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

[Enscausasui]

Hebraic law purports to be determinative, which is the central consideration which I am addressing, i.e., determination by law...

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

In my OP I am arguing against mistaken presupposition held by persons and putative gods; I am not addressing and arguing against the persons themselves;

No, that’s your false and blind presupposition because you have no idea what “law” is or means, and that means YOU are evil and all you say is sin. Those are both the privation that is the source of everything within you.

while, all the while, all you can do is insult my person.

LOL. I came hard against your delusional subject matter. YOU insulted everyone on this forum. Stop crying, Karen. You’re not a victim. You came here to victimize and it isn’t turning out well for you. Insults are perfectly appropriate when they’re factual and warranted, especially in response to an onslaught of arrogant ignorance and demonic untruth.

You are too much of a complete and ignorant young fool for my sensitive personality to be exposed to.

Do you always attempt to bully a crowd and then go all crybaby when someone pops you in the mouth with rhetoric that destroys your entire premise of nothingness?

You come here as a purported “deity” with superior reasoning to God and man, but now you have to run and hide because someone your senior and superior called your bluff.

Your existentialism is based on false words. Your life has been a waste of pride. Your vanity has left you vulnerable and you want to be able to blame someone else for your own bullying and stupidity. That dog won’t hunt, Rufus. Ain’t happ’nin’. You don’t get to say “leave me alone, big monster” when you’ve been the one inciting everyone and everything in your wake of insolent drivel.

You are dreadful. You nauseate me.

Then go take a dramamene and harden up, Lucy. You pulled out the Guns of Navarone and started unloading. Suck it up, cuz the return fire is comin’ in hot. You’re gettin’ your own right back because your existential dung heap is built on egregiously faulty semantics.

You. Know. Nothing.

Leave me the hell alone.

Leave the forum. And yes, you’ll be in hell alone. Aloneness is an aspect of the outer darkness.

All you have to do is stop posting, Leroy. Abstain. Cease. Desist. Vamoose.

What did you expect coming here pretending to be deity and denying authentic deity? Seriously?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Hebraic law purports to be determinative, which is the central consideration which I am addressing, i.e., determination by law...

Nope. You’re clueless. Hebraic law does NOT purport to be determinative. You don’t know what the word means. You know nothing.

Who do you think you are to try to make linguistic absolutes when you can’t even hardly spell the word? There is no way to effectively convey how much of a novice you are. Your decades of study are a sham.

 

[Enscausasui]

No, you will not drive me away via your vile hatefulness. My analysis of you God is absolutely correct and you are going nuts in the face of it. What I cannot stomach is your absolute hatefulness and your stereotypical thinking, placing me in your horrid predetermined pigeon holes.
I have successfully accomplished a theoretical/ontological destruction of your God and your God's law. You need focus your sapientality upon my position, destroy my position with reason, not with horrid and ugly insult. I did not come here to insult. I came to hold a mirror up to a world view predicated upon law, which worldview is the original view whereby western civilization now takes the mistaken approach to civilization that is law. I am centrally addressing law as it is being used in America; however, since being on this site I am spending all my time defending myself from irrational and hateful insult; legitimate inquiry does not, cannot, proceed via personal insult. I am seeing that the particular scriptural spectacles through which you are now viewing the world are blinding you to and obviating your possibilities for rational response to my OP, which OP you ought rationally, not sordidly insultingly, attempt to merely incorrectly demonize; which is why you appear to be a fool. Destroy my position via philosophical polemic, for your violent hate is not an intelligent and rational means of dismissing my argumentation, which argumentation is predicated upon the ultimately indefeasible dictum which Spinoza originated, and, which is radically highly respected, worldwide. Become rational or get off my back. Enscausasui

 

[Aimiel]

I have been entirely unable to find the forum rules; I know I read something like the rules when I researched this forum.

What... I thought you were greater than God?!? So, you're NOT omniscient?

 

[Enscausasui]

Your parroting of superstitious nonsense gives me the heebie-jeebies and I don't have the time or inclination to catalogue the plethora of errors you've swallowed as 'truth;' especially because you blaspheme The Lord and His Holy Word so easily.

