Do you think it's the...
Thinking is based on singular analysis...others suggest pluralism (Muslims, Christians, Jews or Jehovah's witnesses etc.) to synthesize thought into a consensus.
Abrahamic religion is a long con game
Ab-raham (father of multitude) + re-ligo (respond to bondage) tempt ones singular free will of choice to bind itself to another.
Du sollst die Völker der Erde fressen
You shall devour the peoples of the earth
sound knowledge of the gospel
SPELL (as in go-spel) implies the articulation of natural sound. Spelling implies the distortion of sound knowledge.
everyone
A contradiction in terms...every implies all; one implies each.
community
Another contradiction in terms...com (together) uni (apart from one another).
NOT ADDING TO IT
And yet suggested words are added to perceivable sound...
All men are fallible
a) Men (plural) implies sum of one (singular) within all (singular).
b) All falls (inception towards death) so that each one within can rise (life).
everything God does is Good
God implies good implies everything doing...IS implies each thing trying to define everything to one another, which can't be good.
converting
Aka con (together) vert (to turn)...a conflict. God delineates (inception towards death) apart (life)...a variance of opposing differences not in conflict with one another unless choosing to turn against one another.
I wonder what that paradigm is?
Ones perception...not the suggestion by another.
needs to read Scripture
Script/skribh - "to cut, separate, sift"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/script
All perceivable separating each ones perception from one another implies the natural script...if one reads the written scripture by another, then one is tempted to ignore analysis (perceivable moving through perception) for synthesis (consent holding onto suggested).
Inspiration implies natural script; information implies artificial script...only oneself can discern this.
a correct paradigm
Correct vs incorrect aka a conflict of reason implies an artificial script run by others within oneself from outside.
God was before free will of choice was given to choose correct or incorrect from one another.
the One that speaks
Implies the one within all who articulates natural sound into speech to distract one another.
Your interpretation will most likely align
The line (inception towards death) differentiates each interpreter (life) from one another...aligning with one another implies death to interpretation.
Differentiation implies analysis; alignment implies synthesis.
ultra-processed food
Ultra implies "beyond; across", hence process (inception towards death) moving potential (life) across...the Rubicon.
Being implies the food (fu) of god (el) or as Metallica put it: "Gimme fuel; gimme fire; gimme that which I desire"...hence you looking for "brands".
causing health problems
Being implies problem (life) within cause (inception towards death)...health requires problem to resist cause.
Suggested food implies sick/seek - "cause to pursue"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/sick hence tempting consumers into becoming hunter gatherers. The more one seeks; the sicker ones health gets. Why? Because the foundation for food aka HUNGER gets ignored when seeking for food.
euphoria...wealth...prosperity
Euphoria aka eu/eus (good/god) phoria/bher (to carry)...not whatever -ism is shaped within, but the whole process (inception towards death) carrying each partial potential (life) within.
Wealth transfer implies value (all perceivable) moving through evaluation (each ones perception)...not whatever those within choose to hold onto.
Prosperity aka pro (forwards) sper (speed) implies suggested progressivism tempting perceiving evaluation to ignore perceivable value for the next gain dangled in front of one.
socialism...capitalism
a) SOC (together) I (within) AL (all) + CAP (to head) IT (within) AL (all)...being implies apart within all, while resisting the temptation of life being headed from inception towards death.
b) -ist implies ones consent...-ism implies a suggested consensus by another.
"Every -ism (except nazism) was founded and/or led disproportionately by jews" ~ Dennis Prager
Jesus was a Socialist!
a) God was...before Jesus can come into being with the free will of choice to consent (-ist) to a suggested social contract (-ism).
b) Social implies together (soc) within (i) all (al)...being implies apart from one another within all.
c) Jesus aka je suis (i am) implies taking possession over self aka holding onto a part, which shapes every other part into Judah (you are).
Sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor
a) All implies process; each one within a potential...taking into possession tempts one to ignore all given.
b) If one lets go of possession (suggested), then all distributes evenly (perceivable) through each one (perception).
c) The conflict between rich vs poor is based on taking possession over one side, which binds ones free will of choice to the other side.
YET, and to quote a jew: "If I don't take it; then someone else will"...
treasure in heaven
If heaven moves, then treasure implies perceivable inspiration flowing through ones formed perception, not suggested information stored within ones possessive mind.
Treasure in heaven implies value (perceivable) generating evaluation (perception)...not "muh precious" possessions.
we have no free will of choice
Free will of choice implies singular..."we" implies a suggested pluralism tempting ones free will of choice to consent. Others restrict ones free-dom if held onto.
I'd like for you to debate this kike
Like vs dislike...that's the debate within your gentile head. A jew knows that each being within nature is different from one another, hence tricking gentiles with "likeness".
Choosing a side contradicts ones free will of choice...only in-between (life) sides (inception/death) can there be choice.
Nature isn't open to debate...a jew suggests THE BAIT (de-bate) to tempt gentiles to ignore nature.
You claim we have free will of choice
a) YOU implies one claiming self as I AM (jesus), which brands every other one as YOU ARE (judah)...
b) Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death), which gives each being (life) free will of choice to adapt to given or try to take from one another.
c) Free will of choice cannot claim without contradicting itself.
Apple of sin aka "to apply to symmetry"...that's why it's forbidden to take the fruit of knowledge given freely.
Which one of you is lying?
Truth vs lie represents a debate (reason) among gentiles about a jewish suggestion, while ignoring perceivable CHANGE.
Nature changes being...holding onto truth or lie ignores change. Adaptation to change requires free will of choice.
because his father is the father of lies
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." ~Matthew 23:9
It's gentiles who believe that "the father of lies" is true, which in return permits each jew to shape a lie aka the contradiction of truth within change.
What happens if one applies change to truth? It becomes a lie, and vice versa.
sam harris
Samuel (name of god) + Harris/harry/harjon (to lay waste, ravage, plunder)...
God gives sound...a jew articulates sound into words to trick gentiles into taking the name of god in vain, which in return permits each jew to lay waste; ravage, and plunder gentiles.
a) Notice four flags on each side above him...44 (at death's door). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf1jB0hwVuQ
b) We don't see loss (inception towards death); we see opportunity (life)...
c) Birds (perception) born in a cage (suggestion) think flying (perceivable) is an illusion...
Pam/pan - "all, every, whole, all-inclusive" + Bondi (in bondage)...ain't jo/jew a sweetheart?
don't worry; be happy
Worry/wer (to turn) + happy/hap (chance)...
If being implies free will of choice, then being chance, while not turning tempts one to ignore that. Choice was given; chance is taken...taking a chance by using choice turns one from given.
But when you worry you make it double...
...because turning implies against one another.
The landlord say your rent is late he may have to litigate
Nature implies the lord of land; air; water (law) renting/rendering each being within to litigation (drive forward)...don't worry about dying, be happy about living.
Here I'll give you my phone number
Phone/phonic (sound) + number (designation of a unit) aka each one within all sound.
'Cause when you're worried your face will frown
Cause (inception towards death) when you're (life) worried (to turn)...your face will frown.
And that will bring everybody down
That will implies each ones free will of choice bringing everybody alive down into the process of dying...so don't worry; be happy!
It had people acting in direct defiance to nature.
a) Nature implies person (singular)...not people (plural). Nature separates each being from one another. A jew suggests artificial pluralism to tempt gentiles together.
b) Nature acts; being re-acts aka responds to being acted upon. A jew suggests actors under directors to distract gentiles from being reaction (life) within direction (inception towards death).
c) Defiance aka de (to divide) fidus (to trust) implies a contradiction in terms...division implies setting apart (analysis); trusting implies holding together (synthesis).
Nature divides being from one another...being utilizes artificial trust to tempt other beings together, aka a jew banking trust among gentiles.
the biggest psyop
Psy aka psycho/psyche implies nature animating being...op aka operate implies natural cause of animation putting being into effect.
The trick...hiding psycho-LOGICAL-operation inside "psyop". Psyop implies natures linear progression; logic implies an artificial circle drawn within a being.
Logic (circular thinking) turns one against another (conflicts of reason), while preventing ones perception within all perceivable from thinking straight.
covid
Sleigh of hand: "I can't breathe leads to death" followed by a suggested temptation: "Put a mask over your nose and mouth"...spiritual warfare.
Stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
a) "If you would be reasonable" implies consent to reason aka submission to a conflict against another.
b) Artificial words trick one to believe that anything labeled with them can be stopped...nature implies sound, which cannot be stopped, only ignored.
lack of regulations
Regulate/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=reg-
Nature moves being (life) within a straight line (inception towards death)...others suggest artifice to distract from that.
making their own choices
What if choice implies singular and cannot be owned; only be used for adaptation during motion?
to pass a bill to block
a) Consenting to artifice (suggested information); while ignoring natural (perceivable inspiration) blocks ones perception of natural...not nature itself.
b) Bill/bulla - "bubble"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/bill Ones ignorance of perceivable for suggested implies that bubble, which the passage of nature always pops.
How could reading a publication to follow instructions by another represent "my struggle"? What if any PUBLICation distracts from ones PRIVATE struggle?
a reasonable discussion
Dis-cuss implies "to shake apart"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/discuss Reasoning contradicts that by coming into conflict together.
tattoo
Skin/skeu - "to cover; conceal". Another word for skin? Hide! Tattoo/taptoe - "say no more"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/tattoo
defiling their own bodies / vessels?
