Why are we here on a philosophy forum?

[Age]

PS - Regarding understanding the nature of reality. The intricacies of logic placed within this common protocol is a reasonable place to start..

For example:-
Why do we walk on our souls? Why is heal so close to our soul?

When one is en-light-ened, then they are, literally, up-lifted up off of the ground and on the wall the king is on. Wal.king in Spirit. Walking on our souls is walking with the Spirit, weightless and free. The weight has been lifted off our soles and into our spiritual Soul.

Why is heel so close to our sole? Why do we walk on our soles?

When one knows WHY they are down, and weighted down, with sickness, then they KNOW how to prevent from being sick ever again. The spiritual up-lifting again, gained from this knowledge, allows that one to be able to walk again sky high in the knowledge that healing for ALL will soon begin also. With ALL walking, with wings, on their souls with the king of them ALL.

Actually, it was rhetorical questioning.

Okay, fair enough. But if I see a comment with or without a question mark, then without asking a clarifying question if they want it answered or not, I tend to, if I want to, just answer them anyway, from my perspective.

Have you ever seen that picture where there are two people's footprints in the sand, and then there is only one set of footprints...I saw it years (B4 I comprehended the entity) ago on a friends parents wall, when I was a kid...it had a caption something like - 'why lord when my times were troubled did you leave me?' and the lords answer was 'I did not leave you, where you see a single set of footprints, is where I carried you.'

No.

Over the years that I have known this entity - and through its tests...I came to real eyes, that in fact, in those terrible times where the entity was testing me, and I was troubled - sure there were a single set of footprints...because the c^nt was now weighing me down on my back.

How can a weightless entity supposedly weigh you down?

You have no true comprehension of this entity - and certainly do not know how to delve into the English language where the sages have laid their messages...sawwy.

Ok. Just to see if I have read you correctly, you can have and in fact do have true comprehension of "this" entity but I have NO true comprehension of this entity? Is this about correct?

Also, I certainly do NOT know how to delve in the english languages where the sages have laid their messages, but you can delve and can actually see these messages? Is this about correct?

If the answer to either or both is yes, then WHY do you propose that is?

[Age]

"You" must be a very smart person, from what you have made clear and informed us all of here. Congratulations.

What am I being congratulated for exactly?

For being as smart as you like us to be made aware of.

[Logik]

"You" must be a very smart person, from what you have made clear and informed us all of here. Congratulations.

What am I being congratulated for exactly?

For being as smart as you like us to be made aware of.

Being able to see errors in reasoning is "being smart"?

OK...

I just have a lot of practice. Nothing "smart" about it.

[Age]

What am I being congratulated for exactly?

For being as smart as you like us to be made aware of.

Being able to see errors in reasoning is "being smart"?

OK...

I just have a lot of practice. Nothing "smart" about it.

Your completely off-track question, and your following two completely WRONGLY made up ASSUMPTIONS and responses have NOTHING at all to do with what I was talking about. It is a pity that you have MISSED that completely.

This could have some thing to do with "trees getting in the way of the forest", or maybe "the forest getting in the way of the tree"?

If you would like to make comments/regards to what I was actually saying, then proceed, and then we can discuss far deeper and in far more greater detail also if you like.

[Logik]

Your completely off-track question, and your following two completely WRONGLY made up ASSUMPTIONS and responses have NOTHING at all to do with what I was talking about. It is a pity that you have MISSED that completely.

This could have some thing to do with "trees getting in the way of the forest", or maybe "the forest getting in the way of the tree"?

If you would like to make comments/regards to what I was actually saying, then proceed, and then we can discuss far deeper and in far more greater detail also if you like.

Look.

You called me "smart". I told you that i am not "smart".

I called you "human". You said you aren't human.

I guess you have beliefs, huh ?

You believe that I am smart.

[attofishpi]

The nature of that Entity is in two parts/senses.
In the spiritual sense that Entity is the one and only OPEN Mind, Itself, which is what has allowed human beings to have imagined, and then create, ALL of what they have.

By that statement, you must incur that humans have created our reality.

WHY did you come to that conclusion? In other words what ASSUMPTION were you making to arrive at this wrong conclusion?

I am not sure whether English is your second language, but I made no ASSUMPTION.
You stated:- which is what has allowed human beings to have imagined, and then create, ALL of what they have.
Ergo, by stating humans have created ALL that they have, you are stating humans have created ALL reality.

Certainly - reality, which I know is a construct of this 'God'\3rd party intelligence can be seen, but what any theist tends to fail to comprehend, is that it is also a key component of our consciousness, in that it knows every thought that passes through ones mind, it can force a thought to ones mind...in fact, if it decided it wanted you to go check the mail, you will do so, without even realising that it was not of your own will.

Of course what is constructed, by intelligence, into physical matter can be seen, by the physical eyes. But what can NOT be seen by the physical eyes is the 'invisible intelligence', which has created physical "things". Although this can be SEEN/UNDERSTOOD, by the very thing that can NOT be seen, by the physical eyes. The invisible intelligence, within ALL, is what can SEE and UNDERSTAND ALL things. This is what KNOWS the Truth of ALL things.

Constructed is past tense (a tad biblical) - whereas, I use the term:- 'reality is the 3rd parties construct' - implying reality is an ongoing process that is required for us to perceive our reality.

Also, if one is going to use words like "one's mind" I am going to ask them to provide clarity on what IS "it" exactly that they are referring to?

Do you have a mind?

IT can ensure destiny.

IT already HAS ensured destiny. Destiny HAS been CREATED, and been ful(ly)filled.

NO, it hasn't. You cannot use past tense to describe the future. Man for the most part has free will - otherwise why would our reality contain 10 commandments from 'IT'
Funny how some people talk bollocks in an attempt to sound enlightened.

When one is en-light-ened, then they are, literally, up-lifted up off of the ground and on the wall the king is on. Wal.king in Spirit. Walking on our souls is walking with the Spirit, weightless and free. The weight has been lifted off our soles and into our spiritual Soul.
When one knows WHY they are down, and weighted down, with sickness, then they KNOW how to prevent from being sick ever again. The spiritual up-lifting again, gained from this knowledge, allows that one to be able to walk again sky high in the knowledge that healing for ALL will soon begin also. With ALL walking, with wings, on their souls with the king of them ALL.

Actually, it was rhetorical questioning.

Okay, fair enough. But if I see a comment with or without a question mark, then without asking a clarifying question if they want it answered or not, I tend to, if I want to, just answer them anyway, from my perspective.

Have you ever seen that picture where there are two people's footprints in the sand, and then there is only one set of footprints...I saw it years (B4 I comprehended the entity) ago on a friends parents wall, when I was a kid...it had a caption something like - 'why lord when my times were troubled did you leave me?' and the lords answer was 'I did not leave you, where you see a single set of footprints, is where I carried you.'

No.

Over the years that I have known this entity - and through its tests...I came to real eyes, that in fact, in those terrible times where the entity was testing me, and I was troubled - sure there were a single set of footprints...because the c^nt was now weighing me down on my back.

How can a weightless entity supposedly weigh you down?

Err...all of it was a metaphor, please don't attempt to take such things literally.

You have no true comprehension of this entity - and certainly do not know how to delve into the English language where the sages have laid their messages...sawwy.

Ok. Just to see if I have read you correctly, you can have and in fact do have true comprehension of "this" entity but I have NO true comprehension of this entity? Is this about correct?

No. I have a great deal of understanding regarding certain 'Truths' to this entity. Thus far, I have seen little from you but wishy washy spiritual claptrap that renders you of little understanding.
And you really really do want to be perceived as 'enlightened'!

Also, I certainly do NOT know how to delve in the english languages where the sages have laid their messages, but you can delve and can actually see these messages? Is this about correct? If the answer to either or both is yes, then WHY do you propose that is?

I have been laid bared to witness God/'God' and certain amounts of its ability with regards to our reality, and its tests since 1997. In 2005 a sage introduced itself to me from the aether. The reason - perhaps because I took human life. The true reason...just a tad deeper.

[Age]

Your completely off-track question, and your following two completely WRONGLY made up ASSUMPTIONS and responses have NOTHING at all to do with what I was talking about. It is a pity that you have MISSED that completely.

This could have some thing to do with "trees getting in the way of the forest", or maybe "the forest getting in the way of the tree"?

If you would like to make comments/regards to what I was actually saying, then proceed, and then we can discuss far deeper and in far more greater detail also if you like.

Look.

You called me "smart". I told you that i am not "smart".

I called you "human". You said you aren't human.

I guess you have beliefs, huh ?

You believe that I am smart.

You guessed WRONG, again.

I was just pointing out and SHOWING what you like to portray here, in this forum.

Your words are here for ALL to LOOK AT. Therefore the Truth is also here for ALL to SEE, and UNDERSTAND.

[11011]

logik is smart, don't know if he's a genius, but above average at least

[attofishpi]

logik is smart, don't know if he's a genius, but above average at least

I agree. Just as importantly, she does a good job of staying balanced and keeping an open mind.

[Age]

By that statement, you must incur that humans have created our reality.

WHY did you come to that conclusion? In other words what ASSUMPTION were you making to arrive at this wrong conclusion?

I am not sure whether English is your second language, but I made no ASSUMPTION.
You stated:- which is what has allowed human beings to have imagined, and then create, ALL of what they have.
Ergo, by stating humans have created ALL that they have, you are stating humans have created ALL reality.

This is completely My fault because I neglected to add the word 'created' at the end.

But on deeper reflection My statement, from a particular perception, can still stand exactly how it is also.

Certainly - reality, which I know is a construct of this 'God'\3rd party intelligence can be seen, but what any theist tends to fail to comprehend, is that it is also a key component of our consciousness, in that it knows every thought that passes through ones mind, it can force a thought to ones mind...in fact, if it decided it wanted you to go check the mail, you will do so, without even realising that it was not of your own will.

Of course what is constructed, by intelligence, into physical matter can be seen, by the physical eyes. But what can NOT be seen by the physical eyes is the 'invisible intelligence', which has created physical "things". Although this can be SEEN/UNDERSTOOD, by the very thing that can NOT be seen, by the physical eyes. The invisible intelligence, within ALL, is what can SEE and UNDERSTAND ALL things. This is what KNOWS the Truth of ALL things.

Constructed is past tense (a tad biblical) - whereas, I use the term:- 'reality is the 3rd parties construct' - implying reality is an ongoing process that is required for us to perceive our reality.

WHY with the constant reference to theist, biblical, religious overtones, et cetera?

Have you missed when I have written previously about how Everything is in constant Creation, NOW?

The 'Enitity' that you are referring to is NO different than the One I talk about. The only difference between the "you" and the 'I' is I am able to define 'It'.

What are "you" referring to when "you" write "3rd parties"?
How do "you" define the phrase "3rd parties"?
Who/what is the 'entity' that you refer to?

Also, if one is going to use words like "one's mind" I am going to ask them to provide clarity on what IS "it" exactly that they are referring to?

Do you have a mind?

NO.

Now I am going to ask who/what is the "you" that is being referred to here?

When the question 'Who am 'I'?' is fully understand, then KNOWING how "you" do NOT have a mind will be fully understood also.

IT can ensure destiny.

IT already HAS ensured destiny. Destiny HAS been CREATED, and been ful(ly)filled.

NO, it hasn't. You cannot use past tense to describe the future.

Yes I can. If reality is an 'ongoing process', as you say it is, then that means Everything happens, in the, NOW. Therefore, past tense not just describes the, so called, future 'past tense' defines the future also and vice-versa. There is NO past tense in relation to the human construct of "future". 'Past tense' and 'future' are just human constructs.

Man for the most part has free will -

'Human beings' have free will/determinism EQUALLY .

otherwise why would our reality contain 10 commandments from 'IT'
Funny how some people talk bollocks in an attempt to sound enlightened.

WHAT are "you" talking about now?

Were these, so called, "commandments" given, and then shared around, by human beings?

And, what is the "bollocks talk" exactly, which you are referring to here?

Actually, it was rhetorical questioning.

Okay, fair enough. But if I see a comment with or without a question mark, then without asking a clarifying question if they want it answered or not, I tend to, if I want to, just answer them anyway, from my perspective.

Have you ever seen that picture where there are two people's footprints in the sand, and then there is only one set of footprints...I saw it years (B4 I comprehended the entity) ago on a friends parents wall, when I was a kid...it had a caption something like - 'why lord when my times were troubled did you leave me?' and the lords answer was 'I did not leave you, where you see a single set of footprints, is where I carried you.'

No.

Over the years that I have known this entity - and through its tests...I came to real eyes, that in fact, in those terrible times where the entity was testing me, and I was troubled - sure there were a single set of footprints...because the c^nt was now weighing me down on my back.

