ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

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.

Amadeus;
So sorry. I did include a link in one of my responses to your posts, and, I even e mailed it to myself to make sure it worked. Anyway, here it is, thank you.
Ontological Disproof of Jehovah and Christ - Philosophy Now Forum
Duane

 

[amadeus]

Amadeus;
So sorry. I did include a link in one of my responses to your posts, and, I even e mailed it to myself to make sure it worked. Anyway, here it is, thank you.
Ontological Disproof of Jehovah and Christ - Philosophy Now Forum
Duane

Thank you.
Seeing the link and checking back I see that you included it in post #9 to Philip James but never to me. I will take a look at it.

 

[shnarkle]

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.

Again, this is yet another strawman argument, but with the added deceit of conflating the false description you attribute to Jehovah with Jehovah himself. No one is fooled by this.

By the way it angers me that you accuse me of not understanding Sartre!

I haven't accused you of not understanding Sartre! I've pointed out that you have applied Sartre correctly to a description of the biblical God that is incorrect, and come to the correct conclusion which coincidently is what the authors point out in the biblical texts.

Perhaps it is because you do not understand his writing; like you misapprehended mine...

I see quite clearly that you haven't addressed the fact you are making claims to a deity which you admit you have no familiarity with whatsoever. You are not just making claims though. You're making blatantly false claims. You're simply assuming these claims are true. They're not. Anyone who is going to present an argument will have the common decency to defend their position. You have not only not defended this position, but admitted that you have never even read these texts to begin with. One can only assume you are getting these ideas from second hand hearsay.

The very last thing I would attempt would be to support my contention via scripture; such has never ever crossed my mind!

Again, quite a bold admission considering that you have no argument without it. How about we apply this tactic to your writings as well? Therefore, without ever reading any of your writings, we can safely assume that you don't know what you're talking about. See how that works?

Scripture is not the final word on everything.

Strawman argument. I never suggested it was. I am simply going by what you're presenting. You're making claims about the biblical God. I'm pointing out that those claims are false. The biblical God is not presented as giving laws to save or determine anyone. This is your claim, and it is blatantly false. The fact that you now admit you have never even read the texts is telling.

In fact, scripture is radically behind the times and backward in regard to what makes humans tick ontologically.

Given your admitted ignorance of the texts, it's no wonder why you have come to this conclusion.
I would just like to add that you still have yet to address my arguments, much less refute any of them.

 

[farouk]

Again, this is yet another strawman argument, but with the added deceit of conflating the false description you attribute to Jehovah with Jehovah himself. No one is fooled by this.

I haven't accused you of not understanding Sartre! I've pointed out that you have applied Sartre correctly to a description of the biblical God that is incorrect, and come to the correct conclusion which coincidently is what the authors point out in the biblical texts.


I see quite clearly that you haven't addressed the fact you are making claims to a deity which you admit you have no familiarity with whatsoever. You are not just making claims though. You're making blatantly false claims. You're simply assuming these claims are true. They're not. Anyone who is going to present an argument will have the common decency to defend their position. You have not only not defended this position, but admitted that you have never even read these texts to begin with. One can only assume you are getting these ideas from second hand hearsay.

Again, quite a bold admission considering that you have no argument without it. How about we apply this tactic to your writings as well? Therefore, without ever reading any of your writings, we can safely assume that you don't know what you're talking about. See how that works?

Strawman argument. I never suggested it was. I am simply going by what you're presenting. You're making claims about the biblical God. I'm pointing out that those claims are false. The biblical God is not presented as giving laws to save or determine anyone. This is your claim, and it is blatantly false. The fact that you now admit you have never even read the texts is telling.

Given your admitted ignorance of the texts, it's no wonder why you have come to this conclusion.
I would just like to add that you still have yet to address my arguments, much less refute any of them.

Hebrews 11.6 is always a good place to begin...

 

[amadeus]

@Duane Clinton Meehan

Thank you.
Seeing the link and checking back I see that you included it in post #9 to Philip James but never to me. I will take a look at it.

