On a scale of 1-10, how much of this isn’t just an intellectual exercise on finding the truth?
Each level is cumulative with the one below it. Feel free to redo this list.
Level 1 - avoiding seed oils, etc.
Level 2 - no vaccines, no Real ID
Level 3 - normie prepping of food, ammo
Level 4 - stacking gold/silver/crypto
Level 5 - solid prayer life, it all comes down to spiritual warfare
Level 6 - moving to a good location to survive SHTF or TEOTWAWKI
Level 7 - operator level prepping
Level 8 - “networking”
Level 9 - putting off real life needs and wants for a wife/kids/career because “in five years we will all be in the digital gulag or FEMA camps anyway” or dead from a mass kill off they have planned, etc.
Level 10 - Realizing that it’s in God’s hands no matter what you do anyway.
EDIT - Use your imagination people, this list is hardly all inclusive.
Also, if you are doing none of these, you are a poser.
Equate/equal implies God...the will to desire and resisting desire implies being at odds with one another.
God supplies equal balance for each ones free will of choice struggling within the odds of desire for one another.
The ego moves through each one...any belonging tempts one to ignore that for the desire to possess.
The corruption of ego from "self" into "I" is based on taking possession over oneself as "me; myself or I".
a) Only God acts...anything within RE-ACTS to being enacted upon. Will aka "want" reacts to enacted "need".
b) Capacity aka "the ability to contain" implies balance enabling choice to want to hold onto, while ignoring the need to let go of.
God implies process; being implies potential...capacity reduces potential if held onto.
Knowledge moves through one; truth and false represent choices held onto. Knowledge delineates; truth vs false implies circular confinement.
God implies all knowledge (perceivable) for each one (perception) within aka process dividing potential aka cause dividing effect aka need dividing want etc.
Action generates reaction...reaction (life) needs to resist the wanted temptation to follow action (inception towards death).
Few suggest leaders to tempt many to follow...doing so inverts action > reaction.
Competing desires implies reaction vs reaction, while ignoring action. Versus/verto (to turn) implies a circle; while action implies the delineation of reaction.
The ATION (action) in temptation isn't in conflict with anything, but implies God enacting reaction. TEMPT implies reaction ignoring all action for one another aka need for want.
Conflict implies friction...reaction cannot have friction with action because action (motion) divides (momentum) reaction (matter) from one another. Only reaction (matter) turning against reaction (matter) can have friction with one another.
Identical implies "same"...difference (creation) cannot take sameness (creator) only mistake one another.
Few suggest Identitarianism or equality through diversity to tempt many to consent to identities...thereby ignoring to be a difference within sameness for becoming alike one another. That's a mistake.
God implies the only identity (sameness) of each being (difference). A being does not need to identify oneself to one another...it's a wanted vs not wanted desire to do so.
You're introducing new definitions for nearly every term—God, action, reaction, truth, knowledge, will, capacity, identity—but you haven't argued why those definitions should be accepted.
Most of your conclusions depend entirely on those redefinitions. Could you state your argument in premise-and-conclusion form without redefining common words?
That would make it possible to evaluate whether the reasoning is valid.
Lol
He always does that.
Except on the rare occasions when he cracks a joke. Which is (inexplicably) usually pretty funny.
If it weren't for that he would have failed every Turing test I've put to him. (He's often accused of being a bot)
i missed those joke replies somehow
They're very rare
a) "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no NEW thing under the sun." ~Ecclesiastes 1:9
b) The word "introduction" represents a synthesis of intro (inward) duc (to lead) tion (action) aka action leading inward into reaction. The actual process of action leading into reaction implies an analysis...not a synthesis. It's your consent to the suggested word, which inverts analysis into synthesis within your mind.
c) The word "term" implies boundary; end... https://www.etymonline.com/word/term
Few suggest terminology to confine many within the boundary of logic by choosing one side (new) over another (old). Choosing either puts both sides in conflict against each other which is called "reason".
d) A word can only be shaped within sound...holding onto a word based DEFINITION makes one a DEAF PHONETICIAN aka one deaf to phonics (sound).
Furthermore...DEFINI (affixed) contradicts TION (action) making the word definition a contradiction in terms.
a) If one defines God; action; reaction; knowledge or will; then one ignores the implied motion.
b) Truth implies holding onto something; capacity implies ones memory allowing one to hold onto something; identity implies ones ignorance of perceivable differences by mentally slapping identity (sameness) upon it.
An arguing mind implies a reasoning mind aka acceptance versus denial, with versus/verto - "to turn" implying an artificial circle shaped within the natural line (inception towards death) of progression.
How does one argue? By using free will of choice to choose one side over another...doing so binds ones free will of choice into a conflict.
So why would free-will-of-choice willingly bind self to a conflict in-between acceptance and denial?
Instead of accepting any synthetic definition; I use analysis to break apart de-fini-tion (division of finite within action) or ac-cept (to take) or de-nial (division of nothing)...that's how one sustains a sound mind free from synthetic definitions suggested by another.
Few shape many into a most vs least conflict of reason by tricking them to join each other, which establishes con (together) clude (to shut)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/conclude
One shuts self when joining together with others, because proximity restricts expression.
If solution (inception towards death) generates dis-solution (life); then conclusion shapes congestion.
a) Argument implies a circle (versus)...that's the conclusion shutting one mentally (logic) and physically (reason) off from linear reality.
As for premise aka pre (before) mise (to send)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/premise That's God sending each being forwards....not a circular conclusion, but a linear solution.
b) Being within God implies partial within whole...few suggest words to shape a COMMON consensus among many who ignore that.
Com (together) mon (to change)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/common contradicts that change applied to togetherness sets apart.
Whatever artifice one builds together; nature sets apart. Whatever one wants to hold onto; one needs to let go of. As above (life); so below (inception towards death). Whatever goes up; has to go down and vice versa.
tl;dr: tempting many to hold onto artificial definitions, while ignoring natural motion...that's the conspiracy theory few are running. I break definitions apart to expose ignorance to motion...ignorance doesn't like change at all. Ignorance wants to hide from change.
Removed, rule 1