  |
|
Creationism
|
 Lust Of The Eyes So, if the dialectic breaks down on its fourth iteration, and is clearly seen to be self-inconsistent: then it must be rare indeed that satan will let it come out into the open. Better then to let his tail march through history conquering rather than accumulating to a state of disarray. The USA is a case in point full of contradiction: The three empires preceding it were amalgamated rather than assimilated: Without the clear introduction of what we would consider social engineering (in the form of the dialectic method to consensus) we would not be able to see it at all. The oldest sin in the bible was not eating of a tree, it was coveting what was God's property - the entire garden. In this page I lay out the three stages of the dialectic that aid someone in realising the manner in which they are being tempted. It is phrased as the "lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life." This page examines the first. We should all be familiar with the sin of coveting; We look at something and imagine ourselves in possession of or in power over it. In truth we are role-reversing the thought in our mind that if it were ours we would have what we wanted. Clearly, when something is not ours or in some way is out of our power or influence and we wish to justify that lust , we will imagine that we "only considered it but a moment". A person who is in control over what by right is theirs will not have such a moment, they will not reverse the roles of the thought of eating something with the act of obtaining it. It is theirs and already obtained and may be 'eaten' after: it does not need to be obtained then eaten. In truth to the one doing the coveting there is not the need for the thought to obtain it validly. It simply becomes the thought that the fruit is tasted first before it is touched. It becomes a lust of seeing something that will give pleasure before it is touched to satisfy the thought of that pleasure. Being under the "lust of the eyes" is the thought of doing something before having the right to do so: and is later undone by the reverse of the process afterwards: that it may be countered with the thought that it was not beyond the ability to first imagine tasting it and then want it: i.e. returning to the state that, "its not mine anyway" then to "I know what it tastes like already". does not undo the sin of coveting what was someone else's. However practically, what must be done is not the logical weighing up of this: but the item must first be seized then tasted, before it becomes routine and the inverse statement of "I know what it tastes like already" then becomes "its not mine anyway". So both practically and logically the orders of taste and possession are reversed. So to someone who owns a slice of cake may simply have the time-line of ; owns cake => sees cake => tastes cake => owns cake; Someone coveting the cake would have in the first case of mere temptation; has no cake => tastes cake => takes cake => has no cake => tastes no cake; And one giving into temptation will covet along the lines of; has no cake => tastes cake => takes cake => eats cake And will justify after with eats cake => it was a cake => I like cake where "tastes cake => takes cake" is the antithesis of "it was a cake => I like cake". We can consider these as if logically (or mathematically) they were opposites, that in product they would annihilate each other as if the taking of said cake was completely justifiable. (We do so in the metamath section for use in the revelation section of the site) A series of such events then would result in nothing except "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" where all right and wrong become up to the conscience of the subject. Similarly, on the basis of giving into the lust of the eyes, there is no consideration of harm or pain, no fear of prohibition or recompense. Whilst the way these terms in "cake" are phrased differently in their inverses: simply imagine that thesis collides with antithesis which is only resolved in the complete "do as thou wilt" paradigm as synthesis, or in the conscience that overrides the knowledge that "I know what it tastes like already" and "its not mine anyway" is just the same sinful process. Without the mind performing such tricks on us, we would not notice that we continually synthesize every thing we desire into a natural law that is derived from our senses without the absolute truth that we would and should not respond to temptation at all. |
 |
|