I took a quick look and skimming it a bit was more than enough for me. I remember fondly the first Philosophy course I took when I started college in 1966. I enjoyed it thoroughly and gained my two best friends for many years to follow. Thinking to myself, 'some's good, more's better'... the next semester I enrolled in the next Philosophy course and was extremely disappointed. I have never been sorry for not pursuing it beyond that... and I was not a practicing Christian at the time. My two friends made a good stab at being atheists. I honestly did not know enough about where I was to even discuss such things with them. They always had other things on their minds outside of the classroom.

 

[farouk]

@Duane Clinton Meehan

I took a quick look and skimming it a bit was more than enough for me. I remember fondly the first Philosophy course I took when I started college in 1966. I enjoyed it thoroughly and gained my two best friends for many years to follow. Thinking to myself, 'some's good, more's better'... the next semester I enrolled in the next Philosophy course and was extremely disappointed. I have never been sorry for not pursuing it beyond that... and I was not a practicing Christian at the time. My two friends made a good stab at being atheists. I honestly did not know enough about where I was to even discuss such things with them. They always had other things on their minds outside of the classroom.

There are few really serious philosophers: and there is a huge gamut of moral and spiritual variety among the ones who are serious philosophers...

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

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.

Amadeus;
Yes, there is some ilk of intelligence which structures the universe we inhabit, and, that intelligence is infinitely beyond our small capacity to understand what we are and where we are, an inscrutable intelligence which, nonetheless, we incrementially unconceal, bit by bit. We are radically childish to think that the inscrutable intelligence inherent to the upsurge of our universe, and, of ourselves, is Jehovah/Christ, especially since, given what we now know about our own ontological structure, it can be shown that Jehovah/Christ have not exhibited a familiarity with our human ontological structuration, and, thus, Jehovah/Christ are not, cannot, be deity. Deity being that which is above/higher than we humans...

It is a hateful deed to proclaim that I am deceived simply because scripture claims it to be the case, while, all the while, I have shown scripture to be in fatal error. Christians are so incredibly stuck/frozen in a predetermined mode of belief, that it is nauseating from my particular perspectival view.
Duane

 

[shnarkle]

Amadeus;
So sorry. I did include a link in one of my responses to your posts, and, I even e mailed it to myself to make sure it worked. Anyway, here it is, thank you.
Ontological Disproof of Jehovah and Christ - Philosophy Now Forum
Duane

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

You're simply Begging the Question without ever supporting your claim with anything. You're just presenting a glorified tautology, and I can assure you that no one is impressed by it in the slightest. Put up something or give up.

 

[amadeus]

There are few really serious philosophers: and there is a huge gamut of moral and spiritual variety among the ones who are serious philosophers...

I guess a little bit of it is good for anyone who enters college at all, but there's probably not too much of a financial future in it. Probably it should be that way with those who seemingly are followers of Jesus... but what we see around us will probably result in many questioning that conclusion.

My best example of what a minister of Christ should be is in my 94 year old pastor, but I have never met another who even comes close. This does not make him perfect, but God might disagree with me because of what I cannot see in his heart. He is no philosopher nor am I!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

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.



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

marks;
The more I reflect upon what I have thus far made of what we human beings are, I think that it is precisely our ontological structure which we need take as pattern and means of exiting all of the problems which we now attempt to solve by making law, which law does not, cannot, motivate, move, inspire, determine us to do or not do anything. All, in the final analysis, that law has going for itself is violence in the form of punishments up to an including the taking of our very lives, in the name of ''violation'' of a language of law which, given our ontological structure, we can actually neither obey, disobey, nor violate.
Duane

 

[marks]

marks;
The more I reflect upon what I have thus far made of what we human beings are, I think that it is precisely our ontological structure which we need take as pattern and means of exiting all of the problems which we now attempt to solve by making law, which law does not, cannot, motivate, move, inspire, determine us to do or not do anything. All, in the final analysis, that law has going for itself is violence in the form of punishments up to an including the taking of our very lives, in the name of ''violation'' of a language of law which, given our ontological structure, we can actually neither obey, disobey, nor violate.
Duane

What are you wanting out of life? Just curious how you would answer.

 

[amadeus]

Amadeus;
Yes, there is some ilk of intelligence which structures the universe we inhabit, and, that intelligence is infinitely beyond our small capacity to understand what we are and where we are, an inscrutable intelligence which, nonetheless, we incrementially unconceal, bit by bit.

This is a good understanding based on what you are working with... as I see it. Without help you will be unable to go much farther and will simply increase by those tiny increments until there is no more time left for you.

We are radically childish to think that the inscrutable intelligence inherent to the upsurge of our universe, and, of ourselves, is Jehovah/Christ, especially since, given what we now know about our own ontological structure, it can be shown that Jehovah/Christ have not exhibited a familiarity with our human ontological structuration, and, thus, Jehovah/Christ are not, cannot, be deity. Deity being that which is above/higher than we humans...

You can call me childish. Many people do call me naive and insofar as many things around us are concerned, to me it appears to be true.

You say here that "it can be shown that Jehovah/Christ have not..." and so forth, but even more so than in the realm of the pure natural sciences you are dependent on certain starting presumptions to even move onward. You use, as I do, your carnal perceptions [from taste, smell, vision, hearing and touch] combined with your able to conclude within you brain, but what if all that too is part of a great allusion or yours or of God's? You presume first that you exist and then that other beings such as myself exist to even cary on a discussion such as what this appears [to you] to be.

So then my point of view: I have experienced, but I won't even relate them specifically because nothing I can say, even though I may know things, can be irrefutable evidence to you of what I have experienced and what I know unless, my viewpoint is absolutely correct and you have had the same connection with the Maker of it all.

It is a hateful deed to proclaim that I am deceived simply because scripture claims it to be the case, while, all the while, I have shown scripture to be in fatal error. Christians are so incredibly stuck/frozen in a predetermined mode of belief, that it is nauseating from my particular perspectival view.
Duane

I do not proclaim you are deceived because scripture claims it to be the case even though I may believe it. I knew it because He revealed it to me and wanted it revealed, I would. He has not. My own belief about the written scriptures is flatly rejected by many and maybe most believers here.

If you were around me much you would realize that I do not hold to what probably most bearing the label of Christian hold to... I believe absolutely in growth which is only possible with a regular connection and communication with the Maker of it all. Anyone not growing is dead or dying. I won't waste time detailing something you have already rejected or would reject in any case. I am no man's judge. However, I do believe what I believe and I know what I know. When someone wants me to share, I may do so... or I may not. I am led, but you also would probably reject that.

 

[ScottA]

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

Again, you misunderstand--I was being kind.

You poor thing. Is NASA "insulting you" when they show images of the Earth like a speck of dust in the cosmic wind? No. Neither am I. I am being honest when I could let you continue to flail in the kiddies pool while spewing meaningless words of arrogance. Lucky for you that pool is shallow.

But, nonetheless, my offer of help was genuine, and if you are up to the challenge of the necessary paradigm shift--just ask.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

You're simply Begging the Question without ever supporting your claim with anything. You're just presenting a glorified tautology, and I can assure you that no one is impressed by it in the slightest. Put up something or give up.

shnarkle;
I support my claim by discussing the meaning of both Spinoza's dictum, and, of Sartre's explanation of human action, all based on the Spinozistic dictum, which dictum underlies the stance that no factual/given state of affairs is involved in the origination of a human act. You appear to have missed the fact that I referenced Spinoza and Sartre, and, employed their thinking as the foundation of my position. My positing is not tautological for I am not positing an identity A=A; I am defining Jehovah's failure to understand that His Law was a vain attempt at controlling men and exercising God-power,- all in terms of the nihilative structure of the upsurge of a human act,- and, my logic is a radically beautiful ensemble of indefeasible reasoning. Your ongoing pure assertion predicated upon scripture and ad hominem argumentation deludes itself into thinking it constitutes reasoned, efficacious, argument against my position. You require a lot more reading in Heidegger and Sartre, before you may so casually and vainly attempt to dismiss my argument via a scriptural rationality. You appear to be a tender and callow though radically incisive and intelligent fellow...
I am still reading your posts and wish there were a way to respond to each part, instead of continually resending the entire script each time...
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

@Duane Clinton Meehan

I took a quick look and skimming it a bit was more than enough for me. I remember fondly the first Philosophy course I took when I started college in 1966. I enjoyed it thoroughly and gained my two best friends for many years to follow. Thinking to myself, 'some's good, more's better'... the next semester I enrolled in the next Philosophy course and was extremely disappointed. I have never been sorry for not pursuing it beyond that... and I was not a practicing Christian at the time. My two friends made a good stab at being atheists. I honestly did not know enough about where I was to even discuss such things with them. They always had other things on their minds outside of the classroom.

Yes, it is clear that we each have aptitudes for certain things and not for others. In my case I was readily able to comprehend the subject matter of my first philosophy course, and, found chemistry and microbiology very uncomfortably difficult. Now, of course, with a more mature mens, I can, with long study, ace any course...
Duane

 

[shnarkle]

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.

The change wrought was not ontological, but epistemological. Adam no longer views, perceives, or knows who he actually is. He has lost his actual identity, and now sees himself as a separate individual. Despite this blatant contradiction, he continues to struggle with this persistent delusion anyways. The identity he now adheres to is nothing but an abstract construction of the mind. It must die along with the body. The body has not undergone any ontological change whatsoever. Adam's identity is what is changed, and God humors him in his decision to enter into the first recorded case of identity politics.

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.

Here again, I would disagree, and instead go along with what has been presented from Spinoza and Sartre. God's commands are negations themselves, and when they are transgressed, the outcome is due to the negation, not by any determination of the law or humanity itself.

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.

It is expressly against his will. Mankind cannot please God, and nothing would please God more than to have humanity in alignment with his will. This can only come about by negating the false assumptions humanity is operating under.

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

No. Here again, the word is useless without the spirit. The logos kills without the pneuma. The law does not reveal man's corruption, the spirit does. The law alone will only cause humanity to descend further into hopeless depravity. It points to God's salvation which is explicitly through self sacrifice, or negation.

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.

Here again, the law never did anything. It cannot save anyone, nor can it cause one to conform to God's will. It is there to spotlight the necessity of abandoning a deterministic methodology, or as Paul says, "works" based salvation.

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

If we stick with the current nomenclature, it simply reveals the 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.

I agree, but again, the corrupted nature isn't even real. This is the revelation. It is destined to disappear as soon as one denies oneself, or keeping with the nomenclature; negation.

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.

The usage of "freely" is ambiguous, and needs to be clarified because people who sin are free to sin, but not free to do God's will, while the freedom Christ and Paul refer to are not in one's ability to make a free will decision, but to act according to their ontology which precludes them from sinning at all. this is why there is no regulations, curses, penalties, etc. They are redundant.
In a nutshell, what Spinoza and Sartre are pointing out is no different than what Paul or Christ points out, which is that salvation is not by works, but by Grace, in, with, and through the faith of Christ who "empties" himself. This is what corresponds to "negation". When you see it from this perspective, it all makes sense.
It's also interesting to note that the commandments are all negations as well, e.g. "Do not steal, do not murder, do not covet, etc. This is the state of one's being already. It is not a deterministic methodology as some presume. It is an ontological fact. Some could look at it as a promise that becomes reality once the kingdom is revealed.
This deterministic thinking becomes pointless once one discovers the kingdom. They no longer see any need to do anything as they are already arrived in the kingdom. They need no money as there is nothing to buy in the kingdom There is no lack whatsoever.

 

[shnarkle]

I support my claim by discussing the meaning of both Spinoza's dictum, and, of Sartre's explanation of human action, all based on the Spinozistic dictum, which dictum underlies the stance that no factual/given state of affairs is involved in the origination of a human act.

NO ONE IS DENYING THE DICTUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please read what I have actually posted rather than assuming I'm disagreeing with the philosophy itself.

You appear to have missed the fact that I referenced Spinoza and Sartre, and, employed their thinking as the foundation of my position.

No one missed your references to Spinoza or Sartre. I have repeatedly posted the relevant points, and pointed out why your application actually agrees with their dictum. Your conclusion is incorrect because your assumptions are false.

My positing is not tautological for I am not positing an identity A=A;

I never said you were. I am pointing out that to claim that JHVH presents law as a deterministic factor doesn't prove JHVH presents law as a deterministic factor. You're Begging the Question with this overly simple tautology.

