[–] zxcvbnasdf ago
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.
This is exactly the logic that jews use to justify using goyim as cattle. It's just nature. You and they seem to have a lot in common.
[–] Blood-is-Nature ago
This is exactly the logic that jews use to justify using goyim as cattle. It's just nature. You and they seem to have a lot in common.
We absolutely have; because we both understand more of this system than the majority of the humans. Your problem with understanding this scenario is that they tricked you to believe in one side over the other, which they exploit by constantly contradicting it, while in reality both sides have to coexist, because they're defined by each other. It is neither about one or the other side, but about the balance in between, and aiming your intention toward the good outcome also creates the responsibility to protect yourself against the bad outcome. They are parasites to you (the host). You are cattle, because you act like cattle, which they exploit. Your behavior created them. They are a parasite within your own species. They are a product of your selfishness. They are absolutely everything people say about them, but mankind is collectively at fault for them. 99% enslaved to 1% is not on the 1%; it's a corruption within the 99%. Don't blame a pathological death cult, better yourself.
[–] zxcvbnasdf ago
I'm not blaming anyone. I am pointing out that you make the same claims that they do. The same justifications they have. Thus you are indistinguishable from them. Thus you are one of them from my perspective.
If that's how you want to come across, feel free. But your accusations against me don't hit home at all. The fact that you speak never of yourself, and only blame others, is not an indication that you care about people. It's a sign you don't.
[–] zxcvbnasdf ago
Surely not. Surely nature demands nothing, for we can die if we wish. Nature allows exploitation if we wish. I see no such demands.
Yes, I agree. I call Him "God".
I feel like you're sneaking in a lot of concepts here. "I am who I am" is true regardless of when I say it, and it's true no matter when I say it.
The statement is not "I was who I am", it's not "I am who I will be", and it's not "I was who I will be", and it's not "I will be who I was", and it's not "I will be who I am".
The statement is: "I am who I am". That is always true. No matter what time you ask it of me.
But this is exactly what you do, here:
You are saying I'm trying to hold onto something, but you have something you're holding onto too. So by what merits do you claim that what you're holding onto is true and what I'm holding onto is a delusion?
God is the One, not One. He is the One True God (what you call "nature", but even more than that, much "bigger" than your concept), and He is everything. He is "All". I have no contradictions, and I am not dividing us. I don't seek to divide us. I seek common understanding, and unification. That is the opposite of division, so I don't agree with your characterization.
I can, and so can you. That's what this communication is. We created something out of nothing. Just like God did in Genesis when He spoke the world into being, so too are we speaking our world into being. Based on our free choices, it can either be beautiful or ugly. Good or evil. That choice is up to us, because He gave it to us.
What do you think I want to achieve?
If you can create whatever feedback you want, how do you know you're adapting to nature and not what you want? How do you prevent yourself from deluding yourself?
This way of viewing a story throws out too much information. Reality does not exist at one level, it exists at infinitely many levels. This is the power of the fractal nature of symbols. You can use symbols to stand in for various places in the fractal nature of reality, and in doing so you can gain a deeper appreciation of reality and it's complexities. If you throw this information that is being freely given to you away, then you are missing an infinite part of the understanding of the story.
These ideas are not "complex", they're incredibly simple. They're the most simple thing there is, but they describe something as complex as "nature". Like nested Russian Babushka dolls, each level if a deeper look at the same. A deeper understanding of reality awaits. Not more complex, more simple.
Also by your logic the story you're telling me is trying to negatively influence me from below, are you not? Should I interpret this conversation as an attempt by you to attack me from below with abstract concepts that have no relation to reality, to get me to question myself?
I don't look at it that way, but it seems that's the only choice you've given me based on your worldview.
This is completely wrong. God and Allah are different. Jesus and mohammad are different. That's like saying my mother could be replaced by your mother and I wouldn't comprehend the difference. Of course I would. They're different people. They say different things. They act differently. They promise different things. Clearly I would recognize and comprehend the difference if you tried to switch Jesus for mohammad. It would change the entire story! It changes the meaning entirely.
Perhaps you don't care about the meaning of things, but personally I find understanding that meaning to be a better way at understanding the world so I can adapt to it in a more elegant and positive fashion than by ignoring it.
[–] Blood-is-Nature ago
No, what is simple is the seed that grew into the tree, that was sustained by the ecosystem surrounding it, that was harvested by an infrastructure of hedonistic ownership, which supplied the processed wood to the proclaimed artist for a price, so that he can use his intent to create the art called "Babushka" that inspired you to use it to make a point.about simplicity That's a small window in how I comprehend reality; a very abridged version. You are missing multiple layers of comprehension as to what simplicity means.
I already stated that I don't believe, so NO you should absolutely NOT believe me. I try to get you to use adaptation instead of belief, because belief only creates division and conflict, hence you calling out my intent based on your beliefs, despite me telling you multiple times that I don't hold any beliefs. Everything I describe of how to engage with any story is a roadmap for you; the believer. I adapt to the 99% being enslaved to 1% logic of starting my process from the negative side; doubt over trust, until the balance favors the other side, which is unlikely to happen during my lifetime, but I will adapt if it does. Also you have no idea if I'm below or above you, you have put trust in that as well, which is another reason for the anonymity of social media; it creates cloaks that draw out the temptation to lie, which one way of subverting the world towards talmudic reasoning, through the acceptance of lies. Now read up on the Smith-Mundt Act to comprehend that lying is already legally allowed, which originates from the legalization of the talmud, which allows religious and legal protection for a doctrine that teaches to lie to everyone that doesn't believe in it.
Anyway...don't just question yourself; question everything and never stop. How is this a negative proposition in any way? It's adaptation to change by seeking knowledge.
You wouldn't have any idea without the instilled beliefs inside your mind. And as you see in your reaction it causes division and conflict, and I just changed names (another example why nature doesn't name anything). What you don't get in your mother/child example is that those are bound by blood. You are bound by belief, which was instilled within you to destroy your bound of blood.
Your belief is making you argue the 0 (your belief based fantasy) over the 1 (natural reality). You can only know someone that you met in reality, when your senses react to each other, and even then you will never know him fully. You are being deceived into arguing about if Sonic is better than Mario, and you never met those too. Nothing you hold onto is based on any reality whatsoever, you are being tricked force your perception of reality to your fantasy., and you're being exploited because of it, and I have to face the consequences of that behavior as well. So how about joying us in reality?
A meaning changes in a constantly changing system and your beliefs are holding onto them instead of adapting.
[–] Blood-is-Nature ago
Nature is in charge; not us. Our first breath is acknowledging natures demand for life over death; that's the prime instinct all life shares. You first need to corrupt yourself severely to break that contract and chose death over life. Religions represent the industrialization of that self destruction as an exploitation racket for hedonists. They exploit the father/son relationship to create blind faith towards false authority, and they exploit the fear of death to instill blind faith through beliefs. It's a devious tool of social engineering; psychological manipulation of masses by using shame, fear, dependency etc. All to give control over the many to the few; the ALL to the ONE.
And that's the problem, because you selfishly allow yourself to believe that you can ignore the importance of each individual act necessary to sustain the whole. You are being tricked away from comprehending your part in building unity to create protection, and instead they gave you false authority who gathers false unity, which protects against nothing.
When I say "I am who I am" then it proves what you said a lie, because from my perceptive "You are what you are". You and I are now in contradiction to each others perceived truths, which creates conflict. In a hundred years both of us will be wrong, because then "we were what we were" , which would be defined only be the people who still believe that we ever did. This example alone teaches you that language can never be anything but assumptions (lies), but since this entire system is based on change; everything can only ever be an assumptions until it changes. It is the selfish behavior of proclaiming that is the problem, the act of trying to hold onto to time by declaring it a truth, which is obviously once again based on the fear of death, because you don't want to your time to run out, you want to survive, despite your comprehension about death being unavoidable. All other lifeforms are not afraid of death, they value life by maintaining it through adaptation. Their intent is not fear; your is and it was indoctrinated into you.there's nothing to fear, because you comprehend the outcome since the beginning (death). You shirk the responsibility to face reality, and that's why you hold on to beliefs to justify and excuse the consequences.
