User talk:Spiderthatsavedraceandnation

September 2022
Hello, I'm Mr.weedle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Natural law, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Source I did add a source one is Thomas Boston and his epic book the crook in the lot which says basically God does everything and controls natural law he makes me evil or crooked so he may redeem them when needed to fight against evil and I also sources Johan Gottlieb Fichte on freedom being the source for natural law not rights and that freedom and freedoms or not the same the example he gives I didn't use is that buyer wants freedom of goods and demands the sellers goods for cheaper and I didn't think I had to source that a science test is a test with set perimeters that yields the same results every time it's kind of accepted world wide what do you require a source for Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's all sourced just check the crookinthelot by Thomas Boston wiki and also Johan Gottlieb Fichtes wiki Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Help me I have put my sources my two favourites anyway
Source I did add a source one is Thomas Boston and his epic book the crook in the lot which says basically God does everything and controls natural law he makes me evil or crooked so he may redeem them when needed to fight against evil and I also sources Johan Gottlieb Fichte on freedom being the source for natural law not rights and that freedom and freedoms or not the same the example he gives I didn't use is that buyer wants freedom of goods and demands the sellers goods for cheaper and I didn't think I had to source that a science test is a test with set perimeters that yields the same results every time it's kind of accepted world wide what do you require a source for Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Please read Help:Referencing for beginners Mr.weedle (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I have referenced anything that's not common knowledge in my opinion I don't know how to sourceaybe you could help me I'll send you links if you want to anything you require. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Many greats in the literature compare God's will to natural law as almost inseparable, as protestant and Catholic churches separated by people like Thomas Boston and Johan gottlieb Fichte who would also say natural law is a set of rules like killing to survive and eating or dying as not wrong or right but nessacary as a set of preordained rules set forth by nature or god or even stealing or killing others as nessacary and even the will of God in Thomas Boston's epic book the crook in the lot.This separation of churches came with new theories that didn't exist like the word and concept of freedom as a natural law,Though others distinguish between natural law and natural right, they also use science as a reference to natural law and is commonly accepted and fate as in the early Greeks Vikings and the Christian doctrine in the example of Jesus's death. For example a test with set perimeters that yields the same results every time could be considered natural law it is constant and does not change the results could be considered fate but as many scientists venture away from controversial subjects they accept science as proof of natural law and one cannot prove god exists however neither can one prove what they dreamed about it happened none the less and doesn't make it less real and serves as an interesting point that natural laws do exist regardless of what you can prove like legal laws or the lack of required evidence and one or two witness's would have the world believe you infact did not dream what you dreamed despite it being the truth and very much real natural law does not necessarily require evidence or an answer so much as a question nobody knows why death is our only natural right but we none the less know it as a commonly accepted natural law we all die. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Want links? For what help me I'm learning it's all true Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Fichte proceeds from the general principle that the I (das Ich) must posit itself as an individual in order to posit (setzen) itself at all, and that in order to posit itself as an individual, it must recognize itself to a calling or summons (Aufforderung) by other free individual(s) — called to limit its own freedom out of respect for the freedom of the others. The same condition applies to the others in development. Mutual recognition (gegenseitig anerkennen) of rational individuals is a condition necessary for the individual I.[54][55] The argument for intersubjectivity is central to the conception of selfhood developed in the Foundations of the Science of Knowledge[56] (Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre, 1794/1795). Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

PROPOSITION I. Whatsoever Crook there is in one’s Lot, it is of God’s making. This sometimes is the natural consequence of their own foolish and sinful conduct; as in the case of Dinah, who, by her gadding abroad to satisfy her youthful curiosity, regardless of, and therefore not waiting for, a providential call, brought a lasting stain on her honor. But where the Lord intends a crook of this kind in one’s lot, innocence will not be able to ward it off in an ill-natured world; neither will true merit be able to make head against it, to make one’s lot stand straight in that part. Thus David represents his case. “They that saw me without, fled from me. I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind. I am like a broken vessel. For I have heard the slander of many.”First. It may fall in any part of the lot; there is no exempted one in the case: for, sin being found in every part, the crook may take place in any part. Being “all as an unclean thing, we all fade as a leaf: ” The main stream of sin, which the crook readily follows, runs in very different channels in the case of different persons. And in regard of the various dispositions of the minds of men, that will prove a sinking weight to one, which another would go very lightly under Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

For consolation. It speaks comfort to the afflicted children of God. Whatever is the crook in your lot, it is of God’s making; and therefore you may look upon it kindly. Since it is your Father who has made it for you, question not but there is a favourable design in it towards you Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It naturally comes to be so; because, at that rate, the will of the party bends farther away from it. Moreover, God is provoked to wreath the yoke faster about one’s neck, that He will by no means let it sit easy on him.

