a) A mason can only shape (suggested) if free (consent) is given.
The devil needs your consent and cooperation to be able to take control over you or to harm you.
You have to give your consent to be deceived by the father of lies.
Moralism (good vs evil) implies a masonic shape; held by free will of choice within ones mind/memory.
Luciferian/Kabbalistic moralism is the inversion of good vs evil, they have rejected the one true almighty creator God, and replaced him with a fake demiurge (Saturn/Baal/Satan/Luficer) which they worship.
Ones satanic (adversary, one who plots against another) mind/memory is set within a conflict of reason against another.
satanic mindset = people who are seduced by the doctrines of demons
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1 Timothy 4:1-2 (KJV)
a) THE implies suggested the-ism, and using it implies ones consent, which permits others to brand one a the-ist.
A clearer example...Latin terror/terreo - "to frighten". Others suggest terror-ism, and if one consents by being afraid; then one permits others to brand one a terror-ist, hence "war on terror" against all those who are afraid.
b) Devil (Greek diaballein) implies DIA (across; through) + BALLEIN (to throw) aka being thrown (life) across (inception towards death).
Personifying "the devil" tempts one to ignore being part (ballein) within whole (dia) of it...and personification requires ones consent to a suggested brand/idol/title/name/noun/definition etc.
consent and cooperation
a) CO implies "together; with"; being implies "apart; within"...consenting to anything suggested by another tempts together, hence a CON-tract or religion (Latin religio; to bind anew).
b) If one resists suggested CO (con; cooperate); then perceivable "sent" + "tion" implies being send (life) by action (inception towards death).
Nature can only be hidden by whatever is shaped within...not overruled. It's always there for those with eyes to see.
You have to give...
...which then tempts one to ignore that only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) from each one (life) within.
As for haveing...that implies "to own; to posses"; which those within nature cannot do; while being done by nature. Matter can hold onto each other; but cannot own or posses motion...holding onto matter (suggested) tempts one to ignore motion (perceivable).
the inversion of good vs evil
Reason (versus) inverts implication (if/then)...there's no conflict within implication, only IF balance THEN choice etc. It's choosing to hold onto a side; which imbalances choice.
Few suggest both sides; many choose either and then fight each other.
rejected the one true
a) True implies versus false reasoning aka ones conflict against another.
b) The implies suggested the-ism aka ones consent to authorize another, while submitting self.
c) If ONE; then ONLY...so neither acceptance (want) nor rejection (not want) are needed.
In other words...perceivable implies oneness (whole); perception implies ones (partial). If one ignores this for the suggestions by another one; then one ignores only for multiple.
which they worship
THEY aka suggested pluralism tempting ones singular perception against another...which ignores ONE and ONLY.
There's no "they" in nature unless ONE counts other ones as they.
people who are seduced
People (suggested pluralism) over person (perceiving singular) implies the seduction of oneself by another.; and person (per sonos; by sound) implies origin of being, which one can only discern for self; not give or take from others.
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly,
a) If one and only; then spirit (Latin spiro; to breathe) implies impressing (inhale) and expressing (exhale).
b) If one and only; then now implies in-between (life) before (inception) and after (death), hence perceivable moment-um of motion for each perceiving matter within.
c) If one and only; then speech wouldn't require suggestion and consent. Speaking a word implies shaping letters aka a suggested shape and ones consent "letting" others shape.
Oneself becomes the letter of any suggested word shaped by another....if one consents.
Only within sound can there be resonance (need) and dissonance (want)...based on how each person (per sonos; by sound) within chooses to respond.
All perceivable implies a whole process; each ones perception within implies a fragment (separated mind) thereof.
In other words...process implies real (perceivable) product tempts fiction (suggested).
need to get a hold of
a) What if need implies letting go; while want tempts to hold onto? Holding breath...does one need to get a hold of it or does one need to let go of it?
b) What if few suggest collectivism to tempt each one of "many" to hold onto suggested, while ignoring to be fragmented from one another?
no sense
Can one sense nothing? Can one describe the origin of "nonsense"...was it perceivable or is it suggested?
little to
Aka little (life) within towards (inception towards death) aka partial within whole...a fragmentation, separation; differentiation etc.
you...your...you
Only if one claims self as "me; myself or I" are all other ones branded as "you". Can there exist a you without a me?
