Position Statement Summary LibraryMix of Past & Current Vews

For our current positions, see Where To Find Our Current Thinking and Current Positions Snapshot above.

Summary Library Updated on February 19, 2014 at 3:41 AM CST by Dr. Michael Bisconti

Positions are not in alphabetical order at this time.

This summary library presents a mix of past and current views.  It does not, by any means, present all of our views, either past or current.

We now follow the “Golden Loophole,” which states:

The golden loophole only applies to audiences.  It does not apply to private conversations between two people.  It says, “Those we oppose may benefit from their delusion; therefore, while the undeceived deserve angry rebuke, we will be dispassionate (cool) for the sake of the former.” – Dr. Michael Bisconti

We now also follow the “Grand Conclusion,” which states: 

In every group there are people whose judgment as to what constitutes sufficient proof is different than that of most people; nevertheless, they have a right to their judgment and are ethically justified in following their judgment. – Dr. Michael Bisconti

We now also follow the “Great Redefinition,” which states:

The scientific definition of a phenomenon supersedes the popular, unscientific definition of that phenomenon. – Dr. Michael Bisconti

(1) Abortion

A woman might have latitude in the sight of God to have or not have an abortion if she acted in accordance with all possible knowledge and wisdom.  For the first time in history, mankind sometimes has the ability to determine whether an embryo is alive.  This ability is part of the “all possible knowledge and wisdom.”  An embryo is alive if it has a brain.  The brain may come into existence as an “iota” at the moment of conception.  The “virtual brain” (the part of the self that thinks) may come into existence at the moment of conception.

The question of abortion cannot be decided by science.  The question of abortion must be decided by an individual’s moral judgment.  One must judge whether it is good or evil to take a chance that abortion is killing an unborn child.  We say chance because, as shockingly cruel as it may sound to say this in the present context, not all killing is evil.  For example, when the mother’s life is at stake, do you save the life of the mother or of the baby?  See The Pro Smart Position for more information.

(2) Abcreationism (“Evolution” [note quotes])

We have renamed the Theory of Indeterminate Intelligent Design the “Theory of Indeterminate Design.”  The abbreviation for the theory is “XD.”  The “X” represents the unknown nature of the designing intelligence.

Dr. Michael Bisconti is the discoverer of the (formerly named) Theory of Indeterminate Intelligent Design or (formerly named) Indeterminate Intelligent Design for short (abbreviation [formerly] ”IID“).  This theory says that there are one or more intelligences behind the origin of all life-forms but that science doesn’t know whether it is a naturally occurring artificial intelligence (replaces evolution) or a preternatural intelligence (God) or a combination of the two or some other set of intelligences.  Science is limited to universal perception.  This is the only theory that is based on universal perception.  Intelligent Design is true but it is based on our local perception.

Both creationism and evolutionism involve transcendental beliefs.  Creationism involves a belief in God (religion).  (We are creationists.)  Evolution involves a belief in luck (mysticism).  (We agree with most of the nonmysticism part of evolution.)  We no longer hold to Original Dialecticalism as a scientific system.  Rather, we now hold to it as a scientific integration.  To indicate the change in significance, we now adopt the term “Original Dialecticalism Integration” or “ODI” for short.  ODI now encompasses IID.

Just Prior Position

Our new position is “Original Dialecticalism (Super Creationism).”

The Great Redefinition principle requires that we replace the nonsense word “evolution” with the word “abcreationism.”  The nonsense word “evolution” is supposed to mean the Godlike forces of nature that produce new species.  In fact, this is nonsense.  There are no such forces.  In reality, there is abcreationism.  The word “abcreationism” means the forces of nature theomorphized (to have attributed divine nature to [“treated as if they were God”]) that produce divergent life-forms.  Note that the nonsense word “evolution” is so entrenched in our culture that it might have to be retained in one or more instances for the relevant text(s) to continue to be readily understood.

Foundational Thinking

We have moved beyond some earlier ideas. We have also moved beyond some earlier ideas relating to phenomenology subsequent to the ideas below and that were expressed in some of our tweets.

We now know that the sticking point between evolutionists and nonevolutionists is the question of evidentiary sufficiency; that is what constitutes sufficient evidence to prove anything.  There is no scientific law that can settle the matter.  Therefore, we now see that both sides of the debate are morally, if not scientifically, justified in their positions.  The rest of this statement explains our position.

Our conclusions on the subject of evolution are based on science and science alone (see links below) and are only coincidentally consistent with our spiritual beliefs related to this subject.

We believe in the freedom of science behind H-evolution.  H-evolution is the hypothesis of evolution, as opposed to T-evolution, which is the theory of evolution, which is what is normally referred to by the word “evolution.”  To be clear, we do not believe that man descended from an ape.  See our XEGP discussion “The Hypothesis Proof.”

Most evolutionists present facts 10% of the time and the other 90% of the time they ask you to just trust them. Why is that?  – Dr. Michael Bisconti

You have to give the Devil his due; evolutionists may have a lot of facts. However, evolution is a credulous conclusion, not a fact. – Dr. Michael Bisconti

We agree with all of the facts and most of the interstitial conclusions of evolution. These, however, do not lead to the ultimate conclusion of evolution. – Dr. Michael Bisconti

Evolution never had, does not have, and never will have a logic tree.  Case closed. – Dr. Michael Bisconti

(3) Absexuals (“Gays” [note quotes])

Position Summary

No one knows whether Gays exist. If they did, they still would not be able to tell whether or not a given person was Gay.  Also, what some people perceive as the quality of ”Gayness” is an effect and not a cause.

The term “Gay” refers to an imaginary group of people; specifically, the imaginary group of people born with a genetic makeup that compels them to have sex with people of the same gender.

The term “Gayprac” refers to a real group of people; specficially, the real group of people who are not members of the imaginary group of people known as “Gays” and that have sex with people of the same gender.

Footnote: Women are included in the meanings of the terms “Gay” and “Gayprac.”

Post Sexual Dialecticalism

Sexual dialecticalism is now an incomplete analysis.  We no longer care what you claim to be –  Straight, Gay, or H-Type – since the existence of sexual orientation is uncertain and, if it did exist, it would still be unknowable.

God (the Bible) wants you to choose to be heterosexual.  This includes hermaphrodite H-types but, in their case, it is “complex heterosexuality.”  Based on the data and on biblical principles, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender behavior are sins for everyone!

We oppose anyone who seeks to sexually brainwash anyone; most especially, anyone who seeks to sexually brainwash children!

We recognize the existence of nimsbacs (NMSBCs [negatively moral (sinful) sexual behavior categories]), which we call “gayprac,” “lesbianprac,” “bisexualprac,” and “transgenderprac,” along the lines of other terminology related by spelling.

Sexual Dialecticalism

With new scientific information we have now moved to a more complex position, which we have named “sexual dialecticalism.”  For some initial explanation see Sexual Dialecticalism.

For purposes of technical accuracy, the following needs to be understood in the light of our new position.

Beta “Gay” Truce

On September 27, 2011 at 1:41 AM CST, we declared a truce (“suspension of fighting”) between ourselves and the majority of “Gays,” who are the majority of Beta “Gays,” because most Beta “Gays” are morally blind and not deliberately evil.  However, make no mistake; Beta “Gays” are evil and mentally ill.  We will only be fighting Alpha “Gays,” who seek to brainwash our children.

We follow the “Evil Beast Principle.”

The Great Redefinition principle requires that we replace the nonsense word “Gay” with the word “absexual.”  The nonsense word “Gay” is supposed to mean a person who has the nature of one who is attracted to the same sex.  In fact, this is nonsense.  There are no such people.  In reality, there are absexuals.  The word “absexual” means a person who has the condition of one who is attracted to the same sex.  Note that the nonsense word “Gay” is so entrenched in our culture that it must be retained in a few instances for the relevant texts to continue to be readily understood.

Our conclusions regarding absexuals are based on science and science alone (see link below) and are only coincidentally consistent with our digust, not hatred, for this group of people. We have a charitable spirit toward absexuals but not toward their act.

Absexuals are mentally ill and virtually all absexuals are evil, cheating liars.  Our use of the words “evil,” “cheating,” and “liars” primarily reflects the actions of absexuals in 1973.  The term “mental illness” is not a good term because it implies disease of the brain.  Absexuals have no disease of the brain.  The correct term is “mental derangement.”  Mental derangement is the state resulting from damage to the “virtual brain.”  The virtual brain is the part of the self that thinks.  The virtual brain is damaged by evil belief.  An example of evil belief is the belief that you can fly if you jump off the roof of someone’s house.  If you want proof that absexuals are abnormal (deranged), read on:

For beginners (cartoon series): Little Johnny Campaign

For thinkers: The Gay Martian Chronicles

For deep thinkers: The Trojan Couch

Explanation of the “Gay Feeling” and the Brain

A person is not absexual because they experience the “Gay feeling.”

During adolescence (“teen years”), the brain (virtual brain [God]) provides instruction in the meaning of language through a variety of feelings.  One of these feelings is the “Gay feeling.”  Every teen experiences this feeling.  The brain (virtual brain [God]) provides this instruction so that a person will understand the meaning of the word “absexual” and for other reasons that we will explain later.  If a young person experiencing the Gay feeling comes under the influence of an absexual person, that absexual person might persuade the teen that they are absexual.  The teen, because of their limited knowledge and because of the massive absexual propaganda in our society today, might be defenseless against the spell of the absexual person.  This is why it is so important, parents, that you do not let your children associate with absexuals!

(4) Atheism

Atheism is not science.  With the advent of the Bisconti Jung Proof, we now know that atheists are, potentially (because they don’t know about the proof) or actually (because they know about the proof and reject it), mentally ill.

(5) Fideistic Dialecticalism

The community of God consists of theists and “omega theists” (see relevant tweets), who are the only real atheists.  Omega theists have a subpsyche factor (see relevant tweets) that qualifies them as the only real atheists.  Omega theists have no choice but to be atheists.  Now, many of you are probably mystified at this point.  Well, omega theists, who, for whatever reason known only to God, are unable to believe in theism are at least willing to be theists.

(6) Original Dialecticalism (Super Creationism)

See //lfnexus.com/fifthgen/super-creationism/.

(7) Brainwashers

There cannot be a standard as to whether a lethal counteroffensive should or should not be launched against brainwashers but we can say this:

It would not necessarily be a sin if we were to launch a lethal counteroffensive against a brainwasher.

(8) Theism

Theism is not necessary to get to heaven but the willingness to accept theism is.

(9) Gender Relations

Men and women are equal in the sight of God and are to be equally respected!

(10) The First Scientific Proof of the Existence of God in History

The “Bisconti Jung Proof”

Data has been pouring in from all over the world.  An even simpler, scientific proof of the existence of God has emerged.  Here is the proven thesis, which we call the “Bisconti Jung Proof” in honor of Dr. Michael Bisconti who discovered the proof and Dr. Carl Jung, who is a source of massive amounts of data that support the proof:

The God of the Bible (the King James Bible) is the constant (“collective” [note quotes]) unconscious.

You will find an abstract of a paper in preparation  at The “Bisconti Jung Proof.”

The “Bisconti Proxy Proof” is still valid but it takes a different approach and is much, much harder for people to follow.

The “Bisconti Proxy Proof”

The “Bisconti Proxy Proof” elegantly proves the existence of God from the proxy nature of the human intellect through the annihilation of the tyranny of matter!  Here is a super condensed version of the proof:

The unconscious mind “is” (note quotes) God.

See extensive explanation in our recent tweets.  Also see the “Articles” section in the right column. We will be developing a lengthy article over time.  In addition a book, desk encylopedia, and encyclopedic library are in the works.

Original article: The L. F. Nexus Historical Research Center: 11g. All Rights Reserved.

Computer-Picked Related Post(s) (more relevant to less):

  3. Twitter Updates for 2011-09-14
  4. BOSS: Biological Origins Science
  5. Twitter Updates for 2011-09-26