He should
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (38)
sorted by:
He should
because he doesn't exist and the fact that you think the world was ever flooded like it says in that book of fairy tales is weird...
"The flood by way of eminence, the deluge" aka form (living) inundated within flow (process of dying), hence..."bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life" (Genesis 6:17).
It's the ongoing process of dying which represents both the breath of life (inception) and the destroyer of all temporary life (death).
A suggested book "binds" those consenting to it, hence RELIGION (Latin religio, to bind anew) representing choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law...the inversion of balance (perceivable) to choice (perceiving) natural law.
Instead of consenting to the suggested book...ask yourself out of; within where and in response to what was it written? Does nature write? Does it make suggestions? Does it bind or does it set one "free" will of choice?
I realize you claim to not do drugs, but word combinations like you choose come from WAYYY too much acid
a) inception towards death represents the only way for life.
b) being alive implies as free will of choice within a balance (need/want) based system.
c) balancing as choice implies being on EDGE, noun [Latin acies, acus, acidus aka acid].
d) do I really make this up under the influence of drugs or do others use any excuse to keep shirking response-ability for what they ignore? https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/acid
If nature represents sound and those within represent instrument of choice within balance (resonance/dissonance), then sound represents the combined whole, while each instrument represents one partial within the combined whole.
Try humming (mimicry of ongoing sound); then try speaking while humming...no matter how many words you combine, you will run out of breathe within the ongoing sound. Nature doesn't combine, it sets itself apart, hence allowing the partial (perceiving) to experience the whole (perceivable).
Others suggest one to put back together aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) etc. which tempts one to ignore apartheid (being partial within whole).
Instead of reasoning (agreement vs disagreement) over suggested claims, ask yourself why one would use drugs? Sounds like escapism to me, hence a shirking of response-ability (free will of choice).
What is easier...growing ones self discernment about "within where" one exits or blaming others for their behavior trying to question the lack of ones self discernment?
Within where do you exist? Do this question offend you? Does thinking about it feel like a struggle to you? Do you feel responsible to answer my question or do you want to shirk response-ability to question self, hence to grow self discernment about your position "within where"?
If nature represents reality, then where, when, what and why does nature CLAIM, verb - "to call for; to ask or seek to obtain"?
a) does Cuomo require others to tell him what he is?
b) does Cuomo utilize the ignorance of the consenting masses as cover for what he does?
c) if you seek agreement from those who willingly ignore how Cuomo behaves, then you transgress against their beliefs.
d) if you seek agreement from those who already perceive how Cuomo behaves, then you shape a "norm" out of seeking agreement from others, hence becoming addicted to confirmation.
This behavior of wanting confirmation from others is what allows others to setup the conflicts of reason (agreement vs disagreement) as mass murder rituals.
In short...Cuomo doesn't need to kill, he suggests those who want or not want what he suggests to kill each other over it.
Like I said ...