Jewish holy book PROMOTES idiocracy
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
Yes vs no implies a conflict of reason against another, and circular logic within self based on ones consent to suggested logos (words). That's infiltration of perception.
Consenting to anything suggested permits infiltrators to set parameters for ones thoughts aka mind-control aka govern-ment.
Holding onto suggested establishes circular thinking, which in return prevents ones perception to think straight, hence from within (life) a line (inception towards death).
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti...consent isn't given to father; son and holy ghost, but to those suggesting IN THE NAME OF (in nomine) which thereby contradicts the first commandment.
God doesn't require consent...God forces adaptation by free will of choice. Others tempt choice into submission by consent.
True vs false tempts one to ignore change. If one applies change to true, then it becomes false and vice versa.
Others suggest "true" and "time" for one to hold onto, while ignoring that only within motion can there be differentiation. If one holds onto anything, then one ignores that everything moves each different thing within apart from one another.
Both "true" and "time" represent measurement aka ones mind artificially TAKING measure of what nature was GIVING. Doing that establishes a contradiction between giving and taking within ones mind.
All of these are good things and must be pursued by all. Use your free will of choice to choose those. Those are great.
Things implies a summation of partials (one) within whole (all). Things can never be all, because all separates things from one another.
Summation (synthesis) contradicts separation (analysis).
Being implies moved from inception towards death...pursue aka pro (forward) sequi (to follow) implies towards death.
Nature inspires being to resist origin...others suggest artificial outcomes (carrot) to tempt a being to pursue natural outcome (stick).
Your (possession) contradicts free (potential). It ain't yours...FREE implies within dominance; WILL (want) implies within need; OF implies out of; within; in response to, and CHOICE implies within balance.
If one takes a good/great apple into possession, then the apple becomes bad/worse faster.
Possession destroys potential (life) during procession (inception towards death). Potential needs to resist wanted possession.
Nope.
Well duh. Irrelevant.
"Oh wow look shiny object." Yeah, not impressed. Yawn. Hot is the opposite of cold. So what.
I said be. Not beING.
"OHHHHH SCARY OHHH SO SCARY, HE IS CLAIMING A WORD WILL KILL ME!! THE WORLD IS ENDING!1!1!1!11!"
You claim that a bunch of words somehow mean death. Fake news. Even if they did, so what? You're so scared of puny words.
Is this bad or good?
Your (possession) contradicts free (potential).
False.
By you saying this quote, you are implying your worldview implies FWOC has limits. So your belief implies that FOWC is.... NOT all that free.
Irrelevant. No one said anything about apples but you.
No it doesn't. You possess plenty of things already. Nothing is destroyed. What a dumb belief.
Because why?