ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

The mosaic law was never intended to justify anyone it was only given to show men what filthy savages they were. As I posted earlier I believe 139, there is no law against the attributes of the Holy Spirit.

It would never occur to me that mosaic law entailed any notion of justification, only prohibition.

 

[Waiting on him]

It would never occur to me that mosaic law entailed any notion of justification, only prohibition.

When there’s no contravention, there is no need for law.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

You don’t even know your own interiority.

That is absurd, I know myself.

 

[Waiting on him]

That is absurd, I know myself.

Lol, change that Rofl, I once thought I knew myself.

 

[Waiting on him]

That is absurd, I know myself.

Then came the law, and slew me.

 

[Waiting on him]

Romans 3:31 KJV
[31] Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Pump the brakes, what law is Paul speaking of??????

Tecarta Bible

 

[ScottA]

Disregarding? I regard that which I have disproven on the ontological plane, i.e., disproven Jehovah/Christ as deity, simply in order to point out to men that their belief Christ is deity is wrong, and, TO SET FORTH A PHILOSOPHICAL/ ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF JEHOVAH/CHRIST AS GOD, and to give man the precise reason why law is an inefficacy, and, for the sake of attaining reputation.
There is no realm somewhere behind some curtain or existing somewhere unseen. There are no fish asking questions or making denials; such attempted examples do not illustrate anything! I want to accomplish the/a groundwork whereby man may transcend his religious delusionality and, foremost, I want to reason with man to lead man to face up to the fact that law is not, cannot be, a means of attaining civilization, on account of our ontological structure, which does not, cannot, undertake action/inaction on the basis of given states of affairs, and language of law is a given.

You answered your own question!

In paragraph one above you ask "Disregarding?", and then in paragraph two you disregard and deny everything I have presented without attaining any knowledge of it. See how you are?

But your disregarding and denying does not establish anything except your own level of knowledge. You don't even know what it is that you deny, you simply deny it in concept. Which makes you simply ignorant of the greater part of life. You are simply organic. Welcome to the garden. Dust to dust.

In which case, I also have my answer: You just came to preach, and you don't want to know the whole truth.

As you will. So be it.

 

[ScottA]

Wanting;
There are no worlds/dimensions behind the scene. Appearance is reality.
Duane

Now who is spewing the fraud of opinion? (Rhetorical)

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Now who is spewing the fraud of opinion? (Rhetorical)

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

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

You answered you own question!

In paragraph one above you ask "Disregarding?", and then in paragraph two you disregard and deny everything I have presented without attaining any knowledge of it. See how you are?

But your disregarding and denying does not establish anything except your own level of knowledge. You don't even know what it is that you deny, you simply deny it in concept. Which makes you simply ignorant of the greater part of life. You are simply organic. Welcome to the garden. Dust to dust.

In which case, I also have my answer: You just came to preach, and you don't want to know the whole truth.

As you will. So be it.

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

 

[Steve Owen]

I see Christian notions to be centrally a belief system positing hidden mysterious reality dwelling behind the scenes and out of objective empirical range...silly nonsense...

This is one of the places where your ignorance of Christianity shows. Christianity is based on the historicity of the death and resurrection of Christ (eg. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 1 Peter 1:3).

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Romans 3:31 KJV
[31] Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Pump the brakes, what law is Paul speaking of??????

Tecarta Bible

Waiting for Him;
Yes, wow, radically interesting verse and question, i.e., establishing the law via faith...indeed, what ilk of law?
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

This is one of the places where your ignorance of Christianity shows. Christianity is based on the historicity of the death and resurrection of Christ (eg. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8; 1 Peter 1:3).

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

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

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Here's my first post on this thread. I took your points one by one, and not only addressed them, but made polite and straightforward inquiry to clarify what you were posting. You chose to ignore any and all questions presented, not to mention the arguments presented refuting your claims, but then chose to engage immediately in Ad Hominem, and trolling. This is not just unprofessional, but insulting.

Here again are my points which you have yet to address:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



So far, the only thing we hear in response is a much more profound rendition of Simon and Garfunkal's "The Sound of Silence"

All, all of response you claim to constitute defeat of my disproof of Christ as deity is mere endless assertion of scripture inept to prove its own assertions. My position is grounded upon the indefeasible understanding that human determination to action is negation. When your God originally addressed man via given law He exhibited stupidity and, thus, his non-deity. And as I said, what prophets said about the law subsequent to it being posited does not heal Jehovah's initial fau pau of mistakenly positing thou shalt nots, which thou shalt nots cannot be denied to have happened, which is what it appears you are attempting to do.

