Look at the choices they give us in the "alt media"
a) Only balance gives (inception) and takes (death) choice (life)...taking suggested choices gives up ones free will of choice.
b) Look/lock contradicts alternation by choice aka adaptation. A jew utilizes suggestion to tempt gentiles look at/lock onto suggested by consent.
c) Each one (perception) within all (perceivable) implies "alternating mediation". Any suggested media tempts one to ignore ones position at the middle/medius/media of all.
InfoWars
Aka suggested information tempting those who consent into war (conflicts of reason). It doesn't matter what the information is or from which side it wages war against the other...only ones consent to any suggested side matters.
One side wants...the other wants
It's want vs not want tempting one to ignore being want (life) within need (inception towards death).
It's all leading to the same place, a One World Order
a) All implies same direction (inception towards death) for each ones different placement (life) within.
b) There can be only one order...natural order. Any artifical orders tempt those who follow to run in circles aka circular logic turning into conflicts of reason against one another.
satanists
A jew suggests -isms (satanism) to shape consenting gentiles into -ists (satanist).
Satan implies "adversary, one who plots against another", which refers to gentiles turning against one another, after consenting to a jewish suggestion.
Nature straightens; artifice turns...thinking straight requires ones resistance to the temptation of circular logic turning into conflicts of reason.
A poll found that 82%...
Poll/pol - "head" implies one by one...percent aka per centum implies by the hundred.
Pol-itics tempts many to cast votes for representatives among few, hence contradicting one by one. Suggested polls then tempt the ignorant many to ignore perceivable whole for a suggested proportion of the whole amount by the hundred.
Israel want to...
Israel aka the jewish people aka the hebrew nation aka yisra'el - "he that striveth with God" implies each ones struggle to resist want during need.
A jew suggests polls and percentages to tempt gentiles to ignore need for want.
God himself says that the entire people of Israel is evil (Ezk 3:4-7, 5:4-8)
Ezekiel suggesting in the name of God tempts consenting gentiles to break the first commandment aka "thou shalt have no other gods before me". These gentiles also ignore ezekiel/yehezqel aka hazaq (to strengthen) el (god), which is what tempting others into ignoring resistance establishes...strength of being fed back into origin.
God implies perceivable sound...not suggested words shaped within perceivable.
religious leaders were responsible
Religion/religio - "to bind anew" implies the response of followers, willingly choosing to bind themselves to leaders, when giving consent to any suggestion.
Consent shirks ones response-ability (free will of choice) onto a chosen ones suggestion.
the people of Israel themselves
Yisra'el implies each singular ones perception within perceivable...not suggested pluralism.
There's also no people OF israel, but only each isra of EL (god).
the Bible clearly states
The mental state of ones sight in-between covers, when reading any book, implies ignorance of perceivable for suggested.
A book obscures clarity...if a reader reads/re - "to reason", hence establishing a conflict of reason about suggested words within perceivable sound.
I'm just quoting the Bible.
a) I'm (I am aka je-suis aka jesus) isn't morally righteous (just)...but the dishonest taking into possession of what God divines/divides apart from one another, hence Christ/christen - "to anoint".
Potential (life) during procession (inception towards death) cannot take anything into possession without destroying self and others.
b) Quote/quot - "how many"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/quote tempts one to ignore that there can be only each one within all oneness. That's why quoting God (e nomine aka speaking in the name of) denies singularity of God.
a) Pride/prith also implies price/prise/prize/praise...hence the price one pays when ignoring demon aka dai (to divide) mon (to provide).
b) To extent; throw; send; direct implies nature extending/throwing/sending/directing (inception towards death) each being (life) by providing (mon) division (dia).
c) Month/mene (moon) from me (to measure)...that's how the natural division provided is being inverted through measurement aka minds holding onto value (price). Doing that permits others to suggest prizes/prices for one to sell out to.
