For we wrestle not against flesh and blood
(media.scored.co)
Comments (12)
sorted by:
Satanists don't want you to "cling" to the word of God https://media.scored.co/post/gDtucww7EfkN.jpeg. They want you to cling to the lies they make up about God's word.
"Focus on the flesh. Worship your own self", they whisper, "and judge based on the flesh". No don't damn yourself to hell along with those low class reprobates. Stand firm in God's word.
Only within sound can an instrument cling to a word. Sound separates each instrument from one another, while words are shaped to bind together aka to orchestrate instruments into a composition; arrangement etc.
God cannot speak, for speech implies the articulation of natural sound. God gives each mind (ment) structure (stru) within (in) to resound or articulate.
Speech is silver, silence is golden...
FWOC: "God cannot speak."
Wrong. God has spoken before.
a) According to whom?
b) Who spoke the word "God" to you?
c) Wrong implies turning against right aka a circular conflict. Before implies forwarded being aka linear progression. Sound forwards being, while words tempt one to turn against one another.
His Word. Read the Bible.
Didn't mention anyone else.
Cool. More of this. Circular conflict implies benefit to all humanity. It implies destroying the inferior and upgrading the remains.
Inception towards life.
Then play sounds at maximum volume with your speakers 24/7 if this belief is true. If it is false, then don't do this.
If you believed this, you would never comment anything, ever. The fact you do proves you are stating claims you blatantly disagree with. So either you are a schizo who acts contrary to his worldview or you don't believe this claim or you think "turning against another" is a good thing.
a) How did his word came into being without letters?
b) Reading the written word implies someone wrote it. Who shaped letters into words to write the bible?
a) Who taught your mind to acknowledge letters shaped into words as meaning?
b) Who separates each one from anyone else to allow memory to share mentioned meaning?
Circular conflict within linear progression of nature implies ouroborous aka eating ones own tail.
As for benefit...nature giving being implies being the beneficiary of nature. Artificially eating up the inferior to reach the next level implies a game called Pac-Man.
...and simultaneously life towards death. Why? Because inception towards death implies the momentum of ongoing motion for each temporary matter living within.
a) Playing implies ignoring given choice by taking chance.
b) Only within sound can each instrument play in-between minimum/maximum.
c) The volume of sound implies one, hence sound/sanus - "whole; entire; all" aka all for one, and one for all.
d) Sound implies singularity...sounds (plurality) implies the noise the ones within sound make among one another, while ignoring the sound of silence.
Speaker implies suggestible word shaped within perceivable sound by free will of choice. Doing that tempts one to ignore sound for word aka ignoring God for the ones who speak in the name of God.
If/then implies implication...false vs true + do vs don't implies reason. Nature implicates without conflict...ignoring natural for artificial shapes a conflict of reason.
To believe implies holding onto, like you holding onto meaning, while fighting (true vs false) over it. Free-will-of-choice utilizes analysis to break apart synthetic words, hence doing the opposite of holding onto...letting go of.
Letting go of what one holds onto sustains ones free will of choice.
Example: com (together) ment (mind)...free will of choice breaks apart comments to free ones mind from what others put together as a mental (ideal) and physical (idol) burden.
Facts; proofs and claims contradict free will of choice if held onto...choosing to hold onto either shapes a conflict of reason (agree vs disagree).
You view what I wrote as facts; proofs and claims, while willingly ignoring that free-will-of-choice continues to utilize analysis to break apart any facts, proofs and claims.
For example: "God cannot speak"...further analysis allows one to see theism (god); denialism (cannot) and spell-craft (articulating speech within sound by letters), which free-will-of-choice can analyze even further. So where's the fact; proof; claim that I hold onto by believing it?
How about you as a believer show that you can use analysis without contradicting your beliefs, instead of fighting others over facts; proofs and claims?
a) Free will of choice analyzes states aka potential (life) separated within procession (inception towards death), which cannot be claimed without denial. Your belief in claims, resulting in agree vs disagree conflict, implies an artificial synthesis denying natural analysis.
The contradiction in-between analysis and synthesis is what each jew exploits among gentiles, which free-will-of-choice tries to dissolve.
b) Blatant/blatire - "to babble" aka uttering words indistinctly implies Babel; Babylon. That's the tower of babel the gentiles are building by stacking words until it collapses upon the ever flowing foundation of sound, which is where each jew sits at the rivers of bablyon... https://genius.com/Boney-m-rivers-of-babylon-lyrics
Claiming a word represents captivity within sound...think about that.
Either/or implies a differentiation from one another aka a schism/skei - "to cut". Motion (inception towards death) cuts matter (life) into pieces aka "cut my life into pieces, this is my last resort"... https://genius.com/Papa-roach-last-resort-lyrics
It's a jew (eugene bleuler) who suggests schizophrenia as a mental disorder aka a label for gentiles to hold onto and put upon one another, thereby disordering their minds with labels aka marks aka inwards ideals and outward idols.
Being implies insane (in sanus; within sound) person (per sonos; by sound) aka schizo/schism in-between all sound and each one instrument within.
Choice can only react to balance or to one another. A jew suggests "acting" to invert the gentiles perception of "reacting". If a director directs an actor, then the actor reacts to direction...the gentiles audience willingly denies this contradiction of actors reacting aka action/reaction.
Thing implies everything separating each thing from one another...if a thing chooses good or bad, then it turns against other things within a good vs bad conflict called "reason"...a jew suggests moralism to tempt gentiles these good vs bad conflicts of mutual destruction.
And who would know better than the owner of c/Satanism?
I see Christians use this passage all the time but I don't understand their point. Can you explain what this passage means to you?
It's a spiritual battle and there is a spiritual world. The demonic realm (i.e satan) is able to use various flesh to serve his purpose.
It's a reminder to focus on the spiritual aspect and not the worldly. Otherwise you will be deceived by what's coming.
definition of principalities
Jesus had issues with people in power--King Herod, Pontius Pilate, and Rabbis in general. To me, it seems like he is advocating fighting against the spiritually wicked, ruling elite--who are not of flesh and blood (inhuman).
Those rulers are at the very least in contact with and getting controlled by demons. Are some of them completely non-human entities pretending to be human? I don't know. Either way it's demonic in nature.
a) Principal aka prin (first) cip (to take) al (all)... all gives first before anyone within is being given the choice to take.
b) Principalities implies a plural, which contradicts prin/prime (first) aka singular.
c) Wicked implies "to depart"...spirit departs essence from one another.