"No matter what time" is you contradicting your statement, because time is change. You will die and then you won't be anymore. That's the psychosis you get need to get over.
See it this way....every other life-form knows instinctively what do to; except humans. Your beliefs are causing it to stay this way, why I propose to adapt to what they're doing, because they follow the rules of the system which creates them. You follow rules that other humans proclaimed to you as truths, and you use them to justify stagnation against adaptation; against change. You are trying to force your belief over reality. Where in nature do you see behaviors such as this?
Because I don't believe in the laws of nature; I try to disprove them, because a perfect heaven, a paradise full of virgins and life after death are so much more comfortable pipe-dreams than the reality of living among suicidal idiots who have less comprehension of reality then a cockroach. Yet, so far no luck disproving the laws of nature; just endless confrontation of contradiction through human beliefs. Sure I could use self delusion, but comprehension of actual reality has perks that are so much more enticing, that I rather stick to adaptation and the maintenance of reality, over shirking responsibility and damning it all to self destruction. Having children helps comprehending the need for maintenance.
"Opposites must coexist", because they're defined by each other. "There can only be ONE" is from Highlander (he's immortal too), why do you think the concept of the ONE is endlessly shoved in our faces for thousands of years? Control requires authority, and total control requires authority that cannot be unauthorized; that is immune to rebellion, that is immortal; unquestionable, that isn't real...that is the belief in authority.
Thousands of years of Christianity achieving the exact opposite and you still keep destroying yourself. People come out of churches with more questions than answers, and the more wise believers are running towards the division of denominations, while still backing the umbrella of religion that is bursting from within with crimes against the world at large. No difference to science. Unity in misery is what I see., but it's a false unity of selfish islands that are preying towards death giving them a way out. Meanwhile here's me and the duck using adaptation towards each other to create something positive in reality, while quacking about the so called jews, and I learn more about nature from that than any religion could ever offer me.
Which is inspirited by something out of natural reality. You cannot have an original thought. Prove me wrong and make up something that isn't inspired by the sum of all things around you. And remember that it was you that upped the ante on this by adding genesis to it. You are a small constellation of a larger energy, which defines what you can do. The individual action is defined by the collective consequence, and the individual actions create the collective consequence. Balance.
A reward after death. A way out of reality. Authority to acknowledge your shirking of responsibility. You want your beliefs to be real, so that you don't have to face reality and your own responsibility to it.
It's because I don't train with live weapons, but with substitutes, because every once in a while reality (substitutes) interrupts my fantasy (mediation in movement) in exchange for another bruise, reminding me about the balance between life and death all over again. We throw tennis balls at each other if we catch each other drifting out focus; it's a great exercise.
No. A story is already a manufacture allegory of knowledge based on nature, and it demands the reader to accept the authority of the writer as a teacher between nature and the reader. If you don't question intent; all presented information becomes a minefield of potential threats to your life. You step blindly into deceptions of unknown proportions. Comprehension of intent means awareness, disarms deceptions, and shrinks all the lies attached for making the deceptions work.
This is now a sales-pitch for blind faith utilizing complexity to confuse the one it's targeted at. For you; the believer; it is a corrupt survial instinct to use contradictions (based on the talmudic reasoning they teach you) to protect your beliefs. They sold this nonsense of realities within realities to obfuscate what constant change means for the perception of finite reality. The constant change of perception, which would demand the need for adaptation, which they don't want you to have, because they want you to believe instead, hence when something doesn't jive, it isn't your fault, but everything else. The exploitation of the selfish shirking of responsibility, until they even blame reality itself.
That's your statement, and the following is your justification for it..."These ideas are not "complex", they're incredibly simple. They're the most simple thing there is, but they describe something as complex as "nature"". Re-read it a couple of times an then ask any 3rd person for his opinion, while leaving out your part in the creation process, and report back to me what they said.