I believe that our central problem is that we do not know what or who a human being really is
Believing implies holding onto...being implies potential problem (life) at center of dissolving process (inception towards death). As long as one holds onto; so long remains self discernment burdensome.
word
Being implies instrument (mind structured within) sound...others shape words to tempt one to ignore that aka spell-craft.
why we hit upon the right word so rarely
Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/right
Sound moves any instrument (life) within a straight line (inception towards death)...others tempt one into a circular conflict (right vs wrong).
Everything we do to, for, and against each other is speech
Everything implies sound; each thing within implies instrument...others suggest words (logos) to turn instruments inwards (logic) and outwards (reason).
Because we don't know what words are
Words represents the articulation of natural sound by means of letters aka ones choice LETTING a chosen one craft spells.
art of being
Nature generates being...artificial (suggestion) distracts being from natural (perception).
the self-healing of consciousness
Con/co - "together"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/com-
Self implies apart from one another...few tempt many together to exploit the resulting friction among them.
psychology
Psycho implies natural linear animating power; logy implies artificial logic aka circular thinking. One needs to adapt to psycho/psyche, while resisting the temptation of logy/logic to be able to think straight.
unfree nature of today's consciousness.
Con (together) scio (to perceive)...ones CONsent to any suggestion by another shapes a CONsensus among many called CONsciousness aka collective conscious aka gestalt intelligence aka hivemind aka golem/goyim etc.
How does one consent to any suggestion? By ones FREE will of choice, which thereby binds itself to a chosen one.
They worship
Both pluralism (they) and nominalism (worth) are suggested by a jew to tempt gentiles to consent aka "they worship" when giving consent to any suggestion by a chosen one.
Nature implies singularity for each singular unit within. Ones perception within all perceivable implies a "ship within worth" aka a removable vessel within moving value.
own
Nature gives each being FREE will of choice...taking from one another tempts one to ignore given. A jew suggests that taking by paying a price allows one to own whatever one bought, yet surprise; surprise...gentiles keep loosing whatever they bought from a jew, because nature moves and cannot be held onto, which the gentile gollum/golem/goyim ignores for "muh precious" ownership.
race
Nature generating being implies light > spectrum > ray/race...a jew tempts gentiles to ignore this process of separation (analysis) by suggesting them to be part of races (synthesis).
Being implies ray apart...not race together or race towards a goal.
Hashem will take revenge against all the anti-semitic goyim, they will all be destroyed once for all
a) The Tree of Life, or Etz haChayim (עץ החיים) in Hebrew, is a mystical symbol used in the Kabbalah of esoteric Judaism to describe the path to HaShem and the manner in which he created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo
b) HA-SHEM implies "the name"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashem
If a gentile takes the name; then a gentile believes in creation out of nothing/nihilo aka nihil-ism and de-nial of perceivable sound for suggested words, which will destroy gentiles.
c) "will all be" implies all giving each one within free will of choice. Taking any name suggested by a chosen one binds ones free will of choice.
In short...nature gives being; it doesn't give the name (ha-shem) to any being. Taking the name implies in vain... "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave unpunished the one who takes His name in vain." ~Exodus 20:7
d) MASHIACH implies "anointed one" aka each Christ aka each one being anointed within all of nature.
Being given being implies MASHIACH; taking the name implies HA-SHEM...the former implies living; the latter implies dying.
Sorry for the late reply...
False. It implies a true line and a false line colliding until there is none of the false line and only the true line remains.
a) God implies one aka singularity...true and false implies dualism aka a plurality.
b) False versus true implies versus/verto - "to turn" aka a circular rotation.
c) Before one can collide (strike together) there has to be a separation from one another...only during linear progression (inception towards death) can there be potential separation (life) to collide against one another.
d) True and false imply options for ones choice...God giving choice implies a linear procession of cause into effect aka of action into reaction aka of if into then.
e) Remain implies each ones response (life) to the main line (inception toward death)
f) What you call true and false lines implies the beginning and end of one line put together into a circle aka the ouroboros eating its own tail. This circle of self harm represents logic inwardly and reason outwardly.
g) If there's only truth, then there couldn't be choice.