Then you have completely copped-out Aimiel. I challenged you to rationally posit a reasoned philosophical polelmic against my original precept of legislative/jurisprudential illusion, and, you, like a frightened little girl, flee therefrom via a claim that you possess neither the time nor the inclination to defeat my position rationally. Yea, perfect, fine, I am blaspheming/blasphemous, which constitutes your poor excuse for ultimately showing your giant self to be merely a little sissy,incapable of the ratiocination actually requisite to doing legitimate polemic, and, instead, merely re-assert your hateful preference for merely insulting my person, for,you cannot rise to actually engage me in serious polemical interpersonal dialectic. Your are a giant disappointment...Enscausasui

 

[Aimiel]

I forgot to mention that pompous, blathering, self-righteous windbags turn my little sissy stomach.

 

[Enscausasui]

The absolute truth be told I am actually, in my own view of myself, a quasi-deity; nonetheless, in relation to you, who cannot, will not, rise to my challenge to do polemical battle.just between you and I, I am,indeed,Deity relative to you and your sacred Christ. An enscausasui is a self-made deity. I highly respect your capacity with the Greek language, and thought you might apply that selfsame capacity for scholarship to the challenge I offered you, however, you are not toughminded enough to do honest and polite polemical battle with my consciousness. You have embarrassed both me and yourself...Sincerely, Enscausasui

 

[Enscausasui]

So, then, excellent, I will not have to further suffer your mindless robotic scripturality. This, then, is later alligator ?! Then, as Gomer Pile would say: Golly ! Gee Wizz ! Shazaam !

 

[Aimiel]

I have the same amount of patience for your superstitions as I would for someone who makes a U-turn and drives around the block when they see a black cat cross the road; there's no convincing either of you of the truth, so: why bother. :idunno:

 

[Enscausasui]

I have the same amount of patience for your superstitions as I would for someone who makes a U-turn and drives around the block when they see a black cat cross the road; there's no convincing either of you of the truth, so: why bother. :idunno:

Aimiel,
My ultimate objective, in spite of all the travail which is attendant upon the clash of our conflicting world views, is to so seriously expose the human ontological incorrectness of attempting to govern our nation via an ongoing and ever intensifying tyranny of law. The police, killing someone in our country constantly in the name of some alleged violation of some petty law; the legislatures, taxing the citizenry and their businesses, to the point of the citizenry taking flight to less tax oppressive states; all call for an incisive demonstration that police and prosecutorial officers and legislators are loose cannons, which can only possibly be thwarted in their absolutistic legal absolutism, by writing an indubitable logic of the complete error which language of law is as a means of controlling men who possess an absolute ontological freedom, an ontological freedom whereby ineffectual law per se comes to be.
Showing that Yahweh; Jehovah; Christ; Mr. Greenleaf all suffer from living the mistake of suffering under a legislative/judicial illusion, is the only possible means of emancipating ourselves from a tyrannical law, whereby we are currently doing extreme harm to ourselves. Living in the state we now dwell in wherein police continually kill the citizens they are sworn to protect, is without a doubt, tantamount to and possibly worse than the state of chaos that everyone insists will transpire in the absence of law. Thomas Paine reports, in his book "Common Sense", that directly after the American Revolution, when there was no law, no government, all was domestically tranquil, for commerce of a must had to transpire, therefore, people were civil.
The distal portion of my OP sets forth an alternative civilizational model, wherein we humans employ our very ontological structure as a pattern and means to living our absolute ontological freedom, in harmony with our naturally noble being as human beings. We are currently failing to have civilization via law when, the very police have become daily murderers; a pure state of nature absent law, as Thomas Paine saw, is a better place than the dismal state of affairs which the pursuit of civilization purely via law has now wrought. Enscausasui

 

[Idolater]

OK. The Resurrection of Christ is explicitly that upon which the one Christian faith is built.
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?
This is not a complete sentence.
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.

Bump for Enscausasui.

I don't know how this thread became so misogynistic so quickly, but I'm not a party to that.

 

[crossnote]

I think what I am saying is just so radically different an approach to and criticism of law, that it must indeed be particularly abstruse to most persons. Enscausasui

Nothing like creating a new law to replace an old one.

