| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Final Editing | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Jun 21st, 2013 08:55 pm |
|
301st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, "Thinking about O'Connor and that concept of Criminals and that concept that the greatest Criminal is Lucifer who stole God's creation...can the innocent victims make a contract or a truce with criminals? Will Criminals abide by their contract? Or will Criminals resort to lies, threats and violence upon the innocent...even when there is a contract or truce in effect...or will Criminals always go the way of entropy disolving any possibility of ectropy?" Frank is more the pacifist, and so what does a pacifist do when facing a criminal, turn the other cheek? I don't know. I don't believe in Frank anymore than I believe in any other human being. I do know that the creator exists, that is merely common sense to me to know such things. Now there is a part in the video I have just found that helps with the concept of someone (not you, definitely not you) claiming that the proof of the question I ask concerning "What if the Devil wrote the Bible" is in The Bible, or it says so in The Bible that the Devil did not write The Bible, is explained in those words offered by the speaker here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B3nok7Cby28 I urge you to stop book work long enough to listen (not just hear) those words in that report, and I urge you to do so for many reasons, including the reason of having an explanation as to why the proof of something isn't the written word claiming to be the proof of something. The written words are merely proof that words are written. Meaning, on the other hand, can be derived accurately, conveyed accurately, or not, from words, and my illustration of a road sign on a blind hill before a bridge intends to convey such an accurate message as the one intended here specifically. You are the judge as to what you will do with your time, as it must be, in any case other than Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question, which is not me intending to say that I know anything, at all, about any Spiritual Connection with Jesus. I don't know about such things that I don't know about, so I have no power to comment on that, but as to other measurable things, I have my angles of view.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jun 21st, 2013 11:06 pm |
|
302nd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe.Now there is a part in the video I have just found that helps with the concept of someone (not you, definitely not you) claiming that the proof of the question I ask concerning "What if the Devil wrote the Bible" is in The Bible, or it says so in The Bible that the Devil did not write The Bible, is explained in those words offered by the speaker here: OK, I am listening to the video now. It may take me some time to hear. We have a day out tomorrow so I don't know how much hearing I will accomplish. I do most of my listening while going to sleep, so, my hearing is limited. Looks like I need a couple of more hours of cherries to pit! Thank you though for the link and I will work at it. I am speaking with Dan Slockett now on his Father's book. I can keep you posted. Great! Yes, please do. It is nice you were able to hook up!
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jun 22nd, 2013 12:28 pm |
|
303rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, Dan Slockett says hmmm He asks about rights, therefore he does not know about rights. Further communications as to rights is therefore potential, unwanted, or unfordable, costs. I suppose. I sent another message, and as far as I am concerned the idea is either good or bad according to Dan, and I do not see any need for me to push the idea in any way. I told Dan that I would keep him posted on my own (our) book project. If it works, to me, one book could become a flow of books offered by us, or you, or me, in that step by step fashion. How does anyone ever find their unique occupation?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jun 22nd, 2013 08:41 pm |
|
304th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, bear says, "Hmmm, so the 'rights' ball lands back in Dan's court." Are we, me or you, worried about rights, right? Assuming we are not worried about rights, what is the cost? ---------------------- I have finished listening to Eddie Craig Regarding your words: Now there is a part in the video I have just found that helps with the concept of someone (not you, definitely not you) claiming that the proof of the question I ask concerning "What if the Devil wrote the Bible" is in The Bible, or it says so in The Bible that the Devil did not write The Bible, is explained in those words offered by the speaker here: I am uncertain what I was supposed to hear, while listening, regarding the Bible defining the Bible except that Craig discussed words used in law also being defined in the law, and that one cannot assume a word means in law what it means in common English. He spoke to the fact that it is very important to understand the defined words according to the law code. I do not think I fell asleep today as I listened as I was concentrating on listening while hearing. But there is a chance I dozed off. I have heard him often this week, but I cannot say the other times I listened. A thought that did enter my mind as he discussed his website that he is hoping to launch that perhaps he is a person that would be very ineterested in the concept of a hand-held device that could stop, without harming, a crime in progress. Joe, earlier we were taling and to the information regarding God torturning and punishing his son, I answered that Satan did that. God allowed it. Satan did it. God allowed it for a purpose. It was prophesied here: Genesis 3:15 KJV And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Satan only bruised Christ's heel because Jesus rose again DEFEATING Sin and Death. The final blow will be to Satan's head. A blow that Satan will not recover from as Death and Hell are cast into the Lake of Fire for eternity. Jesus is the express image of the Godhead bodily. Jesus is the Logos, the Word of God, or the Logo of God. God took the punishmed of OUR sin upon HIMSELF. Just like we are body, soul and spirit, so is God. Jesus is the "body" of God. God put himself in harms way for our benefit. He could have delivered Himself from the Cross, but He did not. He could have destroyed the world and all of humanity in a moment's time. He did not. Instead He said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." While hanging in shame upon the cross he had a heart of forgiveness for those who brutilized Him. Will you watch this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV1HCK5yO_o You can stop it at 58 minutes. So, Joe, will you take 58 minutes of your time and watch this? ...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 24th, 2013 11:22 am |
|
305th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
6/24/13 page 66 There has to be, mathematically, a whole lot more victims than there are criminals since someone actually does have to produce something worth stealing or there isn't anything worth stealing for those criminals who choose that path. added comma before or: There has to be, mathematically, a whole lot more victims than there are criminals since someone actually does have to produce something worth stealing, or there isn't anything worth stealing for those criminals who choose that path.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 24th, 2013 11:39 am |
|
306th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
6/24/13 page 67 Take a wrong turn, figure it out; stop digging the hole that goes to hell. Broke into sentences: Take a wrong turn. Figure it out. Stop digging the hole that goes to hell.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 24th, 2013 01:15 pm |
|
307th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
6/24/13 page 67 "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Removed quotes and made block quote since more than 4 lines long:
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 24th, 2013 01:30 pm |
|
308th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
6/24/13 page 67 I think the instruction in Proverbs 8 says "Start looking". Periods belong inside quote marks per http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/03/ Also changed word from says to is to because it not a direct quote. Added colon to be consistent with next sentence. I think the instruction in Proverbs 8 is to: "Start looking."
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 24th, 2013 01:38 pm |
|
309th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
6/24/13 page 67 I say this is easy sometimes. I'm often wrong. Added quotes I say, “This is easy,” sometimes. I'm often wrong.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 24th, 2013 01:45 pm |
|
310th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
6/24/13 page 68 3. Those who know that deceit, threats, and violence employed to gain at the expense of innocent victims is wrong, not right; wrongs to be avoided at least. No not abandon innocent victims and do not punish innocent people or do no harm by willful action or by willful inaction. Modified punction for readability and chanded phrase "No not abandon" to "Do not abandon." Changed is to are, Added the word the before least 3. Those who know that deceit, threats, and violence employed to gain at the expense of innocent victims are wrong -not right- wrongs to be avoided at the least. Do not abandon innocent victims, and do not punish innocent people, or do no harm by willful action or by willful inaction.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 24th, 2013 03:04 pm |
|
311th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, Sometimes I get an e-mail notice when replies are generated on this forum, other times I do not get an e-mail, and that contributes to delays in my answering questions. "I am uncertain what I was supposed to hear, while listening, regarding the Bible defining the Bible except that Craig discussed words used in law also being defined in the law, and that one cannot assume a word means in law what it means in common English. He spoke to the fact that it is very important to understand the defined words according to the law code. I do not think I fell asleep today as I listened as I was concentrating on listening while hearing. But there is a chance I dozed off. I have heard him often this week, but I cannot say the other times I listened." I will find it. Starting with 1:19 on the subject of presumption of innocence. Keeping in mind the presumption of innocence. Moving to Bills of Attainder. Simply meaning presumption of guilt. So... 1. Agreeable voluntary association depends upon an obvious need to prove guilt. 2. Disagreeable involuntary association depends upon an obvious need to bypass any awareness of innocence = the opposite of one. Where is the proof? Does it matter, at all, to anyone, ever, that proof of guilt (or innocence) exists? That is an offer by me to you. If you do not agree, then you don't, if you do agree, then you do, that proof matters, and proof is vital, and therefore it is an open request to you, asking for an answer. 1. Yes, proof matters, yes, proof is vital, yes, proof is required, yes, guilt must be proven, so yes, where is this evidence? 2. No, proof does not matter, no, proof is not vital, no, proof is not required, no, guilt does not have to be proven, so no, evidence does not matter. 3. Some other answer answering my offer. You, an individual, me another individual, I offer a viewpoint, in the form of a question, and you can counter offer, or reply to, my offer. Does proof matter in cases of disagreement whereby there is a question of guilt of any kind whatsoever? I can assume, which is my assumption of your innocence, that you agree with the idea that when human beings (not God and human beings) connect to, or have associations with, other human beings (not God connecting to, or having associations with human beings), there is, again my assumption, an agreement on your part, that in cases of guilt there is a need for evidence, inculpatory evidence, red handed evidence, whereby those presumed to be innocent are proven to be guilty instead of being innocent, beyond a reasonable doubt. I am therefore armed with this trust of you, I am therefore speaking to the choir, another member of what I consider to be Friends of Liberty, by my assumption of my agreement that there has to be proof, evidence, inculpatory, red handed, reasonable, removal of reasonable doubt, evidence of guilt, for there to be guilt, and therefore for there to be an accounting of guilt, connected to the person who was presumed to be innocent without that proof. I trust that your answer is yes, when asked if proof matters in criminal matters whereby the suspect of crime is presumed to be innocent. I can proceed without confirmation from you in matters of guilt held by one person upon another person, and again this is not a matter of God connecting to one person or another person, this is a matter in which a person connects to another person. You can inform me, one way or another, as to your agreement on the question of proof being necessary in the accounting of guilty by one person upon other people. I assume you answer yes. I presume that you answer yes. I trust that you answer yes. Now going back to (I had a hard time finding this again) time 1:00.00 AGAIN: NOT GOD or Spiritual Law - in matters of Man Made Law instead, or in place of, God's Law, while the idea, in my opinion, there is a desire to emulate God's Law, to replicate God's Law, to listen to God's Law, to hear God's Law, to practice God's Law, while on Earth as a human being connecting to other human beings. (b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an operator who does not exhibit evidence of financial responsibility under Subsection (a) is presumed to have operated the vehicle in violation of subsection 601.015. I have chores to do at this time, or in a few minutes so I need to rap this up for now. It is the order of a man, the author of the order, declaring guilt, that itself is the proof of guilt. If evidence matters, then how does a criminal (devil) get around that agreement among peaceful people? The evidence of guilt is the claim of guilt itself. I can claim, under those rules, that you are guilty of breathing air, and the proof of your guilt is that you are breathing air? No Back. The answer is no, the authority is said to be found in the paper, the paper itself is proof of guilt, and it says so right there on the piece of paper, you, breathing air, caught red handed, there you go again, breathing air, and therefore what is the punishment? According to who? The paper. What if it says summary execution on the paper, for the crime of breathing air? The law enforcer shoots himself? No. Natural law kicks in whenever anyone obeys the man made law. You are ordered to stop breathing, it says so right on the paper, and the law says that the punishment for breathing is immediate execution for the crime of breathing. But clearly there is a problem with that law, so where is the authority that that law is based upon? It says so right here: (b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an operator who does not exhibit evidence of financial responsibility under Subsection (a) is presumed to have operated the vehicle in violation of subsection 601.015.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 24th, 2013 03:31 pm |
|
312th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
6/24/13 page 68 I get these wild ideas sometimes, like having a set of cards handy, and on these cards are blown up graphic pictures of innocent people being tortured and murdered, in your face stuff. So that anyone who begins to challenge my viewpoint, entering a political economy type discussion, challenging "where I am coming from," I have those signs ready. Sure, I can say, I may be blowing things out of all proportion. I may be raising my voice. I may be getting all worked up over nothing. Sure, I get that, sure, but what about this, and this, and this, and this. Look I say, look at this picture, it is real, look at it, in your face stuff; and might it be a good idea for someone to give a care once in a long while; someone who isn't going to be fooled into thinking that those people in those pictures deserved to be tortured by you and by me as we financed those horrible and torturous deaths, huh? So long as we are all up on our high horses of pretentious authority and all? OH, Joe, just calm down, we all know you have issues, and you have concerns, and bla, bla, bla, but... But, you know, Joe, the Mexicans are stealing our Jobs; and you know, those Terrorists have to be fought over there so we don't have to fight them over here; and you know, Joe, war is good for the economy after all; and those Democrats are Socialists; and everyone has to do their fair share with these Tax Liabilities. Except us, of course, but don't get caught, of course. ------------------ added a couple of words and punctuation changes for readability. Also added quotes for dialog. (I think I did quotes correctly: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/04/ ) ------------------ I get these wild ideas sometimes, like having a set of cards handy. On these cards are blown-up, graphic pictures of innocent people being tortured and murdered. In your face stuff, so that anyone who begins to challenge my viewpoint, entering a political economy-type discussion, challenging "where I am coming from," I can have those signs ready: “Sure,” I can say, “I may be blowing things out of all proportion. “I may be raising my voice. “I may be getting all worked up over nothing. “Sure, I get that, sure, but what about this, and this, and this, and this?! Look.” I say, “Look at this picture, it is real, look at it, in your face stuff; and might it be a good idea for someone to give a care once in a long while. Someone who isn't going to be fooled into thinking that those people in those pictures deserved to be tortured by you and by me as we financed those horrible and torturous deaths, huh…so long as we are all up on our high horses of pretentious authority and all?” “OH, Joe, just calm down, we all know you have issues, and you have concerns, and bla, bla, bla, but... “But, you know, Joe, the Mexicans are stealing our Jobs; and you know, those Terrorists have to be fought over there so we don't have to fight them over here; and you know, Joe, war is good for the economy, after all; and those Democrats are Socialists; and everyone has to do their fair share with these Tax Liabilities. Except us, of course, but don't get caught, of course.”
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 24th, 2013 03:34 pm |
|
313th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, I see and have skimmed your reply, I have 30 minutes before starting some chores, so I am going to do bookwork for right now since I am in that mindset, and then when I come back I will better read your welcome reply and follow the instructions for listening. Thanks!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 24th, 2013 04:29 pm |
|
314th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, This is somewhat confused by current events, including the demand for chores, and including the forum software not allowing me to edit any further in my earlier response. A thought that did enter my mind as he discussed his website that he is hoping to launch that perhaps he is a person that would be very ineterested in the concept of a hand-held device that could stop, without harming, a crime in progress. The principle behind that idea is Defensive Power, and defensive Power includes the power of knowing before hand the causes of injuries so as to afford a person the time to avoid them. The use of a Network of people ready to monitor crimes in progress, ready to witness them, and ready to offer help to those potential victims is not a new idea, and now that the idea is being focused upon those who are False Authorities, so that the victims of False Authorities are now inventing, producing, and maintaining True Authoritative Defense against False Authorities, is the point. Reaching for False Authorities when threatened by False Authorities so as to utilize False Authorities in Defense against False Authorities is "providing the means by which we suffer" in obvious, and accurately measurable forms, such as paying Federal Income Taxes with Federal Reserve Notes so as to pay off National Debt that is increased each second of each day in direction proportion to each payment made to pay off the National Debt. Each payment of Federal Income Tax with each Federal Reserve Note is an investment toward the increase of National Debt, not the decrease of National Debt. Paying criminals very well to perpetrate inhuman crimes on a long list of inhuman crimes is a demand for inhuman crimes and there will be no shortage of suppliers willing to meet that demand up to a point at which the natural law known as the law of diminishing returns sets in. When there are no more innocent victims, when everyone volunteers to supply the demand for more lies, more threats, and more violence upon the innocent, so as to be paid well for being a criminal, then all hell brakes loose, each criminal is beset with the need to cut the throat of each other criminal before having their own throat cut by another criminal, and no one has time to do the chores that actually employ the available productive power in ways that make more productive power out of less productive power. "You can stop it at 58 minutes. So, Joe, will you take 58 minutes of your time and watch this?" Is there a goal to be reached in that use of my power? I ask for a reason that is not an excuse, or a dodge, or a prejudice, I ask so as to test to see if I do reach the goal, or falling short of the goal I can confirm that I have fallen short of the goal. The case of my asking you to watch the link with the person offering information on man made law was the goal of seeing how there are problems associated with man made claims of authority being embodied into the paper that those claims are written on. You did not reach the goal. So then you reported to me that you did not reach the goal. Then I offered a more detailed example of how the goal is reached, and I found, and I copied and pasted, an example of authority being claimed to be in the paper; which is the goal intended. The cut and paste of the paper that claims that the paper is the source of the authority is the goal I was asking for you to reach for and to find. You can agree to having reached that goal, or you can report to me that you have not reached that goal, in either case. So I am asking for that reason, is there a goal that I can reach for when watching that presentation of information? If the goal is to understand how the power of creation, or God, sacrifices some injury to God, so as to then give God a reason to not punish people for things that people do, then I am going to have a hard time understanding such things. I have a hard time understanding your words here: "Jesus is the express image of the Godhead bodily. Jesus is the Logos, the Word of God, or the Logo of God. God took the punishmed of OUR sin upon HIMSELF. Just like we are body, soul and spirit, so is God. Jesus is the "body" of God. God put himself in harms way for our benefit. He could have delivered Himself from the Cross, but He did not. He could have destroyed the world and all of humanity in a moment's time. He did not. Instead He said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." While hanging in shame upon the cross he had a heart of forgiveness for those who brutilized Him. Will you watch this?" This: "God took the punishment of OUR sin upon HIMSELF." That makes no sense to me. Why is God in the punishment business? If God does not want to punish, then God can invent any reason not to punish, why does God need to punish "HIMSELF"? I don't even sign onto the idea that God is a he, and I don't get very far from God being the power of creation, so that is the reason for my asking anyone questions having to do with the claim that God is in the punishment business. I can't ask a video presentation the questions I have concerning the concept of God being in the punishment business. If the video presentation is a report concerning how God is in the business of punishment, then that is a possible goal to reach for, as far as I am concerned. Will that video explain to me why God is in the punishment business, assuming that God is, in fact, in the punishment business? So will I find some measure of proof, something reasonable, something I can believe, concerning why God is, in fact, in the punishment business? I can work to fit that viewing of that information into my schedule, my time, but for now I really have to get a chore done, a pile of dishes in a battle over how the kitchen is used by multiple users who do not all agree on standard procedures of use; the kitchen has to be cleaned up, and I am volunteering to do it at this point in time. Then there are other demands to meet, other things I can supply something I can supply, to meet those demands. I want to watch the presentation. It is on my list. Will I reach the intended goal according to your measure of reaching the intended goal? Did you reach the intended goal of seeing why authority on paper, where the paper says that the paper itself is the authority, is an example of false authority? I invented the obvious illustration of how that is a false authority. If the paper says that it is illegal to breath, and the paper says that those found guilty must be executed on the spot, and the proof of guilt is the paper itself, then that is exactly what that is, false authority, right there on that paper, so that paper is, in fact, inculpatory evidence of fraud, so who is the author? I am cluttering up this topic, and I don't see an easy way out of this mess, so I continue. The Story of Jesus can be confirmed through careful study? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Maybe 4. To a degree of success measurable as removing reasonable doubt? Does the study material offered by the known liar (known by you as a liar, but not known by me as a liar, since I have no evidence proving a lie to be one) Frank O'Collins offer any reasonable doubt, if that evidence is heard, and judged, by the judge in any case? I do not have a stake in the argument as to which belief between any two believers is the true belief. I have my own belief in God proven to be exactly what it is each moment of each day. I do not need to know what my own belief in God is, since it is what it is, and since it will become what it will become, as a function of POWER that is not my POWER. I can ask for words that work to cause other people to form their beliefs, and I can ask Jesus to help me know better, but for me to ask Jesus to do something ambiguous is ambiguous, and therefore not knowable. As far as you are concerned there is meaning, specific meaning, in the questions, or requests, that you have asked Jesus for, and you have a specific answer to your requests, or your questions, that you ask specifically to Jesus. What are those requests and questions specifically? 1. Blank 2. Blank If I read your words, your own words, or words taken out of scripture, translated from the original script to English, by someone, some man, or some woman, and I find ambiguity, each time I look, then there is still, remaining, to date, yet to be specified, meaning in those questions, I read, and those requests, I read, in those words offered by you, or by scripture, or by kids acting in a youtube video. I am going to try to look back into this forum topic to find anything I may have missed, offered by you, and worth my time to find. I looked and found more editing work done by you, which I still see as evidence of God at work, for someone to be so generous to me, despite all my faults, my lack of belief, you offer your help, and I appreciate it, for what it is, help. Even if you were to stop now, for whatever reason, I have been helped by you. My daughter's friend asks about the book often. He is impatient. I am not impatient, and I work at avoiding impatience. I work at avoiding impatience ever since my dad was dying before my eyes and he asked if I could help him change his pajamas. I was in a hurry. He said words, that I cannot quote, having to do with my being in a hurry, something along the lines of negative words, such as "don't be in such a hurry," or a question "what is your hurry?" I thought, at the time, that I was not in a hurry, I am always working to be faster at things, to be competitive, but I got the message as intended, as far as I can tell. Death arrives on time, so there is no demand to move that date forward, at least none that can pass the test of reason as far as I am concerned. Hey, on the subject of writing, I e-mailed and have received a response from a group who are in demand of writers. Here Your work to improve my writing is humbling to me. I can work at reading your corrections, as you teach me the lessons I once paid 500.00 Federal Reserve Notes to a "teacher" to teach me, and your competitive offerings, generous gifts, render that "investment" much lower in quality, and much higher in cost.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 25th, 2013 03:03 pm |
|
