Lies (not want) represent the contradiction to a consented to truth (want) suggested beforehand. Just like non-believers (not want) are defined by the same suggestion as believers (want).
Consent (want or not want) to any suggested -ism causes the want versus not want conflict among those consenting; which in return gives those suggesting the sole power to define (suggestion); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the meaning of the suggested for all those who are reasoning (want vs not want) about it.
Truth vs false represents the redefinition of want vs not want. It's the same choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law underneath every conflict in this system; because this system implies perceived balance (offer) to choice (response) natural law.
Question the origin (suggestion) of your consented to "truth"; instead of fighting others over pointed out contradictions; which you perceive as lies. Try using implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want aka true vs false aka believing vs not believing etc.) and you won't find yourself consenting to conflicts anymore.
All nations before him are as nothing
a) nation - "a people" implies each perceivable "one" of them; while nothing suggests "no one" aka none; nothing; nothingness.
b) all existence implies ONEness of ALL and the ONEs within ALL.
c) yes vs no represents the rebranding of want (yes) vs not want (no).
d) the hebrew use of nothing from the Greek "ou oudeis" is for claims aka choice of want (suggested) over choice of need (perceived).
Ask yourself why you consent to everything suggested within the bible (want) ; while ignoring what the perceived (need) was shaped out of?
are LESS than less than nothing
You chose to evaluate others as such; while using the suggested scripture as the justification for your choices. It's your free will of choice to do so. I'm inspired by the origin of the suggested "nothing" others use to justify the ignorance of perceived "everything".
their philosophies and beliefs
Who suggested them "their" -isms and why are those who consent to believe or not believe what others suggest "claiming" it's theirs?
"patris et filii et spiritus sancti" (btw allegory for ALL; ONE, and ONEs adaptation to ALL) is being suggested "in nomine" aka in the name of others. Consenting to that doesn't make it your belief or philosophy; yet once again both believers and non-believers are claiming ownership over "their" point of views.
Lies (not want) represent the contradiction to a consented to truth (want) suggested beforehand. Just like non-believers (not want) are defined by the same suggestion as believers (want).
Consent (want or not want) to any suggested -ism causes the want versus not want conflict among those consenting; which in return gives those suggesting the sole power to define (suggestion); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the meaning of the suggested for all those who are reasoning (want vs not want) about it.
Truth vs false represents the redefinition of want vs not want. It's the same choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law underneath every conflict in this system; because this system implies perceived balance (offer) to choice (response) natural law.
Question the origin (suggestion) of your consented to "truth"; instead of fighting others over pointed out contradictions; which you perceive as lies. Try using implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want aka true vs false aka believing vs not believing etc.) and you won't find yourself consenting to conflicts anymore.
a) nation - "a people" implies each perceivable "one" of them; while nothing suggests "no one" aka none; nothing; nothingness.
b) all existence implies ONEness of ALL and the ONEs within ALL.
c) yes vs no represents the rebranding of want (yes) vs not want (no).
d) the hebrew use of nothing from the Greek "ou oudeis" is for claims aka choice of want (suggested) over choice of need (perceived).
Ask yourself why you consent to everything suggested within the bible (want) ; while ignoring what the perceived (need) was shaped out of?
You chose to evaluate others as such; while using the suggested scripture as the justification for your choices. It's your free will of choice to do so. I'm inspired by the origin of the suggested "nothing" others use to justify the ignorance of perceived "everything".
Who suggested them "their" -isms and why are those who consent to believe or not believe what others suggest "claiming" it's theirs?
"patris et filii et spiritus sancti" (btw allegory for ALL; ONE, and ONEs adaptation to ALL) is being suggested "in nomine" aka in the name of others. Consenting to that doesn't make it your belief or philosophy; yet once again both believers and non-believers are claiming ownership over "their" point of views.