A jewish civil rights organization (NRA) vs an assistant attorney within the jew-dicary about who's responsible for a jewish revolutionary catching a bullet...from ZOG.
Your reaction to "goyim" implies a trigger, just like you use "nazi" to trigger others...free-will-of-choice traces words through etymology to their origin within sound...nazi/nati - "native" + goyim/goylem - "golem".
It's even on the wiki page: "Golem passed into Yiddish as goylem"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
Drawing inspiration from how a shapeless mass (golem) was shaped into trigger (goyim)...that's what sustains free will of choice, while being positioned forwards (pur-pose) within the entirety of nature.
nonsensical
Within all (al) one cannot sense (sensi) nothing (non)...few suggest the word "nonsensical" to gain remote control over the minds of many. Did I mention the Hebrew origin of nonsense...shtuyyot?
subhuman
Hu aka hue implies "color"...being within the visible spectrum of light implies in-between aka above/below. In other words...being able to differentiate between light and dark implies ones sub-hue-man position.
As for the jewish origin of subhuman (later dubbed Untermensch)...if few are chosen ones, then many are subhuman to the chosen ones. Also...let's not forget that before the Untermensch rebrand there was Nietzsche's Übermensch setting up the conflict, which a jew later rebranded into Superman aka the man of steel (stalin).
a) Taking contradicts being given free (will of choice).
b) Both coherence vs incoherence and attack vs defend represent additions by you to confine others in conflict...free-will-of-choice didn't take any sides.
c) What if it's the goyim/gollum/golem which are remotely controlled like an automaton devised by a sorcerer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
Let's add some context to revisionism...1933 (judea declares war against Germany) + 1945 (allies win world war II).
Is your statement right or wrong?
Ones state of mind implies linear progression...not circular (right vs wrong) conflict.
You want me to believe the picture represents blah blah blah
a) Represent aka "to respond to presented" implies adaptation...believing turns against adaptation by taking something into possession.
b) A picture implies a "capture moment" aka matter artificially holding onto natural momentum of motion. Others then move pictures (movies) to mimic motion, while matter continues to ignore adaptation to momentum, when watching a movie.
You're either...or...
Being implies one (partial) within all (whole)...circular conflict (either vs or ) tempts one to ignore the delineation of singularity.
you believe only some parts of
a) Some (a sum) contradicts parts (each partial).
b) To believe implies partial holding onto partial, thereby shaping a sum...free will of choice implies partial apart from one another, while needing to resist the wanted temptation of summation as to remain free from one another.
c) Only implies all aka the one and only God (from the Christian perspective)...some/sum contradicts one and only.
No.
Again with the point behind nothing...if nothing has an end, then what's the beginning of nothing?
I was mentioning the verb. Not the noun a "magic spell"
The ION (action) in mention implies the origin of anything shaped within...verbs; nouns; adjectives etc.
The trick...a verb implies motion; nouns are attached to matter, while distracting from motion. Spelling nouns to distract from what verbs are implying...that's magic.
blah blah blah
Aka the yiddish "yada yada yada" (idle talk) from babylon/babel (confusion; disorder) + babble (talk like a baby)...a jew domesticates gentiles into build the tower of babel (words) which always collapses upon its foundation (sound).
Notice here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CKyWu87W78 how yada yada yada leaves out the idle talk, yet implicates the noteworthy to a jew. That's why a jew doesn't have to listen to gentiles, since it's mostly yada yada yada aka bla bla bla... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6t8g6ka4W0
Btw: The Gigi D'Agostino clip is based on the comic LA LINEA (the line)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Linea_(TV_series) that's where gentiles are being tricked to shape their bla bla bla within.
S. p. e. l. l. <- THIS is spelling
a) You used free will of choice to choose what to spell...others suggested letters to tempt your free will of choice how to spell.
b) The letters you use are based on the ABC (Latin abecedary)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/abecedary That's the abracadabra utilized by few to cast spells onto many, and those under the spell are confining themselves through spelling from noticing the trick.
c) One spells by letters...others suggest letters to tempt ones free will of choice to LET one spell. Therefore...ones free will of choice represents the LETTER of any spelling by another.
The origin of letting implies all letting each one within wield free will of choice...that's why others have to use letters to tempts ones free will of choice into binding itself by letting.