315th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Does proof matter in cases of disagreement whereby there is a question of guilt of any kind whatsoever? Innocent until proven guilty by a court of law…Proof does matter. So in regards to: (b) Is a presumption of guilt allowable? How does one ever appear in a court of law if there is not a presumption of guilt? I am not arguing. I am sorting things out in my mind. I have always understood “innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.” Didn’t we hear that 100 million times one 1 Adam 12? Did you watch that show when you were a kid? Is the point that one should not have to show those insurance papers, etc, until an accident has taken place? No wonder our foreign policy is to strike before struck. Is that not what is happening every day during traffic stops? Should we just wait for people to have an accident and not be able to pay for their damages? Is liability insurance a payment made to the guy with a baseball bat? Pay up or you cannot operate a vehicle? But if you pay up and you have a wreck, well then, we will take care of the damages? Pay up or else? I don’t know Joe, these ideas are new to me. I have handed my cards over the 3 times since 16 that I have been stopped…2 times for speeding, 1 time for turning from the wrong lane. I was guilty of braking traffic laws all 3 times and I knew it before the lights and sirens were turned on. That being said, that does not give the officer a license to suspend the constitution or Miranda rights, assuming that is what happened. You know the guy they were looking for in the red stocking cap? Now he is innocent until proven guilty, but the story has it that he was visiting with a family the day before and while the parents were at work the next day, he kicked down the back door of the house and raped their 11 year old daughter. So, I am having trouble now as I think of the 11 year old girl, who may or maynot be a “woman of the world.” So, what give the police the right to pick up the guy? His victim identified him? I don’t know. So now he goes to court and stands trial. His word against her word? I suppose her physical damages are also a witness. Perhaps his DNA is a witness too. So, he will be proven guilty in a court of law. But something had to incriminate him. He must have been presumed guilty to be picked up by the Sheriff. How does that work? ------------------------------------- Is there a goal to be reached in that use of my power? Yes, my goal is that you might see Jesus through the eyes of a child…a simple story. Is faith abject believe in falsehood? Jesus said this as reported by Luke: 15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Verily I say unto you, Who soever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. Is believing the Bible to be Inspired by God abject believe in falsehood? Jesus quoted the Old Testament and called it the Word of God: • Matthew 4:4 KJV But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. • Matthew 4:6 KJV And [Satan] saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. • Matthew 4:7 KJV Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God • Matthew 4:10 KJV Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve . Jesus says, “It is written…” multiple times in other places in the Bible: http://beta.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=it+is+written&c=gos&t=kjv&ps=10&s=Bibles So, my goal, my goal is that you might have eyes that see and ears that hear and seek as a little child. Yes, God knows where to find you, and He already has. Did he not send me to speak of Him? "God took the punishment of OUR sin upon HIMSELF." Joe, God is righteous. God is holy. God is Just. God is a consuming fire. We are not. Because He is, all sin receives its just reward. What is the reward for sin? The lake of fire is the reward for sin. All sin will receive its reward there. God loves you Joe. That is why God took your reward upon Himself. It was the only way for justice to be served in the face of righteous holiness. Will that video explain to me why God is in the punishment business, assuming that God is, in fact, in the punishment business? Joe, I hope so. Did you reach the intended goal of seeing why authority on paper, where the paper says that the paper itself is the authority, is an example of false authority? So, which paper is the authority? The law code? Or the document that is to be produced so as not to be assumed guilty? Is it the law code written upon a piece of paper that sets itself up as judge and jury? Is that what you are trying to get me to see regarding the Bible? It is printed words on paper setting itself up as the authority? Is the Creator the authority? If the Creator is righteous, holy, and just is not what that Creator writes upon a piece of paper Righteous, Holy and Just as well? The Creator Himself took your wages of sin upon Himself to delivery you from the paycheck due each time the sin time clock is punched. If a criminal writes words upon a piece of paper, are those words then the transport of crime in progress? Satan has written all over God’s Creation, “mine, mine, mine.” But the final choice is yours, Joe, as God says, will you be mine instead? Will you come as a child and believe My Word? God has explained everything there and not one jot and not one tittle will pass away without being fulfilled. So, I asked you to watch a children’s drama about Jesus. Hoping that maybe, those words there and those pictures there might give a glimmer of what I try to explain ever so poorly. If the paper says that it is illegal to breath, and the paper says that those found guilty must be executed on the spot, and the proof of guilt is the paper itself, then that is exactly what that is, false authority, right there on that paper, so that paper is, in fact, inculpatory evidence of fraud, so who is the author? There will be a day when a mark on the hand or forehead will be required to buy or sell. If one does not have that mark, they will be punished. Who will write those rules? Who has told us those rules will be written? I joked at Walmart today about the self-check out and someday being able to scan the back of my hand so that no one will need to assist me. The 2 clerks looked at each other in a telltale way and acknowledged my comment with the fact that there are other (non Walmart) stores already doing that. Makes me think…perhaps that is why they cleanse the population of Christians as the routine is worked…we will not take the mark. Getting rid of the opposition beforehand?. So, the other thing I have asked to listen to is Cooper’s Mystery Babylon series. The reason is because it puts into words who and what is behind this global criminal element. He also talked about an androgynous God as being part of that system. I think I heard that information in episode 3 or 4. You read Sutton. Did Sutton give you the method to alleviate the criminal element? Cooper doesn’t either. But it is information. Just like Sutton is information. Sutton’s Wall street Analysis and Cooper’s Spiritual Analysis perhaps go hand in hand? I am very piggish with Joes time. Cooper’s series starts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iCLykzJ0d8&list=PL11E33A6AEEB2674F More important though, to me, is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV1HCK5yO_o But bear being a pig wants Joe to listen to all of them -------------------- I am going to rest abit before answering your latest welcome reply which was separated from the first one because the forum wouldn't let you edit. It may be tomorrow. I am playing Mom Taxi all week long, and I am only home for a couple of hours this afternoon before I have to start driving again. The youngest has a 9pm baseball game tonight as well. ...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 25th, 2013 03:59 pm |
|
316th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I have to drop what I am doing and get to work on a few chores. I want to read your latest offering, but that will keep. Meanwhile I am cutting and pasting my first rough draft submission to the 1776 online magazine. I will need to look over, and fix, or edit, the rough version, and if you can help, in any way, then I appreciate that help in advance. So a cut and paste and then I'm off until later, possibly not returning until tomorrow. Pending Collapse or Golden Opportunity? News travels fast but propaganda travels faster when the criminals take over. Such is our fate when Liberty is forsaken, dropped like an old shoe, in favor of investments in lies. When the liars who invent the best lies are given the opportunity to fix their own pay rate, they don’t, they raise their pay instead, and how well does that work, and what can be expected from liars? So the question is asked, and not by me alone, how much longer can the investors in lies, and the investors in wars that are so good for the economy, how much longer can we, you know we, how much longer can we the people afford to keep on giving while the measurable benefits dry up, as the supply of ready victims are merely corpses rotting in the sun, who is going to be left to do the actual work? What happens when the supply of frauds, robbers, pedophiles, rapists, kidnappers, slave masters, extortionists, drug pushers, torturers, serial killers, and war makers, for fun and profit, all made legal, reaches that condition of oversupply? When is it enough? When is it no longer beneficial to pay those high rates for all that crime done by those in office? When do we no longer get paid anything in return? What happens after the fall? What happens when the demand for very high paid liars, in public office, hired to cover up all the other crimes, all crimes made legal, when all that peters out, what happens next? When this process reaches that point of collapse, when the inevitable result of the law of diminishing returns takes hold, and that beast won’t let go without an inspired return to a demand for honest effort: then what? Do we demand more of the same in a different suit, with a different flag, and another color of fraud money? Do we get a new song to sing the same old tune? What happens when everyone and their mom have joined in the fun, and profits, of making war ever so good for the economy, and there are no longer any hapless victims left who are footing the bill, paying the National Debt, on schedule, as they are told to do, even while the most effective tax evaders are giving themselves the highest pay rates for jobs done to a high degree of competitive excellence? Now what: punt? In fact, in reality, coming to a theater near you, what happens when the hired liars who have grown fat, stupid, greedy, foolish, and insane, finding their way into your church, as in Waco, or your home, as in the Vicky Weaver case, or your building, falling down around you, as in 911, for fun and profit, for war, for might making right, right in your life, and right now? Call 911, like the Branch Davidians? “They are shooting again, tell someone to call it off.” When does the pendulum swing too far into mass insanity, passing the point of no return, where