a) Contra implies turning against another, which binds "free" will of choice together.
b) Both CONtradict and CONsistent implies "together", while being implies apart from one another, hence off-spring.
c) Exact implies ones EX-pression within all ACTion...suggested beliefs; methods and worldviews are suppressing that; if consented to.
Sleight of hand by Madonna: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature".
d) Self doesn't imply CON (together) but intercourse through another for the perpetuation of self by off-spring.
tl;dr: What I'm trying to describe isn't a belief; method or worldview, but the foundation within others are shaping beliefs; methods and worldviews to get control over one.
The only way to deal with the goyim these days
Goyim/golem peasants with less technology will be just as ignorant...it's each ones want to make a deal with another which keeps many ignorant about needing to resist the temptation of deals.
Nothing can be cheaper than ones FREE will of choice...
stick to the facts
Aka holding onto fiction (suggested information) within action (perceivable inspiration).
False dichotomy. This implies that you have to stick to word games to be smart.
True vs false + smart vs dumb...are sticking together, hence turning against one another. Breaking words apart clears ones mind within sound. Dichotomy implies "cutting in two", which ignores oneness (whole) cutting into one (partial).
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Papa-roach-last-resort-lyrics (cut my life into pieces...this is my last resort).
How is rebutting claims and using logic to prove things right or wrong "circular logic"?
Christianity allegedly gave you 2025 years of right vs wrong reasoning...how many Christians took a turn within that circle of mutual self destruction? How does reason dissolves right vs wrong conflicts? Can you tell me the difference between reasoning gentiles and the use of talmudic reasoning by a jew? Notice that right vs wrong reasoning somehow doesn't seem to apply to a jew...if many operate within a circle, while few operate within a line, then could that be exploitable?
This implies that it will keep going forever.
WILL + KEEP imply temporal reactions within the ever forwarding action. Using ones free will of choice to keep holding onto suggested tempts one to ignore/deny perceivable.
At some point it will stop.
Stop implies "cessation of motion"...being implies matter (life) within the momentum (inception towards death) of motion, hence being sentenced towards point of death. Few suggest STOP signs everywhere to tempt many to ignore that perception cannot stop perceivable...only hold onto suggested within the temporal bliss of ignorance.
Matter also doesn't stop, but dissolves back into motion. Basic alchemical transformation...flow to form (inception) > form within flow (life) > form to flow (death).
When you have made a counter, a REBUTAL to an argument, the loop stops! You GROW!
True VERSUS false...both sides arguing only supply themselves to the loop aka to the ring that binds aka to circular logic turning into conflicts of reason. 2025 years of supplying true and false arguments and yet the conflict is as destructive to life as it ever was. The ring is being set up to tempt the contestants to ignore what happens outside, while they're fighting each other within. Logic prevents ones mind to step out of the ring...it doesn't matter which contestant uses logic to attack or defend.
You say you want to "think straight" but yet claim that something "turning in your mind" is a bad thing??
Straight implies motion; turning implies matter shaped within motion. One cannot hold onto motion; holding onto matter tempts one to ignore motion. Good vs bad implies matter vs matter, while ignoring motion by claiming a side.
Breaking this apart sustains ones free will of choice...what others are doing with that is on each ones free will of choice. Anything dualistic aka a duel of reason among choices contradicts ones singular free will of choice.
That's like saying that lifting weights makes you weaker and exercise makes you less fit!!
Weaker and less fitter than? The words you use imply not ones growth through exercise, but drawing comparisons between one another, which establishes a conflict of reason aka mutual loss for anyone joining in.
As one within all one can only be weaker and less fitter than all...being isn't about drawing comparisons, but about resisting the temptation of being (life) drawn back in (inception towards death) while living out ones life.
tl;dr: Thanks for the inspiration.
Believe inverts "being alive"...if consented to. Prove it then.
a) Prove is in the pudding/putting, hence living (live) within all (al) implying all putting one into being.
b) The issue...wanting prove from another, while ignoring the need of being (life) put (inception towards death) aka of being thrust; instigated; inspired to adapt etc. The prove you seek implies credibility aka your credit/creed/belief aka your choice to hold onto suggested information by another, while ignoring that all perceivable moves through each ones perception.
In short...you want; I describe need.
You believe this assertion already, so you believe SOMETHING.
a) Assert aka ad (towards) serere (to join together)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/assert Nature sets apart, which I describe by separating what others join together (consent to suggestion).
b) Some/sem - "semblance" implies like one another, which ignores being differentiated from one another, hence as each thing (partial) within everything (whole).
c) While further taking apart "assert" and "some"...what do I believe? What if BELIEF (holding together) inverts RELIEF (setting apart)? Notice also that I don't attack or defend any beliefs; only rip to shreds believing aka holding onto, because that contradicts the need (dying) to let go (living).
you still post
About free-will-of-choice: Post Score (0)...
If what you say was true, why are you still alive?
a) True vs false (reason) contradicts if/then (implication)...I rip apart what others are saying by describing the implication of turning against one another.
b) Still; adjective -"motionless, stable, fixed, stationary"...that's living in denial.
You have a really odd view
Being implies odd (life) within even (inception towards death)...a jew evens the odds among gentiles by inverting choice with chance. Within all perceivable; each one has choice...from the suggestions by few, many can take a chance...for the price of giving up choice.
Thank you for inspiring me to be "real odd"...instead of joining fake equality.
artificially and wrongly connects words and life and death.
Living within process of dying implies natural; connecting together what nature separates by logos (words) and logic (right vs wrong) implies artificial.