You don't even need to take anything.
a) YOU is based on taking possession of self as "me; myself or I". Without I no YOU, hence I O U (I owe/own You). All gives each one the free will of choice to take self into possession, but not without getting possessed by another, hence IAM (jesus) getting possessed by YOU ARE (judah).
b) DON'T implies taking possession of "doing nothing", while ignoring being done within everything given.
c) Both YOU and DON'T put one at odds with one another, while ignoring that even (balance) gives odd (choice).
d) Anything implies a separation of everything, which requires from each thing the need to resist the wanted temptation of anything else.
Being given free will of choice implies being able to choose to take anything...taking binds choice within given.
Someone can just drop something
One implies apart from one another (analysis)...some/sum implies together with one another (synthesis). What you call just is at odds with one another aka a contradiction.
The sum of all things implies dying; the separation of each thing implies living. A jew utilizes mosaic law to summon gentiles together; thereby inverting living into dying.
a gift
Only all perceivable gives/gifts ones perception; while any suggested gift implies poison... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz
If you take something, you only do one or the other (right or wrong)
a) Nature does, while each being within pretends to do right or wrong against one another, instead of re-doing self.
b) Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/*reg- not right vs wrong circular conflict.
So are you a Christian?
Coming into being implies christ (to anoint)...joining christianity destroys the anointed mind through possession aka I AM (jesus).
What's Christianity without Jesus? Torah (instruction) aka being within (in) structure (struct) of action (ion).
And don't do any "THIS IMPLIES THAT"
Implication (if/then) represents the foundation for thinking straight aka if cause (perceivable); then effect (perception)...others tempting one into do vs don't reasoning doesn't change the foundation.
The giver exists.
EX implies "outwards". If God could express outwards, then there would be more than God outside of God...that contradicts "one and only".
So what if God (whole) impresses each ones (partial) expression within God? What if God implies energy (internal/inherent power)?
Only inwards (impression) can there be outwards (expression). Nature impresses before a being expresses. Nature forces animation through before a being inhales/ exhales in response.
GIVING THINGS TO PEOPLE KILLS THEM
God giving person aka per (by) sonos (sound) generates each instrument (mind structured within)...a singular process. A jew suggests plurality (people) while distracting gentiles from perceivable sound with suggestible words.
"Inception towards death" doesn't exist.
What about the life in-between? Doesn't life have an inception and a death? What moves life from beginning towards end? If life is animated, then how could animation not generate a momentum (inception towards death) for matter (life) to become re-animated?
Nobody but you believe in such a concept.
a) Concept implies taking together... how could "nobody but you" take anything together?
b) To believe implies holding onto, so how could one hold onto "inception towards death", which implies an ongoing momentum?
c) Concepts and beliefs imply synthesis (holding together)...free-will-of-choice analyses (sets apart). This is why you had to ask me if I am a christian believer.
you base WORLDVIEW BELIEFS on SONGS?
Only within sound can a song be shaped...few write songs to distract many from sound, while using the written spell-craft as a sleight of hand for those with eyes to see.
Or to quote another song... https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/simongarfunkel/thesoundofsilence.html
- People talking without speaking
- People hearing without listening
- People writing songs that voices never shared
- No one dared
- Disturb the sound of silence
wordgame-based
Words are based on sound. Games are based on given choice taking chance.
PUT CERTAIN WORDS IN CERTAIN POSITIONS
What if sound allowing instrument to discern self reveals ones position within all to each one, while the words shaped by one another make everything uncertain?
THIS MEANS SOMETHING
Something implies "sum of things". Thinks within a sum implies a measurement taken aka a meaning. While beings hold artificial meaning together...nature separates each being from one another.
guywholikesDjtof2024 + free-will-of-choice means "two"; yet being apart from "one" another contradicts meaning...what if one was perceivable (natural analysis), while two is suggested (artificial synthesis)?
If your worldview is false, then you should reject it
a) True vs false (reason) contradicts if/then (implication)...if and then aren't in conflict with one another. If was before then comes into being.
b) Re-ject-ion implies reaction (life) ejected by action (inception towards death).
If you stop
If...then...implies motion. Stop implies the suggested "cessation of motion". If I park a car at a stop sign, then does it stop the car from rusting? What about saying "stop" while being raped? Seems like stop represents a mental distortion of an ongoing reality...
be normal
Normal/norma - "carpenter's square"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/normal A jew uses a compass to draw a circle around gentile norms aka freemasonry.
What if free will of choice allows each one to be exceptional instead of a normie?
will come your way
Being implies coming into will (life) within way (inception towards death)...
will come your way. Linear progression!!
