equal to Whites
Genetically speaking. And i don't mean "identical". Know about the MAOA-2 "aggression" gene? A few minor differences doesnt make you "NoN hUmAnN."
unequal in every
Every?? / / By equal, that means we are all humans and can repent and seek and love God.
mythology
"jvish mythology" would be the towel-mud.
Who killed Jesus? 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 .
what religion asserts that Jesus is "burning in a ... **"?
genetic memory? inbreeding? you don't need to jump to "different classes of humans" stuff.
Do you believe adam and eve?
i mean the specific link. Where from twitter? x.com/status .... what?
what?
the true story of Napoleon and why he is fake
And how can i know that your history isn't the man made one? Got facts? Would like to see :) :)
Answer the question or admit I'm right. Your choice.
History > dps's claims. How is this wrong?
blehblehlb CUSS
and how do you know?? people have historical records. you just have an assertion.
Ok.
doesn't it seem like the numbers keep changing tho?
nukes fake
Mmmm, yummy hopium. #wishfulthink
wheres the source of these tweets
So where is the evidence of the 20K stat? Cnn? What?
illegally annexes
Illegal under whose law code?
steals land for 80
How? Didn't the U.N. give them land?
"resists"
Yes, because shooting a music festival full of randos is "resisting". And because 2020 Summer of Floyd riots were "resisting". LAWL.
accusations galore. i frequently hear paid this paid that. Makes people look stupid and muddies the waters for when someone actually DOES get paid to push a message.
You really believe that God supports a Jesus-rejecting , islamic, government who cruelly oppresses its people??.
Stop rooting for sides in the Sand Wars. Not the USA problem.
Why do you eat flat earth stuff up so easily?
The world is a rhombus for all you know. Rhombus earth > flat earth
Please quote where he said anything about "giving permission". I read it at least twice, saw NOTHING of the sort.
You used reasoning before and during implication.
Thanks for IMPLYING that you, u/free-will-of-choice , ADMIT that IMPLICATION and REASON DON'T conflict!!
Implication. Reason. Implication. Reason.
Implcation and reason can be used at once.
To believe otherwise is to cave to temptation. I resist your temptation to believe that implication and reason somehow "contradict".
Implication allows one to adapt on the fly to inspiration; instead of reasoning against one another
Artificial, anti-nature "instead of".
Nature implies "As well as".
The natural way is "inspiration AS WELL AS reasoning against one another". One can do "imply" and "reasoning".
Then again...ignorance is bliss, and the path of least resistance implies the temptation to ignore resisting.
You are already tempted by your worldview, to ignore resisting the temptation to believe that "reason and implication conflict." They don't.
What does free-will-of-choice ignore?
u/free-will-of-choice ignores the natural, PERCIEVABLE knowledge that there is no conflict between implication and reason.
How is resisting admission and denial to remain free based on ignorance?
It is based on ignorance of the fact that resisting admission and denial is resisting nature. Resisting those two is resisting growth. People admit and deny things regularly, because nature makes them do that. Your resistance to nature (reason) implies that your worldview is artificial.
Just accept the NATURAL way of admission and denial.
Neither a true vs false conflict of reason, nor guessing an outcome; but simply adaption to perceivable origin.
Adapt to the percivable origin, then. It is PERCIEVABLE that Reasoning and Implication DON'T contradict. You have been TEMPTED into an ARTIFICIAL, ANTI-NATURE thing , reason and implication supposedly "contradicting".
Artificial tells you "Reason and implication contradict". Nature implies that those two don't.
living within
Living within what or where?
What if living (growth) within the process of dying (loss) implicate each other, while reason (true vs false) corrupts ones self discernment with whatever another pulls out of his
Believing that "Reason and implication contradict." corrupts ones self discernment. Believing that "Reason corrupts." is what corrupts ones self discernment.
How could free-will-of-choice dispel bondage
The "one" u/free-will-of-choice is the one binding. u/free-will-of-choice can't dispel bondage until u/free-will-of-choice reason.
like religion/religio - "to bind anew" without repeatedly choosing to resist the temptation of what others put together?
CONTRADICTION FOR ALL WITH EYES TO SEE: "Repitition tempts people" "Free will of choice repeats choosing"
A) Repetition tempts one
B) Free will of choice repeats choosing
If being implies resistance (life) during velocity (inception towards death), then can one adapt to change without repeating?
So you admit that your word analysis binds you. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT.
Which one...keep holding onto or breaking apart? Another contradiction out in the open for those with eyes to see.
Not "holding onto". This means that you analyzed the word "analysis" repeatedly.
Not a contradiction. You KEEP doing an ACTION. You are not keeping the thing that is broken apart. You are keeping the action, not the thing. The action is "breaking apart". The thing is broken but the action is kept.
The thing is ONLY being broken apart. Not any contradictions.
a) Then why put NOTHING in-between reason and implication? What does nothing imply? If nothing, then...?
Why put "nothing" in between "nothing" and "everything"?
b) Hold your breath and reason about the true vs false of breathing?
"I should breathe" is TRUE. IF i don't breathe THEN i get goned. I'M USING IF/THEN!! This IMPLIES that Reason and Implication DON'T conflict.
Will reasoning resolve the conflict before implication
It does. It will resolve the conflict. Because reason is natural. Nature forces one to reason. Nature forces one to breathe.
(if wanting to hold onto, then needing to let go) force one to adapt?
See? You are questioning me. Sending me on a quest. Both reason and implication imply that your word analysis is AGAINST NATURE. Artifical.
Does natural force give a flying care about the true or false reasoning of those forced (inception towards death) into being (life)?
It is natural for one to reason. Reasoning grows oneself. It is artifical and anti-nature to use word analysis.
frequency of repetition to tempt free will of choice to bind itself by consenting to a suggestion. W
OHHHH. So THAT'S why u/free-will-of-choice keeps breaking down the meaning of "analysis" REPEATEDLY. u/free-will-of-choice IS at(TEMPT)ing to bind u/guywholikesdjtof2024 to a suggestion!!!!
To believe implies choosing to hold onto a suggestion by another, while ignoring that nature moves, and therefore cannot be held onto.
Wrong. Artifical. Anti-natural. Conflicting.
I can naturally focus on moving nature AND your artifical "suggestions" at the SAME TIME.
Using implication (if/then) over reason (correct vs incorrect) allows one to notice for example...in (within) cor (heart) rect/reg (to move in a straight line), hence life being moved from inception towards death.
A) No it doesn't.
B) Yes it does.
A vs B. You picked a side. Side B. Admit it. You don't even live up to the worldview you promote. Admit your worldview is artifical and anti-nature and anti-motion. ADMIT IT!
Implication derives from motion...a circle implies a shape within motion.
Is this true or are you guessing again? Then why dont you say a square implies a shape? A triangle implies you are wrong?
Holding onto shapes tempts one to ignore being (life) moved (inception towards death).
So the only one holding shapes here is you. Thanks for admitting it.
Holding onto implies by ones free will of choice...letting go implies nature forcing adaptation from being. Try holding your breath for a while until nature forces you to let go.
Try admitting your worldview is anti-nature and anti-motion until your rejection of nature forces you to keep believing your worldview.
"word analysises"
Words imply a synthesis between suggested word and consenting letter aka ones choice LETTING a chosen one shape words by suggestion. This represents spell-craft.
You are the only one on this board who is easily controlled by your "spell craft".
Being implies apart from one another aka analysis (life) during thesis (inception towards death).
Yeah yeah everything to you is a matter of life and death. What a paranoid little guy. Do you also analyze words as you drink coffee, too????
"rebut and defend"
a) Using implication (if/then) prevents ones free will of choice from entering a conflict of reason (vs).
Oh? Is this true? Do you agree with this? Should i believe this?
b) Only withing balance (inception/death) can there be (life) choice...conflict implies imbalance for choice; no matter which sides ones chooses.
Only within IMbalance can there be choice. Balance is totally artifical, then. (One is using if and then!!)
Your claim implies that you are "CORRECT"", i.e. you ADMITTTT that you have PICKED a SIDE.
c) Confirm vs rebut and attack vs defend tempt both sides to consent to versus/verto - "to turn", hence turning against one another.
Is that true? If that is true, then why should i believe that is a bad thing?
See, i used "THEN". According to u/free-will-of-choice:
"Using implication (if/then) over reason (correct vs incorrect) allows one to notice "
I NOTICE!! YOU DO NOT !!
you choose to tinker with words like a child first knowing abt language.
Only within sound can words be shaped.
Not "only". See here: -> ObombBiden. I shaped a new word. Obama + Bomb + Biden.
Any questions, Word Analyst????
Few trick many with definitions to become DEAF PHONETICIANS aka deaf to phonics (sound).
So stop trying to trick us with your definitions.
Nature doesn't shape words...
This implies that nature cannot do something. So stop bashing nature, nature-hater. If nature wants to do it nature will do it, according to your beliefs. Right??
it moves instruments
What instruments?? Like a piano??
apart from one another within sound. Instruments implies "minds structured within" and sound/sanus implies "entire; whole; all"
Light implies entire, whole, all. Not sound. Sound implies that nature and reason are better than artificial and implication. Update yourself.
Sound allows knowledge...words tempt understanding aka standing-under those who suggest the meaning of words.
"you believe things to be true that make it so that you never face the fact that your beliefs are not correct."
a) Belief vs disbelief aka true vs false aka me vs you aka fact vs fiction aka correct vs incorrect...choosing either side binds ones free will of choice.
They bind free will of choice VS they dont bind. Your free will of choice is bound already. Reason implies freedom from word analysis, i.e. thinking clearly, thinking straight, i.e. your free will of choice is free.
b) No/not/nothing is based on creatio ex nihilo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo and represents suggested nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) tempting ones de-nial of perceivable for suggested.
You saying the word "tempting" implies you are tempted already, to deny the perceivable (percivable: reason is natural, word dissecting/breakdown/analysis is artificial) for suggested (suggested: reason bad, etc.)
Nothing isn't in conflict with everything
And reason is not in conflict with implication or word analysis.
Yes, a scam.
Yes vs no cheats oneself out of balance.
Is that a fact? YES or NO?
Yes vs no does not cheat anything. Implication cheats one out of balance.
"Your worldview is not"
a) Mine vs yours tempts one to ignore that potential (life) during procession (inception towards death) cannot take into possession without destroying each other.
b) Nature WAS perceivable before each being within can suggest what it IS.
c) Not (nothing) implies the inversion of nature (everything).
"intellectual growth"
Only during loss (inception towards death) can there be growth (life
That implies that LOSING your implication and word analysis will GROW you. So LOSE it NOW. LOSE IT. LOSE IT!!! ONLY during LOSS can there be GROWTH!!!!!!!!
intellect/intelligo - "to understand" implies standing under one another, which suppresses growth.
Sleight of hand by Madonna: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature"
constant denial
CON implies "together"...DE implies "divided; apart".
Freewill of choice: "My word analyses are true because they are true"
a) Free + will have to separated from one another; otherwise one couldn't be free from one another.
b) MY and TRUE tempt free will of choice to claim for self (my) while holding onto a side (true)...both of which bind free will of choice to others (you + false).
c) Analyzing the synthesis of words allows one to perceive the thesis of moving sound.
[So you know you are analyzing words.]
"I can't give you anything though"
All (perceivable) was given to each one (perception)...giving and taking each others suggestions tempts one to ignore that.
Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) from being (life).
"I criticize you"
Critic/krinein - "to separate"...https://www.etymonline.com/word/critic hence every ONE being a critic to ONE another.
If one chooses to claim self as "me; myself or I", then every other one becomes a YOU (phonetic jew).
Nothing isn't in conflict with everything
And reason is not in conflict with implication or word analysis.
How much of this do you actually believe, and hiw much of this is simply theories you have put out?