For those who come accompanying my posts, which are not frequent, they’re all linked to the mega-concept of Productivity, which I proposed as the final base of my arguments, finishers about the Christianism.
There are who says that ‘ the earth’s going to end, but the capitalism will continue’ : and indeed, the productivity is the essence of the crackianism, that thing that even broken, works: something that one accepts when one accepts the defect.
And indeed, I didn’t denied myself on making it: to tell the truth, the thesis is even ready, it’s quite big, many drawings, much explanations: but it’s an almost scientific model, involves Marx, Einstein, Adam Smith, Newton, Keynes, Rousseau, Webber, Darwin, Comte, Durkheim, Socrates, Millet, democratic models, in short..[!]: it’s a historical humanitarian boredom where the only joy is that I was able to do this while I had the ‘bum bag’: because, to link all these people to scholars, their beliefs and religion and their models…[!]: a rationality which I don’t practice anymore. What I tell you all is that, those people, independently of their knowledge, were very small, they didn’t knew indeed with what they were dealing with, or, how those ideas dealed with them: for this, I felt the need of explaining somethings of equal relevance: The Sentimentalism.
In way to highlight how all this human Productivity was earned over the gain of the natural: how a value was added to nature and of how this value was converted: it would be boring to speak that the relation between the man and the nature it’s a value of use and the relation of the man with God is a value of exchange: it’s a discussion that Adam Smith would like to participate.
And if the issue was the productivity, explain which feelings are being exchanged in a society, outside of the Christian angle, was something never tried.
For this, the ties of the Economy and the ties od the Law, just as their informative vein, and to this it’s followed, on this finishes the technology, they’re always involved in the unique feeling of the religion. There’s no how to visualize feelings, there’s a commitment of the scientists, of the experts, on credenciate their work for Christ: and it’s interesting, because most of them are atheists: but if their work didn’t explained Christ, their ideas would have never been chosen:
In a way that, sociologically speaking, the moral became a sciene, and it transmuted for inside of what was believed to be the valid knowledge: and this is basically the ‘Torahnian’ Lexicon of the valid results. It’s basically of what media lives: an image was created, a sentimentalism to it associated: what the world is today is what Christ used to see and feel.
Many may not agree with this, and that the world doesn’t have the feeling of Christ, that the world on which we live today it’s not in the kingdom of God: but anyone who says this is an asshole: the world on which we live is Christ. And it’s for every Christian to be proud of what he made. And the list is big to credenciate to all: but what it didn’t lacked was the cooperators. The biggest of all was, undoubtedly, Paul, because indeed the Essen, the Nazarenes, the Branca Leone army (‘God took off the hand..’ – that was mythical: and then, God putted the hand) .. : Adam Smith spoke about the invisible hand, the market, and I’d say that the invisible hand is the consumer one, it’s not only a history of how we must be proud of our own creation, the Humanity: it’s to hit on the chest and to say that ‘we’re in the right way..[!]’, that we hitted right: ‘We’re the continuation of God!’: a process of continuation of the results: the future is promisor, even when the actual reading points to a 45% of desertification of the miser 6% of cultivable lands of the world, if this evil-thusian numerology exists or not any sentimentalism of God, if in this moment God vanities himself by his victories: the plan was to destroy the natural: even more when God in Genesis 6:6 affirms that he erred when he did the man: something to be thinked of, and is of praxis of the human being to think about what went wrong. And in this moment, while I try to explain the mystery of Creation, mainly, what’s the exact location of the heart of God, what still seems to be a mystery for all the theology: and instead of it, it offers possible guilties: and as a premium, the concept of defect.
Yeah, God took off his hands, and I’m taking mine off as well. Indeed, I’m leaving the post, but I couldn’t leave without concluding the Productivity, and also, tarrying a little longer about how this productivity affected natural beings, children, women, animals, the nature, the earth, the dreams, the beauty. It’s with pleasure that I explain the Heart of God.
For this, I’ve chosen the super-incredible 6:6 Genesis, the Repentance of God. Woe! God erred[!].