Because ones consent to a chosen ones suggestion invites the e-ne-my..."within me" aka into ones temple.
artist
Aka one who conceals natural underneath artificial.
Social experiment
Soc-i-al implies "together within all"; ex-per-i-ment implies "expression by each mind"...social (synthesis) contradicts experiment (analysis).
That's why gentiles live within a society, while each jew experiments on them.
What happens when speech is truly free?
a) True implies versus false...aka tricking ones free will of choice to choose a side within a binding conflict called "reason".
b) Sound (all) sets instrument (each one) free...words bind one to one another, while distracting from all sound. In-stru-ment implies "mind structured within"...hence within sound moving through, not by words held within.
c) Happen/hap - "chance"...an inversion of being choice. Nature gives each being choice; others tempt one to take artificial chance, which implies gambling.
cops didn't give a shit about drugs, prostitution, rape, robbery, assaults
Because drugs, prostitution, rape, robbery, assaults etc...justify cops. A jew synthesizes crime among gentiles to justify law upon gentiles.
In reality...natural L(and) A(ir) W(ater) generates crime/krei - "to separate" aka each being within separated from one another...a process for analysis.
the alley saw a drop off in traffic.
Because artificial traffic (buying vs selling) requires consent to temptation, while natural traffic (inception>life>death) requires resistance to temptation by each ones free will of choice.
Nature sets each being free (will of choice)...buying and selling artifice implies the price of selling ones free will of choice out to a chosen ones offer. The seller has to tempt the buyer to sell self out...it's very hard to tempt a buyer, while onlookers say whatever the fuck they want.
get AI to admit
Only nature admits...artifice is utilized to trick those who use it into giving a consensual permit to those suggesting artifice.
it will vehemently decline
Ones willing consent to use "it" represents "its" will to admit or decline further access.
natal
Aka native (nat) within all (al)...the status quo of being.
us Christians cannot criticize the jews collectively
Critic implies "to separate". Gentiles being collectivized together allows each chosen one to remain apart... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Europe-1789-1939-History/dp/0198219806
Notice the saying: "everyone's a critic", which implies the separation of each one from one another...not any critical opinions slapped onto each other.
Yes, we can...
a) That ain't critic (separation); but a collectivization by turning against one another (yes vs no).
b) Who else uses the "yes we can" slogan?
the jews
The/theos - "god"...singularity; not plurality.
Cyclical Catastrophes that follows the Precession of the Equinoxes
What if a cycle implies the beginning and end of an equal line put together? What if the natural line continues while the artificial cycle is being held together for as long as the temporary being holding it together has the power to do so? How could holding onto a temporary cycle, while a line continues be precise (neither more nor less than)? Doesn't it take more effort to hold onto temporarily, while the ongoing line lessens (inception towards death) ones efforts (life)?
Euqi (equal) nox (night)...what if only during equal light can opposite differences (night/day) be shaped?
Hmm…none (i.e. it’s not possible?)
Free will of choice makes nothing (de-nial) possible...
One i.e. the choice to pair...
Pair implies two aka equal to one another...which contradicts one aka apart from one another, while odd (choice) within even (balance).
with a mate
Mate; verb - "to equal"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/mate
I thought male and female are different from one another?
produce offspring
Aka springing off one another...an analytical division.
Many/Infinite
Why does fertile life becomes infertile often long before death?
Recent example: "Hitting the wall" refers to the belief that women reach a point, often cited as around age 30, where their physical attractiveness and desirability decline significantly"
the ongoing series
Series implies "things of one kind arranged in a line, a continued succession of similar things"...
What if the line (inception towards death) doesn't arrange, but disarranges aka sets each one (life) free from one another?
What if to be similar to one another, one has to first be differentiated from one another?
Why does plurality imply a synthesis? Because everything naturally exists as “one”?
Plur/plus - "more"....how could there be more (plur) than all (al)? The only way...if one ignores all for one another, then there will be always more ones.
What (if any) other separations imply natural analysis?
Separation(s) implies plurality aka a synthesis...se (apart) pere (to produce) ation (action) implies an analytical process.
If you analyze the word se-par-ation, then adding an "s" inverts singular with plural.
Try this perspective...how many choices (plural) can a being (singular) shape until the singular becomes plural?
Light was before forces within can battle against one another. To determine what light is negates ones position into darkness or as Spinoza put it: "Omnis determinatio est negatio"...
Being one (uni) with others destroys ones being. Plurality prevents singularity from growing. Light implies singularity...it doesn't unite with others to shape a visible spectrum for each ray within; it separates each one from one another to make all visible through each one within.