No gift is too big.
Would you accept a billion bitcoin gift?  |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed  How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. First off, do you read anything that is not in the bible? In particular, my earlier post's that clearly state I am not an athiest? I am a searcher. I have yet to choose. I believe in god, but not YOURS. Mine is superior in that he allows me to show you, your bible is the one that is in fact backwards. I mean c'mon.. God is the light, yet light existed only after how many other event's of actualisation, or day's? You try to belittle me, whenever I come up with a genuine scientific FACT that MAY prove or disprove the existance of god. In that when I speak for god, your right there preaching with me, but when I point out all the things that existed before god, like the WATER god moved over, you call me an athiest? You dont understand the reason people like me dont go to church is not fear of god, but people like you who just wont acknowledge that god's light is staring you in the face, and you deny him? When I said god said to remind them (people like you) that he is the light, all that happened here in my house, is I went to make coffee, and the thought occured to me that if god is the light, then he was created in the 3rd sentence of genesis. The fact he SAW the light prove's he cannot BE the light, for then light would exist. I like these argument's/debates with you, and hhope you can be just as thorough in your defense of god, just dont use the book, cause as I said.. for me to ask you, god must also work through me too, in order to point out these thing's no? What if god really did speak though me to ask you these points personally? It seems, and not only to me, that when things are from the bible, your there, but if it's not the christian bible, then it's crap? Let's try my style without making you cry: Genesis: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Fair call, so they say etc.. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Earth (soil/dust) clearly existed, it just had no form, and hence is negated. darkness was on the face of the deep. This state's that the deep reflected darkness on it's face like a mirror. Now here if god was/is the light, he could not, scientifically exist. Note the 'spirit' of god, but NOT god, moved upon the face of the water. Now unless that water was 'contained', it would be spread over so vast a space that scot's mist would be a downpour compared to how fine the water particle's would be.. to move ON the water is to suggest the water was either ICE or CONTAINED. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Proving no light existed previous to the act of the eternal thought that grew in the abyss, which evolved into SOUND. Now, how's about stopping trying to belittle someone with a greater understanding of SCIENCE in this search for YOUR god, that even YOU probably need, just to comprehend that YOUR god answer's to mine? Relax, Decky. You are way ahead of the atheists, simply by recognizing that God exists! Sfunny.. am way ahead of genesis already.. I better put your book away.. just dont be taking anything I say personally.. But I did get ya all with the light.. No, Decky. All it proves is that you can read and think some. I realize how hard it is to hold a lot of thoughts together at the same time, and try to juggle where they fit. Keep trying, though. You just might make it sometime. |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. That would never happen short of all of humanity being in a mass hallucination, as science is nothing but observations of the world around us. Meanwhile, a religious person says the sky is pink because their holy book said so That would be one thing if every observer of a scientists writings expressed only what the scientist said. Or if the many non-scientists understood what the scientist meant. But this doesn't happen the majority of the time. Because of this, the atheists are more to be pitied than all other propagandized people. |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. First off, do you read anything that is not in the bible? In particular, my earlier post's that clearly state I am not an athiest? I am a searcher. I have yet to choose. I believe in god, but not YOURS. Mine is superior in that he allows me to show you, your bible is the one that is in fact backwards. I mean c'mon.. God is the light, yet light existed only after how many other event's of actualisation, or day's? You try to belittle me, whenever I come up with a genuine scientific FACT that MAY prove or disprove the existance of god. In that when I speak for god, your right there preaching with me, but when I point out all the things that existed before god, like the WATER god moved over, you call me an athiest? You dont understand the reason people like me dont go to church is not fear of god, but people like you who just wont acknowledge that god's light is staring you in the face, and you deny him? When I said god said to remind them (people like you) that he is the light, all that happened here in my house, is I went to make coffee, and the thought occured to me that if god is the light, then he was created in the 3rd sentence of genesis. The fact he SAW the light prove's he cannot BE the light, for then light would exist. I like these argument's/debates with you, and hhope you can be just as thorough in your defense of god, just dont use the book, cause as I said.. for me to ask you, god must also work through me too, in order to point out these thing's no? What if god really did speak though me to ask you these points personally? It seems, and not only to me, that when things are from the bible, your there, but if it's not the christian bible, then it's crap? Let's try my style without making you cry: Genesis: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Fair call, so they say etc.. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Earth (soil/dust) clearly existed, it just had no form, and hence is negated. darkness was on the face of the deep. This state's that the deep reflected darkness on it's face like a mirror. Now here if god was/is the light, he could not, scientifically exist. Note the 'spirit' of god, but NOT god, moved upon the face of the water. Now unless that water was 'contained', it would be spread over so vast a space that scot's mist would be a downpour compared to how fine the water particle's would be.. to move ON the water is to suggest the water was either ICE or CONTAINED. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Proving no light existed previous to the act of the eternal thought that grew in the abyss, which evolved into SOUND. Now, how's about stopping trying to belittle someone with a greater understanding of SCIENCE in this search for YOUR god, that even YOU probably need, just to comprehend that YOUR god answer's to mine? Relax, Decky. You are way ahead of the atheists, simply by recognizing that God exists! |
