Argument as Game: 1 of 4

Have you ever been asked why you believe in God and during your reply the person seems to suddenly go off the rails in a fit of rage? Modern interpersonal debate between the academically minded Atheists and the non-academically minded Christians twists and turns away from an unprepared Christian.

There is a game happening.

Prayer:

I praise the name of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, Son of God, atonement for sin and death. Father, let your Spirit of Truth testify of the truth and help the listeners experience revealed truth while holding on you as the source of truth, filtering my perspective through you so that whatever wisdom there is in my words the wisdom will come from you. Let whatever misunderstandings I might have be revealed, also. I rebuke all anxiety and spirits of religious yokes, in Jesus Name, Amen.

In my opinion, this argument as a game involves the language of argument and it resembles academic rhetoric, but it has mutated into toxic bullying with an evil purpose to divide and suppress part of human society. That is a big accusation. So, I ask you to please give any fear or anger or disappointment, if you continue reading and discover that I might have observed correctly, to God who holds his holy government and does not grow anxious in the sight of evil but loves an evil world into redemption.

The way this style of argument resembles academia is that when appropriately applied its style is intended for use against defending scientific or academic arguments, which are vying for validity to become scientific, sociological, or psychological theories, among other disciplines. But it is a sort of destruction of an argument. And I think, the structure of destruction demands a thesis be presented, prior to defense.

When readers read the rules of the game, listed later in this article, readers might see how the destruction of the thesis as a process for determining validity remains a past model for the basis of this game, but the process has also mutated away from the academic process of defending a thesis argument. I will go into detail so that you can decide its value in its form as a game and not on what it claims to be, which is a form of pursuing truth (as accurately as science can claim to be the truth or as worthy as a scientific theory can become helpful for the planet.)

The mutated version of this defense of a thesis is what I am going to shed a light on. Looking at the game by its rules, I hope readers consider the usefulness of the game in general society, as it’s being used. The problem is some people think the game itself is necessary. As a result, I think it’s important for everyone to become aware that this game exists, that it is a game with rules, because it is already being used in society and being sold as a necessary tool for gaging the worth of associations. I’m not sure that everyone who plays the game knows it’s a game. But the more aware of it a person is, the better a person can choose if they want to value this argument game, seeing it as a tool, by acknowledging the rhetoric. I hope no one will continue to respect the style, especially when it’s used against the general populace. My bias is against this style of argument with great detestation. I think it is a weapon when used against someone who doesn’t know he or she is playing a specific game of language. And I think it’s a game we should all abandon, a.s.a.p..

Firstly, I see the need to examine the root that fuels the logic for the belief-system which fashions this game into a tool, pitting this game against family, friends, and neighbors with, I believe, a very intentional purpose, which argues for the worth of this game as a measurement for determining worthy human-beings.

If this style of attempting to destroy a well formulated argument that takes years of research and gathering data to formulate a compelling thesis, and this defines the term argument, would have remained in the setting of a defense against a scholarly or scientific board of specialists on the subject, there would be no problem. Unfortunately for humanity, although it sounds academic, it is being used against people in general life settings by an emerging belief-system as a way of weeding out the “unworthies.” And this belief-system is being advertised as the only way to ensure compassionate, generous, and lovingkindness will be displayed upon our fell man. Furthermore, this belief-system is a competitor for a new foundation for structuring all society, thoughts and life. There are specific beliefs demanded upon anyone who wants to be welcomed into this group. There are minimum and exemplary displays of success for building the groups’ pursuits in society. One of these is to utilize a specific structure of argument to filter out and abuse non-adherent people who would be so bold as to think a “wrong” thought (I am not exaggerating, and this extremism is the means of integration into the field of academia by abusive language being sold as wisdom through constant battering against “unresearched vocalized thoughts” without mercy until people doubt their worth and ability to think independently from “accepted well-researched arguments which deserve being believed in.”) If it stopped there, we could argue for the teaching of more thorough research for seeking a truth, including religious beliefs. But it doesn’t stop there. It is competing as the best belief-system and arguing for the right to replace all other belief-systems. And its validation as worthy for a belief-system is the argument that it’s science rooted. But is it? What happens to someone who questions it? And what’s worse, this belief-system, which has no name, has a very specific request for how to identify and “deal” with enemies of the belief-system. And it is here that we find the argument as game being purposed. Also, the purpose of this game as a tool for weeding out unwanted associations is sold as life or death for a person’s humanity, worth, social-life, as well as the health of all the planet and all living things that dwell here, complete with a quickening expiration date on the house of all living things, and clinched with the accusation that, while no judgement day is being mentioned, somehow the person who volunteers to fail the planet via neglect to adhere to the new requirements for betterment will feel the weight of being responsible for death, famine, pestilence, starvation, poverty, violence as a result of poverty, war, weather events, planetary erosion, health defects in children, the weeping of widows and orphans, trash, and the list goes on; in my opinion, this sort of threat works against people who lack experience with organized religion. If no one has threatened your soul by demanding you become a god, having been born one, so that you can control events around other people’s lives (requiring rescue from this evil by Almighty Creator God who offers to continue being God, not having you replace him, hearing the true God offer to provide for you, the planet, and everyone in it,) a person might not know the sound of a religious new betterment plan for people or recognize the sound of a call to arms that is intended to enforce the new betterment plan upon a nation, or in this case the world. People are believing that this belief-system is not a religion because it has no name and has no building.

