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).
Look at how Christianity gets people to consent to their overall notion of God, and then introduces parameters that guides them to arrive at pre-determined conclusions like a mind-control program. It happens in all religions, governments, and other various areas in life.
When you're presented with paradoxical truths, look for how they can both be true at the same time and also different at the same time as well. By uniting what's called a truth with its corresponding opposite, one arrives at a more complete picture than before.
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.
Is it not possible for one to hold onto anything while also being aware that everything moves each different thing within apart from one another?
What do you suggest then in regards to "true" and "time" and managing the giving and taking within ones mind?
Possibility implies being potential (life) during procession (inception towards death)...taking into possession reduces the potential given. One has the free will of choice to take given, but doing so reduces ones awareness of given.
Whatever one holds onto...God continues to set apart.
Resisting suggested (want) for perceivable (need).
Whenever tempted by true or false option...discern self as being free will of choice in-between until binding self to a side. Resisting SIDES grows ones SIGHT aka the requirement to resist temptation.
Life cannot perceive its inception or death, because it lives in-between aka separated from origin and outcome. Others suggest "time" to trick ones mind to consent to artificial origins and outcomes.
If one consents to past and future, then one permits another to shape PRESENT aka ones PRESENCE (forwarded essence).
Try expressing self within motion instead of repressing self by timing motion. Nature does, which allows each being within to re-do self only NOW.
Manage/manus (hand). Giving and taking isn't manual, but auto... https://www.etymonline.com/word/auto- aka all moving through each one within. Resisting the temptation to take represents adaptation to given. Resistance is fertile.
Compare the mental capacity of an infant and an elder...whatever mental capacity was grown in-between wasn't there before, and won't be there after. Growing implies shaping, not holding onto the shaped.
The more one chooses to let go, the freer ones choice, and the clearer ones awareness of others tempting one to hold onto.
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?
Can you show a plurality (things) without a singular (thing) part used to shape it?
Opposition aka ob (towards) + posit (to put) + ion (action) implies action putting reaction forwards aka impression (inception towards death) generating expression (life).
"not impressed" implies a beings denial of natures impression aka of being pressed into nature for outwards expression.
-ing denotes action. To be implies "towards being" aka nature acting towards each reacting being.
One cannot be (essence) without being moved into substance (divine part).
a) Inception towards death implies a process (dying) transferring a potential (living)...being scared of the word "death" implies sacrificing growth for fear of loss.
b) Scary implies a claim made aka a measurement taken by a beholder to make it suggestible for others.
I analyze words others claim hold meaning. Only within sound can words be shaped...holding onto the meaning of words (synthesis) tempts one to ignore the process of sound (analysis).
Nature implies even (dying); being implies odd (living)...only within even can an odd come into being. Words suggested to one another tempts beings at odds against one another over the meaning of words.
Mean/men - "to think" implies the same process (perceivable) moving through each different potential (perception)...holding onto any suggested meaning ignores process; destroys differences, and suppresses potential.
A being has to choose to be scared aka TAKING words into possession...analyzing words allows one to discern self within sound GIVING.
Sound gives one the opportunity to take words into possession, which one needs to resist the wanted temptation thereof, just like the process of dying gives life the opportunity to take life.
Bad (not want) and good (want) represent the temptation to ignore resisting (need).
How does possession not restrict potential? Each apple represents the potential for more apples...holding onto an apple diminishes that potential exponentially aka spoiling potential by possession.
You chose to make into quoted information what I chose to write on the fly by adapting to inspiration.
Being implies set free within the limitation of nature. Only within the limit of God given can each anointed one be free to take from one another.
The issue...the use of "you + your" applied by one to another ones view of the world. Only one can wield the potential of free will of choice...it cannot be possessed as mine or yours.
a) "Your belief" implies believing another aka sacrificing ones free will of choice into bondage to another.
b) "Is" implies a suggestion shaped within what perceivable "was". Doing that binds ones free will of choice into a conflict (is vs isn't) against others.
a) NOT implies ones de-nial (nihilo; nothing) of everything. Only within everything (cause) can each thing (effect) be free from one another.
b) FREE-DOM implies being free within dominance of nature aka free to live while dying. Process (inception towards death) dominates potential (life)...which frees potential within process.
c) ALL cannot be FREE...only one within all can be free from one another.
Apple of sin aka application (to join; combine) of syn (togetherness)...words shaped within sound tempts ones application to syn.
Notice that I didn't say apples (plural); but apple (singular)...it's the sin-ning sin-gular who brings the plural.
a) Things like what...those artificially held together within the separating process of nature?
b) Things held together by a living being within the destructive process of dying?
c) What if taking plenty contradicts all giving God?
d) If one possesses a cat, then why does holding a cat within possession inspires the living cat to fight until death to get out of ones possessive grasp?
Even simpler...take a breath and hold it in possession until the natural process forces the potential being to let go.
How about food? Doesn't a fat guy holding food within possession destroys himself? When is plenty enough?
Procession (inception towards death) forcing potential (life) to let go of any possession held onto.
Because implies "being caused" aka cause generating being within a process. That's why.