To whom don’t know, this is King James Bible version [on the left] and the Vulgate of St. Jerome Bible [on the right], on their primordial versions. Both of them are made necessaries, because the errors and changes in the standard of interpretation followed and they’re not exactly as it is on the Torah.
It’s something that will be discussed. The thorned passages are basically two: the first refers that God made the man from the earth: and some distortions occurs there. The first one is that, in some bibles, and some scholars, refers to the term as a localization and not a substantiality: the correct interpretation is the substantiality.
The other one is that, the anima of the man is on likeness of the reptile, the human being accepts the resemblance with the monkey, it’s because 98% of his genetic material is from the monkey: what proves that God wouldn’t have erred. The human being would not be a naturalness standard: but that a God used the same material of the earth.
It may seem strange, but it’s not wanted to accept this: and there’s a ‘why’ for this: it’s something that will be debated as well. And the third question, that it cannot even be said as a ‘ question’, because God is a confess defendant, it’s if God would have admitted that he erred or not. So, if you have any bible over there, read this passages and, in the passages that are with problem, I’ll give the correct interpretation: and you see if my thought is coherent.
Gen 6:6: ‘paenituit eum quod hominem fecisset in terra et tactus dolore cordis intrinsecus’.
“ And he[God] repented because composed the man of the earth and touched pain [bitterness/suffering] on his heart [spirit/judgement] ”
Gen 6:6 Torah: וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה, כִּי-עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ; וַיִּתְעַצֵּב, אֶל-לִבּוֹ.
“Heart of God, got sad; Israel [earth] made the man of, the Lord consoled [instructed/moderated]”
Concordance:‘ The heart of God got sad, he made the man from the earth. So God accepted it with sadness’.
Regarding the versicle of the Torah, above, the anima it’s not a cake receipt, where a result would claim for a better result or a superior one, but that are the same materials involved: Properties of God, which indicates a resemblance, or, equal to, or even, the same as: and in the Hebrew lexicon translation, it indicates substance¸material.
Gen 6:7: ‘delebo inquit hominem quem creavi a facie terrae ab homine usque ad animantia a reptili usque ad volucres caeli paenitet enim me fecisse eos’ [Vulgate [x]].
“ I’ll destroy completely then the man which I created of the face of the Earth, and the man, Always according to the reptiles anima, just as the one of the birds and creatures that fly on the skies, indeed this upsetted me: to create them.’ [x]
Gen 6:7: “And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” [ KJV New Authorized Version [x]].
“So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” [NewRevisedStandardVersion Catholic Bible [x]].
The below comment, of Wayne Jackson from the Christian courier, declares the following:
“ How does one explain this puzzling verse?
“And it repented Jehovah that he had made man upon the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen. 6:6).
First, let us demonstrate what the passage cannot mean.It does not mean that God created the human family, expecting that it would remain loyal to him, but that, eventually, humanity strayed.The Lord was then disappointed, and so regretted he had made us.That cannot be the meaning for the following reasons.
God is omniscient; that means he knows everything.“Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite” (Psa. 147:5).If the Lord’s understanding is infinite, he must have known, before he created man, that he would fall.
This is further evidenced by the fact that the plan of salvation was purposed before humanity was created.Paul affirms that God “chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world,” and that our redemption was “through [Jesus’] blood” (Eph. 1:4,7; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2; Rev. 13:8).
Since the sacrifice for human sin was provisioned even before the world was created, it necessarily follows that our Creator knew we would transgress long before Adam and Eve were placed in Eden.
How, then, is Genesis 6:6 to be explained?
There are several figures of speech in the Bible that accommodate the human level of understanding.One is anthropomorphism (man form), where physical features are ascribed to God, e.g., the eyes of the Lord (1 Pet. 3:12), Jehovah’s arm (Jn. 12:38), etc.These depict God’s watchfulness and his power.
There is another figure called anthropopathism (man feeling), whereby human emotions are sometimes attributed to God.To say, therefore, that God “repented,” or that he was “grieved,” is simply a symbolic way of asserting that man’s conduct did not meet the divine standard. This language vividly portrays, from a human perspective, God’s displeasure at our rebellion.
Underline “repented” and “grieved,” and in your margin note: Human emotions figuratively ascribed to God.”
[Source: [x] ].
