The fourth false statement that destroys life and Destiny. "Love doesn't save
It is argued that temperature observations made by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming.
What does science say?
Indeed, in the early 1990s, initial estimates of temperatures in the Earth's low atmosphere, based on measurements made by satellites and weather balloons, did not reflect rising temperatures at the Earth's surface. However, these discrepancies arise from the question of how the data were collected and analyzed, and how large the differences are between them.
Based on our understanding of global warming, both lower layers of the atmosphere - the troposphere, where the greatest amount of greenhouse gases are concentrated, and the Earth's surface - should warm as a result of rising levels of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. At the same time, the lower stratosphere - the part of the atmosphere above the blanket of greenhouse gases - should cool.
Some argue that it is not occurring as a result of human activity, based on early measurements from satellites and weather balloons that purport to show that there is virtually no warming in the troposphere. But this was determined due to data errors. For example, it was discovered that the satellites were slowing down and sinking slightly in orbit, leading to discrepancies in the measurements. Differences between the instruments on board the various satellites have also caused controversy. A similar problem applies to weather balloons. In addition, mathematical errors in one of the authentic analyzes of the satellite data showed that less heat was detected in the troposphere. However, when these refinements were made to account for these and other issues, tropospheric warming was shown to be closely related to temperature trends at the Earth's surface.
Plus, the lower troposphere has been shown to be cooling, consistent with our understanding of the impact of global warming on this part of the atmosphere. But some of these coolings are not due to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, but to atmospheric depletion caused by human activity - the destruction of the ozone layer. Ozone warms the stratosphere, holding . A decrease in ozone also affects other layers of the atmosphere, which proves the importance of taking all factors into account when analyzing climate phenomena.
It is fair to say that in tropical regions of the world there are still differences between the temperature on the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, predicted by computer programs, and what actually is. However, these differences remain within the limits of observational errors and model uncertainties.
"The weekly Sabbath acquires 'religious significance' only in connection with annual holidays." Consequently, it owes its religious or spiritual content to its connection with the annual Sabbaths, which are clearly ceremonial in nature. And how can the object of the blessing (that is, what in this case has received “religious meaning”) be higher than the source of the blessing? All this proves that the weekly Sabbath was merely one of the ceremonial Sabbaths.
We have already found out that the weekly Sabbath was characterized by the holiness with which God endowed it in Eden. Apparently, only 2500 years later did annual holidays appear with which it could be “associated.” When the manna first began to fall, Moses called the seventh day the "holy sabbath," although at that time there were no annual festivals with which it could be "associated." Nehemiah wrote that when God declared the Sabbath as part of the Decalogue, it could be called the “holy Sabbath.” However, the Decalogue preceded the proclamation of laws that approved the celebration of annual holidays. In the context of passages from the books of Genesis, Exodus and the prophet Nehemiah, as well as the Book of the prophet Isaiah, which speak of God's holy Sabbath, we cannot find any “connection” of it with any annual holiday that supposedly conveyed its holiness.
Given all this, we, strictly speaking, can not waste time discussing these annual holidays, however, having examined them, we will once again be convinced that by their nature they are fundamentally different from the weekly Sabbath. From the Book of Leviticus (Lev. 23) it is known that there were seven annual Sabbaths.
1. The 15th day of the first month of the Jewish calendar is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is also known as Passover Saturday.
2. The 21st day of the first month, the last day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
3. The 50th day after the 15th day of the first month, later known as Pentecost.
4. The first day of the seventh month, known as the Feast of Trumpets.
5. The tenth day of the seventh month, known as the Day of Atonement.
6. 15th day of the seventh month, first day of the Feast of Tabernacles.
7. 22nd day of the seventh month, the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles.
These annual meetings were usually called "Sabbaths" because the Hebrew word "sabbath," which is translated "Sabbath" in the Old Testament, simply means "rest." During these annual Sabbaths people rested from their labors, but it would be unjustified, based on the simple fact that these annual holy days were called "Saturdays", to equate them with the seventh day Sabbath. Of course, both are days of rest, but this does not mean that they are similar in nature or position. Based on the Hebrew language, we would not sin against the truth if we called the modern day off "Saturday", that is, a day of rest; In addition, we could also call a Christian religious holiday “Saturday,” but it would be completely foolhardy to consider that weekends and church holidays are identical to each other and together retain their meaning or lose it only because (if we start from the Hebrew language) all they are days of rest, or "Sabbaths." Despite the fact that they agree on one thing, namely, they represent days of rest and rest, there are also many differences between them. The same applies to the annual Sabbaths and the seventh day Sabbath. Many serious differences can also be traced between them. Let's mark them.
| Saturday - seventh day (decalogue) | Annual (ceremonial) Saturdays |
| 1. Established at the creation of the world (Gen. 2:2, 3). | 1 . Established at Sinai, approximately 25 centuries after creation (Lev.23). |
| 2. Perpetuates the memory of an event that occurred at the very beginning (creation), when the Jewish people did not yet exist. | 2. They are a remembrance of the events of Jewish history. For example, the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23:13). |
| 3. Designed to always remind people of creation (Ex. 20:8-11). | 3. Designed to remind a person of the cross. “The shadow of the future” (Col. 2:17). For example: “Our Passover, Christ, was sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7). |
| 4. On the seventh day God rested and blessed and sanctified him in a special way (Gen. 2:2, 3). | 4. God did not rest on these days and did not single them out with special blessing or sanctification. |
| 5. It is a remembrance that God created the world perfect. | 5. They mark and prefigure events in a world distorted by sin. |
| 6. Associated with the weekly cycle and is always the same day of the week. | 6. Associated with the Jewish calendar and different days are celebrated each time. |
| 7. Can be observed everywhere, because the weekly cycle does not depend on any calendars. | 7. Can only be observed where the Jewish calendar exists. |
| 8. Complied with every week. | 8. Observed only once a year. |
| 9. “The Sabbath is for man” (Mark 2:27). | 9. Part of that ceremonial rite which is "against us" (Col. 2:14) |
| 10. It will be celebrated even after the end of this world (Isaiah 66:23). | 10. Abolished, “destroyed” by the crucifixion of Christ (Col. 2:14). |
Of course, everything that God has established is sacred to one degree or another, and in this case the annual Sabbaths are somewhat similar to the seventh day Sabbath, but the differences between them are so real and great that they certainly cannot be confused between themselves.
In instructing Moses regarding the annual festivals known as the “holy assemblies,” which revolved around the seven annual Sabbaths, the Lord concluded by saying, “These are the feasts of the Lord on which holy assemblies are to be called... except the sabbaths of the Lord” (Lev. 23:37, NKJV). 38).
So, God Himself instructs us that the annual Sabbaths are separate from and are an addition to the “Sabbaths of the Lord.” This is well stated in the Bible commentary of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown: "The book of Leviticus (Lev. 23:38) clearly distinguishes between the 'Sabbath of the Lord' and the other Sabbaths" (Commentary on Col. 2:16).
Objection 27
The fourth commandment of the Decalogue is of a ceremonial character, and the other nine are moral, and “this is clearly proven by the fact that Jesus, according to the thoughts of His contemporaries, who kept the Sabbath most strictly, violated the fourth commandment, for which they blamed Him. Moreover, Jesus clearly says that "the priests in the temple are breaking the Sabbath, but are innocent" (Matthew 12:5). Would He have said this if the fourth commandment had been a moral law? Would the priests have remained innocent if they had been in the same temple? , for example, have broken the seventh or any other of the Ten Commandments except the fourth?"
Let's answer two questions.
1. If Christ actually broke the fourth commandment, then why did He say, “I have kept My Father’s commandments” (John 15:10)?
2. The anti-Sabbather says that the "law" (meaning all moral and ceremonial laws) was in force before the crucifixion. If Christ broke the fourth commandment, did He not become a sinner? There can only be one answer, but we know that Christ committed no sin, and therefore there is something flawed in the logic of the objection we have given. How do we know that Jesus “broke the fourth commandment”? From inspired lines of Holy Scripture?
No, only from the accusations of those who "kept the Sabbath most strictly."
One Sabbath day, while our Lord was in the synagogue, a man with a sore arm approached Him. Guessing that Christ was going to heal the crippled, some of the “strict Sabbatarians” turned to the Teacher with the following question: “Is it possible to heal on the Sabbath? He said to them: which of you, having one sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not will he take it and not pull it out? How much better is a man than a sheep! So, you can do good on the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:10-12). After this, He immediately healed the crippled man. “The Pharisees went out and took counsel against Him, how to destroy Him” (Matthew 12:14).
Another example of Christ's healing on the Sabbath is found in the Gospel of John (John 5:2-18). In verse 18 we read that according to the Jews, Christ “broke the Sabbath.”
Here, indeed, the accusation of “the strictest Sabbatarians” is contained in the biblical text, and our critic, apparently, considers this quite sufficient to declare that Christ “violated the fourth commandment.” Incredible!
We believe that the withered arm healing actually proves the exact opposite of what some thought it meant (as the following questions indicate).
1. If Christ really believed that the fourth commandment was a mere ceremonial institution, why did He not take advantage of this excellent opportunity to teach the people the difference between ceremonial and moral commandments? Today's anti-Sabbathers would certainly do so, for this is precisely what they are saying, arguing that there is nothing wrong in breaking the fourth commandment, since it is ceremonial in nature, while breaking any of the others would be sinful, because they are all in nature moral. Nevertheless, Christ did not reason in this way. 2. “Is it possible to heal on the Sabbath?” - the Pharisees asked Christ. When, standing at the well, the Samaritan woman asked Christ about where to worship God (a question that for many years was actually of great importance), Christ briefly answered that the time was coming when this question would lose its meaning. If He was going to abolish the Sabbath law on the cross, then why didn’t He say the same thing to the “strictest Sabbatarians” who turned to Him? Instead, without giving any hint of possible abolition, Christ replied that “it is possible to do good on the Sabbath.” There is no reason to believe that Christ perceived Himself as violating the Sabbath; on the contrary, He revealed its true meaning. There is nothing in His interpretation, or in the miraculous work which followed it, to suggest that the Sabbath is based on a ceremonial law. When it comes to moral laws, “doing good” is always possible.
However, our critics argue that the Sabbath is ceremonial in nature, since Christ said that “the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, yet are innocent.” The mention of priests was merely an illustration of the words that “one can do good on the Sabbath.” Christ's opponents argued that by working on the Sabbath, Jesus and His disciples were breaking it. He reminds them that priests also work on the Sabbath, but are innocent. Even the “strictest Sabbatarians” would agree that what priests do on Saturday does not violate the law, even if every Saturday these priests have to work making sacrifices.
When Christ speaks of “violation,” this word must be understood in the context of the dispute. Apparently, His reasoning is this: if He and His disciples really broke the Sabbath, then the actions of the priests would also be a violation. To say that Christ actually believed that the priests (whose Sabbath sacrifices were not contrary to the law) were profaning the Sabbath is a completely unfounded conclusion. It turns out that first Christ says that God gave the Holy Law to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath, and then reports that Moses was given another law, which leads to its weekly desecration. Anyone can adhere to this conclusion, but we will not follow it.
Like the other commandments of the Decalogue, the commandment to keep the Sabbath is relatively short. It says that on the seventh day a person must abstain from all his labors, but God, who gave the law, at the same time showed (for example, through other laws given to Moses, as well as thanks to what Christ said) exactly how to understand the commandment about the Sabbath and how it relates to other aspects of life. However, this does not lead to the conclusion that the command to keep the Sabbath was ceremonial. Sometimes the commandments, the moral nature of which our critic recognizes, need interpretation so that a person understands how, in certain unusual circumstances, to realize their true purpose. The fifth commandment, for example, categorically states that children must honor their parents - in Eastern countries this commandment could be understood in the broadest sense. But what if Christianity is preached to the Roman world, where parents may well be pagans? Having given the opening words of the commandment, Paul prefaces them with his own interpretation: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this requires justice" (Eph. 6:1), which makes it possible not to obey parental commands if they contradict the norms of Christian life.
The eighth commandment is: “Thou shalt not steal.” Is there a more moral command! And yet, is it possible that what a person considers a violation of a given commandment, God does not consider as such? Apparently such a situation is possible, because Moses, for example, was told that if a person walks through a field that belongs to someone else, he can satisfy his hunger by picking everything that grows in it, but should not take anything from him. yourself (see Deut. 23:24, 25). Can we say that if a hungry man ate a quantity of grapes from his neighbor's field, then he thereby neglected the law against theft or violated it? No we can not. Why? Because God, who gave this law, declared that, despite the supporters of “the strictest honesty,” such an act would not contradict the law. The same is true of the Sabbath commandment. Neither Christ nor the priests violated or profaned it, for God, who gave it, said that the work of the priests and the work of Christ on that day was not unlawful.
Our critic can decide for himself what to do: either assert that the fourth commandment is ceremonial, and therefore agree that the eighth commandment is, or admit that the eighth commandment is moral, and therefore so is the fourth. He, however, has already stated that all the commandments of the Decalogue, except the fourth, are of a moral nature, but to be consistent, he needs to add it to the rest.
Objection 28
Although the Decalogue was abolished at the cross, nine of the Ten Commandments are reinstated in the New Testament and are binding on Christians, whereas the fourth commandment is not and therefore we do not need to keep it.
There are two errors hidden in this argument. People often believe that the Old Testament has already lost its validity, while at the same time they perceive the New Testament as relevant. Many almost unconsciously tend to downplay the significance of the Old Testament and regard it as something unimportant and completely superseded by the New. If this is connected with the point of view according to which the Decalogue refers to the Old Testament, then the ground is thus prepared for the reasoning that is set forth in the objection we have given. However, we have already shown (see Objection 5) that the Ten Commandments do not belong to the Old Testament and that the New Testament in no way replaces the Old (see Objection 1). If we firmly hold to the idea that both the Old and New Testaments are our inspired guides, the above objection will lose almost all its force.
It is stated that the Decalogue was abolished at the cross, but we have already noted (Objections 24 and 25) that the proponents of this view admit that nine of the Ten Commandments establish eternal moral principles or laws. Thus they find themselves in the curious situation of declaring that the eternal can be abolished. At least, this is the logic of their arguments. Perhaps they are hesitant to admit it? Then let us ask this question: how can one abolish the Law of God without abolishing the Ten Commandments of which it consists? There can be only one answer, and, apparently, the critic himself understands this very well, since he speaks of the reaffirmation of nine commandments out of ten. He faces a difficult choice: in order to get rid of the Sabbath commandment, he must abolish the Decalogue, but this leads to moral chaos, and therefore he immediately needs to reaffirm nine of the Ten Commandments. However, such logic leads to a completely implausible conclusion: the eternal moral principles, or laws, were first abolished and then (which is also completely incredible) re-established.
Regarding the eternal moral laws underlying the nine commandments, two points must be remembered:
1. Essentially, they cover all moral behavior as a whole;
2. Since they are eternal moral principles, they express the essence of God (as Christian theologians have always affirmed), and they guide the behavior of all beings in the universe who have a moral sense.
In the light of these indisputable facts, the assertion that the Law of God was abolished at the cross becomes monstrous and even blasphemous. Did God's moral character change when Christ died on the cross? Such a question seems blasphemous, but as long as God's essence remains unchanged, the moral principles that originate in it also remain unchanged.
As long as God abhors lying, theft, murder, adultery, greed, the worship of false gods, etc., the universe, even in its most remote corners, will be governed by moral laws directed against these atrocities. However, we are told that the Decalogue was abolished at the cross, which means (if these words really mean anything) that the prohibitions contained in the holy legislation also disappeared. So, one of two things: either the commandments were abolished, or they retained all their power. There is no third. It is necessary, for example, to decide unambiguously whether the sixth commandment, prohibiting murder, has been abolished. And so with everyone else.
In an effort to avoid this terrible conclusion, which inevitably follows from the very logic of reasoning, the critic hastily draws attention to the theory of the subsequent implementation of the abolished commandments. From the outside it may seem that nothing terrible happened, because if the commandments regain their power, then the moral law still continues to reign in the Universe. However, not all so simple.
The fact is that the apostles, whose words are quoted in order to prove the renewal of nine of the ten commandments, wrote their inspired manuscripts 20, 30, 40 or more years after the crucifixion. This simple historical fact leads to the absolutely fantastic conclusion that the whole world, and perhaps the whole universe, during this period was free from the observance of the great moral laws. If, for example, we ask an opponent whether he believes that (since from his point of view the Decalogue has been abolished) it is possible to kill, steal, lie, etc., he will of course answer that he does not think so and will say that the New Testament re-enacted laws against these atrocities. Then he will probably refer to the passage in Romans (Rom. 13:9) where all these crimes are expressly forbidden. But the whole point is that, according to the generally accepted point of view, the Apostle Paul wrote this letter around 58 AD. What happened between this date and the year of the crucifixion?
However, proponents of the renewal theory face another difficulty. They try their best to find in the New Testament an exact repetition of all nine commandments, and therefore they usually turn to the words of Christ recorded in the four Gospels. But Christ spoke these words before His crucifixion! It is impossible to talk about re-approving a law before it was abolished. In the same way, it is impossible to maintain the consistency of the argument if, on the one hand, one asserts that the cross separated the old from the new (with everything that becomes new at the moment of resurrection), and, on the other hand, refers to the words of Christ spoken before the crucifixion as proof of the new , the newly approved law.
However, that's not all. In fact, proponents of this theory cannot find a clear and sufficiently detailed repetition of the second commandment in the New Testament. If we Protestants want to convincingly condemn Rome for the images used in Catholic churches, we will have to turn to the Decalogue. It is strange that the newly approved law should fully correspond to any situation that arose in the Christian era. Will our critic be so bold as to say that in expounding the second commandment God went into unnecessary detail, or that in inspiring the New Testament writers He did not call them to the specificity that was necessary? Both conclusions are blasphemous, and we do not accept either of them.
In speaking of the equal authority of the Old and New Testaments (see Objection 1), we emphasized that the New Testament writers do not even hint that they are establishing any new legislation or giving us a new revelation, abolishing the previous revelation in all areas of spiritual life. In an effort to clearly illustrate their arguments, they cite many passages from the Old Testament and sometimes from the Decalogue. Sometimes these are rather short quotes, sometimes more extensive. This approach precisely explains why the commandments are not given verbatim and do not have the form in which they are clothed in the Old Testament. Was there any need for verbatim quotation? The New Testament authors simply referred their readers to Scripture, which at that time was the Old Testament, where a more detailed and accurate statement of the commandment mentioned by the apostles could be found.
In the light of these facts, it makes no sense to say that the fourth commandment was not renewed in the New Testament.
However, wishing to show that this objection is devoid of any plausibility, in conclusion we note that the New Testament does not ignore this commandment. Moreover, he refers to it as often as the others. Let's pay attention to the following points.
1. “The Sabbath is for man,” declared our Lord (Mark 2:27). Mark wrote down these words many years after the crucifixion, but he did not feel any need to make a reservation and say that the Sabbath was intended for man only before the cross. Since Mark said nothing of the sort, what conclusion could his readers draw from this statement of Christ? They probably decided that the words of our Lord were still valid and the Sabbath retained its meaning. Yes, sometimes the New Testament writers did not say anything about the Sabbath, but this was not the silence that our critic has in mind.
2. Matthew in his Gospel leaves the words of Christ that certain things can be done on the Sabbath (see Matthew 12:12). But if the Sabbath was abolished on the cross, then Matthew would certainly have immediately had to explain to the Christians of the first centuries, who could turn to his writings in the farthest corners of the world, that the whole dispute about the deeds permissible on the Sabbath and the deeds prohibited on this day is only a small excursion into history, since shortly after this statement of Christ the Sabbath was abolished. But since Matthew said nothing of the kind, his readers might naturally conclude that they should be careful to follow Jesus' words on the Sabbath question.
3. Describing to His disciples the coming destruction of Jerusalem and warning that they would have to flee when the Roman army approached, Christ added: “Pray that your flight may not happen in winter or on the Sabbath” (Matthew 24:20). Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, and thus the disciples had to pray for almost 40 years that their flight would not happen on the Sabbath. But if the Sabbath was actually abolished at the cross, then what is the point of all this? The issue is very sensitive, and, trying to somehow neutralize it, some claim that the Jerusalem gates were closed on Saturdays. However, Christ, for Whom there were no secrets in the future, knew that in the year 70 of the new era the Jews would go out to battle the Romans (see Josephus, The Jewish War, book 2, chapter 19). Moreover, the command to flee is addressed to “those who are in Judea” (Matthew 24:16), and Judea, as we know, was not surrounded by walls and gates. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Judea had to pray that their flight would not take place on the Sabbath day. Can any clearer evidence be given that Christ singled out the Sabbath day from all others? Reading Christ's call to pray that flight would not take place on the Sabbath, relating it to the words that certain activities on the Sabbath are still permissible, and, finally, not forgetting that Matthew wrote down both sayings several years after the beginning of the Christian era , we cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Sabbath law remains binding for Christians. Matthew says nothing to prevent us from drawing this conclusion.
It is quite difficult to calmly talk about this fantastic speculation, which says that the Decalogue was abolished at the cross, and then its nine commandments regained force. Perhaps some reader, to whom the folly of such a view is certain, will ask in bewilderment: were there really many Protestant leaders who for years believed and taught this incredible doctrine? No not like this. We have already noted that, according to the traditional position of Protestantism, the Decalogue is always a binding rule for all people at any age, and only ceremonial laws were abolished. Supporters of the abolition of the Decalogue and its re-affirmation at some point forget about the historically established position of Protestants on this issue.
(Regarding one New Testament reference to the Sabbath that supposedly supports its abolition at the cross, see Objection 29.)
Objection 29
Life is where there is Consciousness. Consciousness should not be turned off. If you turn it off, you die. You are not living. You cannot create in such a state. You cannot love in such a state. You cannot be happy in this state.
The time of timelessness is coming. Time stops inside you. Your flesh and your Inner World are not renewed. You are collapsing. You become a source of darkness and gloom. You don't see anything. You don't hear anything. You don't understand anything. The world becomes black and white for you. You are deprived of the opportunity to communicate with God.
Life turns into a banal existence. The inner Light disappears. Death walks in circles. The flesh is actively being destroyed. The person begins to get sick and think that his days are numbered. But even in such a dejected state, a person is able to turn to God for help. Pray that God will bring you back to life. Pray for your Consciousness to turn on.
Prayer to God
Imagine that you are in a stream of bright yellow Light. Let this flow permeate your flesh, your Inner World, and your Mind. The words will sound inside you and go through the communication channel to God. He will help you.
“My God, I turn to you in prayer. I know that you can help. I know that you can hear me even when I’m dead. I beg you, help me.
Help us turn on Consciousness. Let the stars inside me shine. May the opportunity to love and create return to me. I don't want to be dead. I want to be constantly alive.
My God, revive me. I want to listen and hear you. I want to communicate with you. I want to love you and my other half. May you have enough strength to live and be. May you have enough strength to complete the task of your current incarnation. My God, help me to always be alive. For I want to know where and why I am going. For I want to know what awaits me in the future. I want to follow the path outlined by you. I gratefully accept your help. My God, I beg you to help me.”
True love is a blessing
Love cannot destroy. True love makes us truly alive and joyful. It was given to you by God. Without love you cannot live. Without love, life becomes empty. It does not and cannot have content. It's losing its meaning. Without love, you cannot create the future together with God and your half, while being in the moment of the present.
Love makes a person strong. Love makes a person courageous. Love does not tolerate falsehood and lies. Don't confuse love with play. Love saves, because it opens up the opportunity to communicate with God without intermediaries. True love is a blessing. You need to change. You need to become yourself so that love can make you a radiant person.
10 tips from Essan and Soli.Know yourself.
Take care of yourself.
Protect yourself.
Protect your love.
Don't be afraid of the past.
Work off your Karma.
Don't be afraid of the future.
Follow your own path.
God doesn't punish. He gives advice and leaves the choice up to you.
Believe in the power of true love and just love.
Gratitude
“Essan and Solya, today I made a rediscovery that I knew about, but in the bustle of life I forgot about it.
Once upon a time in this life, it was very difficult for me. I wanted so much to be loved. They loved with unconditional love. And when I no longer had the strength to live, I had a vision in a dream. I told you about him. Me and a man, we are sitting by a calm river. Green grass. The sun shines brightly. It's clean and bright all around. We are in clothes. Beautiful faces, blonde hair.
We didn't say anything to each other. We understood each other without words. This feeling cannot be described in words. I knew that he loved me and I loved him. When I woke up, I realized that I was not alone, that I was loved. This feeling helped me move on. I was constantly in a state of Love. I kept it carefully.
Then life more or less got better, and I gradually forgot about it, only sometimes this feeling vaguely surfaced in my memory as a memory. Then I knew nothing about your knowledge system. And today, at the webinar “Transform yourself and your life with love,” when you said that you need to constantly be in a state of Love, I remembered my vision.
Today I understand that only thanks to this state, the state of love, I was able to live on when I had no strength. I thank you for the nightly webinars, for the trainings, for the individual lessons with me. I thank God and you for helping to revive Faith and Love in me. I thank you for the knowledge that you give us and for the constant support that I feel wherever I am. Thank you"!
Find out everything about love
I was looking for love and found it. I was looking for it inside myself. I looked for it in the environment. And I found her. And now I can be in a state of love every day. My love protects and protects me. She protects and takes care of my half. To my great joy, my other half is next to me today. We love each other.
Some of you watched the live broadcasts. Someone watched the recorded webinar marathon. Some people couldn't watch it for one reason or another. When making the project, we made prices affordable. Today one webinar costs 395 rubles. The entire webinar marathon costs 17,775 rubles.
Don't miss the opportunity to purchase a webinar marathon at the lowest price. Learn everything about love. Transform yourself and your life. You deserve it.
Trust us. Believe in yourself. Believe in your future. It will become different when you say a resounding “yes” to love in all its forms. Down with fears! Watch webinars and change yourself. Watch webinars and change your life. What it will be like now depends on you.
To purchase any lesson or the entire marathon webinar, go to
5 / 5 ( 1 voice )
Linguistic forensic examination is often involved by judicial authorities during the process of protecting business reputation. This is natural, since a positive reputation in business means its predictability and stability.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 29) and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 10) guarantee the right to freedom of thought and speech and freedom of the media. These acts require distinguishing between statements of fact and value judgments, opinions, and beliefs. A statement of fact can be verified. A value judgment is purely subjective in nature, cannot be verified for compliance with reality and cannot be the subject of judicial protection (Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The truth of a value judgment cannot be proven in its origin, but it is often difficult to determine whether information is a statement of fact or a value judgment, and in these cases forensic linguistic examination is required.
Cases on the protection of business reputation are considered by arbitration courts in accordance with clause 5, part 1, art. 33 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Any citizen of the Russian Federation has the right under clauses 1, 2, 7 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to require a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation in court, but only if the distributor of this information fails to prove its correspondence to reality. In exactly the same way, not only a citizen, but also a legal entity or organization has the right to protect its business reputation.
There are three circumstances (according to paragraph 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated February 24, 2005 No. 3) that must necessarily occur in order for the court to satisfy the claim for the protection of business reputation: 1) the fact that information about the plaintiff was disseminated by the defendant; 2) defamatory nature of the information; 3) discrepancy between this information and reality. If at least one of these circumstances is absent, then the court rejects the plaintiff’s claims.
Dissemination of defamatory information about the plaintiff means their publication in the media: in print, video and television broadcasts, etc. - you must remember when applying to a judicial authority that Internet forums are not a mass media, but serve only as a form of communication between people, expressing a purely personal opinion on a topic. A refutation of defamatory information must be published in the media in which it was published. The defendant cannot demand a refutation of the author’s personal opinion under Art. 47 of the Federal Law “On the Mass Media”.
In court, the defendant must prove that the facts he has disseminated are true. In turn, the plaintiff must prove the fact that the information was disseminated by the defendant and that this information is defamatory. What information is called defamatory? Those that belittle the honor and dignity of a citizen or the business reputation of a citizen or legal entity, containing allegations of violation by the plaintiff of current legislation; about unethical behavior; unfair conduct of business or economic activity; about an unseemly act.
The introductory words “possibly”, “maybe”, “probably”, etc., as well as vocabulary expressing the speaker’s doubt: hardly, hardly, etc. mean that the journalist expresses only a subjective opinion about the events and facts described. For example, the following phrases contained in an article in newspaper X: “maybe this is not the first fraud in the organization’s financial system”; “perhaps this fact will be pushed back and disposed of behind the back of the public,” were recognized by the arbitration court on the basis of a linguistic examination as an expression of the subjective opinion of the journalist. At the same time, both factual information and value judgments are often found in one article. In these cases, linguistic expertise analyzes the article as a whole, determining the nature of its title; Are there markers that serve as an expression of value judgments: introductory words, epilogues.
A damaging fact must be based on a certain, very specific segment of reality. Thus, the phrase placed in an article about a dairy product manufacturer: “there is more and more milk on farms, but in stores there is solid powder,” according to the decision of the arbitration court and on the basis of linguistic examination, does not contain a statement about facts that took place in reality, but only a generalized judgment of a journalist, not based on specific information.
There is such a funny story: One philosopher, having learned from Bertrand Russell that any statement follows from a false statement, asked:
- Do you seriously think that from the statement “two plus two equals five” it follows that you are the Pope?
Russell answered in the affirmative.
- And you can prove it? - the philosopher continued to doubt.
- Certainly! - came the confident answer, and Russell immediately offered such proof.
1) Suppose that 2+2=5.
2) Subtract two from both sides: 2=3.
3) Subtract one from both sides: 1=2.
The Pope and I are two of us. Since 2=1, then the Pope and I are one person. Therefore, I am the Pope.
It became interesting to find an article on the logic of statements.
Propositional logic is the theory of those logical connections of statements that do not depend on the internal structure (structure) of simple statements.
The logic of the statements is based on the following two assumptions:
1. every statement is either true or false (the principle of ambiguity);
2. the truth value of a complex statement depends only on the truth values of the simple statements included in it and the nature of their connection.
Based on these assumptions, strict definitions of the logical connectives “and”, “or”, “if, then”, etc. were previously given. These definitions were formulated in the form of truth tables and were called tabular definitions of connectives. Accordingly, the very construction of propositional logic, based on these definitions, is called its tabular construction.
According to accepted definitions:
- a conjunction is true when both statements included in it are true;
- a disjunction is true when at least one of the statements included in it is true;
- a strict disjunction is true when one of the statements included in it is true and the second is false;
- an implication is true in three cases: its reason and consequence are true; the reason is false, but the consequence is true; both the reason and the consequence are false;
- an equivalence is true when the two statements it equates are both true or both false;
- a negative statement is true when the negated statement is false, and vice versa.
Logic is still an interesting thing. In this regard, I remembered 2 more jokes...
There lived three brothers, and they had a cow on their farm. One morning the elder brother wakes up, and lo and behold, there is no cow. He wakes up the others.
Senior: There is no cow in the yard; it means someone stole it at night.
Average: If it was stolen, it means someone from Lopukhinok - everyone there is a thieve.
Jr: Since someone from Lopukhinki stole our cow at night, it means it was Vaska the Scythe; who else?!
They went to the neighboring village, got hold of Vaska, and dragged him to the magistrate. They told him how it all happened. The judge shook his head. “Brrrr. I don’t understand your logic at all. They just brought me a box; can you use your deduction to determine what’s in it?”
Senior: Since the box is square, it means there is something round in it.
Average: If it's round, it means orange; there is no other way.
Jr: If there is something round and orange in a square box, then it is, of course, an orange; what else?!
The judge opens the box, and there really is an orange. He thought, thought: “Yes-ah... Well, Vaska, give the brothers the cow!”
The woman sued her neighbor, claiming that she borrowed the jug and returned it broken.
The neighbor at the trial justified herself by saying that, firstly, she did not take the jug, secondly, she returned it intact and, thirdly, it was broken.
