Since it is my contention that law is not a determinative efficacy among men, I most certainly am conscious enough of what I am writing that I am not even practico inertially positing a new law. I am not pro-law. I am not stating that I can or shall enforce my critique of jurisprudential reason. I am merely employing certain twentieth century instruments of thought, of critical thinking, to examine law as a language commonly deemed to be a movent force among persons, and, I explain why, in my estimation, law is not a force, not a power, not an ontologically intelligible means of motivating action, or inaction. Thank You crossnote. Enscausasui
THE CREDENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DEISTIC DESCENDANT OF JEHOVAH IS DISCREDITED BY SHO
- Thread starter Enscausasui
- Start date
- Status
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
This is more of your victim-stancing. I haven’t been hateful in the least. I’ve met you at our own level of expression. I thoroughly addressed subject matter, so not one thing I said was ad hominem. You’re just hyper-sensitive because you think you’re beyond correction; but in reality your entire set of fallacies are built upon insufficient English word usage and invalid definitions of key words.
No, and that’s the point you’ve missed with your bare assertions. You don’t know what law is and means, so the foundation for your alleged “slam-dunk” criticism is non-existent. If this were golf, you have “whiffed” the ball. You can’t build a critical abrogation of the Christian God and the Christian faith as a whole on an irrelevant lack of understanding.
Incorrect again. You’re just a one-way thinker and speaker. You ignore counterpoint and procede oblivioiusy with the presumption that all you’ve said is correct. It’s really no different than most other people and human presuppositions. Your presuppositions are based on a completely erroneous defintion of the words “law” and “ontology”.
I’m an ontologist, so I clearly see your elementary errors. But you’re too consumed with yourself to address rebuttal. It’s YOU who are going nuts because no one will accept your ridiculous caricatures as reality and truth, because you apply a false culture English definition to “law” and have no idea what it actually is and means.
So you focus on how hurt your little feelings are that everyone doesn’t bow down to your self-professed deity, when no deity would make the mistakes you’ve made in basic linguistic comprehension. You’re actually guilty of what you claim God is guilty of. You’ve insisted the very things about God that apply to yourself and not to Him. (But of course you will continue to ignore that.)
Oh, the irony. You come here spewing antichrist hate from stereotypical self-deification based upon horrific word meanings, and now you perpetually flip the script to accuse others of your offenses.
I’m not being hateful. I’m nearly crying from laughing. Yours is the most extreme narcissistic error I’ve ever encountered (and THAT takes some doing). I’m just continuing to correct the frail foundation for all you’ve said. Your entire “world view” is built on bad word definitions, just like your existentialist nutjob mentors and their drivel.
This isn’t ME going nuts; it’s me expossing that YOU are absolutely bonkers. I’m as cool as the other side of EVERY pillow. Not just my own. But ALL pillows. I’m chill. This doesn’t require me being worked up. It just seems so intense because I’ve dropped a bomb load of truth to counter your silly false claims.
I haven’t placed you in any pigeon holes. You’ve placed yourself in the same category as all those who are demented with self-importance. You’re not special at all. You don’t get pigeon holes. You get a simple lable: lunatic. And that’s because you build upon nothing for your “world view” (which is an abhorrent term anyway).
No, and this is the core of the issue for you. You can’t “destroy” something you can’t and don’t even define. You have applied a partialist and very limited modern western English meaning and functionality to the word “law” and sought to “destroy” something based upon that. That’s not even a near-miss. It’s a blank. A misfire. You’ve aimed at the wrong target.
Law is not only NOT what you presume, it’s something else entirely. I could correct you further, but you’re not a listener. You’re just someone spewing false declaratives in abject ignorance and arrogance. Your entire series of premises are builty upon false presuppositions from horrific linguistic miscomprehension. You don’t have a foundation from which to address this topic. None. And yet you will persist.
Already did. Still am. Your position is vapor. It’s based upon a substitute fallacious meaning of “law” and “ontology”. It’s actually pure evil and sin, by definition. But you don’t know what either of those are, either.
Already did. Still am. Your “position” is wholly predicated upon a false definition of several words. So your “position” fails.
You get what you give. Shut your insulting mouth and address the subject matter. That’s what I’ve done. The “insults” have been valid and truthful descriptions, so they aren’t ad hominem. They’re needful to put the mirror up to your face to see reality.
Sure you did. You came for nothing else. And you don’t like getting back what you give. I haven’t even returned your full barrage. You’ve only gotten a small taste. But you were expecting everyone to cower and shrivel at your almighty bloviation masquerading in verbosity. You’ve dished out 10 times what you’ve gotten in return, so stop your crying, Susie.
And THAT’s the problem I’ve been addressing all along, and that you’re avoiding like the plague you are.
You haven’t held up a mirror to God and the Christian faith. You’ve held up a caricature of it etched on a piece of glass that YOU’re convinced is a mirror. It’s not. It’s ALL predicated upon a false understanding of what law is and means.
And now we get to it. You’re conflating multiple things. The “law” of the Mosaic convenant is nothing like the modern English application and implementation of the same term. Law in Hebrew and Greek are not the simplistic and tangential thing that you portray as legislative codification.
So you’ve exposed exactly what I’ve been referring to all along. In fact. I agree (with caveats) with your basic premise. But not for the stupid reasons behind your presmise.
YOU. DON’T. KNOW. WHAT. LAW. IS. AND. MEANS. You can’t credibly caricature something as something it isn’t. Law isn’t merely codification. It’s not merely legislative. That’s the CORRUPTION of it. And with that I agree in regards to what you’ve said about “law” and modern civilization. It’s mostly ineffective.
So? You don’t get to selectively define and apply “law” in this context, and then apply it to all other contexts. Yours is the greatest misunderstanding and misapplication of definitons I’ve EVER seen; and I’ve been a linguist for over 2 decades and seen a LOT of this kind of hubris.
No. You’ve been presupposing stupid defintions and others have been validly correcting you. The “insult” is because you’ve come in with guns blazing and can’t take return fire from those who have already destroyed your position and “world view” (Gawd, I hate that assenine term. It’s Perspectivism on steroids.)
LOL. And YOU are not inquiring, which you should be. You’ve asserted what law is and means relative to God and the Christian faith; and you’re immeasurably and simply wrong. You don’t know what words mean. And you don’t understand why those basics are so important when you use words. That’s insanity.
This is actually the basic reason almost all perspectives are heinously inncorrect. No one knows how to utilize words for what they mean, and instead use them via substitute meanings. This means entire polemics are disannuls before they even escape the mouths of neophytes like yourself.
Don’t be so agast; you’re not that special. You’ve done what virtually everyone in the modern western does as their false foundation of reality from corrupted epistemics. Yours is just particular egregious because you’ve sold your soul for it and don’t have any valid means of maintaining it in the face of correction like I’m givin you (and you won’t receive, because your arrogance has consumed you).
No. This is you. This is how YOU came HERE. It’s your spectacles that need to be trashed.
Incorrect. You were demonized appropriately. Your entire false reality is built on inauthentic semiotics. You don’t even know what that means, and you should if you’re going to be making all these insane assertions built on nothing but your convoluted predilection for misuse of language.
Only to you, since you’re the fool. I’m fine with fools projecting their status as fool upon me. I’ve already exposed your mental disorder/s.
Already did. Law isn’t what you posit. It’s something else.
Give it a rest with the victim-stancing. No #metoo for you. You’re not a victim, Alice. Stop crying when you came here to subvert truth and everyone adhering to it. You came to lambast and demean anyone and everyone, you inequity-driven imbecile.
Go learn what a few key words mean before you build an entire false reality on an island of rubbish floating in the ocean of cognitive disorder.
By imbeciles like yourself. Dialectic consensus means nothing in and of itself. Now you employ logical fallacy again.
Backatcha. YOU are the one on everyone’s back. Shut up.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
And none of this has anything to do with “law” in the Christian sense at all. You’ve conflated and projected. It’s that simple.
God and law are nothing as you have posited. So your entire tyrade is moot. Meaningless. An arrow without a target.
Law is not merely legislative and judicial. Not even close.
I actually agree in large part with what you’re saying about the legislative corruption that you refer partialistically to as “law”.
And I’m also aware of the 4 major forms of law that are afflicting the serial corporation that is the “United States” (by various variations”), and its usurpation of the Constitutional Republic that was incompletely established over 200 years ago.
Law is the strength of sin. This scripture actually supports the core of what you’re feebly attempting to say.
But you still don’t know the scope of what law is and means. Your applications to God and the Christian faith are the most baseless argument I’ve ever encountered.
And that’s too bad, because if you’d figure out how to stop caricaturing law then you might be able to gain traction with your valid criticisms of modern partialist applications of law.
You’re defeating your own argument with your ignorant presmises. It’s sad to watch.
