Reality of "God" . Responce post
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (32)
sorted by:
Of course this disgusting Jew never meant his own religious cult of YHWH saying this. :)
whats YHWH
The Christian/Jewish god.
Oi. Don’t fucking do that shit.
COME AT ME TALLEST!? ... What though?
Jews worship Satan. It’s not the same god.
I don't know; old testament God isn't much better (or different).
Demanding blood sacrifices and adoration simultaneously sure sounds like demon shit to me.
ok googled it . thanks!
Your question about what it IS contradicts WAS. You are being tricked to wait for a suggested answer, while ignoring perceivable solution (inception towards death) for any problem (life) within.
Religion (Latin religio; to bind anew)...one cannot own religion; one binding self to another implies religion. Few utilize suggestion to cultivate religious "consent" among many.
a) Nature does not pronounce (speak; utter articulately)...ignoring this implies falling for spell-craft aka sooth-saying.
b) YHWH/jehovah/hawah - "was"....suggesting what IS tempts one to ignore what WAS perceivable.
IS implies suggested information; WAS implies perceivable inspiration...the former tempts one to hold onto; while the latter can't be held onto.
tips yarmulke
𝘰𝘺 𝘷𝘦𝘺'
be leerily of Freudian psychology. He was a fucking mess inside his own head and his work was all influenced by his own personal issues related to his mother.
Came here to say exactly this
The cocaine addiction didn't help.
cocaines a hellva drug
Logy (reasoning about suggested) tempts one to ignore psyche (animation of perceivable). Logy is utilized by few to distract many from psyche.
Freud/friend vs fiend implies logy/logic/reason...few suggest freudianism to tempt many to consent to a conflict of reason (friend vs fiend).
yeah he wasnt great but this resonates with me . what kinda god lets innocents get raped and murdered . would love a responce. If your baby got raped and shot in the head you are still cool with god?
Because there would be no freewill if he intervened. The image people have about God is probably not the right one. Perhaps this is in a way we cannot fathom the best of all worlds as Leibniz said or perhaps God is impartial where our souls are given free reign. Perhaps the same soul that would kill and do all that evil is the same soul being reincarnated into the victim.
But what I know for certain is that there is a form of justice regardless of your conception of God. Someone who commits wrong will have justice one way or another.
a) Add "of choice" to freewill and ask yourself if the origin of choice (balance) can intervene in the choices made within?
b) Few suggest "freewill" in return for consent by many. Consenting to a chosen ones suggestion tempts one to ignore ones choice.
Meanwhile in reality...IF free will of choice; THEN free within dominance; will/want within need; out of aka within, and choice within balance...only free will of choice can discern itself within origin.
Freewill as suggested aka "the capacity or ability to choose between different possible courses of action" tempts one to ignore different reactions (choice) within course (balance) of same action (motion).
a) Right/rego - "straight line" implies being (life) moved from inception towards death...that's ones right.
b) Right vs wrong implies a conflict of reason shaped by ones consent to suggested moralism by another. Reasoning against another corrupts ones discernment of self within a straight line aka ones right/rite of passage.
c) An image implies "artificial representation of natural origin". If one holds onto suggested information (artifice), while ignoring perceivable inspiration (natural), then an image aka imitation aka copy was made within ones mind/memory.
Sleight of hand: "It wasn't a lie...it was real in my imagination" ~Herman Rosenblat
Best of all tempts one to ignore BE (being) ST (standing firm) within ALL.
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Joe-esposito-youre-the-best-lyrics
God was whole before partials come to be within.
Soul/sole - "one and only"...there can be only one; one for all and all for one.
Few suggest pluralism (souls) and determinism (our) to tempt ONE to consent to another ONE, hence ignoring one and only for dual-ism.
a) RE (responding to) IN (being within) CARNA (flesh aka matter) TION (action aka motion).
b) Same motion (inception towards death) for each different reincarnated matter (life).
Being free will of choice within moving knowledge (perceivable inspiration) implies having the FREE will of choice to become uncertain by suggesting certainty, hence establishing a conflict of reason (affirm vs deny).
Knowledge (perceivable inspiration) doesn't require either affirmation, nor denial...understanding (suggested information) does.
One commits by consenting to suggested moralism, which then establishes a conflict of reason (right vs wrong)...within which one endlessly re-commits to a different side (or opinion) within the same conflict.
There can be only one way (inception towards death) for each one (life) within.
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Blondie-one-way-or-another-lyrics
You are thinking of the cartoonish sky god looking down at us. But god is incomprehensible.
a) Kinda/kind/kin - "class, sort, variety" implies partials within whole. Kinda (partial) God (whole) contradicts itself.
b) Let implies whole letting partials wield FREE will of choice to respond without interfering. Choice can only operate at center of balance (need/want). One needs to resist wanted temptations...
c) Innocence aka in (being within) nocere (harms way) implies being (life) within harms way (inception towards death).
Guilt/gieldan - "to pay for, debt" implies harming self by taking from another, while ignoring to be in nocere.
a) Implication (if/then) implies a moving origin...got/get (taking possession of) implies ones ignorance of being (life) within a moving (inception towards death) origin.
b) Baby/babylon/babel - "confusion; disorder" + bab (gate) ilu (god) are suggested deceptions to distract one from off-spring, which implies springing of origin into being, hence coming (inception towards death) towards being (life) aka already passing through the gate of god.
Blaming the origin of each ones free will of choice implies blasphemy and shirking response-ability. If choice goes against origin (balance); then choice imbalances itself.
not everyone who see creation believes we live under a graceful god. Personally i would argue that we have a impartial creator at best, and a malicious one at worst.
Says the sexual deviant…
let me ask you your take on this, If someone chooses to torture and murder a child, perhaps many, many children for the sole purpose of his enjoyment. What would happen to him after his death?
You may try to justify it by saying he had no choice in the matter because of their life circumstances or what not. But you know damn well there are moments when we consciously choose our decisions. Do you believe someone can knowingly commit evil and get away with it?
The same way energy and matter in the universe are simply transformed. Someone committing evil will not be able to get away with it. Regardless of any religious inclinations or rituals. There is right and there is wrong.
He will escape the confines of his body and be a pure soul, realising the evil he has done and is going to go through hell because of it. (No not the fiery pit with a half goat.)
This is what I believe. The Bible clearly says that hell was created for the devil and his angels (messengers). Living for all eternity knowing the evil you did and not being able to be in the presence of God is something I don't wish on anyone
Suggested happenstance (to come by chance) tempts life to ignore choice and its origin within balance...only within balance can there be choice...not before or after.
Few suggest "before" to forward being aka progressivism, and "after" aka alternativism to distract being from "now" aka perceivable moment-um (balance) of motion for matter (choice) within.
In short...nature implies moving origin; happen tempts those within a moving origin to choose to wait for the chance of an outcome.
Only within a conflict of reason aka within a consenting ones "imagination".
a) "attempt to deal" implies ones temptation to consent to a suggestion by another.
b) Consenting to the suggestion of another binds one anew aka religion (Latin religio; to bind anew).
c) Suggested creationism tempts one to consent aka to bind self to another aka to make a deal with a merchant of temptation.
d) CON (together; with) tempts one to ignore SCION (to know). Each one perceives all perceivable...that implies knowledge. Ignoring this for the suggestion of another implies under-standing aka SUB-CON-SCIOUS.
e) Fear implies towards an outcome; being implies in response (life) to origin (inception towards death). Few suggest terror-ism (Latin terreo; fear) to tempt many to become afraid of outcomes, while ignoring origin...aka distraction by inversion.
f) Consenting to a suggestion, hence binding self to another (religio) establishes a conflict of reason, within which both sides utilize deceptive opinions aka delusions.