The issue...nature breaks itself from whole (perceivable) into partials (perception), while partials utilize suggestion to bind each other together, which they call for example RELGION (Latin religio; to bind anew).
Lawful (inception towards death) generates corruption (life)...hence ones struggle to sustain self.
whether spiritually or politically I am not sure.
Spiritual implies ones adaptation to origin; while political implies ones pursuit of outcome.
Muslims believe...
One who submits (muslim) consents (believe) to the suggestion of another, while ignoring to adapt to perceivable.
Matt Walsh is...Ben Shapiro is...Andrew Klavan is...
Everything was before anyone within can suggest what is...a suggestion requires ones consent to pass.
ALL (allah) was before one can suggest what is...all doesn't brand anyone Matt Walsh; Ben Shapiro; Andrew Klavan or anything else...one does be free will of choice.
mysterious reason
Reasoning over suggested conceals implication of perceivable...if one consents to it. Reason implies imbalance; implication implies balance....being implies choice. Others suggest reason to imbalance ones choice.
justify banning bible?
If one consents to suggested writing in the name of justice, then one permits another to authorize or ban what's written.
ALL (allah) implies that which JUST IS (justice)...each one within needs to adapt to that, while being tempted with wanting to ignore perceivable for each others suggestions.
ALL gives each one a free will of choice....all perceivable (need) or another ones suggestion (want). Choosing want over need establishes want vs not want aka a conflict of reason among many over the suggestions by few.
self-hating ideology?
Ideology implies suggested idealism (ideo) by another and ones consent to reason (logy) over it against others, hence love vs hate.
Consenting to another ones suggestion ignores sustenance of oneself within perceivable....many doing that benefits few.
In other words...suggested ideology tempts one to deny/ignore self for conflicts (love vs hate) against others.
How can protestants debate this?
a) PROTEST', verb (Latin protestor; pro and testor, to affirm it)
b) To protest implies ones consent to the suggestion by another; which then establishes a debate among all those consenting aka a conflict of reason.
to be...of freedom democracy and Christianity
a) Being implies free (will of choice) within dom (inance of balance) aka temporary free (life) during ongoing domination (inception towards death).
b) Democracy aka demos (people) and kratos (strength) implies the strength of an aggregated people aka suggesting few being permitted to wield consenting many.
c) Christ implies "anointed one" aka each off-spring coming to be from father through mother aka consecrated by oil/eal/fire/heat aka inflammability of kin.
why isn't there a debate
Is vs isn't implies debate aka de (divided) bate (batter) aka a conflict of reason within the mind/memory of each one consenting to anything suggested by another.
Consider this...Water vs wine implies a fictitious debate tempting one to ignore reality...thirst. There's no debate with thirst...just ones ignorance thereof when debating others.
I will not stop spreading god's words
a) ALL moves sound; ones within shape words to tempt others ones to ignore sound.
b) Suggested nihilism (Latin nihilo; nothing) tempts one to ignore that everything moves, hence tempting one to believe in cessation of motion (stop).
ALL cannot be stopped by anyone within...other ones tempt one with suggested words like "not + stop" to ignore all.
c) I implies ones claim over self, which brands other ones as "YOU" (phonetic jew)...one cannot claim anything within ALL without ignoring that ongoing ALL supplies temporal ones with everything.
Potential cannot be held onto; it needs to be expressed (life) during impression (inception towards death).
Sleight of hand: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry; it's human nature".
until all
ALL implies beginning (inception) until end (death) for each one (life) within...others suggest the rhetoric "until all" to invert ones perception.
The issue...nature breaks itself from whole (perceivable) into partials (perception), while partials utilize suggestion to bind each other together, which they call for example RELGION (Latin religio; to bind anew).
Lawful (inception towards death) generates corruption (life)...hence ones struggle to sustain self.
Spiritual implies ones adaptation to origin; while political implies ones pursuit of outcome.
One who submits (muslim) consents (believe) to the suggestion of another, while ignoring to adapt to perceivable.
Everything was before anyone within can suggest what is...a suggestion requires ones consent to pass.
ALL (allah) was before one can suggest what is...all doesn't brand anyone Matt Walsh; Ben Shapiro; Andrew Klavan or anything else...one does be free will of choice.
Reasoning over suggested conceals implication of perceivable...if one consents to it. Reason implies imbalance; implication implies balance....being implies choice. Others suggest reason to imbalance ones choice.
If one consents to suggested writing in the name of justice, then one permits another to authorize or ban what's written.
ALL (allah) implies that which JUST IS (justice)...each one within needs to adapt to that, while being tempted with wanting to ignore perceivable for each others suggestions.
ALL gives each one a free will of choice....all perceivable (need) or another ones suggestion (want). Choosing want over need establishes want vs not want aka a conflict of reason among many over the suggestions by few.
Ideology implies suggested idealism (ideo) by another and ones consent to reason (logy) over it against others, hence love vs hate.
Consenting to another ones suggestion ignores sustenance of oneself within perceivable....many doing that benefits few.
In other words...suggested ideology tempts one to deny/ignore self for conflicts (love vs hate) against others.
a) PROTEST', verb (Latin protestor; pro and testor, to affirm it)
b) To protest implies ones consent to the suggestion by another; which then establishes a debate among all those consenting aka a conflict of reason.
a) Being implies free (will of choice) within dom (inance of balance) aka temporary free (life) during ongoing domination (inception towards death).
b) Democracy aka demos (people) and kratos (strength) implies the strength of an aggregated people aka suggesting few being permitted to wield consenting many.
c) Christ implies "anointed one" aka each off-spring coming to be from father through mother aka consecrated by oil/eal/fire/heat aka inflammability of kin.
Is vs isn't implies debate aka de (divided) bate (batter) aka a conflict of reason within the mind/memory of each one consenting to anything suggested by another.
Consider this...Water vs wine implies a fictitious debate tempting one to ignore reality...thirst. There's no debate with thirst...just ones ignorance thereof when debating others.
a) ALL moves sound; ones within shape words to tempt others ones to ignore sound.
b) Suggested nihilism (Latin nihilo; nothing) tempts one to ignore that everything moves, hence tempting one to believe in cessation of motion (stop).
ALL cannot be stopped by anyone within...other ones tempt one with suggested words like "not + stop" to ignore all.
c) I implies ones claim over self, which brands other ones as "YOU" (phonetic jew)...one cannot claim anything within ALL without ignoring that ongoing ALL supplies temporal ones with everything.
Potential cannot be held onto; it needs to be expressed (life) during impression (inception towards death).
Sleight of hand: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry; it's human nature".
ALL implies beginning (inception) until end (death) for each one (life) within...others suggest the rhetoric "until all" to invert ones perception.
If free will of choice operates under an owner; then it would contradict itself.