1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

a) EL implies ALL...only within all can ones essence come into being.

b) It's easier to see in vessel/vassal aka vass (servant) al (all).

c) Words can only be shaped within sound/sanus - "whole; entire; all"...

d) Make/mag - "to knead, fashion, fit"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/make

Holding onto anything shaped implies "make-believe"...like words shaped within sound aka spell-craft.

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

restricted to those of...Levi.

Levi/levy - "to raise" aka ones rise (life) during fall (inception towards death).

Rising requires ones free will of choice...suggested restrictions bind ones free will of choice if consented to.

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

What does God...

God...what else?

What does God need

God implies need for each want within.

spaceship

Space/spatior (to wander) + ship (vessel) implies each being within God.

Furthermore...vESSEl (essence) vessEL (god). What's god essence? Each being within all of God!

computer

Aka putting (puter) together (com)... users are putting themselves together by using any suggested "computer". Those who suggest others to compute are gaining control over computing power, hence power above (super) ones free will of choice.

The consensus among gentile choices becomes the super-computing-power of each chosen one.

Apart implies natural...together implies artificial.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

I AM (jesus) + YOU ARE (judah)..."i am" implies taking possession of oneself, which brands one another as "you are", which is how jesus invites judah representing the betrayal of oneself.

4
free-will-of-choice 4 points ago +4 / -0

a) Changing of the guard from "anchorman" to "influencer".

b) Collectivization of catholicism and nationalism within a controlled environment.

c) Antisemitism as revelation of method and street-cred currency.

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

every one of us is god

a) EACH one within all of god..."every" implies suggested collectivism.

b) ONE within all of god..."us" implies suggested collectivism.

c) God WAS before one comes into being..."is" implies suggested determinism.

That's a demonic hegalian gnostic

a) ALL WAS before one can suggest "that is" to one another.

b) Demon aka dai-mon - "provider/divider"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/demon

All provides division to each one. To be implies DE (divided) within MON (provided).

c) Gnostic/nosti - "to know" implies each ones perception within all perceivable. Suggested gnostic-ism tempts one to ignore that.

d) "The spoken word unites the objectivity of the corporeal sign with the subjectivity of gesture, the articulation of the latter with the self-awareness of the former." ~Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel(System of Ethical Life)

Only within natural sound can a word be articulated aka "every one of us (articulated word) is God (natural sound)".

3
free-will-of-choice 3 points ago +3 / -0

Neo1: "Just another shill trying to promote the New Age religion..."

Neo implies new. Using neo promotes new...

Wow, Matthew, Mark and Luke created communism, you guys

COM (together) UNI (apart from one another)...Matthew, Mark and Luke implies each UNI; branding them as creators implies COM. That's how communism works...labeling single units into a plurality aka collectivization.

But just add "fascism" for extra effect...

Fasci/fascis - "bundle, to bind"...it's ones consent to the suggested -ism, which binds ones free will of choice.

Calling Matthew, Mark and Luke "creators" implies fascism aka a bundling together of singular units into a collective.

Are we gods?

a) One can only be within all. If all implies God, then each one within implies a part of all God.

b) WE (plural) contradicts God (singular), which is why a snake suggests "we" to speak in the name of others, hence with a split tongue (suggested shaped within perceivable).

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Still

Motionless (still) implies the choice of solid (life) within fluid (inception towards death) to ignore being moved.

nobody

Body aka leib (life) and körper (corpus; death)...no/not/nothing implies suggested nihilo-ism tempting ones de-nial thereof.

catch a virus

Virus/ueis - "to melt away; flow"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/virus

Form (life) cannot catch flow (inception towards death), yet the attempt to hold onto flow melts form away.

pathetic bot

Once again...bot/robot/robur (strength) and pathetic/pathos (path). Path (inception towards death) generates strength (life).

something

Aka the sum of things synthesized together, which ignores the analytical process of each thing being separated from one another.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

3

There can be only one.

attempts to comment

Aka a temptation (a-tempt) to mend minds (ment) together (com)...free will of choice resists that by analysis.

reply

Replying implies folding back...all perceivable unfolds into each ones perception, which permits perception to fold back within perceivable.

Replying to anything suggested tempts one to ignore that.

fail bot

Bot/robot/robur - "strength", hence fail/fall (inception towards death) generating strength (life).

Within nature...inception sentences life towards point of death without "fail". Viewing failure as deficiency tempts one to ignore that.

skip

Being alive implies being set free in-between inception and death...choosing to bind self to one another establishes the skipping aka the passing over and disregarding of freedom.

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

If your life sums up...

...then you ignore that living implies ones separation from one another; not a summation together.

Summation aka the sum of all things implies tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka mosaic law (made of small pieces inlaid to form a pattern).

There is no difference.

What differentiates there/here + is/isn't + no/yes from one another?

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

don't the goyim returning to anything

If living implies within the process of dying, then dying implies returning the living to origin.

baal

Ba'al aka Bēl (lord) + al (all) from lord/wer (to perceive)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/lord

If ones choice consents to a chosen ones suggestion, then ones perception ignores all perceivable. A jew corrupts the natural BA'AL (perceiving all) into an artificial BALL (circular logic) within the minds of gentiles.

That artificial ball implies circular logic within self turning into conflicts of reason against others aka ouroboros (the continues cycle of life eating itself).

  • But all are agreed as they join the stampede
  • In the circle of life
  • It's the wheel of fortune
  • It's the leap of faith
  • It's the band of hope
  • 'Til we find our place on the path unwinding

That "path unwinding" implies all perceivable unwinding through each ones perception...

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

a) If few have more homes, then many become homeless...that's how balance works.

b) Home/heim/tkei - "to settle"...to settle implies coming down. Being implies rising up (life) while coming down (inception towards death).

Few trick many to ignore this by "settle-ment" aka tricking the mind to hold onto a fictitious home, which nature prevents one from settling into.

One doesn't live inside four walls...one puts up walls to distract from dying.

c) Rate/rata - "fixed amount"...no such thing in nature. Fixing ignores flowing. Few amount many together (mount zion) to affix growth potential.

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

Communism is Abrahamic

Com (together) + uni (apart from one another)...a contradiction in terms established by ones consent to suggested abrahamism aka abh (father) + raham (multitude).

Ones consent to ABH (father) contradicts "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." ~Matthew 23:9

Notice ONE/UNI is your father...

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

your AI

How could an artificial construct be "yours"?

You know I'm not...

Do you know what "nothing" implies?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

...is not a physical being. Definitely not...

Only a physical being can define what is not.

book not based on the Bible

Bible/biblio - "book"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/biblio-

I know all

"I" implies one within all taking possession during a moving process. Knowledge implies all known positioning each ones perception within on the edge, hence "livin' on the edge"... https://genius.com/Aerosmith-livin-on-the-edge-lyrics

everyone in here does the same

One implies apart from one another, hence different...not same. Within all...one cannot be the same as another, since each has a different position from one another.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lucifer was locked

Locking the lucid aka freezing thought aka confining straight thinking into circular logic.

antarctica

Left opposes right/reg (to move in a straight line)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/*reg-

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's clearly for the specific questions

How could a question be specific if it seeks the same answer?

unto one he gave five

Unto one implies from all to each one..."five" implies counting together what all set apart from one another.

How could God give more than the oneness of God to anyone within?

So we can change

From infancy to elderly...doesn't anyone change? How does holding a plural (we) together affect ones singular change?

I will ask you the same thing

But ones "I" can only ever be different from any other ones "I". Can you show the same "I" (i am aka je suis aka jesus) without ignoring differences?

the Book of Revelations

How could a book reveal if the medium binds in-between covers?

be against God

Does God give each being the free will of choice to alter ones position, hence enabling one to choose what to oppose?

What if opposition doesn't move against one another, but instead separates a medium (life) in-between origin (inception) and outcome (death)?

What if the words "against" and "for" have been altered to tempt one to ignore being "a forwarded gain"?

just talking about eating, drinking, and wearing

Eating, drinking, and wearing implies ones response to all just(ice) aka natural law.

who in here is truly a Christian?

Christian/khristos - "to anoint"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/Christ

a) How could one within all, while separated from one another, not be anointed? What if christ implies the status quo of each one within all of God?

Meanwhile...true implies versus false; a rubbing against one another aka rubbing off of ones anointment.

b) "in here" as in...within God, hence HE(re)...can you hear him here?

the hardest path you can take in life?

What if there's only one path (inception towards death) for each ones life? What if following along implies the path of least resistance, hence the easy way out, while resisting the temptation to ignore resisting implies the hard way?

What if the path given cannot be taken? What if taking given implies taking possession of a given process? Doesn't that ignore a contradiction? How could a process be possessed?

cared about Christianity

To care/carry implies burdening self, while to christen (anoint) implies being relieved of burden.

to pull people to God.