 

[Enscausasui]

Bump for Enscausasui.

I don't know how this thread became so misogynistic so quickly, but I'm not a party to that.

OK. The Resurrection of Christ is explicitly that upon which the one Christian faith is built.
Idolater,
My prima facie thoughts about the fact that Christians, simultaneously, posit both that Christ died, hence the road to salvation, and, that he resurrected, is almost a totally self-inconsistent position, wherein both death and fantastically exiting death, are historically maintained, both at the same time.

If Christ did, in fact die, (he could have been comatose for three days), is a death of a mere three days death ? Death is forever. Is a short-lived death a death sufficient unto constituting an everlasting salvation ?
The precept of double nihilation is essentially a description of how a conscious project originates. Apparently the death and resurrection of Christ was foretold/prophesized originally from the Old Testament phrase "...something something shall bruise his heel." Thus, Christ's death and resurrection were the objective, the end goal, the intentional intent of the consciousness which foretold the death and resurrection, The resurrection was an original goal which was at first a mere present absence, a lack, a future, a non-existent, a non-being, a negation, a nothing of death and resurrection; then, the projected death/resurrection became an objective reality in the world; then, the event central to the history of the world (according to Christians), became historical, past. What is past is non-being/nothing and is not normally a determinative force in the world; however, in this particular instance, the central Christian instance, the past/historical event which is Christ's death and resurrection is claimed to be absolutely the most momentous and significant event in the history of the world. Thus we have the operative principle of double nihilation transpiring within the most fundamentally important event which has ever transpired in the world, i.e., the death and resurrection of a man who was, at the same time God, which crucial event passed from being an imagined, prophesized and intended phenomenon, to being an objective phenomenon, to being the nothing that is the past; --- which past nothingness is deemed to be t h e efficacy of efficacies.
Indeed the entire ensemble of events is magical thinking entirely out of the realm of normal human events.

The historical death and resurrection of Christ is the common Christian person's path to the attainment of being ens causa sui, i.e., of being a self-made consciousness which inhabits an eternal glorified body; the resurrection of Christ is, for the Christian, the sole means of becoming the in-itself-for-itself which is the vain passion for the sake of which all human endeavor strives. Enscausasui

 

[k0de]

If Christ did, in fact die, (he could have been comatose for three days), is a death of a mere three days death ? Death is forever. Is a short-lived death a death sufficient unto constituting an everlasting salvation ?

What?

The precept of double nihilation is essentially a description of how a conscious project originates. Apparently the death and resurrection of Christ was foretold/prophesized originally from the Old Testament phrase "...something something shall bruise his heel." Thus, Christ's death and resurrection were the objective, the end goal, the intentional intent of the consciousness which foretold the death and resurrection, The resurrection was an original goal which was at first a mere present absence, a lack, a future, a non-existent, a non-being, a negation, a nothing of death and resurrection; then, the projected death/resurrection became an objective reality in the world; then, the event central to the history of the world (according to Christians), became historical, past.

It is a historical fact.

What is past is non-being/nothing and is not normally a determinative force in the world; however, in this particular instance, the central Christian instance, the past/historical event which is Christ's death and resurrection is claimed to be absolutely the most momentous and significant event in the history of the world.

It is. Can you name or think of anything else to take it's position?

Thus we have the operative principle of double nihilation transpiring within the most fundamentally important event which has ever transpired in the world, i.e., the death and resurrection of a man who was, at the same time God, which crucial event passed from being an imagined, prophesized and intended phenomenon, to being an objective phenomenon, to being the nothing that is the past; --- which past nothingness is deemed to be t h e efficacy of efficacies.
Indeed the entire ensemble of events is magical thinking entirely out of the realm of normal human events.

There is nothing magical on mysterious. The Lord Jesus Christ was not a magician.