Standard Catholic Opinion: [x]
Obs.: I didn’t do the translation as usual, because it’s the same rolling up: that the upsetment of God is for the ‘ human conduct’. This almost reaches the stage of funny. But the link is there, it doesn’t comes to be a waste of time, but it may help you to perceive that indeed, no one explains. The sensation is that you’re being made of a clown.
For this, let’s go straight to the point. But a good readed of the 6:1 to 8 it’s interesting, this passage is involved in another discussions, which will be commented forward: it is one of the pillars of the Catholic Church: and of the Protestant also.
The passage is critical: it’s the clear and clean admission that God would never be able to possess the feelings of the Earth, nor even less attribute his own feelings to that which he thought it was his. It’s not a feeling of sacrifice that would lead to the comprehension of a future Resurrection or Restoration as main interpretative vein of the Christian religion: but the limitation of God toward something which escaped his dominion.
The explanation of God[?]: “The human feelings are not equal to His feelings”: but it’s the affirmation that no one wants: nor Jews and neither Christians want to accept each other: instead, tries to apply the fakism, the cynism, and a disexplanation:
The silence takes over the word and multiple interpretations start to emerge from nowhere, almost trying to re-explain the Creation, on the intuit of stepping away any possibility of admission that God would’ve admitted his fail: and to utilize himself of a projection, that indeed he was not caught in surprise, he was not surprised by men’s fail, without explaining God’s feelings, as if God was not in pain in that moment, he was faking. Indeed, there was no surprise on his thoughts, some “I knew it..!”, very thin, as if God was, the entire time, trying to deceive himself, but already knew the result: a projection of the future.
But it’s an asshole understanding: not only because if such a thing existed it would hit Christ as well: because if God committed a mistake once, he would commit it twice, or three times: it’s the phenomenon of Repentance, but, for the fact of the err in question, I mean: there’s no divergence about the God having alleged to have erred something: and this something’s not a small shit: the Creation, and specifically, the man: and Woe(!), animals too: But for the err being of Structural nature. Yeah[!]: this is the miscomprehension of the problem. For this, it was quoted all the possible translations, and those which are considered the top ones, because the biblical escapism… is something that every Christian should worry about. Always that I listen to these questions, I get furious: why does an asshole goes around with a bible, that “God knows” which version is, that ‘it’s the pastor bible..’, or, ‘he won from his father’, I say it to those who take it seriously and those who believe and practice, ‘the professor spoke..’, ‘I’ve readed in an article..’: so, for relevant passages which I consider really important, I’ve adopted the criteria of go and get the Torah: because it’s a Jew fight: ‘Why that the Christians change constantly the Word of God[?]’: the cynicism of the Jew is different, he doesn’t changes it, I mean, he does changes it as well: the literatures are nor even from far and Al Quran standard, where Muhammad said that whoever changed a word of it, he would kill, but, the vacancy between the Word of God and its rendering is more strict to the taxonomy of God, I mean: what God proclaims, the Jew maintains the proclaimed, and makes the addend of its own interpretation, or, the interpretation of the receiver, accordingly; Now, the Christians, they change the proclamation of God and his Word, according to their own interpretation, their angle: their historical casuism. Said yet in another way, any word is from God: God sculpted earth on his image and similarity: and that which he modeled would repeat his own movements, not being God able to exempt himself of the human interpretation, for any allegation that it was, even though if he claimed unknowledgement of nature, for the word, just as the spirit, were His Creation.
In way that, there’s no how to exclude the interpretation of the word, or its bad interpretation: it’s seeked for a parity with what was written: this is the basic to be perceived. And for this, one must seek for the bests: following the rite of originality, never a second-hand material. In a way that God knew that the utilized method, the Word, the rendering of the eyes through the ears, would be what would have the biggest unidimensional reaching: where the image of God would come from an external source, for posteriorly, seeking a projection in the interior.
Congratulations to God, his utilized method, the Word, was a success: God knew that the human being would have a Babel on his hands. But, that the optimization of the Word, once more, would fulfill the office of correction. And this is the understanding of the Jew: God would not give up so easily of his first version, because these guys looked at God with another eyes: the God of Moses and the God of David will never be the God of Christ: because these guys assumed a commitment. And the venting with Noah doesn’t sounds like a misunderstood, but on the contrary, a confirmation: “I’ll keep trying”: that history that, ‘Brazilians don’t give up..[!]’, and that “Vasco is the team of the turning..[!]”:
For this, the literature of Christians is not only of second-hand, as their also adepts of the second version, which culminates with Christ Resurged: the Resurrection finishes all its argumentation. It doesn’t comes to be a disparity, or a double interpretation: my study it’s about the interpretative line of the feelings, and what I say is that the original feelings of de Sadducee Jew came changing, without an explanation if God came changing too… . Every little church that appears around the peripheries, starts with a strange theory: they affirm having a new Christ on their hands, and that the other congregations don’t know this Christ: it’s a weird argument for that which one day proposed itself as being an unity: indeed all of them are one in Christ, in the same way that the Jews believe that God is one: but which are the feelings involved, are the same? Or do they sound different to the ears…? Is the Christ of Malafaia the same of the pastor Evaristo, or, of the Bishop Macedo, or the one of Tancredo or John? No one knows for certain what are the feelings of Paul in prison, or even, the feelings of Christ in the Cross..: would all of this feelings be of God[?]: That’s the big question: the Word seems small toward the judgement, what will say the heart: why were the human feelings strange to God? Do you know how to answer? Don’t know… you’ll try to roll it up as those mentioned above: because that which teaches, teaches to not believe on what you’ve readed, but to ascertain that which fits you well, that which dresses you: it gives you sobriety of that which he dresses will make him get along with: if it deflects or hits head-on, it’s not an activity of the conscient, not even less of the extractor or the extrativist , not even less of that who spits in the plate that eats, which challenges his provider: it may be an analyst, a doctor, it’s not enough to be a judgement of his own interpretation: but an executioner of himself: under the penalty of being Crucified by Christ: which in deep, it’s him that must be swallowed: and believe it, you don’t eat another thing: you talk about Democracy and another things , or a president or an inoperative, but what’s in stave it’s the billing, the harvest, that receipt which entered in your life, and from one hour to another, it was that which you started to consume. So, what feelings are consumed in this megatransaction, where the to give and the to receive are not mere interpretations of the judgement, but there exists feelings involved. It’s basically this which’s being discussed and what will be discussed.
Only calling the attention to the sapiens that had the luck or bad luck of being reading my stuff, to do not pretend as an asshole and go laughing around, thinking that have something on hand, and that, that’s the word of God: at the same time which I incentive them, not to agree, neither to accept what I write, but that they be as exigent as their faith: if God affirms that he erred and you don’t give yourself the work of investigating…[!]: it’s written, pa. So, don’t misunderstand the problem, seeking for an adequation with your ideas, because the momentary scare bended your knees. Nor much less utilize yourself of the usual escapism of transforming the quotidian in a biblical standard, the family, the Estate, the Democracy, which background is the education: that history of the bogeyman, that’s all about a little lie, that history of mommy and daddy, that they loved each other and that it was a perfect marriage and that there was nothing wrong with that union, that the problem didn’t came of the commitment with God, but of the heart, and that the heart of a father fakes in admitting that the blame didn’t came from the creation, but of the genetic material of the son being different of yours, the problem of the DNA, that substance which disexplains the corruption: To whom you strained to, Adam?! To the lizard? To the snake? Or was it for thy mother, my mother-in-law?: those things don’t work with God, because God has no family, he was trying to create one, almost a human constatation: has no father and mother: it was God who created himself: I mean, he did it all alone.
The fail is structural because the genetic material used was the earth’s one, the clay: it would be bizarre to admit that a little ant, which came from the protozoa and became a dinosaur, that God made them individually as he did to Adam, in a way that, if that creature was chosen by God, as being the motive of the creation of the Universe, he would need to take a lot of care and attention: the man is the motive of his Creation, and he made him with his own hands. And most ridiculous yet is to blame the earth, which is involved in the first act of the Creation, ‘in the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth’: to whom never readed the Bible, that’s the first Word.
