ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

• 
  ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST is a RAMIFICATION of BARUCH SPINOZA’S ‘’determiatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”. Duane Clinton Meehan

I.
a). The ‘determination’ considered herein is the mode whereby a person originates an intentional act. Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est” sets forth that one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure; and, J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), has given us a detailed description of the actual doubly nihilative process whereby human action upsurges ex nihilo.
1. Judaeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture.
2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s authentically deistically created ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure.
3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture, thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action. If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew 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 nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act.
4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".
Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of n o n-e x I s t a n t s, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state”, etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. 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.” (Being and Nothingness, Sartre 435).
5. If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness.
6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, 1943...
7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”, thus:
II.
1. A profound error is...

 

[ScottA]

• 
  ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST is a RAMIFICATION of BARUCH SPINOZA’S ‘’determiatio negatio est”, i.e., “determination is negation”. Duane Clinton Meehan

I.
a). The ‘determination’ considered herein is the mode whereby a person originates an intentional act. Spinoza’s “determinatio negatio est” sets forth that one’s determination to action is an entirely negative procedure; and, J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), has given us a detailed description of the actual doubly nihilative process whereby human action upsurges ex nihilo.
1. Judaeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture.
2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s authentically deistically created ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure.
3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture, thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action. If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew 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 nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act.
4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".
Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of n o n-e x I s t a n t s, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state”, etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. 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.” (Being and Nothingness, Sartre 435).
5. If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness.
6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, 1943...
7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”, thus:
II.
1. A profound error is...

Each point in your/their findings is based in error (you/they have made assumptions resulting in error):

1. There is no "process."
2. There is no "thereafter."
3. There is no "shall be."
4. There is no "prior."
5. "Study" "gains" nothing of "familiarity" with God.
6. "Study" gains no understanding of the reality of God.
7. There is no "action" or "posits."

...These errors are assumptions made from not listening. Your/their own understanding has failed you/them. If you were to actually consider the meaning of "I am" (the name of God), you/they would never have arrived at any of those errors.

Ready to listen?

 

[Enoch111]

ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF of the DEITY of YAHWEH JEHOVAH and JESUS CHRIST

Why not take this to an Agnostic or Atheistic forum where they will revel in this nonsense? Christians don't need Agnostics telling them how *wrong* they are.

 

[marks]

Why not take this to an Agnostic or Atheistic forum where they will revel in this nonsense? Christians don't need Agnostics telling them how *wrong* they are.

He already has. This is a snippet of a much longer post on a philosophy forum.

Some interesting responses, btw. The basically discredit his foundational statements, at least, in what little I looked at.

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

He already has. This is a snippet of a much longer post on a philosophy forum.

Some interesting responses, btw. The basically discredit his foundational statements, at least, in what little I looked at.

Much love!

I placed my argument on an atheist forum first and they were absolutely horrid to me. No one on a philosophy forum has ever discredited/defeated the basic rationale underpinning my post, i.e., that all determination is negation, for, no one has anywhere near brains enough or an intellectual instrumentation sufficient to write an intelligent intelligible refutation of my position, One can merely post ten thousand words at a time on this site, and, by placing the whole writing in series, it ends up readable from end to beginning, which is a bit of a problem. However, here is a nutshell summary of the basic reasoning being employed:
LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN
No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law, and, therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken.

All determination to action and inaction upsurges only on the basis of what is absent, is purely imagined, unaccomplished, and, has not yet intentionally transpired.

That human determination to action arises ex nihilo was first realized and enunciated by Baruch Spinoza (1632 -1677 ), as "...determinatio negatio est…" i.e., "...determination is negation..."(1674); and was, subsequently, restated by G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) as "Omnis determinatio est negatio.", i.e., "All determination is negation."

Human beings are ontologically barred from being determined to action or inaction by given states of affairs.

J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “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.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). 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.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

The intentional conduct of an individual human freedom cannot be determined and initiated by given law.

Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.

The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.

The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinoza's dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition.
Duane
Top

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Why not take this to an Agnostic or Atheistic forum where they will revel in this nonsense? Christians don't need Agnostics telling them how *wrong* they are.

