TheRealNihilist

The Ultimate Reality exists.

If you say otherwise, you are a fool.

The evidence is accepting what we mean by what we say.

But if my word isn't enough, a source we should have in common is the merriam-webster webster dictionary which clearly defines God with a capital "G" as "The supreme or ultimate reality"

Oxford uses the term "Supreme being"

If you understand these terms correctly, they mean the same thing.

If this isn't sufficient for you, I suggest you look more into what apodictic truth means.

God is The Ultimate Reality.

Anyway I'll just wait for a real reply.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

That is the God we know.

If you say this God doesn't exist, youhave adopted a foolish and self defeating position.

Now understand thst if you don't believe that this is the case, that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what is meant by God, you are simply striving over the meanings of words, and you have no hope of understanding Christianity.

I don't need yo prove anything to you. If you dismiss something before understanding it, you have shut yourself off. I have little to do with this.

It is the truth that there is no truth! Prove to me that it is true that there is truth!

What we do know of God has been revealed to us to whom it has been revealed. The Church certainly has this Revelation of God.

In other words, you have no idea what I am talking about.

And you won't, because you think you know something when you are really in the dark.

Being that Christianity is both in essence apodictic truth, and a mystery religion, you can not be expected to understand it. Being that you think you know, you won't. 

Also - add your preference as to whether you’d be interested in being a roaster participant.

You may post the safety word Chihuahua 

but misuse, or use just because you have no sense of humour will cause you to be removed from the roast group. 

No, I don't. Which is precisely why the rules set out in this thread were devised and implemented.

You don't even know what you want proof of.

In fact, if you knew, you wouldn't be asking for proof.

Christianity in essence is apodictic truth.

That being the case, in order for it to be proven, it must be understood.

The Orthodox Church is The Church. We know the God we worship.

If the voter genuinely believes awarding a tie to be appropriate, I don't think there's anything wrong in that.

beep boop. honk honk.

Without clash, it is arguably impossible for the judge to render a verdict, because no one has given me a reason to prefer (or not prefer) any specific case. The only way to render a verdict is to intervene, and that is something many judges like myself strongly object to doing, and therefore will not do.

lol, triggered I guess is the word millenials use.

I took this to mean that it is impossible to legitimately cast a tie vote, as "both [debaters] can't be right," and this "should reflect in the votes." If that is not what you mean, please clarify.

I believe that debates rarely tie.

However, I do believe it is possible for debates to be tied, and usually that occurs,

as the adage goes, when the debaters are like two ships passing in the night.

I believe that debates rarely tie. However, I do believe it is possible for debates to be tied, and usually that occurs, as the adage goes, when the debaters are like two ships passing in the night.

There is a flesh and a spirit to Christianity. The flesh is what you see on the outside, the stories, the symbology, the scriptures, the holy tradition, the liturgies, icons, etc. To be aquainted with this is part of the catechisis of the faith. The spirit is the Mystagogy or hidden meaning behind all these things.

What can I tell you to help you? The Church worships The Truth as God, and so our faith is Truth Worship. If the catechisis is a stumbling block for you, you will not see the mystagogy behind it.

As it is written

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

And so to be initiated into the faith, one requires humility and charity. The humility to not know, and the charity to believe until that knowledge comes. A true knowledge, not merely gnosis, but epignosis. True experiential knowledge.

Is this the endgame to identity indoctrination in what passes for curriculum these days?

 Like I said, I guess it's just a popular thing with millenials to do that, putting people into neat baskets for disposal.

It's not cowardly..it is just insane to equate melanin color with a person's utility to society.

Where would you arbitrarily draw up the palette?

Why do you have to see things in terms of melanin or assume anyone who disagrees with you has a melanin fixation? That is just such a weird thing to have drilled into your head at an early age. Is racebaiting really that popular these days with millennials? Elevated status from race baiting and playing the hip victim?

I might actually agree with some of what Richard Spencer says while totally not buying into the melanin superiority or melanin privilege garbage.

The left can only place people in baskets. No nuance.

I'm not concerned at all. It's in humanity's best interest to destroy inferior, unproductive people from the gene pool.  The only people that need worry are the slow and the lazy.

Sorry, I cant see everything through the lens of melanin like you were indoctrinated to.

https://i.imgur.com/JaWfRjd.jpg

Keep flipping the race bait and the race cards though, it's popular to be a victim.

Ah. Well, that's tangential to the thread. I can respond more fully later to that topic.

Are you talking about ties as the outcome of the debate, or tied votes?

That is some seriously clever racebaiting. Kudos to you.

I just haven't taken the time to explain all of your questions, and since I think you have a different idea in application, it would take time for me to expound an in depth explanation properly presented which you could relate to.  That's all I mean.

I have literally explicated that I not think of it as ideal in the previous sentence.  I think that disregarding nationality is idiotic.

The founding of my country, and the respect of sovereign nations.

It's not about win/loss ratio. It's about "site statistics," which may include such things as earning badges or accumulating large numbers of votes in order to inflate one's appearance of involvement and significance.

and I haven't properly expounded yet in that setting.

I don't "support" nationalism, in the sense that I think it ideal.  

I don't find nationalism practical in a sense that a nation is inherently "good". 

I view nationalism in a consequential sense in a world in which people do not agree to a universal state. 

Nationalism, is morally and practically necessitated in some respects.

looks down on emotionalism and instead sees disspassion as a state to strive for.

It is no strange thing that God can know what it is that we have freely chosen without having dictated what we chose.

It is God's will that we can choose to embrace Him or reject Him.

because to reject The Truth is to choose death over life. 

And as God has conquered death by death in the crucifixion and resurrection, to choose death is to die eternally.

There is no true separation from God, who is omnipresent.

Whoa

They are including immigrant children who attend public schools.

Native born children of immigrants qualify for child welfare benefits and are often counted as "illegals on welfare".

Illegals who try to claim unemployment benefits or worker's comp for injuries on the job are threatened with deportation and denied by the courts.

I'm not aware of any evidence of illegal immigrants voting, there has been some confusion about people with green cards who are asked to register to vote when they get a driver's licence and then thinking they can vote since they were asked to register to vote, but there is no evidence that this has had any measurable effect on any elections.

The U.S. Constitution requires all humans are counted in order to properly draw congressional districts.

This count includes non voters of all types.  Children, prisoners, ex-cons, and even the severely disabled.  This clearly also includes immigrants.

If we pretend to believe in god then God could have created Adam and Eve to robotically obey commands given to them.  Then God could have programmed them to avoid the tree of knowlege and they would have avoided it, like the good automatons they were.