0
0

[–] Blood-is-Nature ago 

because only free creatures are capable of love

Such a shame that those are in bondage to the belief towards a deity then. Anyway, did you know that love and hate are not natural states, but umbrella terms that hide all kinds of natural process like our survial instincts, the maternal and paternal instincts, all our senses reacting to differences, countless chemical reactions coming from all of this etc? Those umbrella terms seem to me like rhetorical tricks to once again diminish human comprehension of the laws of nature, while also opening up the possibility to slip corrupt meanings under the umbrellas. Must be a coincidence that the perfidious entry of criminal contract law into the natural union between male and female; called marriage license, was sold under the umbrella of love? They also sealed the deal with a ring; called jewelry, which put the entire diamond industry, the valentines racket, the sacrifice of life essence within flowers etc. under the umbrella of love. What about the sexual liberation agenda leading to sodomy, abortion, incest, child abuse and so on? Yep; free love, baby. "Make love; not war" also gave us all the drugs. Isn't that lovely, And "hate" obviously is the driving force to promote all wars and small er conflicts, and even sold the lie of racism to us as well the current hate-speech censorship.

It's so easy to fool people with rhetoric as long as they BELIEVE.

But we can never escape Him, because He is everything.

No; we are part of the sum of all things that sustains this ecosystem. Creation is not based on the ONE; you can only create with the ALL. They tricked you into accepting hedonism (the ONE) to break our unity (the ALL). The sum of all things is necessary for any creation to happen.

Nature follows the laws of physics

You mean as in theoretical physics? You do noticed that science is not about teaching us to comprehend nature better, but vetting how much of nature other humans allow us to comprehend? How selfish of those hedonists to do that.

There is no obvious point in time when the computer you're reading this on began to exist.

Everything within this ecosystem already exists, and existed since its inception. Go back in time to the first invention of anything and all the material to build a computer was already available. It's us lacking the comprehension of how to put it all together.

In fact mathematicians and scientists often talk about "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" (famous paper).

Good for them, but unlike you I don't worship idols. Science, mathematics, authors, titles, distributors, copyrights, awards (famous paper). No thanks, I stay with the laws of nature. False authority is not my thing. Remember the first amendment? You just broke it.

perfect doesn't change, otherwise it wouldn't be perfect

Do I have to point out that you can only comprehend perfection, if you comprehend a flaw and vice versa?

And so we are living in a universe

Are we? Which idol of authority do I have to worship to believe that? This is an enclosed ecosystem and a bunch of trickster are trying to diminish it by making it look insignificant in the big picture.

It's our inability to maintain perfection that causes decay and destruction in the world.

No, it's us shirking our responsibility to struggle to maintain the balance in between order and chaos. It's the belief in things like perfection (unattainable goals based on selfish wants) that create the shirking of responsibility. We now our goal since inception; it's death, yet humans are still chasing after make believe substitutes (promise of heaven) based on the fear of dying.

I believe these things are true

And that's the problem. Restricting comprehension to assumptions.

as a scientist

I should've read that before. So which shoe fits? Nondisclosure agreements, stranglehold of the military industrial complex to withhold and vet knowledge based on nature (translates to "nature made you, but we don't allow you to know about it, because it's dangerous" ), criminal funding, cult of personality surrounding the lab-coat, facilitation of endless genocides through the pharmaceutical cartel, political agendas, when funds based on delivering results favor lies over truths, backstabbing, the indoctrination and destruction of human intellect through the education system, the destruction of human health through the healthcare system, science being today at the forefront of censorship against logic and reason...and the list goes on.

Why do you think mathematics describes reality so well, out of curiosity?

I don't think that mathematics describe nature well to a duck, but both me and the duck can adapt to each other and learn valuable information from each other. It's as if reality is based on perception, and that there are different ways to perceive things? Adaptation is great; I can even apply math to it. Did you know that there's no 0 in nature? Fascinating, what human liars can pull of.

0
0

[–] zxcvbnasdf ago 

You have a truly fascinating mind. This is enjoyable. Thank you.

Such a shame that those are in bondage to the belief towards a deity then.

I'm not in bondage at all. In fact that's what makes Christianity so beautiful to me. Christianity is entirely about controlling one's passions in order to understand nature. To be able to interrogate it and burn away anything that is not true, and only keep that which is true. It's perfectly in line with what you want, the only thing you're asked to do is believe that the truth exists, and that God loves you. That's it. What bondage is there in that?

Must be a coincidence that the perfidious entry of criminal contract law into the natural union between male and female; called marriage license, was sold under the umbrella of love?

The reason marriage is a contract between man and woman is because societies collapse when this is not the norm. Look at the west today. Falling marriages, birth rates down the tubes, and a complete destruction of the family. All by (((who)))? Coincidence? No. Planned.

No; we are part of the sum of all things that sustains this ecosystem. Creation is not based on the ONE; you can only create with the ALL. They tricked you into accepting hedonism (the ONE) to break our unity (the ALL). The sum of all things is necessary for any creation to happen.

This is yet another beautiful aspect of Christianity. God appears to us not as one, but as a Trinity. As three persons with one nature. God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit. From time immemorial God has been teaching us the difference between the many and the one. To understand how we're all individuals, and yet at the same time one in Him. It's profoundly beautiful, and I agree with what you're saying.

You mean as in theoretical physics? You do noticed that science is not about teaching us to comprehend nature better, but vetting how much of nature other humans allow us to comprehend? How selfish of those hedonists to do that.

I notice that some people use it that way, yes. But I've found, performing science myself, that I am more than capable of interrogating nature for myself, as you want. I just do it in a systematic way that allows me to make complex predictions of the future based on the past and the present. Is that not what you want?

Everything within this ecosystem already exists, and existed since its inception. Go back in time to the first invention of anything and all the material to build a computer was already available. It's us lacking the comprehension of how to put it all together.

Very complicated. If that's true, then you are never born, and you never die, correct?

Good for them, but unlike you I don't worship idols. Science, mathematics, authors, titles, distributors, copyrights, awards (famous paper). No thanks, I stay with the laws of nature. False authority is not my thing. Remember the first amendment? You just broke it.

I don't know what you mean by "the laws of nature"?

Also I'm not Congress, and I make no laws, so I can't violate the first amendment.

Do I have to point out that you can only comprehend perfection, if you comprehend a flaw and vice versa?

I agree completely that I can only comprehend perfection if I find a flaw. That's a very astute and good point. However I don't think Perfect needs to comprehend the flaw to know He's Perfect, because He is Perfect. I think these truths will be made known to us in Heaven.

Are we? Which idol of authority do I have to worship to believe that? This is an enclosed ecosystem and a bunch of trickster are trying to diminish it by making it look insignificant in the big picture.

"Universe" just means "all the physical stuff around us". I should have said "nature", I think.

No, it's us shirking our responsibility to struggle to maintain the balance in between order and chaos. It's the belief in things like perfection (unattainable goals based on selfish wants) that create the shirking of responsibility.

Maintaining the balance between order and chaos is absolutely an aspect of obtaining perfection.