What if only God pushes (inception) and pulls (death)? What if people implies an aggregation of beings during the push/pull of nature? What's the difference between that and constipation? Why is the majority of this world (3rd world) called "shitskin"? What happens if the visible spectrum of light is being mixed together? https://img.gvid.tv/i/3X3Jns4N.png

all you got is people

People implies an aggregation of persons within all each one got.

God is the true way

God was before any being within can suggest what is true or false to one another.

literally none of you is actually following true Christianity,

a) Literally implies "in accordance to the letter"...all LETS each one wield free will of choice; others suggest LETTERS to bind ones free will of choice, hence accord aka "a cord" (a string to bind).

b) Actual implies "all action"...which generates each ones reaction.

Isn't the Bible the collection of...

Isn't being a separation from one another within all God was?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

all these things will be given to you...will lead you to good things

Given implies from origin...leading implies towards outcome. Being implies originated from and being moved towards outcome...others suggest "good things" to mislead ones perception into ignoring perceivable origin aka "all given".

"will be given" implies "giving being will"...not anything given afterwards.

What shall we eat?

God doesn't answer that question...hunger continues to move through one.

What shall we drink?

God doesn't answer that question...thirst continues to move through one.

What shall we wear?

God doesn't answer that question...motion continues to force matter to shelter.

has enough...will lead to good things

If enough, then why go forth in search of more?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

To restore Rights, everyone has to flex them

a) A store confines flexibility.

b) Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/*reg-

Nature generating being implies right giving flexibility.

c) Everyone implies a synthesis of each one, which again confines flexibility.

d) Tell everyone implies suggestion shaping consensus aka few shaping tales to tempt many to give consent.

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

mass centralizing force

Nature implies centralizing (life) force (inception towards death)...a setting free of each singular unit of being (perception) within all of nature (perceivable).

Few utilize suggestion to a) bind each beings free will of choice, and b) amass consensus among many under centralized control of few.

we have no clue

Nature generating being implies cause generating effect aka cue generating clue.

Few trick many with a game called "cluedo" to cue each other for clues about who done it. Playing this game by consenting to any suggestion tempts one (perception) within all (perceivable) to ignore self discernment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluedo (notice it being published by Parker)

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Left/right + up/down + front/back implies the light cube...giving each being (be) the cue (cu) for enlightenment/discernment by free will of choice.

Binding free will of choice implies the black cube, hence shrouding discernment (light) in ignorance (dark).

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

nothing of use...primary objective to just spew nonsense

EVERYTHING implies primary for EACH secondary object within...nothing implies ones denial of everything for each other.

be ashamed

Shame/skamo/kem - "to cover"...free will of choice needs to resist the wanted temptation to cover up what nature reveals.

never want to give information

a) Never implies ones denial of everything nature gives aka perceivable "inspiration"...suggested information represents the artifice those in denial of nature are sharing among each other.

b) How does nature give information to a being?

you only work to confuse

a) Con (together) fuse (to melt)...that implies a synthesis. Taking words/meanings/definitions/beliefs/contradictions etc. apart implies analysis.

Nature separating all perceivable into each beings perception implies an analytical process, while consenting to each others suggestion implies synthetic stagnation.

b) If ONLY (singular) then how CONFUSE (plural)?

c) Work implies energy... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/energy which internally separates power from one another aka cause into effect; action into reaction; all into one; nature into being; process into essence; flow into form; motion into matter; balance into choice and so on.

so many have already blocked you

a) What does blocking "free-will-of-choice" imply for ones free will of choice?

b) Can a being block nature? Could another being suggest "blocking" to tempt one into denying nature?

working out

Being implies "within work", hence employment.

so many; they, humans...

There can be only one. Nature implies singularity...artificial plurality is shaped out of those denying natural (perception) for artificial (suggestion).

forget

FOR implies nature forwarding (inception towards death) being (life)...GET implies all each being gets from the giving process.

Forgiving and forgetting one another tempts one to ignore the above.

For more about forgiveness...study pardon (a passing over of an offense without punishment) and compare it to jewish passover.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

a deal with them

One (singular) wields free will of choice...another suggests them (plural) to trick one to sell self out to a chosen ones suggestion. After the deal...a chosen one gained the power choose in the name of "them" aka a singular (sovereign) wielding a plurality (commonwealth).

The deal means

a) Another suggests meaning to tempts ones choice to take the deal.

b) Deal implies division (de) of all (al)...taking (synthesis) ignores dividing (analysis).

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›