"Everyone has a price, the important thing is to find out what it is" ~Pablo Escobar
d) Sanskrit aka san/sem (one together with) + krta/kwer (to make form) implies ones consent making form out of another ones suggestion...while ignoring that nature provides flow (perceivable) to divide form (perception) from one another into part (particular) hayati (life).
a new political party
a) "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun" ~ Ecclesiastes 1:9
b) The last time the US left became too radical; the overtone window was moved towards the right, which established liberal vs conservative as well as far-right vs far-left. For more look into E. Michael Jones work on the "Birth of Conservatism".
The same jewish trick of rebranding is being played right now...
c) To be implies a partial within whole of nature...joining any "party" tempts one to ignore this, while denying self for others.
healthy alternative
To alternate implies adaptation by choice...not holding onto a choice within a conflict of reason (healthy vs ill).
Israel is arming
Arm/ar - "to fit together", hence Greek arthron - "a joint"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/arm
That's what each jew tempts gentiles to do...join together, which in return permits each jew to israel/yisra'el - "he that striveth with God" aka struggle for separation/apartheid... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Europe-1789-1939-History/dp/0198219806
Gentiles are tricked to ignore the perceivable implication of arms (join together) and weapons (free will of choice) by a jew arming gentiles with weapons to fight each other.
Wahhabism is a sect
Sect/seco - "to divide"...consenting to any suggested -ism tempts one to ignore that by joining together what nature divides apart from one another.
Wahhab (to bestow) implies given naturally (perception)...not artificially (suggestion). Same trick with sunnism aka sunna "way of action", which implies nature acting a way (inception towards death) for each reacting being (life) within.
It's consenting to the -isms which tempts gentiles against each other and into circular logic aka a circle drawn around ones cubic (left/right + up/down + front/back) perception called the KABBA (cube).
Gaza
Gasa - "to gape" aka to look with open mouth, and hence with the bumpkin's idle curiosity, listlessness, or ignorant wonder. Gaza/gasa is about the jewish mockery of gentile ignorance.
Is this all
This implies that...so this cannot represent "all". Few tempting many to collectivize this or that as "all"...that's how public opinion is being shaped.
Opinion implies private, hence "everyone's a critic"...
The "planet" deception is a prison for your mind that is self perpetual
a) Plane (inception towards death) perpetuates mind (life). The division of plane into mind implies a "prism" aka a solid (life) whose sides are parallel (inception towards death).
b) The "T" added to plane implies "tee" aka the letters ability to hold (tenere/tenir), which is why a golf-tee upholds the ball.
The "letters ability" refers to the letter (ones consent) enabling another (suggestion). This trick is also used by subtracting the "T" from satan into nasa, hence T minus... 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1...liftoff.
a) Prison implies primary (pri) sound/sonos (son)...each being implies secondary/seco (to divide) instrument.
b) A prism implies a solid (life) whose sides are parallel (inception towards death) aka lying in the same plane but never meeting in either direction.
The division of all perceivable into each ones perception implies a free "prism", while ones consent to any suggestion implies a confining "prison".
changes everything and nothing at the same time permalink
If everything changes, then nothing implies each things denial of change. Others suggest "same time" to tempts ones denial of everything (same) changing into each thing (difference).
There are more important things than the shape of
Flow imports form...shapes imply a formed export within flow.
- Preside; verb - "to be set above others".
Nature sets each being (perception) at the center (perception) of all (perceivable); hence as above/so below. Few suggest presidents to tempt many to set themselves below.
replace
Replacement implies ones response (re) to position (place) of mind (ment)...consenting to a suggestion permits others to deposit suggested information within ones mind, which is how a golem/goyim can be controlled from outside.
I'm rooting for you
Being implies growth (life) within loss (inception towards death)...rooting for another uproots self.
Palantir aka Palan (far) Tir (to watch over) aka a far-seer aka PHAR-I-SEE... https://www.etymonline.com/word/Pharisee
How was it broken?