We now our goal since inception; it's death, yet humans are still chasing after make believe substitutes (promise of heaven) based on the fear of dying.

I don't think our goal is death. Death is inevitable, but that doesn't make it a goal. I sincerely hope you don't think death is the goal. What do you mean by this?

And that's the problem. Restricting comprehension to assumptions.

Have I not demonstrated comprehension?

I should've read that before. So which shoe fits? Nondisclosure agreements, stranglehold of the military industrial complex to withhold and vet knowledge based on nature (translates to "nature made you, but we don't allow you to know about it, because it's dangerous" ), criminal funding, cult of personality surrounding the lab-coat, facilitation of endless genocides through the pharmaceutical cartel, political agendas, when funds based on delivering results favor lies over truths, backstabbing, the indoctrination and destruction of human intellect through the education system, the destruction of human health through the healthcare system, science being today at the forefront of censorship against logic and reason...and the list goes on.

On me? None and all, just like you, I suppose. I'm against those things, as they are not of God.

I don't think that mathematics describe nature well to a duck

Are you a duck? Do you have the same cognitive capacity as a duck? Or do you have more cognitive capacity than a duck?

Adaptation is great

But is it true?

0
0

[–] Blood-is-Nature ago  (edited ago)

Have I not demonstrated comprehension?

Yes, comprehension restricted to the set of rules you set for yourself (beliefs) and against natural reality. You understand what you allow yourself to understand, and you use it to justify against that which you don't understand, yet nature is about adaptation to constant change; to constant new information that you don't understand. Beliefs contradict reality. The talmud contradicts beliefs. See how this all works hand in hand?

On me? None and all, just like you, I suppose. I'm against those things, as they are not of God.

Yet you still help them to uphold the deception called "science" that is being used to sell all those crimes to your fellow men, which destroy us all? Also, the statement "they are not of God" contradicts the whole creation of ONE process. Now if I apply the laws of nature to it "all actions have consequences" I could logically deduct that all those crimes committed by a minority, are the consequences of a form of ignorance from the majority. And I didn't had to do this under the banner of science either.

Are you a duck? Do you have the same cognitive capacity as a duck? Or do you have more cognitive capacity than a duck?

You just told me that we are all one under God, and here you are judging selective value on others. Yes, a stone, the water, the duck and me are all parts in the sum of all things. If I throw the stone into the water the duck will flee and i can't eat duck (not that I eat ducks anymore). I'm cool with ducks (not so much with their rapes, but the ladies got it under control). The differences between us are not against each other, but towards different roles to sustain the ALL, hence me learning from ducks and ducks learning from me.

Adaptation is great

But is it true?

Great point. Adaptation is by definition the ability to handle change; which means to handle assumptions; lies. But there's no truth in assumptions (in change), which means that adaptation is the self discernment to comprehend and apply the laws of nature (truth) to handle reality (lie). So adaptation is both; it's the balance in between truth and false.

0
0

[–] Blood-is-Nature ago 

I'm not in bondage at all. In fact that's what makes Christianity so beautiful to me. Christianity is entirely about controlling one's passions in order to understand nature. To be able to interrogate it and burn away anything that is not true, and only keep that which is true. It's perfectly in line with what you want, the only thing you're asked to do is believe that the truth exists, and that God loves you. That's it. What bondage is there in that?

It's not about controlling one's passions; it's using temptations to contradicted you into falling for the biggest one; being selfish. You are being deceived to reject the present, in favor of blind faith towards the future. You reject what is; for that which might be. You are being fooled to shirk your responsibilities to the sum of all things within this ecosystem, so that YOU might get something better afterwards. How is this not slavery to your own selfish passions?

The reason marriage is a contract between man and woman is because societies collapse when this is not the norm. Look at the west today. Falling marriages, birth rates down the tubes, and a complete destruction of the family.

And what gave those very same parasites access into the natural union between male and female? Marriage was the weak-point to breach the union, because suddenly the union between two, became a status symbol for those around them. Instead of protecting the blood; they were busy keeping up appearance for others. Suddenly there was competition to how you marry, how you live together, how you raise your children. Then the breach was filled with corruptions like divorces, feminism, abortion, sexual liberation, institutionalized education, work time-tables designed to separate mother, father and child from each other for as long as possible, same sex marriages, entire movements dedicated to not fall for the bondage of marriages, and let's also not forget money (usury)...thanks to marriage the protection of the blood starts of with fear towards financial asset distribution, offspring became measured by how much the state payed for them, the act of marriage became a financial burden to the point of going in debt to afford it, the ceremony became a weapon to indoctrinate away from religious doctrines and towards capitalistic doctrines of materialism (breeding those hedonists), capitalism making huge racket out of extorting and designing what it means to be a family. Endless extra stress put on the protectors and pro-creators of life all based on the slave contract of marriage. You wanna fall for each other, create life with each other, live with each other, raise a family with each other, and grow old with each other? That freedom of choice is a liberty offered to you by nature and you are in total control to choose it. No third party governance required; no breach of privacy necessary; no self inflicted stress needed.

God appears to us not as one, but as a Trinity.

You mean like the trinity of Osirs, Isis and Horus? Or do you mean like the trinity of Buddhism "Trikaya"? Or is it maybe the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant as the trinity within astrology? How many times will human cattle fall for the same story? Is it cognitive dissonance at this point? There's only one set of laws for the sum of all things within this ecosystem, but endless human lies to exploit it for their own selfish interests.

I notice that some people use it that way, yes. But I've found, performing science myself, that I am more than capable of interrogating nature for myself, as you want. I just do it in a systematic way that allows me to make complex predictions of the future based on the past and the present. Is that not what you want?

"But not all jews...". Your behavior of plausible deniability and ignoring personal culpability is called talmudic reasoning and it was indoctrinated into you (into all of us). You go on about science and how you value math, but at the same time you don't seem to comprehended that corruption applied to numbers creates imbalances? Your ignorance is a negative action (inaction) that has negative consequences for all, which in return will have negative consequences for you, because you, the individual, are defined by the collective around you. Your intent is selfish, and that selfishness causes harm to those around you, which corrupt your surroundings in becoming hostile for you. See, you responsibility for yourself is defined by your responsibility to the ALL. You strengthening the umbrella of "science" gives the parasites the strength to commit crimes under it. You are facilitating the destruction against yourself, because you worship false idols, in forms of false authority, in all those subverted institutions your labor and ignorance is maintaining, and you acknowledge this while continuing, while seeking mental shelter (shirking responsibility; hedonism) in blind faith towards being rewarded for such behavior after you die, a blind faith which was promoted to you by the very same parasites that usurped and subverted the world.

So NO; not some people, but the vast majority of humans are being deceived to put blind faith in false authority, while being controlled through the contradiction of false beliefs, to destroy themselves and each other. The math is about 99% under 1%.

Very complicated. If that's true, then you are never born, and you never die, correct?

