You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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

[–] zxcvbnasdf ago 

Remember when you wrote that you don't think that nature segregates differences? And here is your own contradiction to it.

I believe that God segregates differences, not nature :) So not a contradiction, just the difference in terminology.

Sex is a weaponized term.

10000000% agree. Absolutely true.

physical act has two natural opposites within; procreation (the creation of life) and lust (temptation leading towards death).

Agree 10000000%

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.

I agree with you completely. The Church agrees with you completely. The Church is against homosexuality as doctrine. It has been infiltrated by the same people who push the nonsense on our towns. On our cities. On our countries. On all of us. I agree wholeheartedly we must reclaim this entire idea for the Good. To reaffirm that procreation is an incredible positive thing that humans should be striving for. To condemn lust as destructive and evil, as a passion that will wilt and leave one barren and desolate.

We agree completely on this.

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.

Agree. There are people who deserve authority and use it for good, and those who don't deserve authority who use it for evil. That idea is understood fully when one realizes that everyone in the group, from the lowest to the highest, is beholden to God. Is beholden to His standard. Is beholden to love Him as He deserves. When everyone is oriented towards God, everyone is on the same path. When everyone is on the same path, there is no problem.

Think of it like a road. If everyone on the road is driving in different directions, then there is chaos. People must move slowly and carefully, or risk hurting themselves or others. If one does not have a powerful enough vehicle, then they have no way to get themselves where they want to go, potentially even stuck in place! But when everyone is moving in the same direction, people can go incredibly quickly. Highways exist where people can travel hundreds of miles an hour together. All because they're oriented towards the same goal. All because they have the same mission.

We should seek to build that highway for humanity, and get us off the chaotic road we have. The only way I see is through Jesus.

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.

Nature isn't segregating the differences, human consciousness is. Human consciousness which I believe is a gift from God. A gift that you can use in many remarkable ways. Truly beautiful.

Why is that not one of your commandments?

Humans are very young. We are still learning. We started with very basic 10 commandments, and even then humans couldn't follow them! And I don't mean after a time, I mean almost instantly, as God was giving humans the laws, literally speaking to them, humans did not care. Not at all.

However in spite of this, God did give commands on how animals should be treated. He did tell us to treat them with respect, and showed us how. But he did it as you show a child to treat animals. As we have grown, we have grown in our understanding of how we should exist with relation to nature as a whole. How we should not only treat animals with respect, but also plants and micro organisms and everything that entails. That's why I'm so interested in regenerative agriculture. That's why I'm so interested in buying a homestead with acreage and living in harmony with the land that God gave us. To try to make the earth a little bit better in the area I have under my control. So that I can be a force bringing about God's will on earth.

There's nothing shameful about being an animal. Humans are animals too. I don't see the negative stigma on the term that you do, because I love animals as God commanded me. I don't treat animals perfectly, human or not, but I'm trying. I hope through the grace of God that I can overcome sin and live as He wills.

Nope; chance is the balance in between just and unjust that is required to make unbiased judgments.

I don't think judgements should be biased. I think judgements should be biased towards the just.

How could you trust a coin flip without chance?

I don't think we'd have to if the earth was perfect. I don't think the concept will make sense in Heaven.

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

Simple and complex is a matter of perspective. It's a matter of what you know. I agree we can only really understand complex things in relation to simple things, as a general rule.

They define how change operates;

Who holds them static?

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 want nothing to do with them, as I made clear before. I'm making a more general point. You say opposites must exist. If opposites must exist, then I want the ability to be free. In order to have the ability to be free, there must be the ability to be a slave. I want both abilities. I want the ability to be a slave to those who would teach me that which I need to know, so I can be more free. There is no contradiction here, in my mind.

Great conversation so far. Thank you for your time.

Likewise.

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

[–] zxcvbnasdf ago 

Again with the substitutes for death, based on your fear of it.

To be clear, I don't fear death at all. I have had experiences in this life, personal experiences, that make me more scared of life than death, in a lot of ways.

And guess what? You will be restored, because you are a configuration of energy

How do you know that's all I am? Have you seen energy? Is it something science tells you? Something your religion tells you? I mean I agree with your concept, it's just a bit distorted.

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

So can I have free access to your body? What controls my access to your body if not you? Does nature? If I'm an apex predator, does that mean nature has dictated I have free access to your body? Why not?

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).

What negative consequences is there to me hurting you? Or raping a woman? It's just adaptation right? It's just a belief that raping is wrong, so surely a negative consequence of that belief is that I don't rape? Rape is found all over in nature, so nature does not forbid it right?

Add TIME to this and you get corruption, a weakness within, and a parasite seizing the opportunity to exploit it. And here we are.

I agree with this completely, and it makes perfect sense on Christianity. God sent the Holy Spirit to dwell within us to give us access to morality. God gave us free will to make free choices. That will allows us to choose to be moral or not. Over time, our will is corrupted and we choose to succumb to weakness, and sin against God, which has many negative consequences. The further we get away from God, the further we fall. And time is the cruelest way to be separated from God, for we begin navel gazing and forget who He is. Begin to believe we're gods and that we can do what we want.

So I agree with you, with provisos.

So the consciousness is a sophisticated tool for comprehension of reality

Is it part of nature or not? If it is, what part of nature are you? If it's not, where does it exist?

It furthermore has the ability to to tap into a collective consciousness

I agree. I believe I've done that through prayer. I believe God has shown me things that are so beautiful they have brought me to tears. Not convincing for you, but very impactful for me. Especially when they come as I ask them. Especially when they show me the beauty of perfection.

identifying as the consciousness creates the easy means to shirk any and all responsibilities

If everything is free, then what are "responsibilities"? How do we have "responsibilities"? If associating "oneself" (that doesn't exist?) with one's consciousness is "bad", then who/what is shirking "responsibilities"?

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.

Agree completely. And the only way to do so is through Jesus. Through understanding Him, loving Him, and living for Him. Allowing Him into your heart to give you the strength and understanding you need to make the right choices to accomplish that goal.

So perfection represents a lesser rotting corpse for you?

No, a lesser/non-rotting corpse is a sign of perfection. It's a shine of perfect harmony between the body and the world. A body that never rots is in perfect harmony with God (or you'd say "nature"), by definition, no? If it wasn't in perfect harmony, it would decay, yes?

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

My joy is much more than a thought. I'm sorry if your joys are only thoughts.

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.

I don't. God is The One True God, Who is the ALL. There is no difference between the one and the many. The distinction is meaningless in God.

Without God, one can fight with others. When one realizes everyone is God's child, that we are all family, the will to disagree and to fight disappears. It is demonstrated to be the affliction of the world that we are called to reject. For we are called to love not just our neighbors, but our enemies. To pray that they will come to Jesus and His loving arms. To feel the hopes and joys of knowing the Creator of "nature". To have a relationship with Him and communicate with Him at will. That is what Christianity teaches.

Finally comes the breaking of your selfish vow to the ONE, by putting blind faith into a 2000+ year line of selfish preachers,

I don't put blind faith into everything. I have studied the arguments. I've studied the evidence. Not only have I found them to be convincing, I have also had a personal relationship with God. That personal relationship is not something I can share with you. I can only point towards it and ask you to open your heart.

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.

Ah yes. The Church. The Church is full of people, not gods. If you put all your trust in the people of an institution, then you will find yourself quickly under tyranny, as we have found. Instead one must put their faith in the institution. Faith that the institution will upholds the rules and dictum of the institution. One must have a relationship with the institution, so that one can be held accountable to the truth by the institution, and hold the institution accountable to the truth. If one fails at this and begins to worship man? Then they will be sorely disappointed at the evil that they will manifest into the world. They will be shocked, but they should know better, for they were warned.

How many different versions of it are there floating around?

One. Thousands of manuscripts. One Gospel. All agree. Copied by numerous people in numerous countries across numerous time frames. All of which agree on the core doctrine. Not possible to fake. Not possible to corrupt by man, for the corruption would be obvious due to the fact that it spread far and wide, under control of no man, but under the control of God. Perfectly preserved for us to learn from and cherish, as it deserves.

How is it that Christians couldn't even protect the source of their worship?

God protected it by having it shared far and wide, so that He could oversee its transmission, and not let any man have power over His word. For he needs no man to help Him, He is God. The Truth. The Light.

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?

None. and that's why Christians must stand up against jews. Must stand in the truth and the light and trust God to protect them. When they're more scared of earthly jews than they are interested in defending their Heavenly Father, they are acting out of fear and cowardice, and not out of Truth. And thus they are failing in the commandments of God, and they reap what they sow.

What you're describing is exactly what I would expect if Christianity was true.

you're clinging on to the material of the past, while putting blind faith towards the immaterial in the future

No, I'm clinging onto the Truth revealed in the past. I'm putting faith based on knowledge and experience into the future. Nothing material about what I'm clinging to of the past, and nothing blind about my faith for the future.

Then change (TIME) happened and now churches have their doors closed, because they accepted fiat currency in form of tax exemptions

Agree. We agree the message was corrupted by satan. We agree that men are not living up to their duty. We agree they're not doing as they must, and for their sins they are being destroyed. We agree.

We are being destroyed by ourselves

Agree. We are being destroyed by our own free will. The will that God gave us. The will He gave us that we can use to love Him, or hate Him. If we choose to hate Him? We will be destroyed.

The choice is ours. I pray every day that people see the Truth. That they join together in love of God. That we worship Him as He deserves to be worshiped for His perfection. So that we can come closer to Him because I love Him more than anything. I want more than anything for us to be together. For people to drop their hatred, anger, and egos. To join together.

I pray every day that people use this time of quarantine to see how sick our world is. How much evil is abound. And the people of the world are aroused in their desire to love God with me.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

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

[–] zxcvbnasdf ago 

Nature demands survial;

Surely not. Surely nature demands nothing, for we can die if we wish. Nature allows exploitation if we wish. I see no such demands.

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.

Yes, I agree. I call Him "God".

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 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.

Nope, all it is is you trying to hold onto something, because otherwise you wouldn't know what to do.

But this is exactly what you do, here:

The unchangeable laws that define the changing system

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?

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.

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.

When you say that you can make things that are unnatural, you claim to create out of nothing.

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.

you want to achieve something.

What do you think I want to achieve?

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.

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?

As for the different name for God...First let me explain to you the fundamentals of any story presented. There are three important foundations to any story; an author, his intent, and the target of his intent. Without engaging with one word from the story I already know 50% of what is presented...I'm the target and the intent is either positive or negative. Then I use commons on the author (doesn't matter one bit who he is)...is the presented story coming at me from above me or from below me? Why is that important? Because distributing of information requires infrastructure, requires a power structure (power always corrupts), has the selfish intent to maintain control of the power structure. Making the intent of all presented (vetted) information into a negative intent direct at me. On the other hand if the story comes from below or within my hierarchy; I can immediately deduce if the control structure above is trying to prevent me to have access to it (that's a story worth engaging with) or if it's suspiciously allowed to spread around (making it a tool of subversion from above).

Knowing all this and having figured out that the intent of the presented story contains a negative intent towards me; I can ask myself a crucial question.."what could be used to negatively influence me?" Now we go into the story and we see that all names, dates, locations etc. are nothing but props of storytelling. They can be infinity replaced at convenience. What cannot be replaced are the handful of core story lines that the limits of our ecosystem are allowing (this is also where your math ties into this, because existence is finite, hence there's only a limited amount to anything). Those story lines are for example order out of chaos or from zero to hero etc. All very simple concepts found in any and all stories presented. So anyone with the knowledge of that would never waste their time reading a story beyond the point where he comprehend the foundation of it. All the props are spectacles for the mindless believers; distractions of comprehension for mass population control. It's why 24/7 news (north, east, west, south) is using repetition to indoctrinate reactionary behavior at face value.

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.

You can freely change God with Allah and Jesus wit Mohammad, and nobody would comprehend the difference

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.

0
0

[–] 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.

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.