|
|
|
Now that we are on the gay thing, homosexuality has no beneficial function in nature. Homosexuality has nothing to do with good, loving friendships. Multitudes of people of the same sex are best of friends. They often love each other so deeply that they would die for their friends of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a good thing. Sexual activity has ONE reason for existing... propagation of the species. Homosexuality does NOT do this... propagate the species. Everything that is good that is found in homosexuality, can be found in people that are best of friends. Be good friends. Be best of friends. Drop the homosexual part, because it is essentially unnatural. In its bad parts, it can ruin people's lives. No, it doesn't, and you're an awful human being. Your "ONE reason" is an unsound assumption. Following your train of thought, sex of any kind is "unnatural" and "bad," and thus any time any two people have sex, regardless of whether they are hetero- or homosexual, it is always bad and unnatural if it does not result in a child. You must be an incredibly stupid person (I have no qualms about calling you names at this point because you're an embarrassment to me) to not realize that consenting sex between two individuals of any sexual orientation can be a symbolic act of love, and in such a case it deserves our utmost respect. You ought to be ashamed for saying this with a smile on your face and acting as though you shouldn't also be looking down your nose at, for example, your own parents, who undoubtedly didn't *only* have sex as many times as they had children. It's also obvious by this conversation that your birth can ruin people's lives, so I'd argue what your parents did was pretty bad if you are the result. God's children -- Born to Hate. You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post. If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there. Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them. The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay? |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. "Blue" is a hallucination. Scientists hallucinate a lot! |
|
|
|
There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.
I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair. Nope. The Declaration of Independence is about declaring independence which is a great thing. It doesn't grant anyone authority over anyone else. Consent of the governed is impossible. It is like saying agreed to be raped. If you agreed to it, it wasn't rape. And if you are consenting to it, it is voluntary. Voluntary means not governed. This is why some anarchists call themselves voluntaryists. Your analogy doesn't hold at all. In no way is consent of the governed impossible or analogous to agreeing to be raped, either semantically or logically. Maybe you skipped history lessons, but the whole point of the DoI was to outline the acceptable methods of government to the colonists and to justify the reasons they were declaring independence. The DoI doesn't grant any authority, you misunderstood what I said. The DoI explains the rationale by which the government later granted itself authority by claiming it was acting with the consent of the governed. By living here, you are consenting to the jurisdiction and authority of the government, because you're free to leave. However, you're not free to ignore the edicts of the government, that is " the Will of the People." (Said semi-sarcastically) Don't misread me. I'm sympathetic to voluntaryists. I'm merely explaining the rationale behind the system of government, not defending it. I think democracy is a rather dreadful thing, as the majority forces its will on the minority with impunity. However, I've never become convinced a completely voluntary society would work, for many reasons which are not the point of this thread. The short of it is that the DoI does not do the vesting of authority. It explains how and why the vesting of authority is legitimate. The actual vesting of the authority comes from the Constitution. The vesting of authority was in the government to do exactly the things that were expressed in the vesting. Inside those things there is way out for people not of the government, to get out of the authority of the government any time they want. It is not implied. It is stated. You can find it if you almost literally look up the meanings of every word in the constitution, within the context of their meaning at the time they were written. If you don't want to do that, take the shorter route of perusing the website I provided where it will be shown to you - http://1215.org/. There is no authority from the past that is binding on anyone of the present in any way. Dead people don't jump up and do anything. The authority of the present is according to what people of the present accept as authority. And they accept it voluntarily, or by force when someone stronger than they forces it on them. Otherwise, they don't accept it. Constitutional history that applies to us only applies in the context of how the people of the present use it. Government people take an oath that essentially states, among other things, that they will use the application of the past. That application doesn't apply to any of us who haven't taken the oath. That's why government is so adamant that the schools make everyone from childhood pledge their allegiance. |
|
|
|
Someone need's to tell them bible bashers how many tree's died to show us the bible is an inanimate object, and cannot be 'alive', that's like saying god existed before everything else, including non-existance.. Ps, dont mention or ask where the water came from, the water god moved OVER the face of, before the earth was formed How the fuck god moved over the FACE of the water which had ZERO ground to keep it in place.. yet this water was clearly contained enough to reflect that which moved over it's (deep) face.. And just as I was about to make coffee, god say's.. remind them I am the light.. created in the third day Before then it was dark. Decky, you have a lot of things backward, but you are giving me the opportunity to say something about the atheists that I have always wanted to say. An atheist is a person who can look up at the sky, anytime, and see that it is blue. But the moment that some scientist proves, mathematically or scientifically, that the sky is red, or it is green, or it is yellow, or that it doesn't have any color at all, then that is the thing the atheist will spout from now on... even though he can look up at any time and see it is blue. |
|
|
|
There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position.
I'm gonna have to disagree with this sentiment. The US is founded on the idea that people vest authority in the US government voluntarily. See the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Because the government is of the people, the phrase "consent of the governed" means the government acts with the Will of the People. The government is granted its authority through popular consent, with the caveat being that if the government becomes destructive to the Will of the People, the People retain the right to abolish it. This is an en masse action though. One person does not have the right to disclaim the authority of the government because they disagree with a decision it has made, backed by the implicit Will of the People. People who try this end up in prison. I suppose the classic example is taxes. If the majority pass a tax hike on the richest Americans, you can't decide not to pay the taxes because they're unfair. No place in any of the documentation does it say that the people gave authority to the government to force them to fall under it in any way. Even if they had, none of them are living today, and they don't have the right or ability to force any of their government on us in any way. Some people (did you catch that word people) in government are seeing to it that people don't know about their freedom. The fact that the people of government use force doesn't mean the government has authority. The moment any other government, or XYZ corporation for that matter, becomes stronger than the government, they just might shut it down by force. People can use certain basic concepts placed into the writing of the Preamble and the Constitution to show and force Government people to stay inside their places. Peruse http://1215.org/ to see how it works. |
|
|
|
Now that we are on the gay thing, homosexuality has no beneficial function in nature. Homosexuality has nothing to do with good, loving friendships. Multitudes of people of the same sex are best of friends. They often love each other so deeply that they would die for their friends of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a good thing. Sexual activity has ONE reason for existing... propagation of the species. Homosexuality does NOT do this... propagate the species. Everything that is good that is found in homosexuality, can be found in people that are best of friends. Be good friends. Be best of friends. Drop the homosexual part, because it is essentially unnatural. In its bad parts, it can ruin people's lives. |
|
|
|
Simply speaking, there is no other book than the Bible that combines such a length of history, contains witnesses to real miracles, explains the miraculous forming of a nation that is about 3,500 years old, alive and active today, that covers such a volume of basic, human, life-understanding, that has such fundamental, foundational laws for life, that shows how predictions were made in the past that were fulfilled after the predictions, etc., etc. If present-day people didn't understand, instinctively, by the moving done by the Holy Spirit, how important, miraculous, and "living" the Bible is, this book would have failed within the first couple hundred years of its existence. Yet, it hasn't failed. Rather, it is spreading around the world. The fact that the things talked about in the Bible are coming into being, aren't evidences of gullible people. Rather, it is evidence that people are practical. |
|
|
|
when it goes mainstream after a few years will the government start getting weaker now that people will they start to lose control over time?
Government is the collective will of the people in the country. Hard to see how minority can destroy it. Government's always claim this, whether or not it is true. Kings ruled by the will of god, but over time this proved to be untenable, also inaccurate. It seems people now are objecting (not necessarily rightfully so, but nonetheless) that government is not reflecting the will of the people any longer, but the interests of the rich and politically connected. Government is the will of the lawmakers, not to be confused with the will of the people/country. The setting up of a government is a thing that is done by people. Almost never is the setting up of a government done by one person alone. The American government was set up by the people, some of them directly, others by representation. There is NO place where the people gave up their authority to the government that they created, even though they act as though they did, by obeying the laws made by the government. The people individually or collectively can disregard their government, if they do it the right way, and if they understand their position. The 14th Amendment was for finding a place for freed slaves. Slavery is a thing. When you release or free a slave, what is he? There is legal question about how to handle it. This is what the 14th Amendment was for. Traditionally free people, those who were never slaves, can apply the 14th Amendment to themselves if they want; there might be benefit to do this at times. But nowhere is there a place in law that states that the people have abdicated their authority over government. And, since there are no longer any slaves, there is no real reason for the 14th Amendment any longer. |
|
|
|
Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein. Keep on playing. I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction. I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof'). I believe that you are close to right, if not right exactly. That still doesn't answer the question of scientific proof. Salvation by believing in Jesus is the only way. That salvation comes through reading or hearing the Word of God, only... no other way. However, since God created the workings of the universe through speaking them into being, there just might be a whole lot of people who will hear God's word even though they don't read the Bible, and are saved anyway. BUT, BUT, BUT, don't depend on this for salvation. After all, hearing the Word of God through nature doesn't present very much clarity. Read and believe the Bible. You're speaking of the Christian god. There are thousands of other gods all promising all manner of things in return for your faith. Who is to say one god is greater than any other? The followers of each all proclaim theirs is the greatest, but they all can't be right. In fact, the rules most religions build up around their god preclude the possibility of everyone being right: 'Allah is the one true god and Mohammad is his prophet.' -Islam 'I am the lord your god, you shall have no other gods before me.' -Christianity These are just two of the most popular religions today, and despite the fact that Islam proclaims to worship the same god as the Christian god, the followers of these religions have a long history of killing each other over 'worshiping the wrong god.' I don't find compelling any religion's case that their god exists, let alone that he is the sole god. The whole 'but only I can bring you salvation' bit each religion throws in sounds desperate, like a used-car salesman who really needs to make his quota this month to keep his job. The proof is in the nature of the god, and what you can find out about him/her/it. For example, if somebody walked up to you and said, "I am God," you might answer, "prove it." If he takes off his hat and pulls a rabbit out of it, you might say, "I've seen that trick before." But if he takes you throughout hospitals that have thousands of sick people in them, and heals everyone of them before your eyes, and is killed and rises from the dead, and floats up into the air and is hidden in the clouds, even out of the sight of radar, you might be on your way towards being convinced slightly. Years later, if your grandson hears the story from you, he might not believe it. But if you show him the book that talks about this, and you show him how the book came into existence in a way impossible for a book like this to come into existence, he might still not believe. He still might think the book is a hoax. This is a little about the Bible, and the God that it portrays. If you examine the history and strong tradition of how the Bible came into being, you will see that it is a book that is impossible to exist. This being the case, the God who caused the impossible-to-exist book to actually exist and be spread across the world like the Bible has been, must be the true God. Studying the history of the Bible (or any book) might entail a lot of time and work in areas that are not your expertise, and are not something you want to get started in. So, you check out what the Bible scholars have to say. The choice is still yours. You can believe them or not. But if you do the examination yourself, and if you are of a sincere mind, truly wanting to find God, you will have to agree at least, that the God of the Bible is One that is exceedingly more probable to exist than any of the others, even if you don't believe in Him. The choice will always be yours, at least until He comes to you in person, and proves to you Who He is, in the ways that only a God can. |
|
|
|
My name is Bat-Dick of the Space Between the Worlds Famous Cave of Greens (with the Reptilians; a shorter race of people than we.... cold blooded, & that) and I protect the Toothbrush Forest!!!
Are you saying you are NOT in the Fraternal Brotherhood of Iiiiimoks? (You have to say all 5 i's in a row correctly or you are teleported to the nearest Walmart.
Hey, Bat-Dick of the Space Between the Worlds Famous Cave of Greens, nice to meet you. And I apologize if I mis-said your name by not including the "(with the Reptilians; a shorter race of people than we.... cold blooded, & that)" part, or the "and I protect the Toothbrush Forest" part, or any other part that I might have missed. |
|
|
|
Why wreck good stones? |
|
|
|
But, trolling clogs communications. And we all are subject once in awhile to propaganda spread by trolls for the purpose of confusing things, only, without any truth whatsoever to the troll's message. |
|
|
|
I will quote some math from that page; below are some axioms, both mathematical and philosophical. Please say nice things or ask good questions; otherwise you Let the crucifixion of the messengers cointinue. [K]nowledge that is not your own is dangerous, more dangerous than ignorance, because it is a hidden ignorance, and you will not be able to see that you are deceiving yourself. You are carrying false coins and thinking that you are a rich man. Sooner or later your poverty will be revealed. Then you will be shocked. I never suspect for a single moment their good intentions. Whatever these people are doing, they are doing with good intentions; but the questions is not of good intentions, the question is: What is the result?
"You may murder me with good intentions, but your good intentions cannot justify my murder. They have no awareness of a different dimension of knowing, so whatever they are doing is done in deep sleep." First: knowledge is borrowed, realise this. The very realisation becomes a dropping of it.... Learning means being responsive to whatsoever is around you.... This is a great learning, but not knowledge.
Become the truth
There is no way to find truth — except through finding it. There is simply no way unless you are without any mind within you — because mind is like a breeze, continuously flowing, and the flame goes on wavering. When mind is not there, the breeze stops, and the flame becomes unmoving. When your consciousness is an unmoving flame, you know the truth. You have to learn how not to follow the mind.
Nobody can give you the truth, nobody, not even a Buddha, a Jesus, a Krishna.... It is beautiful that truth is not transferable in any way. Unless you reach it, you cannot reach. Unless you become it, you never have it. "A set is a unity of which its elements are the constituents. It is a fundamental property of the mind to comprehend multitudes into unities. Sets are multitudes which are also unities. A multitude is the opposite of a unity. How can anything be both a multitude and a unity? Yet a set is just that. It is a seemingly contradictory fact that sets exist."
"To arrive at the totality of integers involves a jump. Overviewing it presupposes an infinite intuition. What is given is a psychological analysis. The point is whether it produces objective conviction."
"We do not analyze intuition to see a proof but by intuition we see something without a proof."
"Reason and understanding concern two levels of concept. Dialectics and feelings are involved in reason." noun
plural noun: axioms
A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. A statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
When Kurt Gödel tells you what a set is, that is the verbal transmission of an axiom. You really think that the truth value of the following can never be determined? "A set is a unity of which its elements are the constituents." On what grounds do you deny this self-evident nature of sets? "Integer" is an Aristotelian "natural kind" whereof individual "integers" are absolutely partial manifestations. (Indeed, negative zero is the only true "Integer." [Remember, "−0 ÷ x = −0 ⇔ x ≠ −0".]) Zero (0) implies "nothing;" -0 implies "everything," the whole universe and all the dimensions. The opposite of "nothing" is not "everything," but rather "not nothing." The complement of the universal set (that is, the empty set) is its logical not—not an element hereof. Besides, the universe is so interdependent that nobody knows if there could be a partial universal set. It simply might not be able to exist. |
|
|
|
The current largest troll army has 3,400,000 members spanning 5 continents.
3.4 million geezus ? How big is the U.S. military? Active personnel 1,369,532[4] (ranked 2nd) Reserve personnel 850,880[5] (ranked 10th) Oh I was legit talking about trolls online. There are even 3,000 trolls deployed from TAN(Troll Army United) on Bitcointalk. Is mega-trollnet stronger than guns and bombs and armament? Actually, some of the biggest trolls operate, unofficially, out of the militaries of the world. |
|
|
|
Huh? The scientific proof of God is in the fact that we found the Higgs Boson. Now that we have found this elusive, little particle, just ask Steven Hawking what he calls it. The God particle. It'll be an interesting day if they ever find two of them at the same time. There probably is only ONE in the whole universe. And it just happened that out of the billions and billions of stars/planets everywhere that this god particle just happened to be found here? That's a laugh in itself, I mean, can this boson/particle speak? Did'nt think so.. Can it vibrate enough to create ripples throughout the vastness of the void that may be left if all else just imploded? Did'nt think so.. It was forced (it did not "just [happen]"). At last.. 'Force' implies 2 These are "very, very, very small [Big Bangs]."That's what trolls are in Bitcointalk. |
|
|
|
The current largest troll army has 3,400,000 members spanning 5 continents.
3.4 million geezus ? How big is the U.S. military? Active personnel 1,369,532[4] (ranked 2nd) Reserve personnel 850,880[5] (ranked 10th) Oh I was legit talking about trolls online. There are even 3,000 trolls deployed from TAN(Troll Army United) on Bitcointalk. Is mega-trollnet stronger than guns and bombs and armament? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