The belief-system claims to be rooted in science and how knowledge is developed. However, the tight demands of the Scientific Method as a process for testing hypothesis and retesting experiments are being misused and argued to be a way of measuring the worth of human-beings, which forces a person into the category of an opinion. This means the method is being adapted from battling ideas and hypothesis, to battling the people seeking truth, which has nothing to do with science or the pursuit of truth via science. It is verbal abuse to convince people that all human-thought must undergo this process of validity or else the human-being loses all human rights. Do you see the logical fallacy? It goes further than this by arguing that human personality is little more than an opinion, and in the Scientific Method all opinions are replaceable. It is barely associated with science, but it needs science as the reason to keep people away from seeking God. Freedom is inherently gifted to all creation by God’s opinion. And the one true God is the source of goodness. If a person never speaks to God, a person will never get free of fear. And that is not a game.

Looking deeper, the belief-system which demands this game of destroying validity of beliefs stands on science but has little to say about evil. Does this belief-system believe in evil? Honestly, I can’t hear that from those who defend its value. And I believe, the antidote of evil is God. I think, this view believes evil is good, so long as it’s outcome can be arguably good. And this would explain, to me, why practitioners believe destruction can lead to health within a person and within society, so that they can believe destruction of an individual’s right and confidence to think could be righteousness. That is not Biblical. Biblically, evil increases evil and good increases good, so that we only get good from the source of goodness that being, Almighty Creator God. And Heaven has zero evil. Biblically, good does not require evil exist in the same home as goodness. Biblically, we live in a place with both, so that we can decide where we want to spend eternity. But then, we don’t have choice – all beings in Heaven submit to (continue behaving) good and all beings in Hell submit to (continue behaving) evil. Biblically, all pain is evil/evil is pain. The line is presented at “stubbing a toe.” That is where evil begins by God’s spectrum of defining good for us.

Because the Scientific Method is being argued as an appropriate tool to measure human worth, the Method itself must become sacred. The game comes into play by defending the method for pursuing truth, so that practitioners and members of this belief-system must defend the Method to reaching a valid thought above all unresearched thoughts, opinions, or beliefs. But members don’t notice that in general society what happens is a replacement of valuing information itself for valuing the method by which the information is presented.

Please notice that there is no spiritual difference between a Method and a Way because things get worse when someone who ascribes to this belief-system begins to pursue righteousness having Christianity in mind as an ever-present competition for the definition of righteousness and merit for the worthy structure for the future of societal justice, even though it attempts to ignore a judgment in an afterlife. Do not assume that someone competing with Christianity for righteousness has read the Bible to have an understanding of Biblical law, right and wrong, justice that is merciful, or righteousness under Jesus of Nazareth as the definer of righteousness. Because many that fall into this category are not trying to better equip law-abiding citizens with laws that strengthen a nation, but they are attempting, as individuals, to achieve a form of righteousness so they might boast in God’s face that he or she reached a state of righteousness all by themselves. That has nothing to do with changing a nation’s laws and has everything to do with trying to best understand righteousness as a concept, like a lens, which can make all actions, thoughts, and motives righteous. Understand that righteousness produces a productive inner heart and mind, health in the body, and prosperity in life and society.

This belief-system has a logical path that is a reaction to the fluidity of the foundation of science. Because scientists must grow comfortable with science never achieving the claim of truth but being as firm as the claim of a theory there is an acceptance with no theory being true, while every idea might be true, all at once. To compensate for this lack of solid foundation, it can be logical to utilize the method by which a fact becomes a theory as a pseudo-foundation. The hope is to feel a solidity in the soul like a boat sailing over the ever-fluctuating seas of scientific knowledge as it is learned. This foundation on its own is not a problem. Nor is science a poor judge for morality. As a pursuer of morality, science is only slow because it will eventually validate truth. Science is not a weapon against individuals or societies or systems. Science cannot be blamed for a group of people abusing other people.

This belief-system validates itself using the concept and construct of the Scientific Method, but loosely.

One might ask, “But don’t we need to make sure we’re thinking in alignment with truth?”

That is the way the question would be asked because it’s politically correct and has a semblance of truth but notice the linchpin of logical fallacy that condemns a person as worthless for “failing to align with truth.” It’s not being mentioned; it’s being enforced by the group by mockery, accusation, and abandonment of relationships in the pursuit of managing an increase in members “aligned with the method for pursuing truth.” The problem of any belief-system is how it deals with its enemies; the answer to that question is the beginning of where humanity sees options for administered justice. Biblical justice is two things: what a human has the rights to have as a gift and what happens when a person does evil.

