User Tag List

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 101

Thread: THE CREDENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DEISTIC DESCENDANT OF JEHOVAH IS DISCREDITED BY SHO

  1. #16
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    557
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2554
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimiel View Post
    You apparently worship your own mind,..
    You like to insult people by being arrogant, I have noticed.
    John 1:1-2
    1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος At the beginning, it was a word; και ο λογος ην προς ο θεος and a word, it was unto a God; και θεος ην ο λογος and the God, it was.. A word 2 ουτος a-such... 2 ην εν αρχη προς ο θεος ... it was at the beginning unto a God.

    "Yahweh" is a word, not just Christ!

  2. #17
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    You like to insult people by being arrogant, I have noticed.
    Omniskeptical,
    When being deluged with ongoing insults I am tendent to be somewhat insulting in return. I have never thought of myself as arrogant, but that 6'6" fellow absolutely stimulated me to be radically arrogant, didn't he !

    Before I joined this forum, I read the description of what the owner's of this site recently intended when they decided to open the forum to everyone, so that good debate would be more fertile. I am an agnostic. I cannot see deity as an old man in the sky with a long grey beard, being there with a son with Roman spike holes in his hands. There surely is something infinitely more intelligent that we, something non-anthropomorphic, something which dwells within the very fabric of the cosmos, that wrought us.

    I simply wish to interact with kind and level headed people, who are well-bred enough not to continually engage in insult, which is precisely what one would think a Christian forum would be. However, I certainly do not want the discussion to be about me, but, rather, about what I am maintaining, if at all possible. Enscausasui

  3. #18
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    557
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2554
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Omniskeptical,
    When being deluged with ongoing insults I am tendent to be somewhat insulting in return. I have never thought of myself as arrogant, but that 6'6" fellow absolutely stimulated me to be radically arrogant, didn't he !

    Before I joined this forum, I read the description of what the owner's of this site recently intended when they decided to open the forum to everyone, so that good debate would be more fertile. I am an agnostic. I cannot see deity as an old man in the sky with a long grey beard, being there with a son with Roman spike holes in his hands. There surely is something infinitely more intelligent that we, something non-anthropomorphic, something which dwells within the very fabric of the cosmos, that wrought us.

    I simply wish to interact with kind and level headed people, who are well-bred enough not to continually engage in insult, which is precisely what one would think a Christian forum would be. However, I certainly do not want the discussion to be about me, but, rather, about what I am maintaining, if at all possible. Enscausasui
    I am not saying a son of god is impossible like you. But the New Testament says he is fully human, and not the debate.

    I believe the owners of the site are only concerned about converting others completely to their beliefs. I think you should go somewhere else.
    John 1:1-2
    1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος At the beginning, it was a word; και ο λογος ην προς ο θεος and a word, it was unto a God; και θεος ην ο λογος and the God, it was.. A word 2 ουτος a-such... 2 ην εν αρχη προς ο θεος ... it was at the beginning unto a God.

    "Yahweh" is a word, not just Christ!

  4. #19
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    I am not saying a son of god is impossible like you. But the New Testament says he is fully human, and not the debate.

    I believe the owners of the site are only concerned about converting others completely to their beliefs. I think you should go somewhere else.
    Now you are being radically unkind and rude, by insultingly informing me I am not welcome here. I think

    you are indicating that you do not care to be informed that to believe law is an efficacy among human

    beings, is to suffer from jurisprudential illusion, and, that to approach controlling the conduct of human

    beings via law is delusional, because human beings are neither determined to act or forbear action by given

    factual states of affairs.
    I am precisely where I want to be, here, interacting with Christians, pointing out a central mistaken

    presupposition entertained by their god, which demonstrates the non-deity of that god, precisely because I

    am disappointed by slavish type persons who yearn to resign their own freedom, in order to adopt an

    illusion as their master ! It is absurd that Christians came to this country in order to be free to reduce

    themselves to slaves to a non-deistic god...I want to point-out the living contradiction lived by persons

    who want freedom for the sake of attempting to resign from the normal and natural human task of living

    independently and absolutely ontologically free, which is what human existence is.