Your implies taking possession aka holding onto a side (yours vs mine) aka circular conflict.
"true implies versus false (circular conflict)" ...Arbitrary
a) Arbiter; noun - "person who has power of judging absolutely according to his own pleasure"...hence judge not; lest ye be judged.
b) Versus/verto - "to turn" aka a circle.
It could be shaped an octagonal prism for all I care
All was linear before anything can be shaped within. Try to shape a circle or an octagonal prism without a line...
There is no circle for trust to be in
Trust VERSUS (verto; to turn) distrust...holding onto either side shapes the circle. Same trick as is vs isn't and yes vs no.
You think trust is a physical thing, don't you.
Physical trust implies reason, mental trust implies logic...baiting mental trust (consent) into physical trust (consensus) implies logos.
Like how athiests believe all is matter.
Consenting to an -ism (atheism) shapes different beings alike one another. Believing implies consenting to one another's suggestions. Only within all motion can each one matter come into being.
Show me this imagined "circle".
Imagination aka image (artificial circle) within action (natural line). Image; noun - "piece of statuary; artificial representation "... https://www.etymonline.com/word/image
Holding onto anything during linear progression establishes rotation...
Your claims about circles are unfounded and not true
Claim/clamer - "to call, name, describe"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/claim Notice that nature doesn't call; name or describe any being within.
Because it (nature) allows other things to give them.
Nature gives the separation of each being from one another...pretending to give allowances to one another ignores that all was already given to each one within. Nature (linear progression) cannot hold back; only give forwards.
Notice that them (plural) contradicts it (singular)...
And it's not sentient, so how could it care?
Sentience implies being SEND, to care implies being CARRIED aka a transfer of life from inception towards death. Nature sends each sentient being, while carrying things to carry for those who ignore singularity for plurality.
Wait, you're not the source of FWOC????
a) Nature cannot wait; it moves, which generates momentum (balance) for matter (choice).
b) Free implies within dominance; will/want implies within need; of implies out of/within/in response to, and choice implies within balance.
c) Being within nature implies effect within source...viewing one another as source of anything implies the temptation of "affection".
Source separates each effect (analysis); affection tempts effects together (synthesis).
"True and false are optional"...INCORRECT
How did you choose between correct or incorrect? Option (choice) al (balance) implies nature giving each being the option how to adapt. True vs false represent artificial imbalance for ones optional choice.
we live
Living implies apart from one another, hence as an OFF-SPRING. Others suggest pluralism to invert each singular mind into a controlled environment called "consensus".
integrated into all
Integration (together within) represents the inversion of separation (apart within). Only within whole can there be partials, putting partials together implies summation, hence being summoned by others.
A sum of partials cannot ever form a whole, because the process of separation from whole into partial takes a toll. Look at any puzzle...putting the pieces together cannot ever achieve the whole picture on the box, because the separating lines will always show.
Mosaic law implies a game of puzzle each jew plays with the sum of consenting gentiles. That's tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together)...falling for it tricks each gentiles to waste being on trying to fix and fit into, instead of shaping temporary form (life) within ongoing flow (inception towards death).
"Primary" can't and doesn't give anything because it's not a noun
Prim (first) al (all)...then anyone within. Nouns are utilized by chosen ones to trick consenting to ones to hold onto secondary labels within primary motion.
Nature doesn't noun/name any being. Natural sound moves each instrumental being apart from one another, which another exploits to shape words as names to direct instruments aka each jew playing most gentiles like a fiddle.
Maybe you meant "optional"
Prim (first) al (all) + option (choice) al (all)...that's how analysis works, while holding onto meaning implies a synthesis.
you have to offer an alternative
If one accepts any offer by another, then one ignores being the native (life) within altering (inception towards death) nature.
Nature offers being...taking (want) ignores given (need).
recorded
If one responds to a cord, the one binds ones free will of choice to another.
being cheated
Cheat implies "that which falls to one"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/cheat
Being implies rising (life) during fall (inception towards death).
to foment fear
Both fear and hope tempt one to ignore perceivable origin for suggested outcome, which tranquilizes ones natural mind, while fermenting ones artificial mind.
If you want to break...
...then one needs to resist wanted temptation. Nature (whole) gives being (partial) a break.
Symbology aka syn (together) + bol (to throw) + logy (circular logic)...nature throws being (life) apart from one another within a linear process (inception towards death)l.
The issue with symbols...holding onto artifice, while ignoring natural division.
