This time, once trying to apart from Sermon on the Mountain by Jesus, why don't we consider each acceptance around absolute truth? It necessarily includes Lord presence, otherwise facing posture, interpreting minded idea or so to any sacred matter and any integrally indispensable and irreplaceable truth around religious belief, to those thing, this time let's consider so formally.

E.g. in fact, actually, to my mind imaginable Jesus, or Lord by Himself or so are all in frank in my mind, my own image, and to it, propbably yours are mutually very gapped and differentiated nature attending identity, nevertheless on belief of Christianity, any Lord can be object for belief and own credo. Thus this own mutually never perfectly attached into absolute identity by itself can be made into our own propositional, and somewhat kind of Philosophy of Mind or some term abiding interpreting could be guided, Analytical Philosophy or so can be applied at this questioning. 

Each mind picturing image is very gapped and in frank very remotely mutually another thing, that absolute factual truth, to it, what stance and idea should we have in mind?

And that mutually otherwise distance acceptance, but simultaneously each of it must never be only fake nor only illusion. In other words, consequently mutually subjective item for debating is mutually never easily identified, but expediently we can put in on a debating table, that own regulatory setting one subjectively supportive proposition, thus that premise abiding signified modus ponens is the integral, thus after all, to us, the debating occasional mutual consensus by itlsef is the most important, though necessarily, to us, more than  substance, truly sensed identified one, rather mutually communicatively relevance keeping reality by itself can be the most integral, and necessarily either Lord, Jesus we can have talk around or so, all are simply our own communicative consensus indication, we can regard those as being so, so necessarily. 

And, to its own reality, how should we regard and interpret?

Those are somehow our language activity's own rule, aren't they?

Thus, after all, even through the same text as Old and New Testament, after all, to each one each story signified own imaged apperance are mutually very gapped, nevertheless each is the absolutely never false, we can say so definitely. 

Freedom and right can be included in those territories.

In fact, consequently even if mutually mindfully very remote and mutually differentiated pictured image, also those gapped thing can be the truth and each is never wrong and incorrect, that very applicable extent spatially and generously recognizable extent by itself must have some identified significance and own definitive being.

Though, occasionally like today's it's interpreting trial or analysis, that them should be allowed to include to our own questionable item or subject. 

And, for the present, to it, why don't we call "Mutually Expediently Given Accord"?

(Irregularly continued)

Feb. 7th.    2024