    Christians are persons on the run away from their original ontological freedom,frightened by the daunting

    task of defining themselves for themselves, they hide from their own personal freedom, by praying to Christ

    to take over their lives and, do the work of being a human being for them; which is precisely to attempt to

    resign from the human race... Enscausasui

  5. #20
    Over 1500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,872
    Thanks
    210
    Thanked 351 Times in 294 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    32002
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    THE CREDENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DEISTIC DESCENDANT OF JEHOVAH IS DISCREDITED BY SHOWING WHY JEHOVAH’s SUPPOSITION THAT LAW IS DETERMINATIVE OF HUMAN CONDUCT IS A MISTAKEN PRESUPPOSITION
    WHICH NIXES JEHOVAH’s DEITY.
    Spoiler
    Duane Clinton Meehan 2019
    I. Law Is Not Determinative of Human Conduct. The Free Origin of Human Action Actually Upsurges via the Double Nihilation.
    1. Human determination to action is a purely negative phenomenon, with the most fundamental expression of the first realization that human determination arises ex nihilo having appeared on the second day of June 1674, with the phrase:“...determinatio negatio est…”*, set forth by Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677).
    2. All determination to act transpires negatively, with no prior given factual states of affairs being involved, for, “All determination is negation.”, a restatement of Spinoza’s phrase, by Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831), whereby, Jean Paul Sartre (1901-1980), incorporating both Spinoza and Hegel, wrote, in 1943 : “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. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.”** And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.”***
    3. A human act does not, cannot, originate on the basis of a given factual state of affairs, for it is strictly within a purely negative procedural milieu, wherein one refuses the present while projecting unto a nonexistent future, whereby persons originate their acts, per what Sartre dubs the “double nihilation”.****
    4. The double nihilation is the only possible human way in the world whereby the origination of a human act transpires.
    5. The notion of determining persons to action and/or inaction with/by law, is not the human mode of originating acts, rather, it is an inauthentic, artificial, inhuman, anti-human, ultimately impossible, failed/failing attempt to control human beings causally, from the outside; while, all along, authentic human action origination is not a mechanistic prime mover phenomenon, wherein an external law-force either causally sets persons into action or to inaction.
    6. The attempted mode of origin of human action which Yahweh ordains as law, is a redundant and, until now, untested hypothetical theory of origination of action, opposed to and obstructive of the originally free human ontological mode of action origination.
    7. Human ‘ontological’, in lay terms, means the structural way human being is built to function; the logic of the way being human ticks, thus:
    8. To nihilate is to make nothing
    9. Human consciousness is the nothingness which makes/nihilates nothing(s). The future is a nothing which human consciousness makes via the double nihilation, which double nihilation is a pure engagement in nothingness and, transpires thus:
    10. In the course of originating an act, consciousness projects and imagines a not yet existing future state of affairs as an end, goal, or objective, which it has not yet attained; thus, in its project toward an as yet non-existent future, consciousness has, on the one hand, made the nothing which is a not yet realized and as yet absent future; ---- and, the double, on-the-other-hand component, of the double nihilation, is, that, as consciousness upsurges toward its absent and unrealized future, consciousness refuses, abandons, and makes the present, given, extant state of affairs into the nothing which is the past; ----thus, we have the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness which is a double-making-nothing, whereby an intended human act originates and upsurges, as a particular nihilative engagement within the sociosphere, where human ontological freedom constantly makes the nothingness of one’s non-existent future become something present, which, in turn, passes into the nothingness which is one’s non-existent past, ad infinitum.
    11. Only the double nihilation is the negation, the negative process, the sole means, whereby human action upsurges in the world, out of nothing..
    12. Positivist materialist deterministic legalistically oriented persons lack reflective consciousness of the human ontological fact that determination to action, or inaction, for original human freedom, upsurges only as two negative moments of the doubly nihilative movement of consciousness, vectoring unto an intended future.
    13. Current legal thought lacks understanding of human existential ontological structural realities which permit one to hold: The original human freedom which creatively authors law is absolutely not in turn subject to being determined, constricted, and controlled by that selfsame created language of law; --- law whereby considerations regarding what is legal or illegal, guilt or not guilt, punishable or excusable, criminal or innocent, lawful, or, unlawful, are daily employed for and against human beings who cannot, by virtue of their very ontological structure, actually be determined to act or forbear action by a man made language of law, which law is created by the same originally free human consciousness which jurisprudence vainly and mistakenly attempts, by law, to control.
    14. Law is a deluded mode of thought which mistakenly artificially constricts all sociospheric phenomenon as being either legal or, illegal, and, mistakenly mistreats human beings, in violent disaccord with their human ontological structure, by illegitimately forcing upon all persons the insistent and wholly mistaken notion that given language of law is a determinative force within human affairs, a determinative force whereby acceptable human conduct is causally determined, and, human misconduct is efficiently causally obviated, by a ubiquitous language of law.
