A Resonating Insight Into Negative New Age Positivity
To Tina Fiorda and Tilde Cameron:
Hi, I’m a logician. I don’t like to waste time so I will go right to the point:
You made a false claim that God, because he “is love” wouldn’t punish. God isn’t literally love, if so, he’d not be God, he’d be an emotion, which makes no sense, because emotions aren’t alive, they are are response of living beings. Further, if God could only love, he wouldn’t have a free will, he’d be a slave to love so to speak (supposing there was such thing as living love that could be God at the same time, but he’s not. It’s too convenient and wishful thinking.
So, major error there. Also, it’s common knowledge you punish for two reason: justice and to teach, just as you said, to teach. Is God NOT teaching by causing pain? Or is he not teaching when he exercises justice? Using your logic, no one should punish, people should get away with crimes, no one should be restrained even. Your logic is one sided and biased too, because you’re saying God shouldn’t have the right to exercise his truly free will.
Your second error: You said he gave us free will. Free will doesn’t justify doing wrong, it’s not a free ticket to do wrong or to try and do whatever we want.
Third error: You said, in response to the Christian who corrected you with the Bible, that “we feel” such and such. Feeling is inferior to reasoning. It’s by following your feelings over reasoning that is the main reason for fights (not as others say in a vague way, “religion” as in, “being religious.”) Simple example: children fighting, bad marrying decisions, unprepared pregnancy, leading to endless baby-murders, divorces and wrecked lives.
Fourth error (though is the same as the third one): Does that “resonate” with you? You said that your message “resonates” with you. What does that mean? It’s a vague statement that explains nothing. You also said that spirits can also be positive and not negative, and asked, “Why must they only be negative”? However your question is a rhetoric fallacy: your question doesn’t prove that spirits communicating in a way forbidden by the Bible won’t always be negative.
Fifth error: You’re use of the word “negative” is also vague. It has multiple meanings that don’t match. Negative can mean, “Displeasing”, “not having messages or an attitude conveying happiness” or “being unthankful and/or having a fault-finding attitude out of hatred”. The first two aren’t necessarily bad, the third is, so these definitions are not all compatible. Your question therefore could not be understood, it was meaningless. If you hadn’t used that deliberately deceptive New Age term and instead used the biblical “evil”, you would have been understandable and not teaching and spreading confusion.
The Bible makes it clear that consulting a spirit will have negative consequences because God forbade it, and sin (going against his command/s) leads to punishment, or what you might vaguely call “negative consequences.” That is why you will always. if “a spirit” really is speaking to you, get a deceptive message over all (not that every single thing said is going to be a lie). It’s also not the same as a sin like theft, in which you may have a temporary “positive” as you might call it, result, like getting a bottle of aspirin and getting rid of a headache. A demon doesn’t do anything beneficial, nothing significantly beneficial, not usually at least. It’s intent is always to deceive or facilitate some deception, including just by being silent if that’s all it feels like doing or was told to do by Satan. A demon is not like a genie in a bottle. It’s like an angry tormented snake covered in sharp thorns that wants to relieve its pain and is willing to harm you if it thinks it can ease its pain by doing so.
Sixth error: You’re use of the word “spirit” is also deceptively vague. You’re purposely avoiding specifying angels and demons and attempting to make people think that you can also talk to dead humans. There is no evidence, with the exception of one debatable verse in the Bible, that humans, especially unforgiven ones, will communicate after dying.
Seventh error: You said God unconditionally loves. Who says that, and what is the evidence for that? The Bible certainly doesn’t teach that, and if it did, it would be a major contradiction using your interpretation. You’re picking and choosing which verses you want to believe, and simply going with what is convenient and sounds most pleasing to your ears.
Eighth error: You can’t create a reality and there is no such thing as more than one. That’s an incorrect usage of the word. The way in which you use it goes opposite of one of the only definitions, which is, “The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be.” So you’re midefining it, completely going against it, by saying there is more than one reality. The word has not been used that way till New Agers started misusing it. It’s a delusional use of the word and sets people up for a fall and can get people killed because you are teaching people that they can literally cause dangerous things to be safe just by wishing or that lies can be true just by wishing, like making child abuse a good thing that directly helps children, or driving on the wrong side of traffic something that will improve safety, or jumping off a cliff something that will be a positive experience that leads to enlightenment and immorality rather. It’s an extremely against common sense delusion. It could even cause children to become mentally ill if they were repeatedly taught to believe in imaginary things and told that they can wish things into reality or wish things away, like the sun, and are later traumatized into a permanent mentally deluded state when someone abuses them, by endlessly responding with delusional defenses like pretending that the abuse is good, and even becoming worse by becoming addicted to abuse. Your reality creating fallacy is actually one of the roots of all logical fallacies: denial of absolute truth or rather, that there are absolute lies. And to deny that leads to endless confusion and mistakes. Your claim that we can create realities therefore refutes your very claim, because I can, according to you, create a reality in which you are completely false (and yet that can’t be true either because you deny that there is anything that can be completely true), hence why I said your reality is unworkable. An analogy of your teaching would be if we lived in a completely red universe, yet you say, “The universe is blue, but not truly, really, it’s red, but not really; because we can see blue if we want too, because we have free will. Just imagine you’re seeing red only?” And of course you ignore the test: just check to see if anyone is able to see red only using something other than your feelings and imagination.
So, you’ve created a life-wrecking, false and contradictory reality if anything, one that isn’t loving as you repeatedly insisted during your interview by Noory. And your using vague words makes it harder for the ignorant, gullible and stupid to realize that.
I hope you appreciate my patience in using my “free will” and valuable time to correct your mistakes for the benefit of all. You can learn how to be saved via the salvation link above.