  |
|
Metamath
|
 Thy Kingdom Come Just as the empty or null set can prove every disjunction, (I.e. given no facts, every opposing pair of views is a valid topic for debate.) The freedom granted through the arrival of the Kingdom of God stands under every decision of behaviour and spirit. The law is discerned to be found true within the Kingdom of God only, and Divine authority only present to correct people to salvation. Whereas dialectic logic makes a set null to facilitate consensus on a dispute, the Kingdom of God shows there is a virtue that keeps the believer from condemnation under the law given through Moses. The matter is not on legalism, but of the benefit of the believer, to increase in virtue. The essence of faith is found in Christ, showing a maximal set of virtue. Then, opposing viewpoints pos(p) => ¬pos(r) etc may be reconciled, Whereas the commandments of the law that would state N(¬pos(f)) rather than ¬N(pos(p)) are yet in effect. However Christ mediated a covenant of grace to us, leaving us a sure promise in His guiltless resurrection that this grace was, to put it, legitimate. We may indeed reason dialectically, but we do so without dismissing the absolute position of God's Kingdom and sovereignty as a nullity. (We do so every day when we are "occupied with much" as opposed to "choosing that good thing"), There is no legal sin for being preoccupied, but we always return to the safety and security found in Christ. So, since we reason didactically on a fixed position we are made to discern the difference between opposing positive properties on our virtues rather than on questions of lawlessness that should not describe our lives. There may be an excuse, such as in times of great need or distress - there have been many occasions where necessity has to step in: Christ suggested His disciples prepare for violence rather than to merely accept it for example. So, returning to the K4 form of the ultrafilter we have so far gained a universal property of three dimensional space that is a perspective of reality shaped by the K4 group. If the K4 filter is itself a group of K4 subgroups, and the Kingdom of God is the rest found in the 'unity' element, it is a short leap of intuition to assert that the common element to those three K4 subgroups as found in Christ is itself the ultrafilter of perfections upon virtue. We then have a unity element that is fixed and never changes in the octal, which is that which we most desired. Likewise, the ultrafilter of perfections within the K4 form may be extended to a K4 group of K4 subgroups. We would do this by merely requiring that Jesus simply chooses to be virtuous and display that virtue in the creation around Him. A simple thing for God, but near impossible for us, unless it were displayed to be possible, which it was! (We are not mere marionettes, we have our lives) Then the life giving spirit of God would maintain the perfection of Christ's example, so that His light would "shine" and that His life would be of virtue, found wholly within the will of His Father. Big words for a human being, and too high for I myself, but Jesus Is God. It becomes writ then with the K4 group as unity in a K4 group of groups spanning the octal that Jesus and His perfection is as real as He Himself is at any given time - and in the creation which was made for the pleasure of His own and His Father. It was made by Him and for Him and His glory will not be given to another. So, given that there is a "unity" element, is it possible for that unity to float if it is diminished? We are told that those in Christ are "counted for the seed" and that seed is Christ. It is only right that the didactic reasoning upon the Kingdom of God be such that the Kingdom of God itself be referenced - In believing on the one God held up by Christ, we assert that L(G) is actually correct, and we are ready to be corrected - not to refuse the correction of God from wherever it comes. If we have a different law we have a different Christ - yet we only require in ourselves to have a subset of virtues that are maximally found in Christ. We, should also live in a manner where those virtues are manifested in our lives - as it surely does with Jesus. What we should assert is that it is positive for God to save a person with correct faith in Christ and a subset of His virtue. perhaps it would make more sense to show it is not "not negative" instead. Christ mediated grace upon obedience to the law of God under predestination by the Holy Spirit. If a person has the same law, and also a proper subset of the same virtues as Christ, (Any of which could be justified by L(G) given that law) then if God were to deny the positivity of the statement that that set of virtues should grow, then He denies that those virtues are positive properties when found in God or Jesus Himself. Good God! How simple a measure to ensure that innocents and those without a bad report are so certain to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven! God will not be mocked by those without knowledge. For, if a set will not develop it is only due to the entrenched views that there is some 'p' excluding some 'r' that negates the possibility of a virtue 'q'. (or many such q.) If 'q' is then totally rejected, it is the choice of someone who will not repent, rather than of one whom could do so later. Then, as we may assert that the law of God may be kept by a man of virtue - as one with virtue will not have a conflict with the law, we may state that anyone finding fault with the law is either incompatible with a maximal set of virtue, or in himself has chosen a set of virtues that make L(G) into some other L(X). Incomplete, and both made to suit ones own needs - made into the likeness of creeping things and others with no merit. We should assert then that fixed positions L(X) are fixed only upon such "p" that exclude other "r" and virtue(s), and there is in effect an individual choice of an "essence" in X that denies the one God the right to hold sovereignty. If an individual makes for himself an essence that is incompatible with L(G), (by exclusion of L(G) itself in the example of Christ), then that essence is truly anathema to God, as there is nothing logically entailing that statement L(X) or entailed by it that gives glory to God whatsoever. Truly, such a statement is a false positive. L(X) is in actuality a transmission of denying the kingdom of God. It has made the unity element into a nullity, and is then a result of purely dialectic reasoning, maybe with the appearance of strength in numbers. |
 |
|
