From: dicksilk@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, January 23, 2024 at 1:01:22 AM UTC-6, Justisaur wrote (in   
   conversation with Silk):   
      
   J:> "Of the takes on Christianity, I am most attracted to Jefferson."   
      
   While I understand the "context," it would help to have a specific reference   
   point, such as a "point of reason" within the Jefferson ideology—   
      
   J:> "The Jefferson Bible I find of some interest, and I really must get around   
   to reading it in it's entirety at some point. If you aren't familiar it's   
   Thomas Jefferson's very abridged (compared to other bibles) account of just   
   Jesus' teachings, life    
   and morals."   
      
   Ah.  Much better focus, thank you.  I've had the same idea, but found it   
   easier to simply point the individual to obtaining a "Red Letter Edition"   
   (preferably of a KJV or NKJV, but what have you.  Biblehub . com / interlinear   
   / book / ##-## . htm works *   
   perfectly* for revealing the "nuances of original definitions" around *every   
   word*, like:  biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/24-4.htm ) < you need to   
   *visit* that link to "see" the exploded definitions.  It's "mind opening!"   
      
   J:> "If there were a Jeffersonian church near me I would be sorely attempted   
   to attend."   
      
   Never knew there to be such a church, however, I *suspect* the new MAGA   
   movement of the GOP / RNC is right along that line of ideology.   
      
   J:> "In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe   
   (even if I don't and can't.)"   
      
   Let's start with "belief," in the sense of "believing" in the sense of   
   "bathing":  Do you believe in bathing?  (If so, then it is *most likely* that   
   you bathe.)  If one does "not believe" in bathing, chances are, that someone   
   *may* be a homeless,    
   mentally ill individual, the type seen defecating on the sidewalks and   
   shooting up drugs on sidewalks in front of public schools, etc.   
      
   Now here's a "starting element" from which to develop a "full platform" of   
   belief / beliefs / a personal ideology:   
      
   1) Reality Conforms to Thought.   
   (Try arguing *against* that and *see* what happens.)   
      
   2) Reality Conforms to Thought which conforms to Love, as one's heart conforms   
   one's thought into reality.  (Hence, families, growing farms, businesses, etc.)   
      
   3) That which *exists* "is logically TRUE" (=1) while that which does "not"   
   exist, that which "isn't" (or "can't, won't," etc.) reflects the logically   
   FALSE condition (= NOT 1, = ¬1, =0, = FALSE.)   
      
   #3 is *very important* in understanding *all* language (and thus, the *thought   
   within* the word(s)) as language may be seen, heard, evaluated in two   
   essential forms (like binary: 1 and 0):   
   1) Is-based ideology (that which *is PERFECTLY TRUE*) or   
   0) NOT-based ideology (that which is NOT.)   
   (See also:) discussingjesus.quora.com/UNDERSTANDING-THE-WORD-%CE   
   BB%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82-logos-LOGIC-of-GOD-As-the-Word-of-God   
   is-TRUE-thus-it-behooves-people-especi   
      
   #3b:   
   There is the *correct* (and very rare!) correct usage of "not", such as in   
   [duality NOT] which reveals "Unity"— such as in the (4 or 5+) "nots" of   
   Jesus:   
   Condemn NOT— (Luke 6:37)   
   Fear NOT— (Matthew 10:31)   
   Judge NOT— (Matthew 7:1)   
   Resist NOT— (Matthew 5:39)   
   Swear NOT— (Matthew 5:34)   
   all of which illustrate the principle of [duality NOT] thus they all express   
   Unity, and *Only* Love Reveals Unity.   
   (In other words, Unity❤️duality, as 1❤️0, as TRUE❤️false, as   
   Husband❤️wife, as Parents❤️child(ren) etc.)   
      
   Understanding this allows the individual to *easily* observe ("discern") as to   
   whether the written (or spoken) word "is true" or "is not."   
      
   So here's a "crash course" in "not-based ideology":   
   To say that "Five is not one" may *appear* correct, *however*:   
   It analyzes thusly:   
   5 = NOT 1   
   5 = 0   
   thus, to say "five is not one" is to "speak falsely," which some folk refer to   
   as "lying."   
      
   To say "One is one" is to say "1=1" which "speaks truly"— see the difference?   
      
   Now let's take a "look back" at what you wrote previously:   
      
   J:> "In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe   
   (even if I don't and can't.)"   
      
   Let's take the *first* part of that *alone*:   
   J:> "In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe"   
      
   OK, that flows *very* easily, as every individual's own preference is what it   
   is, thus, "speaks truly" for the individual.  *Others* may *hear* and   
   *observe* the truth of what is being said.  Those who *understand* truth will   
   simply acknowledge "TRUE" in    
   some manner, or simply go on to the next element.   
      
   Now let's look at the *tail end* of that previous quote:   
      
   J:> "In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe   
   (even if I don't and can't.)"   
      
   Translation:   
   [TRUE (even if false and false.)]   
      
   That which is TRUE may be worked with, while that which is FALSE falls away,   
   as one *cannot* work with a tool that does NOT exist — One can *only* work   
   with a tool that *does* exist.   
      
   At any rate... to address that comment as a whole, I'd like to refer you to   
   the teaching of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 19:26— …“With man this is   
   impossible, but with God all things are possible.”   
      
   And now focus on the 2nd half of that observation: "...*with* God *all* things   
   *are* possible.”   
      
   Think of it this way:  Love = light, thus ❤️=💡.   
   Now contrast that with *no* love, and you get... {█} (nothing.)   
   Now remember:  God *is* Love (1 John 4:8.)  (Note the "is-based ideology"!)   
      
   Finally, one more take:   
   J:> "In that what you've posted is much closer to what I'd like to believe"   
   What *any* individual chooses to believe *or not* is that individual's *own*   
   business, *per the 10ᵗʰ Commandment* (see Exodus 20:17, regarding   
   *anything* that "is thy neighbor's.")   
      
   J:> "Franklin's belief sounds more plausible to me as well, but I really   
   haven't delved into that either."   
      
   Franklin was his own self, pretty much, but to "evaluate" any specific idea, I   
   need to "see" it in writing.  (Audio / oral / aural is *much* more difficult,   
   due to the dain bramage.)   
      
   J:> "I'm actually most attracted to the silly atheist reaction religions,   
   because I find the whole of religions utterly ridiculous."   
      
   I *used* to think that "other religions are meaningless" because of the very   
   strong "Christian bias" with which I was raised.  But *then* I started to ask   
   myself, "Why should I believe in *any* religion, much less *disbelieve*,   
   unless I *first* 'check    
   the tires, check the teeth,' etc.?"   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)