7th

>Except our language DOES have basis in reality. For example, THE WORD REALITY. THE NUMBER TWO. Ñ! >Two, a word referencing having more than (none) zero, more than one, less than three, less than four.

 

Of course. How could I explain reality to you otherwise?

>The problem with 'perceiving in reality' is that you define reality to exclude our biochemical interpretation of reality. Which only leaves a semantic debate about what reality is. You can't really perceive things in your definition of reality because your reality disallows perception.

 

I don't exclude any true thought process, only the conceptual lies you surround your thought process with. What you describe is one of the four thought processes by which we arrive at truth. Your problem is that you exclude the other three, because it goes against your belief in unity (god).

 

>As for the four side thing: No. That's not what a side is. >Side: a surface forming part of the outside (or inside) of an object

 

See, now you have given up on truth and are using the words of the religious education system to deny what is common sense.

>The top of a cube and the bottom of the cube are two distinct surfaces. They are only related because they have an opposite local position.

 

"Only related"? All things are created through opposites. Things cannot exist in reality without their opposites, they can only exist in concept (word). A cube without a top and a bottom is an abstraction, and doesn't matter to the real world.

 

>Stop redefining very basic concepts.

 

It doesn't matter how basic a concept is, what matters is its truth. You are asking me explain truth to you using lies; that cannot be done (in reality; perhaps it can be done in word!).

 

>I don't believe in unity. Nor duality, pantheism, or what have you. The best description of me using spiritual/religious doctrine would be panentheist.

 

The belief in a unitary god isn't usually expressed in "religious" terms. It's a (flawed) perception of reality, based on word.

>I find it funny that you're spouting common sense as important when your doctrine states that most people believe in 1/4 non-cubism whatever. That would make 1/4 non-cubism whatever the common sense, as it were.

No, common sense isn't "subjective" (conceptual). You're just been taught to think it is, because all thought processes must be subservient to the scientific/state-championed, "objective" process.

>A cube without a top would be an open storage crate.

 

A crate has a top, because it still has thickness.

>Besides, the 'cube' is an abstraction too, as every object is formed via atoms.

 

These atoms have a fronts, backs, rights, lefts, tops, bottoms, pasts, and futures too. That's the whole point, that's the foundation of real (non-conceptual) existence.

>I'm going to start using a trip for this conversation. First of all, if you suggest we abolish language entirely, how do we communicate?

I'm saying language must be real, not conceptual. Communication without basis in reality is a string of lies. It would have been better to have said nothing.

>concepts

>I HAVE THREE APPLES

>Sure, these apples represent themselves fine, but what if they weren't in front of me? If I were thinking about them, I wouldn't summon an apple in my eye, I would create a mental representation (bear with me, I know that thinking is entirely alien to you) that I would identify as apple. Are you saying that when you think you're forging ZIONIST LIES?

 

Things do not need to be in front of your eyes to be perceived in reality. In fact, people rarely perceive reality in front of their eyes. Eyes are not your mind, they do not actually see. When the mind sees apples it sees reality, because apples are real. This is Common Sense, but it is impossible to see this through nothing but the logic of "science".

>Side note, your cubism theory would actually be represented by a pyramid, as cubes have SIX sides.

 

Both (real) pyramids and (real) cubes have four sides; your mistake is that you think sides are unitary. All reality is formed of opposites. A cube (that is real) has a top and a bottom, but these are side. The other sides are a front and a back, a right and a left, and a past and a future (note; no real thing can exist outside of time. That is an abstraction).

 

>Knowledge through observation is the only objective practice which can determine reality.

 

There is a difference between observation of truth (through the four cubic thought processes) and observation of an abstract concept created by the word-god-state social complex (through the one word/state-"logic"-based thought process).

>All other practices are subjective constructs and will vary from person to person, and can NEVER accurately be determined to be "truth".

 

Now who's using circular (read: self-referencing/unitary) logic?

 

>Your beliefs are based on assumptions and validated by subjective data. This is, really, "building a temple on shifting sand".

No, it's building a temple that exists in all spaces and time. You're the one attempting to build a temple of one dimension; a such a thing can only exist in word, it isn't truth.

>Logic is universal. If it weren't, our Universe simply wouldn't work.