    15. All persons, in their primal original freedom, are structured such that they are not, cannot be, either causally determined to action or inaction by law, or, self-determine themselves to act or forbear action per motivatIon by given language of law. To maintain that language of law is determinative of human conduct is ontologically unintelligible because, “...determinatio negatio est ...” * , i.e., all human determination to action is negation/nihilation, and, law is a given, positive, factual state of affairs, which law, as an in-itself identity a = a, is what it is, and, as such, ‘cannot get out of itself in order by itself ’ to act as an originative force engaged in the upsurge of a human act.
    16. 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.
    17. 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 authentic ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, by proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture, thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action. If an Omnipotent God had indeed created man, that Omnipotent would have known a priori that human beings cannot be determined, 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 doubly nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act.
    18. Human consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of human conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses; nevertheless, 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".
    19. False Biblical Deity and Prophets mistakenly insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while all the while, all determination is negation, meaning human action-origination transpires purely on the basis of a non-existent future, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like law(s).
    20. Thus, Sartre’s theory of origin of human action, (which theory posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position wholly predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est”, is the negative theoretical construct central to demonstrating precisely why neither Yahweh, nor Jehovah, nor Jesus Christ, --- who all mistakenly thought men could be determined to action by the positive, given, factual state of affairs, which is law,--- are demonstrably not deities), is the means of clearly showing that the putative deities currently known as Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ are not, cannot, be Deity.
    21. Therefore, given that Jehovah can be shown to be seriously mistaken regarding his notion that language of law is an efficacy in the sphere of human determination to action, we have hewn a path through the ontological unintelligibility exhibited by inauthentic law making Deity, which hewn path now leads us to demonstrating, likewise, the ontological unintelligibility of extant American jurisprudence, thus:
    II. Legislative/Judicial Illusion is an Instance of Existential Absurdity Which Constitutes Extant Legal Authority as In-Authoritative Authority, Since Language of Law is Not In Fact Determinative of Either Legislative/Judicial or, Grassroots Conduct.
    22. We Americans now exist, regardless of a strong historical constitutional ideality assuring us vast individual liberty, a tyrannical and freedom-destructive absolutism of law, predicated upon the radically mistaken presupposition that given jurisprudentially posited language is determinative of human conduct. Emancipatory relief, from the intensifying tyranny of American absolutistic language of law, begins via description of a mistaken legalist presupposition which is an enforced jurisprudential illusion, an enforced error.
    23. Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, in reality, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, via the nihilative power continually exercised by consciousness.
    24. Legislative/judicial illusion is an instance of human existential absurdity, wherein the illusion consists in blindly, mistakenly, presupposing given language of law to be determinative of human action and inaction; --- legislative/judicial illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, by given law.
    25. The American legislative/judicial illusion of ascribing to human action an origination in, and/or, by, given written law, is an unintentionally mistaken, silent, absurd, fatally ontologically unintelligible, presupposition.
    26. The in-authority of American legal authority consists in the legislative/judicial illusion whereby, so called legal authority absurdly claims given language of law to be determinative of actions by legal authority against persons; while, all the while, defense against the in-authoritative authority of American law, consists in proclaiming the human ontological reality that all human determination to action transpires only via doubly nihilative conscious moments, attendant upon the double nihilation, whereby each and every originally absolutely ontologically free human consciousness, intentionally imagines, and, intentionally upsurges unto an absent future.
    27. One can mistakenly deem one’s self to be determining one’s self to act in accord with given language of law, however, one cannot legitimately, accurately, and humanely claim and declare given language of law to be an ontologically authentic and correct basis/reason for subjecting, for example, in one’s role as legislator or prosecutor, or magistrate, another human being to punishment; for, as a being for whom action originates and upsurges as a function of the doubly nihilative movement characterizable of the pursuit of one’s every conscious project, it is absurd, illusory, and in unintentional bad faith, as ex nihilo nihilative originator of one’s acts, to claim that one is determined to judicial action against another person by given language of law; therefore, ultimately, one cannot in fact legitimately act, is not in fact legitimately acting, against another human being on the basis of, and in accord with, one’s false notion that given published enforced language of law is determinative of one’s conduct.
    28. The designation of given language of law as a means for punishing another human being is entirely inconsistent with the sole ontological doubly nihilative process whereby the originative upsurge of human action transpires.