It is not at all relevant that Christians do not need to be informed regarding the fundamental structure of the error of deeming Christ deity, rather, it is my responsibility as a twenty first century efficient ideaologist to describe why neither Jehovah nor Christ are genuine deities.
My positing is not nonsense in any fashion whatsoever; what it is is simply that Enoch111 lacks the intellectual instrumentation requisite to completely follow my ratiocinations, which are cast entirely in terms of negation, a wholly unfamiliar territory to Enoch111...
The atheists said essentially the exact same thing, i.e., that they did not need to be told what they already hold to, and, I said, yes, however, now you have an exact reason to provide as explanation for your position, instead of merely asserting your stance absent an explanation thereof. They were absolutely horrid and, then, they banned me...
Duane

 

[Philip James]

all determination is negation.

Your determination to further this argument negates its rationale. Thus disproving its underlying assumptions.

 

[marks]

I placed my argument on an atheist forum first and they were absolutely horrid to me.

I'm sorry to hear that!

To be sure, I only skimmed what was written. I apologize if I've mis-characterized their responses.

3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture, thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action. If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew 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 nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act.

This part.

Doesn't this ignore the possibility of strategic action on the part of God?

God gave Law. He should have known that this isn't what makes people act. Do I understand this correctly?

According to the Bible the Law could not make men righteous. Doesn't that agree with your assertion here?

Hoping for a simple answer please!

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Your determination to further this argument negates its rationale. Thus disproving its underlying assumptions.

With all the kindheartedness which I can muster, I need humbly inform you that you have not yet begun to fathom the infinite riches of the notion that all determination is negation. That I determine to further my argument does not inherently negate the argument, that is the silliest notion I've ever heard! I am not positing against my position by further explaining that position...if and when I can get the entire essay in front of you, you will have a full explanation of the double nihilation whereby we humans perform our actions...
THIS IS A LINK TO THE FULL ESSAY":
Ontological Disproof of Jehovah and Christ - Philosophy Now Forum

Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

I'm sorry to hear that!

To be sure, I only skimmed what was written. I apologize if I've mis-characterized their responses.


This part.

Doesn't this ignore the possibility of strategic action on the part of God?

God gave Law. He should have known that this isn't what makes people act. Do I understand this correctly?

According to the Bible the Law could not make men righteous. Doesn't that agree with your assertion here?

Hoping for a simple answer please!

Much love!

Marks,
Yes, you understand exactly correctly. If He made man He would have known what makes men tick and, He would not have attempted to employ a given language of law to control the absolute freedom which is a human being, who determines to act or forbear action purely on the basis of what is not yet achieved, and, never, ever, on the basis of what already is...

I do not follow what you mean by strategic action on the part of God...my structure as a freedom does not obviate a God's actions...
Duane

A language of law is not efficient to "make" men anything, human freedom does not in fact act on the basis of given, existing, states of affairs; action/inaction always upsurges out of what is not yet achieved/established. So, you edifyingly point out that scripture states the Law cannot make men righteous, nonetheless, the Law is central to Judaic life and, Scripture is central to Christian living, which, in toto, is a self-inconsistent and self-contradictory state of affairs.
Duane

 

[Philip James]

that all determination is negation. That I determine to further my argument does not inherently negate the argument

Thank you for the kindheartedness.

As you see above, you are contradicting yourself.

And in all love, i will point out that this is no surprise, as all nihlistic philosphy, unenlightened by the love of God, is doomed to devour itself.

 

[marks]

Marks,
Yes, you understand exactly correctly. If He made man He would have known what makes men tick and, He would not have attempted to employ a given language of law to control the absolute freedom which is a human being, who determines to act or forbear action purely on the basis of what is not yet achieved, and, never, ever, on the basis of what already is...

I do not follow what you mean by strategic action on the part of God...my structure as a freedom does not obviate God's actions...
Duane

A language of law is not efficient to "make" men anything, human freedom does not in fact act on the basis of given, existing, states of affairs; action/inaction always upsurges out of what is not yet achieved/established...

By strategic, I mean as a form of guidance.

Certainly God knew the limitations of a written (language) law, but also knew what it would accomplish within those limitations, knowing the nature of man.

Forgive me if I'm being naive, but doesn't this refute your assertion? That YHWH isn't deity, as He demonstrates through the giving of a language law a lack of understanding of true human activity? If the written law, however, wasn't given with the expectation that it would conform men to its codes, but would rather serve a different purpose, then we would need to examine that purpose, to determine if it is valid.

Or to broaden the question further, could there be any valid reason to give the written law, even if this reason isn't valid?

Much love!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

Each point in your/their findings is based in error (you/they have made assumptions resulting in error):

1. There is no "process."
2. There is no "thereafter."
3. There is no "shall be."
4. There is no "prior."
5. "Study" "gains" nothing of "familiarity" with God.
6. "Study" gains no understanding of the reality of God.
7. There is no "action" or "posits."

...These errors are assumptions made from not listening. Your/their own understanding has failed you/them. If you were to actually consider the meaning of "I am" (the name of God), you/they would never have arrived at any of those errors.

Ready to listen?

ScottA;
All of what you have written here strikes me as nonsensical; for example, if there is no action, then, you have not in fact written or posited anything upon this page, which you clearly have.
Duane

 

[shnarkle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[amadeus]

My positing is not nonsense in any fashion whatsoever

To you it indeed may seem to not be nonsense, but to someone who cannot understand, or has difficulty understanding, what you have written, such as myself, because of the words used, it certainly is meaningless. Who then is helped by that?

 

[ScottA]

ScottA;
All of what you have written here strikes me as nonsensical; for example, if there is no action, then, you have not in fact written or posited anything upon this page, which you clearly have.
Duane

If that means you are beginning to see that there is a difference in context, great. If not, then you should consider it. You are speaking from a context that assumes that these matters exist on a timeline. But in the greater context, which context you have approached without knowledge of it, there is no timeline and therefore no action.

This you do, even after I gave you the context, as if you still think you are debating just the things of the world. But whether you know it or not, you have pressed your nose against the glass of the "I am" context, which is a constant. You knocked, I answered. But there is no debate, and if there were, you have nothing to bring to the table. If you had any idea...you would not be making statements and claims, but asking questions.

 

[shnarkle]

7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”, thus:
II.
1. A profound error is...

While I think this is a great topic for discussion, I fail to see how this disproves the deity of God. It seems more like a Strawman argument is being presented instead of what the texts actually present. What Sartre and Spinoza are presenting is a quite cogent argument that is right in line with the gospel message of self denial/self sacrifice. Their ideas can be readily seen among numerous Christian saints, mystics, etc. e.g. The Cloud of Unknowing, the divine ignorantia, as well as much of the apophatic theology that has been around for the last thousand or more years.

 

[shnarkle]

If the written law, however, wasn't given with the expectation that it would conform men to its codes, but would rather serve a different purpose, then we would need to examine that purpose, to determine if it is valid.

I'm sure you're well aware of Paul's own claims that the law is powerless to conform humanity to God's standards, but will inevitably kill instead. We already know a number of purposes, e.g. to reveal God's standard of righteousness as well as pointing to one who will keep it perfectly as well as pay the penalty. That one who keeps it doesn't keep it to establish his righteousness, but because of what the OP would point out is his ontological state. It's all he can do.

 

[shnarkle]

a human being, who determines to act or forbear action purely on the basis of what is not yet achieved, and, never, ever, on the basis of what already is...

Exactly! This is what it truly means to be the image of God. This is to live as God lives. To acts exactly as God acts. God creates ex nihilo. He doesn't create based upon what already is. God does not rest from exhaustion, but from achievement.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

By strategic, I mean as a form of guidance.

Certainly God knew the limitations of a written (language) law, but also knew what it would accomplish within those limitations, knowing the nature of man.

Forgive me if I'm being naive, but doesn't this refute your assertion? That YHWH isn't deity, as He demonstrates through the giving of a language law a lack of understanding of true human activity? If the written law, however, wasn't given with the expectation that it would conform men to its codes, but would rather serve a different purpose, then we would need to examine that purpose, to determine if it is valid.

Or to broaden the question further, could there be any valid reason to give the written law, even if this reason isn't valid?

Much love!

marks;
I have in mind when He commanded Adam and Eve via the famous Thou Shalt Nots, He indubitably expected obedience, else He would not have punished the offenders so harshly.
Perhaps another reason to give Law is to ultimately transcend Law, via uplifting human consciousness up to Christ's higher strategy of Love. When the Temple curtain rent upon Christ's death on the cross, the age of Law was surpassed. I advocate becoming reflectively/responsibly free as our means of attaining civilization patterned upon our own ontological structure, instead of constantly outlawing/banning that original ontological structure.
Duane