The historical death and resurrection of Christ is the common Christian person's path to the attainment of being ens causa sui, i.e., of being a self-made consciousness which inhabits an eternal glorified body; the resurrection of Christ is, for the Christian, the sole means of becoming the in-itself-for-itself which is the vain passion for the sake of which all human endeavor strives. Enscausasui

If I understand you correctly. Well yes through Christ and because Jesus our souls will sooner or later be in glorified bodies. After the first death of course.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Enscausasui]

I am already an ens causa sui in absentia, in vanity. I am a for-itself, i.e., I am a consciousness; and, I am in-itself, i.e., I am made of clay. I am in my very core of being the being which in his being longs in vain to be established as for-itself-in-itself, or ens causa sui, which ens causa sui is an everlasting consciousness which inhabits an everlasting soma. I do not need the Christ to be ens causa sui, for I am that already, i.e., my being is a being such that in its being it desires, as its very ontological structure, to become an everlasting consciousness in an everlasting clay. (However, as a reflectively ontologically free person, I know that I am a nothingness, and, I know that nothingness cannot be annihilated, thus, in so far as I am already a nothing, a nothingness, I have likely been that eternally already...).
The problem with adopting Christ's putative resurrection as the path to attainment of the ens causa sui, is that it is actually as vain an imagining as the originally vain/vanity human longing to be an ens causa sui in the first place. Christians, in an unintentional bad faith, are merely kidding themselves regarding any path whatsoever to attainment of ens causa sui. Christians do not even possess reflective understanding of the fact that they are, in their very being, the vain burning attempt to to be a God. Positing Christ as the path to attainment of ens causa sui is actually as vain an endeavor as being the being who vainly longs to be ens causa sui in the first place. The ens causa sui cannot be attained via an external path, it is what a human being is already. All we can hope for is that the nothingness that we already are is a not that everlasts, which I think it is... Enscausasui

 

[k0de]

I am already an ens causa sui in absentia, in vanity. I am a for-itself, i.e., I am a consciousness; and, I am in-itself, i.e., I am made of clay. I am in my very core of being the being which in his being longs in vain to be established as for-itself-in-itself, or ens causa sui, which ens causa sui is an everlasting consciousness which inhabits an everlasting soma. I do not need the Christ to be ens causa sui, for I am that already, i.e., my being is a being such that in its being it desires, as its very ontological structure, to become an everlasting consciousness in an everlasting clay. (However, as a reflectively ontologically free person, I know that I am a nothingness, and, I know that nothingness cannot be annihilated, thus, in so far as I am already a nothing, a nothingness, I have likely been that eternally already...).
The problem with adopting Christ's putative resurrection as the path to attainment of the ens causa sui, is that it is actually as vain an imagining as the originally vain/vanity human longing to be an ens causa sui in the first place. Christians, in an unintentional bad faith, are merely kidding themselves regarding any path whatsoever to attainment of ens causa sui. Christians do not even possess reflective understanding of the fact that they are, in their very being, the vain burning attempt to to be a God. Positing Christ as the path to attainment of ens causa sui is actually as vain an endeavor as being the being who vainly longs to be ens causa sui in the first place. The ens causa sui cannot be attained via an external path, it is what a human being is already. All we can hope for is that the nothingness that we already are is a not that everlasts, which I think it is... Enscausasui

English please... Lol

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Enscausasui]

There is nothing magical on mysterious. The Lord Jesus Christ was not a magician.

kOde,
I was not referring to Christ, I was referring to Christians as doing a magical thinking, a magical approach to the attainment of everlasting life, by claiming to be achieving that attainment via events extra ordinary, i.e., magically. Ens Causa Sui

 

[Enscausasui]

No, I'll choose my language myself by myself, I do not need an infinite series of English composition instructors forever knowing better than I how I ought to express what I think. Language is thought. Don't think I do not absolutely radically appreciate your kind non-insulting manner kOde. Ens causa sui is Latin, and, simple enough, it translates: self caused being. A self caused being is a god...

 

[k0de]

There is nothing magical on mysterious. The Lord Jesus Christ was not a magician.

kOde,
I was not referring to Christ, I was referring to Christians as doing a magical thinking, a magical approach to the attainment of everlasting life, by claiming to be achieving that attainment via events extra ordinary, i.e., magically. Ens Causa Sui

That doesn't make any sense. Well. Real Christians have the mind of Christ. So rephrase yourself. Then your talking about some wanna be Christians or cult. Is that correct?



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk