I refuse to be a thespian in this failure theater
TIE, verb - "bind so as to restrict movement; fasten so as to prevent escape"...gotta protect ya neck; kid.
Start by affirming Truth
If one doesn't affirm truth, then how could others use lies against one?
If there's no Truth to start out with, there's no point
If life starts at inception, then is there a point of death at the end of ones life sentence?
Moralism aka good vs bad...
heresies
Heresy/haireisthai/hairein - "to choose"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/heresy#etymonline_v_9184
So all doctrines require consent by choice, while choosing implies heresy...
approved
Approval; commendations, sanctions are given by choice, right?
If everyone...do you think it's a problem if people...
How did singular (one) become plural (people) and could that be a problem?
same thing
What if a thing can only be different from other things and never the same as?
Can you name two things that are the same without each one being at a different position from one another?
Why is it so easy to suggest "same" while ignoring perceivable differences?
bible only
"2024 Global Scripture Access - 7.45 billion known users*"... https://www.wycliffe.net/resources/statistics/
*For statistical agreement...are given as 'up to…' rather than an exact number
confess
Confess aka con fateri implies admitting together...one can only admit by ones free will of choice. A jew tempts gentiles to consent to confession, so that individual admission can be collectively punished.
They believe it holds some energy or something.
a) Energy cannot be held onto...a being within energy can be tricked to ignore that, while wasting resistance on holding onto velocity.
Example...an apple rots; holding onto rots the apple faster. Energy implies growth during decomposition, which is why holding onto impedes growth.
b) A jew tempts gentiles to believe aka to hold onto a belief, thereby becoming an artificial energy storage for a jew...an artifice that nature drains.
using dead bodies
Not dead bodies...temporal matter transmuting back into ongoing motion aka a gateway for passing over.
Not using...reusing matter used by motion.
a) Travel can only exist within light. Rays can travel distances among each other, while being separated from one another within the visible spectrum of light.
b) Without implies that WITHin expressing OUTwards.
what is the evidence?
Consenting to what IS suggested tempts one to ignore what WAS perceivable aka evident. What another suggests as evidence contradicts videns/videre - "to see"...the moment one consents to look at it. Why? Because consent tempts one to view perceivable (reality) through the lens of suggested (fiction).
valid
Valid/valere/wal - "to be strong"...validation implies setting a value and holding onto it, which costs one strength, hence making one weaker in the process.
Why does life feel like one giant Retcon now?
Because many permit few to steer feelings with a retroactive narration (suggested information) during natural continuity (perceivable inspiration).
the naked reality is fast approaching
Reality was always there; continuing as usual...it's those within holding onto fiction, which are losing their grip, because they are running out of power.
If you want to even download old
Nature doesn't need to load, it's always on, allowing each one within the free will of choice to draw from it, while growing within it.
Few suggest downloads (ones consent to the suggestion of another) to tempt many into conflicts of reason aka want vs not want or old vs new, while ignoring ones need to adapt to nature now.
old games
One doesn't need old or new games...one needs to resist the wanted temptation to play a game/gamble aka to stake ones growth on loss.
why the calculations work in the real world
Because each one making calculations has consented to use suggested numbers, hence operating within an artificial environment, while "working" in the real world of perceivable nature.
To count implies to reckon together...to be implies set apart from ONE another. Counting implies artificial; being implies natural.
As for working: EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power"...only nature works, each power within nature is employed by nature.
Show me one experiment that falsifies the speed of light.
a) Any suggested experiment tempts one to ignore being within the perceivable spectrum of light.
b) Light (motion) generates a spectrum (momentum) for particle rays (matter) within... all measurements ignore this internal separation of energy.
Few suggest "differential calculus" to tempt many to ignore that all is one in energy.
the broken logic of relativity
Ones consent to suggested relativism establishes a conflict of reason aka one side against another...both broken sides relating to each other by consent to the same suggested -ism.
I've taken all...
All gives (inception) and takes (death) each one (life)...taking suggested math classes from one another tempts one to ignore that.
but I'm not claiming
"I've taken all" implies the biggest claim one could make within all...
to apply critical logic to a theory
a) How could one suggest a theory without tempting another to agree or disagree, hence establishing logic/reason (agree vs disagree)?
b) Critic/krinein - "to separate"...consenting to a suggested theory implies "putting together", hence contradicting critic.
"Everyone's a critic" implies each ONE separated from ONE another...no logic/reason required for critic.
transforming energy from one form to another
So why reason about lowest vs highest math if energy transforms from ONE to another ONE?
part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles...
a) Not ALL matter...each one particle of matter within ALL motion.
b) Structure implies matter together...motion implies matter apart from ONE another.
If ALL is ONE in energy; then why mathematically equating that which nature differentiates?
even if you are moving at half the speed of light towards a light beam
Only odd (choice) within even (balance) can change rapidity of movement. A beam implies a ray of light aka an odd ray (matter) within even spectrum (momentum) of light (motion).
Only within light can a beam (life) enter (inception) and exit (death) a visible spectrum of light.
Suggested beams (matter) tempt one to ignore perceivable (momentum) light (motion). One can only count the speed of other beams to one another...not the speed of light from within the momentum of moving light.
Light cannot travel for ALL is light...beams (partials) within light (whole) can travel to and fro each other. If all is light; then where could light travel to?
a) https://img.gvid.tv/i/3mMnbBik.png
b) Right (inception towards death) to copy (life)...
free speech protest in Brazil
Try chanting "Judeus Más Notícias" to learn about the checks and balances of free speech...
Bolsonaro
a mind capable of reason
What if reason (versus) makes ones mind incapable of implication (if/then)?
logical necessity
One needs to breathe...where is the need for logic in that? What is a gasping infant reasoning about?
the difference between the impossible and the possible
a) IM implies IN, hence within possible... https://www.etymonline.com/word/im-#etymonline_v_1519
Only within actual (inception towards death) can a potential (life) respond outwards.
b) THE difference; THE impossible; THE possible implies suggested the-ism tempting each different one to consent alike.
Few suggest the-ism to equalize differences among many...
The Emperor's (perceivable inspiration) New Clothes (suggested information)... notice that inception and death expose life to nakedness aka being without a cover aka FREE will of choice.
As for the speed of light...one does not perceive measurements; measuring suggested numbers within ones consenting mind implies a cover upon perceivable aka ones ignorance...which stands naked to those with eyes to see.
Einstein ruined the minds of physicists
a) -ist (physicist) implies ones consent to a suggested -ism (physicalism)...which in return tempts one to ignore physic/physis/bheue - "to be; to grow". Why? Because nature sets each being apart from one another to allow growth, which consent contradicts by tempting together.
b) Connecting minds impair each others free will of choice with consent aka contraction into conflicts of reason against each other and accumulation of suggested information burdening memory.
c) Ones consent makes one dependable to the suggestion of another...that's the foundation of relativism.
Einstein told us
a) Few utilize "Einstein" to suggest information, which when consented to by ones free will of choice, aggregates many (us) under a few chosen (((ones)))
b) Nature doesn't tell/tale/talo/del - "to recount; relate in detail"...those within nature relate tales to each other to distract from nature. These tales imply suggested relativism tempting ones consent to relate.
speed of light
Who can measure light? Can a ray within the visible spectrum of light measure light or only other rays of light?
What if speed of light is constant so that each different ray within can have a fluctuating perspective?
a real difference in simultaneity
Responding simultaneous tempts one to ignore being different from one another.
give up on reason
Nature gives perceivable...those within take suggested from one another, which establishes reason/logic within self and against each other.
Try resisting the temptation to take a side within a suggested conflict of reason like for example...upvote vs downvote. What does one give up by resisting temptation?
you need to take
Take a breath and notice that nature takes it away...
Does one need to take or resist wanting to hold onto what nature freely (life) gives (inception) and takes (death)?
take into account
a) Holding onto makes one accountable to others...to (((accountants)))
b) Account (Latin computare)...hence many sitting in front of a computer, while being held accountable within a world wide web by few.
the greatest trick pulled
Before another can pull; one has to attach (consent) self to another (suggestion)...suggestion tricks/triggers consent.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities...
a) Principle implies "origin; source"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/principle#etymonline_v_19525
b) Wrestling against implies towards an outcome (winning or losing)...while ignoring origin.
c) Reasoning (versus) about suggested implies wrestling against flesh and blood, implication (if/then) implies ones struggle within origin to sustain self.
against spiritual
Spirit/spiro - "to breathe"...try being against breathing by holding onto your breath.
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Berlin-take-my-breath-away-lyrics
we go into how one needs
How does a suggested plural (we) not diminish a singulars (one) need? How does one (apart) need we (together)?
one needs....others who want
What if wanting to consent to others tempts one to ignore perceivable need?
ALL Catholic Doctrine
From the christian perspective...only God implies ALL, catholic doctrine implies a dogma shaped by ones within all for each other.
want the same
What if each difference (life) needs to resist same origin (inception towards death) while struggling with the wanted temptation to ignore resisting by following each other?
before secular
Before aka forward (inception towards death) being (life) implies secular/seco (to divide) matter during singular motion.
Only during singular (all) can there be secular (ones)...singular (god) generates secular (christians aka anointed ones).
What's more likely...A or B?
ABC aka abecedary aka abracadabra implies a magic spell aka a corporation (corpus oration) tempting each DIFFERENT one falling for it to consent ALIKE.
In this case...any different opinion about A (jews) or B (Chinese) implies alike consent to a conflict of reason (A vs B). Neither the opinions, nor what A or B contain, can prevent the conflict of reason...only prolong it with more input.
If A and B are fighting each other, then where is C? Suggesting what A and B are fighting each other over, from outside the conflict! Can you C?
jews or Chinese?
Why not both... https://img.gvid.tv/i/bfTJjaBT.jpg
100% just a bot. I tested him...and he doesn't...
Dehumanization by calling someone a "bot"; followed by humanizing a bot with "he; him" pronouns...
free-will-of-choice...I tested him by sending pages from the Bible, and he doesn't even react any differently.
a) An attempt to change free will of choice with suggested scriptures...
b) Free implies different from one another; because alike implies bound to each other.
etymology for the insane
What if it's the other way around? Only insane aka in sanus aka within sound can one reason (logy) about the true sense of words (etymo)...
the work of the bot is to note the topic
What if ones free will of choice can simply draw perceivable inspiration from any suggested topic?
Ask yourself...if most are choosing to follow along suggested topics, while reasoning (upvote vs downvote) against each other about them; then why do the comments of ones free will of choice differ from the "norm"?
the bot is to note the topic...so the actual shills can then demolish any discussion.
Can you link an example where a comment by ones free will of choice was followed by hostility from others against the topic?
If that's too hard to find; then try looking for hostility aimed at ones free will of choice for commenting differently one any topic...
believable
Be-liev-able aka being able to lie. To believe implies to consent to the suggestion of another, while ignoring perceivable.
Nature doesn't require belief...artifice does.
One of the key
Free will of choice implies ones key to open or close whatever one looks/locks onto. Consent permits others to use that key to lock one away underneath suggested information.
claims to be an artist
Nature cannot be claimed...nature moves. Consenting to a suggestion implies ones claim over artifice.
According to ... News
N(orth) E(east) W(est) S(outh) are set apart from one another to establish ones perception at the center of perceivable circumference. Ones consent to suggested "news" tempts one off-center, while inclining towards a side, which establishes discord with other ones.
Accord implies ad (towards) cor (heart)...not reasoning (accord vs discord) against others.
So-vereign/so-viet/su-zereign/su-bvert...watch out what others suggest behind the SO... https://www.etymonline.com/word/so#etymonline_v_23801
Front/bhront/bhren - "to project, stand out" implies standing out (life) while being projected (inception towards death) into. Front implies ones home-stretch...
a) Responding to mind/memory (re-mind) diverts one from input. Putting suggested information into ones mind/memory tempts one to hold onto and reflect upon it, while ignoring that perceivable inspiration moves through ones mind/memory, and cannot be held onto.
b) Ones choice operates in the midst of all balance...suggested choices imbalance one if selected as mediators.
Intent implies towards a purpose, being implies pose-pur aka position (life) put forwards (inception towards death).
Suggested intent aims at death, which tempts life to mask itself by ignorance.
Idealism or any other suggested -isms tempt ones consent to follow towards outcome, which for life implies death. Any suggested emphasis used to promote an -ism implies a deceit/an ensnaring of consent/a sales pitch to tempt buyers to sell out etc.
Perceivable emphasis aka em (within) bha (shine) implies being within light...shining forth, while struggling with casting shadows.
A quest towards outcome is raised by those following, accumulating themselves into a problem...within the ignored solution of natural law.
Look at the problem with the rise of the jewish question...