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

[Aimiel]

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

Actually, according to Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the world's foremost authorities on evidence in jurisprudence and one of the founders of Harvard Law School: we actually have more evidence of Christ's birth, death, resurrection and proof of Him being a historical figure than we do for ANYONE in antiquity. The Gospels corroborate one another like no other text in history. Read his book, "Testimony of the Evangelists." You will be very enlightened. You'll certainly gain more knowledge than fiction-writing pseudo-philosophers might give you. :thumb:

 

[blackgeorgijs]

What a rambling piece of nothing. Hubris.

You use a word that you can’t define, and indeed say evades definition. I can clearly define it. Any competent linguist can do so. Your contentions are based on absurdities of erroneous speculations from delusions. You want to use a word and deny it has any real definition except your mumbo jumbo from moronic sources.

The law in Hebrew was PROMISSORY, not punitive. It was the means of fulfiling COVENANT. It represented the Bilateral and Conditional covenant that paired with the Abrahamic Unilateral and Unconditional covenant of faith (other words you know nothing about in ANY language, novice).



No. Don’t attempt to prescribe the Christian world view (another fallacious monicker) or mine, holding me hostage to your prejudiced and tangential understandings. In defense of the faith once delivered to the saints, it is quite appropriate to correct those evil ones like yourself with an apologetic.

Just because you’re a master victim, that’s not on me. You’re the one that picked this fight, and you well know it. And you want to shame Christians into cowering from your bluster. I’m not going to yield to your cowardice and dishonesty.



Then put up or shut up. How could someone so “superior” already be extremely fatigued by rhetoric? You knew what you were doing when you came here, demon. You had NO positive reasons for joining this forum. You had NO intention of addressing anyone with respect or mutual consideration. So stop lying to yourself and all of us. You came here to be a self-appointed monarch and arbiter of alleged truth, subjecting everyone else as a serf in your false little kingdom of demented existentialism.



Only to employ is accurately and validly with consistency. This is you excusing your ignorance of words you use to build your foundation for false superiority. I’ve shattered you source of your fragile identity, and thus your worth. You have nothing without these shallow misdefintions and vagueries of concepts for pseudo-meaning.

Who are you to speak authoritatively on the use of language? You know you’re no linguist.



No. I just know what “law” is and means, and I know what other major words you use that are the same situation. You make bare assertions about “law” that don’t even apply to “law” in regards to what it truly means. That’s because you’re an English speaker. You can’t even imagine how stupid your premises are from a linguistic perspective.

And again it is you who are the one engaging in ad hominem, not me. And you couldn’t climb out on my philologcial limb if Hegel and company launched you there with a trebuchet. You’re a bloviating fool, pretending to be articulate. Now what, Herman?

You incorrectly deem that you had ultimately impugned and defeated Enscausasui’s fundamental position, by intentionally mischaracterizing his use of the word ‘law’, as being insufficient to the achievement of the intension he was undertaking to impart. You incorrectly claimed that he was not referring to the totality of modes of law by using the word ‘law’. The generic term ‘law’ references all members of the class law(s) in their infinite multiplicity, without diverting into an irrelevant summation of each and every other particular mode of law contained in the world. Thus you did indeed make the fatal error of appearing to proceed against what was basically sound usage of a term, via a fallacious argument by extension, wherein you incorrectly attempted to extend the writer’s position into an apparent failure to give an irrelevant accounting of an infinite series of specific descriptions of the modes of law, which reference to all modes of law you falsely posited as fatally absent from Enscausasui’s fundamental position. You are mistaken, you did not invalidate the fundamental viability of the writer’s position by fallaciously attempting to posit an extensive series absences to which the writer indeed did refer via his use of the all inclusive generic term ‘law’, as the term is generally employed in the humanities.

 

[k0de]

Actually, according to Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the world's foremost authorities on evidence in jurisprudence and one of the founders of Harvard Law School: we actually have more evidence of Christ's birth, death, resurrection and proof of Him being a historical figure than we do for ANYONE in antiquity. The Gospels corroborate one another like no other text in history. Read his book, "Testimony of the Evangelists." You will be very enlightened. You'll certainly gain more knowledge than fiction-writing pseudo-philosophers might give you. :thumb:

I just purchased the ebook. So far a good read in the early chapters. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Aimiel]

Dr. Greenleaf makes good sense, backing up the Gospels with the evidence found in the writings themselves. I found that the Bible makes even more sense in light of his evaluations.

 

[Idolater]

So you are meaning that in-itself-for-itself is proto tropic ? What is the significance of it being prototrophic ?

I'm suggesting that the proto trope is indistinguishable from the hypothetical bedrock upon which reality is constructed. The significance of it is as supreme as it is simultaneously trivial. And it does not only suggest but it insists that believing in the Resurrection of Christ is the one and only way in which the human mind can be coordinated with its as built optimum.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

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.

He doesn’t know what law is, thinking it’s merely codification via legislation. Law is far more than that.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You incorrectly deem that you had ultimately impugned and defeated Enscausasui’s fundamental position, by intentionally mischaracterizing his use of the word ‘law’, as being insufficient to the achievement of the intension he was undertaking to impart. You incorrectly claimed that he was not referring to the totality of modes of law by using the word ‘law’. The generic term ‘law’ references all members of the class law(s) in their infinite multiplicity, without diverting into an irrelevant summation of each and every other particular mode of law contained in the world. Thus you did indeed make the fatal error of appearing to proceed against what was basically sound usage of a term, via a fallacious argument by extension, wherein you incorrectly attempted to extend the writer’s position into an apparent failure to give an irrelevant accounting of an infinite series of specific descriptions of the modes of law, which reference to all modes of law you falsely posited as fatally absent from Enscausasui’s fundamental position. You are mistaken, you did not invalidate the fundamental viability of the writer’s position by fallaciously attempting to posit an extensive series absences to which the writer indeed did refer via his use of the all inclusive generic term ‘law’, as the term is generally employed in the humanities.

Hi, Enscausasui. Nice sock.

No, your references to law are simply marginal and fractional, not a dichotomy of distinct things. So I have rightly exposed your limited applications for the term “law” and have disannuled your entire position thereby.

Law is far more than merely legislative codification, but it doesn’t exclude that in the scope of its meaning, either.

Law isn’t merely prohibitive and prescriptive, it is also still promissory. Law always promises the inverse of the consequences of its violation. (And law isn/t actually violated, itself violating those who do not keep it. And keeping it is also something you can’t understand linguistically.) Law is always promissory, far more than it is punitive.

Your fallacies are duly noted, as is your dependence upon existential drivel. You are dismissed. Your position is toast.

 

[JudgeRightly]

blackgeorgijs
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
:nuke:

 

[tutanota]

Hi, Enscausasui. Nice sock.

No, your references to law are simply marginal and fractional, not a dichotomy of distinct things. So I have rightly exposed your limited applications for the term “law” and have disannuled your entire position thereby.

Law is far more than merely legislative codification, but it doesn’t exclude that in the scope of its meaning, either.

Law isn’t merely prohibitive and prescriptive, it is also still promissory. Law always promises the inverse of the consequences of its violation. (And law isn/t actually violated, itself violating those who do not keep it. And keeping it is also something you can’t understand linguistically.) Law is always promissory, far more than it is punitive.

Your fallacies are duly noted, as is your dependence upon existential drivel. You are dismissed. Your position is toast.

The instant one characterizes another person's person as severally embodying one's judaeo-christian notions of "evil";"sin";"satan", one, without any doubt, is arguing ad hominem against an opponent's person; hence, doing violence to the person instead of doing intelligible violence to the person's position; and, simultaneously, one demonstrates one's self to be a mere narrow provincial bigot, lacking realization that the judaeo-christian moral standard set is neither an absolute morality nor pertinent to considerations of whether or not Elohim; Yahweh;Jehovah, or Christ are verily deity.
Furthermore, by maintaining that your opponent is unfamiliar with all incarnations of judaeo-christian law, and, therefore, his position is invalid, is just plain vacuous.
ANd, it is indifferent whether law is deemed promissory; putatively determinative; presceiptive or proscriptive, law is a given factual state of affairs having no efficacy among men in a world wherein the originative upsurge of all human action proceeds only via the double nihilation.
Law is failed absolutism mistakenly posited relative to human original ontological future-oriented thinking, per a legalistic intellectual instrumentation parlytically frozen in a dead and past past. Judaism and Christianity are particularly paralyzed and frozen weltanschauungs which are too totally past-orinted to appeal to a posterity of future-oriented consciousnesses.

