None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

The Eradication Of Faith

The eradication of faith may seem to be a good title for a page that attempts to show that the dragon will bang on your door and destroy you if you don't convert. Yet the bible tells us the serpent is more subtle. Satan has chosen to push the dialectic as a method for resolving every matter in life and to incorporate the method into the once correct practice of religion.

As religion takes up the process it is become the case that faith is truly eradicated. - The process ensures that the mind does somersaults to avoid admitting that the fixed stance is actually the correct one: that a relationship maintained is better than the truth kept intact. The law of the "church" has become the substitution of the law of "faith".

So how can a process with such inconsistency ever hope to fulfill the requirement of being all sufficient? We could write the balances out to see how.

d = 1 = {e,f,g} which opposes the three balances with d as wine ;
{d,f,g} => {d,e,g} <= {d,e,f} (f as oil) Or
{d,f,g} => {d,e,f} <= {d,e,g} (g as oil) (** see below) Or
{d,e,g} => {d,f,g} <= {d,e,f} (e as oil)

Similarly we have the other possibilities with other choices of "wine".

If one holds to the choice of 'd' as oil or an absolute, then One dismisses the three balances with the required shift of identity (oil) above: In fact one could hold to the possible following dialectics that incorporate a different choice of wine, so we would do mental somersaults to;

d = 1 = {e,f,g} as oil,
{d,e,f} => {e,f,g} <= {d,e,g} (e as wine)
{d,e,f} => {e,f,g} <= {d,f,g} (f as wine)
{d,e,g} => {e,f,g} <= {d,f,g} (g as wine) (* see below)

Then the negation of the former balances with 'd' as wine finds itself in these further three possibilities with 'd' as oil. What is then enabled is the transfer to a new choice of oil and wine:

If one were to be seduced by the dialectic row marked (*) one could be swiftly brought back to the row marked (**) and the two syntheses based on exchanges of 'oil' and 'wine' would be "equivalently valid". The process makes no distinction between the method that arrived at (*) and the method that arrived at (**). If one allows the argument to be made that both syntheses are valid results of the thesis and antithesis, then they are effectively equivalent. If one is seduced to agree in principle with (*) one would also have to admit (**) as a possibility. (Although there is no logic in it.)

In fact (*) and (**) are complete contradictions of each other, being found in the thesis and antithesis of:

{e,f,g} => (...) <= {d,e,f} with either e or f as wine, producing {d,e,g} and {d,f,g} respectively.

As long as one can make the argument that these two are also equivalent, one can manipulate the method to choose any pair of "oil and wine" from {d,e,f,g}. In fact these two syntheses {d,e,g} and {d,f,g} are the thesis/antithesis of both our rows (*) and (**). The equivalence of those two (*) and (**) would ensure that {d,e,g} and {d,f,g} are assumed equivalent - especially if the somersault is such that the distinction goes over the head of the group.

One would compare the equivalence of the syntheses of (*) and (**) to the syntheses made from their secondary syntheses as if they became a new thesis/antithesis, that the equivalence of

{d,e,g} => {e,f,g} <= {d,f,g} (g as wine, d as oil)
{d,f,g} => {d,e,f} <= {d,e,g} (d as wine, g as oil)

Is the "logical opposite of " the equivalence of
{e,f,g} => {d,e,g} <= {d,e,f} (e as wine, f as oil)
{e,f,g} => {d,f,g} <= {d,e,f} (f as wine, e as oil)

Where {d,g} is divided disjoint from {e,f} as to wine and oil.

Thus the appearance of didactic truth is found to be made by the dialectic: the result is that the clear contradiction of the fourth balance in each set becomes "equivalent" to a twisting of one of the previous three. If the claim of inconsistency is made against the fourth "balance", the appearance of the opposite by switching oil and wine (as if they were the dispute and not the method - they are not logically related) relates a synthesis on that score to the oil and wine as it were thesis/antithesis for a new synthesis - which in each case provides our disputed oil and wine as its synthesis.

The appearance is of argument to A=>B and B<=A. That both are assumed equivalent (In fact neither A=>B or B=>A is truly correct: It is simply assumed that one is the opposite of the other and are related by the process.)

If it is pointed out that 'd' does not imply 'g' then it is not necessarily true that 'g' does imply 'd' (switching oil and wine)

Likewise if (d v g) as in the second set above as thesis/antithesis holds, then how would this show f&e? If 'f' and 'e' are somehow both the excluded middle in the argument of (d v g) as we could claim dialectically; what is the merit that d&g is implied by (f v e)?

We would require that d&e follows from f&~e and f&e follows from d&~g. Clearly some somersaults are required! What is in regard is that neither (d v g) or (e v f) are valid as they have excluded middles, there is some common ground found in the process. That common ground in all honesty, is deceit.

We require that there be some ground in both excluded middles so that the sets e&f and d&g follow from d&~g and e&~f respectively. We have arrived at the "chicken and the egg" argument again. If e&f is null, then anything could follow: any disjunction could be the result.

What we already have is the death of faith: we simply "invent" our beliefs in that case. We choose what is right or wrong out of the imaginations of our own hearts - words which God has not spoken, and which are despicably wicked.


Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page


'