No, logic only comprises 1/4 of cubic reality. Your problem is that you favor logic-based observation over truth. Thus, you only perceive 1/4 of reality, and are satisfied with the congruency between your lack of perception and the lack of reality that your perception has lead you to believe.

 

You're the equivalent of a deaf, blind, and numb person who declares that truth about reality can only be derived from taste/scent because that's all you think (truthful/cubic) reality is composed of.

-Previous discussions.

...999.0 + 1 = ...000.0 = 0

0 - 1 = -1

ergo

...999.0 = -1

Each human that is born into modern-society is forced to walk down a path already paved. We have constructed the chain of events below to explain exactly what this path contains and where it will lead humanity in the near future.

1. You are born as a pure minded human; no academia and essentially untouched by society.

2. You are taught through your guardians how to live amongst a society which they consider to be reality and you learn how to recognise your environment. Their knowledge is tenaciously biased through education practices: school, college, university -- and media: television, newspapers, books, and so on. Resulting in a completely pro-state initial outlook on existence.

3. Once you are old enough to attend school you are forced by either: your guardians, the fear of being isolated from society or the government to do so (or not do so). There are only two choices of schooling/not schooling, those that involve “God” and those that involve “No God.”

6. After time you no longer have an open ‘pure-mind’ instead a ‘one-quart’ imagination and common sense. Through the teachings of God / No God you begin to lose grasp of what is real, and consider the pro-state reality as complete-actuality. As you proceed further through education, or no education your belief in the state (religion or no religion) views becomes stronger, under the false impression that they are your own, and that you have freedom of belief.

7. Once you are ready and have reached the end of schooling you are inclined to help the state unknowingly; writing books, becoming an actor, destroying nature for advancement (for the state) and other pro-state areas. Your imagination and common sense undergoes conversion into either: complete advancement for the state, complete control and sedation (to yourself and others through moral religious teachings) for the state, or part of state society increasing income for the state (in the middle, don’t care but aware; unknowingly agnostic).

8. Resulting in delusion and human senselessness. You no longer have your natural instincts to protect the planet (your mother) you live on and you don’t notice the damage you do to her – not to mention not caring. If you’re siding with “God” then you are morally bound to pleasing “God” and you do not do anything to break free from the system as you do not recognise it. If you are bound by “No God” then you only care for advancement or betterment of self, for you don’t feel the need to please anyone but the state unknowingly, or knowing but through fear or fame.

Conclusions:

1. Destruction of Nature

2. Depletion of Resource

3. Literally Dumb-Thinking

4. Slowly Destroying Humanity

5. Creating a Hell-Like Earth

The human mind is cubic.

Therefore God/No God is ONE QUART

1. God/No God

2. ????/????

3. ????/????

4. ????/????

You start at 4/4, and you are educated to 1/4. So you are offically dumber than you were at age 1.

2. Wisdom Good/Bad

3. Imagination Real/Fiction

4. Common Sense Survial/Love

ALL REMOVED

The Jews (and those who come from the Mesopotamian tradition in general, really) are the greatest example of the unitary lie that put belief in dichotomous (cubic) creation to death. One may note that the same people who created writing (what allowed them to put word above truth) also created god (what allowed them to put one above four) and also created the state (what allowed them to put experts/teachers/science/adults above nature/humanity/children).

How old is your son by the way?

Don't tell me all of a sudden Steven Hawkins isn't a great scientist because he divided by zero.

You're on the offensive, which implies you're attempting to suppress. You're not discussing, you're attacking; there is a difference.

Theism/Religion(partly): God

Atheism/Science(partly): No God

Here is my campain picture.

Religion forces imagination in one direction, giving people the weight of beleif throughout their whole life; whilst arguing with atheism, who constantly promote the idea of their religion, "no-God". Science alters imagination into advancement. Officially making progress off of human nature, through illusion and deciet. Through laws and strict approaches.

What If I was correct about time being God? Eh? What if you spent your whole life in your lab making progress through the universe whilst slowly destroying the earth, only to find out I was correct. It's fine wanting advancement when you need it, but when you don't it is time to stop.

Divine Judgement used to decide which kings kept the throne, and which criminals were sent to death. Through battle, the last one standing was said to be God's chosen victor, and the loser was judged as guilty. I don't see how this relates to a "man in the skies" or "spagetti monster," it's completely relative to time, and that is all. We may interpret that differently but that is our opinion, and it's probably not true.