The question becomes, “Does your belief-system produce good fruit? This starts with separating evil and good. Can your belief-system reconcile for its members the presence of evil within nature? Does your belief-system treat a lie as evil? How does your belief-system define evil?”

I am ignoring the volume of religions because if we were allowed to have open discussion there wouldn’t be a problem.

Where do those who lack a relationship with God turn for morality? In my opinion, this supposedly science-based belief-system morphs into an abomination of a belief-system when those seeking to be counted among the most righteous of humanity compete with Jesus of Nazareth’s church’s idea of justice, compassion, and generosity. They compete against the word grace, but they think it’s the same word as mercy or forgiveness. They don’t know that this belief-system competing against Jesus is failing because they can only compete against churches that resemble an idea of righteousness but deny His power. So, they begin competing against a people who lack experience with God. Humans learn. We must learn grace, compassion, and generosity from the source of love. Without experiencing Jesus, they can’t compete with Jesus, but they don’t know that. And without experiencing grace from Jesus’s love, they are stuck competing against religious errors by resembling a religion more, and more. For the most part, passions prevent people from looking at this too hard. But this belief-system is an idea upheld by people seeking validation from a “greater” group of people. And they seek to please the “worthy” group once the members see that their most sought-after idea of love in the form of being declared “smart” by a group of “higher thinkers,” equating to worth, can be taken away. This is the “grand competition” which began at The Fall. And, I believe, it’s going to reach an expiration date at the return of Jesus Christ, for the planet. Then, it will be forgotten by humanity, in the same way that is lacks a worthiness to be thought of by God. Until then, we can choose to believe Jesus that all creation has value, and he works to save, all. Then we are sanctified so that we get to enter into God’s heart, being one with God as Christ is one with God. But some people choose to compete for worth within society and against whatever measurement the group they choose sets against them, instead of seeking to experience and receive unconditional love from God.

In my opinion, people being accused of the loss of worth reveals the evil against humanity within this belief-system. At its root, this belief-system is acknowledging Biblical Pride. Biblical Pride is the source of the idea of worthlessness. It is the lie that humans lose worth before God at a single failure. So, we’re getting into the trouble with this belief-system not having a solution for evil but instead arguing that evil has function, saying that if an evil has a function and the result of evil is helpful than an evil is also good. (However, ask yourself, what does this group do with “un-wanted” people?) Biblically, evil is all un-want-able things by the perspective of true good. Pride is an evil because it argues Heaven as un-want-able from the perspective of Pride for the sack that Heaven is a gift. Pride is a lie in the mind that functions to cause death by deceiving a person into abandoning the provider of all good things in pursuit for human accolades. Pride only exists in a mind that believes in worthlessness as a starting point from which a person has the chance to build an idea of worth with as little help as possible. Pride argues that it is good because it argues that it can, but it can’t get us to heaven for the sake that heaven is gifted: Pride dies with the gift of grace. Pride separates us from help: including and especially God. Pride is fed in the mind by a feeling of insecurity, which means it dies in the absence of insecurities. So, Pride must argue against the human spirit. The human spirit requires God as food for sustaining life; the human spirit requires love and God is love. Pride doesn’t want to die, but it is not necessity for quality life. It is the opposite, because the only need of pride is receiving of praise, verbal or material gifts of praise, for earned merit. Pride will forsake food, water, shelter, relationships, and love to receive what it wants, which is an accolade. This is a result of evil within our Earthly environment, a trauma to humanity from a spiritual kingdom of evil. Pride needs a solution like a disease needs a solution. Because this belief-system doesn’t believe in evil, it uses the presence of an evil in the human mind as validation for itself being possibly helpful, which could argue as a good benefit resulting from turning an evil into a healthy way. But what defines healthy? Biblically, the solution for evil is death. The Pride dies via a change of mind from valuing the need for an earned praise in exchange for tangible gifts from God by grace because grace eats Pride like an antigen eats a parasite. Pride believes in human worthlessness, as a starting place. And argues to be good because it thinks it can, but it doesn’t even know how to fathom goodness. But the mind doesn’t know what it doesn’t know until it’s revealed by a glimpse into the heart of good, unconditional, covering love over human offenses with a purity that is ultimately divisive: either respect and love salvation or resent and hate salvation, but good is a savior with unfathomable love from his nature. Pride can’t even save its own soul. How can Pride think it will become good? It’s arrogant in its hate for salvation. God believes in enduring worth, simply by his opinion. Pride argues to the mind that it can and will rebuild what was lost, but nothing was lost because God’s opinion never changed. The concept of earning worth or losing worth is a lie. God doesn’t agree with the voice of Pride, but we believe it so long as we run away from Him before He can say otherwise, which is the action resulting from being manipulated by fear. God has to catch us as we run away. Rejoice! Rejoice! He pursues us! Even though we don’t actually need validation, confident identity in God’s opinion of our worth is no longer default human mind; it takes God’s Word to set us back into our healthy minds of ultimate worth in the heart of God who loves us, enduringly, in spite of failures. He sees us as covered by Himself because God is good. God respects salvation because He respects himself. He knows He’s good. His love is so powerful, no evil can stand against it. Accusations exist, that doesn’t mean God listens to them. A healthy mind is aligned with God’s truth that we are worthy of His love, His grace and salvation, by His opinion that He loves us. He loves us because we are His art. When we choose Him, we become His children. Fuck yeah! We need to be aligned with truth, but not the voice that accuses us of worthlessness because that voice is lying. To say that we need to validate truth before we believe it, is tricky for this reason: while the human spirit knows its maker and loves being loved and rejoices over salvation, the human Pride is able to subdue the human spirit because it’s enemy is love: but it hates God because Pride has no function within salvation and it wants to be ruler over the mind and body and desires: Pride doesn’t need food or warmth or love: Pride needs one thing, accolades, insatiably. Do you see how it might die in the hands of perfect love? The God of the Bible is not telling us we are our Pride, but instead that we are victims of our Pride, which was set in place by an enemy who hates God. His enemy wants to rob God of you and me. Pride is rejecting freedom of self-expression, joy, relationships, love, and all good things so that it can hope to earn them apart from being helped. Salvation means that no matter how long our entertainment of our Pride, which is a hating of God, we can choose God, as soon as we want to. We don’t rid ourselves of Pride, but in God’s hands this hatefulness is a little bit of dust that His love consumes, so that it’s instantaneously forgotten the moment the heart rejoices. It’s a quick exchange, not accomplished but chosen with our words. Love is the solution for evil. Being embraced by God is better than serving Pride.

So, this emerging belief-system is based on a belief that people are worthless until they earn worth, validated by an internal experience of Pride existing in the mind, convincing people to pursue to desires of Pride without warning about the futility, but when it’s addressed argues for evil begin good, which can claim hopeless as a state of righteousness and emptiness as light to one’s path toward an unfathomable goal that is becoming good. It will even use scripture, but only half, and never words that lead to freedom. *I’m going to interject hope to the hopeless: if you have lost your mind/self/identity/confidence, listen deep inside your mind, no matter the chatter and you will hear hope. Hope is senseless and shouldn’t exist if humanity is the only worker on behalf of humanity. But it’s a gift and a testimony of God’s help. Hope makes perfect sense where there is a loving, all-powerful God who boasts of His goodness, pursuing us for His own children, wanting to dote on us, to lavish goodness on us, and works all thing together for the good of those who love Him (those who love peace, joy, warmth, food… and salvation.) I testify that it is there. Look into the darkness. When you succumb to hopelessness, you probably will see it, too: when you abandon the hope in your own abilities you will find the hope that finds you, a word spoken by God like light in utter darkness, a gift of hope alive testimony of God’s love, seeing you, wanting you, and able to help when the circumstance is impossible for you.

Obdurately, this boastful new belief-system is firmly rooted in the idea that humans are without worth until they can be validated, but it goes so far as to treat human-beings in their interests, opinions, values, and personalities as experiments, which should be replaced for valid ones. That is one reason this belief-system is as much an abomination against the human soul as Pride itself, which separates human spirits from the loving presence of Almighty God for no reason except a lying accusation against the nature of God as He reacts to human suffering and lack. It’s a belief-system that has no name, but I think you’ll recognized it in western society.

People are being sold on this new righteousness defined by a distant “well-read” community and threatened that validation of human worth is needed.

That validation sounds like by being declared worthy of thinking and speaking.

This plays out one way in academia and it plays another way in general society.

In general society it is assumed that “well-read” practitioners of the pursuit of facts by the strict adherence to the Scientific Method are succeeding in distributing facts. Additionally, facts change. Members of this belief-system must believe, currently.

To remain in the group, a person must remain up-to-date.

This means, if you want this group to call you “smart” your right to think is monitored and vetted by what is already in agreement as factual, that day.

First, a person must trust that “well-read” practitioners are doing hard work on behalf of the people who want to know the “truth,” which is continually being published. This is the boat provided by the group, for the group. Its wood is the Scientific Method, which is the determiner of facts and worth. But then, there are other people in the boat, and they value “sounding smart” in a way that proves devotion to the Method, even though it’s being inappropriately weaponized against freedom of thought and individuality. Members are required to boot enemies of this method out of the boat at the first symptom of “sounding dumb.” There are two rules to remaining in the boat: 1. vow to worship the method/structure for pursuing truth and worthiness, 2. prove loyalty to the method/structure by treating its enemies with reproof. Other requirements are optional for members of the “smart worthy people” group who seek accolades and praise from each other. I might mention that list, later.