3. There is no crook but what may be remedied by Him, and made perfectly straight. “The Lord raises them that are bowed down. ” &c. He can perform that concerning which there remains no hope with us. “Who quickens the dead, and calls those things which are not as though they were. ” It is His prerogative to do wonders; to begin a work where the whole creation gives it over as hopeless, and carry it on to perfection. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

. He loves to be employed in evening crooks, and calls us to employ Him that way. “Call on like in the day of trouble and I will deliver you. ” &c. He makes them for that very end, that He may bring us to Him on that errand, and may manifest His power and goodness in evening of them. The straits of the children of men afford a large field for displaying His glorious perfections, which otherwise would be wanting. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Adakiko (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE regarding citing the bible on wikipedia. Adakiko (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

How is that shall I continue?? Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Adakiko (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

required evidence and one or two witness's would have the world believe you infact did not dream what you dreamed despite it being the truth and very much real natural law does not necessarily require evidence or an answer so much as a question nobody knows why death is our only natural right but we none the less know it as a commonly accepted natural law we all die. Please help me what should I do Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please help me this is what I've got is like to post for now I'm getting tired and can add more later what are you talking about I don't understand
 * wp:RSPSCRIPTURE means "don't use the Bible as a source". All this other stuff on your talk page should go on user:Spiderthatsavedraceandnation Adakiko (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Now, the nature and office of the law is to show unto us our sin, (Rom. 3:20,) our condemnation, our death, Rom. 2:1; 7:10. But the nature and office of the gospel is to show unto us, that Christ has taken away our sin, (John 1:29,) and that he also is our redemption and life, Col. 1:14; 3:4. So that the LAW is a word of wrath, Rom. 4:14; but the GOSPEL is a word of peace, Eph. 2:17.Contrariwise, where the promise of life and salvation is offered unto us freely, without any condition of any law, either natural, ceremonial, or moral, or any work done by us, Many greats in the literature compare God's will to natural law as almost inseparable, as protestant and Catholic churches separated by people like Thomas Boston and Johan Gottlieb Fichte who would also say natural law is a set of rules like killing to survive and eating or dying as not wrong or right but necessary as a set of preordained rules set forth by nature or god or even stealing or killing others as necessary like in this quote "just as I do not hunger because food is before me but a thing becomes food for me because I hunger, so" or even the will of God in Thomas Boston's epic book the crook in the lot.This separation of churches came with new theories that didn't exist like the word and concept of freedom as a natural law,Though others distinguish between natural law and natural right, they also use science as a reference to natural law and is commonly accepted and fate as in the early Greeks Vikings and the Christian doctrine in the example of Jesus's death or like this quote by Johann Gottlieb Fichte "Can I will, without having something which I will? No: this would be THE VOCATION OF MAN. contradictory to the very nature of my mind. To every action there is united in my thought, immedi- ately and by the laws of thought itself, a condition of things placed in futurity, to which my action is re- lated as the efficient cause to the effect produced"For example a test with set perimeters that yields the same results every time could be considered natural law it is constant and does not change the results could be considered fate but as many scientists venture away from controversial subjects they accept science as proof of natural law and one cannot prove God exists however neither can one prove what they dreamed about it happened none the less and doesn't make it less real and serves as an interesting point that natural laws do exist regardless of what you can prove like legal laws or the lack of required evidence and one or two witness's would have the world believe you infact did not dream what you dreamed despite it being the truth and very much real natural law does not necessarily require evidence or an answer so much as a question nobody knows why death is our only natural right but we none the less know it as a commonly accepted natural law we all die. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Natural law. Adakiko (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Block evasion: 70.27.141.234; continued persistent addition of unsourced and poorly sourced material; using Wikipedia as a religious forum. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason= Thomas Boston was a Scottish priest known for the marrow controversy his works are considered as important to literature of the world and is taught in Universities especially in Scotland I've read many of his books and he is definitely are Christian master in natural law no one else could explain the nature of man and reference the Bible to prove his point in a scientific way and expressed a natural approach towards God the earth and the crook in the lot or specifically how God Can make man evil so he can fight evil later when God makes him straight again because a gentile cannot understand evil and fight it because nature is not evil god is not evil he has purpose and nobody is evil all the time or good all the time it is all the works of God, Johann Gottlieb Fichte was a German who studied natural law but more to the nature and science of man he says that I do not eat because I want to eat I eat because I must the I or self cannot will something if it doesn't exist I can only use the knowledge I have and accept that I cannot know everything and in this way because the I self in the now and become myself of course he says it better and that's not a quote he also talks about freedom and fate and natural law and is religious he probably is one of the only guys that are religious and scientific to a degree that he can explain things no else can or not many anyway , the quote I sourced Bible from was a quote he being thomas Boston sourced the Bible which he is as amazing at doing and proving points in a almost scientific way that makes no sense but you understand perfectly what he's saying and I simply quoted him. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Why am I dealing with 3 different people on the same post
Confused I been doing what they're asked annoying what U In supposed to be post 10 years of knowledge and 1000s of pages or try to summarize it into context what I've learned I sourced everything. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to espouse your personal take on life. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good Lord, you've continued to do that on your talk page. You might want to remove all that before someone removes your talk page access. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this working, Thomas Boston's works are considered important world literature and Johann Gottlieb Fichte Is German a religious man who studies the nature of the self and I and natural law from a scientific point of view and can explain things no one else can or not many people from this educated point of view while Thomas Boston is more of a religious teacher of natural on law this Scottish priest can explain things to you and you will perfectly understand his message even though it makes no sense in a scientific sense or on paper he talks to you in the a simple way that might sound stupid or doesn't make sense of natural law and you will understand the nature of a law better than from someone well versed with a scientific answer he speaks to your soul he is often taught in Universities especially in Scotland they are both common university scholarly materials. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

12:14, 17 September 2022	Autoblock #16207263	12:14, 18 September 2022 23 hours and 44 minutes left	Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) editing (sitewide) account creation disabled Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Krolikudaff". The reason given for Krolikudaff's block

I think Im getting mobbed by a multiple user idk why though I want even talking about them. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Help help can anybody hear me help help can anybody save me
Nah @Is this working Thomas Boston's works are considered important world literature and Johann Gottlieb Fichte Is German a religious man who studies the nature of the self and I and natural law and can explain things no one else can or not many people from this educated point of view while Thomas Boston is more of a religious teacher of natural on law this Scottish priest can explain things to you and you will perfectly understand his message even though it makes no sense they both are considered scholarly material used in many universities around the world especially Scotland and Germany the religious sources where a quote of Thomas Boston's which is what he does frequently to prove a point as to a rule of nature that's scientifical and uses untraditional methods like explaining that nobody is good or bad all the time and that the crook in our lot is the work of God and we should accept it with grace cause God is not cruel the laws of nature are requirements Johann Gottlieb Fichte says that the I or self cannot become the self if he doesn't learn what he needs to learn to become himself so in this way God needs crooked people so he may straighten them when they are needed because as Thomas Boston the crook in our lot is the great engine of Providence. The nature and afflictions of men are our sin and the price is death that is your only right life isn't a given and there is no price on life how can these be poorly sourced materials When the Catholic and Protestant churches separated people died just to write it in Thier own language millions of people and their sacrifice brought new concepts and words like freedom it's not a secret or even debated materials And lastly If I have to reference the facts that I cannot prove God somehow proves he doesn't exist because I cannot prove my own dreams by legal practices in my own country but nonetheless even with a couple witness's I would be found a quack with no evidences but it doesn't mean I didn't dream that or it isn't true.

This person is a multi user that blocked my account I believe because I had three people attack me there third guy after I didn't even post anything I was busy reading ,then Deepfriedokra was the fourth one and cancelled my request to appeal a block idk why they'd target me though. 12:14, 17 September 2022	Autoblock #16207263	12:14, 18 September 2022 23 hours and 44 minutes left	Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) editing (sitewide) account creation disabled Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Krolikudaff". The reason given for Krolikudaff's block Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly Sources of important world literature
Now mind you Thomas Bostons work can sometimes be hard to source because he used KJV Bible it was a older Scottish Bible and has since been surpressed or updated into easier to understand words but you will not even begin to understand his meaning without a Kjv Bible to source what he is saying to you Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This is what it m blocked for sharing a quote that sourced the Bible. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Many greats in the literature compare God's will to natural law as almost inseparable, as protestant and Catholic churches separated by people like Thomas Boston and Johan Gottlieb Fichte who would also say natural law is a set of rules like killing to survive and eating or dying as not wrong or right but necessary as a set of preordained rules set forth by nature or god or even stealing or killing others as necessary like in this quote "just as I do not hunger because food is before me but a thing becomes food for me because I hunger, so" or even the will of God in Thomas Boston's epic book the crook in the lot.This separation of churches came with new theories that didn't exist like the word and concept of freedom as a natural law,Though others distinguish between natural law and natural right, they also use science as a reference to natural law and is commonly accepted and fate as in the early Greeks Vikings and the Christian doctrine in the example of Jesus's death or like this quote by Johann Gottlieb Fichte "Can I will, without having something which I will? No: this would be THE VOCATION OF MAN. contradictory to the very nature of my mind. To every action there is united in my thought, immedi- ately and by the laws of thought itself, a condition of things placed in futurity, to which my action is re- lated as the efficient cause to the effect produced"For example a test with set perimeters that yields the same results every time could be considered natural law it is constant and does not change the results could be considered fate but as many scientists venture away from controversial subjects they accept science as proof of natural law and one cannot prove God exists however neither can one prove what they dreamed about it happened none the less and doesn't make it less real and serves as an interesting point that natural laws do exist regardless of what you can prove like legal laws or the lack of required evidence and one or two witness's would have the world believe you infact did not dream what you dreamed despite it being the truth and very much real natural law does not necessarily require evidence or an answer so much as a question nobody knows why death is our only natural right but we none the less know it as a commonly accepted natural law we all die Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No one gets blocked for sharing a quote that "sourced" the Bible, whatever that means. What is it that you are doing here? Be reminded that we are not a social forum. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this working Thomas Boston's works are considered important world literature and Johann Gottlieb Fichte Is German a religious man who studies the nature of the self and I and natural law and can explain things no one else can or not many people from this educated point of view while Thomas Boston is more of a religious teacher of natural on law this Scottish priest can explain things to you and you will perfectly understand his message even though it makes no sense they both are considered scholarly material used in many universities around the world especially Scotland and Germany the religious sources where a quote of Thomas Boston's which is what he does frequently to prove a point as to a rule of nature that's scientifical and uses untraditional methods like explaining that nobody is good or bad all the time and that the crook in our lot is the work of God and we should accept it with grace cause God is not cruel the laws of nature are requirements Johann Gottlieb Fichte says that the I or self cannot become the self if he doesn't learn what he needs to learn to become himself so in this way God needs crooked people so he may straighten them when they are needed because as Thomas Boston the crook in our lot is the great engine of Providence. The nature and afflictions of men are our sin and the price is death that is your only right life isn't a given and there is no price on life how can these be poorly sourced materials When the Catholic and Protestant churches separated people died just to write it in Thier own language millions of people and their sacrifice brought new concepts and words like freedom it's not a secret or even debated materials And lastly If I have to reference the facts that I cannot prove God somehow proves he doesn't exist because I cannot prove my own dreams by legal practices in my own country but nonetheless even with a couple witness's I would be found a quack with no evidences but it doesn't mean I didn't dream that or it isn't true.

This person is a multi user that blocked my account I believe because I had three people attack me there third guy after I didn't even post anything I was busy reading ,then Deepfriedokra was the fourth one and cancelled my request to appeal a block idk why they'd target me though. 12:14, 17 September 2022	Autoblock #16207263	12:14, 18 September 2022 23 hours and 44 minutes left	Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) editing (sitewide) account creation disabled Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Krolikudaff". The reason given for Krolikudaff's block Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry this is what I'm blocked for this quote Thomas Boston says "Now, the nature and office of the law is to show unto us our sin, Rom 3:20 our condemnation, our death, Rom 2:1; 7:10. But the nature and office of the gospel is to show unto us, that Christ has taken away our sin, John 1:29 and that he also is our redemption and life, Col 1:14; 3:4. So that the LAW is a word of wrath, Rom 4:14; but the GOSPEL is a word of peace, Eph 2:17 Contrariwise, where the promise of life and salvation is offered unto us freely, without any condition of any law, either natural, ceremonial, or moral, or any work done by us, all those places." Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I had 4 different people attack me one got blocked for sharing ip address I saw for sure. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I was adding sources for Natural law and giving information gathered over the years from various sources this was my first attempt and I didn't get very far been waiting I got attacked by a multiple user account can you not see he got blocked ?? Sir I assure you that all I did please do your research Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I was explaining natural law, for example they deleted my post that science can be considered natural law. Spiderthatsavedraceandnation (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC) You are blocked indefinitely because it appears that you have no idea what exactly Wikipedia is, or how it works. After your first edit was reverted, you could have read up, to learn that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that your (rather poorly written) opinion, inserted in the middle of an article, is not appropriate. Instead, you went to war, and made it worse, and now you have placed God knows how many unblock requests, one more poorly formatted and nonsensical than the other. This is wasting the time of--what, three administrators now. I am going to revoke your access to this talk page: you are not here to improve our beautiful project, and seem to have no interest in learning how you might could do that, and you are wasting the precious time of volunteers, none of whom are getting any younger here. Please find other places on the internet--surely there are social forums where your efforts are more proper, and more appreciated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)