We don't need tags of Atheism. Science would say, "If you don't believe in God, then you ARE an atheist." To which I would reply, "No, I'm human, don't tag me with anything. I don't even care for you stupid God/No God games."

On terms of time being "God," I mean by definition. The omnipotent for all creation is 'Time', without the wisdom of 'Time', nothing would have began and nothing would have produced motion (which are both in times image, or parts of time). That's enough proof to allow me to continue with my campain of spreading this -- it's not fair that you force adulthood upon people, removing all freedom of imagination, or suppressing and killing it, so it's worthless and less pleasurable. You destroy humans, and split them into "Religious" and "Not-Religious". I'm sorry, I won't let you continue.

Science looks into space, and forces children to look in the same direction by telling them laws as if they were fact, even placing percentages of probability on them; when really they are just a theory, and my theory is that, it is bollocks. You can't say that:

1. There is no UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT, BACK

2. Natural symmetry accounts for nothing.

3. Nothing created the universe.

When we CAN:

1. Look UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, FORWARDS, BACKWARDS

2. Have TOP, BOTTOM, LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT, BACK

[1 + 2]a. Even if they are just opposites. E.g: B + T, L + R, F +B

3. Even the world follows the same principle as us, (only sciences laws are claiming it doesn't)

4. Nothing can't create something. We know that from life. Nothing comes from... nothing. Something can only come from something.

Basic logic here.

A few people who agree with me.

J F Kenedy,

Nelson Mandella,

Ghandi,

Guy Fawlkes,

Lincoln,

+ More.

Well it's more than just saying, "God did it." It means that people can have substance to their beliefs, not just blind-faith.

Of course it makes sense. You just don't want it to.

You did win. You went in, got the oil as planned and then granted them freedom, but secretly controlling their oil resource.

Aight I suppose. I'll do some research, sorry for being on the offensive :3. Just a bit tired, been computing all day. I'll look for ways to prove it, give me a few days.

All you've done is focus on P=NP nothing more. You haven't touched the 'theory', but rather pick out little parts of it. That's not science.

I am pretty sure that calling you a fool would be inaccurate, making all those claims would insinuate you have some special knowledge no one else has and that needs to be backed up by evidence. So far you have made no effort to do that which makes me wonder if you think we are all fools...

After dividing by zero multiple times I have gained knowledge on some possible truths about the universe and existence. I'm aware that the road we're taking is sin however it's not enough sin to induce hell. Our human-given role is to protect the earth we live on and the nature that comforts us -- we shouldn't be the species that abolishes resource and makes animals extinct, we should be doing the opposite. We've gained enough knowledge to create technology that can help us with this cause, we have reached the pinacle almost and soon it's time to stop sinning and give a bit back. We all sin daily by killing the planet for us when we are meant to save the planet for nature. Humanity and nature can live forever if we abide by these rules, if we protect the necessities of life, the only means of destruction is through an occurance such as a meteor hitting the planet or other apocalypse type disasters. We can see the nihilistic effects our current society has; diseases, climate change, homosexuality, war, weapons of mass destruction and more. All should be controlled and stablized to protect existence. Homosexuals should not be removed, they are created by the education that teaches 'one' and the current sinful ways, and therefore 'one' should be removed and society should be changed to prevent it from eventually wiping our species, which for nature would be a good thing. Think of it as a nature defense mechanism, we are destroying it, and nature and time are doing all they can to prevent it. We have natural healing mechanisms in our body, and so does the universe.

Again I see no evidence of what you claim and until you offer some proof i see no reason not to assume you are not just another person who wants everyone to think he is special with out providing any proof other than your own claims, I think putting all your energy into such a flimsy meaningless cause is sad considering that if you have nothing better to do then you could at least be doing good works even if your premise is fatally flawed. Mother Teresa put her own need for acclaim aside and did powerfully good things in the name of her god, leading by example not by bragging about how special her take on reality was. she deserves respect for that not matter if she was right or wrong about god, what have you done other than brag about your special knowledge?

Until Steven Hawkins recently did it publically, I haven't divided by zero clearly in public. I'm guessing you take the bible as a fairy-tale and each of the words for their literal meaning; I don't and I interpret it correctly, I even spot the mistakes which appeared through translation. It explains opposite creation and the chain of events that occured through the chaos of creation -- it even predicts what will happen in the future, we are in the times of revelations, which is scary. I'm not posting this here, so you don't need to believe a word I say. I wasn't going to reply to you but I thought it would be rude.

This is just more meaningless prattle mean to glorify your self, it helps no one at all...

This is what you took from it.

Men were sent to the moon by a huge group of people who through enormous acts of cooperation and self sacrifice achieved what had been thought to be impossible. The over all knowledge of mankind was advanced more than in all of humanities past, if that doesn't relate to you then you are not part of humanity but only a self centered narcissist who only wants to glorify himself.

99% of the world had no choice in this 'sacrifice'. Going to the moon is unimportant compared to saving the planet and nature. If you believe different then that is entirely up to you, and therefore isn't an achievement for mankind, but rather an achievement for people who hold your beliefs. What exactly did we gain from it? I'm pretty sure that most of the knowledge we did gain is kept from us and studied within major science companies. Just like the LHC, we still haven't heard much of their findings and it cost billions, which could have just easilly have been spent on saving third world countries or improving the nature we destroyed to make previous products.

Glorifying yourself by denigrating others while taking no real action your self? To you it is evidently more temptation than you can handle, it's easy to claim greatness difficult to demonstrate it...

Over and over you spill this... drivel. It's getting annoying. I may speak with a different style than you, my aims might be different, but I am not glorifying myself. I'm a strong-believer, I guess.

 

There again it is easy to point it out, difficult to actually help the world, a Mother Teresa you are definitely not... Just another self centered narcissist trying to glorify himself in the easiest way possible, by doing nothing other than making noise... seagulls are more useful and less noisy....

And again. I try to spread peace. I look up to people like Ghandi, Buddah, Mother Teresa, Newton, Einstien -- all these influential people that I would like to be. I doesn't mean I'm faking now does it. Think about what you're doing for a second, you're trying to suppress someone for being influential, by showing how much of an evil cretin you are. Try being less offesnive, you seem extremely mad about something that had the opposite intentions. Just keep your views to yourself, I can't be bothered to talk to people like you.

I'm contesting that P=NP applies. You said this:

 

 

 

How does this have anything to do with black holes? This has nothing to do with spinning or pulling.

All it means is it's quicker to use the process, than the product. So inevitably I believe that a black hole spins and pulls; it doesn't matter about why it spins or pulls if they are inevitably the foremost processes. That's what I mean by P = NP.

Well, I'd have to ask what is spinning in the opposite direction. Law of conservation of angular momentum and all that.

Whatever the impulse was made from, I believe that's electric or 'antimatter'(which I believe is electric). It would also combine with my belief about humans being a mixture of black and white holes. Our soul or sceintifically speaking, 'energy', is in the image of a white hole, and our body or 'vessel' is in the image of black hole. So spinning around the black hole in the opposite direction is a identical white hole made from antimatter. This could be how hyperspace is made also.

I'm wondering if you have any evidence for a first black hole, or that it/they all must spin? And what do you mean by spinning? The singularity itself spinning or some assymetrical event horizon that is spinning? What is spinning?

Without going too pseudo, please try an imagine nothing for a second, give yourself an empty canvass in your head. Now apply motion to that vision and what do you have? 'Spinning Nothing', a lot like a black hole. Next step is to imagine it turning into a funnel, a bit like a tornado (stupid example, but like it). Next remember the initial impulse, it should be travelling down towards the center, round the outskirts of the motion, getting nearer to the center -- then finally, bang! I have no evidence bar mental logic. "Pseudo-Evidence"

Because black holes do spin, and black holes do pull. That's what the ultimate processes are. Have you anything to contest a black hole spinning (especially the first one)?

It's obvious it spins really, isn't it? It's not like it's rocket-sciecne.

Every planet spins, without the intial spin we would be static, aka no motion. The first blackhole definetly spinned otherwise we wouldn't be in a vacuum. Think of it like water going down a drain, accept pressure spinning around and causing a funnel like entropy, pulling everything around it inwards. After this entropy, the original impulse circles the center until finally hitting it, then BANG!. It's really simple. You can think of it as time being the sperm (the program), and gravity/blackhole being the egg. Nothing is not in-motion, even if it's a sign post, it's still moving due to the rotation of our planet.

Our natural symmetry proves (if correct) that time (the progam) is composed of a cubic-nature (not law). Motion enters facing fowards, and spins around the center. So already in the first seconds of the universe we would have:

1. Inside

2. Outside

3. Frontside

4. Backside

5. Leftside

6. Rightside

7. Topside

8. Bottomside

I don't believe in God. I believe in Time. God is poison in my opinion, to delude us from the truth. I know why this happened but I'll bring that up in the Religion section.

That would mean that nowhere in the universe will abide by different nature, it will be the same everywhere. No matter what the nature, if there were species that had 3 eyes, they would still have the same cubic-nature. In my opinion. What can I do to provide evidence for this.

1. Look up

2. Look down

3. Look left

4. Look right

5. Look in front

6. Look behind

7. Look at your outside

8. Know your inside

I understand science doesn't beleive in: up, down, etc etc. I do, it's against some of the (not 100% proven) laws, and therefore shouldnt be discriminated. Have you read The Grand Design yet?

Edit: The Christian Cross explains the cubic nature of time. (I studied this for a long time)

Can we discuss the original post fully before we move on into tid bits, otherwise this whole thread will be based on "P=NP". I'll explain now why it has been used in context, however I assume you will give me some decent discussion on terms of the rest of the statement/hypothesis without simply saying, "no, it's nonsese".

P = NP shows that it is quicker to use the process than it is the product, example being: (P = (x / x = y)) = NP.

Steven Hawkins recently published a book that agrees somewhat with my beleifs. In The Grand Divide (as I like to call it), he claimed that "over time the big bang was inevitable due to the nature of gravity". I also understand that recently the mathematical problem of P=NP was proven -- If we were to alter some of the (not 100% proven) laws that science currently abides by, we can predict the chain of events that lead to the big bang.

Using P=NP, we know that a black hole spins and therefore is in motion. Through it's spin it generates pulling power. If you'd like to strike this approach with 'laws' which are not proven to be correct, only to assist the current ideas, then it's completely unfair and ignorant; even if reason is applied, the human brain is far more capable to think freely and judge correct without the burden -- which is a good enough reason to conduct experiments with this basis.

The term God is thrown about on these forums, being a christian-scientist I take the term scientifically. I apply God and the bible to created-things as only the truth interests me. It is not incorrect for me to claim that the God I believe in is an element or essense, rather than an embodied being. An omnipotent that is apparent to everything and anything, whatever we do has a relation to God, and this God, I believe can be measured in life.

Judgement

Before Gravity can be set in motion it requires the wisdom to do so. Something cannot appear without it programmed to 'appear' before hand. So first it requires the wisdom of motion. Once this wisdom is applied, it requires the courage' to start -- rather like an engine of a car, without the ignition it is useless (but first you require the structure of an engine). Once both have been applied we have the pulling power generated through the spin. Due to the nature of gravity, the impulse generated from the first 'push' or 'ignition' would eventually reach the middle, which would inevitably cause the big bang, the impulse meeting the center creating an explosion/expansion of power.

We know that time is measured by us and it is simply a product of how we interpret our surroundings and 'live'. We know that Gravity causes time. Therefore as I believe that everything and anything is in God's image, time is God and time was the wisdom that caused the motion. If we are nothing but motion, with education, wisdom and courage, then we are also in times image. Time induced gravity, and gravity induced time. It's impossible for something to come from nothing, something must set the 'spark', for anything to begin.

Pantheism

Panspermia

Gaia Theory

I think these theories relate somewhat to this one.

Feel free to debate, but please try to be less strict and more reasonable.

I'd like you to cite the studies that the text refers to.

 

I'd also like you to use the search function and have a look at previous threads on qi...

I don't understand, what's the problem? I'm in the lounge.

Aha! I've been banged to rights, and I feel slightly embarrassed. I'll let the experts continue in this thread.

Words are words.

If you're offended by the quote, "You're an idiot," then you're an idiot. If you had any sense and character you would ignore it and continue with the debate; by not ignoring you are forcing disapline and your beliefs on others which isn't fair. If you're truly equal then disapline should play no part in a forum designed for discussion -- as it is not discussion and just suppression. The words not even in the dictionary, it's latin and scientifically it shouldn't be used, you don't see much "Ad majorem Dei gloriam" on the boards.

If I believed that this present life were just a brief test to determine whether I would be admitted after death to another life of eternal bliss, it is inconceivable to me that I would ever commit a sin, since it would simply be foolish. Yet I hear Christians all the time say that they were 'weak' or 'tempted' on a given occasion to sin, and so did so, thus jeopardizing their own rational best interest in enjoying infinite bliss for the sake of a brief moment of trivial indiscretion. But since sane people are never tempted to bend down and touch the third rail of a subway because they are tempted by a piece of candy they spot lying there, I would assume that no sane Christian would ever be tempted to sin. Since they so often do sin, however, demonstrates that they don't really believe in the doctrine they profess.

 

Similarly, if I believed that my present life were just a brief test prior to a possibly infinite afterlife of heavenly bliss, nothing that goes wrong here could ever seriously bother me. If we were all at a giant garden party given by God, and he imposed a forfeit on someone and made him blind for the duration of the party prior to admission to Heaven at the end of the afternoon, that blindness would be no more distressing than being 'it' for a little while in a schoolyard game of tag. So the fact that Christians wail in despair when some serious but mundane tragedy ruins only this life for them makes me again suspect that they don't really believe what they profess.

 

I do imagine that Christians seriously think that they believe, but this is only because they have never seriously examined the incongruities of their behavior in the situations I have sketched above.

If I were to tell you that not all Christians or scholars of the Christian texts believed in complete spirituality, you would think I'm a fool.

If I were to tell you that the rules you follow in life are complete sin and destroy the 'eternal life' for everyone (humanity), you would think I'm a fool.

If I were to tell you that you're not an individual and by thinking that you are you admit that you are not human, you would think I'm a fool.

If I were to tell you that the current society is not 'reality' but a mere illusion, you would think I'm a fool.

Everything isn't as it seems -- the first step to being a true Christian is dividing the bible and interpreting it correctly; there are organisations that do this in secrecy, I'm one of the few that do it in public. To the government I would be considered a hate preacher, to science, a burden to advancement and to atheists I would be considered as as 'crazy schizophrenic'. It's not easy being a true Christian and it never has been since politics. What is life in these current times? I see none, I see death and destruction; and because I see that, I'm isolated as I hate it with all of my heart. I look around at my surroundings and I see nothing but profit for people who destroy the world, and nothing more than that -- so dark and dull, yet the only light I do see is Jesus.

"that my present life were just a brief test prior to a possibly infinite afterlife of heavenly bliss"

-If you believe in afterlife for purly yourself, you are being ignorant. We live between heaven and earth, and the "after-your-life" is for humanity. You may pass on, but you have the oppurtunity to save and preserve life for humanity and the world. So the breif test is for you to recognise this and you're failing miserably.

"So the fact that Christians wail in despair"

-Correct, I do wail in dispair, for humanity and not for myself. I dispise the current society and I hate the selfishness of individuals. A man went to the moon and it's an achievement for the whole of humanity -- I don't see it that way, I see it as an achievement for the individual who made it to the moon; it's doesn't relate to me in any way.

"But since sane people are never tempted to bend down and touch the third rail of a subway because they are tempted by a piece of candy they spot lying there, I would assume that no sane Christian would ever be tempted to sin"

-What would you consider sane? Only a sheep needs a shepard and the government is your shepard; so your sanity is completely controlled by their views. Getting into a car and polluting the air, tempting isn't it? Going to war in Iran to gain a hefty paycheck, tempting isn't it? To siphon the earth of the earths blood to earn billions, tempting isn't it?

There's a whole lot of sin in the world, you just need to notice it.

Christ tells us that the two greatest commandments are based on Love and that everything else stems from it.

 

 

Mt 22:36-40 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, " `YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

 

 

So - My question is, can we, as Catholics and as Christians, trace every rule back to this "rule of Love"?

 

Can you think of any rule that is not traceable to the "Law of Love"?

The message of God was clear from the beginning "Love," it has not changed since those ages to the present; the only factor that has undergone transformation is the interpretation of the word. Not one day has passed since those times, the planet has just rotated and with it our beliefs -- through politics, forced morality and media we've been taught a new kind of "Love", which in itself is completely different. Jesus was the first teacher who brought us out of the animal kingdom and gave us the knowledge to be what we are today, the way he had interpreted nature was very basic and true, as appose to the view of nature in modern times, which is false. We were taught to look after and nurture our surroundings and our neighbors, and to worship the essense of time (the essense of existence); to be thankful for the gift of life we were given and not to abolish and destroy it.