You think doing things everyday people do will kill you.
Killing implies taking from one another...suggestion tempts consent to be given before taking "nothing" in return. It's ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested) which destroys ones life and any other life connected to it. Consenting represents a suicidal tendency; which shapes suggested into a genocidal aversion of reality.
For example: "kill yourself" represents the temptation for ones suicidal consent, which then transforms destroying self into destroying others connected to one, hence the fall of civilization being foreshadowed; accompanied, and accomplished by suicide aka self harm.
And you base these conclusions upon..... ETYMOLOGY?? Wow. Just wow.
The base I describe moves...hence dissolution; not conclusion. It's LOGY, which tricks many to seek conclusions, while ignoring ETYMOS (real aka ones response to all) during dis (life) solution (inception towards death).
From the alchemical perspective...sound implies base; words represent ingredients mixed together. Being implies essence struggling to sustain self within substance...which many ignore, because few are mixing them together within the cauldron of logic.
Why don't you base what you believe will kill you based on what the moon looks like?
a) The base of will(want) implies need, hence ones struggle to want (living) within need (dying) aka ones adaptation to balance as free WILL of choice.
b) Being implies differential (perception) within equation (perceivable)...it's looking/locking onto suggested, which makes differentials look alike.
Like if your coffee mug has a certain amount of coffee in it, you "die"?
a) Liking coffee (want) over tea (not want), while ignoring thirst (need) diminishes living during the process of dying.
b) There can be only ONE...it's ignoring this by counting one another, which permits few to amount many into unwashed masses.
c) Living implies within the process of dying..."you die" tempts one to ignore perceivable origin of life for suggested outcome of life.
Free will of choice does not need to resist that. Why should it? If anything, rebutting and defending would make it stronger, not weaker.
Attack and defense binds "free" will of choice into a conflict aka a versus/verto - "to turn"...an inversion of choice for the chance of winning vs losing. Gambling. Being implies growth (life) during loss (inception towards death) aka choice within balance...not a gamble of chance.
Resistance is fertile, hence only resisting temptation grows resistance, while falling for temptation ignores resisting, hence establishing the path of least resistance, which continues to tempt ones ignorance more and more, hence the want to accumulate, and the reluctance to let go.
Reason implies reluctance aka struggling against, implication inspires resistance within temptation.
Another? Another what? Another idea? Another person?
One. All (oneness) separating each one from one "another"...
Plus, you didn't answer the question. Should people believe in Jesus??
a) Plus (inception) Minus (death), hence being alive implying in-between (±) aka ones position (life) during negation (inception towards death) aka as above/so below.
b) Quest implies towards outcome, hence you waiting for a suggested answer, while ignoring perceivable origin aka quest-ION (action)...letting go of the quest allows one to discern self as re-action aka responding being within enacting nature.
c) To believe implies holding onto; jesus aka je suis (I AM) implies holding onto self...the latter collectivizes everyone else into a plural (you; we; people), and should vs shouldn't + believe vs disbelief are the resulting conflicts of reason among those who hold onto a side.
Within nature letting go of jesus (i am) allows one to discern self as christ (anointed one). Christ implies each one...jesus implies another one. Christ allows each ones self discernment; while jesus tempts one to shirk response-ability onto another aka onto a savior.
Jesus and french "je suis" are DIFFERENT.
Ah...so after preaching likeness so often throughout your responses, it's now about differences? And writing different in uppercase to the guy persistently contradicting likeness by separating differences...that didn't fell funny to you? Anyway...
Jesus used the same phrase “I AM” in seven declarations about Himself. In all seven, He combines I AM with tremendous metaphors which express His saving relationship toward the world. All appear in the book of John. They are I AM the Bread of Life (John 6:35, 41, 48, 51); I AM the Light of the World (John 8:12); I AM the Door of the Sheep (John 10:7, 9); I AM the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14); I AM the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25); I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6); and I AM the True Vine (John 15:1, 5).
The issue isn't about the differences or likeness between jesus and je suis, but about ones lack of self discernment when taking possession over self as "me; myself or I", which brands everyone else as "you"...that's what makes differences alike. Jesus as the archetype and je suis as the concealed revelation aka sleight of hand are used to distract one from discerning self.
Do you believe that a drawing of a mug IS a mug?
To believe tempts one to ignore ongoing line for temporal drawing. Motion WAS before matter can suggest to each other what IS. Inspiration allows one to draw from; information represents the drawing one holds onto mentally and physically.
So why would you believe that those 2 words are the same?
a) Sound implies same; words represent differences held together, hence shaped alike.
b) There can be only one. It's reasoning about suggested which establishes dualism (2) within one (1).
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Spice-girls-2-become-1-lyrics (A dream of you and me together...Say you believe it)
c) If there can be only one, then Jesus to hold onto and je suis (i am) aka the one holding onto; imply the same origin...motion giving out matter, which matter ignores by holding onto one (je suis) another (jesus).
False. If that were true, He would not be called Jesus Christ , as that would then be a contradiction.
a) True vs false implies circular thinking, hence ones de-nial (NAIL) of being moved across (A CROSS) a straight line.
b) Neither the father; nor the son; nor the holy ghost made the call..."in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" implies another suggesting in the name of (in nomine) to tempt ones consent to put Jesus + Christ together, hence nailing self to the cross aka denying perceivable moving perception across.
c) If implies then...true vs false reasoning contradicts that.
d) The fundamental contradiction...ALL doesn't cALL anyone, it's few who tempt many with a call of duty aka a summoning/invocation/on demand order etc.
e) As for HE...he (motion) + she (momentum) trans-form into matter. She implies s(plit)he; woman implies wo(mb)man; female implies fe(minine)male...being implies as above/so below, hence in-between (matter) male (motion) and female (momentum) nature. Only in-between can there be intercourse for off-spring aka for yet another resurrection of each anointed one (christ).
Jesus does NOT "tempt" me
"Me; myself; or I" are based on one taking possession over self aka I AM (je suis; jesus)...taking possession tempts potential (life) to ignore procession (inception towards death). The NOT implies ones de-nial aka the NAIL tempting potential to ignore procession A CROSS.
From your perspective..."does not" contradict that God does. One can only redo self within all doing. "does not" implies ones denial, which others are tempting one into.
"Ones belief in jesus (i am) establishes every other one as a YOU (phonetic jew)"...Is this a bad thing? If so, why do you believe it is a bad thing?
Good vs bad reasoning aside...holding onto self (I), while collectivizing others (YOU), inverts all setting each one free from one another. It denies oneness; it denies that there can be only one. I and YOU destroy one-self. Notice furthermore the imbalanced distribution of one taking possession over self as I, which shapes every other ones potential into a YOU, which is why each YOU (phonetic jew) has more potential, then anyone's possessions could ever handle.
If i understood you right, you are saying that your word analysis will teach people things and reveal knowledge? Did i get you right?
a) Understood implies your choice to "stand-under" another as student (slave) under teacher (master)...my suggestion tempts your consent to empower me, while submitting yourself. I try to describe how this works and how only ones free will of choice can resist that temptation of binding self...not whatever anyone else is suggesting.
b) Your want to understand and become a student under a teacher implies a synthesis of your consent and my suggestion. Doing that tempts you to ignore to discern self as analysis (perception) within solution (perceivable). Solution (inception towards death) forces analysis (life) to adapt...denial or consent don't matter to motion.
c) Knowledge implies being (matter) at the ledge (momentum) of known (motion)...understanding tempts matter to stand-under each other, while holding onto suggested information and thereby ignoring the momentum (ledge) of motion (known).
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Aerosmith-livin-on-the-edge-lyrics
d) Right/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/right The rhetoric "getting it right" tempts one to ignore being (life) given right (inception towards death) aka rite of passage. Your circular thinking (right vs wrong reasoning) prevents you from thinking straight, hence the lack of righteousness.
So you are a WordAnalyst.
Analysis (perception) during solution (perceivable)...analyzing synthesis (suggested words). Reasoning about words further synthesizes, while muddling (mixing) ones analytical perception within perceivable solution.
To be implies the LETTER (free will of choice consenting) of each word (suggested by another ones free will of choice)...I try to make it harder for a letter to bind self to the words of another by taking apart crafted spells.
Who believes that word analysis is better than rebutting and defending.
Better vs worse aka rebutting vs confirming aka attack vs defense aka believing vs disbelieving...a synthetic conflict. Using implication (if/then) instead of reason (vs) sustains dis (life) solution (inception towards death) so that analytics may continue a while longer.
Following WordAnalsysism rather than nature and change.
Change (perceivable) forces adaptation (perception), hence each ones struggle to resist (living) temptation (dying)...suggested words tempt ones consent to follow towards end of sentence in accordance with the letter.
getting all bent over what a word looks like is absurd.
Being implies bending (life) within a line (inception towards death)...bending over implies circular logic aka ouroboros eating its own tail. Sound sentences instruments...words tempts instruments to wait for the end of sentence to respond.
"True vs false (reasoning about suggested) tempts"...It tempts people? Is this true or false?
Versus/verto - "to turn" tempts one to ignore being (life) moved straight (inception towards death). True vs false implies a circle (logic) shaped within a straight line. People implies multiple persons tempted together through logic into conflicts of reason.
Nature told me that logic and arguments is better than word breakdowns.
Tale/del - "to recount, count"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/tale Nature doesn't count, since it's all one. Counting one another makes one accountable to another, which is what few exploit to become accountants of many. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Judaism
It is using me to tell you
Aka it (perceivable) is using me (perception) to tell (suggestion) you (perception)... why use a middle-man aka a mediator aka media when the source is free for all?
But you are choosing a side.
That would contradict "free" will of choice.
Choosing to believe that your Word Games are better and will "help you live longer"
Believing implies shirking choice onto chance. Games implies gambling aka paying choice by taking chance. Help implies supporting (inception towards death) charges (life)...not helping one another by spending charges. It's the "fruit of ones labor", which others can re-charge by. Spending ones charges reduces ones labor during support.
"Need implicates (if/then)...reasoning (want vs not want) tempts one to ignore that." So what? how is that bad?
Versus/verto - "to turn", hence turning bad and good against one another, no matter which side one chooses.
Example: water vs wine represents want vs not want, while ignoring need...thirst.
Non sequiturs. You yourself use words, so you are "distracting" too.
Indeed, hence the fucking issue of constant miscommunication, and the attempts of breaking words apart. The issue...suggested words tempt one to ignore perceivable sound. Like for example the words "insane person" tempting one to ignore being in sanus (within sound) and per sonos (by sound).
Sound moves and cannot be held onto...words are shaped within sound, while tempting one to hold onto definition, which shapes one into a DEAF PHONETICIAN.
Why do you believe this?
To believe implies holding onto something suggested, which in return contradicts ones perception of all perceivable moving through one. Dictate/deik (to show) implies what others are showing (suggesting) for one to behold (consenting).
The phrase "the show must go on" refers to nature continuing to move, while one beholds what others are showing.
You shouldn't...and you should...
Should vs shouldn't...another conflict of reason based on ones circular thinking. Others suggesting either side contradicts ones FREE will of choice...if one consents. Nature doesn't suggest what one should or shouldn't...it generates free will of choice, while forcing adaptation (life) to balance (inception/death).
Didn't say a thing about energy.
What do you think differentiates everything into each thing, while supplying the potential to shape speech within sound? Energy implies the cause for each effect within
Hivemind?
Collective consciousness; mental coalescence; group think; universal mind; egregore; gestalt psychology; students under teacher; followers under leader; many under few; slaves under master; commonwealth (gentiles) under sovereign (jew) etc.
Sound separates into each instrument aka mind (ment) structured (stru) within (in)...words suggested by few tempt many to think alike, hence utilizing words as the common denominator for communication.
Nature doesn't make common (together)...it generates unique units apart from one another.
please make a megathread and post
About free-will-of-choice...Post Score (0) Comment Score (13416). Nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each one (perception)...offering suggested posts to one another denies that.
Choice needs to adapt to balance, while resisting the temptation of each others suggested choices.
"Inception sentences life towards POINT of death...there's no other point for life."...No it doesn't.
a) No/not/nothing implies suggested nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) tempting ones de-nial of everything perceivable for suggested "nothing". The foundation of nothing is based on creatio ex nihilo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo
"Cause it's the deepest impulse of the jewish soul to pull at the very fabric of life until there's nothing left but a thread; they want nothing but nothingness; nothingness without end"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRUjy1Dhx-k
b) If inception, then of life. If living, then while dying. If sentenced, then sentience. If sentence, then end of sentence, hence being send towards point.
Put a pen on paper; then draw a line. Starts with a point; ends with a point. Now notice that you're breathing while drawing, hence drawing in breath. Being able to do that implies ones susceptibility to sensation aka sentience during ones life sentence. Your mind tricks you to believe that putting a pen on paper starts with a point, when your life was already sentenced...
c)Seriously? You believe rebutting kills people?
Killing implies "taking" life...rebutting implies willingly "giving" up living by mutually attacking each other within a conflict of reason.
Example...boxing. Two boxers go into the ring; the one losing less is declared winner. It's loser vs loser, while ignoring that the winner is declared by a non-combative 3rd party. Now exchange boxing with rebutting each other within any conflict of reason...
Can you give me an example where reasoning ended the conflict? Like...yes vs no; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; love vs hate; rich vs poor; us vs them; me vs you; agree vs disagree; upvote vs downvote; left vs right; white vs black; soccer vs football; mcdonalds vs burger king; coke vs pepsi; old vs young etc. Which of those has mankind dissolved by reasoning?
The fact i am alive DESTROYS your claim
The ACT in fact implies natures action, the FAC (factus) implies reactions within nature. Action cannot be held onto...reacting to one another tempts one to ignore that, which is why claiming a fact implies fiction.
The claim wasn't me describing a moving nature that cannot be held onto from the perspective of FREE will of choice, but your claim of I AM aka je suis (jesus).
Alive implies each one living (live) within all (al)...I AM implies one potential taking possession over self, while ignoring all procession. That also represents ones de-nial aka NAIL of being moved across aka A CROSS all.
You are not going to "start dying" just because you do something better.
a) Being implies living (temporary growth) within the process of dying (ongoing loss)...better vs worse reasoning implies growth turning against one another (want vs not want), while ignoring to resist (need) the temptation (want) of loss.
b) One cannot "do"...only respond to being (life) done (inception towards death) aka re-do life, while being done to death.
Wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that? Whaaaat?
Nature moves all perceivable through each ones perception as "inspiration"...which one cannot hold onto, thereby save. Artifice implies suggested "information" tempting ones consent to hold onto it, thereby saving it within mind/memory, which is what instigates circular thinking (logic) inwards, turning into conflicts of reason outwards. While consenting to artificial information; one ignores natural inspiration.
Resist the temptation to analyze words, then.
Words imply a synthesis aka letters shaped into words aka ones consent LETTING another shape words. Choice needs to resist the wanted temptation of suggested choices, because choosing another choice shirks ones response-ability onto another, hence inverting ONES CHOICE into a CHOSEN ONES suggestion.
Grow by rebutting other ideas, concepts, beliefs, and defending your own.
a) FREE will of choice cannot "own", since it implies potential (temporary growth) set free within procession (ongoing loss). To own implies spending potential to take into possession, while ignoring that procession draws any potential spend. Form within flow cannot hold onto anything without diminishing each other.
b) Ideas, concepts, beliefs imply holding within self what others suggested one to take...that's poison injected by ones consent as the vector. It's the holding onto which establishes circular logic, and the resulting conflict of reason (confirm vs rebut) turning one against others.
Idealism suggested implies a temptation for ones consent to idolatry. Conceptualism tempts artificial concipere (taking together), while distracting from nature "giving apart". Belief aka being (be) carrying/desirous (lief/leubh) implies wanting to obtain and carrying along aka the temptation of sin.
I have grown.
Which conflict of reason have you grown out of?
"One cannot choose want without ignoring need"...Wow! How profound! Man realizes the obvious is obvious! /S
Now translate this to everything else...one cannot hold onto without letting go; hence wanting to hold onto tempting one to ignore needing to let go of. If this seems profound and obvious to you, then why defend holding onto "ideas, concepts, beliefs"? While you think about this...try holding onto your breath.
Why? What nature? Nature as in "the attributes of things" or "plants, animals, the outdoors" nature?
a) That which nurtues (ure) natives (nat) aka whole nurturing each native partial within aka action nurturing native reactions aka flow (inception towards death) nurturing native form (life) etc. Why? Because if cause then being, hence action causing being to come into effect.
b) Attribution of things implies everything (nurturing action) bestow each thing (native reaction) aka external attributing internal aka everything moving attributing matter to each thing being moved.
c) Plant/plat - "to spread" aka the spreading of all (whole) into each one (partial) aka separation from one another.
d) Animal/anima/ane - "to breathe" aka animation forcing animated matter (life) to inhale (inception) and exhale (death) aka inhaling spirit (temporary growth), while exhaling ghost (ongoing loss).
e) Being alive implies in-between entrance (inception) and exit (death), hence movable barrier aka door...re DO'OR die.
"Growth (life) can only exist within loss (inception towards death)"...What a sad view.
Sadness or happiness is in the eye of the beholder aka the being which holds onto a suggested view, while ignoring visual perception made possible as temporal growth during divine loss. In other words...your sadness aims at outcome, while being able to view is generated by origin. You're beholding outcome (artificial) over origin (natural), hence inverting (turning) from living towards dying.
The lake of fire is not on this earth.
a) Lake (inception towards death) of fire (life)...hence not "earth", but "hearth/heart" aka fireplace aka spark of life.
Sleight of hand: "Deep inside; The pressure's high; Just to stay alive; Cause the heat is on"... https://genius.com/Glenn-frey-the-heat-is-on-lyrics
b) Can you describe the placement of "not" in relation to earth?
People go to their destiny AFTER death.
If "before" implies forwarded (inception towards death) being (life), then "after" implies aft/æftan - "from behind"...not destination, but origin. If before and after tempt one to ask "before or after what?", then one lacks self discernment as being forwarded from behind.
Suggested pluralism (people) tempts each singular one consenting to it to ignore self discernment. Nature doesn't generate "people", but each person aka per sonos (by sound) insane aka in sanus (within sound).
"We the people" implies suggested collectivism by few to amass many together, while speaking in the name of the collective.
"Also...ignoring perceivable for suggested implies the making of "graven" images aka idols/ideals."...Why? how is this related?
Perceivable generating perception implies "separation"...consenting to suggested implies "relation". What others are suggesting are IDEALS; ones consent holding onto shapes them into IDOLS. Holding onto puts ones "free" will of choice into the grave aka digging into the foundation (perceivable sound) to bury a dead body aka corpus oration (suggested words).
Okay, BELIEVED by some. I don't mean taken as in, someone grabbed hell and put it in a bag!!
Meaning implies ideal taken into memory as idol, hence grabbed (consented) and bagged (memorized). It's holding suggested information within memory, which hell/kel - "to cover" aka conceals perceivable inspiration from one. That concealment implies ones ignorance/denial...not towards one another, but within all.
You can avoid circular reasoning by logic and rebutting.
a) One (living) cannot avoid all (dying)...few utilize suggested information to establish a "void" within the mind of consenting many, who in return deny everything perceivable for suggested "nothing" (nihil-ism). This practice of shaping a void within another represents the making of a goyim/golem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem The master of such a golem is a kike/kikel - "circle" aka circular logic mastering the slave encircled within a void mind. A void mind filled to the brim with nothing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
b) Logic doesn't avoid; it invites logos (suggested words) which binds the letter (free will of choice) to the shaper of crafted spells. God implies sound moving instruments apart; logos/logic/reason tempts instruments to shape words together...an inversion. Sound/sanus - "entire; whole; all" cannot be rebutted by anyone within.
No, the lake of fire is a place the unSaved go, after death, to face the outcome of their bad choice.
A suggestion build on the foundation of nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing), while ignoring everything (perceivable) moving each thing (perception) apart from one another.
Instead of reasoning against others about descriptions of things outside of oneself...how about utilizing implication (if/then) from within oneself? If lake, then formed within flow. If of; then out of and into. If fire, then heat within cold.
If oneself, then...formed (life) within flow (inception towards death); of action (balance) into reaction (choice); as heat (living) within cold (dying). Where is the conflict? Where are the sides to choose to hold onto? Where's the contradiction of motion in this straight line of thinking? Where's the circle?
No it doesn't.
Can you describe the origin of nothing (no) and doing nothing (does not)? And while you're at it...how can "it" be genderless within father time (he) and mother nature (she)?
People living all alone isolated from other people believe things, too.
a) Alone implies one and only..."people" contradicts that. All(in)one implies that there can be only one (whole) for each one (partial) within.
b) Believing things implies holding onto within mind/memory...how does one do that without words suggested by another to hold onto? What could memory hold onto without artificially labeling what nature moves through? Can you give me an example of a belief shaped without influence by another, and what shape one holds onto while believing it?
c) Iso implies "equal"; being implies differentiated from one another. One cannot perceive iso/equi/equal, because all perceivable moves each ones perception apart from one another, which allows each ones perception of perceivable differences. It's once again a jew who suggests mosaic law to tempt gentiles to put the pieces back together aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka equality through diversity etc. A jew tempts gentiles to artificially "puzzle" together what nature sets apart, which also represents the foundation of applying words onto sound, and the attempt to accumulate information, while ignoring the flow of inspiration.
