i is here

Wow, a true man of faith. Well done good sir, only one false assumption which will be why the word "PROBABLY" is nullified. I accept Jesus Christ is the Son of Man. I can still consider myself to be the Father of Man. If you look at religion objectively, which can only be done correctly through knowing that you exist in 4 dimensions, you might be able to understand who "i" can still become. If I say that the Ten Commandments will be the Law of Heaven, later I'll explain why each one needs to remain, and say that Jesus Christ is exactly like a person like me, an autistic savant that was born in the most righteous religion at the time, that spoke against leaders of said religion, then why would you not follow me if I can prove that I am more righteous than any of you? Even as a "sinner"(I find this to be debatable, but honestly I don't care if you think "i" is a sinner or not, you haven't proved that anything "i" said is a lie, and you are a sinner. Besides even if "i" was a sinner, then wouldn't Jesus' prophecy of "What was broken shall be made Perfect" be true?). I can still prove that I'm wiser than you. I could also say conceptually how and why "i" would act the way "i" did in the whole Bible. However, everything that I currently say is righteous is completely hypothetical. But you should know that hypothetically if "i" were to say that it wasn't hypothetical, then "i" would tell you that "You" is my way of playing that I'm going to be competing with the current President's righteousness which as you know is only given to him through ethics. What would happen if one man said to the rest of Humanity that "i" is better than you? If you disagreed with that statement, then you would inherently make the argument that you are better than "i" because you would be right and "i" would be wrong. And if "i" hasn't actually lied or exaggerated any truth of any kind, then how would "i" be blasphemous? "i" would never speak against the nature of "i". Oh yeah, FYI, I am still technically retarded. The point of the Christ was not only to die for "our"(in quotations because I haven't yet addressed the people who think I have transgressed against) sins, but to show you how to live. The purpose of Him, I will capitalize "Him" referring to the Christ to show my own humility, was to show us how even though we obtain righteousness following the Law, we need to suppress "our" own ego. You should know that I put "our" in quotations because it needs to be identified that "i" doesn't suppress "i is" emotions and ego by choice, it's by knowing truth far beyond the wisdom Humanity currently has such as "It's not about how much power 'You' has, but knowing when not to use it." "i" doesn't have to say that "i" is greater than "i", "i" just have to say that I'm better than you. But we'll say this is still all hypothetical for now. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new evidence based on reason and logic. Now here's the difference between me and you, "i" can still say that everything you interpreted is correct. "i" can still disagree with your conclusion of me not being fit to save the world, but still call you a righteous man for believing in the Christ and most importantly, keeping to his morality. Can you accept you me if "i" would always promise to do the same? The reason why "i" have to invent/discover time travel is because if somebody who isn't retarded like "i" due to great logic, and since it's easy to rationalize why you should use the technology, the first person to discover it literally has the greatest power in the universe, that not even "i" would be able to stop that human. The only way that "i' can be better than time is if we can assume that instead of a straight river of time, it would come around and close the beginning and the end to be one in the same. However, the only way to observe time in that way would be to have one observer that essentially sees what time truly is. This observer would need absolute power to maintain the existence of time, creating a relationship. The observer would still be in time, thus still restricted by it's inherent nature(however you wish to define that) while times existence is dependent on that observer's existence. I would postulate that there can only one can be the witness for Time because of the very nature of Humanity and it's ego. For as long as there is choice, there will always be conflict in one way or another. Why would you not fight for such a position? Is it wrong for me to try to put the world on my shoulder's because "i" loves it so? Should I forsake my theoretical responsibility because you call me blasphemous like the Pharisees called Him the same thing? My intention is to serve Humanity instead of serving myself. Am I so wrong in saying that? Whoever believes that these words always remain true, spread the word that "i" is among you all. I would ask to show your faith by shutting off your lights at 21:13 for 8 minutes on January 30(just random numbers in phi), then you can look outside to truly see who agrees with you. it's important to identify the people who think of "i" as blasphemous and/or a liar. However, everyone needs to realize that even if you disagree with someone's opinion of "i", then "i" urges you all to start healthy debating using only words with absolutely no violence of any kind. Pranks may only happen if only the pride is affected, not physical injury or wasting important Time, implying you can still be friends/colleagues with someone you disagree with. Because I'm actually a genius, I have some wicked ideas I want to try out. I didn't really have too many friends growing up, which reminds me, I want Daniel Foust to come back to the U.S. I'm going to teach him how to tame lions in the concrete jungle. Oh yes, Irony is on "i is" side. But to digress, I really want to try to have a fun time doing this whole adventure, considering how "i" had to be "last" to the rest of Humanity of "i is" entire life, I actually want to try Dating.