It's pretty basic man, words aren't reality, concepts aren't reality. Reality simply is. You can go chug as much ranch as you want. How did I lose you? Tell me where I lost you and I will definitely expand it on it. But the basic is that words aren't reality, and that the way we experience reality is something relative, even if the underlying nature of that reality isn't something relative.
I literally say that words are not the reality they represent, how on earth am I getting distracted by semantics? If anything you are, you care about the order of words, reality isn't words. "Truth" is not some word. It simply is. You are getting completely distracted by semantics, is the "truth" you are talking about a word, or is it something the word "truth" can never truly describe? Quit being distracted by semantics and experience directly the reality infront of your face.
Is the sun hot though? Or is it only hot in relation to an organism such as ours that is sensitive to it in such a way that it produces the feeling of heat? Take anything hotter than the sun, and we know there are plenty of things hotter than our sun, can you still claim the Sun is hot when compared to an object hotter than it? Is the sky blue? Well for us who have eyes that can see color, and given certain environmental factors, of course it is, but given those same eyes at night time the sky is black, which one is really true? Is the sky blue or is it black? Is there an "absolute reality" that we can experience directly? Or can we only experience things relative to the way our organism is structured and the environment that we are a part of?
See, when you use language there isn't a way a proper way to talk about something like the absolute undivided nature of reality and God, because the moment you attach a name to it you have created a division. In reality nothing is divided, there are no seperate things, as you say "truth is not relative", but how can you experience that as a sensation, how can you feel something that is completely undivided? The entire experience of being a conscious human is in relation to something, the entire reason we can even feel ourselves existing whatsoever is because we also feel that there are things that aren't us we feel divided from called "the external world". To be able to feel at all you absolutely have to have some type of blockage, some type of force obstructing you, something that feels other than you, that doesn't mean that in reality this thing is actually seperate from you, but to be able to experience it whatsoever you must atleast feel it as so, otherwise there's nothing to feel!
So while the underlying nature of reality, of existence, of God, is a kind of undivided absolute truth, our experience of it is not. Can you conceive experiencing what it might be like to feel absolutely everything all at once, with absolutely no distinctions and nothing to divide the experience at all? An experience wherein you cannot tell yourself apart from anything around you, you cannot tell "something" from "nothing", an absolute experience. Personally, I can't. Or if I can, it would be something akin to experiencing the sensation of absolutely nothing happening at all. The only reason I seem to be capable of feeling anything at all is that I am able to distinguish between experiences. And from the experiences I can distinguish between these all seem to be relative, for example, the sensation of heat depends entirely on how close I am to something that is producing heat. I don't just feel heat randomly, I can't conjure up the feeling of heat out of thin air, it is only relative to my environment that I feel heat whatsoever. Also, my experience of feeling heat depends on the existence of another feeling that isn't heat I experience, it's the reason why when you hold your hand under hot water for long enough it stops feeling so hot, and the same thing when you go from sitting in a hot tub for an hour into a lukewarm pool you feel the pool is freezing whereas normally it's warm. The way we experience reality is relative, if it weren't then someone like a "masochist" could never exist, pain would be something absolute.
Another thing you have to remember as well, and this is critically important but it is something so basic that we have forgotten it. Words, no matter what words they are, no matter how amazing and correct they sound when you hear them, are not the reality they are describing. When you say something like "look at this rock I'm holding", the reality of you holding a rock is not the words "look at this rock I'm holding", those words, if spoken, are a sound, a sound that only has any kind of meaning if there is someone nearby who speaks the language. In other terms, words are a symbol, they represent reality, they are not that reality itself, they are an abstraction.
God is within, a part of, united with, absolutely anything and everything. Absolutely nothing is outside of God's territory, indeed even people who seem to be behaving in the strangest ways are still united with God and their actions are the activity of God. To suggest otherwise suggests that God is not God, that God only creates part of the universe and the rest is sourced from elsewhere. The Bible directly contradicts this, as well as provides the suggestion to not form ideas about God, such as what "God's plan" might be, infact it discourages any sort of thoughts about the nature of God and what the future might hold altogether.
Issiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
God is the author of everything, including those things you do not like and consider evil.
Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"
Things like what God's plan might be are a mental image. Ultimately all images are mental, an image is an idea, there is no tangible thing called "image" you can place your finger on. Even something like a physical statue or photograph can only be said to be an "image" in relation to the thoughts and ideas you form about it.
Matthew 6:34 "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
Another suggestion to not worry about such things as "God's plan" and what God may do in the future. Experience for yourself what God is doing, for absolutely anything and everything that you experience if there is such a thing as a plan can be said to be part of it, and naturally the point of a plan isn't that you sit there thinking about it all the time, thats the entire reason you made a plan in the first place! The point is the execution of the plan, the feeling and directly experiencing of reality, of unity with God right this moment, not some far off future event, it's the reality right infront of our faces! Actually to say it is infront of our faces seems to suggest that our face isn't a part of it, as long as you work in the realm of words and language, logical thinking, this sort of bind will always exist, hence the advice to move beyond images and quit thinking about the future.
Words are by definitions, symbols, no matter how you convey a word, whether it be written, spoken, or felt as a blind person feels to read, words mean something other than themselves, and by definition that is what a symbol is.
People need to remember what money actually is. Book keeping, a promissory note, something to be exchanged. Instead people think of money as the end all be all goal, and when they lose money and in return get something like food or a TV they are upset about losing so much money. Having a bunch of money doesn't make you wealthy, only the things you can buy with money make you wealthy.
Really fiat currencies are a rather genius way of stealing the actual wealth from a population who has confused the promissory note with the item promised. They can infinitely print money and keep using it to buy up all the actual wealth from idiots like 99% of the world who thinks that money has some kind of inherent worth. It's an amazing deal for the people printing the money, they part with something totally useless and in great abundance (a sheet of paper already covered in ink, not even a promissory note because it isn't backed by anything tangible), and in return they receive our land, our food, our TIME. It's nuts!
Until people remember what wealth actually is, IMO it doesn't matter what you use for money, eventually you will end up in a system like we are in now where a small amount of people have gotten together and realized that 99% of the world are complete idiots and would rather have a sheet of paper that says they own something then actually possess said item.
What would even be the purpose of this? You're about to drop a fucking nuke, who cares about internet and mobile networks, you're about to completely obliterate them anyways. If you have the capability of getting past our military and dropping a nuke on us the absolute last thing you would be worried about is whether or not someone can post on Twitter during the 45 minute period prior to you obliterating them.
What's funny is that the LGBTBBQ crowd clearly understand this concept on some level, as when they say that gender is a social construct they are completely correct, all language is a construct, a symbol, and thus not real in that sense. The mistake they make is that while they say gender is a social construct they don't actually believe the words coming out of their own mouth. They take hormones, they undergo surgery, they change their clothes, wear makeup, speak in a different way, why do all these things to change something that amounts to a social construct? These actions only make sense if it isn't a social construct, if words aren't just symbols but actually have some kind of reality themselves such that changing them has an impact on your experience, but this isn't the case whatsoever!
I can't even begin to imagine how someone could become anymore mixed up than this, this is truly peak 🤡🌎, anything else would just be a variation on the same clown world theme.
Reality simply is. It needs no explanation, and in fact any explanation will always come short of the truth. Reality is not words, it isn't a concept. Through language, technology, science, and a host of other things, we have become able to describe the world around us to such a degree that we mistake the description as actually being the way things are. Hence why you get this mixed up LGBTBBQ crowd who feels they need a special word just for themselves, forgetting that all words are a symbol pointing at reality, rather than the reality itself.
This confusion of words and concepts with reality is essentially the root of all arguments whether they be religious, political, personal, whatever, "I don't agree with the words you have chosen to describe reality!". Well no matter what word you choose it will never be that actual reality, and therein lies the problem, we actually feel that when say the word "I am X thing" it truly means something. We become deeply attached to this group of words we use to describe ourselves, and when someone jumps in and starts using other words we get all in a tizzy.
Our society on a very fundamental level confuses reality with concepts. I don't know if there is a way to get this point across easily in a meme, well scratch that, there is, but this is a point that while easy to explain is not easy for the person receiving the explanation to actually understand it. Once you see it though it's incredibly basic, it's absolutely obvious, words are not the reality they represent, but our society has deeply conditioned us to fight against seeing through this fact.
Here's the thing: I do not believe that it is anyone's right to force another person to provide them any type of service, period, end of story. Go ahead and downvote, this is what freedom looks like. I don't need the government to tell me I can discriminate, I can discriminate. Publically funded stuff is a different question.
Then say this type of stuff instead of jumping straight to calling OP a faggot. Insulting to get your point across is literally for faggots. The point of this person's post was the content of what was said, not the person saying it as well. This post by no means is celebrating the person saying it, the title is literally drawing attention to the content of what was said and the post has nothing to do with who said it other than being a repost of a Twitter post. Essentially, get a life man! You're yelling fire where there's a luke warm cup of water and calling people faggots when you should be explaining stuff.
We need parents to step up, grow a pair, make some sacrifices, face some adversity, and actually raise their children themselves. If unwilling to do this, don't have a kid, or accept this hell we live in because if people don't change it doesn't matter if we deleted everyone in government right this second, a generation later we'd be right back where we started.
This is a government that lies to wars, it also kidnaps and tortures innocent civilians to advance methods of manipulation and control, the fact that people leave their kids alone at an institution run by that same government boggles my mind!
I hardly see reposting a tweet as glorifying the way a person behaves, especially when you include the context that the point of the post was what was being said, not the person who said it. If OP had posted "holy shit I love this Trany look at how cool they are and all these glorious things they are saying, yay tranies let's slice and dice some genitals now!", maybe I'd agree, but come now, surely you can see the point of this post isn't the person saying it but what is being said. Like you say, I don't think most people even knew this was a trany, because this post had absolutely nothing to do with tranies otherwise!
Maybe instead of calling OP a faggot he should've taken the time to explain his position more thoroughly rather than cutting straight to the insults.
You are the one conflating "tolerance" with "acceptance", I literally said that you do not have to like these people and celebrate them, but if you do not plan to keep in place a totalitarian police state, how would you suggest we go about controlling people's behavior to such a degree when it doesn't involve harming other people? You are perfectly welcome to tilt at windmills of your own design, start talking about tax payer funded concentration camps, etc. While completely ignoring everything else I said.
So again, what is your suggestion to change behavior such that this type of person doesn't exist and we do not have a totalitarian system? You ultimately have to tolerate people doing things you don't like when it doesn't harm other people, it doesn't mean that you have you accept or celebrate it, but if you aren't going to tolerate it, what is your plan to be rid of it?
There is a reason why constitutionally the only objection to human behavior is harming others. Outside of implementing a totalitarian system such as the one we currently live under, how would you suggest controlling people's behavior to such a degree that you eliminate such behavior completely?
As far as I can tell if you want to have more control over someone's life than what we have agreed on as a society is acceptable, things like not stealing from or physically harming others, you will by necessity need 24/7 surveillance of everyone at all times, and to very strictly control their behavior and interactions with everyone else. Things like being harmed you will obviously have one party that is a victim who is capable of reporting that a crime happened, but if you want to control behavior between two consenting individuals, how do you propose doing it without also having the strict totalitarian police state we have now?
I'm genuinely curious for an answer.
You don't have to like this person by any means, but surely you can see the difference between someone who behaves in a way you do not like but is otherwise not harming someone, and someone who behaves in a way you don't like who also promotes the castration, manipulation, and molestation of children, yes? Or do you not differentiate between the two?
Edit: I'm not the one who downvoted btw
Actually I have to ask, did you even read past my first paragraph? I essentially agreed with your sentiment, obviously reality doesn't matter what you call it, reality simply is. That was my point is that the underlying reality isn't something relative, it simply is, but the way we experience it, and the way we can talk about it using language IS something relative.