Gender-neutral God to be considered by Church of England
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
a) free will of choice represents the separated "reaction" within the "enacting" origin separating itself from whole (perceivable) into each partial (perceiving).
b) FREE implies within dominance, WILL (want) implies within need; OF implies out of, hence in response to, and CHOICE implies within balance.
c) all separation of origin (whole into partial) implies a self differentiation of origin, which is why those within perceive moving differences as perceivable inspiration for adaption.
a) RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew" represents choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law....the inversion of perceivable (enacting) to choice (reaction) natural law.
"in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" implies the contract law of those suggesting "in nomine (in the name of)" and those consenting (by faith) to the suggested (patris et filii et spiritus sancti).
Meanwhile within perceivable...Padri (whole) Filii (partial) Spiritus (Latin spiro; to breathe aka adaptation of partial within whole).
b) nature sets itself apart aka from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living), which implies each ones struggle to sustain self as apartheid (living) within wholeness (dying).
c) the parasitic few suggest the inversion of apartheid, hence together as e pluribus unum (out of many, one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) or united states; united nations; european union; uniformity or equality (sameness) through diversity (differences).
d) RE (respond to) UNITE (Latin unitas; unity; unus, one) implies as reacting one (perceiving) within enacting oneness (perceivable). The many ignore this because the few suggest them "dualism", hence counting perceivable differences (one among other ones) as suggested sameness (two).
Test this...look at anything you believe represents "two" and notice that you perceive each "one" of them separately. That's how communication between perceivable whole and perceiving partials work...differentiation in motion.
a) if origin implies "complete, whole, everything", then how could anything partial be able to not stay within it?
The trick being played on the many....suggested creationism (implies out of nothing) over perceivable transmutation (implies out of everything). As temporary from (life) within ongoing flow (inception towards death), transmutation implies flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death) aka ingredient out of base transmutation...alchemy.
b) consider that if religion (to bind anew) represents your consent to believe; submit; have faith in, the suggestions of others, then that those others are suggesting the purposes aka the few suggesting "progressivism" to direct the consenting many towards outcomes, as to tempt them to ignore being the resistance (living) within the progressing origin (process of dying)?
If you have a problem thinking like this, then consider if your consent to what others are suggesting you to think interferes with your discernment within perceivable.
Try need over want; inspiration (perceivable) over information (suggested) and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; good vs bad etc.)...these can help clear ones mind, but it's a choice only oneself can make.
Why would I call out choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law (aka religion) and then consent to suggested Gnosticism? Every suggested -ism implies binding oneself to another by consent, hence shirking response-ability (choice) onto others.
Edit: GNOS'TIC, noun [Latin gnosticus; Gr. to know.] + KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"....suggested Gnosticism tempts one to ignore that.
Nature doesn't brand anything, it moves everything, which those within perceive as inspiration for adaptation, as to sustain themselves.
The few suggest affixed brands to tempt the many to ignore ongoing origin. For example...suggested "insane person" tempts one to ignore perceivable "in sanus" (within sound) and "per sonos" (by sound), hence being within; by, out of and in response to perceivable sound.
In short...suggested words as an overlay upon perceivable sound represents "spell-craft".
Aka "nothing" and "doing nothing"...how could one thing (perceiving partial) within everything (perceivable whole) perceive "nothing"?
How does perceivable nature communicate "nothing" to you? What if nothing was suggested to you as the inversion of perceivable everything, hence tempting you to ignore perceivable (reality) for suggested (fiction)?
Would the few have the chutzpah to suggest the many "nothing"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI