[T]hey means of preserving the faith under the science of gods as information, is that while protocol is behavior, and the transmission between people (nodes, modules) is slow (in itself a survival technique), it is possible that the host (body of the faithful) functions as a collectively subconscious organism, and that given synchronicity, we all operate as if there were a physical connection, when in fact, the only connection is the information we are subject to by our sense, perception, auto-association. This provides a rational and scientific explanation for why religion does work despite the pantheon of grammars we express it in. It explains the value of Jesus and nature for the submissive (uncompetitive) and the traditional(dominant, competitive) european gods as dominance expression. This ends the problem of the multiplicity of conflicting gods, and the evident and undeniable failure of gods in all material things, and that god created the universe, but leaves the rest of theology intact. So this leaves us with a scientific view of every religion that does not seek to dominate any other religion, and falsifies every religion that does seek to dominate other religions. Furthermore, it explains the western pantheon of scientific, normative-legal, ideal philosophical and theological grammars as satisfying the language of each group of ‘gods’ in our pantheon. If you pray to your god, talk to your god, or think in the language of your deity, or your deism, you will participate in the construction of that ‘will’.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Science Preserving Faith
[T]hey means of preserving the faith under the science of gods as information, is that while protocol is behavior, and the transmission between people (nodes, modules) is slow (in itself a survival technique), it is possible that the host (body of the faithful) functions as a collectively subconscious organism, and that given synchronicity, we all operate as if there were a physical connection, when in fact, the only connection is the information we are subject to by our sense, perception, auto-association. This provides a rational and scientific explanation for why religion does work despite the pantheon of grammars we express it in. It explains the value of Jesus and nature for the submissive (uncompetitive) and the traditional(dominant, competitive) european gods as dominance expression. This ends the problem of the multiplicity of conflicting gods, and the evident and undeniable failure of gods in all material things, and that god created the universe, but leaves the rest of theology intact. So this leaves us with a scientific view of every religion that does not seek to dominate any other religion, and falsifies every religion that does seek to dominate other religions. Furthermore, it explains the western pantheon of scientific, normative-legal, ideal philosophical and theological grammars as satisfying the language of each group of ‘gods’ in our pantheon. If you pray to your god, talk to your god, or think in the language of your deity, or your deism, you will participate in the construction of that ‘will’.
-
TESTIMONY: “I had given up…”
by Robby Thorne [I] had given up on saving Western Civilization until I found you. Because of you, I’ve gotten off the couch, away from the TV, and spend my days coordinating 2A events. Last night while I was at work, people from our small militia, basically strong armed a small town to go 2A. Still, I had a hand in it. This morning I’m in my car in the cold, waiting to see if I have motivated people in my community to get some exercise. So rather than cuss you for putting me to work, I think you for giving me something worthwhile to do, and giving me hope for the future. You might not see the fruits of your labor, but I’m starting to pick apples here in VA. You really are my hero Curt. Have a great day my friend.
-
TESTIMONY: “I had given up…”
by Robby Thorne [I] had given up on saving Western Civilization until I found you. Because of you, I’ve gotten off the couch, away from the TV, and spend my days coordinating 2A events. Last night while I was at work, people from our small militia, basically strong armed a small town to go 2A. Still, I had a hand in it. This morning I’m in my car in the cold, waiting to see if I have motivated people in my community to get some exercise. So rather than cuss you for putting me to work, I think you for giving me something worthwhile to do, and giving me hope for the future. You might not see the fruits of your labor, but I’m starting to pick apples here in VA. You really are my hero Curt. Have a great day my friend.
-
Testimony (P and Contingency)
by Robert Danis [W]hat I like most about your writings for P is that your breaking it down into the smallest possible component. Most people try to take a something as a whole and you can’t – you have to break it down into components.
===IMPORTANT== 1. Continuous recursive disambiguation 2. Convert all speech to transactions stated in a series of subjectively (humanly) testable operations. Meaning: first causes. 😉 And as first causes, there are no contingent premises. And as non-contingent P is closed to deception by suggestion that is dependent upon ambiguity and contingency. This is why P defeats set logic – which is forever contingent.
-
Testimony (P and Contingency)
by Robert Danis [W]hat I like most about your writings for P is that your breaking it down into the smallest possible component. Most people try to take a something as a whole and you can’t – you have to break it down into components.
===IMPORTANT== 1. Continuous recursive disambiguation 2. Convert all speech to transactions stated in a series of subjectively (humanly) testable operations. Meaning: first causes. 😉 And as first causes, there are no contingent premises. And as non-contingent P is closed to deception by suggestion that is dependent upon ambiguity and contingency. This is why P defeats set logic – which is forever contingent.
-
Recent: Inalienability
Recent Work: Most of my offline work tries to solve inalienability under sovereignty. inalienation: “You cannot surrender your rights without surrendering your sovereignty and thereby defecting from and committing treason against your peers.” The more I learned P the angrier I became at the postwar jewish invasion of western thought. But the more I understand our original group strategy and our law, the more complete it is and the more ELEGANT it is as an extension of the laws of nature – rather than one that seeks to deceive men.
-
Recent: Inalienability
Recent Work: Most of my offline work tries to solve inalienability under sovereignty. inalienation: “You cannot surrender your rights without surrendering your sovereignty and thereby defecting from and committing treason against your peers.” The more I learned P the angrier I became at the postwar jewish invasion of western thought. But the more I understand our original group strategy and our law, the more complete it is and the more ELEGANT it is as an extension of the laws of nature – rather than one that seeks to deceive men.
-
More Accurately Described as Spectra
by Luke Weinhagen [I] view freedom, liberty and sovereignty in general as concepts more accurately described as spectra than as binaries – (https://www.facebook.com/luke.weinhagen/posts/10218951102141226) – as every individual has varying access to each of these within any of the limitless interactions we can exercise them, but I agree with the conclusion. We all have limits. These limits make cooperation valuable. We exceed our individual limits for freedom and liberty through cooperation with others. In doing so we insure each other’s sovereignty. Where we fail to do so we are at the mercy of, are slaves to, the forces imposing those limits.
re: Curt Doolittle February 21 at 11:29 AM You are sovereign in fact or you are not. You have liberty or freedom by permission. If you must ask permission you are a slave.
-
More Accurately Described as Spectra
by Luke Weinhagen [I] view freedom, liberty and sovereignty in general as concepts more accurately described as spectra than as binaries – (https://www.facebook.com/luke.weinhagen/posts/10218951102141226) – as every individual has varying access to each of these within any of the limitless interactions we can exercise them, but I agree with the conclusion. We all have limits. These limits make cooperation valuable. We exceed our individual limits for freedom and liberty through cooperation with others. In doing so we insure each other’s sovereignty. Where we fail to do so we are at the mercy of, are slaves to, the forces imposing those limits.
re: Curt Doolittle February 21 at 11:29 AM You are sovereign in fact or you are not. You have liberty or freedom by permission. If you must ask permission you are a slave.