How can a weightless entity supposedly weigh you down?

Err...all of it was a metaphor, please don't attempt to take such things literally.

When talking with friends/acquaintances down at the "pub" that is one thing. But, if talking, especially on a 'philosophy' forum, without non-verbal clues, then say what you mean and mean what you say, or what is said can very easily be taken out of context or misinterpreted. (The proof of how often this happens, is in the writings, here in this forum).

Just a very short while ago you wrote: Funny how some people "talk bollocks" in an attempt to sound enlightened. But now you are suggesting that "you" talk metaphors and NOT literally.

You have no true comprehension of this entity - and certainly do not know how to delve into the English language where the sages have laid their messages...sawwy.

Ok. Just to see if I have read you correctly, you can have and in fact do have true comprehension of "this" entity but I have NO true comprehension of this entity? Is this about correct?

No. I have a great deal of understanding regarding certain 'Truths' to this entity.

Is that from "YOUR" perspective only, or from "OTHERS" also?

Also, does "YOUR" "GREAT DEAL of understanding regarding certain 'Truths' to this entity" override EVERY one else's or ANY others 'understanding of certain Truths to this Entity'?

If yes, then what are "you" judging YOUR 'understanding of certain Truths to this Entity' ON exactly? Then,
If, and when, you answer that correctly and properly, then what how can you be sure that YOUR judgments are True, Right, and Correct?

If no, then great.

Thus far, I have seen little from you but wishy washy spiritual claptrap that renders you of little understanding.

Could "you" be taking what I say out of context and/or be misinterpreting it?

And you really really do want to be perceived as 'enlightened'!

NO. Is this what "you" BELIEVE is True?

I want to learn how to communicate better, and from what you SEE or BELIEVE, from what I WRITE, SHOWS me how to IMPROVE.

Now if "you" could just explain WHY you mostly SEE "wishy washy spiritual claptrap" (whatever that is) in what I write, then I could improve on communicating much more.

Do "you" perceive that 'I' am of some religious following?

If yes, then WHY?
If no, then GREAT.

Also, I certainly do NOT know how to delve in the english languages where the sages have laid their messages, but you can delve and can actually see these messages? Is this about correct? If the answer to either or both is yes, then WHY do you propose that is?

I have been laid bared to witness God/'God' and certain amounts of its ability with regards to our reality, and its tests since 1997. In 2005 a sage introduced itself to me from the aether. The reason - perhaps because I took human life. The true reason...just a tad deeper.

I prefer to be made aware of the 'true reason'.

Also, how does 'that' what "you" have experienced mean that what "i" have experienced is somehow NOT true or NOT acceptable in regards to KNOWING the Entity?

What makes "your" "reality" more real than "others" is, or could be?

[Age]

logik is smart, don't know if he's a genius, but above average at least

Yes I KNOW this is what "logik" keeps reiterating.

[Logik]

You guessed WRONG, again.

OK. My bad.

If you don't have beliefs then I have made a mistake concluding that you do. That's not very smart of me, is it?

I was just pointing out and SHOWING what you like to portray here, in this forum.

What is it that I like to portray?

[Logik]

logik is smart, don't know if he's a genius, but above average at least

Yes I KNOW this is what "logik" keeps reiterating.

This is a lie. I will re-iterate it for you again to assure you: I am not smart.

Why do yo believe that I am smart?

[Age]

You guessed WRONG, again.

OK. My bad.

If you don't have beliefs then I have made a mistake concluding that you do. That's not very smart of me, is it?

That all depends on how YOU define the word 'smart' here.

One might say that that is VERY smart of you to finally recognize and accept what another has been saying and continues to say.

I was just pointing out and SHOWING what you like to portray here, in this forum.

What is it that I like to portray?

'THAT' whatever you like to portray and which comes across to "others".

[Logik]

That all depends on how YOU define the word 'smart' here.

I don't know - it's your word. You are calling me "smart"... I don't know what you mean. Define it!

One might say that that is VERY smart of you to finally recognize and accept what another has been saying and continues to say.

One might say that recognize one's past mistakes is just self-awareness. Why is that "smart" ?

'THAT' whatever you like to portray and which comes across to "others".

What is that which I portray and comes across to you?