 

[tutanota]

I'm suggesting that the proto trope is indistinguishable from the hypothetical bedrock upon which reality is constructed. The significance of it is as supreme as it is simultaneously trivial. And it does not only suggest but it insists that believing in the Resurrection of Christ is the one and only way in which the human mind can be coordinated with its as built optimum.

How, why, is it of import that being-in-itself-for-itself is characterizable in terms of alternating proto trophic pattern entailing two components ?

 

[tutanota]

He doesn’t know what law is, thinking it’s merely codification via legislation. Law is far more than that.

You are the one placing Enscausasui's usage of "law" into your vacuous either/or restriction that he only deems law to be codification and legislation. Surely law is an infinite multiplicity of incarnations. You leave out that Enscausasui further deems law to be ontologically unintelligible in so far as law mistakenly attempts to employ given language in order to modify human conduct. You xenophobia is unbecoming.

 

[Aimiel]

...lacking realization that the judaeo-christian moral standard set is neither an absolute morality nor pertinent to considerations of whether or not Elohim; Yahweh;Jehovah, or Christ are verily deity.

The fact that morals are absolute can be proven by a murderous biker gang taking up residence in your home. You would ABSOLUTELY call the police and ask that whatever law might be applied to them be done post haste. As far as pertinence: certainly God covered every moral situation that might arise over the millennia in just ten simple instructions, long before the problems we have today that could be assuaged by obeying ten commandments. If you don't understand that or realize how important and clear this is of a proof of God's existence, you won't ever come to have any sense at all.

 

[tutanota]

The fact that morals are absolute can be proven by a murderous biker gang taking up residence in your home. You would ABSOLUTELY call the police and ask that whatever law might be applied to them be done post haste. As far as pertinence: certainly God covered every moral situation that might arise over the millennia in just ten simple instructions, long before the problems we have today that could be assuaged by obeying ten commandments. If you don't understand that or realize how important and clear this is of a proof of God's existence, you won't ever come to have any sense at all.

Your notion that chaos would be the order of the day in the absence of law/government is the pure speculation of someone who is radically afraid of being in the world and predominantly imputes violent misconduct the the Other. Perhaps you missed Thomas Paine's report of the state of affairs in America immediately subsequent to the American revolution, where there was no government, no law. Paine reports all was domestic tranquility primarily because commerce absolutely had to transpire, and, therefore, people had to be civil in their interpersonal relations.
The fact that only a minority of policemen murder citizens daily nowadays; which is chaotic. You fail consider that even if radical chaos were to happen, the malicious types would be erased quick like a mouse, and, unacceptable misconduct would thus be extinguished more efficiently than in our so called state of law and order, wherein law and order is the central destructive phenomenon which you live in the midst of continually. You, unfortunately, live within an absolutism of law which has arisen essentially on the basis of our, Judaeo-Christian historicity, wherein Moses originally found himself pleading with Yahweh not to completely extinguish the children of Israel. Here is a beautifully done history of Judea wherein at Part 6 the narrator explains that Judea employed both promissory and legislated law and, mentions the incident in which Moses dissuaded an angry Jehovah from wiping out his chosen people...

 

[tutanota]

Forgot to send you the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Oj7DOuLZA

 

[tutanota]

Aimiel,
Here's an idea for an experiment which would test your thinking that at this time in our history Americans would completely misbehave within a sociosphere entirely absent law:

I propose to establish an internet forum with absolutely no rules, without the common structure of a forum wherein tyrannical moderator types continually lord it over the membership and, absolutely stringently suffocate member freedom of speech, in order to feel importantly superior and high and mighty...

To establish an internet forum with absolutely no regulations would constitute a perfect experimental microcosm for empirical research within a state of affairs wherein absolutely total American freedom reigned.

 

[Idolater]

How, why, is it of import that being-in-itself-for-itself is characterizable in terms of alternating proto trophic pattern entailing two components ?

Because everything that is is. So if this is, then it is characterizable in terms of the proto trope. It's not the alternation that is primary in and of itself, but also that the two identical things are identical, and that furthermore the one distinct thing from the other two relates the two identical things to each other in a definite and unambiguous way. The one component that is repeated relates in a definite way to its equal, and that relationship is expressed by that other component. There is only one way that these three things, two of which are identical, relate to one another, and that is the proto trope and nothing more. So, being-in-itself-for-itself /etc. is either a particular expression of the proto trope, or it is characterizable according to the proto trope.

 

[Aimiel]

Your notion that chaos would be the order of the day in the absence of law/government is the pure speculation of someone who is radically afraid of being in the world and predominantly imputes violent misconduct the the Other.

No, it's the experience of someone who's been around the world, seen a lot and read a good deal. We see people breaking the law at will, especially when appointed officials look the other way. Look at Seattle. In Boston, the new DA refuses to prosecute:

•   Trespassing;
•   Shoplifting;
•   Larceny under $250;
•   Disorderly conduct;
•   Disturbing the peace, and;
•   Receiving stolen property.

If you don't like laws, you should move to Boston. See how you feel when someone moves into your home, steals from a store while you're shopping, cusses you out or steals from your car. You'll call the police, I'm sure.

Perhaps you missed Thomas Paine's report of the state of affairs in America immediately subsequent to the American revolution, where there was no government, no law.

The law was ingrained in people then. When I grew up, no one locked their homes. There used to be a LOT less crime than there is today.

The fact that only a minority of policemen murder citizens daily nowadays; which is chaotic.

I don't think that's a sentence. It has to do with there being nearly a million police and the fact that the majority of people with mental illness won't get treatment, mostly because of the stigma behind it.

You fail (to) consider that even if radical chaos were to happen, the malicious types would be erased quick like a mouse, and, unacceptable misconduct would thus be extinguished more efficiently than in our so called state of law and order, wherein law and order is the central destructive phenomenon which you live in the midst of continually.

Are you saying that we'd shoot and kill the perpetrators and so reduce their population to zero? You make even less sense than your partner.

You, unfortunately, live within an absolutism of law which has arisen essentially on the basis of our, Judaeo-Christian historicity, wherein Moses originally found himself pleading with Yahweh not to completely extinguish the children of Israel.

That was a set-up, wherein Moses was given the law and subsequently Israel was found to not follow that law, since no one can. The law is a schoolmaster designed to point us to God. I can see how you missed that point, not being familiar with Scripture. Jesus is The Way. You think that chaos is the way, but we've seen what that can do, already. We don't have a boundary to prevent illegal aliens from entering our country, so they're storming into our country in unprecedented numbers. It's taxing our border states beyond their capacities.

 

[Aimiel]

Aimiel,
Here's an idea for an experiment which would test your thinking that at this time in our history Americans would completely misbehave within a sociosphere entirely absent law:

I propose to establish an internet forum with absolutely no rules, without the common structure of a forum wherein tyrannical moderator types continually lord it over the membership and, absolutely stringently suffocate member freedom of speech, in order to feel importantly superior and high and mighty...

To establish an internet forum with absolutely no regulations would constitute a perfect experimental microcosm for empirical research within a state of affairs wherein absolutely total American freedom reigned.

No thanks. There's enough bullying and threats here, even with rules and sysops.

Try Slab City. You'll be shot at if you even come close to trespassing or most likely at least robbed, because of the way you're dressed. It's a 'city' where there's no law at all. Grifters, drug-addicts and other criminals love it. You definitely would NOT. You wouldn't last a day. I do believe that you're without a clue and have no idea of what the real world is like, just like most kids these days. Education or not: many today are completely clueless. Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez is a prime example. So is Nancy Pelosi. Clueless.

 

[tutanota]

Aimiel,
I have constituted a forum with no rules, all are welcome, here:

https://enscausasui.discussion.comm...-rules-10102440?pid=1308240527#post1308240527

 

[Aimiel]

Aimiel,
I have constituted a forum with no rules, all are welcome, here:

https://enscausasui.discussion.comm...-rules-10102440?pid=1308240527#post1308240527

Sorry, I not only like rules; I also don't log onto sites posted by people I don't know (especially those who remain clueless).