Nature breaks beings apart from one another...beings tempt each other together with artifice.
fill the Caliphate
Caliphate/khalifa - "successor; succeed". Succession during procession implies ongoing separation (inception towards death) of temporary beings (life)...filling up on artificial possessions only tempts one to ignore nature.
jews and Muslims fought together against the Crusaders
Crusade/crux - "cross"...one cannot fight together while being (life) moved A CROSS (inception towards death).
False. Who or what is getting "destroyed"??
True vs false tempts one (life) to ignore change (inception towards death)...hence holding onto a SIDE corrupting ones SIGHT.
This isn't a gun, bomb, missile war.
a) There can be only one weapon...ones weapon of choice. No gun; bomb or missile could be utilized without it.
b) Ideological war implies a conflict of reason (war) based on circular thinking (logic) over suggested ideas (ideo)...that's the foundation for any gun; bomb or missile war.
Using reason is NOT going to destroy anything
a) Nothing (not) implies the inversion of everything aka ones de-nial of perceivable for suggested...that's self destructive logic, which turns into mutual destruction within the resulting conflicts of reason.
b) Nature uses; each one within re-uses nature. Few tempt many to ignore that by suggesting them to use artifice within nature.
When was the last time refuting and defending resulted in actual damage?
a) Time aka holding onto past; present; future, while ignoring ones presence within the perceivable moment(um) of motion aka now.
b) Suggested abortion tempts gentiles into a conflict of reason...pro-life vs pro-choice. It's this conflict of reason which sustains abortion, because it keeps many busy against each other, while ignoring that few are aborting the off-spring of many.
And to add insult to injury...being alive implies having choice; while having choice implies being alive. Pro-life vs pro- choice represents an asinine contradiction. "Hey goyim, which side do you choose...life or choice?"
If two people argue in a house, will the house explode?
If implies then...a separation by motion. Two implies one separated unit of matter holding onto another one within a conflict of reason, while ignoring the natural separation of motion (inception towards death) into matter (life).
Ignorance implies an implosion. The argueMENT happens within ones mind, which is also where the enemy resides...en-e-my (within me).
The only thing reasons "tempts"...
The only thing implies ONE...reason implies a duel (one vs one) aka dual-ism (two). Reasoning contradicts the only thing.
hate growth
Growth (life) implies ones struggle within loss (inception towards death)...love vs hate implies growth vs growth, while ignoring loss aka the temptation to ignore resisting.
the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate. There was a "winner" there
Two losers fighting within a ring...the one losing less being declared a "winner" from outside the ring. Whatever those losers were debating...others losers will continue to debate each other over.
Win/winnan/wennanan - "to seek to gain"... https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=win
Coming into being implies one (perception) gaining access to all (perceivable)...seeking to gain more than all is offering one...that's self destructive denial of reality for fiction.
"analysis implies separation"...Ehh, no it doesn't.
- ANAL'YSIS, noun - "the separation of a compound body into its constituent parts"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/analysis
- Ana (throughout) lysis/leu (to loosen, divide, cut apart)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/analysis
I'm not tempted to ignore anything.
Everything moves each thing apart from one another...focusing on anything tempts one to ignore everything else.
Being implies resistance (life) within temptation (inception towards death); hence everything tempting one to ignore resisting.
Ignorance implies the path (inception towards death) of least resistance (life).
When have YOU ever been "tempted" to ignore anything?
Whenever one chooses want over need. Reasoning implies want vs not want, while ignoring need.
Test this by holding your breath...does wanting vs not wanting to breathe change the need to breathe, or does the artificial conflict tempt one to temporary ignore the ongoing force of nature?
Nothing can't tempt anything if it tried.
Everything forces each thing to adapt...ignoring to adapt implies the temptation. To distract from ones ignorance...others are suggesting nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) to tempt ones willing de-nial of perceivable for suggested. The resulting conflict of reason (yes vs no) distracts one with others from resisting ignorance, which represents each ones "trial" within natural law.
SIDE 1: Word analysis
Analysis implies ones sight...not one side against another.