Protestant Revolution tore Christendom apart
Protestant vs Orthodox; Catholic; Baptist; Evangelical; Lutheran etc. Both sides are consenting to versus/verto - "to turn" aka turning against one another...NOT apart from one another.
Only each jew revolts by overturning gentiles inwardly (circular logic) and outwardly (conflicts of reason). To revolt implies "cast off allegiance, break away from established authority" hence remaining apart... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Europe-1789-1939-History/dp/0198219806 ...while surviving the mutual destruction of gentiles coming together within endless conflicts of reason.
Christen implies "to anoint", hence the separation of all into each one aka the coming into being of each anointed one through the birth-channel.
If you want
Need implicates (if/then)...reasoning (want vs not want) tempts one to ignore that.
to analyze words
To implies towards aka inception towards death analyzing life... words are synthesized together to distract from that.
go read the Dictionary
"Go read" implies dictating others what to do...free will of choice needs to resist what others want to dictate.
1 single place
Energy aka the place to be aka "all for one and one for all". Only within energy can there be placement.
Don't use everyone's comments and threads for your analysis and breakdowns.
Com (together) ment (mind)...nature sets each ones mind apart from one another; few within tempt the minds of many together into a "hivemind", which naturally inspires to be broken apart.
Rebuting others' points
Inception sentences life towards POINT of death...there's no other point for life. What one rebuts when making a point is ones life back into the process of dying.
MUCH better
Much vs little or better vs worse...always a conflict against others; never ones resistance (growth) within temptation (loss).
Wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that? Whaaaat?
One cannot choose want without ignoring need. Nature supplies all needed; wanting from one another implies ignoring nature.
"hell" is taken by some to mean "the grave"
Growth (life) can only exist within loss (inception towards death) aka one can only live within the process of dying, hence the phrase "having one foot in the grave".
Ask yourself this...if a woman gets raped while experiencing "hell", then why can a woman giving birth can experience "heaven" at the same moment?
Also...ignoring perceivable for suggested implies the making of "graven" images aka idols/ideals. Notice also that you wrote that hell is TAKEN, just like ones consent takes suggested into possession.
lake of fire
Aka the lake (inception towards death) of fire (life), hence kindling (inception) and extinguishing (death) each formed flame (life) during flow.
What do the elderly complain most of? "It's too cold"...hence the heart/hearth/hertha - "burning place" burning out... https://www.etymonline.com/word/hearth
By the way, what do YOU believe?
To believe implies ones consent to the suggestion of another, while ignoring that ones perception is "by the way" of all perceivable.
Believe inverts "being alive"...if consented to.
Should people believe in Jesus and love Him
a) Should vs shouldn't love vs hate are conflicts of reason among believers. Free will of choice needs to resist the wanted temptation of holding onto any side, otherwise it binds itself to another.
b) Jesus aka je suis (I AM) implies taking possession over self, while ignoring to be temporary potential (life) within ongoing procession (inception towards death).
Jesus tempts one to ignore CHRIST (to anoint) aka the separation of each being from one another, when coming through the birth-channel.
Ones belief in jesus (i am) establishes every other one as a YOU (phonetic jew). That's what spell-craft can conceal behind such simple words, and those holding onto beliefs cannot see it, hence not analyzes it aka not break apart what their belief holds together.
is athiesm the true belief?
a) To believe implies ones consent to any suggested -ism, which only then shapes one into an -ist aka a follower.
b) Using THE implies ones consent to suggested the-ism, which makes one a-the-ist. Such a simple spell, and yet the majority cannot fathom it.
c) True vs false (reasoning about suggested) tempts one to ignore change aka the implication (if/then) of perceivable.
Nature cannot generate FALSE, nor does nature require anyone within to declare what's TRUE to one another. It's ignoring natural (perception) for artificial (suggestion), which turns into a conflict of reason (true vs false).
If one adapts to change by implication (if/then), while resisting to choose a side within reason (true vs false), then one doesn't participate within a conflict against others, and can think straight instead of circular logic.
Perceivable inspiration moves straight through each ones perception, while suggested information tempts one to keep turning it within ones mind. That's a trick...a feedback loop.
What is needed to be saved?
All perceivable is needed for each ones perception...wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that.
To enter Heaven?
Entering (inception) towards exiting (death) implies heaving (to lift, raise; lift up, exalt) for each life within. Hell/kel - "to conceal/cover" implies ones choice to ignore heaving self up.
technocratic or centrocratic
Cratic/kratos (strength) is being tempted with techno/tekhnē (artifice) from centro/center (choice), hence strength/strenk - "tight, narrow" aka the narrow (life) path (inception towards death).
aren't
Aka bound by logic within a conflict of reason (are vs aren't). This bond implies religion/religio - "to bind anew".
Protestants...are rebellious
Protestant/protestor - "to affirm it"...hence not rebellious; but submissive, just like any other religion (bondage).
The only rebel...israel/yisra'el - "he that striveth with God".
A THE-IST aka one who consents to suggested the-ism.
- "Are you orthodox or protestant?"
- "I'm an atheist"
- "Okay, so which one do you not believe in?"
dribbling AI out slowly
It feels slowly because of this... https://img.gvid.tv/i/5oWMRbSa.jpg That jew failed with the early VR push, and the whole agenda had to be slowed down. Imagine artificial intelligence being introduced within a virtual reality...yet, the goyim didn't bite, and so now VR tries to catch up, while AI is being held down.
