Judaism, Islam, Christianity. ALL DUMB
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (35)
sorted by:
How do you pledge something sincerely without doing so freely?
My point is the Christians who think that they're the real free thinkers and truthers are just as controlled as the LGBT agenda crowd.
Your point is wrong.
Ones consent to pledge to the suggestion of others...tempts one to ignore ones free will of choice for the suggested choices of others.
Ignorance allows one to do freely, while lacking to comprehend doing it. Without self discernment; ones free will of choice will be tempted to follow the suggested choices by others.
Perhaps you misunderstand? To pledge is to promise and it would be hollow without having the free will to choose, this entails decision and reasoning we are freely able to do and then decide if we want to pledge ourselves to such. I have found only one perfect to serve and that's King Jesus but everyone is free to pledge themselves to what 'they will' apparently in this fallen place, I much prefer God's will, that Guy is way smarter than me.
Understanding implies ones consent to "stand under" the suggested information by others; which in return tempts one to "miss" perceivable inspiration by ignoring it.
To be implies being (life) send forwards (inception towards death) hence in need to resist the temptation thereof. Others suggest progressivism to tempt one to consent to move towards suggested outcomes, while ignoring perceivable origin.
That represents the foundation for Bank & Trust aka positing ones free will of choice, while depositing it to the will of others aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law, which the few industrialized as RELIGION (Latin religio; to bind anew).
Nature gives (inception) and takes (death) everything from everyone (life)...others exploit ones ignorance of that.
"of choice" implies out of perceivable balance; "to choose" implies towards suggests outcomes.
Hold your breath and ongoing (inception towards death) teaches temporary (life) that balance overrules choice. One can only respond as choice to balance (momentum of motion)...choosing outcomes tempts one to ignore origin.
FREE (implies within dominance) WILL (aka want implies within need) OF (implies out of) CHOICE (implies within balance).
a) others suggest "without" to tempt one to ignore being (life) within (inception towards death).
b) HOL'LOW, adjective - "containing an empty space"...aka suggested nihilism (nothing) as inversion of perceivable WHOLE (everything). Consider energy (inherent/internal power) as whole and each partial within reacting to it...
wanting vs not wanting suggested, while ignoring need to adapt to perceivable...that represents reasoning. Always a conflict; no matter which side one chooses and it can never be won; because both sides within any conflict of reason are reasoning against each other about a suggestion from a 3rd party outside.
Example...pro-life vs pro-choice represents reasoning about suggested "abortion". Those who suggest abortion, don't reason against others about it, they divide others through reasoning (talmudic reasoning) against each other, while utilizing consent to ignore perceivable for suggested by both sides to fuel the suggested.
Pro-life vs pro-choice reasoning tempts one to ignore that LIFE equals CHOICE. One cannot be pro-life without choosing to be and one cannot be pro-choice without being alive. A deliberate contradiction.
Choosing want (suggested) over need (perceivable) results in a conflict of reason (want vs not want).
Example: wanting (cola) vs not wanting (pepsi) suggested tempts one to ignore perceivable need...thirst.
One cannot find perfect (complete) while being ONE aka partial within whole. Finding implies "to meet", which tempts one to ignore that nature sets itself apart, hence from whole (perceivable) into partials (perceiving).
As for only...if all represents one in energy; then "there can be only one" aka "all for one and one for all" aka "alone" (all in one).
Free will of choice can only exist at the center of surrounding balance. Each one represents center (partial) of surrounding (whole) aka EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power".
Ones consent to want (will) suggestions by others (deity) tempts one to submit willingly to the will of others, hence viewing reality through the lens of submission to a will higher than self.
From a christian perspective: choice at the center of balance implies "as above; so below"...
Those who consent to "patris et filii et spiritus sancti" are tempted to ignore "in nomine" aka those who suggest "in the name of". Consenting to RELIGION (Latin religio; to bind anew) tempts one to bind self by consent to suggestion of another. This bond is being distracted from by the suggested religion.
Both believers and disbelievers (while reasoning against each other) view perceivable (reality) through the lens of suggested (fiction), while ignoring the bond among choice aka the contract law with the merchants of temptation.