SIDE 2: Reason
Reasoning against one another is based on ones consent to suggested words, hence a synthesis of consent (to buy) and suggested (to sell) aka a binding contract for ones "free" will of choice with the happy merchant of temptation, who tricked both sides to sell out by buying into mutual destruction.
Which side do you pick?
Balance allows free will of choice to pick...picking a side imbalances choice.
Nature doesn't suggest sides...nature (all perceivable) generates sight (ones perception).
Do you continue
Continue/continere - "to hold together"...being implies apart from one another, while needing to let go of whatever one wants to hold onto, hence wielding free will of choice within a need/want balance.
One cannot hold onto need, while holding onto want establishes an imbalance against not want.
Please tell us how that is a "bad thing".
a) Nature moves sound straight through...words (logos) tempt circular thinking inwardly (logic), which turns against one another outwardly (reason).
b) Pleading implies wanting, while ignoring need.
c) A thing implies a partial within whole; separated from one another. Good vs bad reasoning turns things against one another artificially, while ignoring natural separation.
Just accept it
If being implies form (life) within flow (inception towards death); then both acceptance and denial destroys being. Only resisting the temptation to hold onto sustains being.
choose reason
a) Choice implies within balance...choosing to hold onto any side implies imbalance for choice.
b) Reason implies a conflict towards outcome (winning vs losing)...choice implies adaptation to origin, hence reason tempting one with suggested outcomes to TURN from perceivable origin. An inversion.
it is a far better exercise
Both sides within any conflict of reason consent to VS aka versus/verto - "to turn" aka turning against each other for mutual destruction.
A conflict of reason cannot be dissolved by those fighting each other within it, only by resisting the temptation to hold onto either side, which would sustain ones choice within balance.
Conflicts of reason are 10X superior to word analysisism.
a) Can you name one conflict of reason that was dissolved?
b) Notice the sleight of hand for those with eyes to see...RE (ones response to) SON (all sound), hence resonance...not conflicts of dissonance.
c) Analysis implies separation; both words and -isms imply combination.
Imbalance implies an artificial combination of choice vs choice; while being choice within balance implies a natural separation.
d) There can be only one....one for all and all for each one within. 0 (nothing) tempts one to ignore 1 (everything).
Both sides take massive leaps of faith
a) Nature gives choice in-between sides...taking any side ignores choice.
b) Consenting to a suggestion implies choosing a side...want or not want, while ignoring perceivable need.
c) Perception needs to respond to origin (perceivable)...suggestion tempts one to "leap" towards outcome.
Why do...talk about
Because speech aka dis-course was suggested by another to tempt one off-course. What does a course imply? Onward movement! What does dis-course imply? Circular logic turning into conflicts of reason!
timelines has been distorted
a) Line implies ongoing motion; time implies temporary measurement...holding onto measurements tempts one to ignore being moved.
b) Dis (to divide) tort (to twist)...to be implies division (life) of line (inception towards death)...holding onto measurements implies a twist aka circular logic.
ABEL was murdered by CAIN.
Being able implies being enabled...taking possession (cain/i can) over self disables ones potential (able/abel).
Now compare "able" and "I can" with Abel the shepherd (herding sheep) and Cain the farmer (renting land)...the ability to herd is enabled by sheep, while renting out land is based on taking possession of property.
It's taking possession over sheep which transformed herding into livestock farming, which implies mass murder. Just because I CAN (cain) doesn't mean one was enABLEd (abel) to do so...
you are trying to get people's foundations to shape their beliefs?
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.
people's OWN ideas
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.
convince them
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.
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.
"new data" implies INFO; "white vs black aka british vs foreign aka minority vs majority" implies WAR.
That's how it works...few suggest information to tempt many to choose a side within a war aka a conflict of reason.
Nature neither suggests information; nor does it turn beings against one another.
Education/educere - "to bring out" implies action (inception towards death) bringing out reactions (life)...not many students held within by few teachers.
School/skholē/segh - "idleness; a holding back"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/school