Those who uphold this view that all thought must be vetted before anyone may be so bold as to utter a thought, opinion, or question aloud, if they utter the sound of something stupid, they are met with an oppression of verbal accusation against their human worth until he or she agrees to second guess every thought before it’s uttered in the hearing of a member of this belief, which has no name. Can you see a possible source of anxiety?

The game is, almost, at play. But still, there’s a root for the reason this game is so vicious. Because of the sacredness of proving devotion to the method of determining truth, this game is treated as a protection around the sacred method. But as I said, I believe this belief-system loosely adheres to the Scientific Method, the moment it’s used against a human-being and not an argument of ideas, so that the method is being replaced by this group for a structure, which is greater than the usefulness of the Scientific Method and yields to great application in the general population for a future structure of thought toward a purpose of applying all “validated thought.” A member must defend the method, but adhere to the future structure, which remains in development, and looms as a threat over the world for wanttobe “worthies” as much as a threat to credited “unworthies.”

Christianity defines righteous as the belief in Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. The new belief-system defines righteousness as the belief in the method by which all thought, beliefs, and opinions should be measure to quality for assurance.

Christianity: righteousness = Jesus of Nazareth

“Smart people only” belief-system: Righteousness = Method for Validating Worthiness (an idea or a person speaking)

This means, “Stupid” people are allowed to have ideas. However, they must prove their idea against the method of validating an idea so that no unrighteousness can be accused against a “stupid” person; as long as a previously rejected or a not-yet-validated idea has been thoroughly defended against the acceptable structure, then a sub-clause of righteousness can be ascribed to the “stupid” person which will prevent any necessary punishment or reformation of his or her mind. In other words, if a person upholds the structure of how thoughts are validated then a person has adhered to the only important measurement of human value, the use of the structure itself. People who believe in the necessity for upholding that structure of measurement of all thoughts will demand a game of argument be played to prove that a person has appropriately tested or researched all thought, while appropriately negating human experience (the game’s first qualifier.) But people who believe all thoughts must endure this defense of argument are set against neighbors, friends, and family in pursuit of appropriate alliances. They then set this game of argument into motion. It’s a game of proving human-value but it’s totally bullshit.

Members are expected to weed out “stupid” people from their circle of influence to avoid corruption. And there is no greater corruption to group-think than Jesus of Nazareth. So long as people don’t read the book, they can believe that they war against an equal competitor for structuring society, education, and growth toward peace, prosperity, and abundant life, because they think both belief-systems only support “the worthy few.” They don’t know that would be a denial of salvation grace, but they are taught to fear reading the book. They don’t know they are being taught to fear freedom by being convinced they are too dumb for big ideas so that all rights might be given to a “worthy few” for the development of big ideas, but I digress.

So, members set out in a verbal war for the right to think, waring against themselves and everyone else.

And they are armed with a pseudo-argument, which has rules like a game.

While members know the enemy of their belief-system is Christianity they don’t know what Christianity does for society. They don’t know where human freedom comes from. So, they set about attacking practitioners of Christian faith by attempting to prove they lose the right to think when the Christian fails to outwit an opponent in this game. I see this game as a problem for a number of reasons. I’ll be more specific in future articles describing the reasons this game doesn’t belong in general society.

It’s a game designed to force the “loser” to agree with the “victor” that the human-being has lost all, all, all, all, all, rights and worth to be called human. Don’t ignore the figure lurking in the shadow: Satan is trying, again, to get Christians backward-believing into a feeling of worthlessness to get us looking at the law, so that we might manufacture an idea of Pride-shaped-self-salvation as a yoke we can use against ourselves and others. This time it’s an attack through a game hiding behind a common vernacular “argument,” but is a very specific game of wordplay and is intended to function like an academic defense of potential beliefs, the kind that must wait on approval from “the board.” I think there’s a tactic underway from Satan trying to get Christians to renounce faith in Jesus of Nazareth by accusing many different things as “unprovable.” But it’s a distraction because while there are many problems facing humanity, Jesus’s salvation (restoration, love, and power) is the solution for everything. And it’s revealing that in this “argument” the name of Jesus is forbidden, unmentionable.

I want Christians to become aware of this game because if you don’t know you’re playing, you might get lost in the sudden attack of your person and wonder if there’s any truth in the accusations being shot at your soul. This is a time to adhere closely to the scripture “don’t give the devil a foothold.” By that I mean, don’t entertain his deceptive question, “Is there any truth in what this person says I am?” Don’t let him turn your face away from your Father who says blessings over you, always.

The bully verbally abusing you, has a set of trigger words and is bullying you from there. They have played a game that actually has rules, no one talks about. It’s a test of intellectual prouwesse to “figure out” the rules as peers are set against each other to “practice” being smart enough. It’s not a tool for gaining knowledge. It’s a “sounding-smart-game,” which is another symptom of bullshit. Part of the rules includes the many trigger words. The game actually stops at the sound of a trigger word. Because the game is sold as a measuring tool for human worth, the practitioner of the game thinks the game is forfeit at a trigger word because trigger words equate to a loss of human worth. So, they are trained to stop the game and declare it forfeit by the opponent, declaring themself a victor. Many of those who are playing don’t see how much of this is senseless.