It's not complicated at all. There is energy, and there is a specific constellation within that energy (You). Everything that is possible is contained within the energy; You are a specific temporary constellation with the ability to perceive (life). When you die, the specific temporary constellation (You) becomes pure energy again. The specific temporary constellation has its own rules; is its own closed ecosystem, and all possibilities that could happen inside are defined by the core energy it is based upon. That's why all possible knowledge exist at any given time. We don't create new knowledge, we comprehend more of what is offered. This is also how this ecosystem makes sure that we follow the rules, because the only way to maintain the comprehension of knowledge is through unity, because our limited lifespans demand us to pass knowledge on, or we simply lose comprehension of it (thanks to our selfish behavior). This is why we cannot unlock all the secrets of nature, because then this ecosystem wouldn't have incentives to sustain itself by making us maintain it (which our selfishness manages to ignore all by itself).

Also I'm not Congress, and I make no laws, so I can't violate the first amendment.

Sorry, my bad. Auto-correct stole "commandment" from me. I need to look up (((who))) owns auto-correct.

I don't think Perfect needs to comprehend the flaw to know He's Perfect, because He is Perfect

So you worship selfishness (hedonism)...Value (in this case perfection) is defined by the existence that values it, not by the hedonistic act of proclaiming it.

I think these truths will be made known to us in Heaven.

Another example of you subconsciously acknowledging that there's no truth in this system. Your mind isn't rooted on a foundation of truth (the laws of nature), but on uncertainty, hence you putting blind faith in substitutes for it (enlightenment after death).

"Universe" just means "all the physical stuff around us". I should have said "nature", I think.

Welcome to the confusion of deception through language in a system that doesn't name anything out of that very reason. The bane of communication. The official meaning of universe is btw "The collective name of heaven and earth, and all that belongs to them; the whole system of created things.". Today it incorporates the space lie, hence me going at the throat when reading it.

Maintaining the balance between order and chaos is absolutely an aspect of obtaining perfection.

Correct, but you can never achieve it (nor perfect chaos or perfect balance), because such a thing as TIME initiated movement the defines all existence as finite; as constantly changing. Maintenance (the natural order) defines a balance act, and balance can only be attained in motion. When you stand still, you're in the motion of balancing to not fall. You could cut your big toes off to test how hard the struggle of balance can be (but you shouldn't).

I don't think our goal is death. Death is inevitable, but that doesn't make it a goal. I sincerely hope you don't think death is the goal. What do you mean by this?

Bigger picture. All existence is defined as moving from a beginning towards an end, making it finite. Those are the two barriers that define existence in between which we (life-forms) have our own set of barriers defined by them; inception (life) and death. A beginning and an end connected through motion. That is by logical definition a goal; a mark; a set. It is your emotions (fear of death) that attributes a false value to this logic, because you are shirking your responsibility to face reality, despite being in "contract" with this ecosystem to uphold the natural order by struggling for life over death, which you agree to with every breath you take. What you don't understand is that life and death are two sides of the same coin, and the only value is the balance in between, the natural order; the maintenance of existence. There are no "goals" for you. Your life is the ultimate price for achieving a goal (existence) and it defines all value. You got everything imaginable gifted to at the beginning and you can even make it better and gift it to others. Yet you want more and even let yourself being deceived into believing to get it as a reward for ignoring all existence after your death. How much more directly can I explain this? You don't live; you wait for death. It's scary how fanatic belief can make a conscious life act like this.

0
0

[–] Blood-is-Nature ago 

Specifically, you believe "holding onto a belief from then on out becomes stagnation", however that's not necessarily true.

It absolutely is true, because "from then on out" describes the point where a time based change happened. The natural order flipped from the positive side to the negative side. Example: A young deer witnessed his first thunderstorm and the survial instinct creates the temporary belief of impeding doom, this automatically followed by curiosity, because the other deer didn't react in panic, which leads to the path of knowledge, that eventually leads to him comprehending that thunder doesn't bring harm. Up to that point, a positive action leading to positive consequences. Holding onto the belief would then become a crazy deer running around in panic every time a thunder goes off, which is a weakness within a prey that will attract a predator. A negative action leading to a negative consequence. The struggle for balance in between is called the natural order, and it's based on consonant adaptation.

It actually forms a logical problem with your theory to assert it's always true, because by your theory you would eventually have to throw it out because it will become stagnant.

No more "eventually" after stagnation and no throwing out, because stagnation leads towards death; the negative outcome. There are only two outcomes; life or death.

As I see it, you can either say what you have presented is a "meta theory" (a theory about theories), at which point we can agree that "meta theories" exist, and talk about why I believe the Christian "meta theory" is true. If you're not convinced that "meta theories" exist, however, then this theory is temporary, for if it's not temporary, then it seems that implies your basic theory is false (because we have a belief that is not temporary). Assuming we believe in "meta theories".

You do realize that after me questioning the holding of beliefs in a constantly changing system, you bring forward a strawman (meta theory) based on belief? You ignored me questioning your crooked foundation and now you try to invite me back into your crooked house. I say no thanks.

Back to the drawing board...all knowledge comes from nature and our reasoning process is based on the comprehension of what nature shows us. Now, nature gave us the liberty of freedom of choice for our actions, but only nature can judge the consequences thereof by passing them back onto all of us, which creates the ever changing circumstances that demand the need for adaptation. Furthermore, we were born with nothing and we will die with nothing, which means that nature gives us the liberty to use everything, but not the right to claim anything, since our existence is temporary, and defined by happening in between a beginning (inception, life) and an end (death).

Finally, let's tie all of this together...if we claim something, like for example the belief that our assumptions about nature are truths, despite constant change proving them to be lies, then we restrict our comprehension of natural reality to the beliefs we're holding. Then our consciousness cannot fully comprehend reality anymore, because it has to constantly adapt to the contradictions our beliefs are causing. That's a huge weakness that could be exploited by those who comprehend it.

“I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.”

That's a contract law selling unquestionable authority in exchange for blind faith. What if I tell you that the entire human society is enslaved in a caste system called "chain of command", which is based on exactly that? Blind faith towards the false authority of those above them, which corrupts behavior towards "kissing up and kicking down". No difference whatsoever between a burger flipper, a teacher, a soldier or a freemason. From the perspective of those that designed and control it; it's a pyramid scheme, where the higher you go the more you have to exploit those beneath you to stay in control and the controllers just have to sprinkle secrets (all based on nature) down the way. Coincidence?

the Spirit of truth", because that's who God is. Truth. Perfection

Contradiction within itself. You cannot proclaim a truth without disproving a lie, and you cannot disprove a lie without stating a truth. Natural law "opposites must coexist, because they're defined by each other" (not duality, which is a lie that can be applied to any opposites). If you state a truth without addressing a lie, you make an assumption, which by definition isn't a truth, which is therefore a lie.

In a system based on constant change you can also never have perfection; neither perfect order, perfect chaos; nor perfect balance in between.

You cannot get to the Truth except through Him

How inconvenient for all the non-believer, all the different believer and every other life-form within this ecosystem. Talking about selfishness.

You are cut off from it

You just contradicted "be in this world; not of it".

