Oof... Salty loser... Spamming is not cool, mkay
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
Start by affirming Truth exists and should be pursued. That means there must be a way to find it reliably despite our faulty sensors. That way is Spirit. It's not enough just to make a factually true statement, it's also necessary not to be using it in a deceptive spirit.
Everyone knows what it's like to speak honestly, they know when someone is speaking in truth and in spirit. Because of this, when we're dealing with truth statements, we can work together pursuing the truth and arrive at the same place because we are pursuing it in the same spirit. That's the resolution of all contradiction.
If there's no Truth to start out with, there's no point in saying or doing anything, because it's the same as not saying or doing. But everyone believes there's a point, so everyone ultimately believes there's a Truth worth working for. When you commit to pursuing Truth, you find it, that's how the universe works. Eventually we find that there's a community of Truth seekers that has greater solidity and history than any other, they have a book they've checked for millennia and found it to have greater communicative value and description of reality than any other, and the independent evidence for this Holy Bible being the book of Truth continues to grow until you see the whole big picture. That's the unity of the good news, everyone comes to the same core message for humanity who looks for it. Remaining disagreements are just about semantics and technicalities. If there's a true binary contradiction between two people, it's because they're not in the same spirit.
If one doesn't affirm truth, then how could others use lies against one?
If life starts at inception, then is there a point of death at the end of ones life sentence?
If one doesn't affirm truth, one lies to oneself. To fail to make anything firm is to fail to be anything.
Since life is experienced in the present, an end is never something experienced. The All has no inception because all inception is within it, and so the All has no end. So One is free to follow All, and need not end just because one has an inception.
Originally, heresy did mean choice, all choices were heresies (sects, sections). Therefore not to choose is also a heresy. Whenever we speak, and whenever we don't, we will and define and choose. It's still a tenet even if it's not a doctrine.
a) How could a BEING fail to BE anything?
b) Being implies made form (life) by flow (inception towards death)...holding onto form by trying to affirm to one another, destroys form through friction, hence a conflict of reason (affirm vs denial). As long as one holds firm to either side, so long both sides are mutually destroying each other.
One DOES before one can choose to DOESN'T affirm (truth) or deny (lie)...being comes before choice. Affirmation and denial tempts ones choice to select the suggested choices of another aka shirking of response-ability.
Who is calling one a liar if one doesn't affirm truth to another?
Life implies essence...others suggest present/pre-sence to gain ones permission/consent/affirmation to define pre (before) aka the exterior/abstract of ones essence.
Experience aka ex per (expression by) implies an impressing into. Nature operates from impression (inception towards death) through expression (life)...pre-sent (before being send) implies the sleight of hand one ignores.
Few suggest many to express consent TOWARDS suggested in exchange for experience (XP), which inverts reality..."ex per" aka expression by origin.
What about "never" aka nothing ever? Can that be experienced? Why is nothing used as the foundation to deny (de-nihilo) an end of being?
Why did you put a THE before ALL? An adjective before ALL; before everything? Ad-ject (towards throwing) implies an ejection before aka an inception of an adjected ALL by an ejecting THE...
Only a partial (one) within whole (all) has a beginning (inception) and end (death) of being (life).
Partial implies temporal ; whole implies ongoing...separation (momentum) of whole (motion) into partials (matter) establishes beginning and end aka inception and death.
All directs (inception towards death) each one (life) within...which implies a separation of velocity into resistance. To follow implies the path of least resistance aka the temptation to go with the velocity towards death instead of resisting for the sustenance of life by adapting to the origin of inception.
Ones free will of choice struggles with needing to resist wanted temptation...following implies a temptation, hence others utilizing leaders calling followers to give consent/affirmation to suggested progressivism towards outcomes.
Another angle...temptation aka sin/syn - "synchrony" implies simultaneous with others aka following, while resistance implies ones resisting stance apart from others.
Need (inception towards death) generates want (life)...hence ones struggle to rise during fall.
Example...water or wine? Which one represents need? Neither...thirst does. Wanting or not wanting water or wine tempts one to ignore needing to resist thirst.
Because is the suggested inversion of cause (inception towards death) towards being (life) aka just (balance) generating odds (choice).
This requires self discernment, which one ignores when consenting to suggested "because". If one asks nature "why", then nature doesn't answer "because"...it simply moves cause towards being to inspire adaptation.
