Every single "atheist" I ever met, always had some complaints and claims to Christianity, often to other religions, but I never ever heard anything bad or even controversial about Judaism from them.
Absolutely all atheists in their denial of religion and anything spiritual, never deny or question Judaism.
If you sincerely deny and anticipate religion, then you absolutely have to deny and anticipate Judaism. If you deny and anticipate everything except Judaism, then, it's obvious who are you for real.
Jordan Peterson isn't even a Christian. In the debates with atheists he says why are you calling me a Christian, what did I say or do make you think I am a Christian. So Jordan is an atheist, why does prosperity Scofield protestants made him a representative of Christianity then? Because he supports Israel and works for dailymossad?
Wtf is this logic. Prosperity protestant megachurches are conspiring together to become the biggest open racketeering.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
We need to be careful to watch for the serpents in the church
If you want to analyze words, go read the Dictionary and analyze every single word in them. Then post them in 1 single place. Don't use everyone's comments and threads for your analysis and breakdowns.
Rebuting others' points and defending your own is a MUCH better mental excersise than any word analysis.
Wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that? Whaaaat?
No, "hell" is taken by some to mean "the grave", while popular belief is that it is the lake of fire.
--
By the way, what do YOU believe? Should people believe in Jesus and love Him, or is athiesm the true belief?
Need implicates (if/then)...reasoning (want vs not want) tempts one to ignore that.
to analyze words
To implies towards aka inception towards death analyzing life... words are synthesized together to distract from that.
go read the Dictionary
"Go read" implies dictating others what to do...free will of choice needs to resist what others want to dictate.
1 single place
Energy aka the place to be aka "all for one and one for all". Only within energy can there be placement.
Don't use everyone's comments and threads for your analysis and breakdowns.
Com (together) ment (mind)...nature sets each ones mind apart from one another; few within tempt the minds of many together into a "hivemind", which naturally inspires to be broken apart.
Rebuting others' points
Inception sentences life towards POINT of death...there's no other point for life. What one rebuts when making a point is ones life back into the process of dying.
MUCH better
Much vs little or better vs worse...always a conflict against others; never ones resistance (growth) within temptation (loss).
Wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that? Whaaaat?
One cannot choose want without ignoring need. Nature supplies all needed; wanting from one another implies ignoring nature.
"hell" is taken by some to mean "the grave"
Growth (life) can only exist within loss (inception towards death) aka one can only live within the process of dying, hence the phrase "having one foot in the grave".
Ask yourself this...if a woman gets raped while experiencing "hell", then why can a woman giving birth can experience "heaven" at the same moment?
Also...ignoring perceivable for suggested implies the making of "graven" images aka idols/ideals. Notice also that you wrote that hell is TAKEN, just like ones consent takes suggested into possession.
lake of fire
Aka the lake (inception towards death) of fire (life), hence kindling (inception) and extinguishing (death) each formed flame (life) during flow.
What do the elderly complain most of? "It's too cold"...hence the heart/hearth/hertha - "burning place" burning out... https://www.etymonline.com/word/hearth
By the way, what do YOU believe?
To believe implies ones consent to the suggestion of another, while ignoring that ones perception is "by the way" of all perceivable.
Believe inverts "being alive"...if consented to.
Should people believe in Jesus and love Him
a) Should vs shouldn't love vs hate are conflicts of reason among believers. Free will of choice needs to resist the wanted temptation of holding onto any side, otherwise it binds itself to another.
b) Jesus aka je suis (I AM) implies taking possession over self, while ignoring to be temporary potential (life) within ongoing procession (inception towards death).
Jesus tempts one to ignore CHRIST (to anoint) aka the separation of each being from one another, when coming through the birth-channel.
Ones belief in jesus (i am) establishes every other one as a YOU (phonetic jew). That's what spell-craft can conceal behind such simple words, and those holding onto beliefs cannot see it, hence not analyzes it aka not break apart what their belief holds together.
is athiesm the true belief?
a) To believe implies ones consent to any suggested -ism, which only then shapes one into an -ist aka a follower.
b) Using THE implies ones consent to suggested the-ism, which makes one a-the-ist. Such a simple spell, and yet the majority cannot fathom it.
c) True vs false (reasoning about suggested) tempts one to ignore change aka the implication (if/then) of perceivable.
Nature cannot generate FALSE, nor does nature require anyone within to declare what's TRUE to one another. It's ignoring natural (perception) for artificial (suggestion), which turns into a conflict of reason (true vs false).
If one adapts to change by implication (if/then), while resisting to choose a side within reason (true vs false), then one doesn't participate within a conflict against others, and can think straight instead of circular logic.
Perceivable inspiration moves straight through each ones perception, while suggested information tempts one to keep turning it within ones mind. That's a trick...a feedback loop.
Need implicates (if/then)...reasoning (want vs not want) tempts one to ignore that.
So what? how is that bad?
To implies towards aka inception towards death analyzing life... words are synthesized together to distract from that.
Non sequiturs. You yourself use words, so you are "distracting" too.
"Go read" implies dictating others what to do...free will of choice needs to resist what others want to dictate.
Why do you believe this?
You shouldnt read the dictionary. And you should also keep hijacking people's comments and threads for your mental excersis. And you should not actually rebut anyone, but keep analyzing words instead.
Energy aka the place to be aka "all for one and one for all". Only within energy can there be placement.
Didn't say a thing about energy.
Com (together) ment (mind)...nature sets each ones mind apart from one another; few within tempt the minds of many together into a "hivemind", which naturally inspires to be broken apart.
Hivemind?? Lol. Again, please make a megathread and post your analyses THERE, instead of using comments and threads for analysis. Use people's posts and comments to post rebuttals and arguments, instead of breakdowns.
Inception sentences life towards POINT of death...there's no other point for life.
No it doesn't.
What one rebuts when making a point is ones life back into the process of dying.
Seriously? You believe rebuting kills people? The fact i am alive DESTROYS your claim. You are not going to "start dying" just because you do something better.
Much vs little or better vs worse...always a conflict against others; never ones resistance (growth) within temptation (loss).
Wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that? Whaaaat?
Resist the temptation to analyze words, then. Grow by rebuting other ideas, concepts, beliefs, and defending your own. I have grown. You can too.
One cannot choose want without ignoring need.
Wow! How profound! Man realizes the obvious is obvious! /S
Nature supplies all needed; wanting from one another implies ignoring nature.
Why? What nature? Nature as in "the attributes of things" or "plants, animals, the outdoors" nature?
Growth (life) can only exist within loss (inception towards death) aka one can only live within the process of dying, hence the phrase "having one foot in the grave".
What a sad view.
Ask yourself this...if a woman gets raped while experiencing "hell", then why can a woman giving birth can experience "heaven" at the same moment?
The lake of fire is not on this earth. People go to their destiny AFTER death.
Also...ignoring perceivable for suggested implies the making of "graven" images aka idols/ideals.
Why? how is this related?
Notice also that you wrote that hell is TAKEN, just like ones consent takes suggested into possession.
Okay, BELIEVED by some. I don't mean taken as in, someone grabbed hell and put it in a bag!! Seems like your WORD ANALYSIS bent that "straight thinking" of yours into a loop, implying circular reasoning!
You can avoid circular reasoning by logic and rebuting. Try it out. I have avoided circular reasoning, you can too.
Aka the lake (inception towards death) of fire (life), hence kindling (inception) and extinguishing (death) each formed flame (life) during flow.
No, the lake of fire is a place the unSaved go, after death, to face the outcome of their bad choice.
To believe implies ones consent to the suggestion of another, while ignoring that ones perception is "by the way" of all perceivable.
No it doesn't. People living all alone isolated from other people believe things, too.
Believe inverts "being alive"...if consented to.
Prove it then. You believe this assertion already, so you believe SOMETHING. but yet you still post. If what you say was true, why are you still alive?
You have a really odd view that artificially and wrongly connects words and life and death. You think doing things everyday people do will kill you. And you base these conclusions upon..... ETYMOLOGY?? Wow. Just wow.
Why don't you base what you believe will kill you based on what the moon looks like? Or how much coffee you put in your coffee mug? Like if your coffee mug has a certain amount of coffee in it, you "die"?
a) Should vs shouldn't love vs hate are conflicts of reason among believers. Free will of choice needs to resist the wanted temptation of holding onto any side, otherwise it binds itself to another.
Free will of choice does not need to resist that. Why should it? If anything, rebuting and defending would make it stronger, not weaker.
Another? Another what? Another idea? Another person?
Plus, you didnt answer the question. Should people believe in Jesus??
b) Jesus aka je suis (I AM) implies taking possession over self,
Jesus and french "je suis" are DIFFERENT. Do you believe that a drawing of a mug IS a mug? No? So why would you believe that those 2 words are the same?
Jesus tempts one to ignore CHRIST (to anoint) aka the separation of each being from one another, when coming through the birth-channel.
False. If that were true, He would not be called Jesus Christ , as that would then be a contradiction. I have never felt tempted to ignore Christ by being His Words. So i know for certain that Jesus does NOT "tempt" me to ignore Him.
Ones belief in jesus (i am) establishes every other one as a YOU (phonetic jew).
Is this a bad thing? If so, why do you believe it is a bad thing?
That's what spell-craft can conceal behind such simple words, and those holding onto beliefs cannot see it, hence not analyzes it aka not break apart what their belief holds together.
If i understood you right, you are saying that your word analysis will teach people things and reveal knowledge? Did i get you right?
is athiesm the true belief?
a) To believe implies ones consent to any suggested -ism, which only then shapes one into an -ist aka a follower.
So you are a WordAnalyst. Who believes that word analysis is better than rebuting and defending. Following WordAnalsysism rather than nature and change.
b) Using THE implies ones consent to suggested the-ism, which makes one a-the-ist. Such a simple spell, and yet the majority cannot fathom it.
Nah, its simply that getting all bent over what a word looks like is absurd.
c) True vs false (reasoning about suggested) tempts one to ignore change aka the implication (if/then) of perceivable.
It tempts people? Is this true or false?
Nature cannot generate FALSE, nor does nature require anyone within to declare what's TRUE to one another. It's ignoring natural (perception) for artificial (suggestion), which turns into a conflict of reason (true vs false).
Nature told me that logic and arguments is better than word breakdowns. It is using me to tell you this truth.
If one adapts to change by implication (if/then), while resisting to choose a side within reason (true vs false),
But you are choosing a side. Choosing to believe that your Word Games are better and will "help you live longer" , rather than stick to the facts and use clear, explanatory, arguments and evidence, IS choosing a side.
then one doesn't participate within a conflict against others, and can think straight instead of circular logic.
False dichotomy. This implies that you have to stick to word games to be smart. Thankfully, you arent correct.
How is rebuting claims and using logic to prove things right or wrong "circular logic"?
Perceivable inspiration moves straight through each ones perception, while suggested information tempts one to keep turning it within ones mind. That's a trick...a feedback loop.
This implies that it will keep going forever. At some point it will stop. When you have made a counter, a REBUTAL to an argument, the loop stops! You GROW!
Also, this is ironic. You say you want to "think straight" but yet claim that something "turning in your mind" is a bad thing?? That's like saying that lifting weights makes you weaker and excersise makes you less fit!!
"Need implicates (if/then)...reasoning (want vs not want) tempts one to ignore that." So what? how is that bad?
Versus/verto - "to turn", hence turning bad and good against one another, no matter which side one chooses.
Example: water vs wine represents want vs not want, while ignoring need...thirst.
Non sequiturs. You yourself use words, so you are "distracting" too.
Indeed, hence the fucking issue of constant miscommunication, and the attempts of breaking words apart. The issue...suggested words tempt one to ignore perceivable sound. Like for example the words "insane person" tempting one to ignore being in sanus (within sound) and per sonos (by sound).
Sound moves and cannot be held onto...words are shaped within sound, while tempting one to hold onto definition, which shapes one into a DEAF PHONETICIAN.
Why do you believe this?
To believe implies holding onto something suggested, which in return contradicts ones perception of all perceivable moving through one. Dictate/deik (to show) implies what others are showing (suggesting) for one to behold (consenting).
The phrase "the show must go on" refers to nature continuing to move, while one beholds what others are showing.
You shouldn't...and you should...
Should vs shouldn't...another conflict of reason based on ones circular thinking. Others suggesting either side contradicts ones FREE will of choice...if one consents. Nature doesn't suggest what one should or shouldn't...it generates free will of choice, while forcing adaptation (life) to balance (inception/death).
Didn't say a thing about energy.
What do you think differentiates everything into each thing, while supplying the potential to shape speech within sound? Energy implies the cause for each effect within
Hivemind?
Collective consciousness; mental coalescence; group think; universal mind; egregore; gestalt psychology; students under teacher; followers under leader; many under few; slaves under master; commonwealth (gentiles) under sovereign (jew) etc.
Sound separates into each instrument aka mind (ment) structured (stru) within (in)...words suggested by few tempt many to think alike, hence utilizing words as the common denominator for communication.
Nature doesn't make common (together)...it generates unique units apart from one another.
please make a megathread and post
About free-will-of-choice...Post Score (0) Comment Score (13416). Nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each one (perception)...offering suggested posts to one another denies that.
Choice needs to adapt to balance, while resisting the temptation of each others suggested choices.
"Inception sentences life towards POINT of death...there's no other point for life."...No it doesn't.
a) No/not/nothing implies suggested nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) tempting ones de-nial of everything perceivable for suggested "nothing". The foundation of nothing is based on creatio ex nihilo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo
"Cause it's the deepest impulse of the jewish soul to pull at the very fabric of life until there's nothing left but a thread; they want nothing but nothingness; nothingness without end"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRUjy1Dhx-k
b) If inception, then of life. If living, then while dying. If sentenced, then sentience. If sentence, then end of sentence, hence being send towards point.
Put a pen on paper; then draw a line. Starts with a point; ends with a point. Now notice that you're breathing while drawing, hence drawing in breath. Being able to do that implies ones susceptibility to sensation aka sentience during ones life sentence. Your mind tricks you to believe that putting a pen on paper starts with a point, when your life was already sentenced...
c)Seriously? You believe rebutting kills people?
Killing implies "taking" life...rebutting implies willingly "giving" up living by mutually attacking each other within a conflict of reason.
Example...boxing. Two boxers go into the ring; the one losing less is declared winner. It's loser vs loser, while ignoring that the winner is declared by a non-combative 3rd party. Now exchange boxing with rebutting each other within any conflict of reason...
Can you give me an example where reasoning ended the conflict? Like...yes vs no; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; love vs hate; rich vs poor; us vs them; me vs you; agree vs disagree; upvote vs downvote; left vs right; white vs black; soccer vs football; mcdonalds vs burger king; coke vs pepsi; old vs young etc. Which of those has mankind dissolved by reasoning?
The fact i am alive DESTROYS your claim
The ACT in fact implies natures action, the FAC (factus) implies reactions within nature. Action cannot be held onto...reacting to one another tempts one to ignore that, which is why claiming a fact implies fiction.
The claim wasn't me describing a moving nature that cannot be held onto from the perspective of FREE will of choice, but your claim of I AM aka je suis (jesus).
Alive implies each one living (live) within all (al)...I AM implies one potential taking possession over self, while ignoring all procession. That also represents ones de-nial aka NAIL of being moved across aka A CROSS all.
You are not going to "start dying" just because you do something better.
a) Being implies living (temporary growth) within the process of dying (ongoing loss)...better vs worse reasoning implies growth turning against one another (want vs not want), while ignoring to resist (need) the temptation (want) of loss.
b) One cannot "do"...only respond to being (life) done (inception towards death) aka re-do life, while being done to death.
Wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that? Whaaaat?
Nature moves all perceivable through each ones perception as "inspiration"...which one cannot hold onto, thereby save. Artifice implies suggested "information" tempting ones consent to hold onto it, thereby saving it within mind/memory, which is what instigates circular thinking (logic) inwards, turning into conflicts of reason outwards. While consenting to artificial information; one ignores natural inspiration.
Resist the temptation to analyze words, then.
Words imply a synthesis aka letters shaped into words aka ones consent LETTING another shape words. Choice needs to resist the wanted temptation of suggested choices, because choosing another choice shirks ones response-ability onto another, hence inverting ONES CHOICE into a CHOSEN ONES suggestion.
Grow by rebutting other ideas, concepts, beliefs, and defending your own.
a) FREE will of choice cannot "own", since it implies potential (temporary growth) set free within procession (ongoing loss). To own implies spending potential to take into possession, while ignoring that procession draws any potential spend. Form within flow cannot hold onto anything without diminishing each other.
b) Ideas, concepts, beliefs imply holding within self what others suggested one to take...that's poison injected by ones consent as the vector. It's the holding onto which establishes circular logic, and the resulting conflict of reason (confirm vs rebut) turning one against others.
Idealism suggested implies a temptation for ones consent to idolatry. Conceptualism tempts artificial concipere (taking together), while distracting from nature "giving apart". Belief aka being (be) carrying/desirous (lief/leubh) implies wanting to obtain and carrying along aka the temptation of sin.
I have grown.
Which conflict of reason have you grown out of?
"One cannot choose want without ignoring need"...Wow! How profound! Man realizes the obvious is obvious! /S
Now translate this to everything else...one cannot hold onto without letting go; hence wanting to hold onto tempting one to ignore needing to let go of. If this seems profound and obvious to you, then why defend holding onto "ideas, concepts, beliefs"? While you think about this...try holding onto your breath.
Why? What nature? Nature as in "the attributes of things" or "plants, animals, the outdoors" nature?
a) That which nurtues (ure) natives (nat) aka whole nurturing each native partial within aka action nurturing native reactions aka flow (inception towards death) nurturing native form (life) etc. Why? Because if cause then being, hence action causing being to come into effect.
b) Attribution of things implies everything (nurturing action) bestow each thing (native reaction) aka external attributing internal aka everything moving attributing matter to each thing being moved.
c) Plant/plat - "to spread" aka the spreading of all (whole) into each one (partial) aka separation from one another.
d) Animal/anima/ane - "to breathe" aka animation forcing animated matter (life) to inhale (inception) and exhale (death) aka inhaling spirit (temporary growth), while exhaling ghost (ongoing loss).
e) Being alive implies in-between entrance (inception) and exit (death), hence movable barrier aka door...re DO'OR die.
"Growth (life) can only exist within loss (inception towards death)"...What a sad view.
Sadness or happiness is in the eye of the beholder aka the being which holds onto a suggested view, while ignoring visual perception made possible as temporal growth during divine loss. In other words...your sadness aims at outcome, while being able to view is generated by origin. You're beholding outcome (artificial) over origin (natural), hence inverting (turning) from living towards dying.
The lake of fire is not on this earth.
a) Lake (inception towards death) of fire (life)...hence not "earth", but "hearth/heart" aka fireplace aka spark of life.
b) Can you describe the placement of "not" in relation to earth?
People go to their destiny AFTER death.
If "before" implies forwarded (inception towards death) being (life), then "after" implies aft/æftan - "from behind"...not destination, but origin. If before and after tempt one to ask "before or after what?", then one lacks self discernment as being forwarded from behind.
Suggested pluralism (people) tempts each singular one consenting to it to ignore self discernment. Nature doesn't generate "people", but each person aka per sonos (by sound) insane aka in sanus (within sound).
"We the people" implies suggested collectivism by few to amass many together, while speaking in the name of the collective.
"Also...ignoring perceivable for suggested implies the making of "graven" images aka idols/ideals."...Why? how is this related?
Perceivable generating perception implies "separation"...consenting to suggested implies "relation". What others are suggesting are IDEALS; ones consent holding onto shapes them into IDOLS. Holding onto puts ones "free" will of choice into the grave aka digging into the foundation (perceivable sound) to bury a dead body aka corpus oration (suggested words).
Okay, BELIEVED by some. I don't mean taken as in, someone grabbed hell and put it in a bag!!
Meaning implies ideal taken into memory as idol, hence grabbed (consented) and bagged (memorized). It's holding suggested information within memory, which hell/kel - "to cover" aka conceals perceivable inspiration from one. That concealment implies ones ignorance/denial...not towards one another, but within all.
You can avoid circular reasoning by logic and rebutting.
a) One (living) cannot avoid all (dying)...few utilize suggested information to establish a "void" within the mind of consenting many, who in return deny everything perceivable for suggested "nothing" (nihil-ism). This practice of shaping a void within another represents the making of a goyim/golem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem The master of such a golem is a kike/kikel - "circle" aka circular logic mastering the slave encircled within a void mind. A void mind filled to the brim with nothing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
b) Logic doesn't avoid; it invites logos (suggested words) which binds the letter (free will of choice) to the shaper of crafted spells. God implies sound moving instruments apart; logos/logic/reason tempts instruments to shape words together...an inversion. Sound/sanus - "entire; whole; all" cannot be rebutted by anyone within.
No, the lake of fire is a place the unSaved go, after death, to face the outcome of their bad choice.
A suggestion build on the foundation of nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing), while ignoring everything (perceivable) moving each thing (perception) apart from one another.
Instead of reasoning against others about descriptions of things outside of oneself...how about utilizing implication (if/then) from within oneself? If lake, then formed within flow. If of; then out of and into. If fire, then heat within cold.
If oneself, then...formed (life) within flow (inception towards death); of action (balance) into reaction (choice); as heat (living) within cold (dying). Where is the conflict? Where are the sides to choose to hold onto? Where's the contradiction of motion in this straight line of thinking? Where's the circle?
No it doesn't.
Can you describe the origin of nothing (no) and doing nothing (does not)? And while you're at it...how can "it" be genderless within father time (he) and mother nature (she)?
People living all alone isolated from other people believe things, too.
a) Alone implies one and only..."people" contradicts that. All(in)one implies that there can be only one (whole) for each one (partial) within.
b) Believing things implies holding onto within mind/memory...how does one do that without words suggested by another to hold onto? What could memory hold onto without artificially labeling what nature moves through? Can you give me an example of a belief shaped without influence by another, and what shape one holds onto while believing it?
c) Iso implies "equal"; being implies differentiated from one another. One cannot perceive iso/equi/equal, because all perceivable moves each ones perception apart from one another, which allows each ones perception of perceivable differences. It's once again a jew who suggests mosaic law to tempt gentiles to put the pieces back together aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka equality through diversity etc. A jew tempts gentiles to artificially "puzzle" together what nature sets apart, which also represents the foundation of applying words onto sound, and the attempt to accumulate information, while ignoring the flow of inspiration.
Believe inverts "being alive"...if consented to. Prove it then.
a) Prove is in the pudding/putting, hence living (live) within all (al) implying all putting one into being.
b) The issue...wanting prove from another, while ignoring the need of being (life) put (inception towards death) aka of being thrust; instigated; inspired to adapt etc. The prove you seek implies credibility aka your credit/creed/belief aka your choice to hold onto suggested information by another, while ignoring that all perceivable moves through each ones perception.
In short...you want; I describe need.
You believe this assertion already, so you believe SOMETHING.
a) Assert aka ad (towards) serere (to join together)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/assert Nature sets apart, which I describe by separating what others join together (consent to suggestion).
b) Some/sem - "semblance" implies like one another, which ignores being differentiated from one another, hence as each thing (partial) within everything (whole).
c) While further taking apart "assert" and "some"...what do I believe? What if BELIEF (holding together) inverts RELIEF (setting apart)? Notice also that I don't attack or defend any beliefs; only rip to shreds believing aka holding onto, because that contradicts the need (dying) to let go (living).
you still post
About free-will-of-choice: Post Score (0)...
If what you say was true, why are you still alive?
a) True vs false (reason) contradicts if/then (implication)...I rip apart what others are saying by describing the implication of turning against one another.
b) Still; adjective -"motionless, stable, fixed, stationary"...that's living in denial.
You have a really odd view
Being implies odd (life) within even (inception towards death)...a jew evens the odds among gentiles by inverting choice with chance. Within all perceivable; each one has choice...from the suggestions by few, many can take a chance...for the price of giving up choice.
Thank you for inspiring me to be "real odd"...instead of joining fake equality.
artificially and wrongly connects words and life and death.
Living within process of dying implies natural; connecting together what nature separates by logos (words) and logic (right vs wrong) implies artificial.
You think doing things everyday people do will kill you.
Killing implies taking from one another...suggestion tempts consent to be given before taking "nothing" in return. It's ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested) which destroys ones life and any other life connected to it. Consenting represents a suicidal tendency; which shapes suggested into a genocidal aversion of reality.
For example: "kill yourself" represents the temptation for ones suicidal consent, which then transforms destroying self into destroying others connected to one, hence the fall of civilization being foreshadowed; accompanied, and accomplished by suicide aka self harm.
And you base these conclusions upon..... ETYMOLOGY?? Wow. Just wow.
The base I describe moves...hence dissolution; not conclusion. It's LOGY, which tricks many to seek conclusions, while ignoring ETYMOS (real aka ones response to all) during dis (life) solution (inception towards death).
From the alchemical perspective...sound implies base; words represent ingredients mixed together. Being implies essence struggling to sustain self within substance...which many ignore, because few are mixing them together within the cauldron of logic.
Why don't you base what you believe will kill you based on what the moon looks like?
a) The base of will(want) implies need, hence ones struggle to want (living) within need (dying) aka ones adaptation to balance as free WILL of choice.
b) Being implies differential (perception) within equation (perceivable)...it's looking/locking onto suggested, which makes differentials look alike.
Like if your coffee mug has a certain amount of coffee in it, you "die"?
a) Liking coffee (want) over tea (not want), while ignoring thirst (need) diminishes living during the process of dying.
b) There can be only ONE...it's ignoring this by counting one another, which permits few to amount many into unwashed masses.
c) Living implies within the process of dying..."you die" tempts one to ignore perceivable origin of life for suggested outcome of life.
Free will of choice does not need to resist that. Why should it? If anything, rebutting and defending would make it stronger, not weaker.
Attack and defense binds "free" will of choice into a conflict aka a versus/verto - "to turn"...an inversion of choice for the chance of winning vs losing. Gambling. Being implies growth (life) during loss (inception towards death) aka choice within balance...not a gamble of chance.
Resistance is fertile, hence only resisting temptation grows resistance, while falling for temptation ignores resisting, hence establishing the path of least resistance, which continues to tempt ones ignorance more and more, hence the want to accumulate, and the reluctance to let go.
Another? Another what? Another idea? Another person?
One. All (oneness) separating each one from one "another"...
Plus, you didn't answer the question. Should people believe in Jesus??
a) Plus (inception) Minus (death), hence being alive implying in-between (±) aka ones position (life) during negation (inception towards death) aka as above/so below.
b) Quest implies towards outcome, hence you waiting for a suggested answer, while ignoring perceivable origin aka quest-ION (action)...letting go of the quest allows one to discern self as re-action aka responding being within enacting nature.
c) To believe implies holding onto; jesus aka je suis (I AM) implies holding onto self...the latter collectivizes everyone else into a plural (you; we; people), and should vs shouldn't + believe vs disbelief are the resulting conflicts of reason among those who hold onto a side.
Within nature letting go of jesus (i am) allows one to discern self as christ (anointed one). Christ implies each one...jesus implies another one. Christ allows each ones self discernment; while jesus tempts one to shirk response-ability onto another aka onto a savior.
Jesus and french "je suis" are DIFFERENT.
Ah...so after preaching likeness so often throughout your responses, it's now about differences? And writing different in uppercase to the guy persistently contradicting likeness by separating differences...that didn't fell funny to you? Anyway...
Jesus used the same phrase “I AM” in seven declarations about Himself. In all seven, He combines I AM with tremendous metaphors which express His saving relationship toward the world. All appear in the book of John. They are I AM the Bread of Life (John 6:35, 41, 48, 51); I AM the Light of the World (John 8:12); I AM the Door of the Sheep (John 10:7, 9); I AM the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14); I AM the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25); I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6); and I AM the True Vine (John 15:1, 5).
The issue isn't about the differences or likeness between jesus and je suis, but about ones lack of self discernment when taking possession over self as "me; myself or I", which brands everyone else as "you"...that's what makes differences alike. Jesus as the archetype and je suis as the concealed revelation aka sleight of hand are used to distract one from discerning self.
Do you believe that a drawing of a mug IS a mug?
To believe tempts one to ignore ongoing line for temporal drawing. Motion WAS before matter can suggest to each other what IS. Inspiration allows one to draw from; information represents the drawing one holds onto mentally and physically.
So why would you believe that those 2 words are the same?
a) Sound implies same; words represent differences held together, hence shaped alike.
b) There can be only one. It's reasoning about suggested which establishes dualism (2) within one (1).
c) If there can be only one, then Jesus to hold onto and je suis (i am) aka the one holding onto; imply the same origin...motion giving out matter, which matter ignores by holding onto one (je suis) another (jesus).
False. If that were true, He would not be called Jesus Christ , as that would then be a contradiction.
a) True vs false implies circular thinking, hence ones de-nial (NAIL) of being moved across (A CROSS) a straight line.
b) Neither the father; nor the son; nor the holy ghost made the call..."in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" implies another suggesting in the name of (in nomine) to tempt ones consent to put Jesus + Christ together, hence nailing self to the cross aka denying perceivable moving perception across.
c) If implies then...true vs false reasoning contradicts that.
d) The fundamental contradiction...ALL doesn't cALL anyone, it's few who tempt many with a call of duty aka a summoning/invocation/on demand order etc.
e) As for HE...he (motion) + she (momentum) trans-form into matter. She implies s(plit)he; woman implies wo(mb)man; female implies fe(minine)male...being implies as above/so below, hence in-between (matter) male (motion) and female (momentum) nature. Only in-between can there be intercourse for off-spring aka for yet another resurrection of each anointed one (christ).
Jesus does NOT "tempt" me
"Me; myself; or I" are based on one taking possession over self aka I AM (je suis; jesus)...taking possession tempts potential (life) to ignore procession (inception towards death). The NOT implies ones de-nial aka the NAIL tempting potential to ignore procession A CROSS.
From your perspective..."does not" contradict that God does. One can only redo self within all doing. "does not" implies ones denial, which others are tempting one into.
"Ones belief in jesus (i am) establishes every other one as a YOU (phonetic jew)"...Is this a bad thing? If so, why do you believe it is a bad thing?
Good vs bad reasoning aside...holding onto self (I), while collectivizing others (YOU), inverts all setting each one free from one another. It denies oneness; it denies that there can be only one. I and YOU destroy one-self. Notice furthermore the imbalanced distribution of one taking possession over self as I, which shapes every other ones potential into a YOU, which is why each YOU (phonetic jew) has more potential, then anyone's possessions could ever handle.
If i understood you right, you are saying that your word analysis will teach people things and reveal knowledge? Did i get you right?
a) Understood implies your choice to "stand-under" another as student (slave) under teacher (master)...my suggestion tempts your consent to empower me, while submitting yourself. I try to describe how this works and how only ones free will of choice can resist that temptation of binding self...not whatever anyone else is suggesting.
b) Your want to understand and become a student under a teacher implies a synthesis of your consent and my suggestion. Doing that tempts you to ignore to discern self as analysis (perception) within solution (perceivable). Solution (inception towards death) forces analysis (life) to adapt...denial or consent don't matter to motion.
c) Knowledge implies being (matter) at the ledge (momentum) of known (motion)...understanding tempts matter to stand-under each other, while holding onto suggested information and thereby ignoring the momentum (ledge) of motion (known).
d) Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/right The rhetoric "getting it right" tempts one to ignore being (life) given right (inception towards death) aka rite of passage. Your circular thinking (right vs wrong reasoning) prevents you from thinking straight, hence the lack of righteousness.
So you are a WordAnalyst.
Analysis (perception) during solution (perceivable)...analyzing synthesis (suggested words). Reasoning about words further synthesizes, while muddling (mixing) ones analytical perception within perceivable solution.
To be implies the LETTER (free will of choice consenting) of each word (suggested by another ones free will of choice)...I try to make it harder for a letter to bind self to the words of another by taking apart crafted spells.
Who believes that word analysis is better than rebutting and defending.
Better vs worse aka rebutting vs confirming aka attack vs defense aka believing vs disbelieving...a synthetic conflict. Using implication (if/then) instead of reason (vs) sustains dis (life) solution (inception towards death) so that analytics may continue a while longer.
Following WordAnalsysism rather than nature and change.
Change (perceivable) forces adaptation (perception), hence each ones struggle to resist (living) temptation (dying)...suggested words tempt ones consent to follow towards end of sentence in accordance with the letter.
getting all bent over what a word looks like is absurd.
Being implies bending (life) within a line (inception towards death)...bending over implies circular logic aka ouroboros eating its own tail. Sound sentences instruments...words tempts instruments to wait for the end of sentence to respond.
"True vs false (reasoning about suggested) tempts"...It tempts people? Is this true or false?
Versus/verto - "to turn" tempts one to ignore being (life) moved straight (inception towards death). True vs false implies a circle (logic) shaped within a straight line. People implies multiple persons tempted together through logic into conflicts of reason.
Nature told me that logic and arguments is better than word breakdowns.
Aka it (perceivable) is using me (perception) to tell (suggestion) you (perception)... why use a middle-man aka a mediator aka media when the source is free for all?
But you are choosing a side.
That would contradict "free" will of choice.
Choosing to believe that your Word Games are better and will "help you live longer"
Believing implies shirking choice onto chance. Games implies gambling aka paying choice by taking chance. Help implies supporting (inception towards death) charges (life)...not helping one another by spending charges. It's the "fruit of ones labor", which others can re-charge by. Spending ones charges reduces ones labor during support.
Aka holding onto fiction (suggested information) within action (perceivable inspiration).
False dichotomy. This implies that you have to stick to word games to be smart.
True vs false + smart vs dumb...are sticking together, hence turning against one another. Breaking words apart clears ones mind within sound. Dichotomy implies "cutting in two", which ignores oneness (whole) cutting into one (partial).
How is rebutting claims and using logic to prove things right or wrong "circular logic"?
Christianity allegedly gave you 2025 years of right vs wrong reasoning...how many Christians took a turn within that circle of mutual self destruction? How does reason dissolves right vs wrong conflicts? Can you tell me the difference between reasoning gentiles and the use of talmudic reasoning by a jew? Notice that right vs wrong reasoning somehow doesn't seem to apply to a jew...if many operate within a circle, while few operate within a line, then could that be exploitable?
This implies that it will keep going forever.
WILL + KEEP imply temporal reactions within the ever forwarding action. Using ones free will of choice to keep holding onto suggested tempts one to ignore/deny perceivable.
At some point it will stop.
Stop implies "cessation of motion"...being implies matter (life) within the momentum (inception towards death) of motion, hence being sentenced towards point of death. Few suggest STOP signs everywhere to tempt many to ignore that perception cannot stop perceivable...only hold onto suggested within the temporal bliss of ignorance.
Matter also doesn't stop, but dissolves back into motion. Basic alchemical transformation...flow to form (inception) > form within flow (life) > form to flow (death).
When you have made a counter, a REBUTAL to an argument, the loop stops! You GROW!
True VERSUS false...both sides arguing only supply themselves to the loop aka to the ring that binds aka to circular logic turning into conflicts of reason. 2025 years of supplying true and false arguments and yet the conflict is as destructive to life as it ever was. The ring is being set up to tempt the contestants to ignore what happens outside, while they're fighting each other within. Logic prevents ones mind to step out of the ring...it doesn't matter which contestant uses logic to attack or defend.
You say you want to "think straight" but yet claim that something "turning in your mind" is a bad thing??
Straight implies motion; turning implies matter shaped within motion. One cannot hold onto motion; holding onto matter tempts one to ignore motion. Good vs bad implies matter vs matter, while ignoring motion by claiming a side.
Breaking this apart sustains ones free will of choice...what others are doing with that is on each ones free will of choice. Anything dualistic aka a duel of reason among choices contradicts ones singular free will of choice.
That's like saying that lifting weights makes you weaker and exercise makes you less fit!!
Weaker and less fitter than? The words you use imply not ones growth through exercise, but drawing comparisons between one another, which establishes a conflict of reason aka mutual loss for anyone joining in.
As one within all one can only be weaker and less fitter than all...being isn't about drawing comparisons, but about resisting the temptation of being (life) drawn back in (inception towards death) while living out ones life.
Protestant vs Orthodox; Catholic; Baptist; Evangelical; Lutheran etc. Both sides are consenting to versus/verto - "to turn" aka turning against one another...NOT apart from one another.
Only each jew revolts by overturning gentiles inwardly (circular logic) and outwardly (conflicts of reason). To revolt implies "cast off allegiance, break away from established authority" hence remaining apart... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Europe-1789-1939-History/dp/0198219806 ...while surviving the mutual destruction of gentiles coming together within endless conflicts of reason.
Christen implies "to anoint", hence the separation of all into each one aka the coming into being of each anointed one through the birth-channel.
I agree with Massie.
There is no such thing as "atheist".
Every single "atheist" I ever met, always had some complaints and claims to Christianity, often to other religions, but I never ever heard anything bad or even controversial about Judaism from them.
Absolutely all atheists in their denial of religion and anything spiritual, never deny or question Judaism.
If you sincerely deny and anticipate religion, then you absolutely have to deny and anticipate Judaism. If you deny and anticipate everything except Judaism, then, it's obvious who are you for real.
That simple.
A THE-IST aka one who consents to suggested the-ism.
Jordan Peterson isn't even a Christian. In the debates with atheists he says why are you calling me a Christian, what did I say or do make you think I am a Christian. So Jordan is an atheist, why does prosperity Scofield protestants made him a representative of Christianity then? Because he supports Israel and works for dailymossad? Wtf is this logic. Prosperity protestant megachurches are conspiring together to become the biggest open racketeering.
Matthew 7: 21-23
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
We need to be careful to watch for the serpents in the church
Vatican 2 is fake and gay!
Protestants aren't Christian. They are rebellious, fallen, self centered scholars of Biblical writings.
What is needed to be saved?
To enter Heaven?
All perceivable is needed for each ones perception...wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that.
Entering (inception) towards exiting (death) implies heaving (to lift, raise; lift up, exalt) for each life within. Hell/kel - "to conceal/cover" implies ones choice to ignore heaving self up.
If you want to analyze words, go read the Dictionary and analyze every single word in them. Then post them in 1 single place. Don't use everyone's comments and threads for your analysis and breakdowns.
Rebuting others' points and defending your own is a MUCH better mental excersise than any word analysis.
Wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that? Whaaaat?
No, "hell" is taken by some to mean "the grave", while popular belief is that it is the lake of fire.
--
By the way, what do YOU believe? Should people believe in Jesus and love Him, or is athiesm the true belief?
Need implicates (if/then)...reasoning (want vs not want) tempts one to ignore that.
To implies towards aka inception towards death analyzing life... words are synthesized together to distract from that.
"Go read" implies dictating others what to do...free will of choice needs to resist what others want to dictate.
Energy aka the place to be aka "all for one and one for all". Only within energy can there be placement.
Com (together) ment (mind)...nature sets each ones mind apart from one another; few within tempt the minds of many together into a "hivemind", which naturally inspires to be broken apart.
Inception sentences life towards POINT of death...there's no other point for life. What one rebuts when making a point is ones life back into the process of dying.
Much vs little or better vs worse...always a conflict against others; never ones resistance (growth) within temptation (loss).
One cannot choose want without ignoring need. Nature supplies all needed; wanting from one another implies ignoring nature.
Growth (life) can only exist within loss (inception towards death) aka one can only live within the process of dying, hence the phrase "having one foot in the grave".
Ask yourself this...if a woman gets raped while experiencing "hell", then why can a woman giving birth can experience "heaven" at the same moment?
Also...ignoring perceivable for suggested implies the making of "graven" images aka idols/ideals. Notice also that you wrote that hell is TAKEN, just like ones consent takes suggested into possession.
Aka the lake (inception towards death) of fire (life), hence kindling (inception) and extinguishing (death) each formed flame (life) during flow.
What do the elderly complain most of? "It's too cold"...hence the heart/hearth/hertha - "burning place" burning out... https://www.etymonline.com/word/hearth
To believe implies ones consent to the suggestion of another, while ignoring that ones perception is "by the way" of all perceivable.
Believe inverts "being alive"...if consented to.
a) Should vs shouldn't love vs hate are conflicts of reason among believers. Free will of choice needs to resist the wanted temptation of holding onto any side, otherwise it binds itself to another.
b) Jesus aka je suis (I AM) implies taking possession over self, while ignoring to be temporary potential (life) within ongoing procession (inception towards death).
Jesus tempts one to ignore CHRIST (to anoint) aka the separation of each being from one another, when coming through the birth-channel.
Ones belief in jesus (i am) establishes every other one as a YOU (phonetic jew). That's what spell-craft can conceal behind such simple words, and those holding onto beliefs cannot see it, hence not analyzes it aka not break apart what their belief holds together.
a) To believe implies ones consent to any suggested -ism, which only then shapes one into an -ist aka a follower.
b) Using THE implies ones consent to suggested the-ism, which makes one a-the-ist. Such a simple spell, and yet the majority cannot fathom it.
c) True vs false (reasoning about suggested) tempts one to ignore change aka the implication (if/then) of perceivable.
Nature cannot generate FALSE, nor does nature require anyone within to declare what's TRUE to one another. It's ignoring natural (perception) for artificial (suggestion), which turns into a conflict of reason (true vs false).
If one adapts to change by implication (if/then), while resisting to choose a side within reason (true vs false), then one doesn't participate within a conflict against others, and can think straight instead of circular logic.
Perceivable inspiration moves straight through each ones perception, while suggested information tempts one to keep turning it within ones mind. That's a trick...a feedback loop.
So what? how is that bad?
Non sequiturs. You yourself use words, so you are "distracting" too.
Why do you believe this?
You shouldnt read the dictionary. And you should also keep hijacking people's comments and threads for your mental excersis. And you should not actually rebut anyone, but keep analyzing words instead.
Didn't say a thing about energy.
Hivemind?? Lol. Again, please make a megathread and post your analyses THERE, instead of using comments and threads for analysis. Use people's posts and comments to post rebuttals and arguments, instead of breakdowns.
No it doesn't.
Seriously? You believe rebuting kills people? The fact i am alive DESTROYS your claim. You are not going to "start dying" just because you do something better.
Wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that? Whaaaat?
Resist the temptation to analyze words, then. Grow by rebuting other ideas, concepts, beliefs, and defending your own. I have grown. You can too.
Wow! How profound! Man realizes the obvious is obvious! /S
Why? What nature? Nature as in "the attributes of things" or "plants, animals, the outdoors" nature?
What a sad view.
The lake of fire is not on this earth. People go to their destiny AFTER death.
Why? how is this related?
Okay, BELIEVED by some. I don't mean taken as in, someone grabbed hell and put it in a bag!! Seems like your WORD ANALYSIS bent that "straight thinking" of yours into a loop, implying circular reasoning!
You can avoid circular reasoning by logic and rebuting. Try it out. I have avoided circular reasoning, you can too.
No, the lake of fire is a place the unSaved go, after death, to face the outcome of their bad choice.
No it doesn't. People living all alone isolated from other people believe things, too.
Prove it then. You believe this assertion already, so you believe SOMETHING. but yet you still post. If what you say was true, why are you still alive?
You have a really odd view that artificially and wrongly connects words and life and death. You think doing things everyday people do will kill you. And you base these conclusions upon..... ETYMOLOGY?? Wow. Just wow.
Why don't you base what you believe will kill you based on what the moon looks like? Or how much coffee you put in your coffee mug? Like if your coffee mug has a certain amount of coffee in it, you "die"?
Free will of choice does not need to resist that. Why should it? If anything, rebuting and defending would make it stronger, not weaker.
Another? Another what? Another idea? Another person?
Plus, you didnt answer the question. Should people believe in Jesus??
Jesus and french "je suis" are DIFFERENT. Do you believe that a drawing of a mug IS a mug? No? So why would you believe that those 2 words are the same?
False. If that were true, He would not be called Jesus Christ , as that would then be a contradiction. I have never felt tempted to ignore Christ by being His Words. So i know for certain that Jesus does NOT "tempt" me to ignore Him.
Is this a bad thing? If so, why do you believe it is a bad thing?
If i understood you right, you are saying that your word analysis will teach people things and reveal knowledge? Did i get you right?
is athiesm the true belief?
So you are a WordAnalyst. Who believes that word analysis is better than rebuting and defending. Following WordAnalsysism rather than nature and change.
Nah, its simply that getting all bent over what a word looks like is absurd.
It tempts people? Is this true or false?
Nature told me that logic and arguments is better than word breakdowns. It is using me to tell you this truth.
But you are choosing a side. Choosing to believe that your Word Games are better and will "help you live longer" , rather than stick to the facts and use clear, explanatory, arguments and evidence, IS choosing a side.
False dichotomy. This implies that you have to stick to word games to be smart. Thankfully, you arent correct.
How is rebuting claims and using logic to prove things right or wrong "circular logic"?
This implies that it will keep going forever. At some point it will stop. When you have made a counter, a REBUTAL to an argument, the loop stops! You GROW!
Also, this is ironic. You say you want to "think straight" but yet claim that something "turning in your mind" is a bad thing?? That's like saying that lifting weights makes you weaker and excersise makes you less fit!!
Versus/verto - "to turn", hence turning bad and good against one another, no matter which side one chooses.
Example: water vs wine represents want vs not want, while ignoring need...thirst.
Indeed, hence the fucking issue of constant miscommunication, and the attempts of breaking words apart. The issue...suggested words tempt one to ignore perceivable sound. Like for example the words "insane person" tempting one to ignore being in sanus (within sound) and per sonos (by sound).
Sound moves and cannot be held onto...words are shaped within sound, while tempting one to hold onto definition, which shapes one into a DEAF PHONETICIAN.
To believe implies holding onto something suggested, which in return contradicts ones perception of all perceivable moving through one. Dictate/deik (to show) implies what others are showing (suggesting) for one to behold (consenting).
The phrase "the show must go on" refers to nature continuing to move, while one beholds what others are showing.
Should vs shouldn't...another conflict of reason based on ones circular thinking. Others suggesting either side contradicts ones FREE will of choice...if one consents. Nature doesn't suggest what one should or shouldn't...it generates free will of choice, while forcing adaptation (life) to balance (inception/death).
What do you think differentiates everything into each thing, while supplying the potential to shape speech within sound? Energy implies the cause for each effect within
Collective consciousness; mental coalescence; group think; universal mind; egregore; gestalt psychology; students under teacher; followers under leader; many under few; slaves under master; commonwealth (gentiles) under sovereign (jew) etc.
Sound separates into each instrument aka mind (ment) structured (stru) within (in)...words suggested by few tempt many to think alike, hence utilizing words as the common denominator for communication.
Nature doesn't make common (together)...it generates unique units apart from one another.
About free-will-of-choice...Post Score (0) Comment Score (13416). Nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each one (perception)...offering suggested posts to one another denies that.
Choice needs to adapt to balance, while resisting the temptation of each others suggested choices.
a) No/not/nothing implies suggested nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) tempting ones de-nial of everything perceivable for suggested "nothing". The foundation of nothing is based on creatio ex nihilo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo
"Cause it's the deepest impulse of the jewish soul to pull at the very fabric of life until there's nothing left but a thread; they want nothing but nothingness; nothingness without end"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRUjy1Dhx-k
b) If inception, then of life. If living, then while dying. If sentenced, then sentience. If sentence, then end of sentence, hence being send towards point.
Put a pen on paper; then draw a line. Starts with a point; ends with a point. Now notice that you're breathing while drawing, hence drawing in breath. Being able to do that implies ones susceptibility to sensation aka sentience during ones life sentence. Your mind tricks you to believe that putting a pen on paper starts with a point, when your life was already sentenced...
c)Seriously? You believe rebutting kills people?
Killing implies "taking" life...rebutting implies willingly "giving" up living by mutually attacking each other within a conflict of reason.
Example...boxing. Two boxers go into the ring; the one losing less is declared winner. It's loser vs loser, while ignoring that the winner is declared by a non-combative 3rd party. Now exchange boxing with rebutting each other within any conflict of reason...
Can you give me an example where reasoning ended the conflict? Like...yes vs no; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; love vs hate; rich vs poor; us vs them; me vs you; agree vs disagree; upvote vs downvote; left vs right; white vs black; soccer vs football; mcdonalds vs burger king; coke vs pepsi; old vs young etc. Which of those has mankind dissolved by reasoning?
The ACT in fact implies natures action, the FAC (factus) implies reactions within nature. Action cannot be held onto...reacting to one another tempts one to ignore that, which is why claiming a fact implies fiction.
The claim wasn't me describing a moving nature that cannot be held onto from the perspective of FREE will of choice, but your claim of I AM aka je suis (jesus).
Alive implies each one living (live) within all (al)...I AM implies one potential taking possession over self, while ignoring all procession. That also represents ones de-nial aka NAIL of being moved across aka A CROSS all.
a) Being implies living (temporary growth) within the process of dying (ongoing loss)...better vs worse reasoning implies growth turning against one another (want vs not want), while ignoring to resist (need) the temptation (want) of loss.
b) One cannot "do"...only respond to being (life) done (inception towards death) aka re-do life, while being done to death.
Nature moves all perceivable through each ones perception as "inspiration"...which one cannot hold onto, thereby save. Artifice implies suggested "information" tempting ones consent to hold onto it, thereby saving it within mind/memory, which is what instigates circular thinking (logic) inwards, turning into conflicts of reason outwards. While consenting to artificial information; one ignores natural inspiration.
Words imply a synthesis aka letters shaped into words aka ones consent LETTING another shape words. Choice needs to resist the wanted temptation of suggested choices, because choosing another choice shirks ones response-ability onto another, hence inverting ONES CHOICE into a CHOSEN ONES suggestion.
a) FREE will of choice cannot "own", since it implies potential (temporary growth) set free within procession (ongoing loss). To own implies spending potential to take into possession, while ignoring that procession draws any potential spend. Form within flow cannot hold onto anything without diminishing each other.
b) Ideas, concepts, beliefs imply holding within self what others suggested one to take...that's poison injected by ones consent as the vector. It's the holding onto which establishes circular logic, and the resulting conflict of reason (confirm vs rebut) turning one against others.
Idealism suggested implies a temptation for ones consent to idolatry. Conceptualism tempts artificial concipere (taking together), while distracting from nature "giving apart". Belief aka being (be) carrying/desirous (lief/leubh) implies wanting to obtain and carrying along aka the temptation of sin.
Which conflict of reason have you grown out of?
Now translate this to everything else...one cannot hold onto without letting go; hence wanting to hold onto tempting one to ignore needing to let go of. If this seems profound and obvious to you, then why defend holding onto "ideas, concepts, beliefs"? While you think about this...try holding onto your breath.
a) That which nurtues (ure) natives (nat) aka whole nurturing each native partial within aka action nurturing native reactions aka flow (inception towards death) nurturing native form (life) etc. Why? Because if cause then being, hence action causing being to come into effect.
b) Attribution of things implies everything (nurturing action) bestow each thing (native reaction) aka external attributing internal aka everything moving attributing matter to each thing being moved.
c) Plant/plat - "to spread" aka the spreading of all (whole) into each one (partial) aka separation from one another.
d) Animal/anima/ane - "to breathe" aka animation forcing animated matter (life) to inhale (inception) and exhale (death) aka inhaling spirit (temporary growth), while exhaling ghost (ongoing loss).
e) Being alive implies in-between entrance (inception) and exit (death), hence movable barrier aka door...re DO'OR die.
Sadness or happiness is in the eye of the beholder aka the being which holds onto a suggested view, while ignoring visual perception made possible as temporal growth during divine loss. In other words...your sadness aims at outcome, while being able to view is generated by origin. You're beholding outcome (artificial) over origin (natural), hence inverting (turning) from living towards dying.
a) Lake (inception towards death) of fire (life)...hence not "earth", but "hearth/heart" aka fireplace aka spark of life.
Sleight of hand: "Deep inside; The pressure's high; Just to stay alive; Cause the heat is on"... https://genius.com/Glenn-frey-the-heat-is-on-lyrics
b) Can you describe the placement of "not" in relation to earth?
If "before" implies forwarded (inception towards death) being (life), then "after" implies aft/æftan - "from behind"...not destination, but origin. If before and after tempt one to ask "before or after what?", then one lacks self discernment as being forwarded from behind.
Suggested pluralism (people) tempts each singular one consenting to it to ignore self discernment. Nature doesn't generate "people", but each person aka per sonos (by sound) insane aka in sanus (within sound).
"We the people" implies suggested collectivism by few to amass many together, while speaking in the name of the collective.
Perceivable generating perception implies "separation"...consenting to suggested implies "relation". What others are suggesting are IDEALS; ones consent holding onto shapes them into IDOLS. Holding onto puts ones "free" will of choice into the grave aka digging into the foundation (perceivable sound) to bury a dead body aka corpus oration (suggested words).
Meaning implies ideal taken into memory as idol, hence grabbed (consented) and bagged (memorized). It's holding suggested information within memory, which hell/kel - "to cover" aka conceals perceivable inspiration from one. That concealment implies ones ignorance/denial...not towards one another, but within all.
a) One (living) cannot avoid all (dying)...few utilize suggested information to establish a "void" within the mind of consenting many, who in return deny everything perceivable for suggested "nothing" (nihil-ism). This practice of shaping a void within another represents the making of a goyim/golem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem The master of such a golem is a kike/kikel - "circle" aka circular logic mastering the slave encircled within a void mind. A void mind filled to the brim with nothing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
b) Logic doesn't avoid; it invites logos (suggested words) which binds the letter (free will of choice) to the shaper of crafted spells. God implies sound moving instruments apart; logos/logic/reason tempts instruments to shape words together...an inversion. Sound/sanus - "entire; whole; all" cannot be rebutted by anyone within.
A suggestion build on the foundation of nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing), while ignoring everything (perceivable) moving each thing (perception) apart from one another.
Instead of reasoning against others about descriptions of things outside of oneself...how about utilizing implication (if/then) from within oneself? If lake, then formed within flow. If of; then out of and into. If fire, then heat within cold.
If oneself, then...formed (life) within flow (inception towards death); of action (balance) into reaction (choice); as heat (living) within cold (dying). Where is the conflict? Where are the sides to choose to hold onto? Where's the contradiction of motion in this straight line of thinking? Where's the circle?
Can you describe the origin of nothing (no) and doing nothing (does not)? And while you're at it...how can "it" be genderless within father time (he) and mother nature (she)?
a) Alone implies one and only..."people" contradicts that. All(in)one implies that there can be only one (whole) for each one (partial) within.
b) Believing things implies holding onto within mind/memory...how does one do that without words suggested by another to hold onto? What could memory hold onto without artificially labeling what nature moves through? Can you give me an example of a belief shaped without influence by another, and what shape one holds onto while believing it?
c) Iso implies "equal"; being implies differentiated from one another. One cannot perceive iso/equi/equal, because all perceivable moves each ones perception apart from one another, which allows each ones perception of perceivable differences. It's once again a jew who suggests mosaic law to tempt gentiles to put the pieces back together aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka equality through diversity etc. A jew tempts gentiles to artificially "puzzle" together what nature sets apart, which also represents the foundation of applying words onto sound, and the attempt to accumulate information, while ignoring the flow of inspiration.
a) Prove is in the pudding/putting, hence living (live) within all (al) implying all putting one into being.
b) The issue...wanting prove from another, while ignoring the need of being (life) put (inception towards death) aka of being thrust; instigated; inspired to adapt etc. The prove you seek implies credibility aka your credit/creed/belief aka your choice to hold onto suggested information by another, while ignoring that all perceivable moves through each ones perception.
In short...you want; I describe need.
a) Assert aka ad (towards) serere (to join together)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/assert Nature sets apart, which I describe by separating what others join together (consent to suggestion).
b) Some/sem - "semblance" implies like one another, which ignores being differentiated from one another, hence as each thing (partial) within everything (whole).
c) While further taking apart "assert" and "some"...what do I believe? What if BELIEF (holding together) inverts RELIEF (setting apart)? Notice also that I don't attack or defend any beliefs; only rip to shreds believing aka holding onto, because that contradicts the need (dying) to let go (living).
About free-will-of-choice: Post Score (0)...
a) True vs false (reason) contradicts if/then (implication)...I rip apart what others are saying by describing the implication of turning against one another.
b) Still; adjective -"motionless, stable, fixed, stationary"...that's living in denial.
Being implies odd (life) within even (inception towards death)...a jew evens the odds among gentiles by inverting choice with chance. Within all perceivable; each one has choice...from the suggestions by few, many can take a chance...for the price of giving up choice.
Thank you for inspiring me to be "real odd"...instead of joining fake equality.
Living within process of dying implies natural; connecting together what nature separates by logos (words) and logic (right vs wrong) implies artificial.
Killing implies taking from one another...suggestion tempts consent to be given before taking "nothing" in return. It's ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested) which destroys ones life and any other life connected to it. Consenting represents a suicidal tendency; which shapes suggested into a genocidal aversion of reality.
For example: "kill yourself" represents the temptation for ones suicidal consent, which then transforms destroying self into destroying others connected to one, hence the fall of civilization being foreshadowed; accompanied, and accomplished by suicide aka self harm.
The base I describe moves...hence dissolution; not conclusion. It's LOGY, which tricks many to seek conclusions, while ignoring ETYMOS (real aka ones response to all) during dis (life) solution (inception towards death).
From the alchemical perspective...sound implies base; words represent ingredients mixed together. Being implies essence struggling to sustain self within substance...which many ignore, because few are mixing them together within the cauldron of logic.
a) The base of will(want) implies need, hence ones struggle to want (living) within need (dying) aka ones adaptation to balance as free WILL of choice.
b) Being implies differential (perception) within equation (perceivable)...it's looking/locking onto suggested, which makes differentials look alike.
a) Liking coffee (want) over tea (not want), while ignoring thirst (need) diminishes living during the process of dying.
b) There can be only ONE...it's ignoring this by counting one another, which permits few to amount many into unwashed masses.
c) Living implies within the process of dying..."you die" tempts one to ignore perceivable origin of life for suggested outcome of life.
Attack and defense binds "free" will of choice into a conflict aka a versus/verto - "to turn"...an inversion of choice for the chance of winning vs losing. Gambling. Being implies growth (life) during loss (inception towards death) aka choice within balance...not a gamble of chance.
Resistance is fertile, hence only resisting temptation grows resistance, while falling for temptation ignores resisting, hence establishing the path of least resistance, which continues to tempt ones ignorance more and more, hence the want to accumulate, and the reluctance to let go.
Reason implies reluctance aka struggling against, implication inspires resistance within temptation.
One. All (oneness) separating each one from one "another"...
a) Plus (inception) Minus (death), hence being alive implying in-between (±) aka ones position (life) during negation (inception towards death) aka as above/so below.
b) Quest implies towards outcome, hence you waiting for a suggested answer, while ignoring perceivable origin aka quest-ION (action)...letting go of the quest allows one to discern self as re-action aka responding being within enacting nature.
c) To believe implies holding onto; jesus aka je suis (I AM) implies holding onto self...the latter collectivizes everyone else into a plural (you; we; people), and should vs shouldn't + believe vs disbelief are the resulting conflicts of reason among those who hold onto a side.
Within nature letting go of jesus (i am) allows one to discern self as christ (anointed one). Christ implies each one...jesus implies another one. Christ allows each ones self discernment; while jesus tempts one to shirk response-ability onto another aka onto a savior.
Ah...so after preaching likeness so often throughout your responses, it's now about differences? And writing different in uppercase to the guy persistently contradicting likeness by separating differences...that didn't fell funny to you? Anyway...
Jesus used the same phrase “I AM” in seven declarations about Himself. In all seven, He combines I AM with tremendous metaphors which express His saving relationship toward the world. All appear in the book of John. They are I AM the Bread of Life (John 6:35, 41, 48, 51); I AM the Light of the World (John 8:12); I AM the Door of the Sheep (John 10:7, 9); I AM the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14); I AM the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25); I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6); and I AM the True Vine (John 15:1, 5).
The issue isn't about the differences or likeness between jesus and je suis, but about ones lack of self discernment when taking possession over self as "me; myself or I", which brands everyone else as "you"...that's what makes differences alike. Jesus as the archetype and je suis as the concealed revelation aka sleight of hand are used to distract one from discerning self.
To believe tempts one to ignore ongoing line for temporal drawing. Motion WAS before matter can suggest to each other what IS. Inspiration allows one to draw from; information represents the drawing one holds onto mentally and physically.
a) Sound implies same; words represent differences held together, hence shaped alike.
b) There can be only one. It's reasoning about suggested which establishes dualism (2) within one (1).
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Spice-girls-2-become-1-lyrics (A dream of you and me together...Say you believe it)
c) If there can be only one, then Jesus to hold onto and je suis (i am) aka the one holding onto; imply the same origin...motion giving out matter, which matter ignores by holding onto one (je suis) another (jesus).
a) True vs false implies circular thinking, hence ones de-nial (NAIL) of being moved across (A CROSS) a straight line.
b) Neither the father; nor the son; nor the holy ghost made the call..."in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" implies another suggesting in the name of (in nomine) to tempt ones consent to put Jesus + Christ together, hence nailing self to the cross aka denying perceivable moving perception across.
c) If implies then...true vs false reasoning contradicts that.
d) The fundamental contradiction...ALL doesn't cALL anyone, it's few who tempt many with a call of duty aka a summoning/invocation/on demand order etc.
e) As for HE...he (motion) + she (momentum) trans-form into matter. She implies s(plit)he; woman implies wo(mb)man; female implies fe(minine)male...being implies as above/so below, hence in-between (matter) male (motion) and female (momentum) nature. Only in-between can there be intercourse for off-spring aka for yet another resurrection of each anointed one (christ).
"Me; myself; or I" are based on one taking possession over self aka I AM (je suis; jesus)...taking possession tempts potential (life) to ignore procession (inception towards death). The NOT implies ones de-nial aka the NAIL tempting potential to ignore procession A CROSS.
From your perspective..."does not" contradict that God does. One can only redo self within all doing. "does not" implies ones denial, which others are tempting one into.
Good vs bad reasoning aside...holding onto self (I), while collectivizing others (YOU), inverts all setting each one free from one another. It denies oneness; it denies that there can be only one. I and YOU destroy one-self. Notice furthermore the imbalanced distribution of one taking possession over self as I, which shapes every other ones potential into a YOU, which is why each YOU (phonetic jew) has more potential, then anyone's possessions could ever handle.
a) Understood implies your choice to "stand-under" another as student (slave) under teacher (master)...my suggestion tempts your consent to empower me, while submitting yourself. I try to describe how this works and how only ones free will of choice can resist that temptation of binding self...not whatever anyone else is suggesting.
b) Your want to understand and become a student under a teacher implies a synthesis of your consent and my suggestion. Doing that tempts you to ignore to discern self as analysis (perception) within solution (perceivable). Solution (inception towards death) forces analysis (life) to adapt...denial or consent don't matter to motion.
c) Knowledge implies being (matter) at the ledge (momentum) of known (motion)...understanding tempts matter to stand-under each other, while holding onto suggested information and thereby ignoring the momentum (ledge) of motion (known).
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Aerosmith-livin-on-the-edge-lyrics
d) Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/right The rhetoric "getting it right" tempts one to ignore being (life) given right (inception towards death) aka rite of passage. Your circular thinking (right vs wrong reasoning) prevents you from thinking straight, hence the lack of righteousness.
Analysis (perception) during solution (perceivable)...analyzing synthesis (suggested words). Reasoning about words further synthesizes, while muddling (mixing) ones analytical perception within perceivable solution.
To be implies the LETTER (free will of choice consenting) of each word (suggested by another ones free will of choice)...I try to make it harder for a letter to bind self to the words of another by taking apart crafted spells.
Better vs worse aka rebutting vs confirming aka attack vs defense aka believing vs disbelieving...a synthetic conflict. Using implication (if/then) instead of reason (vs) sustains dis (life) solution (inception towards death) so that analytics may continue a while longer.
Change (perceivable) forces adaptation (perception), hence each ones struggle to resist (living) temptation (dying)...suggested words tempt ones consent to follow towards end of sentence in accordance with the letter.
Being implies bending (life) within a line (inception towards death)...bending over implies circular logic aka ouroboros eating its own tail. Sound sentences instruments...words tempts instruments to wait for the end of sentence to respond.
Versus/verto - "to turn" tempts one to ignore being (life) moved straight (inception towards death). True vs false implies a circle (logic) shaped within a straight line. People implies multiple persons tempted together through logic into conflicts of reason.
Tale/del - "to recount, count"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/tale Nature doesn't count, since it's all one. Counting one another makes one accountable to another, which is what few exploit to become accountants of many. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Judaism
Aka it (perceivable) is using me (perception) to tell (suggestion) you (perception)... why use a middle-man aka a mediator aka media when the source is free for all?
That would contradict "free" will of choice.
Believing implies shirking choice onto chance. Games implies gambling aka paying choice by taking chance. Help implies supporting (inception towards death) charges (life)...not helping one another by spending charges. It's the "fruit of ones labor", which others can re-charge by. Spending ones charges reduces ones labor during support.
EXACTLY. Your beliefs, methods, worldview is SELF-CONTRADICTORY. It is logically consistent and wholly indefensible.
Aka holding onto fiction (suggested information) within action (perceivable inspiration).
True vs false + smart vs dumb...are sticking together, hence turning against one another. Breaking words apart clears ones mind within sound. Dichotomy implies "cutting in two", which ignores oneness (whole) cutting into one (partial).
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Papa-roach-last-resort-lyrics (cut my life into pieces...this is my last resort).
Christianity allegedly gave you 2025 years of right vs wrong reasoning...how many Christians took a turn within that circle of mutual self destruction? How does reason dissolves right vs wrong conflicts? Can you tell me the difference between reasoning gentiles and the use of talmudic reasoning by a jew? Notice that right vs wrong reasoning somehow doesn't seem to apply to a jew...if many operate within a circle, while few operate within a line, then could that be exploitable?
WILL + KEEP imply temporal reactions within the ever forwarding action. Using ones free will of choice to keep holding onto suggested tempts one to ignore/deny perceivable.
Stop implies "cessation of motion"...being implies matter (life) within the momentum (inception towards death) of motion, hence being sentenced towards point of death. Few suggest STOP signs everywhere to tempt many to ignore that perception cannot stop perceivable...only hold onto suggested within the temporal bliss of ignorance.
Matter also doesn't stop, but dissolves back into motion. Basic alchemical transformation...flow to form (inception) > form within flow (life) > form to flow (death).
True VERSUS false...both sides arguing only supply themselves to the loop aka to the ring that binds aka to circular logic turning into conflicts of reason. 2025 years of supplying true and false arguments and yet the conflict is as destructive to life as it ever was. The ring is being set up to tempt the contestants to ignore what happens outside, while they're fighting each other within. Logic prevents ones mind to step out of the ring...it doesn't matter which contestant uses logic to attack or defend.
Straight implies motion; turning implies matter shaped within motion. One cannot hold onto motion; holding onto matter tempts one to ignore motion. Good vs bad implies matter vs matter, while ignoring motion by claiming a side.
Breaking this apart sustains ones free will of choice...what others are doing with that is on each ones free will of choice. Anything dualistic aka a duel of reason among choices contradicts ones singular free will of choice.
Weaker and less fitter than? The words you use imply not ones growth through exercise, but drawing comparisons between one another, which establishes a conflict of reason aka mutual loss for anyone joining in.
As one within all one can only be weaker and less fitter than all...being isn't about drawing comparisons, but about resisting the temptation of being (life) drawn back in (inception towards death) while living out ones life.
tl;dr: Thanks for the inspiration.
Read the scriptures and decide for yourself... its what you always do when you don't get the answer you like.
decide for yourself based on evidence and reasoning. the truth rises up, error gets cut down.
Aka bound by logic within a conflict of reason (are vs aren't). This bond implies religion/religio - "to bind anew".
Protestant/protestor - "to affirm it"...hence not rebellious; but submissive, just like any other religion (bondage).
The only rebel...israel/yisra'el - "he that striveth with God".
Oh bullshit... the Protestant Revolution tore Chrisendom apart. Read a basic history book.
Protestant vs Orthodox; Catholic; Baptist; Evangelical; Lutheran etc. Both sides are consenting to versus/verto - "to turn" aka turning against one another...NOT apart from one another.
Only each jew revolts by overturning gentiles inwardly (circular logic) and outwardly (conflicts of reason). To revolt implies "cast off allegiance, break away from established authority" hence remaining apart... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Europe-1789-1939-History/dp/0198219806 ...while surviving the mutual destruction of gentiles coming together within endless conflicts of reason.
Christen implies "to anoint", hence the separation of all into each one aka the coming into being of each anointed one through the birth-channel.
Ok Rabbi, go jump in an oven.