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:
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
EX (expression of) ACT (action) implies being reaction (living) within enacting (process of dying).