You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
4
TallestSkil on scored.co
1 year ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)2 children
I just realized I didn’t actually get to the point I wanted to make by replying. Great. It was *going* to connect, honest. Anyway, here:
Exactly. “Render to God” implies “always live in accordance with objective truth as outlined by God’s word,” and then *where God has made no explicit statement* then do what human authorities/your own opinions dictate. It’s like how the constitution is supposed to work. Where the constitution explicitly says what the government (or people) can and cannot do, it must be followed strictly and to the letter. Anything *not* listed is forbidden from government control and permitted for people to do.
>Render to God” implies “always live in accordance with...
a) Rendering (give back) towards implies matter (life) giving back to motion (inception towards death)...because it cannot be held onto.
b) Accordance implies versus denial...a conflict of reason; established by ones choice to HOLD ONTO a side, while ignoring to give back aka to let go aka to render to God.
c) Reason (accordance vs denial conflict) contradicts implication (if/then)....there's no conflict within implication until one chooses to hold onto a side, while reasoning against another.
>outlined by God’s word
What if God implies SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/sound
What if being implies within (ones perception) the line (all perceivable) of sound...and what if a jew suggests words in the name of sound (God) to distract gentiles with suggested from perceivable?
>they’re told from every source
There can be only one source moving all perceivable through ones perception, yet what if each one within wields the free will of choice to ignore this for each others suggestions?
Nature doesn't narrate tales...it moves units apart from one another to inspire adaptation. Having the free will of choice to alternate in-between nature (need) and each other (want) implies a fundamental balance within nature, as the foundation for choice.
Exactly. “Render to God” implies “always live in accordance with objective truth as outlined by God’s word,” and then *where God has made no explicit statement* then do what human authorities/your own opinions dictate. It’s like how the constitution is supposed to work. Where the constitution explicitly says what the government (or people) can and cannot do, it must be followed strictly and to the letter. Anything *not* listed is forbidden from government control and permitted for people to do.
You’ve taken zero action your entire life and it shows.
a) Rendering (give back) towards implies matter (life) giving back to motion (inception towards death)...because it cannot be held onto.
b) Accordance implies versus denial...a conflict of reason; established by ones choice to HOLD ONTO a side, while ignoring to give back aka to let go aka to render to God.
c) Reason (accordance vs denial conflict) contradicts implication (if/then)....there's no conflict within implication until one chooses to hold onto a side, while reasoning against another.
>outlined by God’s word
What if God implies SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/sound
What if being implies within (ones perception) the line (all perceivable) of sound...and what if a jew suggests words in the name of sound (God) to distract gentiles with suggested from perceivable?
>they’re told from every source
There can be only one source moving all perceivable through ones perception, yet what if each one within wields the free will of choice to ignore this for each others suggestions?
Nature doesn't narrate tales...it moves units apart from one another to inspire adaptation. Having the free will of choice to alternate in-between nature (need) and each other (want) implies a fundamental balance within nature, as the foundation for choice.
One can only come into being within source.