are supremely more radically abstruse than I, and I have sincerely attempted to tone my writing down, in order to possibly communicate with persons like Amadeus! Your style is poetic and fun to read though...
Duane
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Episkopos

Duane Clinton Meehan

Active Member
Nov 18, 2019
306
56
28
78
Lebanon, KY
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
No, that is your reflection.

Remember...it is you who only see the fishbowl and not the sea, who does not see the sunset. The babbling is immense only because it represents all that you do not see. And with that outlook...in the end you will only see the dusk as it drops beneath the horizon of the gift you let slip away.

Nonetheless, I have told you Duane, the truth. So be it.
ScottA;
You're totally blissed-out Scott, and I am happy for you for your being so happily happy!
Duane
 

Duane Clinton Meehan

Active Member
Nov 18, 2019
306
56
28
78
Lebanon, KY
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Hi Duane, Interesting reply!

Following your ontological theme, have you considered that the commandment given Adam, and the result of disobedience, has more to do with changed natures?

If indeed the change wrought by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree was to change Adam's ontological makeup, then death may simply by the natural result of eating that fruit, the consequence of the action.

What happened next was remedial, in God cursing the ground, and all He pronounced to Adam and Eve. God removed from His creation it's ability to produce true meaningful worth.

The written Law, then, shows the separation between God's original design, thou shalt not covet, and what mankind has come to, that when you tell man that, he simply begins to covet more. But the change of man's nature is deadly, and so God desires to rescue man, but not against his will.

So the written Law shows man the corruption of his current nature, so that he will see the need for something more.

The Law was given for two reasons. One was to provide a means by which a certain people group, through attempted and half-hearted obedience to the Law, that this nation would be preserved and not self-destruct by increasing corruption, so that the Messiah would come through that people.

The second reason was to show the need for that Messiah, who would fix our ontological problem.

When you consider that God created man a certain way, and that man has been ontologically changed, you have to address a couple of things. One is that to be made right, you need to change man again. The other is that do accomplish this change, you need to reach into his new corrupted nature to make contact. Not the original nature that knows God, but a corrupted nature that fights against God.

Rather than banning an original structure, the written Law regulates a corruption of the original, as a part of what God is doing in order to bring us to yet a third ontological structure. Once in this third structure, there is no regulation, and we are to act freely out of that structure, as it is based in the same structure as God Himself.

Your thoughts?

Much love!
Marks;
Beautifully written Marks!

You repeatedly refer to man's ''nature'', which concerns me, because we men are free and do not posses a fixed nature, which determines out actions. We possess an ontological structure, which I discuss somewhat in the larger treatise posted on many other forums, to which I provided a link in a response to Amadeus.

I like your notion that our ontological structure is undergoing modifications. Radically interesting how you point out that Adam was changed ontologically by eating the forbidden fruit. Yes, their eyes were opened and they saw their nakedness...was it ontological change via knowledge of good and evil? I do not think I have undergone a change in my ontological structure by realizing that Jehovah was mistaken in his original notion to attempt to supervise man via a language of law...
Duane
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If the ontological mode of upsurge in inherent truisms surpasses the need for diachromatic stasis in unlimited auras of internal disputes, the resultant cacaphony caused by this ipso facto chain reaction of dubious origin, allows brain synapses to misfire at astonishing levels heretofore unrecognized in the study of phenomenon associated with existential debates of psychic doubts.

This cannot be overstressed.
I don't know, I think we've seen it before. But that's why I try to keep things to a single point at a time.

Much love!
 

Duane Clinton Meehan

Active Member
Nov 18, 2019
306
56
28
78
Lebanon, KY
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."

I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe the man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.

"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;"

True. Again, to assume this to be the case of the biblical authors is false.

"...thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity,"

I disagree for the salient reason that you have not supplied one single verse to support this claim while I have supplied you with at least three direct citations as well as numerous other references not directly cited, but so well known by those familiar with the texts as to make citations superfluous.

I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the biblical god who you are claiming can't be divine because of what he supposedly states through the biblical writers. This isn't usually considered an unrealistic assumption.

"...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."

You have supplied nothing from the biblical texts to support this claim.


Yes, I do this to support my claim as well as to show that your claim is nonsensical to those who wrote these texts. The entire Old Testament is literally a testament to the fact that laws kept cannot save or determine anyone's fate. Paul literally points this out by contrasting the results of the old method (this would be the one you think God instituted to determine people) with the New which is determined by one's recognition of their own ontological state which literally renders the Mosaic law obsolete. Again, this is only relevant to those who see what Spinoza or Sartre are pointing out.

Here again, you seem to be contradicting yourself again. You might be able to clear this up with more punctuation. God's law cannot fix anyone which is effectively no different than pointing out it can't determine anyone either.


Again I'm familiar with your claims. I am pointing out that this is not the claim of Jehovah to begin with. He is not directing law to men. He is stating an ontological fact which humanity ignores to their own detriment.

Again, I totally agree. I have not forgotten this fact either.

This is an odd admission due to the fact that he has a superior grasp of the texts; one that sheds significant light on just why your claims make no sense.

