I'm not twisting your words, I said I can't agree with the statement "I worship knowledge more than anything". Worshipping knowledge is a religion, because it leads to the belief that knowledge always is true. For example, if people believe to know that planet Earth is flat and worship that "knowledge", nobody can convince them that they could be mistaken. Knowledge becomes holy, and holy means untouchable. But knowledge must be touchable, because nobody is perfect.

Where you come off antagonistic here is tying me only to that one specific statement when I've said many times before that love is not the answer to removing this prison planet, it only feeds the fallen, truth is. So then you make me out to be lacking in depth when you only present one side of the evidence and not the other. If you wanted to use this idea for your thread then don't make it about me. I live for the truth and I die for the truth, but then I will also fight for it which is why when you create these threads with my name in it I engage and not in a nice way.

"Where you come off antagonistic here is tying me only to that one specific statement when I've said many times before that love is not the answer to removing this prison planet, it only feeds the fallen, truth is."

Well, then you worship truth more than knowledge, which means your statement that you worship knowledge more than anything contradicts your previous statements – or you think that truth and knowledge are the same, which is exactly my point. It think they are not the same.

Me not agreeing with you makes me the bad person. It's always the same story.

No. You not agreeing with me is fine. As long as all the evidence is presented. Since you don't read all my postings, of which there are probably hundreds by now, you only get one side of the picture. This is why I stopped interacting with you because I also don't read everything you say so there's no reason for me to lie just to make you bad based on only one posting of yours.

*look bad

I don't make you look bad. I just quoted something you said and didn't agree with it. Why do you think you look bad?

This is where empathy comes in. To see things from another's point of view. It's good to practice it. In my case I've put in too much effort into all this for people to misrepresent me. At the end of the day I know it means nothing, but as someone who takes this all very seriously it does to me.

"Why would I need to punish you?"

To answer that rhetorical question: Many humans think that all harm is a punishment, because most parents choose harm to punish their children. For example, imagine a playing child is about to run into traffic because it doesn't recognize the danger. The parent graps the child and hits it. The rationale is to make the child feel the danger, so it will remember. But from the view of the child, it was a punishment for playing, because it doesn't understand the bigger context yet.

The alternative is to grap the child without punishing it. The child may interpret that as a punishment as well, but in reality, it's an act of defense against an imminent danger. It's not a punishment, and the child will understand that eventually.

It is a question of subjective perspective: for you, it may be their (wrong) opinion, for them it is true. There are so many examples for that. UFOs and academic reputations, leaving Islam in Saudi Arabia, heretics in the middle ages, CO2 Climate change, the Covid Judge freeing the kids from the masks, and so on
And your example is totally wrong. one does not need to hit a kid to teach it. It is enough to pull it away from the danger and explain why you did it. It will see that you are worried or shocked from the situation. If you hit it, it will not understand why it has been punished. It will cry and have strong negative emotions which will even hinder it from real learning. It just wanted to see the nice red car over there. But it will learn how to beat somebody else to release fear. Or -even worse- to control the natural drive to enjoy and go close to a desired object and to explore the world, to not be beaten and rejected from the loved one, it is also totally dependent on. From the Kid's perspective the relationship to you is of existential importance! Better teach it how powerful cars are and how the driver cannot see small kids and keep it at hand for a few times when cars are close. Explain why you do that. Repeat it the next couple of times going to the parking lot and also in other "car situations". Explain again, and ask to repeat what might happen before giving it more freedom again.

"It is a question of subjective perspective: for you, it may be their (wrong) opinion, for them it is true."

Which is called belief. So the question is: When does a belief become true knowledge? And we already know that concept, it's called "proof". Proof means there are no holes, which means there are no logical contradictions. So the actual problem is: People who don't accept logic as a higher standard actually have no standard of proving something right or wrong. It's the people who want things to be true that aren't true in reality. And that type of belief is called ignorance.

"And your example is totally wrong. one does not need to hit a kid to teach it."

I didn't say that you need to hit a kid to teach it. I said it's the rationale of the parents who believe that.

"It is enough to pull it away from the danger and explain why you did it. It will see that you are worried or shocked from the situation. If you hit it, it will not understand why it has been punished."

Exactly.

"Explain why you do that. Repeat it the next couple of times ... Explain again ..."

This is the reason why most parents don't do it. They don't want to explain it again and again. They want the child to get it immediately. It's impatience because of a lack of knowledge of how children actually learn.

You're confusing religion with spirituality again. I'm a spiritual person, it has nothing to do with dogmas and priests. Spirituality just accepts that there are other levels of life and experience beyond the physical.

As for accepting other's experiences that goes back to how many others find the same experience thereby confirming it. In this instance you see yourself as greater than the whole.

"I do the same, but with one important difference: I acknowledge that people can be wrong, myself included, and if that's the case, there is no connection possible."

I've yet to see admit you were ever wrong. All you've done was say you're always right and the other person is always wrong...something we tend to grow out of as we grow up and learn we are part of a whole/community and not just self centered as youth may be. So you're essentially stuck in the mindset of a kid.

"I've yet to see admit you were ever wrong."

That's because I only argue with people who are not using logic. I then can use logic to explain why they are wrong. I don't argue with people who are logically correct, because there's no point in doing so.

"As for accepting other's experiences that goes back to how many others find the same experience thereby confirming it."

Yes, but confirming an experience is not the same as confirming reality, because as I explained, experience is not the same as reality, it's just the interpretation. Everybody can interpret reality the same way and still be wrong, like when everybody believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth. They were interpreting reality in the wrong way and confirming their interpretation.

That's not logic. That's just your interpretation of what you perceive as logic. Your logic fails you because you're dealing with things that are beyond the physical, so then your limited framework, logic. can only extend so far. This is how science can also not explain so much of all this phenomena. You hide behind "logic" to limit yourself because you yourself know that "logic" won't be able to explain most of all these ideas.

No. That wasn't their interpretation of reality. That was a class of ruling elite wannabes who forced their ideas on everyone else with their limited understanding of "logic" no different than you're doing here. You only see the EArth as the center of the universe and the sun revolving around the EArth because you yourself haven't gone past your limitations to experience things beyond what you perceive as "reality" so either you can't or you won't. It will always be one or the other. I lean towards can't as it seems you can't conceive of anything beyond the physical lol. Even the "mental" realm is only layer and not the true spirit/spiritual realm. The mental is just our interaction between the spirit and the soul and that's where you need an interface so you create a "mind" to be that interface, but when you withdraw from that level of expression you no longer need that lower mind.

I put the debate from the other thread into this one because it's off topic there and on topic here.

Not just this one. You've done this many times before lol. Perhaps you aren't smart enough to notice you're doing it...but how many times have you created a separate thread and then post that link to that thread in the other thread you started a debate in. I've seen it plenty of times in the last few months you've infested this forum.

"Not just this one. You've done this many times before"

Yes, and for the same reason.

I only discount contradictions. If you violate the Law of Identity, I will argue with you.

Seems more like you're trying to set people up just to argue with them. This goes back to the whole disrupting the harmony of the forum. You're afraid of people having different ideas than you so you have it ingrained within you that you must go and put them back within a bubble no different than you're in.

You're the one who's afraid, because I'm disrupting the harmony of your narrative/religion.

You wish. No religion here. We're all open minded except for you lol. Any time a new idea is brought forth your fear kicks in that people will try to figure out more of this game and then you go into attack mode. I'm just one of the few here who takes the time to hit back at your stupidity. I tried to be civil, but there is no being civil with you. So unless Courtney bans you this will never end. Who knows, maybe he's using this as an excuse to study how we behave like they do on the Tavistock controlled major forums.

"So unless Courtney bans you this will never end."

It's sad that you believe that censorship will solve your problem. Yet another statement proving that you're on the side of evil.

Trying to play on a saviour archetype saying my knowledge is needed by others is again just your low IQ way of enticing me to post so you can try to twist what I post lol. What a dumbass. These mind games don't work on me little one.

I know. Nothing will work, because what you "know" is a dogmatic religion. If it was true knowledge, you would be willing to answer my questions in order to "expand truth", as you call it.