The "Law of Love," how would you interpret it? That is the question. It's not the word that you should follow, it is your heart. If being truly humain is a task for anyone then they cannot utter the words "I am Human," for they are not. If you forget about the past to simply progress with the present then you are not part of humanity. Jesus was very wise and honest, and because of this he was crucified by the Jewish as they believed they were the master race, above God and above Jesus -- most of all the controllers of time, the ones who would make decisions for the majority, no matter how evil the choices were; power and greed drove them forward and in the end they proceeded, living their lives to the full and forgetting about all the deceased behind them.

"YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND."

This is not a commandment, this is the truth. You will love the essense of time with your heart, your soul and all your mind. You will mimic and follow it.

"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

Once taking us from the animal kingdom and opening our eyes, are neighbors were also our 'friends'. This promoted 'friendship', and it is a type of humain love.

The mind is the message. When you think, you are using the gift given to us by Jesus - if it wasn't for him you would live purely on instinct like every other species on the planet. We, as humanity, are in Gods image which means we all move together and as one, alike the essense of time. Not one of us is independant, it's just an illusion.

It's just explaining how sex is a small orgasm compared to other things, and how we exchange our horniness into godliness (which is why we act, move, search the way we do). A friend wrote it, I thought science might be interested.

No problem.

"A orgasm does not mean ejaculating semen, it means a way to achieve great pleasure. Society views sex as the greatest pleasure that one can achieve in life. The truth is that a human body can achieve orgasms that's a thousand times better than sex. Mass genocide is one way to achieve an orgasm, unfortunately not everyone enjoys murder. Cultivating qi (energy) in the body can form a orgasm so powerful that will make you feel like a juggernaut. Meditation is another way to achieve pleasure. Sadly, ninety nine percent of people on this planet are lazy and useless, they continue to cling to sexual acts. Sex is for children, we refrain ejaculating semen like a man child. We know that semen is very nutritious when eaten. Scientific proof shows that if one man refrains from ejaculating semen he will live a long life with health benefits. Studies also prove that women who eat semen everyday will become a powerful vampire that she has stole all the life benefits from her partners. You thought feeling good comes without a price? Think again son, we use our sexual energy as a weapon. How? Easy, we convert our horniness into godliness."

Isn't most evidence gained in science dependent on laws that are not proven to be 100% correct, only ~to the best of our knowledge~, used because they work, and therefore arbitrary? Aren't scientists under the influence of everyone being "a human" rather than just "human" and part of humanity? I'm completely sure that the bible explains quite well that we are in Gods image; and when it says "we" it means: humanity. I think you may have mistaken what exactly the bible explains; for scientists you seem to interpret it pretty unscientifically. I for one, being a Christian Scientist know exactly what the message is, and a few of my collegues can read hebrew fluently. I'm not too sure whether you realize that the hebrew bible is nothing but computer code (I don't think you do, do you?). If things in the bible can be interpreted into real life, then the chances of an ~element~ in life being God is extremely high. As humanity we live between heaven and earth, and we create our own hell through the means of atheism, destroying nature, ignorance, etc etc.

We have the choice of eternal life for humanity, through the means of ~nurturing nature~; or we can simply (sinfully) use up humanity's time now for ourselves, by simply being athiests and believing individually we are more important than the bigger picture -- this is simple stuff people... In years to come due to our own selfishness the earth will be unhabitable, and humanity will cease to exist, or live in hell-like surroundings. For those of you believing in terraforming another planet, it will never happen; the earth has less than 100 years to go at this rate, and that is the honest truth. There are so many ways for it to end it's unbelievable, you just got to look at the cards we've been dealt and estimate the chances.

some science/scriptures

What if you were using the incorrect mathematics? Examples being: base 4 or base 7. Although every base is base 10, or 1, 0. We may have got it all wrong. It could literally be: 1,2,3,10,11,12,13,20, etc. If that was the case you would be using a flawed system and your measurement/theory would be fasified. So it's not proven, it's accepted as truth.

Well, it's too bad you think that, because you are wrong. Density is a mathematical concept, and mathematical concepts can be proven using just math. I disproved you by example.