No. it's the reason I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument. Again, the flaw is in assuming that God is directing humanity by his law. This is an assumption on your part. It is a false assumption.

It is relevant in that you are the one who is assuming that God posited law to determine humanity. He didn't. He posited law to show that in a presumed fallen ontological state, humanity will never be able to determine anything by the law.

And this is a blatant Strawman argument as well as Begging the Question. You are assuming this is what JHVH did. HE didn't. We have the entire Old Testament proving this can't be the case, and that those who do attempt this methodology are doomed to failure. Again, Paul spotlights this fact in his letters.

I am focusing on the fact that this is an error on your part due to the fact that God did not institute the law to save humanity, but to point out their presumed as well as actual ontological state.

You don't seem to have any trouble producing a wall of text focusing on irrelevant considerations. Take them one at a time.

I'm quite clear on your fundamental assumptions. Here they are again with my contentions:
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."
I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe that man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.
"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;
True. Again, to assume this to be the case is false. It is a Strawman argument.

I must say that I was disappointed that you completely ignored the content of my original posts altogether, and instead sought to accuse me of sowing discord on this forum. What goes around comes around. One doesn't need to be a Christian to assume the validity of the golden rule which states that one treat others the way they wish to be treated. I am simply complying with that assumption. If you wish to be treated better than you treat others, you've come to the wrong place.


Here it is again:

You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."

I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe the man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.

"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;"

True. Again, to assume this to be the case is false.

"...thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity,

I disagree for the salient reason that you have not supplied one single verse to support this claim while I have supplied you with at least three direct citations as well as numerous other references not directly cited, but so well known by those familiar with the texts as to make citations superfluous. I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the biblical god who you are claiming can't be divine because of what he supposedly states through the biblical writers, but this isn't usually considered an unrealistic assumption.

"...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."

You have supplied nothing from the biblical texts to support this claim. You appear to be assuming this, perhaps from secondhand hearsay.
shnarkle;
So, the biblical prophets show that man cannot be determined or effect human action through law, however, that is closing the barn door after the horse has already disappeared; i.e., Jehovah had already made the mistake of positing His language of Law, in a vain attempt to supervise/control free men thereby, and, the fact that the prophets claim, after the fact of God's implementation of Law, that Law is an inefficacy, does not relieve Jehovah from His original error of prescribing law for beings whose ontological structure is immune from being determined by givens.
Duane
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,693
5,574
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ScottA;
You're totally blissed-out Scott, and I am happy for you for your being so happily happy!
Duane
So...does that mean you have no further need to consider anything more than this minute fishbowl you know, to accept life on this limited level and pass on the infinite?

If so, why are you still here?
 

Episkopos

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2011
12,795
19,242
113
65
Montreal
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Episkopos;
Wow man, you are supremely more radically abstruse that I, and I have sincerely attempted to tone my writing down, in order to possibly communicate with persons like Amadeus! Your style is poetic and fun to read though...
Duane


I prefer abstruse to obtuse! :)

Peace
 

Duane Clinton Meehan

Active Member
Nov 18, 2019
306
56
28
78
Lebanon, KY
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."

I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe the man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.

"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;"

True. Again, to assume this to be the case of the biblical authors is false.

"...thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity,"

I disagree for the salient reason that you have not supplied one single verse to support this claim while I have supplied you with at least three direct citations as well as numerous other references not directly cited, but so well known by those familiar with the texts as to make citations superfluous.

I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the biblical god who you are claiming can't be divine because of what he supposedly states through the biblical writers. This isn't usually considered an unrealistic assumption.

"...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."

You have supplied nothing from the biblical texts to support this claim.


Yes, I do this to support my claim as well as to show that your claim is nonsensical to those who wrote these texts. The entire Old Testament is literally a testament to the fact that laws kept cannot save or determine anyone's fate. Paul literally points this out by contrasting the results of the old method (this would be the one you think God instituted to determine people) with the New which is determined by one's recognition of their own ontological state which literally renders the Mosaic law obsolete. Again, this is only relevant to those who see what Spinoza or Sartre are pointing out.

Here again, you seem to be contradicting yourself again. You might be able to clear this up with more punctuation. God's law cannot fix anyone which is effectively no different than pointing out it can't determine anyone either.


Again I'm familiar with your claims. I am pointing out that this is not the claim of Jehovah to begin with. He is not directing law to men. He is stating an ontological fact which humanity ignores to their own detriment.

Again, I totally agree. I have not forgotten this fact either.

This is an odd admission due to the fact that he has a superior grasp of the texts; one that sheds significant light on just why your claims make no sense.

No. it's the reason I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument. Again, the flaw is in assuming that God is directing humanity by his law. This is an assumption on your part. It is a false assumption.

It is relevant in that you are the one who is assuming that God posited law to determine humanity. He didn't. He posited law to show that in a presumed fallen ontological state, humanity will never be able to determine anything by the law.

And this is a blatant Strawman argument as well as Begging the Question. You are assuming this is what JHVH did. HE didn't. We have the entire Old Testament proving this can't be the case, and that those who do attempt this methodology are doomed to failure. Again, Paul spotlights this fact in his letters.