I am defining Jehovah's failure to understand that His Law was a vain attempt at controlling men and exercising God-power,

You are presenting it as a GIVEN. This is the fallacy of Begging the Question. I have already addressed this fact repeatedly. All you have done is to simply repeat your baseless assertions. Your response was simply to assert that one doesn't need to actually look at JHVH's position as it appears in the texts to know that this is his position. It's is a blatantly preposterous defense.
As a comparable example, I could say that you are positing that Spinoza and Sartre are pointing out that JHVH presents his laws to point out the ontology of humanity. This is your position, right? No, of course this isn't your position, but we needn't be bothered with what you actually wrote because according to your logic, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the dictum be applied to your writings regardless of what you actually wrote.

- all in terms of the nihilative structure of the upsurge of a human act,- and, my logic is a radically beautiful ensemble of indefeasible reasoning.

Your logic isn't logical at all. You've already admitted that the dictum may be applied to the biblical god regardless of what the authors have presented. It only matters that this strawman argument be repeated until people address it.

Your ongoing pure assertion predicated upon scripture and ad hominem argumentation deludes itself into thinking it constitutes reasoned, efficacious, argument against my position.

You're engaging in Ad Hominem here. This is an accusation without any support whatsoever. You're simply ignoring what I've posted.

You require a lot more reading in Heidegger and Sartre, before you may so casually and vainly attempt to dismiss my argument via a scriptural rationality.

I'm not dismissing it based upon scripture. I'm refuting it based upon the fact that you admit that your own assertions have no correspondence to the topic of the OP to begin with. You admit that it doesn't matter that God doesn't actually present the law as a determinative factor. It only matters that this strawman can be refuted by your application of Spinoza's dictum. No one is impressed by this in the slightest. It is neither radical, beautiful, or irrefutable.

You appear to be...

This is blatant Ad Hominem, and trolling.

I am still reading your posts and wish there were a way to respond to each part, instead of continually resending the entire script each time...

Perhaps you haven't noticed that I am responding to each and every one of your points in one single post. It's not rocket science. Simply click and type.
Are you having trouble with the quoting process? Here's how they require quotes:
You type the word QUOTE in all caps.
Then you place this at the end of each quote: [/QUOTE]
The first example has no slash mark, and goes in front of the quote, while the second one goes after it.

I'm not engaging in Ad Hominem. How about extending the same courtesy, and addressing the arguments I've actually presented instead?

 

[ScottA]

Yes, it is clear that we each have aptitudes for certain things and not for others. In my case I was readily able to comprehend the subject matter of my first philosophy course, and, found chemistry and microbiology very uncomfortably difficult. Now, of course, with a more mature mens, I can, with long study, ace any course...
Duane

Oh, that is rich!

But seriously, you make it apparent that you are indeed a big fish in the little pond of the world and its knowledge. But in this greater realm--you are failing. Here you are completely out of your element, and show no signs of being willing to learn.

Sorry, "long study"--does not describe what you have been doing in this matter. Not even.

 

[shnarkle]

marks;
The more I reflect upon what I have thus far made of what we human beings are, I think that it is precisely our ontological structure which we need take as pattern and means of exiting all of the problems which we now attempt to solve by making law, which law does not, cannot, motivate, move, inspire, determine us to do or not do anything. All, in the final analysis, that law has going for itself is violence in the form of punishments up to an including the taking of our very lives, in the name of ''violation'' of a language of law which, given our ontological structure, we can actually neither obey, disobey, nor violate.
Duane

You're literally paraphrasing Paul's letters. The Old Testament relied upon punishment, sacrifices, etc. The new covenant is based upon an ontological realization that one is a child of god created to fulfill God's will, not the other way around.

In other words, one isn't a sinner because they sin; they sin because they're a sinner. Christ comes along and points out that they sin through this deception in their epistemological understanding of ontology, e.g. this image of themselves rather than reflecting the image of God. Christ even admits to his accusers, "You are gods".

 

[amadeus]

Yes, it is clear that we each have aptitudes for certain things and not for others. In my case I was readily able to comprehend the subject matter of my first philosophy course, and, found chemistry and microbiology very uncomfortably difficult. Now, of course, with a more mature mens, I can, with long study, ace any course...
Duane

Well it was nice to talk with you. I wish the outcome were different but I don't try to force feed anyone.