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.
I've gone off grid, homestead and homeschool. I know not everything is in God's hands as he gave us a will free from his.
So can someone be a "level 8". But have skipped "level 3"?
Stupid post.
He frees each ones will from one another. God implies need; will implies want. One needs to resist wanted temptation, while being tempted to ignore resisting.
You are equating will with desire. Desire belongs to the ego. Will is the capacity to act. If truth is known, action should follow from truth rather than from competing desires. Temptation is simply conflict between illusion and reality. It doesn't demonstrate free will so much as mistaken identification.
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.