God created the heavens and the earth by speaking!

Have you heard of the game Telephone, Chinese Whispers, Stille Post? It's a test that you conduct with a group of children by whispering an information into the ear of the first child and then let them pass it through whispering to the last child who speaks it out loud. It's almost impossible (99-ish %) for the information to get through, because humans use anonymity to lie. Now how many people do you think I would have to put blind faith into, to believe what happened on that mountain? Imagine the idol worship I have to commit by believing those in power passing this story down to me; including all those that passed it down orally when nobody could read? How exactly did those people get into power? How much does it cost to spread information such as this around, and how does usury affect the assimilation of knowledge?

He then gave us authority over the animals of the earth

Others would call this the most selfish act the so called humans ever pulled off...lumping all the different lifeforms together under an umbrella term, while putting themselves above it, so that they could excuse and justify the endless crimes they're committing against them, like for example the billions that are getting imprisoned, tortured and killed behind anonymous walls (so that humans don't have to see the consequences of their actions) to create food that is poisonous to us? Have you ever considered that we are the apex species, but not apex predators? Isn't the one thing that we stand out with, our consciousness being able to comprehend the consequences of all actions? It's like as if we are mimics in the position of stewards, which would would also explain why; as apex, we don't require leaders, but instead mimicked the leadership role from nature, while botching it out of lack of responsibility to maintain it.

had us name them. Why? So we can understand them

So you are saying that despite nature segregating differences so that all our senses can detect and learn from them, that it was us naming them that was required for our comprehension? What a hedonistic god complex that sounds like. Have you noticed that by calling a cow a cow you steal and deny her individual character? You do notice that all life within this ecosystem is different from each other? Isn't that more likely yet another selfish way to justify crimes by putting an umbrella over that which would challenge your common sense. You might not know this, but judging from multiple questionable sources it is alleged that if you ram a knife into a pig and into a human child, that the reactions are extremely similar. Must be a coincidence.

So we can begin to use the power that He has given us

Power corrupts, but let's ignore that too, because of perfection. While I'm at perfection...did you know that the fundamental laws of nature that govern this ecosystem are regarded as a perfect system, which is false, because it obviously has to follow its own rules (opposites must coexist), so to make sure that its judgements aren't biased it created a flaw in the perfect system...chance, so no matter the judgments, there's always a chance. Fascinating.

The power of naming and categorization

Division through compartmentalization. Where did I read that before? Was it Sun Tzu or the Protocols, or both? It also very much sounds like disregarding simplicity in favor of complexity. It's as if somebody is trying to steer humans away from the laws of nature and towards the nonsensical complexity of the laws of men. Another coincidence.

For that is why God created us. As free creatures

Why not liberty creatures, because that freedom was a liberty offered? Also, did you know you can only be free if you come out of bondage and that you can only be in bondage if you were free before?

0
0

[–] zxcvbnasdf ago 

The text is too long so I had to cut out large parts of your quotes, sorry about that. Also I seem to have not communicated my point in some areas. Sorry for not being clear.

You do realize that after me questioning the holding of beliefs in a constantly changing system, you bring forward a strawman (meta theory) based on belief?

Do you believe your theory or not? If you do, does it change? If it doesn't, then your theory is contradictory because it doesn't change. If it does, when and how?

Back to the drawing board...all knowledge comes from nature

Nature isn't a "thing". What is "nature"? Are you just using "nature" so you don't have to use the word "God"? It seems like that. But then you're just calling God by a different name.

and our reasoning process is based on the comprehension of what nature shows us.

What does "nature show us" and how?

Now, nature gave us the liberty of freedom of choice for our actions,

How do you know you're not fully determined to believe that and have no choice at all? How do you know you have "liberty of freedom" (can you define this concretely)?

but ... (death).

You just seem to be using the word "nature" for God, and asserting that life is the only thing that "exists". I find the second claim dubious, as I can think of many things that are not of "nature" that "exist" (like numbers, abstract shapes, ideas, concepts, information, etc.)

Finally, let's tie all of this together...if we claim something, like for example the belief that our assumptions about nature are truths, despite constant change proving them to be lies, then we restrict our comprehension of natural reality to the beliefs we're holding.

Is that a true statement or a false one? How can it be true if it's talking about holding a belief? Surely it's ever changing? What is a lie? What is an untruth? You have a lot of concepts that I agree with almost entirely, I just think they're slightly confused.

Then our consciousness cannot fully comprehend reality anymore, because it has to constantly adapt to the contradictions our beliefs are causing. That's a huge weakness that could be exploited by those who comprehend it.

I agree.

That's a contract law selling unquestionable authority in exchange for blind faith.

No. That's a contract between a father and his children, for the betterment of his children. If a father tells his child to not play in the street, is that evil? Is it "selling unquestionable authority in exchange for blind faith"? Clearly not. So your premise is just invalid.

It is a contract, for sure. But God is personal. He will speak to you if you speak with Him. He will have a relationship if you want one. That is not "unquestionable" at all. In fact numerous times in the Bible we see characters bargaining with God. God is merciful and just, not a tyrant, and certainly not random like your "nature" concept. I don't understand why you think you can know anything about something as capricious as nature? From what I've read of Marxist historians of the past, the reason science came out of Christianity is because Christians believed the world was not a capricious and arbitrary place, created by a loving God, and that humans could and should understand it. So I feel like your criticism is actually a criticism of your ideology not mine. You're trying to "sell unquestionable authority in exchange for blind faith" to "nature", are you not?

What ... Coincidence?

I'd agree with you. Which is why I reject your notion of nature, and believe my notion of a loving God.

Contradiction within itself. You cannot proclaim a truth without disproving a lie, and you cannot disprove a lie without stating a truth. ... lie.

God says "I am who I am". Your concept only makes sense if there is no objective truth. If there is objective truth, then you can proclaim it. And if there is an objective truth, "I am who I am" seems to be something fundamentally true. Objective truth is the reason that the universe can exist and we can understand it. Without it, life, much less the understanding of "nature" as you described it, wouldn't be possible.

In a system based on constant change you can also never have perfection; neither perfect order, perfect chaos; nor perfect balance in between.

Agree, that's why nature isn't perfect. It's a battleground between Good and evil. That's why Christianity teaches that our bodies will be restored. That's why Christianity teaches that the body of Mary and other saints either doesn't decay, or decays more slowly. Because it is perfect, and thus not subject to the capricious forces you're talking about.

How inconvenient for all the non-believer, all the different believer and every other life-form within this ecosystem. Talking about selfishness.

It is. But God is loving and just, and if you repent of your sins and beg His forgiveness and love Him, then you will be forgiven and find joys you never thought possible.

He gave you life. He sent His son to die for our sins. He sent people to preach His gospel to you. How is that selfish? I don't understand your idea.

Now how many people do you think I would have to put blind faith into, to believe what happened on that mountain? Imagine the idol worship I have to commit by believing those in power passing this story down to me; including all those that passed it down orally when nobody could read? How exactly did those people get into power? How much does it cost to spread information such as this around, and how does usury affect the assimilation of knowledge?

