There are few things in life, that desensitize the moral courage to define our reasons for change. It is a deregulation of two separate facets facing the need for change that most matter.
One of the reasons for adopting change is to answer, what if, history had a science to it.
The second reason: what if time, had a voice.
Somehow the two facets are complete with so much of what goes on in the world presently. As change will follow in a moment, if that world were made of absurdity, abnormality, which also lead to censorship, which then becomes conspiracy. Those would describe the thoughts of a theoretical nature.
If we were made to be born unto a world of such change, could we maneuver through time and space unknowingly.
My thoughts on this are act against my own clumsy instinct, of a defense mechanism persuasion.
I hate it when people cop out, using religion as if it is a fait accompli, that once you turn your back on such religious sanctimony, you are somehow inferring the other persons right to a dichotomy of existence. In so many ways, a dichotomy of privilege, as if they are a model to find fault with you.
If you think about a dichotomy of choice, the thoughts become further estranged from using religious means as your own model.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
When you aim to maximize pleasure, the experience must be purely subjective.
"I hate it when people cop out, using religion as if it is a fait accompli, that once you turn your back on such religious sanctimony, you are somehow inferring the other persons right to a dichotomy of existence. In so many ways, a dichotomy of privilege, as if they are a model to find fault with you."
^This I wrote - points directly, in how superficial means target religion, by using it's infidelity as a vehicle to promote free will.
Also, when you reach a level of inquiry to demote religion, denoting religious freedom is not the most abstract thing in the universe. Religion is made by man to look abstractly at himself, a means of inquisition against those that challenge the creationist movement. My whole point being I hate it when people taunt others of their beliefs or faith, simply by dismissing it as a means to pass judgment against some others. To a fault, religion is a masterpiece of free will to impose its own deregulation of internal suffering.
When you come to think of the assimilation people begat religion, you quickly realize that people use it as a model to cop out with.
There is purity in divinity of a sublime nature. You can stand up to religion and those that choose to cop out, instead using creationism as a tool to subject the human environment, rather then a universal mystery.
As I said in my original dissertation: we must model our own free will based on a history of science (i.e. discovery) and giving time a voice.
Through abstract models, the absurd does not limit us to challenge the creationist version of time, but to think how abnormal we can be outside the lines of its territory.
If we mistook reality and answered questions based on a human history, the world can be drastically changed. The best way to find it is to refute religion altogether, disengaging the creationist movement of further historical language. A universal aspect of ourselves conceptually can be possible.
"^This I wrote - points directly, in how superficial means target religion, by using it's infidelity as a vehicle to promote free will."
By and large the ultimate sinner, committed to religion, uses creationism as a weapon against it's unlikely combatants. The means of war were completely skewed by religious contexts in history, that universal ignominy would correctly convene into consciousness.
To sin is not in sacrifice; to sin is to use religion as a cop out card, which history will not otherwise indicate, creationists view of life are just as fear mongering to the masses gone blind through religious means.
Intervention of a psychological nature against the abuses in religion, our human history, our self image, would increase our pure awareness - this creates universal achievement. We would be retaught how our rights are involved as individuals not lead by fear of god, but to oppose the rights of others that use religion against free will.
To sin is not to abide to religious freedom, because creationists view life against those odds.
So people of a religious nature will not adopt, but oppose those that deregulate the creationist model. Religion educates how to divide, the existence of man himself is divided, into negating free will using infidelity as a means not as an ends.
The creationist model will not accept a history drawn against itself, that much can only be true.
People have used it as a false type of moral conviction, that their take on religion as opposed to their own free will, can then absolve all those who pervade it. Never was a lesson worse had.
To turn your back on free will, is the beginning to deregulate religions superficial means against man himself. It is a conceptual mirror being held up to those, those who rather, take a defeatist approach used against their own free will. So once you see why religion promotes infidelity as a means, the end result is always the same, punitively.
Such acts of contrition, would change our personal relationship with the universe. Our experiences become redefined, and refine our idea of how people of specified religions, in turn, would not equate.
As a universal population, the religious superhuman immortal model to life would go extinct as we know it.
On a universal level of consumption, to no fault of ones own, people's inhibitions toward each other would change dramatically.
This entry was inspired by my observation of people, who do everything not to promote their own free will onto others, but when they have the chance to, they run to their nearest fox hole in hiding. So instead, they cop out using religion as a model to feel inspired, or loved, or accepted on a superficial but dejecting level.
Pure liberty is the act of being true to oneself in the presence of your own free will to do so.
Post a Comment