I’d actually support you if you could get rid of all the existential stupidity. You’re making valid points about society and culture and humanity.
kOde,
By saying that I perceive Christians as engaging in a magical approach to attaining the everlasting life they hope for, I am saying that they are not engaging in the attainment of eternal life by rational means; that the means which Christians describe as the indubitable path to eternal life does not make sense. And, according to Christians, I am supposed to take the in-credible, non-verified events of the resurrection as indubitably historical, while, all the while, historians do not know for sure that Christ even existed. All of that is what I mean by magical thinking on the part of Christians. Enscausasui
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
There is such voluminous “evidence” that Christ historically existed that any claims to the contrary are the most non-credible thing anyone could posit.
Say He wasn’t divine or anything else you like. But to assert that historians don’t even know for sure that Christ existed is the depth of stupidity.
(I’ve read EVERY Patristic writing extant that is available to the public in translation. Your statements can’t even reach up to being called absurd.)
When Jehovah commands "Thou shall not kill." He is inveighing me with a purportedly determinative law, i.e., He is attempting to determine me, or, to have me determine myself, in terms of his commandment, not to do something which is the most fundamental conduct whereby human beings sustain their life. I am capable of killing as part and parcel of my very ontological structure as a human being, and, it is a good thing in a certain real sense. If he who would do me wrong knows very well that I will kill him in order to obviate that wrong, that is a natural mode of keeping human interactions decent and civil. When law comes along, like in California, where you are expected to hide somewhere in the house when an intruder is present, and, if you hurt him you are in serious serious trouble, is a law which totally upsets the normal ontological structure of human existence. If as in CA I can entirely lose my life and go to jail or to death for killing an intruder, the normal original structure of human freedom and human existence are derailed upset and ruined. The law of the talon is perfectly sensible law which functions to maintain civilized conduct among men. When law is completely overapplied to absolutely every niche of our being, it totally suffocates what we are, when, what we are is already the most efficient possible means to having and maintaining civilization. So I am not incorrect about how I am seeing scriptural law like the ten commandments, and, you do not make me deem myself to be retarded or lacking in any way merely because you think that your,( I am guessing Jewish), understanding of the Law is more in depth, and, indubitably it is. However for my purposes I do not need to be a PhD in the historicity and the theory and practice of jurisprudence. All I need for my purposes, which is to depass law unto a higher mode of civilization, which I have described in the late portions of the OP, is to see that law is an attempt to control men which is so out of accord with the structure of those men, that it is not efficacious. Law has some efficiency in inducing fear and dread and in prompting people to do nothing, which is what obeying law, for the most part is, i.e., it is a doing nothing at all. Since you are so deeply and infinitely wise I give you total carte blanc to re-do, re-cast, re-write, re-think, improve, super-duper ducky poo my OP. Okay ? You are the bomb. The totality of sapientality; a quasi-god superlatively superior to my mere quasi-deity.
You write beautifully, however, you are too young, you lack sincere concern for the feelings of the Other; you are too rash; too violent; too vicious to achieve the absolute beauty and depth of original thinking which I have attained via my OP. Like Mohammed Ali always said, "I am the greatest !" I, Enscausasui am a Zarathusthra, an originality, a phenomenon, an absolutely masterful iconoclast. Goollee...Geeewizz...Shaazaam ! You've become civil ? ! Enscausasui, (he who already knows he possesses eternal nothingness absent Christ).
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Nope. These admonitions are NOT commandments. They’re not even in the imperative grammatical form. They are NOT determinations.
These are all “words”. Literally. The Ten “Commandments” are NOT commandments in the English sense at all. They are promissory.
A better simple translation would be the promissory statements:
You’re not going to murder. This is a simple “word” of covenantal promise based on the covenant of faith. It’s an assurance. A comfort that their faith will preclude the listed items, of which there are actually more than ten.
All you’ve done is illustrate all I’ve said of your ignorance, and the misuse of the term “law”. The law was not merely legislative codification. It swas the promise that faith would prevent a list of things from being brought into negation.
So you’ve disannuled your ENTIRE position, just as I’ve said all along.
And in Greek, law is nomos. It means distribution, allocation, allotment, apportionment.
YOU. DON’T. KNOW. WHAT. LAW. IS. OR. MEANS. And this abrogates every last word you say.
No. You are absolutely incorrect in this. See below.
Indeed, the late English low-contest partialization of the word “law” can be as you say. But that’s as great a corruption of the term as your corruption of the term. Both are without merit beyond their partialistic tangents that are equally corrupt. You corrupt law as much as that which you criticize, but you don’t and can’t know that because you’re so linguistically comprommised.
