The major philosophies and then this one...

Dec 2018
993
14
U.S
#1
All the major philosophies tries to explain the events of life from a person's own perspective and with reasonings and justifications. And here is another philosophy. The philosophy of crime.

To commit a wrong and be found innocent/acquitted.

To commit murder but to be found innocent.

To commit fraud but to be found faultless.

To set a series of events or evidences to 'condemn' a innocent person.

The philosophy of crime with the assistances of non discerning personnel who are supposed to realize that there are criminals. The lower the investigators' ability, the higher the criminals' possibilities.
 
Dec 2018
993
14
U.S
#2
There is also the philosophy of 'innocent' until proven guilty.

Innocent of guile until proven guilty.

There was a child who was 'innocent'. He cried wolf. Many times he cried wolf and they all came. In the end the wolf was able to get away. The wolf got away but had to eat.
 
Dec 2018
993
14
U.S
#3
And then there's the philosophy of 'innocence'.

Everybody will think I'm innocent. And so they all did.


Even though the actions showed otherwise, within the heart of this person, 'innocence', was claimed. And what a man thinks in his heart, so he is.

Proverbs 23:7 "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: ..."
 
Dec 2018
993
14
U.S
#4
Notwithstanding among all three of these, the real 'innocent' persons didn't fare well.


Who exactly are the 'innocent'?

To be law abiders/followers/respecters is one of the groups of 'innocent'.


Personal 'sin' has been forgiven. Personal 'sin' has been received. Personal sin such as lying or gossiping or being high minded are and has been received. Breaking of 'law' has not been dealt with yet. Breaking of Law and not respecting those laws, not acknowledging those laws as 'beneficial/good', is something a little different than personal 'sin'.
 
Dec 2018
993
14
U.S
#5
Why does murder occur? Why does crying wolf occur? Why does fraud and condemning the 'innocent' occur?

Because the Law is not being acknowledged as beneficial/good.


If the person knows that these 'laws' are good and beneficial but still does not respect them or keep to them, then they are criminals with hearts not caring for human life.

And if those who are lacking in Jurisprudence responsibilities are allowing for these things, then they are also not respecting or acknowledging that the Laws are beneficial and good.


And if you have both sets of these groups not respecting or honoring human life by keeping the Laws which was raised up to preserve and protect 'innocent', then you have got a place where human life is not respected nor cared for. And there are the 'innocent' within this place also.


Notwithstanding among all three of these, the real 'innocent' persons didn't fare well.


Who exactly are the 'innocent'?

To be law abiders/followers/respecters is one of the groups of 'innocent'.


Personal 'sin' has been forgiven. Personal 'sin' has been received. Personal sin such as lying or gossiping or being high minded are and has been received. Breaking of 'law' has not been dealt with yet. Breaking of Law and not respecting those laws, not acknowledging those laws as 'beneficial/good', is something a little different than personal 'sin'.


So what will happen if nothing changes; if law is neglected or if not cared for?


You will have the extinction of the 'innocent' in this place.


But even within this place, you have:

To commit a wrong and be found innocent/acquitted.

To commit murder but to be found innocent.

To commit fraud but to be found faultless.

To set a series of events or evidences to 'condemn' a innocent person.

The philosophy of crime with the assistances of non discerning personnel who are supposed to realize that there are criminals. The lower the investigators' ability, the higher the criminals' possibilities.

There was a child who was 'innocent'. He cried wolf. Many times he cried wolf and they all came. In the end the wolf was able to get away. The wolf got away but had to eat.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
993
14
U.S
#6
There was a foreigner who came into 'town'. He didn't speak too much English but rather was fluent in Hebrew. Some Jehovah's Witnesses approached him and spoke to him about Jehovah. 'Jehovah'?, he asked, 'Who is Jehovah'?

The Jehovah's Witnesses began to explain to him that Jehovah was the Father of the Messiah, (J)esus.

'Ah', he replied. He took up his breath and cursed those persons and the Jehovah whom they were sharing.


The local towns' Leaders got word of this and phoned the land from which this Hebrew speaking man came from. Soon, the tabloids and propaganda began circulating and soon the publishers went into that land to publish the name of Jehovah within it as being The Father of the Messiah, (J)esus.


