Will Lawful Man
May 17, 2014 8:47 PMI recently resonded to the claim the legal system offered by the UCADIA/One-Heaven site was the highest form of law on earth. --Sovereign UnderGod, before making any claim of a system being superior to all other systems, it is logical to have a working understanding of the many different systems of Law and legal systems, and, the way in which they are structured and relate. In Article 89.2, reference to the standards of Divine Law is made. Considering what divinity actually is as a process of the Mind and comparing that process to the words of the document, it becomes quite clear that the document does not follow the form of any Law, but adheres to the structure and function of the legislation it would serve to replace. So called 'Divine Law' does hold the highest position within the structuring of the various legal systems which observe the ideology of justice, collectively called 'Positive Law', however, by observing justice, it cannot be Law and is therefore not lawful. The claim of ab initio is a misleading concept serving the purpose of establishing superiority in claim of right, which is also an unlawful concept. Before there can be a "beginning" to Existence, the option for Existence to not begin exists. Before 'Existence' Is, it is only a potential Option. The other potential Option is Non Existence. Of the original Options, Existence and Non Existence, Existence is the Option actualised. This singular concept, Potential and Actual, is the foundation upon which Existence stands. This concept of Potential and Actual is also clearly expressed as 'Option and (Choice?), or simply, Free Will and it is The Law. The Being of Man is the highest form of who and what each man and woman is and the Being of Man is our direct source of The Law, our Option and Choice, our Free Will. There is no way for Free Will to be taken from Man and there is no way for Man to be rid of Free Will. There can be no lawful intervenor between Man and The Law. Your legislation is proved wrong when considered through an intellect clear of belief or fiction. To prove you wrong would first require that you put your own words here and secondly, that your words were wrong. I have shown your claim that the legal systems offered by UCADIA, et al, was incorrect and that it was not actually Law and is unlawful, however, in that it was in the form of a debate, you were merely mistaken, not wrong.
Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: May 17, 2014 8:47 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post: