Watching a vid there.. the vatican.. you see these guys hanging out and it seemed familiar with that freemason stuff on insta home page of those guys hanging out. The muslims, yeah.. them too, eh.. they hang out like.. in that arena with the black cube.. betcha no women. Like holy fuck.. you talk about "misogyny".. well how come.. they stay home and make the kids and raise them, and that's it, eh. They're not "involved" in whatever else, eh.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (9)
sorted by:
a) VATICAN; noun (Latin vates) - "soothsayer, prophet, seer" aka one who suggests in the name of perceivable.
b) Father (motion) through mother (momentum) into fruit of the womb (matter)...matter implies perception; momentum implies perceivable; motion implies discernible.
A soothsayer suggests in the name of motion (father) to distract matter (child) from momentum (mother). This is also why "in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" leaves out the mother.
To be implies as one within (life) mother (inception towards death) of all-father.
c) Mother/matris/matrice/matrix - "uterus, womb" aka medium (inception towards death) for matter (life)...few suggest "media" to "mediate" suggested towards consenting many.
d) Freemason implies mason of free aka making sound of free will of choice. One cannot make sound, one exists within sound as insane (in sanus; within sound) person (per sonos; by sound).
Others suggest words shaped within perceivable sound, which implies masonry/ma-sonic/making sound, and putting the G back in there gets you...MA-G-SONIC aka magic sound.
Anyway...sound implies father; spectrum implies mother; wave-frequency implies child.
As for free...free will of choice (matter) implies within balance (momentum)...consenting to the suggested choices by another imbalances ones choice.
Ones choice selects chosen ones suggestion...it's child ignoring mother for other children.
Although I'm educated enough, I'm also old. They say u r a bot. U r a real person? I appreciate you here at this place. I think u have a type of insight understanding of language, of tongues. I feel God is not an easy thing to comprehend. What he wants. What he really wants from man. It's not as simple as " be good person" although this should suit most men as enough of a law and sometimes best to not try and get too deep into the way that u might break your sanity
a) "They" aka suggested pluralism...is that perceivable or can one discern each singular one of "they/them"? If one already consented to pluralism, then how could another singular change ones consent?
b) Person aka per sonos (by sound) implies each one within all sound. All matter is within sound; light; motion; energy etc.
c) Real implies perceivable; fake implies suggested...if one ignores former for latter.
d) Yes I am real and not a bot, nor do I use bots...YET; you seeking confirmation from others, and me suggesting/offering/selling it to you, tempts you to ignore perceivable (real) for suggested (fake) aka ignore offer (perceivable) for resale (suggested) aka that which sets one free for selling self out into bondage to another.
If you consent to what I suggest is real; then you permit me to confirm reality. Suggestion tricks ones consent to deceive self into ignoring reality (perceivable) for fiction (suggested). I try to break this spell.
Aka applying a price onto another, while ignoring that nature implies perceivable value, and each one within evaluation by perception.
It's few who suggest the rhetoric of "appreciation" to gain control over suggested values among consenting many. FREE will of choice doesn't have a price...it is the prize/reward...unless ignored for the suggested choices by others.
This isn't about me or what I'm writing; but about ones discernment of self by resisting the temptations of others. If I thank you for your appreciation; then I pay fees to your price and fee/vieh implies "cattle".
This simple rhetorical trick is how few keep tabs one the submissive status among many aka cattle-farming.
Others suggest "insight by understanding" as inversion of having sight (perception) within knowledge (perceivable)...it's ones consent to suggested, which tempts one to "stand-under" those suggesting it.
I didn't accumulate insight...I learned to let go of understanding, which in return freed me to discern myself as one having sight within all. Anyone can do that; but consenting to what another suggests tempts one to ignore this.
Self discernment cannot be shared...it's a homegrown effort. Everyone can suggest "who; where; what and why" one is, but only one can discern self within what was before one came to be.
One cannot feel names/nouns/numbers/brands/idols/suggested information/words/definitions etc. Others shape these to tempt ones feeling (perception) to ignore origin (perceivable).
Your consent to the suggested word "God" implies holding onto something, while ignoring that everything perceivable moves. Others even suggest "unmoved mover" through aristotelianism to distract from discerning that holding onto, while being moved makes one the unmoving within motion...which implies ones ignorance/denial of being moved.
This ignorance/denial implies suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) and ones consent to de-nial perceivable for it, which is why you wrote "God is not". God implies everything perceivable; Not implies ones denial thereof for suggested.
Instead of viewing "God" as mover; try mo-tion, which implies mote within action, which further implies oneself as mote within all action.
Try male (motion) generating female (momentum) for off-spring (matter) to discern self. Others suggest "father" to distract from motion; "son" to distract from matter; and "holy ghost" to distract from momentum.
If one discerns self as matter; within momentum of motion, then ghost/spirit within holy/whole implies Latin spiro; to breathe.
Motion implies need; matter implies want...matter (life) needs to resist wanted temptation of motion (inception towards death) aka wanting to hold onto; while needing to let go of...ones struggle of self sustenance.
From your perspective...God implies need, while you, son of god, need to struggle with wanted temptations.
How could you discern self if others suggest you to position father; son and holy ghost outside yourself, which you do by consenting to their suggestions, while ignoring perceivable.
Simple (one-fold) + complex (many-fold)...all (perceivable) unfolds into each one (perception), while others tempt folding together (suggestion).
Ones consent binding self to the suggestion of another implies one folding into many, hence many folding/bending to few.
Sleight of hand: "bending the light" by folding rays of light together.
Good implies vs bad...a conflict of reason shaped by ones consent to suggested moralism. Person implies being by (per) sound (sonos)...where's the conflict within that?
Reason implies dissonance within sound; while implication implies resonance within sound...need (implication) or want (reason)...it's ones free will of choice.
Sane implies sound; being implies person aka per-sonos (by sound); hence a differentiation; fragmentation; separation aka breaking of whole into partials.
Others suggest "insane person" to distract one from discerning self as being in (within) sanus (sound) and therefore per (by) sonos (sound). Being called "insane person" tempts one to reason against others, while ignoring the implication (if/then) of being within and by sound.
a) Being implies center (perception) within circumference (perceivable)....unless choosing to stand-under (understand) another one.