Had they known better, or had they have been more acknowledging of their 'law' as good and beneficial, those publishing companies wouldn't have made it past the first door.


So if the name of Jehovah isn't accepted in the land where Hebrew is spoken, then why do non Hebrew speaking persons accept something contrary to what Hebrew speakers do not?

Then Jehovah must be the Father of 'their' Messiah, (J)esus and not of the Messiah (J)esus of the Hebrew speaking ones.


And what could be 'wrong' or 'non law keeping/abiding' with this, right?
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
993
14
U.S
#7
There was a person who entered into North Korea. But before he did, he was told that North Koreans 'loved' it when visitors took down their local signs and advertisements to take back home with them. Well, because this 'tourist' into North Korea 'loved' the North Koreans, he did that. He took down their local signs and advertisements to show North Korea that he loved them; after all, someone told him that North Koreans loved it when visitors took down their local signs and advertisements. Well, because he was 'lied' to, he didn't fare too well.
 
Dec 2018
993
14
U.S
#8
But mind you... Y'srael only has a human population less than the population of New Jersey. Less than 9 million. So go figure what they might be 'counted' as among 7.6 billion.

Just to give you a broader view. 1 billion is 1000 - (1)million(s)

So 7.6 billion would be 7 thousand 1000 - (1)million(s) and 600 - (1)million(s).

The population of New Jersey is in the last category..... the 600 - (1)million(s) section.

9 million taken away from 600 million leaves 591 million.


And that still leaves the 7 billion, or 7000 1(million(s)) and 591 million.


How many (millions) are in 7000? 7000
How many (millions) are in 591? 591

What is the difference between these? 6,409 (millions)


Out of all these 1000's of millions, how many speak Hebrew well enough to know the difference between Jehovah and (J)esus?


So if I 'blaspheme' the name of Jehovah, am I blaspheming the Father of the Messiah, (J)esus or am I blaspheming a name of some Roman or Greek or Metropolitan god?

Now mind you that these 'names' are man given/made. God, The Father nor even the Messiah (J)esus Christ Himself, ever used this 'name' or gave this 'name' to Their listeners.


(J)ohn 17:5-6 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word."


I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world


Jehovah?


The pronunciation of 'Jehovah' wasn't even around in Y'srael in those days.


To 'spread' around a name such as 'Yehowah' would be much more respectful, even though still in non knowledge, than Jehovah.


First of all, there are no letters I or J in the Hebrew alphabet.. And as far as the publishing companies are concerned, those that entered into Y'srael, the 'V' sound they have now is a modern sound to the 'W' sound as can be heard in YHWH they had before they had 'modern Hebrew'.


Or should Hebrew be pronounced, 'Hebroove'?


All this dangerous stupid for a little hanky panky. Go figure.


vav as in vahv
or
waw as in wahw


YHWH as in vahv
or
YHWH as in wahw


After all, didn't (J)esus Christ manifest His Father's Name? Was it YHWH as in vahv or YHWH as in wahw?


Poor is the one who defends false names.


Or does none of this really 'matter'?
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
993
14
U.S
#9
LGBT.. or rather.. just G.

Neither lesbian.. Neither bi.. Neither trans... Just G, or gay.

So is Gay wrong? What is more wrong than just 'gay' is this. Disrespect, dishonor, assuming self better than others, 'lording' over others although not in the 'majority'... these are more 'wrong' than 'gay'.

Calling elders/thinking elders to be 'feeble minded' for not agreeing with 'gay', is more wrong than just 'gay'.


If they want to place 'blame' on the 'devil' for this, there is no fallen holy angel. All the devils and satans are within each heart that chooses to either do as 'it', the heart, wants, or to 'sacrifice' the pleasures and ways of the heart to do good rather than own self desires, even if it is of the heart.


My heart says, it is okay to call the elderly 'feeble minded'. The Word of God says it is not. For me to leave this satanic/devil idea that it is okay to call the elderly 'feeble minded' is to 'give up my own desires' and to turn and to do the 'right' thing, which is to not call the elderly 'feeble minded'. To all, this is not a 'huge' sacrifice.


So, what's for dinner? Jehovah or (J)esus?


Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Okay.. and then what? Fight over if the name of the Father is really Jehovah? Shouldn't I have received the Truth from the very 'get go'?


Will I be 'punished' for being taught the 'wrong' thing?

Which is worse? Being of a learning heart or being of an obstinate heart?


And so there is 'law'.. Law of the land.. do not go on a red light. Stop at a 'Stop' sign.

And then there is The LORD and God and (J)esus Christ.

And then there is/are relationships. Relationships to/with the law of the land, do not go on a red light, 'Stop' at a stop sign and relationships among and with The LORD with God and with (J)esus Christ AND relationships with others, believers or not.


Am I a police officer delegated 'powers' to correct STOP sign breakers/disrespecters? No.. Am I police officer delegated 'powers' to correct 'Wrong' statements to Church? Not necessarily. Am I a person who has a personal right to defend that which I hold valuable? Yes. I have a personal right with personal accountabilities to defend what I value; namely things pertaining to things that not all agree with.

Do I have a right to 'force' this value upon another? No.

Do I have a right to 'know' that being a human being means that I will be accountable to other human beings I have come into contact with, in one way or another? Yes.. I do have that right.. And how I choose to use that right knowing I will be held accountable in some way is my choice. Does this mean that I should be 'kind' when dealing with other 'human beings'? Of course. But if these humans are teaching the world that life was created anew after each extinction epoch, I might get very very concerned.. Not only to those that are learning these things but also to the ones that are teaching these things because they actually believe these things.. that life was created anew after each extinct epoch to and from where 'humanity' evolved from.


At least give those that want to 'play' some true room to play within...


So is it okay to get upset, to get angry over those who are in seats of power when they do not do their duties? To keep law?

Isn't this why so many youths and spouses and others leave the supposedly 'good' for a more 'real' reality/life?

The only thing they left behind really, was the yak yak yak and no doing/no doing of the yak yak yak they were talking about all the time.


In politics I think they call this filibustering.


Why is there filibustering? Because none thinks it's a good enough idea to have completed.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
993
14
U.S
#10
So it's not about 'you're wrong' and/or 'i'm right'. It's more a question about, 'Do you really care for those things you say you do care for'?


Because pretty straightforwardly, if you do not, then why are you wasting so many valuable precious years of your life 'pretending' to?


Hebrews 2:14-15 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."


The LORD, God, (J)esus Christ is NOT 'the devil' who subjects to fear through/of/by 'death'.

You know who does though.. And these 'persons' are not always 'nice' as they might appear to be on the outside. 'Don't do things my way and you might not see tomorrow', kind of persons.


So in a strange kind of way, it's as 'appealing' to the Higher Powers, those in Higher Rules, to do right in The LORD's and God's and (J)esus Christ's World. Strange as it may sound... that's what it kind of is like.

As far as the local community living is concerned, if the Higher Powers do their duties then individuals in communities will have an easier time living in peace and in quietness and in respect, etc...

Businesses also have their 'Higher Powers/Rulers' that need 'appealing' to also.


The Christian Church is The Lord's Body. How they ever began to 'ordain' females and non Biblical allowances is very strange also. Why do I say this? Because although Christ (J)esus is the Head of the Church, God is the Head of Christ (J)esus. So to have 'females' be 'ordained' is as saying that both Christ (J)esus and God is okay with having a little breach in Their Word.

So I don't know ... I cannot understand how They would think that 'females' can instruct males in their male duties as Godly men in Their World.


One thing I never hear 'females' preaching/speaking about in Church is the 'hell fire and brimestone' concept in either the negation of such or the defense of such. i never hear them speak of these 'rewards' for any kind of lifestyle.


Although the hell fire and brimstone concept might not be all together true, I never hear them speak of how 'certain' lifestyles will lead to those 'hell fire and brimestone' concept endings. Such as in the latter years of their life. Being 60 or 70 and racked with illnesses or internal loneliness or 'regret' is as 'hell fire and brimestone' to many.


But guess what the 'youths' are being taught today? That life is peachy all the way through. From start to finish and there is nothing to 'worry' about....
 
Last edited: