There is justice in the grand scheme of things and in particular in the after world.
For those who do not believe in justice or any after world. Ponder this. If someone with freewill, tortures a child or a 1,000 child in the most horrific ways do you think he will get away with it? Do you think someone deliberately choosing to cause harm for self gain or pleasure can get away with it?
The after world could be soul plane, reincarnation or anything we do not understand.
Choice implies effect caused by balance...choosing to ignore this harms self.
If someone with freewill...in the most horrific ways
Ones free will of choice (life) originates within the one and only way (inception towards death)....others suggest horror to tempt one to fear outcomes instead.
deliberately choosing
DELIBERATE, verb - "to balance in the mind"...balancing as choice implies in-between perceivable need (outside) and suggested want (inside).
Deliberating within mind implies reasoning (wanting vs not wanting suggested) aka internal imbalance of choice. Anything formed by deliberation is either for or against a suggested measure aka a conflict.
after
Front/forward of life...death.
Back/aft of life...inception.
Living implies before (forward being) and after (being backwards)...while within process of dying.
The process of dying generates life...resisting the temptation thereof re-generates living while dying.
You know, the more I've learned out the world, what has gone on and what is going on now, and about the nature of human beings, the less I can identify that which is "religious" from that which is not.
For example, if there are moral truths to be found in the Bible (or any other "religious" work) then are they not true regardless of who wrote them down and when and where? Or at all? Do certain people accept them as moral precepts and adhere to them only because of the medium in which they come?
Well, there are many such issues and many of them have, according to my research, quite specific answers. When you sort through it all, taking things back their foundations and fundamental natures, almost nothing is left of what we now call religion.
All that being said, another conclusion I've reached is that (for the foreseeable future) I would recommend and support anyone choosing to practice any sort of conventional religion. Which seems a funny place to end up, but there is specific reasoning behind it.
identify that which is "religious" from that which is not.
a) Identical implies "same"...being implies different. Same motion (inception towards death) differentiates matter (life).
b) Different matter tempts each other with religion (Latin religio; to bind anew) to behave alike, hence mimicking sameness, while ignoring to be different from one another.
c) Nothing (Latin nihilo) implies ones de-nial of everything perceivable, when consenting to suggested nihil-ism.
are they not true regardless of who wrote them
Those reading are consenting to suggested truism. Those writing are advertising ones consenting mind AD (towards) VERT (turn), hence turning minds against each other within conflicts of reason (true vs false).
are they not true...or at all
If all changes; then whatever truth ones holds onto also changes into a lie.
Do certain people accept them as moral precepts and adhere to them only because of the medium in which they come?
Acceptance implies by free will of choice; which is the medium/middle of balance....accepting suggestions by another one tempts one to ignore being medium within all perceivable balance.
If one ignores balance (need/want); then one establishes imbalance (want vs not want) for ones free will of choice; which tries to bind itself to a suggested side, instead of balancing as matter (life) during motion (inception towards death).
there are many
What if there can be only one? How many "energy" exists?
When you sort through it all...
...you ignore being one (partials) sorted within all (whole). SORT, verb - "to separate".
taking things back their foundations
Ation/action (inception towards death) founds reactions (life)...trying to take tempts one to ignore being taken back to origin.
what we now call religion
CALL, verb (Heb. to hold or restrain)...consenting to religion (Latin religio; to bind anew) restrains self, while permitting others to call the shots.
conclusion I've reached
a) ION (action) sets apart...others suggest CON (together; with) as the inversion thereof, while ones consent to suggested cludere/closes/shuts one off from perceivable.
b) Rising implies within origin; reaching implies towards outcome. The only outcome of life implies death.
Sleight of hand: Jack Reacher aka jack/jacob/ya'aqobh - "a supplanter". Few supplant suggestions for many to reach by consent.
conventional religion
a) CON (together; with) + VENIRE (to come) + TION (action)...an inversion of coming to be (life) apart within action (inception towards death).
b) RE (response) + LIGARE (to bind) + ION (action)...once again inverting actions (balance) setting reactions (choice) free from one another.
specific reasoning
Specific implies particulars apart from one another...reasoning tempts together aka against one another. Reason destroys specification....if one ignore implication of whole.
a) EN'ERGY, noun (Gr. work) - "internal or inherent power"...where else could anything EX (proceeding from)?
b) -ist (exist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (existentialism). Perceiving EX implies within; out of; proceeding from perceivable.
competing agendas
COM (together; with) contradicts AGEN (action aka setting apart). Action (inception towards death) sets reactions (life) apart from one another. It's only those reactions which wield a free will of choice to COMe together, by for example consenting to suggested COMmunism.
bound by "plausible deniability" when they interact with us.
a) What if buyer (consent) can be tricked to bind self to product sold (suggestion), while ignoring merchant selling?