It's jewish to know how things work now?
Only nature works, which employs the mind of each being within... a jew tempts gentiles to ignore perceivable knowledge (natural) by seeking suggested understanding (artificial) thereby tricking ones choice to willingly "stand-under" a chosen one.
Understanding inverts knowledge...if consented to.
"LUX"! Great catch
One can't catch light without distorting sight...
So they haven't changed their ways at all.
It's the trust of many which ignores change, which in return permits few to reshape anything within the only natural way of lucis/lux - "light"...
What if one's free will of choice chooses to deny the suggestion? Was Jesus not God then?
"God" + "Jesus" imply suggested labels...all perceivable doesn't label itself for anyone's perception within. Affirmation vs denial are only about suggestions. Perceivable hunger and thirst force adaptation no matter if one affirms or denies....it's that moving force which others hide underneath labels, and without ones consent those labels wouldn't stick.
Can free will bind itself?
Only free will of choice can bind itself, hence the use of suggestion to bait consent into binding free will of choice.
is it bound from binding itself?
Nature continues to give balance, which generates each beings "free" will of choice...choosing to bind self implies artificial imbalance for as long as being ignores natural balance.
Within given (need)...one's always free to take (want) and let go (not want). Need forces not want (evil) upon want (good), hence the evil ones dominating effortlessly while mocking the servitude of the good ones.
a) Stream (inception towards death) generates vessel (life)...a jew suggests "mainstream" + "currency" + "progressivism" etc. to tempt gentiles to follow.
b) Consenting to suggested words within perceivable sound...permits another to program how one thinks.
What a stupid claim.
How can one claim without choosing a side like stupid vs intelligent? Where does free-will-of-choice took the "intelligent" opposition to the "stupid" claim?
The entirety of my comments
COM (together) MENT(mind)...nature's entirety separates each mental entity from one another. A jew suggests comment-sections to tempt gentiles together, which represents a call for remembrance aka commemoration.
a kid isn't free to choose which blocks to put in which holes
It's the suggested block puzzle, which tricks a kids free will of choice to bind itself to a game by ignoring choice given for chance taken.
Furthermore...the fitting blocks into hole/whole game implies tikkun olam (repairing the world by putting together). Notice furthermore that the kids' FREE development is being tempted by BLOCKS aka blocking free.
Claiming does NOT contradict seeing.
DOES implies given; NOT implies taken....nature does before one comes into being; only afterwards can one take "not" from one another.
A child doesn't know what NO means until someone chooses to domesticate the child into yes vs no reasoning aka using denialism (no) to tempt compliance (yes)...a trick where both sides tempt free will of choice to bind itself willingly.
No it doesn't.
Here's a quote from John Taylor Gatto's 'Weapons of Mass Instruction":
"Scientific management is always on guard against people who don’t fit securely into boxes, whether because of too much competency, too much creativity, too much popularity, or what have you. Although often hired, it is with the understanding they must be kept on a short leash and regarded warily. The ideal hireling is reflexively obedient, cheerfully enthusiastic about following orders, ever eager to please. Training for this position begins in the first grade with the word, DON'T"
"Don’t run; don’t talk; don’t climb trees; don’t play rough; don’t talk unless you raise your hand; don’t fidget; don’t get out of your seat; don’t stare out the window; don’t take your shoes off; don’t eat or drink in class; don’t laugh; don’t take too long; don’t read ahead; don’t go off the path; don’t say ‘I’m bored’; don’t mix with older kids; don’t complain; don’t bring toys, etc. together with the implied don’ts: don’t have your own ideas; don’t show initiative; don’t be independent; don’t make your own choices; don’t take responsibility for your own learning."
"There are more don’ts than days in the calendar, a tattoo without end. This non-stop negativity breaks many a spirit. The most enduring legacy of the DON’T drill is indifference to everything except narcotic anodynes like violence, rudeness, cruelty, alcohol, and actual drugs with which the negativity can be escaped."
Wrong
Wrong versus right implies keeping within a circle, while ignoring line given.
Keeping implies...
...taking given; thereby shaping a contradiction in-between taking rightfully vs wrongfully.
you know
One knows...you is based on me, hence an understanding (standing under one another). It's I AM (jesus) who defines what YOU ARE (judah).
the giver exists
a) Giving implies IM-pression, being given implies EX-pression aka impression (inception towards death) gives expression (life).
Taking represses expression or as Madonna put it: "Express yourself; don't repress yourself; and I'm not sorry; it's human nature".
b) Putting THE before GIVER contradicts the first commandment.
Not true. But if true, so what?
If implies then (linear progression); true implies versus false (circular conflict)...that's how ones trust in either true or false side was banked inwardly (logic) and outwardly (reason) within a confining circle.
Nature doesn't give true or false options to bind self...nature gives free will of choice. True and false are optional to what primary gives.
Nature inspired the entirety
Nature implies entirety; being implies entity...only within entirety can each entity come into being.
your worldview
One cannot be "free" will of choice by claiming a worldview. Claiming contradicts seeing.
justice doesnt exist
Only within a just natural law can each being be partisan...it's judging one another under made up laws which tempts one to ignore natural law.
courts
Aka a formal assembly (gentiles) held by a sovereign (jew). Formal implies formed (life) within all (inception towards death) by being set apart from one another.
Nature dissembles...each jew artificially assembles ignorant gentiles.
Keep the faith
a) Keeping ignores the all giving.
b) Ones faith/bheidh - "trust" permits another to bank it.
Uniting states steals separate status by arms/ar - "to fit together"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/arm#etymonline_v_17001
- 1933: Judea declares war against Germany.
- 1941: "Germany must perish" by Theodore N. Kaufman.
mission is to uncover
Mission/mittere - "to send" aka sending information by influence. Influencer cover a wide variety of topics to blanket audiences under information.
Nature doesn't cover...it reveals by moving inspiration through each being.
Is...
God was...that's what one needs to respond to, while resisting the temptation to want vs not want to respond to what another suggests "is".
Lord and God
There's only singularity. And/en (in)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/and implies each one within all singularity. Suggested labels like "lord" or "god" tempts one to ignore that by attaching LAB (parchment) upon EL (all).
if one's free will of choice chooses not...
...then free binds itself to de-nial (nihilo; nothing).
not to believe
To believe nothing implies denying everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested), while permitting those who suggest to shape nothing into something (sum of things).
not to believe the suggestion...
...implies consenting to the suggested by choosing a side (yes or no), while ignoring ones sight within perceivable; which isn't bound to any side, but "free" will of choice in-between.
to believe...
...implies denying to be forwarded by holding onto something mentally (ideal) or physically (idol).
myself
How could self be mine if perpetuation of self implies by intercourse through one another for off-spring?
Mine implies holding onto (synthesis); off-spring implies letting go (analysis).
Community Question: Yes Responses Requested.
Does one have free will of choice...within a community, within a yes vs no conflict; when responding to one another's questions and answers?
Is Jesus Christ Lord and God?
a) God WAS perceivable, before anyone within can suggest to one another what IS. Any answer to what is...distracts from what was.
b) Jesus (je suis; I AM) contradicts Christ (anointed one)...the former implies possessive synthesis; the latter an expressive analysis.
c) God implies Lord unless ignored for one another by making a contract between suggestion and consent aka master and slave aka lord and servant.
d) Jesus Christ is Lord and God if ones free will of choice chooses to believe the suggestion thereof...and nobody else can change ones free will of choice, only deceive or oppose it.
inaction
Which implies being within action, hence acted upon, and not as suggested "not active", but reactive.
is the same as
God implies same; being within implies differentiation by God and from one another...others suggest likeness to equalize differences.
it's not a matter of consensus
Yes or no tempts ones "free" will of choice to consent to a "binding" side within a conflict.
it's not a matter of consensus but of collection
CON + COL implies "together"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/col- Matter implies set apart from one another within motion.
testimony
A witness testimony (suggestion) tempts one to ignore being a participant (perception) within whole (perceivable) aka perjury.
Now use this on "the jews only do evil"...
- THE implies theism suggested by partial to partial as a distraction from whole.
- jEWS implies a summation of partials in ignorance of holy divination (whole separating partial)
- ONLY implies singularity, which both theism and summation distract from.
- DO implies God acting...not any partial within reacting to one another.
- EVIL implies a) the inversion of being a-live, and b) a conflict of reason (good vs evil) among partials in ignorance of good/god.
Any word gentiles are re-using implies layers of deceit consented to aka spell-craft, and words are crafted by letters aka by ones choice letting a chosen one craft.
Kids in the 80s blowing into an NES cartridge be like: "What do you mean with inventing and innovating?"