Merciful and just? Not in functional language.

So why is he hiding his mercy? What's the shame?

Push aside the obsession, the constant idolization of the the one supposedly in control, the one that is OK first, and then all his filth patched up accordingly.

Explain to me how the term merciful, does not transform into a duplicate expression of wicked sadism and cruelty.

When this term comes to express Nazi Germany quality brutality and similar cruel, lowest of the the lowest behavior, repeatedly committed by that fabricated commander, supposedly in control.

How would the term purple for example, continue to retain its original definition, if a group of deceiving criminals continue to employ that term, to represent white color for example, only because they are not finding the purple reality, fit into their marketing scheme?

Obviously, to design a creation by pure choice, where victims are innocently traumatized and tortured in all these various forms 24/7 consistently, ever since the very beginning.

Won't alter it's designers character, just because some sick minds abuse language by applying competing contradicting terms, to present wicked activity in a confusing misleading perspective.

Rather, those who attempt to abuse humanity, through presenting defective language as effective.

Are actually depleting their expression from any meaning and value (at least to those of us who are up to their prankster shenanigans),

When human majority agreed to apply the term white to a specific color, it gave the term white tremendous value, it was empowered with a unlimited number of various uses it can offer.

What if that agreement is violated to a point where the above cooperation is lost.

Should we have crime witness, claiming they observed a murderer emerging from a white car,

All value in it will be lost, and a dangerous criminal will continue to roam the streets freely.

Bellow is an add on, partially related.

Whenever my religious beliefs were effectively challenged,
The only area which survived was the intense experience of it.

Despite the inability to assemble, a rational resolution to their logic,

The deep vivid experiences in the past within the religious context,

Were always sufficient to back, any form of some complicated response, too subtle, too elusive, for my challenger to counter with logic, thereby escaping the inquiry safely.

As far as I am aware, throughout history, the religious written law, was always secondary to the experience,
always twisted around and adjusted, to accommodate the former.

Should that reflect true reality,
Wouldn't that propose?

that 1, religion is not possible to share, just like it's the case with our inner experience?

2, the written works are not capable, to preserve this individuals (writers) religion down the generations.

No 2 is even more convincing to me,
If one agrees that the majority of religious essence, is comprising of individualized personalized living human emotion and mental image,

In such a case, the lifeless ink on the paper,
So much hindered by its void of human individuality (otherwise it's not communicative, just like individual experience isn't),
Is in no way able, to preserve the past and retain its contents.