Your etymological breakdown of everything is just a shell of protection
a) If you view it as protection, then why attack the one doing it?
b) What if breaking down puts one (life) into harms way (inception towards death)?
c) Notice etymo-LOGIC-al....it's logical to hold together, while ignoring what nature breaks apart.
Etymological breakdowns only offend those using circular logic within a conflict of reason. Breaking that down should make it easier for others to break out of it...instead they continue to attack one for trying it.
Hiding your complete inability to interact with real humans behind false intellectualism.
a) How often have I described every -ism as jewish in origin, and every -ist as gentile consent to it?
b) Intellect/intelligo - "to understand" aka to stand-under another, when consenting to any suggestion, contradicts ones free will of choice.
c) False implies versus true aka reasoning aka turning against others within an artificial conflict, while turning away from natural balance.
d) Free will of choice can only react, hence respond (choice) to being enacted upon (balance).
Interaction implies action (motion) internalizing (momentum) reactions (matter). Reacting to one another, while calling it "interacting" tempts one to ignore that.
You may be "booksmart"
Did I ever pretend to be booksmart or do I simply describe how any suggested book tempts ones perceiving sight in-between artificial covers, while binding one to spell-craft?
Why does doing that has to be labeled smart or dumb?
when it comes to being human
Being (matter) within the hue (momentum) of man (motion), hence motion (light) utilizing momentum (spectrum) so that matter (ray) can come into being.
That's what being human implies...not social norms of interaction used by few to domesticate many to behave like cattle.
you're a literal retard.
Nature moves sound; few within suggest words, shaped by letters (literal) to delay (retard) the response of many to sound.
You are ignoring sound when labeling others with letters like "literal retard"...I simply describe it.
a) This jew... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Bleuler conspiring with... https://img.gvid.tv/i/3gc1x1nk.jpg this jew... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud is why gentiles call each other "autistic".
It's ones free will of choice to continue this conspiracy...
b) Retard implies "to delay"...God moves, which permits those within to delay reactions to God, when for example calling each other retards.
c) If I'm an autistic retard, then would label me an autistic retard change my behavior or would I simple continue to break contradictions apart such as autism aka auto (self) + ism (system together with another)?
If aut/auto implies self, then why brand others as autistic? Sounds retarded...
comes here asking for help...analysis of his own words
What if asking others while claiming to own for self makes "God" questionable?
you throw a pretentious
About free-will-of-choice...Post Score (0) Comment Score (13409)...where did I pretend/profess/put forward?
fucking piece of shit, asshole
Hence LowEnergyFaggot...
that faggot
As in... LowEnergyFaggot?
This is really necessary?
a) All is necessary for each one within...wanting from one another tempts one to ignore that.
b) I try to describe what you don't see yet...which may look like a wall of text to you. Try to adapt to any sentence standing out to you, instead of tackling all the stuff I wrote about.
If there were a God...
...then why turn from God towards others to get answers to questions?
what the hell is going on in South Africa
If there were a God
THERE implies a position aka a potential (posit) within action (ion). Being implies de (momentum) posited (matter) by god (motion).
Others tempt one to hold onto the word "God", which tempts ones denial of motion, hence "unmoving mover".
In other words...motion implies everywhere (whole); matter implies there; there; there etc. (partial)
Why would he allow
God implies ALL...each one within implies LOW, hence lowered by god to rise up within god.
things to get to this completely fucked
Things implies each thing set apart from one another, while "completely fucked" implies com (together) plere (to fill).
A jew tempts gentiles together, which "completely fucks" them, while distracting from God separating each being from one another.
Gentiles "completely fucking" each other permits each jew to remain apart... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Europe-1789-1939-History/dp/0198219806 within God.
make us powerless to change it
Make/mag - "to be able"...God empowers each being with free will of choice, which implies adaptation within change. A jew utilizes make-belief to tempt gentiles together (us). If a gentile consents and joins others, then each one has less power within the change of God.
Its making less and less sense.
Less implies loss...being implies growth (life) within loss (inception towards death). Ignoring perceivable loss by holding onto what others suggest...corrupts ones senses.
really is all about torturing us
All (perceivable) alleviates each one (perception)...ignoring this distorts ones perception with the suggestions of others. That distortion/twisting/turning from source implies torture.
Logic aka circular thinking represents the twisting of ones mind aka self imposed torture...tempted by the suggestions of another.
REAL implies ones RE-sponse within ALL...not ones consent to the suggested fiction by another.
breaking us
God breaks beings apart from one another...each jew tempts gentiles to hold onto each other as US aka united states aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together).
Your fear of being broken apart tempts you to hold onto (suggested) what nature moves (perceivable) through you. If free will of choice joins US; then it binds self to another aka shirking response-ability.
God implies singularity generating each being as a singular unit...a jew suggests pluralism to tempt gentiles together aka collectivism aka communism aka socialism aka to amass the unwashed masses as a common wealth under each jewish sovereign.
It must be really fun to manipulate things so that well meaning people kill themselves and each other behind some stupid shit you made up?
A suggestion tempts ones consent to hold onto the suggested; carry the suggested, and build upon the suggested, while ignoring that ones perception cannot hold onto; carry or build upon perceivable...since it moves.
Ignoring motion (perceivable inspiration) by holding onto matter (suggested information)...that's something gentiles are fun/fond of, while trying to get sad/sæd/satiated.
