"Things implies a summation of partials (one) within whole (all)."...Nope.

Can you show a plurality (things) without a singular (thing) part used to shape it?

not impressed. Yawn. Hot is the opposite of cold. So what.

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.

I said be. Not beING.

-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).

OHHHHH SCARY OHHH SO SCARY, HE IS CLAIMING A WORD WILL KILL ME!! THE WORLD IS ENDING!1!1!1!11!

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.

You claim that a bunch of words somehow mean death.

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).

Even if they (words) did (mean death), so what?

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.

You're so scared of puny words.

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.

Is this (nature inspiring being to resist) bad or good?

Bad (not want) and good (want) represent the temptation to ignore resisting (need).

"Your (possession) contradicts free (potential)"...False.

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.

By you saying this quote

You chose to make into quoted information what I chose to write on the fly by adapting to inspiration.

you are implying your worldview implies FWOC has limits

• FREE implies within DOMinance.
• WILL (want) implies within need.
• OF implies out of; within and in response to.
• CHOICE implies within balance.

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.

So your belief implies that FOWC is

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.

NOT all that free

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.

No one said anything about apples but you.

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.

You possess plenty of things already. Nothing is destroyed.

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?

"Potential needs to resist wanted possession."...Because why?

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.