Lies, Cons,and the American Way

[Age]

But lying is not acceptable when the Truth can be used. The Truth can ALWAYS be used, if 'It' had been, then there would NOT 'now' be human beings wanting to hurt, harm, nor damage "other" human beings.

WOW.

That is brilliant. The first half is God-like perspective. The second half is duality as intended by design, by design because love is the meaning and purpose of duality*, and duality is our best mode of survival for the form. If the little foetuses lived in duality, they would be fighting like hell to survive and would probably have designed a form of biological blackmail just to keep developing**.

However, to behave Godlike and speak the truth that will kill your loved ones?

WHY write a sentence/statement here, but put a question mark on the end of 'it'?

Also, who and/or what is NOT a 'loved one' of thee One who IS God, or of the one who is 'behaving' God-like?

Speaking the Truth, Itself, will NEVER kill a 'loved one', that is; ANY and EVERY one.

However, what a human being DECIDES to do WITH 'the Truth' is ANOTHER 'thing'.

WHAT 'truth' are you talking ABOUT here, 'that will kill your loved one', exactly?

The implications of such God-like judgement may just hush you up if you have an ounce of foresight.

I do NOT KNOW what you are talking ABOUT nor referring TO here, "walker".

I also do NOT even KNOW WHERE to BEGIN to ASK FOR CLARITY, or ELABORATION.

* For species propagation.
** Many saints whose duty to God is evangelical move through the world with security, in order to keep moving through the world, as many can understand in light of recent events.

[Walker]

WHAT 'truth' are you talking ABOUT here, 'that will kill your loved one', exactly?

The truth is what you, Age, foresee the Gestapo will do to your loved ones, Age, your loved ones if you don't tell the Gestapo where the Jews are hiding, because the Gestapo has told you, Age, what they will do to your loved ones if you don't tell them, or if they find out that you knew where they were hiding and you didn't tell them, and because you have no reason to doubt that they will do that to your loved ones, make you watch them do it, and then do that to you.

WHY write a sentence/statement here, but put a question mark on the end of 'it'?

To emphasize the distinction between the talk and the walk via your inference that would reveal to you the truth of what was not written.

Speaking the Truth, Itself, will NEVER kill a 'loved one', that is; ANY and EVERY one.

Speaking the Truth has the potential to set in motion an inevitable chain of events leading to the type of disaster already described.

Also, who and/or what is NOT a 'loved one' of thee One who IS God, or of the one who is 'behaving' God-like?

One who God would cast into hell.

However, what a human being DECIDES to do WITH 'the Truth' is ANOTHER 'thing'.

So true. In the Gestapo example, the Gestapo human beings decide to threaten to kill your loved ones, and with their meticulous records and unforgiving nature, you know they will track you down and do it, unless you have the guts to change and get of of Dodge ... as Israel warned those who allowed Hamas into their country, to do.

[Immanuel Can]

What sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

You mean, "Does an in utero human being have a nature disposed to sin?"

Just wait. Ask that question again during "the terrible twos."

That reminds me of what I saw one the grandkids do. He was two at the time, but almost three. I saw what he did, and it wasn't nice. I was a witness, not involved so I did nothing, said nothing, but he saw the disapproval on my face. He turned to face me from about eight feet away and yelled, "No!" then he ran out of the room. After that he had his eye on me for awhile, until he forgot. Bold little fella.

No is the first word they use to control their world. They need develop a bit more to control with yes.

Yes, nobody seems to have to teach them how to defy their parents, hit their sisters, throw temper tantrums or be sneaky and try to hide from others what they have done. For sure, no parent wants to see them behave like that. Yet somehow, they all know how to do it anyway.

IC, is not a human in any stage of development subject to acts of future sin?

Well, I think there's two issues: one, what I've done, and two, why I'm the kind of person who wants to do that kind of thing. The first is only about doing; but the second is about being.

We're all sinners both by action and by nature. And even when we haven't had the opportunity to do much, we sure have the inclination to do it. Like the two-year-old who has never been taught to yell "No," we all are primed and ready to defy God by nature. And God, who has perfect knowledge of all possibilities and is not bound by time, knows not just what we've already done but what we're going to do as well, and all the possibilities our future choices could lead to. That's how the Bible portrays the situation.

So you're somewhere in the ballpark, for sure, when you say:

Any manifesting egg in the dualistic world of change is subject to worldly corruption leading to decay, and the forgiveness of future sin for that egg's future form,

The human being, in all his or her phases of being, is a being with a sin-nature. That sin may not yet have been actualized, but we're in linear time, and God is not. God knows all the choices that in utero person will freely make, all the way into the future, and all the possibilities those choices could even potentially issue in.

So God alone has the right position from which to judge; which is precisely, I think, why human beings are forbidden to interpose themselves as judges. We don't know all the features of the nature and all the choices and possible choices of others. We don't even know all the factors in play in a given situation. So for us to judge is entirely inappropriate: we're bound to be wrong. But for God to judge is perfectly right, and so He alone is fit to do it.

As mere human beings, limited by time, space and mortality, our personal ability to judge others is strictly limited. It is confined to what God has already judged. In that, we are not only free to agree with Him, but should. But on all matters where God has not yet judged, we ought to reserve out own judgment...save in the case of ourselves. For we bear a continual responsibility to judge our own behavior and inclinations, for we also know them.

So what can we say about the in utero person? Not much. We lack the means to judge their personal moral condition, and have no insight to their future. But we do know that they are human, and that they have potential to be everything we are, and that they are not our property to play around with or murder; they, like we, have a Judge who alone can say the worth of their lives. And woe to us if we interfere.

[Immanuel Can]

...what sin is a fertilised egg guilty of?

An in utero human being. We don't agree on how the person in question should be characterized. We're certainly not going to agree, then, on the moral status of that person.

Why should potential disagreement prevent you from making your case?

If we don't agree on the entity with which we are dealing, the moral waters get too cloudy. I can make my case, but I also have to understand that you'll reject it at the first premise -- because what is reasonable to do with, say, something we identify only as a "cluster of cells" or "egg," is quite different from what we identify as a person.

Persons are bearers of rights; objects are not.

[FlashDangerpants]

An in utero human being. We don't agree on how the person in question should be characterized. We're certainly not going to agree, then, on the moral status of that person.

Why should potential disagreement prevent you from making your case?

If we don't agree on the entity with which we are dealing, the moral waters get too cloudy.

In the past I've seen you insist that everyone who views abortion as anything other than murder knows they are wrong. You seem to have adjusted your position now?

[Immanuel Can]

Why should potential disagreement prevent you from making your case?

If we don't agree on the entity with which we are dealing, the moral waters get too cloudy.

In the past I've seen you insist that everyone who views abortion as anything other than murder knows they are wrong. You seem to have adjusted your position now?

No. They know. But some won't say, and will use it as an excuse to deny the first premise of any defense-of-life for children. There's no future in an argument with somebody who's being that dishonest.

And there's no future in an argument with anybody who's COMMITTED an abortion, either-- because they have absolutely no incentive ever to admit to themselves, under any circumstances, that what they have actually done is murdered their own child. They'll never grant you that, no matter what; but it's not because they haven't done it, but because they cannot stand to admit the truth to themselves, so you'll never ever get them to agree. It would take too much honesty, and it would be too painful for them ever to recognize.

But we digress...

[FlashDangerpants]

If we don't agree on the entity with which we are dealing, the moral waters get too cloudy.

In the past I've seen you insist that everyone who views abortion as anything other than murder knows they are wrong. You seem to have adjusted your position now?

No. They know. But some won't say, and will use it as an excuse to deny the first premise of any defense-of-life for children. There's no future in an argument with somebody who's being that dishonest.

And there's no future in an argument with anybody who's COMMITTED an abortion, either-- because they have absolutely no incentive ever to admit to themselves, under any circumstances, that what they have actually done is murdered their own child. They'll never grant you that, no matter what; but it's not because they haven't done it, but because they cannot stand to admit the truth to themselves, so you'll never ever get them to agree. It would take too much honesty, and it would be too painful for them ever to recognize.