And so, I hope everyone reads these articles, learning to see this argument by its rules so that they won’t respect game. And I hope this series of articles will reveal the game’s lack of usefulness outside of a defense of a thesis posed to validate or become a new scientific theory. Outside of that vast accumulation of data with the thesis being fully read and understood by a board of specialists on the subject, this turns into a chop-shop of an opponent’s thoughts without the opponent granted any rights to speak a full thought. It is the opposite of respect. It is the opposite of learning. Learning happens during the time of accumulating data from specialists on the subject, original sources, testimonies, and tested hypothesis. Learning is not the verbal shredding a practitioner’s mind.

And I want to reveal this game without encouraging anyone to play. This is knowledge that can armor the mind. However, I think faith in Jesus of Nazareth as Son of God, Savior, and King is shield enough to armor the heart, and to heal the heart beyond the notion of being offendable. But that’s a miracle; it’s a miracle worth asking to be given. The Word of God is our sword to cut the strings attempting to constrict a person’s walk that accuses their value is being on thin ice: at a wrong step they’ll drown in worthlessness. And like the Accuser (Satan,) if the arguer can manage, they’ll work out a way to boast over the drowning victim how the person managed to deserve the results of worthlessness, as defined by this belief-system, which at the very least causes the loss of the right to speak, but also declares that lack of rights to feed and clothe themselves or commit acts of artistry. But the belief-system makes no claims as to a limit set upon itself for regulated punishment for its self-proclaimed enemies. I would be so bold as to say that group has no outright enemies that are attacking it, but instead declares enemies by its growing set of requirements to be accepted by the group.

Don’t be afraid: the Word of God happened, and he sets us free by himself. But the Word will free one person at a time. Neither will it condemn a person when it’s wielded by the tongue of a believer in Jesus of Nazareth because we are commanded to extend the same grace given to us, to all people. And exactor of justice is God. And he will enforce this command upon believers. And that is if one doesn’t experience the entering into his love by an adoption of him becoming integrated with the growth and life and thoughts of the self, which is a new self by rebirth not as a Pride-fighter, flesh-fighter, but as a Holy Spirit receiver/abider/expresser so that his nature becomes our wants, too, so that we are good by inheritance. The fear of condemnation is not coming from Christianity, and we are not deserving of the verbal assault against our souls.

This game is loaded with explosives, like Mind-craft or Battleship: trigger words that set off a series of accusations of worthlessness.

Before I describe the game, I ask you to consider, if you lost a game of Battleship, with its little plastic pieces, would you think you’d lost any part of your humanity? No, I hope you would fully know that this little game has no impact on your mind, your worth, or your beliefs. Neither does this argument game bear any impact on your worth, that’s why the person who believes this game is supposed to impact the value of a human-being feels required to attempt a verbalized destruction against the self-worth of his or her opponent. The game can’t withdraw worth from a person, on its own. It requires a willing bully, to do that.

This is what it feels like to stumble into the game:

If you were asked a question with the assumption that the person you were speaking to was interested in learning from your perspective only to see that the person became upset in the middle of your sentence; suddenly, they were stammering to demand you began again but you were expected to approach the subject from a different angle; and then later on, you were informed that you were in an argument of debate; and if you continued talking, even after two or three demands that you change your perspective (as opposed to, being granted the floor for a length of time long enough to flush out, in fullness, the concept of your reasoning that houses your beliefs,) an end happened with a sudden crash into a conclusion of fitful emotion expressed by the person who asked you a question, followed by ridicule of your very humanity, including an onslaught of aggressive accusations that your opinion proves you are the worst form of human-being possible, and accusations that you exhibit symptoms of having latter stages of moral death spewed at you from a person who was so angry they’re almost crying, and somehow your soul’s value felt threatened from deserving breath, food, and shelter, let alone if you deserve to wear clothing anymore, that the horrible accusations wore away an armor around your soul until doubt of self-worth became a wound that bleeds and bleeds and bleeds, until you wonder what happened to this person to make their mouth so poisonous, and who told them it was okay to speak words of death and do they not know they are attempting to murder the listener by cutting off the soul from love? If this has happened to you, you have stumbled into a style of argument, which is actually a game (demon optional.)

What it sounds like when you’re “winning” by accident

When the Christian tries to go deeper and the opponent tries to back out, by way of accusing, “You’re getting off subject,” while the Christian is thinking, “I’m answering your questions.” What the person is revealing by, suddenly, demanding a “redo” is that they’ve let the argument go into an unstudied depth of the subject for the Offense to continue arguing. Since, they have no idea what the words are coming out from your mouth, you might as well let your opponent get his or her feet back underneath himself or herself by reorienting the game, totally starting over, and repeating the question from the top, again. Realizing that he or she just said, “Best two out of three?”

How do I know I’m playing the game as the one on Offense?

I preface: the game can be played without shaming a person, but I still think it’s evil if a person is joyous over the defeat or if the person has no interest in listening to the person begin herded, like a sheep, into a trap. I think it’s a hatful way to engage in communication.

It sounds like this:

Let’ say, I’m talking to someone I disagree with. At some point, I glean something in their language that is going to reveal a hypocrisy. If I can steer the conversation in a particular way, then I will get to expose what I perceive to be hypocritical. I might begin by changing focus of the conversation by asking a question, which begins the game by coming out of nowhere and requiring, the first of many, agreement statements. Or I can change the subject by asking a question that I expect will lead to an opportunity to make my claim of hypocrisy at a time when evidence for the claim has been revealed, already, by my series of questions and/or statements.

Most importantly, to be playing, you must have the end in mind and have a series of steps as to how to reveal your accusation with the intension of forcing the person to agree with you. This is different from making the observation of a possible hypocrisy, different from speaking directly with a granteous for a rebuttal to the accusation and given an undetermined length of time to speak.

Let’s say someone who believes in changing language to suit the desires of their belief-system wants to call me out on my use of “effect” vs “affect.” Seeing the potential for a hypocritical request, I might interrupt this person, devaluing the time and attention this person is gifting me so that I might insult them and their group.

I could ask, “Why are you seeking to preserve the definition of words?” I say this without any intention of listening, but waiting for an opening so I can, strategically, insert my opinion that if this believer in word-fluidity wants to demand a consistent definition of certain words, this person should feel required, based on the principle of belief that words deserve consistent meaning, to extend this courtesy to all words, which already have meaning. This leads to an “Ah-ha! Gotch-ya!” moment, not friendship. And that’s another reason I don’t like it in society.

In its simplest form, it makes the demand that every person defend every thought ever spoken as “well-researched” or “defendable” lest a person be revealed as a hypocrite, thereby being worthy of ostracization, mockery, and shame.

What is the game?

It’s a specific style of argument, which includes a particular structure.

Essentially, it’s a structure of argument that slowly reveals information, which validates a belief by a series of agreements, with a pre-determined desired conclusion, designed to force an opponent into an agreement that would reveal a hypocrisy within the opponent’s belief-system, so that if the hypocrisy being exposed is agreed upon, then the person’s group would call that person a non-believer or not worthy of association.

Let me say it again; you don’t become dumb if you refuse to learn this game

You don’t have to play a war of knowledge-based strategic attacks against another person’s framework of held principles by which that person orients a sense of moral living or a definition of reality. It’s easier to like people if you don’t learn the game. If you do, try to know what you’re learning so that you can turn it off, and keep friends that have different perspectives.

The Rules of the Game:

You must play the game on the terms set out by this structure. You have to sound like you’re defending or attacking a thesis on a board of academia. What you’re trying to do is not get interrupted or distracted by the slew of accusations against your argument and your person. Winning occurs by causing your opponent to be trapped by the doctrine’s hypocrisy, revealed by a series of agreements. To do this, you’ll likely need to maintain knowledge of the groups’, constantly fluctuating, ethical priorities (Note* Christianity doesn’t fluctuate, and it can’t be attacked from outside, only from within scripture, which is why we fail this game pretty much all the time because we are asked to stay outside of revealed truth in a way that is arguably testable, not including experience with wisdom and relationships, or visible power of the name of Jesus, as these are trigger words, which means the mentioning will forfeit the play.)

For example, if the group is not allowed to be prejudice? Then, you trap them in revealing one of the groups’ secondary priorities, one that demands a prejudice.

Don’t assume a player is going to let you start with an accusation; to play, you must be cunning as a serpent, and with the slick display of the tongue: nuance your opponent into a trap.

The Rules:

• This does not require any knowledge on any particular subject
• It helps to know the priorities of morality for the belief-system held by both opponents
• This will include a set of parameters which define “acceptable evidence” based on previously held beliefs of the Offense (trigger words fall into this category)
• A time extension can be justified for the purpose of defining a couple determinate terms (not too many, as non-born-again humans lack patience)
• The structure of revealing an argument, is essential as it pertains to qualifying for “winning”: without the structure of the reveal to the argument, an opponent can hear an amazing argument and still mock the delivery as second-rate
• Your Offense is to slowly make your opponent agree themselves into a hypocrisy upheld by the group to which they ascribe
• Your Defense is to slowly reveal information, forcing a logical path of agreements within the acceptable knowledge of the opponent’s group until a conclusion statement sounds logical
• You direct movement of the argument by getting your opponent to make “agreement statements”
• You are fighting against your opponent for the focus of the argument (like an arm wrestle)
• The Offense is trying to control the conclusion statement by insulting you with accusation statements to entice you to abandon your train of thought for a rabbit trail, which is actually viewed as “losing ground”
• If you “lose ground” you’re going to be accused of not being smart enough to be worthy of having thoughts
• You are holding onto the focus of the argument by raising your voice or using strategic silence and by limiting the amount of information included in your directional statements, which forces a pause and gives you an extension of your turn to speak without the time extension being counted against you
• Don’t use a previously heard phrase so that the opponent is forced to let you expound (otherwise, the opponent will think you’ve utilized the phrase as he or she understands the phrase and will speak over you)
• Any time extension counts against you, you have about two-five extensions before your opponent abandons the debate as a waste of time, so if you need to add contingencies to a known phrase, it’s a trial of the opponent’s patience, thereby credited as a time extension
• You are NEVER to use transitions words, at any point in the debate: but, because, if, when, and, then, so, while, etc. Never, at any point, speak a transition word, or you’ll be interrupted, possibly forfeiting the entire argument
• How many words you can say per turn is determined by the length of your beath; an inhale will result in an interruption. Also, the more melody to your sentence the more words you get to speak at one time
• The end-game occurs when an argument falls by self-condemnation, revealing a fundamental hypocrisy
• An end-game sounds like, “If this is true and that is true then your argument of this cannot be both, thereby you have no “truth” to validate your claim”
• Without a hypocrisy there is no resolution, there is simply a “draw” by both parties exhausting their share of information

The Game at Play:

Start from a place of control over the argument, like this:

Offense: I do not believe in God because blah, blah, blah… how can you, a Christian, defend your truth against mine?

Defense: Love (Don’t speak until invited)

Offense: Okay… love?

Defense: Love is mute apart from a conscious being expressing love. (One statement to get your opponent curious – don’t continue until invited – If the person relies, “Oh,” this person is not playing the game, abort game)

Offense: How do mean? (please, put it into a context for debate/where did your idea originate/against what backdrop is this idea framed/tell me more about how this can relate to my argument previously stated? Answer from one of these perspectives)

Defense: I do not believe love exists absent from consciousness. (spoken to sound like it’s only 5 syllables)

Offense: That remains cyclical and as self-evident an argument as existence being provable by already existing and does not validate the addition of God into the existence, or as separate from existence.  

Defense: (bold statement which requires development) Emotion is responsive; (Pause – if not interrupted, speak – if interrupted, ignore everything spoken, when they breathe, speak: development as juxtaposed statement) the heart is affected then the reaction can occur, and the reaction is evidence of an occurrence; (don’t breathe – sing as prose like the French: example) I can love myself, emotionally, and I can love things outside of myself, and this love will cause a change in my emotional experience; (continue singing : restated) I love therefore I am loving; (growing the argument by an add-on, just one) I love myself and so I feel love, but greater is the love that comes from an outside source, and it’s greatness is evidence of the source not being me.

Offense: Debatable, you argue that emotion is real.

Defense: I do. (insert scientific study on neurology or go home. Remember all experience is as scientific to this group as a hallucination because it’s believed to happen to a person, alone; additionally, if the experience happens in a group, it’s going to be accused of mass-hysteria. Science involves a measurement and a tool qualified to develop scientific data. What do Neurologists say?)

Offense: So, if someone feels love there is a God? (The opponent will begin early trying claim the right to call you dumb even if the dumbness comes from their unwillingness to hear your point-of-view as your use of words attempts to craft an idea for their mind: asking for clarity would be to forfeit the game by self-condemnation by their own group’s principle being that no member of the group is allowed to sound dumb, or be accusable by another member of the group of sounding dumb and/or treating an enemy of the Method with respect, which is evident by the action of listening, i.e. asking for clarification means they didn’t know what you meant, which they can think sounds like an accusation that they are dumb. *Can you see how this forbids learning, exploring, or respecting other people, especially potential un-worthies? And how feeling on-thin-ice is created internally by the principles of the belief-system itself?)

Defense: No. First, I’m arguing that Love cannot exist as a substance, as alienated from a conscious being: so, I’m arguing for consciousness being an essential element of any would-be god. I would then argue that in order for a god to have been a Creator, having created this reality and everything in it, he must also love. I believe we must determine the parameters for what constitutes God, as a worthy being to claim the title, before entering the pursuit for any validating evidence through which we might search Him out.

*If the opponent tried to interrupt me, I would talk louder. But if the opponent got emotional, I would grow very quiet, so that only the person sitting near to me could hear my wisdom.

Note: this is only a beginning; as a Christian my game this, only this, that I will gain the respect of my opponent, by defeating their arguments into hypocrisies: I will turn it around into an attack because defending myself is utterly unnecessary, by the principles held by the group calling itself my enemy. Always, remember the first rule. And by playing by the rules, I might gain a little respect, temporarily. I don’t entertain the argument as a way for proving the existence of God because my opponent is playing a game to defeat me as a person. If he or she was curious about my reasoning or experience we wouldn’t be in a debate, I would be telling a story.

I’ll diverge from my argument against the game of argument and tell you what I would say once I gained a mist of respect; I’m going to preach.