I don't know where you got the idea that magic is involved here
a) Tempting another to ignore perceivable knowledge for suggested ideals/idols....that's magic.
b) Involvement aka in (within) volve (to turn) ment (mind)...others suggesting ideals/idols to trick ones mind to turn inwardly (logic) and outwardly (reason)...that's magic.
c) Holding up words within sound implies being UNDER THE SPELL, whence ignoring knowledge by seeking understanding.
d) The contradiction found within your descriptions contradict the knowledge moving through each being...free-will-of-choice struggles to free self from contradictions, which allows one to think straight.
Nothing is being destroyed by any fractals
Fractal implies destruction of whole aka de (to divide) struct (fractal structure) ion (whole action) as in...cause implies the acting whole; effect implies the fractal structure within. Power implies fractal within energy.
An even simpler example...if one opens a puzzle-box, then the pieces within represent the fractal destruction of the whole picture tempting one play a game of puzzle aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka mosaic law.
Puzzle implies mosaic aka summoning fractals together aka order out of chaos.
word worshiper
Sound implies worth...words tempts ship (instrument) to shipwreck by burdening self, while fighting other vessels. Pirates navigate sound, while shooting words at others ships to sink them.
If words had worth, then one wouldn't have to use words to describe worth to others. It's the consent of others aka their evaluation, which affixes worth aka value to suggested words.
Citation needed
Citate/citare - "to summon"...nature divides each being from one another; few suggest citations to artificially summon many together.
One needs to resist the wanted temptation of togetherness...otherwise one cannot sustain self aka apartheid.
Is that grammatically correct?
Cor (together) + rect/reg (to move in a straight line)...others suggest the word "correct" as grammar aka philology aka magic incantation... https://www.etymonline.com/word/grammar
Why? To distract many together (cor) from being moved in a straight line (rect) apart from one another.
Is that a real...or made up
WAS implies ones response (re) to all (al)...IS can only be made up within all that was.
Nope.
The narrow line of reality continues even if one "nopes" out of it into broader fiction. It's at the end of the line, when life doesn't have enough resistance anymore to venture into the temptation of broader fiction...when the nope (nihilism aka denial) disperses with force.
Establishes vs doesn't establish
Nature already does before an establishment comes into being. From doing towards establishment implies a straight line...not a versus/verto - "to turn" aka circular conflict.
You chose to add nothing to what everything does aka DOES-N'T (does nothing)...it's your choice which upholds the versus conflict.
matter vs no matter
No aka nothing/nihilo implies the denial within matter of the motion moving through matter. Denial implies turning inwards (logic) first before turning outwards (reason) against other matter.
Nature (inception towards death) doesn't turn into being (life)...nature nurtures natives by moving straight through, which life perceives as the inhaled spirit and the exhaled ghost.
to kill your worldview
To kill implies "to deprive of life"...to view/veue aka a visual perception implies "to see". Only withing the process of dying can life see.
Stop using your word games to interpret my comments
a) Nature cannot be stopped by any being within...consenting to one another's stop signs only distracts a temporal being from ongoing nature.
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Mcfadden-and-whitehead-aint-no-stoppin-us-now-lyrics
b) My vs yours implies the game of ignoring given choice by taking the chance to hold onto a side.
c) Interpretation implies being moved forwards (pret) internally (inter). Ones perception interprets all perceivable...no matter what another suggests one to do or not do.
Interpretation cannot be stopped...only ignored aka denied.
You're the only one obsessed with doing word games.
Obsession implies compulsion (oppsessive compulsive disorder) aka wanting to hold together...free-will-of-choice simply takes apart what others hold together by belief/faith/creed etc.
Notice that OCD is described as a circle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder
Then notice that YOU'RE implies a you vs me + are vs aren't circle of conflict based on the compulsive obsession to hold onto a side.
Now what's the opposite of compulsive? FREE aka free will of choice...
then what other word do you propose we use then?
a) Nature doesn't propose words...sound pro (forwards) poses (position) instrument.
b) Free-will-of-choice doesn't propose alternative words...only describes fundamental sound and how alternation of words within tempts one to ignore that.
c) Sound implies singularity aka oneness of sound moving through each unit of instrument. The word WE implies a suggested pluralism, which tempts singular consent into a plural consensus with others.
Few suggest US (united states) and E PLURIBUS UNUM (out of many, one) to invert singularity (sound) into pluralism (words)...free-will-of-choice simply describes how that works.
d) Free-will-of-choice adapts to everything already available...guywholikesDjtof2024 seeks proposals for anything that isn't already available within everything.
guywholikesDjtof2024 was being tricked to play hide and seek willingly...free-will-of-choice cannot change that; only describe how it works.
If the term "you" is SO BAD
a) If implies then (implication)...bad implies vs good (reason). Circular reason tempts one to ignore linear implication.
b) Notice that term implies "limit"...therefore consenting to a term limits ones free will of choice. This magic is called "terminology" aka tempting one with terms into circular logic aka self confinement.
Fictitious vs real implies conflict
Only while responding (re) to all (al) can one shape fiction. To do that one has to turn (vs) away from all to one another...first inwardly (logic), then outwardly (reason).
The circle within self (logic) represents the fiction one ignores the linear procession of reality for...the circle outside self (reason) represents others setting up a ring for one to fight others within. A kike/kikel - "circle" tempts each gentile to draw a circle within self, which in return permits each jew to draw circles around gentiles from outside.
Do you have a dictionary source for that? (everything forwards each thing; nothing denies that)
a) Nature delineates...few within suggest dictionaries to dictate many.
b) Ask yourself what came first...every (whole) or each (partial)?
Thanks for admitting I wasn't wrong.
Notice that a circle (right vs wrong or was vs wasn't) denies admission. Notice that reason (outwards circle) is shaped by logic (inward circle)...so drawing a circle within self admits self into an outwardly circle against others, hence no outward admission required.
One line crashing into another.
a) If God implies the first line, then what's the second line?
b) Can motion crush into motion or does it require matter within motion to establish a crash?
c) Doesn't change of direction imply motion as the director of any change of matter within?
d) If line implies delineation, then crashing implies a turning against one another within the same line of delineation like ouroboros eating its own tail.
Take two rectangular wood plank
a) Doesn't each wood plank have a different position from one another for oneself to take two together?
b) How does one know that it's two? By taking first one, then another one...
c) Ready for some fraternal hazing? If you get hit by the first one, then will you respond differently to the second one or will it feel the same? If it's different, then why do you use the same label (two) for each different plank?
Do they magically make a circle or are they still linear?
First of all...the planks where artificially shaped out of a natural tree, and it's therefore the life-line of a living tree growing within the process of dying, which implies the source of delineation...not the planks you milled into shape.
Secondly...the circle isn't about the shape of the planks, but originates from your logic putting one natural thing and another natural thing into an artificial "two", which implies you TURNING from natural towards artificial.
Now compare natural delineation with artificial circulation. What has a longer lifeline...the natural tree or the artificial planks milled out of it? The reduction of life is based on the circular conflict within your mind.
you'll lose against reality
RE (to respond) AL (all)...all implies loss; each one within implies responding growth. Loss and growth aren't turning against one another, but imply a delineation within one another.
Reality doesn't play those word games.
Indeed...yet adding "doesn't" to reality implies the use of given choice to take a chance aka gambling aka playing a game. It's the words which betray ones intent.
Tala Kaddoura suggesting narratives (not all jews; holocaust; racism; colonialism; white supremacy) under disguise of child exploitation to tempt consensus among gentiles.
Do any of those narratives benefit gentiles?
Wrong.
In that picture this represents choosing a side in-between right or wrong, hence into the mutual conflict; into the broad deception, and away from the narrow path.
failed beliefs
The narrow path implies rising (life) and falling (inception towards death) simultaneously, while beliefs tempt one to hold onto broad narratives suggested by others, which makes rising harder, while one falls tumbling.
You can't spell Choice...
A spell is shaped by letters aka ones free will of choice LETTING another shape.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” ~ Matthew 7:13-14
The black line in this picture represents the narrow path each life enters at inception and leaves at death...both sides represent broadcasted fiction to distract one from discerning self within reality.
Both sides are interchangeable aka a mirror inverting ones sight if a side is chosen. Any idol shown in this picture tempts attachment aka ones mind choosing to hold onto...doing that confines ones mind (logic) and body (reason) to mutual conflict in-between both sides.
The two circles represent logic (circular thinking) and reason (turning against one another), which distract one from the line aka "thinking straight"...
A negotiation about how to temporarily interrupt the jewish genocide of slavs to use slavs as slaves to build yet another jewish stronghold within slavic territory from which to continue the ongoing jewish genocide of slavs.
They make more of themselves
Fractal aka fract (to fracture) al (all)...only within all can there be more or less of each one. Furthermore...the fracture of all implies the fracture of singularity into each fractal unit.
Within all of energy...each power implies an energized fractal.
Fractals do not contradict themselves
guywholikesDjito2024 as one singular being using pluralism (fractals; themselves) establishes the contradiction between what all does, and what one describes to another it does not.
Does vs doesn't mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto.
You contradict reality
Re (to response) al (all)...no contradiction in that. It's branding one as "you" which establishes the contradiction aka YOU vs ME, which isn't a response to all (real) but a fictitious conflict among one another.
But not for long
a) Not contradicts for...everything forwards each thing; nothing denies that.
b) Length implies a measurement taken, while ignoring all given by ongoing motion. How could life take a measurement if it cannot take its own inception or death as extremes to measure within?
You will lose
You vs me implies a circular conflict...loss (inception towards death) generating the growth of will (life) implies linear procession.
Ev (living being) angel (divine messenger) ion (action)...action generating reaction implies the divination of each living being.
The trick...message (a communication transmitted via a messenger) instead of mittere (to send). Mittere implies action (all perceivable) sending reaction (each ones perception)...message aka messianic age implies reaction transmitting communication (suggested) to one another.
From a different perspective...viewing evangelism as gospel (god spell) tempts one to ignore that God doesn't spell by putting letters together; but moves letters apart from one another, hence "LETTING BE".
Suggestion tempts ones consent aka ones choice LETTING a chosen one shape LETTERS into words...transmitted as gospel.
Gospel ain't God spelling...
gives life from death
All gives (inception) and takes (death) from each one (life) within. The process of being moved from inception towards death implies where life comes from.
even unto resurrection
a) Dying implies the ongoing flow (even); living implies the temporary form within (odd).
b) Re (to respond) sur (to surge; rise) rect (reg; move in a straight line) ion (action)...action moving in a straight line implies dying; the surge of rising reactions within implies living.
The suggested logos "resurrection" represents a synthesis of the above analyzed inherent fraction.
redeemed what was stolen
If nature gives (inception) and takes (death); then being (life) can either utilize given by resisting the temptation of being taken OR give (to sell) and take (to buy) from one another, hence becoming a trader/traitor.
If one consents to any suggestion, then one artificially redeems (to buy) and steals (to sell) what nature gives freely.
The Lord invites to be reunited
- Lord implies "to domineer"
- Invite/invitare implies "to live within"
- To be implies "towards being".
- Re-unit implies "ones response".
All dominates by moving towards each ones free will of choice, which responses by living within all.
None of that sentence has anything to do with one another, but solely with ones (christ) response to all (god)...others tempt one to ignore self discernment by shaping sentences like that.
If one consents to the suggested sentence "the Lord invites to be reunited", then one permits another to lord over one; to give entrance (consent) to invite (suggestion); to be or not to be; and to seek reunification by joining one another.
Jesus = Yahweh
Yahweh/hawah - "was"...procession was (yahweh) before potential (christ) can take possession (jesus) over self (iam).
Yahweh (process) differentiates Christ (potential), while equalizing Jesus (possession). In other words...an anointed one cannot claim self as I AM (jesus) without establishing a conflict with YOU ARE (judah). Conflict implies friction; friction rubs off anointment...to rub off anointment implies being anti-christ.
salvation
Salva/sol (whole) + tion (action)...the whole of action implies the salvation for each resurrected ones reaction within.
"I Am that I Am" -Yahweh
a) That ain't Yahweh articulating words, but a chosen one articulating words (logos) within Yahweh to trick ones choice into claiming possession over "I am that I am". Yahweh implies the process of sound allowing each potential instrument within to shape words, while tempting one another to take possession thereof, yet one cannot take from one another without ignoring all given to each one for free will of choice.
b) "That" implies a pronoun aka a name (noun) put forwards (pro)...taking a pronoun puts a brand (jesus) onto a being (christ).
Too many words.
So too much logos (God)?
I didn’t feel it man
Why is that one can feel relief writing, while another feels the burden of reading "too much logos"?
I did like the concept.
It's concepts which tempt one to liken fractals to one another.
No it doesn't.
No vs yes aka does vs doesn't...a circle based on a con (together) cept (to grasp).
Good to see you friend.
Carry on my sovereign son...
want kids
Off-spring isn't a want vs not want conflict, but implies the opportunity to perpetuate self through another aka the need to resist wanted conflict.
One needs to grow...wanting or not wanting the fruits of growth implies putting the cover of ignorance over ones growth, while blaming others for it.
applying saliva to wounds
It's wounding while applying saliva...
antiseptic
What if wounding (anti) a child implies a rotten (sepsis) being?
The concept of fractals...
...contradicts itself. Con (together) cept (to grasp)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/concept
Whole separates fractals from one another; others suggest concepts to summon fractals together.
similarity across different
An inversion of difference (life) across same (inception towards death). Why the inversion? Because artifice (AI) inverts natural...if consented to.
If one asks AI to invert its answer, then a jew is gonna shut down ones access to AI really quick to prevent others from discerning that artificial inverts natural.
Forming any question, while seeking for an answer tempts one to ignore that solution (perceivable inspiration) moves through any question and answer (suggested information).
Grok can't adapt to perceivable inspiration...no AI ever could; only ones free will of choice can.
Btw: https://www.etymonline.com/word/grok
God's presence
Pre (before aka forwarding being) sence (essence; to be)...pre implies God; sence implies Christ send by God.
Presence implies a synthesis of logos...pre-sence implies ones free will of choice growing self discernment by analysis aka by naturally taking apart what others artificially put together.
Ultimately
Ultimate aka "forming the final aim or object" implies the end (fin) of all (al), that's the inversion of God as the ever giving beginning for each one within.
Who suggests ultimism? A jew named Schellenberg who "developed the argument from divine hiddenness (or hiddenness argument) against the existence of a God"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Schellenberg
Hard to push -isms onto gentiles without continuously reshaping the logos aka crafting spells to easily tempt gentiles into pushing one another over the edge of knowledge.
Life and friction are one
a) Can you feel my fist in your face? No? That's because I have the free will of choice to resist the temptation of friction. One implies apart from one another...only within all (motion) can each one (matter) be apart from one another.
b) Try to apply "and" to God...singularity and what else? Energy and what else? Motion and what else? All and what else?
c) Notice what each mother experiences while giving birth to an off-spring...friction > relief by anointment. That's how life perpetuates by friction (inter-course) and relief (off-spring).
Sex by friction implies lust; sex for relief implies sex/seco - "to divide"...one needs to let go of what one wants to hold onto. There's free will of choice at work in-between need/want (balance).
Life in its simplest is movement.
Movement implies "moving mind"...the process of dying implies motion; the living mind/body within implies matter.
Motion (singularity) generates matter (each single unit)...matter naturally separated from one another has the free will of choice to artificially join one another. That's how simple becomes complex, which makes it more and more complex to simply let go of what one willingly holds onto like words; definitions; meanings; idols/ideals; beliefs; names/numbers etc.
The logos is alive
Logos tempts the incorporation of life aka in-corpus-oration aka tempting the living body into a mental debt by holding onto the oration by another.
Oration implies the articulation (words) of nature (sound) aka spell-craft. God implies sound/sanus (entire; whole; all) generating each instrument (mind structured within).
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see... https://genius.com/Simon-and-garfunkel-the-sound-of-silence-lyrics
The circle is ideally perfect
a) Logos allows others to shape physical (ldols) to tempt one to hold onto mental (ideal)...it's ones consent to idolatry and idealism which shapes a circle inside (logic) and outside (reason) oneself.
Nature shapes each being (life) within a line (inception towards death)...which one cannot hold onto, since all moves through one.
b) Only within a line can a circle be shaped by combining beginning and end aka ouroboros eating its own tail, which is what reason does to anyone willingly holding onto one side, which causes friction against the other.
Example...holding onto truth sustains the friction against lie. Letting go of truth prevents lie from having a foundation to attach to.
c) Why did Dante use the description "nine circles of hell"? Notice furthermore that in the Divine Comedy...the soul follows death on a linear path through the nine circles of hell.
The domain is infinite.
Only during ongoing dominance (inception towards death) can one be temporary free (life) aka free (choice) dom (balance).
fractal circular reasoning
Circular reasoning implies fractal vs fractal. Only linear procession allows fractal potential to be free from one another. VS aka versus/verto - "to turn" implies ones free will of choice choosing to turn from linear into circular by turning against one another.
individual soul
Soul/sole implies "one and only"; individual implies "divided within two)...individual contradicts soul.
If God implies one, then what is two...double God? Notice that suggested individualism is described as an ideology... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism aka an idea mentally circulated.
Describe fractal in theology concerning the logos
Theo (god) logy (logic)...that's not a fractal, but a synthesis of fractals, just like de (to divide) scribe (to write) and con (together) cern (to perceive).
Few suggest logos (words) to synthesize logic (circular thinking) internally; which turns into reason (mutual conflict) outwardly among many.
Analysis (natural) dissolves synthesis (artificial).
it’s one of the most elegant ways
a) "One of the most" implies a synthesis of fractals, which inverts being a fractal (fractured within all).
b) "Ways" implies a plural, which inverts the one and only way of singularity from all through each one.
c) Elegant/eligere - "select with care" implies all carrying (inception towards death) each elect (life) aka all giving each one free will of choice.
Few suggest logos to tempt many into a conflict of reason (elegantly vs austerely).
The Logos is the divine pattern
a) Sound WAS before anyone within can shape logos (words) to suggest one another what IS.
b) Pattern aka "a part showing the figure or quality of the whole" implies each divided/divine being (perception) within all (perceivable)...not what is shown to one another (suggestion).
at every level of reality
Level implies balance; being implies choice, hence ones choice responding (re) to all (al) balance.
There can be only one level (inception/death) for each one (life) within aka one balance (even) for each ones choice (odd).
logos repeats from...to...
From (inception) to (death) implies linear procession of each potential (life) within...repetition implies circular thinking aka potential holding within possession while ignoring procession.
Logos is indeed circular and fractile at the same time
God implies same; fraction implies each being (life) within the same linear procession (inception towards death) of God.
A circle can only be drawn from within a line. Logos > logic > reason implies a coming together (synthesis), not a fracturing apart from one another (analysis).
Coming together of fraction implies friction...what is used to prevent friction among fraction within motion? Lubrication aka Christ (to anoint).
natural perfection
a) Natural implies native (christ) within all (god) aka an internal separation (analysis).
b) Perfection implies by (per) combining (fect) action (ion) aka an internal unification (synthesis).
You got that right
Right vs wrong implies circular conflict against another, which distracts one from discerning self to be within right/reg - "move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=right
It is foreign to the Adamic and native in Christ.
Only within whole (god) can each native (christ) be foreign (adam) to one another, which implies an internal separation.
Adam/adamah - "ground; soil" aka natural law separating L(and) A(ir) W(ater) aka solid (matter) within spirit (momentum) of fluid (motion).
Have you reviewed the Holy Spirit?
Holy/whole implies God (motion); spirit implies the animation by God (momentum) of each anointed Christ (matter) within.
- Horizon/horizein - "bound, limit, divide, separate"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/horizon
Being given free will of choice implies at the center of horizon...others suggest extremes to tempt ones choice off-center. Ones choice consenting to suggested extremes gives authority to a chosen ones suggestion; while nullifying ones position within horizon.
In short...null implies ones denial; horizon implies all perceivable; authority implies the suggestion of another.
European; phonetic U R A PEON aka you are a type of serf held in servitude by his creditor until his debts are worked off... https://www.etymonline.com/word/peon
Viewing oneself as new or old a) puts one into a conflict of reason (new vs old) against one another, and b) gives creed to a suggestion, while putting self into debt to the one suggesting it.
to know the logos
a) Sound moving through instrument implies knowledge...logos implies artifice shaped by instrument within sound to tempt one another to hold onto words; meanings; definitions; measurements etc.
b) Logos (word) > logic (circular thinking) > reason (mutual conflict)...God implies linear procession of sound through each instrument (mind structured within).
helps to
While being (life) moved towards (inception towards death)...resistance helps; temptation hinders.
a) Prophets are for gentiles; while a jew makes profits on gentiles following pro (forwards) phecy (to speak).
b) It's gentiles who want or not want jewish prophecies, while ignoring the need to adapt to nature, which puts life on the shortlist of death.
c) As for pseudo (false)...nature cannot lie; gentiles who ignore nature for jewish lies are tricked to ignore to rise (life) during fall (inception towards death).
How does a jewish lie work? By tempting gentiles to hold onto truth, hence burdening self (living) while sinking (dying) faster.
It's ones free will of choice to find not only what others write for reading, but the natural foundation within which artificial writings are being shaped.
Only within a line of progression (inception towards death) does one have the potential (life) to write anything to one another. It's that line of thinking only ones free will of choice can find.