    29. No magistrate can in ontological fact be determined to action, or, determine himself to action by law, therefore, any punishment which said magistrate declares against a person, in the name of law, is predicated upon the legal/jurisprudential error of mistakenly presupposing a determinative efficacy of the language of law, which error constitutes ongoing legal malpractice of an inhumane and, unethical, legislative/judicial jurisprudential illusion.
    III. Rehabilitating/Enhancing the Constitutional Amendment Approach of 1791, to Having a Living Ontologically Free American Civilization, is attainable by educationally uplifting the grassroots unto a reflective mastery of the nihilative modus operandi of the upsurge of personal ontological freedom of action, by which mastery the coveted freedoms described by the 1791 Bill of Rights can be forever realized, kryptonically secured, preserved, and guaranteed against jurisprudential impediment thereto via currently ongoing freedom obviative, anti-Constitutional, anti-ontological, and anti-human language of law.
    30. An American civilization, patterned in accordance with, not in legalistic discord with, core human original freedoms, was formally pioneered with the penning of The United States Bill of Rights in 1791. The Bill of Rights is our first American attempt to impart political immortality to designated and undesignated original human freedoms, by law, which, now, with the realization that language of law per se is not efficient to guarantee American conduct will always freely transpire in keeping with the original intent of the Bill of Rights, the possibility of constructing an alternative means of assuring an everlasting freedom for primal grassroots original freedoms is, nonetheless, attainable by informing Americans about what personal reflective ontological freedom is. Guaranteeing human rights of freedom cannot realistically be assured by law, which law is demonstrably not determinative of human behavior. However, the American original freedoms which are the foundation of American civilization, can be assured immortality by uplifting the American grassroots to a possession of reflective understanding of precisely what their primal original ontological freedom is and, of how said freedom naturally transpires, without law.
    31. Twenty first century Americans cannot viably immortalize the living original ontological freedoms, currently idealized by a historic Bill of Rights, without stepping one’s knowledge of freedom up to the attainment of a reflective apprehension of the operative mode of one’s personal ontological freedom, whereby, via possessing the strength of being reflectively free, one’s original freedom can be lived as the only means to obviating inroads against the Bill of Rights, continually attempted by a merely pre-reflectively free and rampantly tyrannical extant American legal system.
    32. We Americans shall not, cannot, solve/dissolve our sociospheric problems by endlessly making laws. It is by everyone attaining personal reflective knowledge of one’s absolute human original ontological freedom and, thereby, placing the pure nobility of our absolutely free human mode of originating our acts, at the forefront of our civilization, that, breathing free, our actions will honorably upsurge in keeping with our inherent human nobility, and will, thereby, transcend and leave an anti-human, suffocative, and destructive law/jurisprudence, abandoned, and alone, lost in an ignoble, slavish, sub-human legalistic depravity.
    33. Original human ontological freedom is, in essence, the double nihilation.
    34. The sole sole authentic original originative mode of upsurge of human action, comprehension of which constitutes a person reflectively ontologically free, is the double nihilation. To be reflectively free is to know precisely how one’s being originates acts which arise ex nihilo when, ordinarily, one’s ex nihilo nililitive origination of action and inaction naturally transpires unreflectively and all but unawares, which unawares exercise of one’s ontological freedom is one’s being merely pre-reflectively free.
    35. American law is dependent upon the deluded misconception, and, upon the overall public misperception, that language of law is an actual overpowering, ruling, determinative efficacy among men. Moreover, American law is absolutely dependent, most of all, upon the pre-reflectively free American grassroots, which seemingly appears hopelessly overpowered by legalist interests; nonetheless, a radically viable means of transcending American totalitarian legalist misconduct is by point-blank explanation to American grassroots what their primal human original ontological freedom is, and, how original human ontological freedom nihila tively plots and navigates course. Via thus transcendently advancing American grassroots unto personal possession of a reflectively free freedom, it is possible to peaceably abandon and maroon an ignoble, grassroots dependent, American totalitarian law, alone and inept, upon the frightful and sterile desert island of misconceived and destructively mistaken notions of putative legalistic power. Thereby establishing an insulating existential ontological protective sea, of reflectively free grassroots consciousnesses, standing between each American and the destructively loose cannon that is extant tyrannical American law, (which law delusionally attempts, by legality/illegality, to suffocate and overpower primal deistically wrought nihilative human ontological determinative power), for the sake of openly voyaging unto a free ontological sociosphere, where individual Americans can correctly upsurge acts in knowing accord with their ontological structure, (absent the strained destructive legalo-ontological-disaccord universally promulgated by anti-ontological law), and, where original human ontological freedom establishes a noble and overpoweringly reflectively free grassroots reign over America, whereby a structurally self-conscious primal original freedom, educationally self-emancipated from an anti-human and anti-American legalism, will let freedom reign.
    * ”...determination is negation…” Baruch Spinoza (1634-1677), Letter to Jareg Gelles, 2 June 1674, p.143, Correspondence of Benedict de Spinoza by Benedict de Spinoza. Translated from the Latin by R. H. W. Elwes. Start Publishing LLC. USA. 2012
    ** Sartre, Jean Paul, Being and Nothingness. An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. p.435 . Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. Philosophical Library. New York. 1956.
    *** Ibid, p.477.
    **** Ibid, p.436.
    tl ; dr

    Anyway to summarize this for us?
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  6. #21
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    tl ; dr

    Anyway to summarize this for us?
    Idolater,
    The presupposition(s) which are implicitly employed by a given philosophical or theological position are the most vulnerable targets to examine, when one is critically thinking about a given position.
    After decades of study of the theoretical works of Martin Heidegger and J.P. Sartre, I became familiar with twentieth century thought regarding how a human act originates and, how human freedom transpires, in the view of what are called existentialist thinkers, like Heidegger and Sartre.
    The central precept employed by existentialist thinkers is Baruch Spinoza's "determination is negation", meaning all human determination, when differentiates figure from ground when viewing the world, is a process of negation. Fredrich Hegel stated that Spinoza's dictum is "infinitely rich", and, Sartre, delving into those infinite riches, posited the notion that all human action is a process of negation, which he describes as "the double nihilation".
    Thus, learning from existentialist thinkers that all human determination to action is a purely negative operation, wherein no existing factual, given, existing state of affairs has any role whatsoever, in the origin of a human determination to act.
    Then, when reflecting upon law, I realized that the way which law expects we human beings to originate our actions and, our forbearances, is directly antithetical to the way we humans originate our actions ontologically. Human beings only originate their actions via the double nihilation. Thus the presupposition that given language of law is a determinative agency in the origination of a human act is illusory; delusional.
    Then, upon reflecting about Jehovah's central emphasis upon law, (which law is a given), whereby He presupposes that law is a determinative force among men, one sees Jehovah's supposition is a totally mistaken presupposition. Then, reasoning further, I thought it clear that Jehovah's employment of a given language of law as means to determining man to do or, not do, certain acts, is a mistaken presupposition entertained by Jehovah; thus, being mistaken about the very mode whereby the man He purportedly created, upsurges acts, Jehovah exhibits himself, since he does not know how man actually ticks in regard to originating acts, as not actually being the deity which created man; and, since Christ is Jehovah's Son, Christ is not descended from deity and,thus,is not deity himself. Enscausasui

  7. #22
    Over 1500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,872
    Thanks
    210
    Thanked 351 Times in 294 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    32002
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Idolater,
    The presupposition(s) which are implicitly employed by a given philosophical or theological position are the most vulnerable targets to examine, when one is critically thinking about a given position.
    OK. The Resurrection of Christ is explicitly that upon which the one Christian faith is built.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    After decades of study of the theoretical works of Martin Heidegger and J.P. Sartre, I became familiar with twentieth century thought regarding how a human act originates and, how human freedom transpires, in the view of what are called existentialist thinkers, like Heidegger and Sartre.
    The central precept employed by existentialist thinkers is Baruch Spinoza's "determination is negation", meaning all human determination, when differentiates figure from ground when viewing the world, is a process of negation. Fredrich Hegel stated that Spinoza's dictum is "infinitely rich", and, Sartre, delving into those infinite riches, posited the notion that all human action is a process of negation, which he describes as "the double nihilation".
    OK. So can you relate this position to Christians' belief in the Resurrection of Christ? How does 'double nihilation' explain things to /about the Christian?
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Thus, learning from existentialist thinkers that all human determination to action is a purely negative operation, wherein no existing factual, given, existing state of affairs has any role whatsoever, in the origin of a human determination to act.
    This is not a complete sentence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Then, when reflecting upon law, I realized that the way which law expects we human beings to originate our actions and, our forbearances, is directly antithetical to the way we humans originate our actions ontologically. Human beings only originate their actions via the double nihilation. Thus the presupposition that given language of law is a determinative agency in the origination of a human act is illusory; delusional.
    Then, upon reflecting about Jehovah's central emphasis upon law, (which law is a given), whereby He presupposes that law is a determinative force among men, one sees Jehovah's supposition is a totally mistaken presupposition. Then, reasoning further, I thought it clear that Jehovah's employment of a given language of law as means to determining man to do or, not do, certain acts, is a mistaken presupposition entertained by Jehovah; thus, being mistaken about the very mode whereby the man He purportedly created, upsurges acts, Jehovah exhibits himself, since he does not know how man actually ticks in regard to originating acts, as not actually being the deity which created man; and, since Christ is Jehovah's Son, Christ is not descended from deity and,thus,is not deity himself. Enscausasui
    The Apostle St. Paul said this in Galatians 3:21 KJV "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." He also wrote in 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV that "if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." Christians believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  8. #23
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,700
    Thanks
    1,079
    Thanked 1,044 Times in 619 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    531912
    Get out the hammer Sherm.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  9. #24
    Over 6000 post club Aimiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    6,383
    Thanks
    286
    Thanked 366 Times in 268 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115403
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    You are so radically ignorant
    Hardly. I'm actually very well-read and mildly educated.
    ...and so totally brainwashed by your man-inspired bible,
    It's God inspired, as proven by the evidence provided therein. If you don't believe me, read, "Testimony of the Evangelists," by Dr. Simon Greenleaf; one of the founders of Harvard Law School, who was considered the world's foremost authority on evidence in jurisprudence, a staunch atheist, who was challenged to take the Bible apart by the rules of evidence. He attempted to do so but soon found that the Gospels corroborate one another and prove their veracity. He soon became Christian and came to the same conclusion that I did after judging the evidence within: Jesus is Lord and God!
    ...that all you can possibly do is parrot scriptures
    I quote Them because they hold the ONLY Truth about God and in Them you can come into a dynamic relationship with The Living God, not become a parrot or hypnotized by a cult. God wants to come inside you to commune with you and be your God and your Friend.
    You completely lack both the education and the reflection to even begin to fathom what I am explaining; instead, you incant your nonsensical Christian voodoo, intending to drive me away via your mean, hateful, blind rage and, xenophobic fear of a fresh and unfamiliar ontological disproof of Jehovah/Christ.
    You've disproven nothing, merely placed your own ignorance on display, blindly.
    Being a so called Christian has enfeebled your sapientality and intensified your capacity for blind hatred and meanness; you are verily only a simple-minded and ignorant slave, who has voluntarily resigned your own consciousness, your own being, in order to slavishly do the will of your god; however, the will of your god most certainly is not that you treat a newbie, on this site, in the horrid hateful insulting manner in which you are treating me.
    Your own vitrol doesn't taste very good when it's flung back at you; does it? You spew hateful remarks about The Holy One Who is Judge of the Universe as if He is your puppy to be mis-treated and kicked aside. That isn't acceptable or becoming.
    You are an abysmally ignorant and malignantly hateful 6'6" giant.
    You're a mental midget.
    I have actually, legitimately, slain your law, your scripture, and your god; therefore, you have turned into a raging mad man; for you cannot, via patient reason and intelligence, overpower the absolutely rational, high intelligence, mine, which is a self-made deity of infinite nobility, in possession of vastly more understanding of the structure of human ontological freedom, than the non-deity that you consider the Christ.
    Not only is He Christ (The Anointed Son of The Living God) but He is also Creator and Judge. One day, your knees will bow before Him in Obeisance, before you are judged.
    Please do not respond to me again, you are far too radically tiresome and, exhibit too infinite an ignorance and, too pure of a non-christian hatefulness and unforgiveness...upon the terms of your belief system, I should be forgiven for murdering your god, not crucified... Enscausasui
    I have forgiven you. The fact that you imagine yourself to be high-and-mighty or intellectually superior to a plebian is hysterical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Now you are being radically unkind and rude, by insultingly informing me I am not welcome here.
    I wouldn't presume to judge your TOL-worthiness (not being a sysop) but I certainly welcome your banter, even though you don't consider the evidence of Scripture worthy of your consideration.
    I think you are indicating that you do not care to be informed that to believe law is an efficacy among human beings, is to suffer from jurisprudential illusion, and, that to approach controlling the conduct of human beings via law is delusional, because human beings are neither determined to act or forbear action by givenfactual states of affairs.
    It isn't that I don't care to be 'informed' of your foolish notion, it's just that I know it's fallacious. As I said, if you really want an intellectual challenge: read Dr. Greenleaf's book. Unless you think his intellect would overshadow your own.
    "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

    If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aimiel For Your Post:

    k0de (April 4th, 2019),PneumaPsucheSoma (April 5th, 2019)

  11. #25
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,700
    Thanks
    1,079
    Thanked 1,044 Times in 619 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    531912
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Now you are being radically unkind and rude, by insultingly informing me I am not welcome here.
    Me too...me too!!

    I can be almost nearly as unkind and rude. Honestly I can.
    And insulting too. I really am that way.

    Please sir, do not forget me too.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 5th, 2019),PneumaPsucheSoma (April 5th, 2019)

  13. #26
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,044
    Thanks
    574
    Thanked 964 Times in 706 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117204
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Aimiel,
    My Son, (as Solomon always said): The particular language whereby I have posited disproof of the deity of your god, is your encounter with the first instance of a rational proof that Christ and Jehovah ERROR in regard to their mistaken belief, their mistaken presupposition, that they can mediate their putative deity to man via given law and scripture. Men wrote the scriptural law, the Torah, and, those men, who claim to be deistically inspired authors of God's word, show, by incorporating their lack of understanding of how a human act originates, that no god, but man, inspired scripture.
    A genuine God who actually had created man would not have errored by attempting to control men by law, He would have known better, because he would have known that all determination is negation and, that law is not negation, but a factual and existing state of affairs.
    I am lovingly working to explain correct understanding and reasoning to you,and all you can rise to doing is making threats against my person, thus, you are acting more like your god than I ! I can indeed out-think your god, and, all you are doing is attempting to out-threat him ! I am not, cannot be afraid of your non-deistic god. Enscausasui
    The problem here is really a very simple one. You are a low-context English speaker, and have absolutely NO understanding of linguistics, semiotics, or many other areas. So you actually have NO clue what most of the words you use even mean in any depth, breadth, or height. Lexicography is vital, being essential to determine the quality of one’s epistemics and expressing object as subject. English is a derivative language. If someone doesn’t have a working knowledge of etymology and many other things, then it’s literally impossible to make the claims you’ve arrogantly and ignorantly made above. It’s all laughable, verging on mental disorder.


    You don’t understand what law is according to ancient languages; only the shallow and fragmentary partiality of its meaning in the English language. And you have no idea of the voids in your understanding because you lack comprehension of an entire spectrum of grammatical forms. Literally hundreds of them. Reading what you write is ridiculous. You think yourself so utterly competent when your grasp of language and epistemics is below elementary.


    You don’t understand divine OR human ontology OR economy, contrary to your assertions. But I’m quite certain you are beyond approachable for any degree or gradient of correction. You actually know less than nothing, for you have substituted that which should be present for its inverse and opposite.


    This may be the most useless drivel I’ve ever encountered. Absolutely counter-factual to ANY form of authentic truth. It’s beneath absurd. Sigh.
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 5th, 2019),George Affleck (April 5th, 2019)

  15. #27
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,044
    Thanks
    574
    Thanked 964 Times in 706 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117204
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Idolater,
    The presupposition(s) which are implicitly employed by a given philosophical or theological position are the most vulnerable targets to examine, when one is critically thinking about a given position.
    After decades of study of the theoretical works of Martin Heidegger and J.P. Sartre, I became familiar with twentieth century thought regarding how a human act originates and, how human freedom transpires, in the view of what are called existentialist thinkers, like Heidegger and Sartre.
    The central precept employed by existentialist thinkers is Baruch Spinoza's "determination is negation", meaning all human determination, when differentiates figure from ground when viewing the world, is a process of negation. Fredrich Hegel stated that Spinoza's dictum is "infinitely rich", and, Sartre, delving into those infinite riches, posited the notion that all human action is a process of negation, which he describes as "the double nihilation".
    Thus, learning from existentialist thinkers that all human determination to action is a purely negative operation, wherein no existing factual, given, existing state of affairs has any role whatsoever, in the origin of a human determination to act.
    Then, when reflecting upon law, I realized that the way which law expects we human beings to originate our actions and, our forbearances, is directly antithetical to the way we humans originate our actions ontologically. Human beings only originate their actions via the double nihilation. Thus the presupposition that given language of law is a determinative agency in the origination of a human act is illusory; delusional.
    Then, upon reflecting about Jehovah's central emphasis upon law, (which law is a given), whereby He presupposes that law is a determinative force among men, one sees Jehovah's supposition is a totally mistaken presupposition. Then, reasoning further, I thought it clear that Jehovah's employment of a given language of law as means to determining man to do or, not do, certain acts, is a mistaken presupposition entertained by Jehovah; thus, being mistaken about the very mode whereby the man He purportedly created, upsurges acts, Jehovah exhibits himself, since he does not know how man actually ticks in regard to originating acts, as not actually being the deity which created man; and, since Christ is Jehovah's Son, Christ is not descended from deity and,thus,is not deity himself. Enscausasui
    This is actually all just a diluted perversion of truth by moronic existentialists. Ra’a (evil) is a privation and negation. Hamartia (sin) is a privation and negation. All you’ve indicated is that the entirety of the premises from the idiots you revere are evil and sin. And Hegel is among the few most heinous figures in human history. Your doltish adherance to these ridiculous teachings is cringe-worthy. You need some remedial linguistics, as did all these cretins that have destroyed your epistemics, likely beyond recovery.
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 5th, 2019),George Affleck (April 5th, 2019)

  17. #28
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    [QUOTE=Aimiel;5330710]Hardly. I'm actually very well-read and mildly educated.
    Aimiel,

    24. Legislative/judicial illusion is an instance of human existential absurdity, wherein the illusion consists in blindly, mistakenly, presupposing given language of law to be determinative of human action and inaction; --- legislative/judicial illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, by given law.
    So, then, perhaps Aimiel can employ his well-read, radically excellent Grecian linguistically-oriented consciousness, to enunciate exactly and precisely why the above theoretical construct, which is the product of my in extensio reflection upon contemporary theory of the origin of human action, is fallacious.
    It is supremely insufficient merely to assert that you "know" my precept is fallacious, you must, via reason, in intelligible language which is equivalent to your thought, demonstrate how and why my construct is fallacious. My precept is wholly predicated upon Spinoza's dictum "determinatio negatio est", thus, you place yourself under the necessity to rationally demonstrate the defeasibility, the precise fallacious structure, of that dictum.
    Can you possibly suspend the robotic parroting of ancient and stale scripture just long enough to employ your excellent personal sapientality to, once and for all, rationally demonstrate defeasibility of my legislative/judicial illusion precept ? Enscausasui

  18. #29
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,044
    Thanks
    574
    Thanked 964 Times in 706 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117204
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    You are so radically ignorant and so totally brainwashed by your man-inspired bible, that all you can possibly do is parrot scriptures and, viciously attack me using fallacious self-righteous
    argumentum ad hominem against my person, instead rationally positing reasoning against my position.

    You completely lack both the education and the reflection to even begin to fathom what I am explaining; instead, you incant your nonsensical Christian voodoo, intending to drive me away via your mean, hateful, blind rage and, xenophobic fear of a fresh and unfamiliar ontological disproof of Jehovah/Christ.

    Being a so called Christian has enfeebled your sapientality and intensified your capacity for blind hatred and meanness; you are verily only a simple-minded and ignorant slave, who has voluntarily resigned your own consciousness, your own being, in order to slavishly do the will of your god; however, the will of your god most certainly is not that you treat a newbie, on this site, in the horrid hateful insulting manner in which you are treating me.

    You are an abysmally ignorant and malignantly hateful 6'6" giant. I have actually, legitimately, slain your law, your scripture, and your god; therefore, you have turned into a raging mad man; for you cannot, via patient reason and intelligence, overpower the absolutely rational, high intelligence, mine, which is a self-made deity of infinite nobility, in possession of vastly more understanding of the structure of human ontological freedom, than the non-deity that you consider the Christ.

    Please do not respond to me again, you are far too radically tiresome and, exhibit too infinite an ignorance and, too pure of a non-christian hatefulness and unforgiveness...upon the terms of your belief system, I should be forgiven for murdering your god, not crucified... Enscausasui

    Go ahead and attempt to thoroughly and exhaustively (and concisely with brevity) define “law” in the relative Hebrew and Greek languages utilized for scripture (which are also the ancient sources for the English language, to a large extent).

    What others will see (though you almost assuredly won’t) is that there is no valid foundation for anything these alleged existentialist “authorities” have thought or said. Period.


    As a linguist, I already pity you more than probably anyone I’ve ever encountered. You are utterly bewitched.
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 5th, 2019)

  20. #30
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,044
    Thanks
    574
    Thanked 964 Times in 706 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117204
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    24. Legislative/judicial illusion is an instance of human existential absurdity, wherein the illusion consists in blindly, mistakenly, presupposing given language of law to be determinative of human action and inaction; --- legislative/judicial illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, by given law.
    So, then, perhaps Aimiel can employ his well-read, radically excellent Grecian linguistically-oriented consciousness, to enunciate exactly and precisely why the above theoretical construct, which is the product of my in extensio reflection upon contemporary theory of the origin of human action, is fallacious.
    It is supremely insufficient merely to assert that you "know" my precept is fallacious, you must, via reason, in intelligible language which is equivalent to your thought, demonstrate how and why my construct is fallacious. My precept is wholly predicated upon Spinoza's dictum "determinatio negatio est", thus, you place yourself under the necessity to rationally demonstrate the defeasibility, the precise fallacious structure, of that dictum.
    Can you possibly suspend the robotic parroting of ancient and stale scripture just long enough to employ your excellent personal sapientality to, once and for all, rationally demonstrate defeasibility of my legislative/judicial illusion precept ? Enscausasui
    Explicate the exhaustive definition of “ontology” from its original language source. Not English. Its origin. Its etymology. Its complete lexical meaning and application.


    The verbosity and density of your posts is sadly a pathetic kind of emptiness. Unless you’re fluent in Latin, you don’t even know what your own precept is wholly predicated upon (that being Spinoza’s dictum).


    Your own presuppositions are that neither you nor Spinoza, et al have to define terms authentically and exhaustively. You don’t know what you think you know.


    Why have you bothered wasting your life studying these fools?
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 5th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us