Well, what's great is you can just look to the gospel if you want. If you look at the gospel, it is one of the, if not the, most well attested to writings of the ancient world. There are thousands of manuscripts, from various times and places, and there is not a single difference between them that changes any bit of doctrine.

This is in stark contrast to the Koran, which has few copies, all of them disagree in serious ways, and at various times all Korans were burned and rewritten. So if you want to talk about idol worship and oral transmission with the Koran? I'd just agree with you.

Usury was banned in the early Church.

Others would call this the most selfish act the so called humans ever pulled off...it.

I don't know how you can say a species that farms others for food and has colonized the earth making it safe for itself isn't the apex predator. And I don't think your consciousness can comprehend the consequences of most actions, much less all.

Also I think humans are fundamentally hierarchical creatures. I don't think we're not all the same, there are differences between us. We also reproduce sexually, and in any pair relationship, there are going to be many hierarchies at play that need to be managed. Do you disagree?

So ... coincidence.

I don't think there are "nature segregating differences". The most obvious counterexample I can come up with is looking at how different languages name colors, and the evolution of naming colors came about. Different languages name some colors differently, and as such fundamentally perceive things differently than we do. Similarly with shapes there are some people who are fundamentally better at seeing some shapes than others due to how they grew up. It's also known that if you give no interaction to infants for the first few years of their life, they never socialize. So the differences between people is stark.

As to noticing the differences between organisms? Absolutely there are. Each was put under our authority, and we are to love them and treat them with the respect they deserve, for they too are creatures of God. Creatures that deserve to have good lives and be protected from undue harm and instead encourage their flourishing (I have many times posted about regenerative agriculture farms that are seeking to do just that, let the animals live as the animals want to live, and only give them 1 bad day, which is better than they'd be in any "nature" system).

Power corrupts, ... Fascinating.

I don't view the universe the way you do. I agree that chance exists, I just think that's part of our fallen world and of Satan who seeks to cause decay. I believe that in Heaven we will live with God who is perfect, and in perfection your concerns will be mollified.

Division through ... Another coincidence.

Abstraction is the only way to make something complex simple. I don't know what you mean by "laws of nature"? Don't they always change?

Why not liberty creatures, because that freedom was a liberty offered? Also, did you know you can only be free if you come out of bondage and that you can only be in bondage if you were free before?

I don't know what you think the difference between "liberty creatures" and "creatures with free will" is? Do you mean you want to be forced to be free? But that's a contradiction. You can't be free if you have no choice to become a slave. That's not what I mean when I say "free".

I think there's a large degree of overlap between what we're saying, and that's great. I largely agree with what you say, just a few minor differences.

0
0

[–] Blood-is-Nature ago 

And I don't think your consciousness can comprehend the consequences of most actions, much less all.

The consciousness is designed to comprehend all that nature has to offer, but that is based on how much effort the human using it puts into the maintenance of himself and his surroundings.My consciousness can handle everything; but I can't ever live up to it in my short lifetime, and the heightening of comprehension requires the unity of the ALL. That's what the Buddhists get wrong, because they try to achieve it by themselves. This ecosystem is designed to reward unity; not selfishness. So my statement wasn't a boast or such; just me pointing out the foundation of it.

Also I think humans are fundamentally hierarchical creatures. I don't think we're not all the same, there are differences between us

Remember when you wrote that you don't think that nature segregates differences? And here is your own contradiction to it. Of course we are different; every last one of us, even within the same bloodline. So is every blade of grass, and every piece of stone. And all these differences are defined by us all being the same core energy; the natural opposite. We are individual parts of the sum of all things. The human hierarchy, as I stated earlier, stems from the protection of the blood.

We also reproduce sexually, and in any pair relationship, there are going to be many hierarchies at play that need to be managed. Do you disagree?

Sex is a weaponized term. It means the distinction between male and female, and was corrupted into meaning "fucking", but that physical act has two natural opposites within; procreation (the creation of life) and lust (temptation leading towards death). The nefarious agenda here is to hide the deadly dangers of lust behind the term sex, which was then corrupted further with the term "homosexuality", which is the umbrella term for procreation (creation of life), lust (temptation luring towards death) and sodomy (defilement of procreation). So they not only hid lust but placed a contradiction to procreation into it. that is the kind of deception we are dealing with here on an all encompassing scale and I would very much like to have more people with unrestricted comprehension on my side to take this bullshit apart.

Then the "need to be managed" is based on on us mimicking the leadership principle from nature, but fucking it up through selfishness. There are two ways of leadership in nature...1) the necessity of the collective to have a leader (like the Bee Queen) 2) the temporary agreement of the collective to accept a leader for convenience of better survial chances (the Alpha Wolf). We don't need a leader, and the alpha principle comes with the responsibility of the collective to constantly keep tabs on the alpha, like the wolves do when they challenge him all the time to make sure he is up to the task. Now, there are alpha personality traits within humans, but their status is defined by those who follow him. In a stress situation you have lots of people who have no idea what to do, and then someone emerges that proclaims to be the leader, which the others will accept selfishly to shirk their own responsibilities. That is NOT the alpha, that's mankind building up the parasite that will exploit them. The real alpha in that situation is the guy busy fixing shit, while others naturally gravitate to him, which he easily adapts to by directing them toward unity. Those people were never in charge over mankind, because a) the parasites despise their selflessness and b) they don't like be worshiped as alphas; they just are. It corrupts them with vanity to be constantly reminded about the status quo of what they are.

We learn, yet again...we have the liberty to use it (alpha traits), but not the right to claim it. Selfishness kicking out butts once again.

I don't think there are "nature segregating differences"

You just agreed to it for humans.

The most obvious counterexample I can come up with is looking at how different languages name colors, and the evolution of naming colors came about. Different languages name some colors differently, and as such fundamentally perceive things differently than we do. Similarly with shapes there are some people who are fundamentally better at seeing some shapes than others due to how they grew up. It's also known that if you give no interaction to infants for the first few years of their life, they never socialize. So the differences between people is stark.

I don't get your point here. You tell me that you don't believe that nature segregates differences and then you list differences that nature segregated? I just leave a check mark at contradiction and move on I guess.

As to noticing the differences between organisms? Absolutely there are. Each was put under our authority, and we are to love them and treat them with the respect they deserve, for they too are creatures of God. Creatures that deserve to have good lives and be protected from undue harm and instead encourage their flourishing (I have many times posted about regenerative agriculture farms that are seeking to do just that, let the animals live as the animals want to live, and only give them 1 bad day, which is better than they'd be in any "nature" system).

Why is that not one of your commandments? Minus the disgusting umbrella term "animal". Just say life forms.

I agree that chance exists, I just think that's part of our fallen world and of Satan who seeks to cause decay.

Nope; chance is the balance in between just and unjust that is required to make unbiased judgments.How could you trust a coin flip without chance?

Abstraction is the only way to make something complex simple

No. Complexity can only be created out of simplicity. The origin of a complex problem is a simple question, and once you worked your way through the complexity you're back at a simple question and a simple answer, which leaves behind the path of knowledge in between that is complex, but of no importance anymore to the simple question and answer. It instead becomes another problem to make it simpler. That's when you use abstractions.

I don't know what you mean by "laws of nature"? Don't they always change?

No. They define how change operates; as in in-between two fundamental barriers (a beginning and an end). If you have change you have these barriers, and while change changes the barriers stay the same. We as the sum of all things define the laws of nature by our existence; not by our actions; that's why we cannot change them. It's water inside a closed bottle that cannot deplete itself, because the bottle makes the rules that cannot be changed from within.

I don't know what you think the difference between "liberty creatures" and "creatures with free will" is? Do you mean you want to be forced to be free? But that's a contradiction. You can't be free if you have no choice to become a slave. That's not what I mean when I say "free".

Free is based on freedom, which is defined as coming from out of bondage, so it's actually a liberty; something that is been given by bondage. So freedom of choice is a liberty given by the bondage to the laws of nature. What you perceive as freedom is under the condition of what this ecosystem allows you to do. That's bondage. That is not a contradiction; it's "opposites must coexist, because they're defined by each other. A natural law.

You can't be free if you have no choice to become a slave.

What you're afraid of is actually losing more liberties given by your slave masters, which you ignore the status of despite most of mankind being enslaved under their usury.

I think there's a large degree of overlap between what we're saying, and that's great. I largely agree with what you say, just a few minor differences.

Great conversation so far. Thank you for your time.

0
0

[–] Blood-is-Nature ago 

That's why Christianity teaches that our bodies will be restored.

Again with the substitutes for death, based on your fear of it. Yet it is deeply rooted in our (all lifeforms) nature to grieve loss, thereby subconsciously accepting the end, which you agree to with ever breath you take. And guess what? You will be restored, because you are a configuration of energy, but the next configuration won't be what you perceive as you anymore, which brings me to the core origin of humans falling for selfishness. We identify as our consciousnesses, based on the ability of the inner dialog. We started to claim ownership over that which nature offers for free, and then misused our ability of the inner dialog to make up excuses and justifications (shirking responsibility) for the negative consequences of our actions, which created beliefs we hold onto, which restricted our comprehension of reality (towards the shit we created) to our self imposed restrictions (beliefs). Add TIME to this and you get corruption, a weakness within, and a parasite seizing the opportunity to exploit it. And here we are.

So the consciousness is a sophisticated tool for comprehension of reality and it receives a command line of operation from nature through our instincts (the laws of nature). It furthermore has the ability to to tap into a collective consciousness, as proven by all lifeforms being able to comprehend the "sky-clock" instinctively, like my dogs can comprehend feeding time almost to the second, and I can even communicate with them by thinking about feeding them a half hour earlier and they will come to me and go "Hey, man what's up, where's food?" Try it, this also works with cats, but I haven't had much success with it, because I don't have cats. Also make sure that you do this across long spans of time, otherwise the dog notices that you trick him. I just do it for fun, so don't accept any studied opinion from me on that one.

Long story short (!?) - identifying as the consciousness creates the easy means to shirk any and all responsibilities. Our real identity carrier is the life essence within our blood, which fuels the tool called consciousness, and which is the only way to for us to go beyond death; through procreation (notice how the parasites are all about the control of blood?). Anyway, the maintenance of the bloodline creates the human hierarchy (blood, family unit, race (collective of family units), nation (race holding land), civilization (nation with culture), and the culture comes from the individual traits that the blood is holding. The hierarchy is designed to protect the blood; one layer after another (unity), which is also why each part of it is systematically destroyed by the parasites. So the maintenance of blood creates responsibility, which creates purpose (which no human will give you a define answer to, because they lack identity, which is why they shirk responsibility). the purpose of human life is "creation in accordance to the laws of nature and for the benefit of all", which in return give us all the benefits of the sum of all things, and is the only way to create the best possible breeding ground for our offspring.

Consciousness shirks responsibility; blood gives responsibility.

That's why Christianity teaches that the body of Mary and other saints either doesn't decay, or decays more slowly. Because it is perfect, and thus not subject to the capricious forces you're talking about.

So perfection represents a lesser rotting corpse for you? I leave that uncommitted, but just so that you know, they entire burial ceremony of Christianity was designed to instill fear about death into you, by making a despicable spectacle out of masquerading death as life, and hiding all the reality from the believers, which later also let to the crimes against all other lifeforms whoa re imprisoned, tortured and killed behind anonymous walls, which later turned into the healthcare system of perpetually prolonging suffering (through the exchange of cures for treatments), which consequences are also hidden from the eyes of the masses. All based on the same stories that you so easily believe for selfish reasons.

and find joys you never thought possible.

And that's what they will always be..thoughts.

He gave you life. He sent His son to die for our sins. He sent people to preach His gospel to you. How is that selfish? I don't understand your idea.

Well, you spit into the face of the family unit that created you and the sum of all things that made it happen (the ALL) in exchange for the ONE. Sounds like the definition of selfishness. Next comes the sacrifice of ones own blood for the fruits of ones labor, which translates to the material over that which goes beyond the material. Also selfish. Finally comes the breaking of your selfish vow to the ONE, by putting blind faith into a 2000+ year line of selfish preachers, who operate within an institution that undoubtedly (even as a believer) was severely corrupted in that time-span, into something akin to the manifestation of sin spreading over earth. Each preacher represents a single step of selfish idol-worshiping; directly contradicting the first commandment.

Well, what's great is you can just look to the gospel if you want.

How many different versions of it are there floating around? How is it that Christians couldn't even protect the source of their worship? Have you read the story about what the so called jews did to Oberammergau, a small town surrounded by mountains in Bavaria; Germany that once had a famous theatrical play about the crucifixion until the so called jews systematically corrupted it with anti-semitism claims until the crucifixion itself wasn't even part of the play anymore? Letting usury, sodomy, abortion, human sacrifice and endless child abuse slipping through is one thing, but the source of their faith? Where is the value for mankind in such behavior?

most well attested to writings of the ancient world

Look at your behavior from the outside...you're clinging on to the material of the past, while putting blind faith towards the immaterial in the future (afterlife, heaven), and meanwhile rejecting the participation in the present (a fallen world). And it's all based on belief passed down to you by the very same parasites that usurped the entire world through usury. Where in nature would one observe such a disastrous behavior?

This is in stark contrast to the Koran, which has few copies, all of them disagree in serious ways, and at various times all Korans were burned and rewritten. So if you want to talk about idol worship and oral transmission with the Koran? I'd just agree with you.

Oh I spoke with lots of Muslims and many of the Imams are pretty much illiterate to the writings of the Koran they teach, but the difference is they accept their slavery to Mohammad and see the Koran as a symbol; as an idol. They don't follow the doctrine via words, but via actions. They live in the present and actively so. I pointed out many times the origin story of Mohammad, who orally narrated his views to many "trusted" advisors over the span of 20 years, and then after his death it took another 20 years for those advisors to write it down. This was followed by a time where every wannabe Imam produced his own translations, which ended, as you mentioned with Caliph Uthman destroying them to replace them with his own. That's all official narrative, while the alternative version starts with Uthman getting killed by the so called jews who control Islam ever since. Then again both versions mean nothing to a Muslim, who have their leader, who have their order, and who just bow down to it and move on. Even those that agree with much that I put forward, and who fully understand the social engineering behind all religious doctrines, left me with one statement about their faith...Islam is a until it isn't.

Usury was banned in the early Church

Then change (TIME) happened and now churches have their doors closed, because they accepted fiat currency in form of tax exemptions. Your message here is that the past was better than the present. Have you considered that this is the consequences of the action of selfish ignorance from the believers, who are mere followers of whatever other selfish humans are doing to their doctrine of choice? I could even accept your choice to follow a mass population control doctrine if it was for a positive purpose, but self destruction to the detriment of the ALL is not positive at all.

I don't know how you can say a species that farms others for food and has colonized the earth making it safe for itself isn't the apex predator.

We are being destroyed by ourselves, and every other life-forms has to suffer because of it, but unlike them we can comprehend that it's on us. Also, the ability to comprehend the consequences of all actions makes us mimics; makes us apex of efficiency in everything. At no point do we have to be predators to other life. Again, without selfishness we would be hungry, we kill something and eat it, and that would be it. With selfishness, we started to claim ownership over everything, thereby disrupting everything; thereby corrupting ourselves to the point of having to deal with parasites within our own species that ruthlessly attack our selfishness. This all happened by our own choices, and everything we created is to justify the consequences. We don't build towards something, but are being deceived to build against everything; including ourselves. Only the parasites comprehend what they're doing; despite it being a negative action leading to negative consequences.

0
0

[–] Blood-is-Nature ago 

I don't understand why you think you can know anything about something as capricious as nature?

Because I comprehend the foundation of change and that it is defined by fixed rules. The only thing that prevents you to do the same are all the beliefs our parasites have instilled within you. Your mind is constantly running into contradictions which you have to justify against your beliefs. My only struggle is to avoid all your contradictions, while using this corrupt language (pig-Latin) to communicate nature to you. There's no agenda or deception in my statements, because me using simplicity leaves no room for lies, which is why I do it this way. You would notice a lie, because it would try to drag you into something, instead I question the foundation of everything, which let's you run into contradictions in your beliefs.

Again; I'm not intelligent; I simply comprehend the rules of this system and apply it to communicate.

You're trying to "sell unquestionable authority in exchange for blind faith" to "nature", are you not?

Nature demands survial; survival demands adaptation; adaptation demands unrestricted comprehension of reality. Nature wants us to question everything, which is why it presents us all its wonders nonstop, why it segregates differences so that our senses can detect and learn from them. The laws of nature demand to be followed by using adaptation on them, by us questioning them with each of our actions. That's why have the freedom of choice for all our actions, but only nature can judge the consequences. And again, nature describes the sum of all things; the ALL. You and me and everything else, our existence defines the rules. It's a self sustaining ecosystem.

On the other hand we have religion...don't question; follow order; or else. That's the framework in which you are allowed liberties to operate in, and if you start to question certain things; like E. Michael Jones did to abortion, then you get the boot and can look for another doctrine, or just jump like a bitch to another denomination, which is just more division from the perspective of the controllers. Now look at the birds outside and ask yourself "do they seem to be affected by any of it or are they just following the laws of nature while using adaptation to whatever comes?" You live in a system (the laws of nature including religions) within a system (the laws of nature), and you are being controlled and preyed upon by parasites, who corrupted your comprehension of the real system by creating the belief in the false one; the one they control to exploit you.

Which is why I reject your notion of nature, and believe my notion of a loving God.

And that freedom of choice to reject comes from nature, and if you reject "God" and observe any other life form that doesn't believe or the so called "atheists" then you will notice that they all still have the same freedom of choice, which you also still have, so your belief has nothing to do with that at all.

God says "I am who I am". Your concept only makes sense if there is no objective truth. If there is objective truth, then you can proclaim it.

There is no objective truth in a system that changes. "I am what I am until I'm not anymore". That is the difference between using that which nature offers, and claiming ownership over it. If I proclaim my assumptions (based on claiming ownership over truth in motion) to be a truth, I proclaimed a lie into this system, which contradicts it, which now is the conflict between opposites, which creates negative consequences.

"I am who I am" seems to be something fundamentally true.

Until it isn't anymore and you die. the difference is the constant change; TIME, and I don't mean time (lower case) as our measurement of the movement of change, because that is based on endless different perceptions, like how a fly can perceive his entire life in the span of a a day, or how we perceive time differently when we grow older. When I say TIME, I mean the initiator of movement that defines all existence as moving from a beginning towards an end, because despite all our individual perceptions of time; there is TIME affecting all of us combined. This is btw once again another limitation of language struggle I run into all the time. Super annoying.

Objective truth is the reason that the universe can exist and we can understand it. Without it, life, much less the understanding of "nature" as you described it, wouldn't be possible.

Nope, all it is is you trying to hold onto something, because otherwise you wouldn't know what to do. It's you shirking responsibility, which is based on your fear of death. That is how they got you; the weakness they feed upon; the reason you fell for false authority and accepted substitutes for unavoidable death. It's selfishness (hedonism), which is a natural temptation luring you towards death and a bunch of parasites are utilizing it to deceive you.

What you're missing is adaptation, because your beliefs won't let you, and the laws of nature that govern this assumption based system, which they corrupted you into not comprehending. It took me years to question myself if the laws of nature could work without all the religious baggage attached to it. I was sick and tired of running into lies and contradictions everywhere so I was trying to figure out if there is anything that is fundamentally truth, and every time the laws of nature came back into my mind; I thought religion and dumped them right out again. Years wasted on finding answers, and once I let my self question myself I started comprehending for the first time of my life and it's ever growing since. I had to teach myself adaptation for a couple of months, and how to deal with the great lie that is our reality, but that's nothing but a little effort and going through the stages of loss. Now I'm actually an active participant in this ecosystem, instead of a slave to my mind.

Agree, that's why nature isn't perfect. It's a battleground between Good and evil.

No. Perfection and imperfection are not natural states, they're human assumptions, same with good and evil. You can easily see through this, because you can freely define what either of them is. You think a murderer is doing evil, yet at the same time he thinks he's doing good. You are proclaiming a judgment (claiming ownership) based on your assumptions, which creates conflict. Look at predator and prey in nature; no conflict, just adaptation to each other. They coexist with each other without holding on to fear all the time they are not directly in contact with each other. When a lion kills a buffalo, then for the buffaloes it's just another lesson for weak links in their survial. You; the human are the one pointing the finger and proclaim who acted good or evil. That's the selfishness of you wanting to be the one in charge (the ONE) that makes the judgment, then you notice the negative consequences and try to find a vessel of authority to shirk it onto. In comes the parasites rubbing their hands.

0
0

[–] Blood-is-Nature ago 

What does "nature show us" and how?