A jew manages gentiles within a conflict of reason (fun vs sad) aka circular thinking (logic), while also warning them repeatedly that "I can't get no satisfaction; cause I try, and I try and I try"... https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rollingstones/icantgetnosatisfaction.html
If one seeks satisfaction (suggested), then one (perception) ignores all (perceivable) offered by making a deal with one another aka ignoring God for making a contract with the Devil, which is also being warned about: "pleased to meet you; hope you guess my name (jew, jew)"... https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rollingstones/sympathyforthedevil.html
I'm starting to lose hope.
Loss starts (inception) and finishes (death) growth (life)...holding onto hope tempts one to ignore that. If one lets go of hope towards outcome, then ones fear of outcome also diminishes.
Hope and fear tempt one with suggested outcomes to ignore perceivable origin. God is on the other side of what one hopes for or is afraid of. Fear and hope turn one away from God.
There seems to be no way to win
There can be (life) only one way (inception towards death)...gambling (win) and denialism (no/nihilo/nothing) tempt one to ignore that.
no point in trying
Inception sentences ones life towards point of death...resisting the temptation thereof represents each ones trial of tears. TEAR not as weeping about what one lost, but TEAR as growth (life) set apart by force (inception towards death).
I'm some scumbags profit.
a) Profit implies derived (life) income (inception towards death)...not the outcome others suggest you in exchange for your consent to labor.
b) Scum/skeu (to cover) + bag (to seize) implies ones consent seizing suggested, while covering perceivable from ones perception.
A jew only profits from gentiles if gentiles ignore to be PRO (forwards) FIT (set).
we all are
Are implies "being"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/are Being implies each one (perception) within all (perceivable)... suggested pluralism (we) tempts one to ignore that.
All was so each one can come into being. Others suggest the royal we... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we as disguise for nosism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosism to distract one from discerning self by tempting one to join others.
advanced intelligence
Intel-LIG-ence...lig/ligo - "to bind" contradicts advancement. Perception advances mind; suggestion binds mind...if consented to.
hey thoth I got a question
a) Asking questions to get answers from another corrupts ones thoth/thought-PROCESS, hence binding advancement.
b) Thoth's name would mean "he who is like the ibis"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoth
What's so special about the ibis bird? "it appeared in Egypt with the rising of the Nile"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/ibis
The rising of DE NIAL... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
"The terms Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism describe the denial of the facts and the reality of the subject matters, and the term climate change denial describes denial of the scientific consensus that the climate change of planet Earth is a real and occurring event primarily caused in geologically recent times by human activity"... that's a modern example of ancient THOTH control of gentiles by a jew.
The origin of de-nial/nihilo/nothing... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo
"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)."
And the path of HaShem (the name) implies ones denial of perceivable sound (pathos) for suggested words (logos) aka pathology.
absolute intelligence
Aka ab (away from) sol (sole; whole) lute/leu (to loosen, divide, cut apart) aka ab (momentum) sol (motion) lute (matter)...
...intelligence aka in (within) tel (tale) ligo (to bind) tempts one to ignore how whole sets partials apart from one another, hence corrupting ones self discernment.
step one: cut them off from the ether
EITHER (one of two) tempts ones perception to ignore all perceivable for one another's suggestions.
AETHER/ETHER (to burn, to shine) implies the distillation process of each one (perception) within all (perceivable).
Danger implies exposure (life) to injury (inception towards death)...age implies measurement aka ones mind taking measures of temporary exposure, while ignoring ongoing injury.
Letting go of measurement mitigates exposure to injury.
As for white (pure light) and black (absence of light)...only in-between can there be color aka visible spectrum of light. White versus/verto (to turn) black injures exposure of the visible spectrum of light.
tl; dr...ones needs to resist the wanted temptation of mixing together what nature sets apart from one another.
Notice that holding jewish money and jewish weapons in front of jewish entertainment doesn't make niggers of any age more dangerous to a jew.
ninth circle
Aka circle of nine/nein aka no/nothing/nihilo aka suggested nihil-ism tempting ones de-nial of perceivable by circular logic.
for free
Using artificial suggestions by free will of choice binds one to it. ChatGPT isn't an exchange "for free", but ones expressed ignorance of perceivable change (inspiration), when holding onto suggested information as free will of choice.
If one takes artifice given, then one takes it into possession, hence spending ones natural potential to hold onto artificial possession.
It's those who suggest who get those possessed under control through the suggested.
chatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer)
a) Being implies transformation (life) during generation (inception towards death)...hence not before (pre) procession (train), but within and in response to.
b) Chat/chatter - "talk idly, babble"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/chat aka babbling on aka BABYLON.
deuterium fluoride
Aka I am (i um) divided (deuter/detero/second/seco) riding (ride) flow (fluo)...a division of form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
Instead of being afraid of what others put into something... discern self as being within everything.
Shape implies matter; foundation implies motion...believing implies holding onto matter, while ignoring motion. I try to break apart the matter others are mentally and physically holding onto so that the ignored move-ment of nature can be perceived without suggestive restrictions shaped by others.
Matter cannot own anything within motion, since motion moves possessions out of the grasp of matter.
Few suggest ideas (idealism) to tempt many to hold onto ideas (idolatry)...hence getting owned aka possessed by suggested possessions.
Any idea tempts one to ignore that others are shaping (idealism); reshaping (revisionism) and contradicting (talmudic reasoning) whatever one holds onto...on the fly...from outside.
Ideas represent a remote control for idols held onto.
Again with the CON (together) shaping the (pluralism them), while ignoring to be a singular apart from one another.
You are not a "them"...joining "them" does not make you more than one. Counting others together as "them", while using the word "them" to speak in the name of others does not make you more than one...but if easily distracts anyone consenting to the suggestion thereof.