take it one step further my friend. There is quite a bit of compelling evidence that we are actually closer to 1000AD , if we want to go with the standardised way of dating things which is based on iesus christus death.
either way your right, the whole thing is a sham and the Catholic church was behind it
I think A.D's insertion is a heap of fantasy. It contains the single biggest paradox in history. He has point. A.D was inserted and history has been changed around it. It doesn't matter the history. It assumes a fictional start, a bookmark that has been completely dishonest with history prior to that period. Brutally removing history, to the point of burning books and conducting inquisitions, fitting it into claims, history had a beginning. Nobody believed prior to A.D history started 5000 years before it. It didn't on the older trade routes dating back at least 10,000 years. Until it inserts dinos and monkeys. Enough said. By inserting A.D it provided a reset counter, and a bookmark owned by record keepers who haven't acted truthfully by fitting a completely disingenuous insertion. There is almost 0 evidence of. It resurrected. Whoosh. Because we made up those dates.
It therefore in opinion has been altered repeatedly. After the reformation in particular as well on this topic. Where more hoaxes were added into it. Until it is a heap of bullshit. It constantly makes up nonsense, and has more fibs than a fiddle.
Allow yourself to question deeper...what can one insert into reality? If one exists within reality, then how could one insert something from the outside? Is inception up to life or does life represent the insert (inception) and extract (death) of outside into inside?
As for heap of fiction...where does such a heap accumulate? Could ones consent to suggested information (fiction) over perceivable inspiration (reality) tempt one to "heap" it upon ones mind/memory, hence holding onto it?
single biggest
What if single (partial) can only exist within biggest (whole)? What if others tempt one with suggested biggest vs smallest to ignore being partial within whole?
He has a point.
POINT, noun - "an indivisible part of time or space"...how could "one" (partial within whole) have an indivisible part, while representing a divided part?
history has been changed around it.
If you (life) are within constant change (inception towards death), then everything changes everyone within...
It assumes a fictional start
Can you discern in-between your start within reality (inception) and the ongoing reality (inception toward death) starting you? Are these discernible or do they require assumptions?
a bookmark that has been completely dishonest
a) what if ones consent to suggested honesty "bookmarks" the suggested within ones mind/memory, hence "binding" the ones consenting to the one suggesting?
b) why does a partial uses "completely" to describe the behavior of other partials?
c) how could HON'EST, adjective [Latin honestus, from honos, honor.] - "free from trickishness and fraud" exist if everyone represents the free will of choice to trick and defraud others?
Furthermore...if one chooses want over need, then does that represent dishonesty to self?
Brutally removing
a) does the ongoing process of dying brutally removes everyone temporary living within?
b) does nature represent BRU'TAL, adjective - "pertaining to a brute; as brutal nature" + BRUTE, adjective - "senseless; irrational; unconscious; bestial"? And if so...do those born into it represent gentle?
it provided a reset counter
Does ones response to perceivable setting require counting? Do you count breathing? How do you count thirst and hunger? What about counting shelter? Are the few suggesting the many to count; are the few suggesting all the numbers to the many; are the few known to "fudge the numbers"?
Could ones consent to suggested "counting" give others the power to define; redefine and contradict numbers? What about perceivable NUM'BER, noun - "designation of a unit (Latin unus; one)"? Can ONE perceive more than other ONEs?
There is almost 0 evidence of...
a) EV'IDENT, adjective - "plain; open to be seen; apparent; manifest"...where is 0 (zero; nothing) evident? How does perceivable nature communicate 0 to the perceiving 1's within?
b) "there is almost..." If MOST is, then what about the rest of ALL? Is it not?
we made up those dates.