You may call this Gods' breath of life...which life needs to exhale, hence adapting to the process of dying.
a) Which one made the choice that suggested meaning changes origin (God)?
b) What if origin (all) offers choice (one), while choosing (ones choice) to shirk it onto another (chosen one) implies heresy?
b) Origin of choice implies balance...balance cannot be changed by choices within...choice within balance can only imbalance self...choosing to suggest imbalance tempts other choices to imbalance self.
What if many choose to ignore origin (perceivable balance) for each other (suggested choices), which establishes a chosen few in control over many followers?
ALL to ONE implies sect/seco - "to divide" aka a separation of whole into partials.
Consenting to suggested choices tempts back together aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) etc.
Few can only remain apart if many are mixed together...which requires ones free will of choice to consent (send together).
What if the origin of not implies suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) which tempts one to consent to de-nial perceivable for suggested? Thinking that one can "not choose" implies ones choice to consent to "nothing"...
What if even (balance) forces odds (choice) to adapt?
Notice how a child struggles to find the balance to stand up and walk, yet most adults ignore this struggle of choice adapting to balance when walking through their lives...
Only within balance of motion can matter wield choice (will)...define/definite (to affix) implies wanting to hold onto, while ignoring needing to let go.
How could choice be affixed (defined), when choosing implies reaction to balance?
What if few tempt many to ignore perceivable sound for suggested words, hence for DEAF PHONETICIANS (definitions) aka those deaf to phonics (sound)?
Could words like "insane person" be utilized to distract from sound like "in sanus (within sound) + per sonos (by sound)?
If one asks a hundred others to define "insane person"; then what are the odds of anyone bringing up "sound"?
Even implies everything...nothing tempts one at odds with even.
(u/Neo1, note I answer this in its own language.)
Evidence indicates not all flow is towards death (endless flow).
To make firm that one is a being is indeed to be something.
To deny that one is a being is not to be something.
Being affirms its being automatically without reference to free will of choice.
To flow with All is to affirm All without reference to whether One has free will of choice or not.
If one fails to affirm, when it is one's duty to flow with All, the lack of resonance with All identifies itself as the lie.
Then, say, life flows in the now.
Correct, Nothing and Never are not life or experience, which is why death is not life or experience but itself a suggestion.
Life and experience do not involve or evidence any end of being.
If "The" means "All", redundancy; otherwise, superfluity.
End and death are not stablished or firm or life.
Then, say, One is free to flow with (adapt to) All, to resist temptation.
Then, say, One has inception, and One does not end.
Yes, inspiring adaptation is God's breath of life.
In this case, me. Each One is free to choose.
In that case, you. If unshirking choice is no heresy, well.
Ignoring origin represents imbalance.
Then, say, choosing All suffices.
Then, say, "not" implies choosing nothing, which is a heresy (a shirking of responsibility).
Then, say, adapt. Adapt to One having no end.
Then, say, we will and sound out and choose. It's a tenet.
Even and odds alternate and oscillate in life: endless respiration.
Thanks for self-identifying. If you don't believe any god is real, why would it be time for me to demonstrate otherwise? It's illogical, and in fact untruthful, to state your belief so boldly and then to challenge me to defeat your belief, unless you yourself already have doubts about your own belief.
If you affirm Truth exists and should be pursued, you've already demonstrated what you need, namely that truth and duty ("should") exist even though they have never been demonstrated empirically. Every atheist believes in one or more axioms that have not been demonstrated empirically, and can only make progress by admitting that. For instance, the statement that only empirically demonstrated propositions matter has never been demonstrated empirically.
There are atheists here I can work with because they do really want to pursue Truth. Rush Limbaugh said so rightly that he would not rest until everyone agreed with him, and that's a deep statement that there really is a truth and it has more power to shape both him and us than we realize. If you're willing not to rest until people agree with you, we can have a dialogue. The head mod of c/Atheist has helpfully pinned a top post prominently featuring my outline indicating a few points we can dialogue on. But here we're off-topic now.
What if I'm not interested in causing a person to believe who is so obviously self-sufficient in his belief? Jesus said the healthy do not need a doctor.
Interestingly I don't insist the same rule back to you, namely that you are under duty to demonstrate to me how you know something before I believe you. If I did your argument and system would collapse. To protect against this collapse, the golden rule or categorical imperative that we should not impose structures on others we are not willing to accept for ourselves is widely recognized by many atheists as a guide of life.