those who produce anything worth stealing are outnumbered, and outgunned against those who make stealing legal, and like rats on a sinking ship the remaining survivors have nothing to eat but each other? When do those honest enough to admit the existence of responsibility take the time to look in the mirror and affect an accurate accounting? If done, if done well, is it remotely possible that the accounting process discovers opportunity instead of absolute abject belief in falsehood without question? Could there be, there in the mirror, a source of hope, of competitive invention, a spark of such incredible power as to cause within the observer acknowledgement of a reasonable path to take in avoidance of all the doom and gloom; is it remotely possible? Is there new light on the path that does not require the nailing of innocent people to crosses? Is there a way to avoid nailing anyone, guilty or not, to crosses, a way to avoid making torture legal, for fun, and for profit? No way Jose, you utopian dreamer, you fool, and you who defines the meaning of a conspiracy theorist? Why not consider the possible ramifications of a National Debt that becomes obviously unaffordable for anyone anywhere, and in that moment of clarity there is then a demand for a replacement, and at that moment of clarity, seeking that as yet mysterious supply to fit the demand, the observer considers reaching for a competitive option rather than the one option forced into use by the same known criminals? Why not? The same known liars, the same people, or even better liars, having the old worn out ones sent to the pasture, old ones, or new ones with new uniforms, or new symbols on their stationary, new flags, new versions of the same old thing, only this time the promise is going to pan out as advertised, this time, so forget about last time, this time the same old solution won’t result in the same old result, this time the final solution will work? Hurray, where is my new flag! Why not invent something competitive to compare to the one final solution this time? Instead of a single source of only one thing, how about running a competitive version up against the one final solution, this time? Instead of obey without question, this time, how about invention, and competition? When the door opens, when the old boss is collapsed and out of fashion, when the dollar in the form of a fraudulent Federal Reserve Note, with the National Debt Clock still ticking, is put to rest, discarded, collapsed in upon itself, then, at that moment, as the door is open, and before the new final solution to all our economic problems is ushered into place, during that window of opportunity, before then becomes now, before before becomes after, before the brain trust trusts in monopoly again, how about competition instead of monopoly? When that happens, that way, as unbelievable, as utopian, as dreamlike, as it may seem at first blush, what would happen then when competition offers many things instead of just offering one thing? When a Republic such as Utah offers investors options in the form of bank accounts where deposits of earnings are redeemable in Gold and Silver and that offering competes with whatever the new form of the final solution might be, then, as that competitor, in that form, offers an alternative to more National Debt based fraud money. At the same time a Republic like Alaska may offer a competitive edge with petroleum backed money for investors, and at the same time a Republic like California may make moves to back their offers to investors with a renewed Space Industry, and a growing Solar Panel industry, and an Electric Car industry, or who knows what may be offered from an independent Republic if one exists because The People demand one, or two, or 50, all nice and comfortable, and secure, in a mutually defensive, voluntary, association, or Federation. Imagine the possibilities? No, no, no, don’t throw me into that collapse, please; what would I do without high paid liars offering broken promises that never end?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 25th, 2013 08:42 pm |
|
317th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
"Meanwhile I am cutting and pasting my first rough draft submission to the 1776 online magazine. I will need to look over, and fix, or edit, the rough version, and if you can help, in any way, then I appreciate that help in advance. So a cut and paste and then I'm off until later, possibly not returning until tomorrow." Joe, that is really neat about the 1776 online magazine. Earlier this afternoon I took a look at the link you gave me (after I had replied to the previous reply) I will take look at your submission as soon as possible. The very first thing I do when I have a spare moment. I hope tonight, but it maybe tomorrow morning. I am glad to help. Very exciting that you are submitting an article to 1776 magazine! ...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 26th, 2013 12:29 am |
|
318th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, Here is a start on editing. I want you to know that I have started. Here are the notes and the edited text: First paragraph: Added comma between: fast & but. Started new sentence after: their pay instead (I did this because the sentence is transitioning from a statement to a question.) Started new sentence/removed: And New Separated 2nd Paragraph: Started a new paragraph: after liars (I did this to focus on the question that is asked I am assuming that the question you are referring to is the question following the statement, not the questions preceding the statement.) Added colon: between alone & how (Also capitalized How) Removed comma between: lies & and (because the comma is only needed in a list or between two independent clauses) Italicized: we & we the people (for emphasis) Replace comma with ellipse between: sun & who Pending Collapse or Golden Opportunity? News travels fast, but propaganda travels faster when the criminals take over. Such is our fate when Liberty is forsaken, dropped like an old shoe, in favor of investments in lies. When the liars who invent the best lies are given the opportunity to fix their own pay rate, they don’t, they raise their pay instead. How well does that work, and what can be expected from liars? So the question is asked, and not by me alone: How much longer can the investors in lies and the investors in wars that are so good for the economy…how much longer can we, you know we, how much longer can we the people afford to keep on giving while the measurable benefits dry up, as the supply of ready victims are merely corpses rotting in the sun…who is going to be left to do the actual work? ----------------- It is 11:30 here and I have to be up early and taxi again tomorrow. I am hoping for time in the morning in between locations to do some more editing work. I will try to finish ASAP.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 26th, 2013 01:35 pm |
|
319th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, "I was guilty of braking traffic laws..." We are subjects of brainwashing. Some of us are finding out how to dirty our brains back up. Note, even here, how language manages to make the bad guys into good guys and the good guys into bad guys as a function of how the words are scientifically chosen. Brains are dirty so they need to be washed by the good guys. If laws meant something other than crimes made legal then every guilty would be paying the same fine, every time, for speeding. If that is not even remotely possible, because of this or that reason, then why spend any time collecting those fines from only a few people who speed? How about this angle: If an insurance actuary were to find the greatest cause of human injury by other human beings would the concept of preventing that cause of human injury be the first thing on the list of laws to be enforced? 1. The willful orders to murder innocent people by the millions for the crime of living on a place where oil exists and the murderers desire control of that oil. 2. Accidents Can an accident be prevented by a third party? Can a crime be prevented by a third party? If there is no victim until someone demands a payment of money from an innocent person, then there was no victim until the innocent person had to pay the "traffic ticket." How much would it cost, out of the innocent victims pockets, to prevent the willful murder of millions of innocent victims for fun and profit, for oil and legal control of the one money? It costs less, out of pocket, for the innocent victims to prevent the willful murder of millions of innocent victims for fun and profit, because the way to prevent that is to stop paying Federal Income Tax through The Federal Reserve System, so that way to enforce that law, to prevent those most serious of crimes, is actually a money saver. Can car accidents be prevented by allowing innocent people, who have not harmed anyone, to randomly pay, out of pocket, a sum of earnings to a gag of highway robbers? 1. In every case where the Legal Criminals were no longer able to collect money from the innocent victims through fraud and extortion made legal, those crimes were prevented in that way. 2. In no case has the random payment of money worked to prevent accidents, in fact, the opposite may be as likely as the idea that punishment for risky behavior leads to less risky behavior. Cops hired by criminals to run confidence schemes on the side of the road. If instead of a flow of money flowing to the people who hire the Cops to run confidence schemes on the side of the road, there were tickets sent to competitive insurance companies, and your insurance rates go up, for each ticket, based upon increased risk, then that is an entirely different concept, and a concept that remains voluntary. If someone causing an accident is found to be guilty of causing an accident, then finding out a way to prevent that same thing happening again, could be done, but by who, by what process? Someone willfully committing a fraud, which is what is happening when COPS are hired to lie, so as to get money from innocent people, then that is a willful crime, not an accident. The COP may be as much a victim as the "speeder," because the actual willful fraud was perpetrated as far back, in this country, as 1788. Involuntary associations are code words for honest people so that honest people can identify the criminals who willfully create involuntary associations. We can't even speak to each other. Our language is inculpatory evidence proving a willful crime upon the innocent. How about this angle: If this land, and these roads, and the air we breath, is ours, not one person owning the roads, and not one group owning the roads, or the oxygen, then the word for that idea, for that concept, can be a handy word. What is the word for collective ownership? If oxygen is not collectively owned by everyone, each person having the equal power to breath it, then what power is at work to stop some of the people, some of the time, from breathing, owning, having, using, oxygen? What word is used to convey the process by which one person, or one group of people, willfully remove access to oxygen from one person or one group of people? Why is oxygen any different than land? So, does it make sense, in that light, to see the wisdom of a man made law that says that any human being has a right to travel across the land, as much a right to travel across the land as any other human being, as much a right to breath air as travel across the land, so long as doing so does not steal away the air from someone else, and so long as doing so does not steal away the land from someone else, and what is a road? What is your definition of a road? If you define a road as your property, exclusively yours, then anyone on it, without permission from you, is effectively stealing it away from you, which is the same thing as stealing away your oxygen, and therefore you have been injured by that trespasser, in the same way as someone stealing away the air you breath, in principle, if not actually causing you to pass out, and die, from lack of oxygen. If a criminal chokes you, throttles you by the throat, a little bit, leaving you brain damaged, but alive, then the principle is the same thing as someone removing you from access to the land you must have to survive on Earth. Which oxygen is yours exclusively? Which land is yours exclusively? Who, by what process, is there a determination made as to who is allowed access to which oxygen, and who is allowed access to which land? If someone stops you on the side of the road, commits a provable fraud upon you, recorded on video tape while the crime of fraud is perpetrated upon you, uploaded to the internet, witnesses are bearing witness to the crime in progress, true authorities who know the agreed upon laws are among the witnesses, and advice is freely given to the victim in the case at the time of the crime in progress, then, under those conditions, does the video now make sense? Someone stopping you, demanding from you a portion of your life, is someone committing a crime upon you, someone who claims to own you, claims to own the road, claims to own your life, and even if that person is mislead into a false belief that that is not a crime, it remains to be a crime, if English can convey accurate meaning. Even if the supposed laws supposedly authorizing the COP to stop you, and take from you, are honored by you, which to me is an error because I know where those laws come from, even if you honor those laws, the COP is, by those laws, perpetrating a crime upon you. Why do they go get a supervisor? They are misled. They are victim to the crime of fraud perpetrated by a LOWER authority. They are misled to look up to a higher authority when they are actually moving down to a lower authority when they go to find their LEADER who was the one committing the willful fraud, the lie, the twist, of voluntary association into involuntary association. If the "chain of command" goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and at no time does any false authority confess guilt of fraud, claiming mistake, or whatnot, then it will be the Supreme Court that openly enforces a crime of fraud on the record. That is the point. The Legal Criminals MUST maintain the appearance of honorable, justifiable, agreeable, reasonable, authority, or lawful order, otherwise the fact that they are, at the TOP, nothing but criminals will be exposed to all the victims. See? The COP is connected to only a few people at the branches. The Supreme Court is connected to almost everyone, at the ROOT. IF the COP can get away with a crime, without anyone defending against it, that is a statistically large amount of crimes, because there are many COPS, and crime pays well by those numbers, as a "piece of the action" flows to the real criminals from all those branches. A penny here, a penny there, from each branch, flowing to the root. If one COP is successfully defended against, right there on the roadside, then the COP goes to find greener pastures, but the COP is no longer innocent at that point, now the COP has been shown true authority. The COP can no longer hid behind the lies of "doing good" and the COP now has to wrestle with failures to find the worst criminals and hold the worst criminals to account for such things as child sex slavery originating in Washington D.C., serial murder, originating in the same place, mass injury by willful poisoning of the oxygen supply, same source of crime POWER in Washington D.C., so on and so forth. The root, again, goes back to 1788 in this Country. I have babbled too long on this one thing, so I will now move on. "You know the guy they were looking for in the red stocking cap?" The criminals at WACO, and the criminals in New York during the ongoing 911 crimes, destroy inculpatory evidence. If there is a crime in progress the criminals can be known because their hands are red with blood and they are destroying the victims, removing the victims from existence, because the victims are forms of evidence, so that is a long way from someone not knowing if someone has committed a crime, for lack of evidence, since you, as a juror, have yet to see any evidence at all. Man made law has proven to be merely fines paid by convicted criminals, where there is an innocent victim, and man made law does work to make crime unaffordable for the criminals in that way, using that due process. Was Bill Clinton put on trial for the torture and murder at Waco? Was George W Bush put on trial for the massive murders perpetrated in the still ongoing crimes of 911? Those crimes are still in progress, so there are people right now hacking away, one of the hackers is named Barry Soetero, aka Osama Obama. When did "Presidents" start needing aliases? Your time. My time. We are here and now. 1788, the good name of George Washington was (is) a fraud in progress, since the man was a known despot: Generalisimo Washington ruled with an iron fist upon his subjects. "So, he will be proven guilty in a court of law. But something had to incriminate him. He must have been presumed guilty to be picked up by the Sheriff. How does that work?" I've written to you about the few cases I have personal experience in Trial by Jury American Style, which is comparable to my understanding of how the design of sortition is supposed to work as a means of putting the blinders on the lady holding the scales. Trial by Jury worked the way it worked in my case, and in my son's case, because my son on one case, and me in another case, were hand picked by the Union lawyers. My latest experience was such that both Union Lawyers rejected my presence in the Jury, while, as far as I could tell, the Union Judge wanted me to be on the Jury. I know, by these experiences, how due process words the way it works, I was there, and I was not merely a passive witness. My viewpoint added to the power being exerted. I was the law in one case. I was excluded from the law by Union Lawyers in another case. My son was the Law in his case, ensuring that innocent people are not abandoned, to the reach of his power, and his power was reason. What does reason mean when reason is used in the phrase "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? Reason does not exist on paper. Paper records reason as a human being was the source of reason, and paper records the event that was an example of reason. If you read an example of reason, yet you cannot know of reason, that does not make reason unreasonable as a fact, it merely suggests that either you are incapable of reason or the example is not a case of reason, so your example casts reasonable doubt as to that example of reason being a genuine, and not a counterfeit, example of reason. If I eat one of two apples, on that table, it is reasonable to conclude that there will then be 10 apples on that table, after I eat one of the two apples on that table. If I eat one of two apples on that table it is reasonable to conclude that there will be only 1 apple left on that table after I eat one of the two apples on that table, so long as other apples are not produced and placed on that table. If a man is currently perpetrating a crime in front of 12 reasonable people, people with eyes to see the crime in progress, ears to hear the crime in progress, then it is reasonable to conclude that those 12 people are witnesses to the crime in progress, and it is further reasonable to conclude that those witnesses are criminals themselves if they all work to give more innocent victims to that criminal, so as to supply that criminal with a steady supply of innocent victims so long as that criminal remains powerful enough to keep on torturing and murdering the steady stream of innocent victims provided to the criminal by those 12 fellow criminals. It is reasonable to conclude that 12 witnesses to a criminal perpetrating a crime in progress, are criminals themselves, if it is in their power to stop the crime, at no cost to themselves, such as a push of a button immobilizing the criminal, and instead of pushing the button all 12 witnesses sit and watch, eating popcorn, perhaps even cheering, clapping, applauding, waving flags. Tonight is another night of questions and answers offered by Frank O'Collins, the person you convict as a liar, and I agree but only if The Bible is, in fact, the word of God, which I don't know, but anyway, I add this to our conversation because Frank uses the word Nihilist. Do you know the meaning of the word Nihilist? I think the word means that a person can be in such a state of being that the person either has no moral conscience or that the person has a moral conscience but the person willfully destroys moral conscience in his own mind. In other words a person is either unable or refuses to judge between right and wrong as if there is no such thing as right or wrong. If there is no such thing as right or wrong, as far as my power of reason goes, then life itself is not good, or right, and therefore ending life is no different than bearing life. A murderer is no different on any scale of right or wrong, since there is no right, and there is no wrong, as parents: according to that type of reason. When the unreasonable is claimed to be reasonable, how could someone exemplify that process, and is it a due process, as if to say that everyone will be processed in this manner? If you wanted to remove the moral conscience of everyone alive, every human being, how would you go about accomplishing that goal? If you figured out a way to remove the moral conscience of every human being alive, and you, and your group of like minded people began to work effectively at doing so, would that be an example of a reasonable due process? Which steps would be necessary, along the way, to accomplish that goal? Beat children until they no longer have a working moral conscience? Make crime legal? What happened in this Country in 1788? "Yes, my goal is that you might see Jesus through the eyes of a child…a simple story. Is faith abject believe in falsehood? " Faith as far as I know for you is a treasure, a fortune, a vast improvement in life on Earth, but those are my words, not yours. I do not know your faith. I have, so far, no reasonable way of knowing your faith. It is your faith, for reasons that you know. Faith, by your definition, is not belief in falsehood, how could it be? It can't be, by your definition of faith, and an example of how that works may help. If, for example, I say that I believe that perception exists, and each time I work as hard as I can to expose my belief as being false, every single time, I fail to disprove my belief, then at this time, for me, I cannot know that my belief is false. I believe that which can be prove to me, even while I question that belief, every time, so far, my belief passes every test. How about this angle: If I willfully reject any evidence that tests my belief, and I willfully ignore the obvious reason for me to reject any evidence that tests my belief, then reason, if used, by me, instead of reason being discarded by me, would suggest that my belief is not a belief, it is a willful lie that I borrow, or invent, so as to destroy my own moral conscience. What is the source of reason? What is the source of moral conscience? If I listen to reason, and if I listen to moral conscience, where is the source of those powers over me? If I look for the source of power, and there is so far no way for me to perceive it, to focus attention on it, to measure it, at the source of it, then I cannot know it, I cannot know that source, so far, and therefore it, the source of what I decide to listen to, the source of reason that I decide to listen to, the source of moral conscience that I decide to listen to, remains to be a source that I CANNOT KNOW. Do I believe that there is a source of reason, and do I believe that there is a source or moral conscience? Is it reasonable to claim that there is no such source, that there is no such thing as a source of reason, and is it reasonable to claim that there is no such source of moral conscience? How does a human being become convinced in the need to destroy (or not listen to) reason, and moral conscience? Is reason not the same thing as moral conscience? If I knew, without any reasonable doubt, that The Bible was written by God, or The Devil, then that would be my condition of life at that time, a knowing, and where would I find that power, since I do not have that power now? I DO NOT KNOW. If you know, then you know, and if you don't know where you get that power to know, exactly, but you know better than I do, then it stands to reason that you can help me know what you know, eventually. I believe that you can help me know better, more specifically, more accurately, more precisely, with greater clarity, what is, and what is not, the source of reason, which to me is the same source as the source of moral conscience. If the goal is knowing better, in my view, I have to know where the source of reason and where the source of moral conscience is, and I can go there, and I can know better once I get there, or, again, me with my scales, I can move in that direction rather than moving on the opposite direction. A nihilist may claim that the way to move closer to reason is to move further away from moral conscience. I believe, so far, that that is not true. "So, my goal, my goal is that you might have eyes that see and ears that hear and seek as a little child. Yes, God knows where to find you, and He already has. Did he not send me to speak of Him?" English is problematic, this I can measure, and belief in what I can't measure is not required, not needed, not even useful, since belief can be confused with gambling, on an on, proving the point. The point being: English is problematic. I can trust in your belief as if it were my own until proven otherwise by reason, or moral conscience, as I listen, and listen, and listen, for information that comes from a source of information whereby things "ring true," or make sense, or reason out, or add up, or work out, as pieces fit, and the puzzle takes form, and light is shown in the dark room, and dragons turn out to be little, pathetic, men behind curtains. I can't know what you know, not yet, it is measurably not possible at this time, but not for lack of trying. God is a him? We went this way before, and again: English is problematic. Joe, God is righteous. God is holy. God is Just. God is a consuming fire. We are not. Because He is, all sin receives its just reward. What is the reward for sin? The lake of fire is the reward for sin. All sin will receive its reward there. God loves you Joe. That is why God took your reward upon Himself. It was the only way for justice to be served in the face of righteous holiness. I see little, or no, reason in arguing about such words, in English, where you offer me something I see as being routine brainwashing, carrot and stick, man made falsehoods designed to remove the moral conscience, the power of reason, from the innocent targeted victims. That is what I see in your words above, so there is a measurable problem where you are intending to help me and I see instead a stack of symbols arranged in such a way as to exemplify a road sign that leads people off a cliff to their doom. I've spoken about this analogy of a road sign before, so as to remove you from the viewpoint, and so as to allow us both to look at the road sign as it exists on that road. I do not see any need to argue. If you have a message, and the message intends to help me, then that message, in English, is working in the opposite direction on me, at this time. I can explain in great detail as to how I reason out that message, you offer to me, as I listen to whatever POWER is the POWER of reason, from wherever the POWER of reason comes from, whatever the source of the POWER of reason, I listen to it, I am keen to hear the message of reason, and what I hear, may be false, I may have the wrong source in mind, who knows? I don't know. So, which paper is the authority? The law code? Or the document that is to be produced so as not to be assumed guilty? Is it the law code written upon a piece of paper that sets itself up as judge and jury? Is that what you are trying to get me to see regarding the Bible? It is printed words on paper setting itself up as the authority? No, I don't think so, I think there are problems, including problems rooted in the English language, but many problems contributing to failures in reaching the goal of accurate communication. I tell my wife, for example, that your POWER to know this thing that may be called a Spiritual Connection to God, in English, is what it is, so you are not an example of a person claiming that the proof of fact that The Devil did not write the bible is ONLY the words saying so in The Bible. The proof of anything is not belief. Proof is proof. Again English appears to be problematic, and exemplary at the same time. In other words English exemplifies itself as a problem. How about a solution? If I ask two people the same question I can have competitive examples of the answers. Problem: Did the Devil write The Bible. 1. No, and I can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, right here, on page such and such, right here in The Bible, there is the true answer. Next question. 2. I believe in Jesus Christ, and my belief occurred over time, this way, and that way, here and here, and I don't have absolute proof, and that is the point. For you the problem is solved. For me the problem is not solved. What about the person who answers with answer 1 above? I trust that you are not a person seized with what I call Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question, because I trust that you are honest. You could be a complete fabrication of some very sophisticated computer program, for all I know. You could be an Angel from Hell, for all I know. I base my trust of you on that source, where I can't even find the source, of reason and moral conscience, which I think is the same source, and again English appears to be problematic, as your words continue to measure up as being someone who is, as I am, questioning. Questioning? Listening to reason? Listening to moral conscience? Is that not the precise opposite of Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question? So you believe that you are possessed of something powerful, having something I do not have, a closer spiritual relationship with the son of God, and therefore a closer spiritual relationship with God, compared, side by side, with me. Congratulations, that is worth emulating, a fine example of human life, something exemplary, something I can work at becoming. Fair enough? I ask Jesus now. I don't just ask God. I don't just ask my old friend Hank, or my Dad, or my Mom now, or may Aunt Mary, or Nanny, or anyone, please, anyone, help me, please. I now ask Jesus too. So far I have not moved to the better place you have moved to but not for lack of trying, and if it is fair enough, then at some point we can go into greater detail concerning the reasons I think some of your words, in English, move in the wrong direction. I don't know. I may be precisely moving in the wrong direction. For now, it may be a good idea to move onto present matters concerning current information involving COPS and ROBBERS, here on Earth, and how better to know how to avoid all of it, or avoid as much of it as possible, while, at the same time, not abandoning the innocent victims currently being destroyed brutally by their tormentors if it is in someones power, on Earth, to do something, anything, to help those innocent people avoid their brutal tormentors. If I believe that it does help to publish words, even though we are using the problematic language known as English, I still think it helps the innocent victims avoid their brutal tormentors, to write, and publish, words as signs on the road. Which signs? I do this: 1. End the FED 2. End the IRS 3. Bring the Troops Home (look in the mirror) 4. Do so by July 4th, 2013. Start now, finish early. I may be working in the wrong direction. I think I am listening to reason. Where is the source of reason? Is there a way to focus our combined viewpoints? Where in The Bible does it suggest that Ending the FED is a good idea? No where? So I'm wrong? I can play the guitar instead of going in the wrong direction with my sign making? Is the Creator the authority? If the Creator is righteous, holy, and just is not what that Creator writes upon a piece of paper Righteous, Holy and Just as well? The Creator Himself took your wages of sin upon Himself to delivery you from the paycheck due each time the sin time clock is punched. So we may part ways. That can happen. I so not reason that out well. I reason that out as a sign on the road that is inaccurate at best. Is it worth the effort to accurately identify the source of my error in reasoning? If a criminal writes words upon a piece of paper, are those words then the transport of crime in progress? Satan has written all over God’s Creation, “mine, mine, mine.” But the final choice is yours, Joe, as God says, will you be mine instead? Will you come as a child and believe My Word? Ambiguity is not reasonable to me. Specifics are reasonable to me. Focus of attention to a fine point unto whatever is to be known, perceived, precisely, to me, is the road to reason, so that collection of words above, to me, are just so many words, in English, those words point in a general direction. If those words point to one specific collection of English symbols, known as The King James Version of The Bible, then there are specific challenges, questions, concerning English and King James and the specific people involved in the creation of English as a language, and the interpretation of other works that were interpreted and then published in that version of that book. If it is a good idea to look specifically at that English version of that one book, then are there things I am not supposed to look at, because you say that the person offering historical records involving the publishing of that book, in English, is a liar? Even if I agree to shoot the messenger, this guy named Frank, and he is now spirited off to the memory hole, the information he discovered, from other sources, remains to be either looked at, or spirited off into the memory hole. We, if you agree, we can just as easily discard any references to any sources of information, and we can discuss the concept of original sin, and human responsibility, and human accountability, based upon our own individual power to know what individual responsibility, and individual accountability means, with, or without the POWER of God working miracles. A list is what I mean to say: 1. We can discuss one on one, to compare our individual, separate, viewpoints as they exist, without reliance upon references written on paper. 2. We can discuss the relative merits of the words written on paper from various sources. 3. We can discuss the relative merits of the people who wrote the original copies of the words written on paper or written on the skin of murdered children. 4. We can discuss the relative merits of the people who translated the original copies of the words written on paper onto other paper. 5. We can discuss the relative merits of the people discovering words on papers, or words on the skins of murder children. 6. We can discuss methods of cooking meals. 7. We can't do all things at once. God has explained everything there and not one jot and not one tittle will pass away without being fulfilled. As far as you are concerned that is true. As far as I am concerned that is ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness. Between your perception and my perception on this specific thing, that quote just quoted, there is a gap, and the building of a foundation from which to then build a bridge of agreement between my perception, and your perception, is possible according to my belief. I know that the gap exists, and I don't have to rely upon belief to know that the gap exists, and I can offer much detail in English words, of my own invention, and much detail in English words from other sources, if I go down the road that ends at a gap, and I then work on building that specific bridge. What can I say in response to this: God has explained everything there and not one jot and not one tittle will pass away without being fulfilled. I don't know. So, I asked you to watch a children’s drama about Jesus. Hoping that maybe, those words there and those pictures there might give a glimmer of what I try to explain ever so poorly. While watching the video I could have stopped it, quoted from it, and worked in great detail to convey my perspective concerning what was specifically said, or specifically done, as a challenge to you. I challenge the concept of original sin, and the concept of human responsibility, and human accountability, with, or without miracles performed by God, Jesus, or anyone. Individual human thought, and individual human action is what it is and then there are other concerns concerning how those individual human thoughts and those individual human actions combine to form a power that is greater or lesser than the linear sum of each individual thought and action. I can go into great detail. To reply generally I can say, with confidence, that I do not know what you believe. If I do not know what you believe, then wherever I get my power of reason from, the right source, or the wrong source, I fail to reason, in any way, a belief based upon something I have no power to know. In fact, when I begin to reason out the concept of original sin, and the concept of individual responsibility, and the concept of individual accountability, and the concept of human connections to other humans, I find your words in English to be sources of potential trouble. I can go into great detail. I can say, many times, that I do not know, up until a time in which I can say, accurately, that I do know. There will be a day when a mark on the hand or forehead will be required to buy or sell. If one does not have that mark, they will be punished. That looks like a source of trouble to me, along the same lines I've been reasoning out, thinking, working on, that looks like a very misguided arrangement of English symbols, and I can go into great detail, or I can honestly say that I do not know what you believe in reference to those specific words in English. Getting rid of the opposition beforehand?. I see no mystery in reference to criminals, they all do the same things. There is no mystery. Criminals lie. Criminals threaten. Criminals are aggressively violent upon the innocent. How is that ever a mystery? A victim is victim to a lie? A victim is victim to a threat? A victim is victim to aggressive violence perpetrated by a criminal? What is the need for, the demand for, secrets? we will not take the mark Which mark? Do you have a social security number? Do you have a drivers license number? If you do, and it is strictly voluntary, then it is no different than someone wanting to save time by having a bar code voluntarily tattooed on their hand. Where is the victim of such a crime if it is strictly voluntary? If, on the other hand, your social security number is a way that the criminals tag you, and you are a victim, and the criminals then take from you because you are a thing according to them, and you are thing number such and such, then that is exactly that, no more, and no less. The mark, if it is criminal, if that is the problem, criminals mark their victims, is here, has been here, already. If the criminals grow more powerful, because the victims are working harder to have more things for the criminals to steal, then it does not take a prophet to realize what happens down that road. Patrick Henry spelled it out well enough. "But bear being a pig wants Joe to listen to all of them." Frank offers remedy. If Cooper does not, then that it is reasonable to know the difference, at least based upon the source form which my power of reason is gained. I started listening to Frank at the time he recorded his first phone call sessions dated as: 11/11/2010 09:00 PM EST Back then he used labels such as Jesuits, Khazarian Parasites, and The Roman Cult to aim the finger of guilt at those people in those groups as being the source of so much, or the greatest amount of, human misery on Earth. My words. Now Frank, jumping head to the present recordings, and the live phone messages, I've attended 2 now, now Frank uses the word Nihilists. Which words, which labels, are used by Cooper? Which person, which human being, is more powerful, at any given moment, than another human being? I can't write myself a check for as much money as everyone else combined and claim my check to be good, and get away with it. The people running The International Monetary Fund (not the label, not the legal fiction, the actual people) run The Federal Reserve, and The Dollar Hegemony, and The World Reserve Currency, and they can, someone can, some number of people can, agree to write that check, and they have wrote that check, and they are buying World War III. I can't buy World War III. Do I have the power to opt out of World War III? Do I have the power to help anyone opt out? The criminals employ deceit, threats, and violence. Have I ever lied to you? Have I ever threatened you? Have I ever caused you physical harm? I can turn that around. I trust that you have never lied to me, willfully, and even if some of the information that you offer to me happens not to be totally true, I have the power that I use to question information sufficient for me to have a power of defense against falsehood. It matters not if the falsehood arrives in by brain from the inventor of the lie or just a messenger transporting the lie. I must have some power, in me, to guard against lies. I trust that you have never threatened me. If your words convey a threat, whereby my failure to believe as you do will result in my end in a lake of fire, then to me that could be seen as a threat, and to you that information could be merely a fact, based upon your belief. To me it is something I just don't know, therefore it does not work as a threat, or a promise, it is merely ignorance on my part, and it is not willful ignorance since I am actively, willfully, working at knowing. I can ask Jesus right now. Tomorrow. I get the same answer. So far. I trust that you are incapable of doing me any physical harm so long as I am not attacking you or your family. The Golden rule is not merely words written in English. I am going to rest abit before answering your latest welcome reply which was separated from the first one because the forum wouldn't let you edit. It may be tomorrow. I am playing Mom Taxi all week long, and I am only home for a couple of hours this afternoon before I have to start driving again. The youngest has a 9pm baseball game tonight as well. I too, or me too, playing the part of taxi. Same boat on time too, I want to get more work done on The Daily Paul, someone is discussing a topic with me, and I have that new project to work on with the 1776 magazine. Your welcome perspective helps, please know that much.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 26th, 2013 02:43 pm |
|
320th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I took this off the page for reasons that should have been obvious to me. Thanks for the work on the new project. You are teaching me well, and the work may pay off some day. Who knows?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 03:23 pm | Page: ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... |
| Power Independence > Book > Book Resources > Final Editing | Top |
