GOOD...ALWAYS RULED OVER BY CRIMINALS...What's wrong with...
a) good implies vs bad; crime implies versus law; wrong implies vs right...each of these represents a rebranding of wanting vs not wanting the suggestions of others.
b) all these conflicts are called "reasoning" and represent ones choice to ignore perceivable balance (need/want) for suggested imbalance (want vs not want). Choice (reaction) can only exist at the center of balance (enacting momentum of motion).
c) nature communicates itself from perceivable (whole) to perceiving (partial) aka from the same process of dying to each living differential within. Those within can be tempted to ignore perceivable (inspiration) for suggested (information), which gives those suggesting the power to define; redefine and contradict the suggested at will.
d) the perceivable natural order (life being moved from inception towards death) implies being resistance (living) within temptation (dying). The inversion thereof represents suggested orders to follow, hence being tempted to go with the flow (dying) while ignoring to resist (living).
e) the few suggest moralism (good vs bad; right vs wrong; lawful vs criminal etc.) to tempt the many to ignore response-ability (if enacting balance; then reacting choice). Consenting to anything suggested implies ignoring perceivable balance as choice; while shaping suggested imbalance within self (aka reasoning over suggested information within ones memory).
religion
RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew" represents choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law as the inversion of balance (enacting) to choice (reaction) natural law.
If one is reasoning (want vs not want; true vs false; believing vs not believing; good vs evil; Christian vs Muslim; us vs them; rich vs poor; left-wing vs right-wing; communism vs capitalism; nationalism vs internationalism; soccer vs football; Pepsi vs Coke; pro-life vs pro-choice; vaxxed vs unwaxxed; Trump vs Biden; jew vs gentile; black vs white; flat vs heliocentric; Nintendo vs Sega; digital vs physical; crypto vs cash; democrat vs republican, Russia vs Ukraine; orthodox vs unorthodox; liberal vs conservative; Smacks vs Frosties and so on...), then one consents to the suggestions of others, hence being bound by them, hence giving them the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested at will, and the power to speak in the name of (in nomine) the suggested (fiction), while everyone consenting is ignoring the perceivable (reality).
To submit to the suggesting choice of another represents shirking of ones response-ability (choice) within a balance based system, hence shaping a chain of command under every suggestion; which is how the suggesting few gain willingly control over the consenting many.
always ruled
Living within the process of dying implies being temporary ruled by ongoing always. Those who ignore this for the suggested rules by others find themselves being temporary ruled by them.
crime
Natural law represents justice aka that (process of dying) which "just is" for those (living) within. All the suggested laws of men represents rules of behavior to domesticate "free" will of choice within the "dom"inance of a balance based system aka free-dom....free (living) within dominance (process of dying).
Ones consent to rules of behavior as suggested by others represents the foundation for self inflicted slavery, hence choice willingly submitting to the choice of another as a master of self.
Choice exist at the center of balance, hence form (life) existing within the momentum (balance) of motion (inception towards death)...not under the choices of others. Consenting to understand what others suggest represents consent to "stand under" those suggesting.
a) good implies vs bad; crime implies versus law; wrong implies vs right...each of these represents a rebranding of wanting vs not wanting the suggestions of others.
b) all these conflicts are called "reasoning" and represent ones choice to ignore perceivable balance (need/want) for suggested imbalance (want vs not want). Choice (reaction) can only exist at the center of balance (enacting momentum of motion).
c) nature communicates itself from perceivable (whole) to perceiving (partial) aka from the same process of dying to each living differential within. Those within can be tempted to ignore perceivable (inspiration) for suggested (information), which gives those suggesting the power to define; redefine and contradict the suggested at will.
d) the perceivable natural order (life being moved from inception towards death) implies being resistance (living) within temptation (dying). The inversion thereof represents suggested orders to follow, hence being tempted to go with the flow (dying) while ignoring to resist (living).
e) the few suggest moralism (good vs bad; right vs wrong; lawful vs criminal etc.) to tempt the many to ignore response-ability (if enacting balance; then reacting choice). Consenting to anything suggested implies ignoring perceivable balance as choice; while shaping suggested imbalance within self (aka reasoning over suggested information within ones memory).
RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew" represents choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law as the inversion of balance (enacting) to choice (reaction) natural law.
If one is reasoning (want vs not want; true vs false; believing vs not believing; good vs evil; Christian vs Muslim; us vs them; rich vs poor; left-wing vs right-wing; communism vs capitalism; nationalism vs internationalism; soccer vs football; Pepsi vs Coke; pro-life vs pro-choice; vaxxed vs unwaxxed; Trump vs Biden; jew vs gentile; black vs white; flat vs heliocentric; Nintendo vs Sega; digital vs physical; crypto vs cash; democrat vs republican, Russia vs Ukraine; orthodox vs unorthodox; liberal vs conservative; Smacks vs Frosties and so on...), then one consents to the suggestions of others, hence being bound by them, hence giving them the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested at will, and the power to speak in the name of (in nomine) the suggested (fiction), while everyone consenting is ignoring the perceivable (reality).
To submit to the suggesting choice of another represents shirking of ones response-ability (choice) within a balance based system, hence shaping a chain of command under every suggestion; which is how the suggesting few gain willingly control over the consenting many.
Living within the process of dying implies being temporary ruled by ongoing always. Those who ignore this for the suggested rules by others find themselves being temporary ruled by them.
Natural law represents justice aka that (process of dying) which "just is" for those (living) within. All the suggested laws of men represents rules of behavior to domesticate "free" will of choice within the "dom"inance of a balance based system aka free-dom....free (living) within dominance (process of dying).
Ones consent to rules of behavior as suggested by others represents the foundation for self inflicted slavery, hence choice willingly submitting to the choice of another as a master of self.
Choice exist at the center of balance, hence form (life) existing within the momentum (balance) of motion (inception towards death)...not under the choices of others. Consenting to understand what others suggest represents consent to "stand under" those suggesting.