How? How can one make up anything? How does the made up affect others? How could one (singular) be we (plural)...who made that up? Can anyone make up anything without using everything already in existence as the foundation? If make up, then taking down, so who has more power to take down...the living or the process of dying? If it's the latter, then who has more power to make up...the living or the process of dying generating the living within itself?
has been altered repeatedly
What if being represents repetition (adaptation by free will of choice) within alteration (balance of motion)?
a heap of bullshit
Sleight of hand from Madonna: "I'm not your bitch, don't hang your shit on me (it's human nature)" aka "I'm not consenting to you, don't hang your suggestions on me" (it's human nature)...
take it one step further my friend. There is quite a bit of compelling evidence that we are actually closer to 1000AD , if we want to go with the standardised way of dating things which is based on iesus christus death.
either way your right, the whole thing is a sham and the Catholic church was behind it
I think A.D's insertion is a heap of fantasy. It contains the single biggest paradox in history. He has point. A.D was inserted and history has been changed around it. It doesn't matter the history. It assumes a fictional start, a bookmark that has been completely dishonest with history prior to that period. Brutally removing history, to the point of burning books and conducting inquisitions, fitting it into claims, history had a beginning. Nobody believed prior to A.D history started 5000 years before it. It didn't on the older trade routes dating back at least 10,000 years. Until it inserts dinos and monkeys. Enough said. By inserting A.D it provided a reset counter, and a bookmark owned by record keepers who haven't acted truthfully by fitting a completely disingenuous insertion. There is almost 0 evidence of. It resurrected. Whoosh. Because we made up those dates.
It therefore in opinion has been altered repeatedly. After the reformation in particular as well on this topic. Where more hoaxes were added into it. Until it is a heap of bullshit. It constantly makes up nonsense, and has more fibs than a fiddle.
Allow yourself to question deeper...what can one insert into reality? If one exists within reality, then how could one insert something from the outside? Is inception up to life or does life represent the insert (inception) and extract (death) of outside into inside?
As for heap of fiction...where does such a heap accumulate? Could ones consent to suggested information (fiction) over perceivable inspiration (reality) tempt one to "heap" it upon ones mind/memory, hence holding onto it?
What if single (partial) can only exist within biggest (whole)? What if others tempt one with suggested biggest vs smallest to ignore being partial within whole?
POINT, noun - "an indivisible part of time or space"...how could "one" (partial within whole) have an indivisible part, while representing a divided part?
If you (life) are within constant change (inception towards death), then everything changes everyone within...
Can you discern in-between your start within reality (inception) and the ongoing reality (inception toward death) starting you? Are these discernible or do they require assumptions?
a) what if ones consent to suggested honesty "bookmarks" the suggested within ones mind/memory, hence "binding" the ones consenting to the one suggesting?
b) why does a partial uses "completely" to describe the behavior of other partials?
c) how could HON'EST, adjective [Latin honestus, from honos, honor.] - "free from trickishness and fraud" exist if everyone represents the free will of choice to trick and defraud others?
Furthermore...if one chooses want over need, then does that represent dishonesty to self?
a) does the ongoing process of dying brutally removes everyone temporary living within?
b) does nature represent BRU'TAL, adjective - "pertaining to a brute; as brutal nature" + BRUTE, adjective - "senseless; irrational; unconscious; bestial"? And if so...do those born into it represent gentle?
Does ones response to perceivable setting require counting? Do you count breathing? How do you count thirst and hunger? What about counting shelter? Are the few suggesting the many to count; are the few suggesting all the numbers to the many; are the few known to "fudge the numbers"?
Could ones consent to suggested "counting" give others the power to define; redefine and contradict numbers? What about perceivable NUM'BER, noun - "designation of a unit (Latin unus; one)"? Can ONE perceive more than other ONEs?
a) EV'IDENT, adjective - "plain; open to be seen; apparent; manifest"...where is 0 (zero; nothing) evident? How does perceivable nature communicate 0 to the perceiving 1's within?
b) "there is almost..." If MOST is, then what about the rest of ALL? Is it not?
How? How can one make up anything? How does the made up affect others? How could one (singular) be we (plural)...who made that up? Can anyone make up anything without using everything already in existence as the foundation? If make up, then taking down, so who has more power to take down...the living or the process of dying? If it's the latter, then who has more power to make up...the living or the process of dying generating the living within itself?
What if being represents repetition (adaptation by free will of choice) within alteration (balance of motion)?
Sleight of hand from Madonna: "I'm not your bitch, don't hang your shit on me (it's human nature)" aka "I'm not consenting to you, don't hang your suggestions on me" (it's human nature)...