I am focusing on the fact that this is an error on your part due to the fact that God did not institute the law to save humanity, but to point out their presumed as well as actual ontological state.

You don't seem to have any trouble producing a wall of text focusing on irrelevant considerations. Take them one at a time.

I'm quite clear on your fundamental assumptions. Here they are again with my contentions:
You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."
I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe that man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.
"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;
True. Again, to assume this to be the case is false. It is a Strawman argument.

I must say that I was disappointed that you completely ignored the content of my original posts altogether, and instead sought to accuse me of sowing discord on this forum. What goes around comes around. One doesn't need to be a Christian to assume the validity of the golden rule which states that one treat others the way they wish to be treated. I am simply complying with that assumption. If you wish to be treated better than you treat others, you've come to the wrong place.


Here it is again:

You claim to disprove the deity of God and Jesus by pointing to "one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure;... human action upsurges ex nihilo... God command men via written law." Humanity is not determined by God's enforced laws, but by their ontological state. God "proclaiming man shall be determined.. by law,... thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."

I agree, but I also note that this is a Strawman argument as the biblical authors (not to be confused with those who believe the man is determined by law) show that humanity cannot be determined or exert human action effectively through adherence to the law. Adherence to the law does not change one's ontological state.

"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined, in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture;"

True. Again, to assume this to be the case is false.

"...thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity,

I disagree for the salient reason that you have not supplied one single verse to support this claim while I have supplied you with at least three direct citations as well as numerous other references not directly cited, but so well known by those familiar with the texts as to make citations superfluous. I apologize for assuming you were familiar with the biblical god who you are claiming can't be divine because of what he supposedly states through the biblical writers, but this isn't usually considered an unrealistic assumption.

"...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."

You have supplied nothing from the biblical texts to support this claim. You appear to be assuming this, perhaps from secondhand hearsay.
shnarkle;
You repeatedly attempt to place my stance out on this limb of what the biblical prophets thought and said after Jehovah had already mistakenly posited law, and, that is a fallacious procedure known as argument by extension! You are not going to be able to saw off that pretended limb and, plunge my argument down! I see you employing an argument by extension even though you may not yourself see your fallacious methodology!
Duane
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,693
5,574
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
shnarkle;
So, the biblical prophets show that man cannot be determined or effect human action through law, however, that is closing the barn door after the horse has already disappeared; i.e., Jehovah had already made the mistake of positing His language of Law, in a vain attempt to supervise/control free men thereby, and, the fact that the prophets claim, after the fact of God's implementation of Law, that Law is an inefficacy, does not relieve Jehovah from His original error of prescribing law for beings whose ontological structure is immune from being determined by givens.
Duane
The law was not a failure except for those who could not keep it.

But you misunderstand...the law was the proof. It was God giving them the proof they asked for (just as He gave them a king, then when they failed He appointed His own king). And now...do you also want proof? Will 400 years do? It wasn't enough for them. How about 2000 years? How about your whole life?

Open your eyes. You are not learning the lessons of history.
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You repeatedly refer to man's ''nature'', which concerns me, because we men are free and do not posses a fixed nature, which determines out actions. We possess an ontological structure,

OK, you can call me "sloppy"! By nature, what I really meant was ontological structure. I was using them as synonymous, but that would be more exact.

was it ontological change via knowledge of good and evil? I do not think I have undergone a change in my ontological structure by realizing that Jehovah was mistaken in his original notion to attempt to supervise man via a language of law...

I don't know whether the knowledge of good and evil produced an ontological change, or if that change, effected in another way, yielded that knowledge.

My thinking is that "their eyes were opened" was the change, and knowledge came as a result of their eyes being opened. Interesting conversation! I think they were changed by an act, and that act resulted in a corruption of their original structure. That corruption then produced both a physical and psychic state of being that is death to mankind.

I think the idea is that the next ontological structure change is not effected by the giving of a language law, rather, the giving of that Law is a method to position us to "be changed" yet again, and that as a result of an act performed by one uncorrupted. Here it gets mystical.

Your thoughts?

Much love
 

Duane Clinton Meehan

Active Member
Nov 18, 2019
306
56
28
78
Lebanon, KY
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
So...does that mean you have no further need to consider anything more than this minute fishbowl you know, to accept life on this limited level and pass on the infinite?

If so, why are you still here?
ScottA;
Perhaps you do not realize how insulting you are being by stating that I inhabit a mere radically limited fish bowl and you, on the other hand, apprehend an infinity. Edgar Allan Poe taught us that we cannot possibly comprehend infinity and, we forever inhabit the margins of existence (see his "Marginalia"). Nonetheless, I do, happily, have the infinitely rich dictum originally coined by Baruch Spinoza in 1664: ''...determinatio negatio est...'', via which your Christ scriptural nonsense is overthrown. You could never possibly even begin to apprehend my weltanschauung.
Duane
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,447
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
…We possess an ontological structure, which I discuss somewhat in the larger treatise posted on many other forums, to which I provided a link in a response to Amadeus.
Reading through the thread I came upon this within a response of yours to another person. Perhaps you intended to provide a link, but checking back I have found no such link.