The devil needs your consent and cooperation to be able to take control over you or to harm you.
You have to give your consent to be deceived by the father of lies.
Luciferian/Kabbalistic moralism is the inversion of good vs evil, they have rejected the one true almighty creator God, and replaced him with a fake demiurge (Saturn/Baal/Satan/Luficer) which they worship.
satanic mindset = people who are seduced by the doctrines of demons
a) THE implies suggested the-ism, and using it implies ones consent, which permits others to brand one a the-ist.
A clearer example...Latin terror/terreo - "to frighten". Others suggest terror-ism, and if one consents by being afraid; then one permits others to brand one a terror-ist, hence "war on terror" against all those who are afraid.
b) Devil (Greek diaballein) implies DIA (across; through) + BALLEIN (to throw) aka being thrown (life) across (inception towards death).
Personifying "the devil" tempts one to ignore being part (ballein) within whole (dia) of it...and personification requires ones consent to a suggested brand/idol/title/name/noun/definition etc.
a) CO implies "together; with"; being implies "apart; within"...consenting to anything suggested by another tempts together, hence a CON-tract or religion (Latin religio; to bind anew).
b) If one resists suggested CO (con; cooperate); then perceivable "sent" + "tion" implies being send (life) by action (inception towards death).
Nature can only be hidden by whatever is shaped within...not overruled. It's always there for those with eyes to see.
...which then tempts one to ignore that only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) from each one (life) within.
As for haveing...that implies "to own; to posses"; which those within nature cannot do; while being done by nature. Matter can hold onto each other; but cannot own or posses motion...holding onto matter (suggested) tempts one to ignore motion (perceivable).
Reason (versus) inverts implication (if/then)...there's no conflict within implication, only IF balance THEN choice etc. It's choosing to hold onto a side; which imbalances choice.
Few suggest both sides; many choose either and then fight each other.
a) True implies versus false reasoning aka ones conflict against another.
b) The implies suggested the-ism aka ones consent to authorize another, while submitting self.
c) If ONE; then ONLY...so neither acceptance (want) nor rejection (not want) are needed.
In other words...perceivable implies oneness (whole); perception implies ones (partial). If one ignores this for the suggestions by another one; then one ignores only for multiple.
THEY aka suggested pluralism tempting ones singular perception against another...which ignores ONE and ONLY.
There's no "they" in nature unless ONE counts other ones as they.
People (suggested pluralism) over person (perceiving singular) implies the seduction of oneself by another.; and person (per sonos; by sound) implies origin of being, which one can only discern for self; not give or take from others.
a) If one and only; then spirit (Latin spiro; to breathe) implies impressing (inhale) and expressing (exhale).
b) If one and only; then now implies in-between (life) before (inception) and after (death), hence perceivable moment-um of motion for each perceiving matter within.
c) If one and only; then speech wouldn't require suggestion and consent. Speaking a word implies shaping letters aka a suggested shape and ones consent "letting" others shape.
Oneself becomes the letter of any suggested word shaped by another....if one consents.
Only within sound can there be resonance (need) and dissonance (want)...based on how each person (per sonos; by sound) within chooses to respond.
you seriously need to get ahold of your amphetamine addiction. your thought process is really fragmented and you make little to no sense.
All perceivable implies a whole process; each ones perception within implies a fragment (separated mind) thereof.
In other words...process implies real (perceivable) product tempts fiction (suggested).
a) What if need implies letting go; while want tempts to hold onto? Holding breath...does one need to get a hold of it or does one need to let go of it?
b) What if few suggest collectivism to tempt each one of "many" to hold onto suggested, while ignoring to be fragmented from one another?
Can one sense nothing? Can one describe the origin of "nonsense"...was it perceivable or is it suggested?
Aka little (life) within towards (inception towards death) aka partial within whole...a fragmentation, separation; differentiation etc.
Only if one claims self as "me; myself or I" are all other ones branded as "you". Can there exist a you without a me?