1
   

To Seer

 
 
Reply Sun 9 Aug, 2009 11:53 pm
The Forbidden Truth that you advocate and The Path, which I advocate are philosophies, not religions. As we're taking the other thread off topic and debating a non-religious subject in the religion forum, I'm creating this thread, just for you and me to continue our debate.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,516 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Seer Travis Truman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 08:34 am
@David cv,
As always, I answer to all posts.

The first thing you need to do is define the subject.


Yes, Forbidden Truth is not a religion. And yes, Forbidden Truth is a philosophy. However, it is also a the actual societally-banned Truth.

One word of advice : Do not quote the bible to Me, unless you first provide proof that the bible constitutes reliable evidence. Also, the Forbidden Truth arguments I present are rebuttals of societies claims. Maybe not all, but nearly all. Therefore, My position is one where I only have to answer to the arguments put, not the Forbidden Truth. You can't argue "Seer Travis, prove the Forbidden Truth" if I say "The Forbidden Truth is that bible is not reliable and there is no evidence that it contains what it claims".

Do not attempt to ask Me for evidence of the existance of the Truth. Anyone who thinks the Truth does not exist is hardly able to argue against it's existance in the first place, for there would be no Truth's to argue with.

Although I know the FT, be aware that I do not "hide" behind this. I state My position, the arguments, and the evidence I have to back them up.
David cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 01:10 pm
@Seer Travis Truman,
Seer Travis Truman;67856 wrote:
As always, I answer to all posts.

The first thing you need to do is define the subject.


Yes, Forbidden Truth is not a religion. And yes, Forbidden Truth is a philosophy. However, it is also a the actual societally-banned Truth.

One word of advice : Do not quote the bible to Me, unless you first provide proof that the bible constitutes reliable evidence. Also, the Forbidden Truth arguments I present are rebuttals of societies claims. Maybe not all, but nearly all. Therefore, My position is one where I only have to answer to the arguments put, not the Forbidden Truth. You can't argue "Seer Travis, prove the Forbidden Truth" if I say "The Forbidden Truth is that bible is not reliable and there is no evidence that it contains what it claims".

Do not attempt to ask Me for evidence of the existance of the Truth. Anyone who thinks the Truth does not exist is hardly able to argue against it's existance in the first place, for there would be no Truth's to argue with.

Although I know the FT, be aware that I do not "hide" behind this. I state My position, the arguments, and the evidence I have to back them up.


If I quote the Bible, it'll be from a secular point of view, I'm an atheist.

Yes, truth exists, always has existed and always will exist yet people still lie.

This is all well and good, so answer me this. How can truth, which is a universal constant and always possible to discover be 'forbidden'? Some may wish it to be and thus try and hide it and even lie but it's still there and can, no matter what 'rules' put in place, be discovered. Truth, especially the Ultimate Truth, can't be forbidden. Case in point, the world is round, some think it's flat. The world is still round and no matter how many times they state otherwise, people still discover it's round and never forget this fact. It's truth and thus it's knowledge can't be forbidden.
Seer Travis Truman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Aug, 2009 08:00 pm
@David cv,
Reply to David.

If I quote the Bible, it'll be from a secular point of view, I'm an atheist.

Does not matter. Why an atheist would want to even quote the bible is of some puzzlement to Me. The rule is in force : Do not quote the bible unless you have proof that the bible is a concrete source of information.

Yes, truth exists, always has existed and always will exist yet people still lie.
Correct.

This is all well and good, so answer me this. How can truth, which is a universal constant and always possible to discover be 'forbidden'?

Good Q. A : Not all Truths are Forbidden Truths. FT are truths regarding the secrets and structures of a society. Individuals are not "responsible" to the Forbidden Truth.

99.99999% of humans cannot handle the FT. They literally cannot discover the FT as you suggest. The so-called discoveries of Truth they make are either lies, or non-Forbidden Truths.

Societies worldwide forbid the FT. How can this be done if we can just think whatever we like? By literally attacking the minds of children as official societal policy. Sanity, natural love and recognition of Truth are all malevolently destroyed in nearly every human child by society. There is a constant bombardment of lies on every living human creature by society.

Adult humans do not have Mental Freedom, as thier ability to recognise Truth, and thier natural love for Truth has been warped or completely destroyed.

In a nutshell : Nearly all humans on earth literally do not recognise Truth, and flee from the Truth. They prefer lies that comfort them to Truth. They cannot discover the Truth, EVEN IF that Truth were to be directly explained to them.

Some may wish it to be and thus try and hide it and even lie but it's still there and can, no matter what 'rules' put in place, be discovered.
No. It can;t, and it is isn't discovered, save for a select few Seers like Myself. It is not a question of being banned via "rules". It is a matter of a literal malevolent assault by society on the minds of all children.

Truth, especially the Ultimate Truth, can't be forbidden.
Truth and Forbidden Truth are not the same. Society IS successful in brain-washing you humans to reject the FT.
This Ultimate Truth you speak of sounds like lies. You should never presume that any claim to/form of Truth is a Forbidden Truth.

Case in point, the world is round, some think it's flat. The world is still round and no matter how many times they state otherwise, people still discover it's round and never forget this fact. It's truth and thus it's knowledge can't be forbidden.
Good case. I'd say its a fact. There is a difference between fact and Truth. There is a complete difference between a Truth and a full-blown Forbidden Truth.
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 04:38 pm
@David cv,
Now I am beginning to understand what you mean by FT. I haven't gotten around to reading the website you posted on another thread concerning FT's, but what I did read appalled me. Do you have no consideration for timing? How are you so thoroughly convinced that "the time" has come, and that people are ready for any form of change? Which is not brought upon by themselves of course.
Seer Travis Truman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Aug, 2009 07:19 pm
@markx15,
Reply to Markx15

Now I am beginning to understand what you mean by FT.
It is important to undertand the meaning of the terms used. Knowing the difference between Truth, fact, Forbidden Truth and True Reality are very important.

I haven't gotten around to reading the website you posted on another thread concerning FT's, but what I did read appalled me.
Being "appalled" by Truth is inferior.

Do you have no consideration for timing?
The timing of what?

How are you so thoroughly convinced that "the time" has come, and that people are ready for any form of change?
It is not possible to change society's operational core to a Truth-based model, because society is based on lies and myths. Since less than 99.9999% of humans can recognise and embrace Truth, there is no way a Truth-based society could come about.

Which is not brought upon by themselves of course.
I fo not understand you intended meaning of this statement.
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 04:23 am
@David cv,
Quote:
It is important to undertand the meaning of the terms used. Knowing the difference between Truth, fact, Forbidden Truth and True Reality are very important.


You know you could clarify that for me.

Quote:
Being "appalled" by Truth is inferior.


I'm not appalled by what is written there, but by the fact that it is written at all.

Quote:
The timing of what?


Why are you here if not to express your FT? I say you have no timing, because you have not considered the consequences of what you say. You claim that you have to sneak to get to truth, but you are being blunt.

Quote:

It is not possible to change society's operational core to a Truth-based model, because society is based on lies and myths. Since less than 99.9999% of humans can recognise and embrace Truth, there is no way a Truth-based society could come about.


Yes I agree, with the first part at least, society is based on lies and myths, but they are useful ones. What you claim implies change, whether you want it to or not, your words attempt to change society in to the model you say is impossible.

Quote:

Which is not brought upon by themselves of course.
I fo not understand you intended meaning of this statement.


Sorry about that, take away the "not". I meant to say:
Which is brought upon by themselves of course.
Seer Travis Truman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 08:57 am
@markx15,
You know you could clarify that for me.
Forbidden Truth = Check the website.
Truth = A Truth, but one that is specifically relating to societal issues, or is relating to societal issue but is without any depth (i.e. a mere social critique).

True Reality = Go to Home Page or Manifesto of Forbidden Truth (Joseph Weintraub's site).

Seer TT : "Being "appalled" by Truth is inferior. "

I'm not appalled by what is written there, but by the fact that it is written at all.
That is false. You cannot be appalled that something is written, because it is written. Otherwise everything that was written would be appalling. The fact that you even chose the word "appalling" strongly indicates to Me that you are brainwashed by socities false moral standards claim. You were appalled by the Truth.

Previous Seer TT : "The timing of what? "

Why are you here if not to express your FT? I say you have no timing, because you have not considered the consequences of what you say.
The only consequences are the highlighting of My obvious Superiority.

You claim that you have to sneak to get to truth, but you are being blunt.
I did not say I had to, but others (context) have to. Perhaps you can work that out.

It is not possible to change society's operational core to a Truth-based model, because society is based on lies and myths. Since less than 99.9999% of humans can recognise and embrace Truth, there is no way a Truth-based society could come about.

Yes I agree, with the first part at least, society is based on lies and myths, but they are useful ones.
All lies and myths are toxic, harmful and malevolent. THere is no such thing as a "useful lie" or a "useful myth", and anyone stating that lies so much might be useful is a supreme inferior.

What you claim implies change, whether you want it to or not, your words attempt to change society in to the model you say is impossible.
Incorrect. The words are purely for self-serving purposes. You humans can all die in pain, ruin you lives because of inability to see the Truth, or what have you. I do not care. I do not want to help you.

Which is brought upon by themselves of course.
I still do not understand what that is supposed to mean. I do see that it is supposed to realate to the change sentence before it. This statement is not precise enough, perhaps re-phrase it.
0 Replies
 
markx15
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2009 11:29 am
@David cv,
Quote:
That is false. You cannot be appalled that something is written, because it is written. Otherwise everything that was written would be appalling. The fact that you even chose the word "appalling" strongly indicates to Me that you are brainwashed by socities false moral standards claim. You were appalled by the Truth.


Lol, I'm appalled that someone would even take the time to write something like this, and even more so that you would waste your own time in reading it. Then again who am I to question what you do with your time superior one.

Quote:
The only consequences are the highlighting of My obvious Superiority.


Now that is a self-centered remark if I ever heard one. I guess there is no use debating with someone who is always right, is there? If this were a debate forum I would be very disappointed.

Quote:

Incorrect. The words are purely for self-serving purposes. You humans can all die in pain, ruin you lives because of inability to see the Truth, or what have you. I do not care. I do not want to help you.


Good luck with that.
Petey J
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 08:59 pm
@markx15,
Quote:
You humans can all die in pain, ruin you lives because of inability to see the Truth, or what have you. I do not care. I do not want to help you.


Nice. :rolleyes:
Seer Travis Truman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 05:57 am
@Petey J,
Petey J.;68899 wrote:
Nice. :rolleyes:


That was an appropriate and Truth-based statement.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » To Seer
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.91 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 05:44:15