In other words...why do believers (buyers) bind themselves to "patris et filii et spiritus sancti" (product), while ignoring "in nomine" (merchant selling in the name of product)?
Religion (Latin religio) - "to bind anew"...ones free will of choice has to submit (Islam) for that new bond.
b) What if de-nial (Latin nihilo; nothing) implies ones consent to suggested nihil-ism...could that be plausible?
They communicate directly to your monologue
a) COM (together; with) contradicts mono (one and only)
b) Direction (inception towards death) sets reactors (life) apart from one another.
c) LOGUE (logic; reasoning against another) contradicts MONO (being one apart from one another)
monologue, can manipulate
How could MONO (singular) be MANI (plural) without ignoring ONEself for others?
random
What if few suggest without a course (random) as the inversion of being (life) within a course (inception towards death) aka choice (free) within balance (dom).
Random contradicts freedom.
the behavior of animals
Being (life) within animation (inception towards death) cannot have/hold onto/possess anything without ignoring/denying everything moving.
If one consents to "have"; then one ignores everything perceivable for suggested nothing, hence establishing "have nots".
Most people only interact
a) Interact aka internal action implies each ones reaction inside of action.
b) Action (sound) sets reactions (person; per sonos; by sound) apart from one another...others suggest pluralism (most people) to distracts singular (one) from discerning self.
anti-human
Hue (color) of man implies light establishing visible spectrum of light internally for each ray of light within.
Ignoring to be apart from one another by consenting to be mixed together implies ones anti-hue-man stance. If rays of light aim against each other; then they're reflecting; blending each other and casting shadows around...sounds familiar?
animals & are very picky about their associations
Because animation (inception towards death) causes being (life) to be apart from one another, hence disassociated aka unbound aka as FREE will of choice.
the positive ones...
...ignore being singular (one), while fighting others within a conflict of reason (positive vs negative). Ones consent to suggested the-ism tempts one into such a conflict of reason.
If ONE; then position (life) within negation (inception towards death) aka positioned to rise during procession of fall.
I was raised JW, everything is evil- leave it alone. I left very little alone, and willful ignorance is self inflicted. So much taken, hidden, lost, or just twisted... not in our best interest.
Impale the Synagogue of Satan!!!
There is justice in the grand scheme of things and in particular in the after world.
For those who do not believe in justice or any after world. Ponder this. If someone with freewill, tortures a child or a 1,000 child in the most horrific ways do you think he will get away with it? Do you think someone deliberately choosing to cause harm for self gain or pleasure can get away with it?
The after world could be soul plane, reincarnation or anything we do not understand.
Choice implies effect caused by balance...choosing to ignore this harms self.
Ones free will of choice (life) originates within the one and only way (inception towards death)....others suggest horror to tempt one to fear outcomes instead.
DELIBERATE, verb - "to balance in the mind"...balancing as choice implies in-between perceivable need (outside) and suggested want (inside).
Deliberating within mind implies reasoning (wanting vs not wanting suggested) aka internal imbalance of choice. Anything formed by deliberation is either for or against a suggested measure aka a conflict.
Living implies before (forward being) and after (being backwards)...while within process of dying.
The process of dying generates life...resisting the temptation thereof re-generates living while dying.
If soul/sole, then one and only...not or else.
You know, the more I've learned out the world, what has gone on and what is going on now, and about the nature of human beings, the less I can identify that which is "religious" from that which is not.
For example, if there are moral truths to be found in the Bible (or any other "religious" work) then are they not true regardless of who wrote them down and when and where? Or at all? Do certain people accept them as moral precepts and adhere to them only because of the medium in which they come?
Well, there are many such issues and many of them have, according to my research, quite specific answers. When you sort through it all, taking things back their foundations and fundamental natures, almost nothing is left of what we now call religion.
All that being said, another conclusion I've reached is that (for the foreseeable future) I would recommend and support anyone choosing to practice any sort of conventional religion. Which seems a funny place to end up, but there is specific reasoning behind it.
a) Identical implies "same"...being implies different. Same motion (inception towards death) differentiates matter (life).
b) Different matter tempts each other with religion (Latin religio; to bind anew) to behave alike, hence mimicking sameness, while ignoring to be different from one another.
c) Nothing (Latin nihilo) implies ones de-nial of everything perceivable, when consenting to suggested nihil-ism.
Those reading are consenting to suggested truism. Those writing are advertising ones consenting mind AD (towards) VERT (turn), hence turning minds against each other within conflicts of reason (true vs false).
If all changes; then whatever truth ones holds onto also changes into a lie.
Acceptance implies by free will of choice; which is the medium/middle of balance....accepting suggestions by another one tempts one to ignore being medium within all perceivable balance.
If one ignores balance (need/want); then one establishes imbalance (want vs not want) for ones free will of choice; which tries to bind itself to a suggested side, instead of balancing as matter (life) during motion (inception towards death).
What if there can be only one? How many "energy" exists?
...you ignore being one (partials) sorted within all (whole). SORT, verb - "to separate".
Ation/action (inception towards death) founds reactions (life)...trying to take tempts one to ignore being taken back to origin.
CALL, verb (Heb. to hold or restrain)...consenting to religion (Latin religio; to bind anew) restrains self, while permitting others to call the shots.
a) ION (action) sets apart...others suggest CON (together; with) as the inversion thereof, while ones consent to suggested cludere/closes/shuts one off from perceivable.
b) Rising implies within origin; reaching implies towards outcome. The only outcome of life implies death.
Sleight of hand: Jack Reacher aka jack/jacob/ya'aqobh - "a supplanter". Few supplant suggestions for many to reach by consent.
a) CON (together; with) + VENIRE (to come) + TION (action)...an inversion of coming to be (life) apart within action (inception towards death).
b) RE (response) + LIGARE (to bind) + ION (action)...once again inverting actions (balance) setting reactions (choice) free from one another.
Specific implies particulars apart from one another...reasoning tempts together aka against one another. Reason destroys specification....if one ignore implication of whole.
b)
a) EN'ERGY, noun (Gr. work) - "internal or inherent power"...where else could anything EX (proceeding from)?
b) -ist (exist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (existentialism). Perceiving EX implies within; out of; proceeding from perceivable.
COM (together; with) contradicts AGEN (action aka setting apart). Action (inception towards death) sets reactions (life) apart from one another. It's only those reactions which wield a free will of choice to COMe together, by for example consenting to suggested COMmunism.
a) What if buyer (consent) can be tricked to bind self to product sold (suggestion), while ignoring merchant selling?
In other words...why do believers (buyers) bind themselves to "patris et filii et spiritus sancti" (product), while ignoring "in nomine" (merchant selling in the name of product)?
Religion (Latin religio) - "to bind anew"...ones free will of choice has to submit (Islam) for that new bond.
b) What if de-nial (Latin nihilo; nothing) implies ones consent to suggested nihil-ism...could that be plausible?
a) COM (together; with) contradicts mono (one and only)
b) Direction (inception towards death) sets reactors (life) apart from one another.
c) LOGUE (logic; reasoning against another) contradicts MONO (being one apart from one another)
How could MONO (singular) be MANI (plural) without ignoring ONEself for others?
What if few suggest without a course (random) as the inversion of being (life) within a course (inception towards death) aka choice (free) within balance (dom).
Random contradicts freedom.
Being (life) within animation (inception towards death) cannot have/hold onto/possess anything without ignoring/denying everything moving.
If one consents to "have"; then one ignores everything perceivable for suggested nothing, hence establishing "have nots".
a) Interact aka internal action implies each ones reaction inside of action.
b) Action (sound) sets reactions (person; per sonos; by sound) apart from one another...others suggest pluralism (most people) to distracts singular (one) from discerning self.
Hue (color) of man implies light establishing visible spectrum of light internally for each ray of light within.
Ignoring to be apart from one another by consenting to be mixed together implies ones anti-hue-man stance. If rays of light aim against each other; then they're reflecting; blending each other and casting shadows around...sounds familiar?
Because animation (inception towards death) causes being (life) to be apart from one another, hence disassociated aka unbound aka as FREE will of choice.
...ignore being singular (one), while fighting others within a conflict of reason (positive vs negative). Ones consent to suggested the-ism tempts one into such a conflict of reason.
If ONE; then position (life) within negation (inception towards death) aka positioned to rise during procession of fall.
I was raised JW, everything is evil- leave it alone. I left very little alone, and willful ignorance is self inflicted. So much taken, hidden, lost, or just twisted... not in our best interest.