Not the actual law by clear and accurate definiton. Only the partialistic modern assertion of what law is and means. So you’re still singing the wrong words with the tune. You don’t know what law is and means.
It’s no more difficult than that.
It needs to go in the trash and be replaced by truth and fact, not revised.
Not at all. I have knowledge (oida) and knowledge (epignosis) rather than your mere knowledge (gnosis). These all have significant distinct meanings, but you can’t know that as an English speaker. You are literally howling in the wind, not that it’s much different than most others in their own ways.
You’re merely pointing to things with the wrong means of understanding them. And you’ve sold your soul for these false foundations of superfluosities, etc.
I guess I didn’t know that 56 was all that young, but okay.
Yeah, emotions are not a valid concern. And you certainly don’t care much about others and their feelings, so again there is a glaring inequity and double standard.
Your OP is rubbish over a septic tank. It’s all predicated upon invalid key word meanings.
Actually, you are not phenomenon in the manner that you presume. Your phenomenality of existence is the epitome of the terms faux and pseudo. You are not an authentic hypostasis. But you don’t know what that means. So in not knowing what that means, you can’t know the validity of what ANYTHING means.
This is a plight shared with all humanity. It’s not unique to you.
I’ve never not been civil, unlike you. You just can’t get a few basic thinks through your thick egocentric skull.
All the above is bloviational nonsense to attempt to support a fallacious definition and application of “law” that is erroneous and irrelevant.
Just because law CAN be used in a partialistic sense for modern governmental structures of authoritative application, that does not mean the definition is changed or curtailed to mean what the corrupt applications have morphed to mean.
Law is not merely legislative codification. That is but one aspect that has been applied in a modern corrupted manner.
The law of God has always been informative, not performative. It is promissory, and accompanied by Gospel as the performative. Always has been. Since the divine utterance to create.
It’s YOUR restrictive and selective false definition and application that is without merit and is incorrect.
You’re pursuing a wrong means to a partially valid ends. That will never work.
You do NOT possess eternal nothingness. You don’t even know the difference between eternal (aidios) and aeviternal (aionios). There are hundreds of basic things you have no clue about, and have postulated all this nonsense as though you know what key words mean.
Every key word you use is used absolutely erroneously and according to false concepts as replacements for truth. This makes all you say into lies. Not overtly intentional lies, but lies nonetheless. This makes you a liar. That is your ontology as state of being more than anything else, and it’s because you have never known truth for what it is and means, either.
Being an inauthentic hypostasis (as you and so many are) does NOT mean your “possess” nothingness. You are merely an invalid something that ignorantly belives he is nothingness. You’re actually quite a something. You can’t divest yourself of your somethingness. You’ve just convinced yourself that your somethingness is nothingness because it’s build upon false negation and artificial privation.
You’re definitely something. The wrong something. And you’ll never get rid of your somethingness to be nothingness. That’s the saddest part. Truly.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
It really is a wonderful thing to see how Christ's servants deal with this kind of thing when it pops up. Evil cannot help but attack from a position of weakness and ignorance. It always underestimates it's opponent and does not appreciate how much it strengthens the saints to see how confused Satan's minions really are.
My usage of "law" is the common, common sense world wide usage. The fact that there is multiplicity of usages of the term does not defeat the viability of my use of the common sense usage of the term. All the world deems the ten commandments as prohibitive law. All the world deems national laws as both prohibitive and prescriptive law. You are too over eager to think that my fundamental use of the term is invalid because you are aware of other Judaic usages in incorrect, mean, violent, a mistaken comprehension of the fact that I am ostensively pointing to the common common sense usage of 'law'. I am not even reading your latest nonsensical argumentum ad hominem approach to my pragmatic destruction of law as law is practiced across the worldwide sociosphere. You are reverting to your boring and nauseating personal attack approach to interpersonal interchange. I will not be reading your latest tirade anytime soon...I am too exhalted, too nobly above your peevish hateful and inhumane approach to my transcendent quasi-Deity, even to bother to glance at your angry tantrum ! Enscausasui (He who is happily nothing; happily a constant failure to coincide with himself, which self is already an elsewhere, ignoring Pneuma's youthful and offensive nonsensical absurdity...)
To believe in Satan is the height of irrationality and ignorance, and, Santa Claus lives at the north pole. You see me as Evil when in fact I am a very fine and noble being, who was not born yesterday, and, thus, clearly see that you are merely another ignoramus positing a vain and hateful argumentum ad hominem. You are mean; violent; hateful; inhuman; inhumane; vicious; stupid; delusional; ignant (ignorance is a station to which you do not yet reach)… Ens Causa Sui, he who is in possession of non-being/consciousness ad infinitum without need to slavishly resign personal absolute freedom to a non-deistic Christ...Your God has been dead since Nietzsche, and you had no idea, being so totally stuck in an outworn and vain scriptural attempt to attain the eternal life you already possess via weakly resigning your own life to a historical Christ who was not in fact deity...you are a vain waste...therefore, leave me, a successful consciousness, alone.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
You are alone. Truly alone. Eternally alone.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Enscausasui
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
:nuke:
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
:nuke:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Nope. It’s the low-context corrupted and partialized usage. You must prefer that, which explains a lot. And it definitely accounts for why you’re so oblivious to your premise being destroyed and refuted. I understand why you won’t every acquiesce to that fact. Your cognitive dissonance won’t permit it.
Sure it does, for you don’t qualify the term and its definition. And who are you as a non-linguist to be making absolute linguistic assertions? Nobody, that’s who.
In modernity, you are correct that this is ofent the misunderstanding. It’s still not true, however.
Mostly, yes. That’s irrelevant. A majority can call a zebra a giraffe, and that doesn’t make zebras into giraffes. As I said, dialectic consensus is irrelevant. Words mean what they mean. Law isn’t MERELY prohibitive and prescriptive.
Your problem is still partialism. You presume that the overarching meaning being absence means that which remains is still valid to fill the void of whatever has been lacking, extracted, or removed in some manner. But that’s simply not so.
You, sir, have been owned in your ignorant arrogance.
No, you’re not. And consensus dialectic means nothing anyway. Gay now means homosexual. But it hasn’t ever ceased to mean joyful and happy, etc. This is your problem. You think because a modernist focus has been employed that the term “law” now doesn’t predominantly still mean what it always meant.
And YOU are the one who insisted that’s what it meant regarding God, Judaism, and Christianity; which has been wholly debunked by all I’ve posted.
Of course you aren’t. Why would you? You can’t face your platform having been destroyed already; so why would you imbibe the remainder of all that has destroyed your silliness? You’re a law unto yourself, which makes you lawless (an antinomian). Without Law and Gospel, there is no salvation. So your alleged nothingness has no hope of being and becoming that. You will always be a false somethingness thinking your’e a nothingness.
Nope. Just the facts. The linguistic facts.
Whatevs. It’s already the ban hammer for you. You’re nuts, and it’s been expounded why.
But you’re NOT a nothing. You’re an hypostasis. You’re a something. You just think you’re nothinged yourself into nothingness, but that impossible by definition.
So sorry you’re such a false victim of yourself and a few moronic existentialist nutjobs. Ciao.
k0de
Active member
Make sense? You're thinking to hard that is your problem. The master doesn't make sense.
"When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." (Mark 3:21) NIV
Lol
Nope. Jesus Christ is real. Believe it.
Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
glorydaz
Well-known member
:thumb:
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I'm proto tropic in that I believe in the proto trope, which is of the pattern 101 or 010 or ABA or MOM or DAD or any other simple pattern involving two types of things related to each other in a particular way, as examples of what this is not, e.g. not 'xxy' or 'xyy.'
Ehyeh asher ehyeh, for an example. In binary 101 is 5, and 010 is 2. In Scripture ehyeh asher ehyeh is God.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
It is a joy to interact with you, glorydaz; and to see your likes and read your posts.
So you are meaning that in-itself-for-itself is proto tropic ? What is the significance of it being prototrophic ?
Aimiel
Well-known member
You are SO sadly mistaken: without the rule of law we would have chaos and far more tyranny than the world knows today.
Are you in Antifa? ... the KKK?
If you want to be s scofflaw, you're calling for treason. The law is the only thing that separates us from animals, apparently.
You want to blame the law for men being lawbreakers? You don't make any sense.
Indeed it would be, were it the norm. Most every police officer would rather go on down the road than pull his weapon. You not only base your vague attempt at philosophy on foolish notions but you also generalize upon the police population...
There are over 18,000 Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies around the United States, and it is estimated that there are between 750,000 and 850,000 sworn officers. If you count non-sworn personnel who work for police departments, you get over 1 million. -- SOURCE
... the accidental shootings (a scant few of which are actually in error and even fewer of those are actually murder) and that's way too reactionary for me (or anyone else with any sense, as well). As I've said several times now: read Dr. Greenleaf's book; you'll find more evidence there than you can explain away. You just might come to a knowledge of Truth, too; instead of superstitious fairy-tales.
- Status