But we digress...

That all contradicts this though...

An in utero human being. We don't agree on how the person in question should be characterized. We're certainly not going to agree, then, on the moral status of that person.

Why should potential disagreement prevent you from making your case?

If we don't agree on the entity with which we are dealing, the moral waters get too cloudy. I can make my case, but I also have to understand that you'll reject it at the first premise -- because what is reasonable to do with, say, something we identify only as a "cluster of cells" or "egg," is quite different from what we identify as a person.

Persons are bearers of rights; objects are not.

So which post did you mean?

[Immanuel Can]

That all contradicts this though...

No, it doesn't. But I know you're just trolling, so there's no point in pointing out the obvious.

[FlashDangerpants]

because what is reasonable to do with, say, something we identify only as a "cluster of cells" or "egg,"

what they have actually done is murdered their own child

In the one post you allowed that people can see the same evidence as you and draw a different conclusion.
In the other you revert to your fanatical mean in which nobody can disagree with you without knowing that you are right and we are evil.

[promethean75]

... smiled, then patted me like I was a dog. Extraordinary behavior for a toddler."

Has the kiddo been around people patting dogs or has he seen people patting dogs on TV recently?

If so, and he's mimicking behaviors he's seen, note that he doesn't pat a table or some other inanimate object. Only a Walker. He recognizes the communicative nature of the gesture and knows not to try and communicate with a table.

But why should the fact that he's seen people pet dogs mean that u wouldn't pet a table or a vacuum? How does he 'intuit' the intrinsically social purpose of the gesture and know how to do it correctly and meaningfully? Especially at that age. This is some kind of strange Chomskyean innate language capacity, some kind of hard wiring thing.

Without some deeper understanding of what is happening when a person pets a dog, the object dog and the petting are arbitrary. U could pet the refrigerator and the kid shouldn't be able to say 'hey, you're only supposed to pet dogs'.

[Walker]

I got it figured out, but thanks.

[Walker]

Here's a True American Way Story for dissection, seeing as what you get of loved ones is what I offer, no offense.

The workers had thirty working days to prove themselves. If hired, they had security. They could earn enough money to live a somewhat comfortable life, especially if the wife worked. They had a pension fund. They had protection from a union. Some of them had little education by today's standards, so the job was a valuable thing to have ... and we had to sort out who was not deserving of such opportunity. Our instructions were to approve of only the best, and we were given tactics to stress the men, to push them a bit and assess their reaction to use in the evaluation.

This is how it goes in the capitalist world where you must produce, and it's not who you know or blow that gets you ahead, like in those commie countries, although the times they are a changin'.

[Age]

WHAT 'truth' are you talking ABOUT here, 'that will kill your loved one', exactly?

The truth is what you, Age, foresee the Gestapo will do to your loved ones, Age, your loved ones if you don't tell the Gestapo where the Jews are hiding,

you appear to have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED the POINT here. I asked the question, 'Why not just tell the Truth, instead, to protect a friend, or to a group of human beings looking for another group of human beings?'

I now AWAIT AN ANSWER.

I can tell the human beings, in the so-called "gestapo" group, the Truth and still protect the human beings, in the so-called "jewish" group.

What part of 'this' are you NOT UNDERSTANDING?

because the Gestapo has told you, Age, what they will do to your loved ones if you don't tell them, or if they find out that you knew where they were hiding and you didn't tell them, and because you have no reason to doubt that they will do that to your loved ones, make you watch them do it, and then do that to you.

ONCE AGAIN, your MADE UP scenario here is NOT proving ANY thing AT ALL.

By the way, what could I 'foresee' in 'your' MADE UP scenario "walker"?

WHY write a sentence/statement here, but put a question mark on the end of 'it'?

To emphasize the distinction between the talk and the walk via your inference that would reveal to you the truth of what was not written.

What was, supposedly, NOT WRITTEN?

Putting a question mark at the end of a sentence does NOT necessarily emphasize ANY distinction. I suggest if you want to EMPHASIZE some DISTINCTION, then you just SAY or WRITE the ACTUAL DISTINCTION, INSTEAD.

Speaking the Truth, Itself, will NEVER kill a 'loved one', that is; ANY and EVERY one.

Speaking the Truth has the potential to set in motion an inevitable chain of events leading to the type of disaster already described.

LOL WHAT supposed so-called 'disaster' are you talking ABOUT and referring TO here, exactly?

And, ONCE AGAIN, speaking the Truth, Itself, NEVER kills ANY one. What 'you', adult human beings, however do WITH the Truth is ANOTHER 'thing'.

Also, if the Truth, the whole Truth, and ONLY the Truth had been spoken, from 'the beginning', then there would NOT 'now' be ANY group of 'you' human beings WANTING TO KILL another group of 'you' human beings.

Also, who and/or what is NOT a 'loved one' of thee One who IS God, or of the one who is 'behaving' God-like?

One who God would cast into hell.

LOL
LOL
LOL

God does NOT, NEVER would, and NEVER will, cast one into hell.

What the ACTUAL Truth here IS, EXACTLY, is VERY DIFFERENT FROM what 'you', human beings, imagine or believe 'It' is, in the days when this is being written.

AND, while 'you' NEVER SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION 'you' will ALSO NEVER come-to-KNOW what the ACTUAL Truth IS here, EXACTLY.

However, what a human being DECIDES to do WITH 'the Truth' is ANOTHER 'thing'.

So true. In the Gestapo example, the Gestapo human beings decide to threaten to kill your loved ones,

WHY do 'you' USE the words 'loved ones'?

'you', OBVIOUSLY, have STILL MISSED the POINT ABOUT WHO, EXACTLY, ARE My 'loved ones'.

'you' REALLY NEED TO GET THE Facts SHORTED OUT FIRST, BEFORE 'you' MAKE ASSUMPTIONS and JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS here "walker".

and with their meticulous records and unforgiving nature, you know they will track you down and do it, unless you have the guts to change and get of of Dodge

1. What are you ON ABOUT here "walker"? WHAT is 'to change' in relation TO, EXACTLY? WHY do I NEED the so-called 'guts' 'to change'? AND, what IS a so-called "Dodge"?

2. IF I, supposedly, KNOW that 'they' WILL 'track me down', then what would 'lying' or 'telling the truth' here MATTER? And, HOW do I KNOW, EXACTLY, that 'they' WILL 'track me down'?

3. What are the words 'do it' in relation TO here, EXACTLY? And, let us NOT FORGET,

4. Why not just tell the Truth, instead, to protect a friend, or to a group of human beings looking for another group of human beings?

... as Israel warned those who allowed Hamas into their country, to do.

What do you mean by, 'as "israel" warned those who allowed "hamas" into 'their country'?

Human beings WERE living IN a 'now', IMAGINED, bordered off and separated 'parcel of earth' that some call "israel", LONG BEFORE 'an area' of earth was even called "israel".

[Age]

You mean, "Does an in utero human being have a nature disposed to sin?"

Just wait. Ask that question again during "the terrible twos."

That reminds me of what I saw one the grandkids do. He was two at the time, but almost three. I saw what he did, and it wasn't nice. I was a witness, not involved so I did nothing, said nothing, but he saw the disapproval on my face. He turned to face me from about eight feet away and yelled, "No!" then he ran out of the room. After that he had his eye on me for awhile, until he forgot. Bold little fella.

No is the first word they use to control their world. They need develop a bit more to control with yes.

Yes, nobody seems to have to teach them how to defy their parents, hit their sisters, throw temper tantrums or be sneaky and try to hide from others what they have done. For sure, no parent wants to see them behave like that. Yet somehow, they all know how to do it anyway.

Here we can CLEARLY SEE an example of one who has been brought up with so-called "christian" teachings.

'They' end up BLAMING 'children' and NOT taking RESPONSIBILITY "themselves".

BACK in the days when this was being written, those who ended up being the MOST 'judgmental' were the LEAST 'responsible' as well as causing the MOST 'harm', and the MOST 'damage'.

IC, is not a human in any stage of development subject to acts of future sin?

Well, I think there's two issues: one, what I've done, and two, why I'm the kind of person who wants to do that kind of thing. The first is only about doing; but the second is about being.

We're all sinners both by action and by nature.

Talk ABOUT providing a GREAT example OF 'lies' AND 'cons'. This CLAIM here is ALSO one of the greatest EXCUSES for 'one's" 'self' DOING Wrong.

As soon as someone POINTS OUT WHEN "Immanuel can" does Wrong, THEN 'that wrong' is BECAUSE 'we are ALL, supposedly, 'natural sinners'.

BUT, as can be CLEARLY SEEN above here is this 'same one' lays BLAME ON even very young children FOR when 'they' are, supposedly, 'doing WRONG.

The HYPOCRISY here is ABSOLUTELY BLINDING, and DEAFENING. YET, 'these people' could NOT even SEE, NOR HEAR the HYPOCRISY, and CONTRADICTION.

This is ENOUGH for 'now'.

And even when we haven't had the opportunity to do much, we sure have the inclination to do it. Like the two-year-old who has never been taught to yell "No," we all are primed and ready to defy God by nature. And God, who has perfect knowledge of all possibilities and is not bound by time, knows not just what we've already done but what we're going to do as well, and all the possibilities our future choices could lead to. That's how the Bible portrays the situation.

So you're somewhere in the ballpark, for sure, when you say:

Any manifesting egg in the dualistic world of change is subject to worldly corruption leading to decay, and the forgiveness of future sin for that egg's future form,

The human being, in all his or her phases of being, is a being with a sin-nature. That sin may not yet have been actualized, but we're in linear time, and God is not. God knows all the choices that in utero person will freely make, all the way into the future, and all the possibilities those choices could even potentially issue in.

So God alone has the right position from which to judge; which is precisely, I think, why human beings are forbidden to interpose themselves as judges. We don't know all the features of the nature and all the choices and possible choices of others. We don't even know all the factors in play in a given situation. So for us to judge is entirely inappropriate: we're bound to be wrong. But for God to judge is perfectly right, and so He alone is fit to do it.

As mere human beings, limited by time, space and mortality, our personal ability to judge others is strictly limited. It is confined to what God has already judged. In that, we are not only free to agree with Him, but should. But on all matters where God has not yet judged, we ought to reserve out own judgment...save in the case of ourselves. For we bear a continual responsibility to judge our own behavior and inclinations, for we also know them.

So what can we say about the in utero person? Not much. We lack the means to judge their personal moral condition, and have no insight to their future. But we do know that they are human, and that they have potential to be everything we are, and that they are not our property to play around with or murder; they, like we, have a Judge who alone can say the worth of their lives. And woe to us if we interfere.

[Age]

An in utero human being. We don't agree on how the person in question should be characterized. We're certainly not going to agree, then, on the moral status of that person.

Why should potential disagreement prevent you from making your case?

If we don't agree on the entity with which we are dealing, the moral waters get too cloudy.

ONCE MORE, 'you' have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED the POINT here "Immanuel can".

If 'you' want to MAKE A CLAIM here, then it does NOT matter how MANY people DISAGREE WITH 'you', this in NO WAY STOPS nor PREVENTS 'you' FROM MAKING A CASE, for 'your' CLAIM.

In other words, if people DISAGREE WITH your view, then this is NO reason to NOT trying to back up and support, (make your case), FOR your claim, belief, or view.

I can make my case, but I also have to understand that you'll reject it at the first premise -- because what is reasonable to do with, say, something we identify only as a "cluster of cells" or "egg," is quite different from what we identify as a person.

PRESUMING 'your case' WILL FAIL, from the outset, could imply just how USELESS, False, Wrong, or Incorrect 'your first so-called premise' is ANYWAY.

OBVIOUSLY, if 'your' 'first premise' was IRREFUTABLE, then 'it' could NOT be 'rejected' by ANY one.

Persons are bearers of rights; objects are not.

And WHO made up 'this rule/law'?

Would I be Wrong in GUESSING 'you' would SAY and CLAIM, a 'person', itself?