The sum of all things (nature) shows us everything we perceive through our senses and instincts by sustaining this whole system. It segregates differences so that we can detect and learn from them. Understand that you're trying to play a game of rhetoric here, when you substitute Nature and God with each other. They slapped the ONE (the creator) onto everything, despite us being able to prove that all individual existence is tied to the ALL. As a believer you can only point your finger at something and proclaim that God did it, which is the psychological tool of utilizing blind faith in false authority to shirk your own responsibility. They don't want us to comprehend that we have responsibilities within this ecosystem, and they deceive us towards the hedonistic ONE, which represents our own selfishness, to attack the all, which is the unity that protects us, that is the prerequisite for all creation.

How do you know you're not fully determined to believe that and have no choice at all? How do you know you have "liberty of freedom" (can you define this concretely)?

We all accept the contract of responsibility to this ecosystem the first time we take a breath, which is us agreeing to the struggle for life over death. This is the first natural law (opposites must coexist, because they're defined by each other) defining the next one: "all actions have consequences", because in between two barriers (a beginning; life and an end; death) every action made will have a consequences towards one of those sides. Now, since life is always running out and death unavoidable (always luring with deadly temptations) we require that very contract I mentioned for the 3rd fundamental natural law, which is "morality". Nature forcing us to agree with life over death designates value to life over death, which means we now have a positive and a negative outcome to the consequences of all our actions, which creates the demand to uphold the balance in between (the natural order). These are the fundamental laws of nature for all existence. A stone has a beginning and an end, and all our actions can have a positive or negative consequence for the stone, which means that these laws effect all existence; conscious life or immovable objects, since we all share a core form of energy.

Now here you can argue that nature forces the value of life over dead, because our instincts (received from nature) overrule our consciousness, which would negate freedom of choice, BUT the breathing aspect is tied to birth; not inception. At inception there's a struggle between the seeds and the egg, and where there's struggle, there's choice. Now I cannot pinpoint the choice a seed makes (yet?), but I can apply the concept taking from our freedom of choice in life to see that there are no contradictions when you apply it to inception. What I do know and can prove endlessly through adaptation are the laws of nature, which for this case states that freedom of choice is defined as a liberty offered by bondage. They are correct when they say; freedom is slavery, because those are defined by each other.

You just seem to be using the word "nature" for God

I can explain each and every individual action, while using the term "nature" to tie it to the sum of all things (the All), while you diminish every individual action by slapping the term "God" on it (the ONE), without having any proof, while demanding unquestionable belief from everyone. I make anyone comprehend everything (at least I try) and no belief is required in any way, shape or form. All the contradiction I run into while using adaptation are towards human beliefs, which is by design to control us; to divide us (compartmentalization, which you promote), to destroy our unity; to make us selfish.

I can think of many things that are not of "nature" that "exist" (like numbers, abstract shapes, ideas, concepts, information, etc.)

It's you lack of comprehension fooling you here. You already talked about the math behind nature so there is the origin of your numbers, the abstract shapes require your mind to shape them out of regular shapes, your ideas are the based on the inspirations the outside is invoking within you, the concepts are you playing with possibilities and eventualities out of that which nature shows you, and all information originates from nature. Saying the a UFO is unnatural is your lack of comprehension, because a flying object requires you to comprehend flying first, the abstract shape of it requires you to comprehend the regular shapes first, same for speed, lighting, vibration, motion, frequency etc. You cannot create without the sum of all thing making it possible for you. When you say that you can make things that are unnatural, you claim to create out of nothing. See were this is going? It's the human lie of 0, when it's just the lesser of 1. I urge you to study transhumanism, which aims to replace the 1 (the natural reality) with the 0 (the digital fantasy), which has been going on forever and all technology was systematically rolled out to implement total control of the human comprehension. Again; I don't believe this and neither should you, but use adaptation to try to disprove it for yourself (which I couldn't so far), because it's active all around and continuously growing stronger.

Is that a true statement or a false one? How can it be true if it's talking about holding a belief? Surely it's ever changing? What is a lie? What is an untruth? You have a lot of concepts that I agree with almost entirely, I just think they're slightly confused.

You require two things to operate within a system based on constant change. 1. The unchangeable laws that define the changing system (the laws of nature) and a tool that allows you to utilize constant adaptation (our consciousness). With those in place you can adapt to ever changing circumstances (change) by building your assumptions (lies) on a foundation of truth (the laws of nature). That is the struggle to uphold balance in movement; It's about maintenance of the present; not about chasing any goals, because the only goal is death (the end), which we agree to when we breath to struggle for life. It's not about truth or false; it's about the balance in between. The reason you want one side over the other is because of selfishness, is because you want to claim ownership of something; you want to achieve something. What you don't realize is that life is the ultimate price of existence that was gifted to us, which defines the value of everything. Without existence nothing holds any value, and you were even gifted the ability to gift it along to your offspring. What more can you possible WANT, before you realize what you actually NEED?

No. That's a contract between a father and his children.

No. That isn't about religion, it's about selling you the false authority (deity) as the prerequisite for the religious doctrine. They used the relationship from a child to his father to get the believer to shirk his own responsibility towards an authority figure, which they then declared unquestionable in the doctrine which followed, after that they could slap the authority on anything, because you already accepted it from the get go. The reason that worked is because they changed one crucial aspect of the relationship in their deception; TIME; change. The authority of the father ends once the childhood end; hence the teacher being defined by nature as always being temporary, and the responsibility for oneself being defined by the end of childhood. They deceived you to accept a teacher that is eternal, unquestionable and that takes all responsibility from you. Hence the believer becoming selfish to the point of rejecting any responsibility to the present reality, in exchange for the belief in a substitute for death (afterlife, heaven, paradise, spirituality, enlightenment etc.)

You talk about the betterment of the child, but you don't realize that you're the child and that you deceive yourself to not let go of a false father, based on a deception coming from a party you don't even notice. You are being preyed upon through psychological manipulation to not comprehend reality fully (thanks to the beliefs they dump on us).

If a father tells his child to not play in the street, is that evil? Is it "selling unquestionable authority in exchange for blind faith"? Clearly not. So your premise is just invalid.

First; good and evil are also not natural states. Let's ignore those. In the case of the father the authority is not unquestionable, but defined by circumstances like the connection of the bloodline and the paternal instinct. As a father you may have noticed that one characteristic of being a child is to rebel against the authority of the parents, hence the authority figure and the teaching aspect from childhood to adulthood. And as I stated above; he eventually will have to face the reality of the dangers a street holds. A beginning is defined by something ending, so authority over childhood ending is fundamental.

But God is personal. He will speak to you if you speak with Him. He will have a relationship if you want one. That is not "unquestionable" at all. In fact numerous times in the Bible we see characters bargaining with God. God is merciful and just, not a tyrant, and certainly not random like your "nature" concept.

I'm not gonna bite. I live martial arts my entire life and know the ins and outs of manipulating my consciousness through mediation (which I do in motion) to create whatever feedback I want. Stop being selfish and get out of your own head to face reality. Thank you very much.