 

[Waiting on him]

Waiting for Him;
Yes, wow, radically interesting verse and question, i.e., establishing the law via faith...indeed, what ilk of law?
Duane

Indeed, it is performed, but not of myself.
Then who?

 

[shnarkle]

All, all of response you claim to constitute defeat of my disproof of Christ as deity

Nowhere do I even address the claims of Christ as deity.

My position is grounded upon...

Oh please. Not yet another regurgitation of your premise again. No one has forgotten what your position is. Constantly repeating yourself doesn't advance the argument. Addressing what I have actually posted would be the first step.

thou shalt nots cannot be denied to have happened,

No one is denying the fact that the commandments are actually presented in line with Spinoza's dictum. You keep ignoring that fact. You keep ignoring the fact that there is nothing one needs to do to keep God's commandments. LOL. I've only pointed this out half a dozen times already, and yet you can't help returning to your mindless parroting of your position which only spotlights that you don't even seem to understand it yourself.

which is what it appears you are attempting to do.

Hallucinations are the only thing that are appearing to you. Have you ever heard of Steelmaning? Try that. Try to look at what I'm actually posting instead of imagining what you think it means.

 

[shnarkle]

Indeed, it is performed, but not of myself.
Then who?

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

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

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

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Nowhere do I even address the claims of Christ as deity.



Oh please. Not yet another regurgitation of your premise again. No one has forgotten what your position is. Constantly repeating yourself doesn't advance the argument. Addressing what I have actually posted would be the first step.



No one is denying the fact that the commandments are actually presented in line with Spinoza's dictum. You keep ignoring that fact. You keep ignoring the fact that there is nothing one needs to do to keep God's commandments. LOL. I've only pointed this out half a dozen times already, and yet you can't help returning to your mindless parroting of your position which only spotlights that you don't even seem to understand it yourself.



Hallucinations are the only thing that are appearing to you. Have you ever heard of Steelmaning? Try that. Try to look at what I'm actually posting instead of imagining what you think it means.

I read that entire post #137 and it required the precise repeat of my position in order to properly respond to the fact that all you know is the intellectual dystrophy/weakness that is biblical scripture, which scripture is doing your thinking for you, and is a given state of affairs and thus does not determine anything. Your constant abuse is unacceptable/unchristian and makes me lose all interest in attempting a theoretically oriented dialectic with you, you cannot do but parrot scripture; tiresome...reference my last post to Steve wherein I employ the dictum's rationale to critique your precious notion of salvation via Christ's blood sacrifice on the cross...anyway, you absolutely bore to death,by only resorting to the inauthoritative authority of scripture...

 

[shnarkle]

Duane Clinton Meehan said: ↑
I see Christian notions to be centrally a belief system positing hidden mysterious reality dwelling behind the scenes and out of objective empirical range...silly nonsense...

Forget about belief systems altogether then. Look at the interface we all have with the world around us. We all have identities that we have constructed, but each and every one of them is nothing more than an arbitrary abstract construction of the mind. This is an empirical fact. We all develop these identities as we develop. Any attentive parent should remember when their infant son or daughter began to recognize their own reflection in a mirror.

At that point, a sense of self was beginning to emerge. This mysterious hidden reality dwelling behind one's persona is beyond objectivity. It is necessarily subjective, and yet we all have no problem accepting or assuming that we are this identity. It's patently absurd, and while you have no way to prove you are who you say you are, you then turn around and question those who have pointed out that there may very well be an actual identity that isn't founded upon an abstract construction of the mind.

The burden of proof is upon you to show how what is admitted to be nothing more than an arbitrary idea is somehow real. Again, we're not denying it's a real idea, but pointing out that beyond that, it doesn't really exist at all.

Ignoring that fact, and pretending that anyone else need prove the existence of God is idiotic.

It is our task to remove the mask, and reveal our true identity. Whenever you're ready...

 

[shnarkle]

I read that entire post #137

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

all you know...is biblical scripture,

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

which scripture is a given state of affairs and thus does not determine anything.

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

Your constant abuse is unacceptable and makes me lose all interest

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

you cannot do but parrot scripture; tiresome...reference my last post to Steve wherein I employ the...notion of salvation via Christ's blood sacrifice on the cross..

What I see is you parroting scripture; tiresome.

.anyway, you absolutely bore to death,by only resorting to the inauthoritative authority of scripture...

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

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