User talk:2605:6000:5588:3000:B458:46F7:D3A4:13E0

the admins response WAS nonsense (no sense behind the admins actions determined any stated reason with any proof) and it was gibberish ( as it did not relate to what I had posted, since what I had posted was coherent and true.)

Request review by additional administrator. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view '''All Wikipedias have a rule that when people write articles, they should use a Neutral Point of View (abbreviated NPOV). NPOV means that people should write the things that almost everyone agrees about, and make them the main point of the article.'''

if people have not seen the article I have written, a consensus was not made and does not demonstrate whether or not a consensus was made on the article.

-Administrator, acting outside the scope of what Wikipedia and Wiktionary have determined according to statements made by Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_Wikipedia

I request an outline indicating how the administrator came to the conclusion to define the material posted that was posted for less than a minute based on review of the material.

Please see attached and refer to Wikipedia article" We are neither a dictatorship nor any other political system" As defined by Wikipedia and The Board and Wikimedia Foundation staff

We are neither a dictatorship nor any other political system

If this were true then those who do not dictate on how something is defined do not create measures to censor material based on how they would intend to define it. From the article,

The Wikimedia Foundation is controlled by its Board of Trustees, which is required according to its Bylaws to have several members chosen from the Wikimedia community. The Board and Wikimedia Foundation staff do not usually take a role in editorial issues, and projects are self-governing and consensus-driven. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales occasionally acts as a final arbiter on the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia is transparent and self-critical; controversies are debated openly and even documented within Wikipedia itself when they cross a threshold of significance.

Since Wikipedia claims controversies are debated openly, I challenge the Admin who blocked me to a debate.

I request the admin who blocked me from posting, defend his position on all points that i made in the material I posted by citing according to why HE blocked the material and reconciling ( which i guarantee you he cant) how he can definitively determine what he claimed. if he can not even do that, than he failed to block my appropriately. If he does not, Wiktionary and Wikipedia are a dictatorship and have proven this by maintaining authoritarian control of the type of material they release to not account for information but to control information. I shall maintain copies and records, to express this publically if no response is given to properly define the reputation that Wikipedia has suggested but has not upkept..
 * As I indicated, you are not blocked either here or your username specifically, and since you have a username, there is no reason for you to be editing this page- which you wouldn't be able to do if you were blocked. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

here is a copy of my material.

raison d'être

raison d'être (My everything) .If what I say can not be proven true by the word of God the bible, then, what I say is a lie and should be ignored. when discussing God, man has nothing to say about what is true of God. only God can say what is true of himself. Therefore, a distinction must be drawn. Anytime a man speaks, if it is not true as the word of God determines truth, than whatever a man may say is always false. Verify what I say to be true of what is written in the bible. if it is not true of what God has said of himself, than what I say about God is not true and must be completely rejected, because if what I say is not true of the bible, than what I say is not true of God.

The truth, leads people to walk a narrow path. How many people have walked the same path because truth is the same truth as it applies to all people? Doesn't the truth apply to everyone? Doesn't then the same God apply to all people? It always does and is the same path, it has and always will be that which has always been, which is accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. Why, when man is presented God, does man have a problem with God? if man wanted to treat God, with the respect and understanding of God(who God is) ,that God has given man of himself(which comes from God so that man might know God), than man would have no problem accepting God as he is. But man without God is rebellious. the truth leads us on the same road so many have arrived at before us.

My everything (Jesus Christ), and the reason for existence (raiso d'etre) , as it applies to all man and all creation is to live in the world as God had intended them to live in it, not as they intend to live in the world for themselves outside the will of God who created it.

Truth can not ever be misrepresented, nor can it be changed, nor can it be lied about. Someone would have to lie, in the attempt to cover up the truth, therefore all lies are lies, made a lie because of the attempt to deny truth.

God Jesus Christ.

1. God applies to the world he created and can not be confined to a religious interpretation, therefore, God isn't religion nor can God be associated to religious doctrine. Religion, is man-made rules that attempt to define God which can not be done and is pointless, impossible, and unnecessary. Christianity is not a religion.

2. God is not religion. God is God. (God is not a salad bar)

3.Only the true God would command that no idols be worshipped as God can not be created, nor is there any sense in worshiping idols, nor practicing religious doctrine that does not pertain to God. Such angers God, as the living God does not like being mistaken for anything else much less, than to be mistaken for something he is not rather than accepted for what he is. God is God, not anything else. Nothing else can be God, by the fact God is God.

4. God is to be understood, not determined.

5.Anything that reflects the nature of man, not God is disqualified from being divinely inspired and therefore .whatever man is most in conflict with, is, of greatest relevance is understanding what is man-made as man does not create conflict for himself in what he chooses and would want himself to believe , in what he desires. Something that he would be in conflict with, is not the result of desire, and it is understood the truth presents a conflict to man, because man is rebellious. How can man create a belief that causes conflict with himself and conflicts with himself? can man be in conflict with himself in what he believes? this is how we understand the central difference between man and God, that man is rebellious against God, and what man would choose to believe outside of God, is rebellious in nature but appeals to the interest of man himself and not to the interest of God Jesus Christ. if something is a belief, is it likely to cause conflict? Belief does not cause conflict, truth causes conflict for those who lie. Only if man is rebellious against God, whom man is in conflict with because of what God has commanded man does man then, if he does not accept the true God Jesus Christ, but worships a false idol does he then make something man-made .Gods word the bible is divine, which causes great conflict with man because of his sin nature. Man is rebellious without accepting Jesus Christ as lord and savior.

6. Spirituality, does not exist without God because God created both the flesh and the Spirit.

7.Evidence of absence: evidence that determines absence as a result of absence. Absence of evidence: evidence is absent and thus no evidence can be supplied for a claim, suggests the claim was made based on belief. God can not be a belief if he is God (God is God), therefore God is not a belief.

Evidence of Gods existence would require God to provide the evidence himself. He did. Evidence of God himself: Jesus Christ.

Evidence of Gods existence, Jesus Christ. The evidence of absence theory, is no theory when applied to reason and greatly determines religion to be fallacy. Unless God revealed himself to us man would never come to know or be made aware of the existence of God.Mans acceptance of God, however is difference. if man ignores the evidence, he says there is no evidence and not only lies to himself but to others.

This greatly determines Jesus Christ to be evidence of God, as Jesus Christ was God who provided the evidence of himself, by way of evidencing himself to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramonmanuelforjesus (talk • contribs) 07:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)