God Created the Man from Earth: it’s the affirming which is in the Torah. In the latest King James version as well. from there, as it was shown, it starts the distortion. I get upset why this happens, indeed, I didn’t even quoted the latest catholic version, because, well…[!].
One doesn’t wants to accept the fact that the man was made from Earth: this is the substantialism of the question, which one wants to step away. It’s the same substantialism which affected Eve. However, these questions are perfectly rendered by Paul in Corinth 15, where he affirms the substantiality of Christ as being Celestial: and the substantiality of Adam being earthly: it’s one of the few passages on which you see Paul redundant, but in general, what Paul tries to justify are two different substances: Jesus Christ preceded the Creation: God would be gold, the Angels would be silver, and the Fair Men, the sons of God, the justified ones, would be copper: an analogy GOD-ANGEL-SAINT: This is to argue a sanctification of the copper and, for a Divine Alchemy, it would transform the water in wine: and the gold in copper: This is not to explain the Creation, but, to hide it, that which God was not issued about hiding it: ‘I’ll drag the man off’, ‘I’ll delete the man’, ‘I’ll erase the man’, ‘I’ll destroy the man’…: not only for the surprise, because there’s clarity on the feeling of God, and indignation: God was looking to the face of the Earth, and not his: Woe, how did this happened…? Even more incredible ..[!].C’mon, pal, I read Oxford, read Harvard, the big Theologians, as Augustine, st. Thomas of Aquino, escolars of big port, and all the artillery of classics, neoclassic, more recent articles: and the line of solution of the problem is Christ[!] (Woe[!]).
C’mon, this doesn’t explain the fact of the earthly genetic being wicked, isn’t it true? This would lead us, inevitably to Mary: the one which, virgin, had a DNA as well, it’s just doing an exame of Christ, in a way that, in any how the substantialism, by the affirming of God, would be stepped away by the Messiah and the Purification: it’s no use for God to quote new races, another people, but new specie: different of the one of the reptiles. It would have worked with Noah, wouldn’t it? It would’ve worked with Christ, wouldn’t it? It was only God clap the fingers and the human being would become gold, and nature too: it would be much more natural than to accept a Purification. No: go to shit with all these ideas: you don’t have indeed an explanation for the problem, you’ve got an explanation for the solution: explanation this that is not even authorized by God, I mean: even if Christ could produce a genetic alteration, he did a lot of miracles, he have been fixing the human being, but his concepts were always explained by a disexplanation of the evil: the evil , in Christ, is understood as the Devil, a phenomena of the earth, and not as a mistake of God, as if earth had another Creator. Indeed, most of people believe on this and thinks that there’s no problem at all: ‘the earth’s hell’, affirm the most exalted pastors. It’s not to laugh: most of people think like that.
In a way that, if we believe that Christ came to fix God, we would be once more accepting the fact that God erred: and we’ll be returning to the problem: and it’s basically on this that Religion repents: “God mistaked on purpose”: and the question is dislocated for the understanding of the moral, of the system, of the capitalism, of the democracy, of the Institution, when, the problem of corruption appears and hits in the acconditioning of liberty that defines the being: this is another imbecility, among the many which I’m speaking of: it’s not just the redundancy of thinking, how the question closures, without an affirmation, or the pillar of a belief, broken, without solution: but for the simple fact of the acceptation that the question is unsolvable because the relations inherent to its system of solution, a real lexicon of possibilities, doesn’t changes the status of the Creature nor the condition of the Creation: the err is structural: the man was made from the Earth.
It’s not admitted what is written, and it’s correct: It’s the understanding of the Jew and of the Torah, that even though overwritten, it’s clear and encerrative: and this would turn Christ into unnecessary, for most better that his good will was, for it wouldn’t change the initial feeling of God: from there, we would have God accompanying his bad creation and assuming the paternity of his err, that’s entirely justified in Christ: but palliative, a remedy: and indeed, is how Christ is understood: a universal detergent of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of the Fairs would be firstly understood as the Kingdom of the Cleans and it’s indeed how the Jew understood his Creation initially : and it’s correct.
After, this thinking went transmuting in Babylon and the ghost of Resurrection started to be quoted, the such Total Restoration: but as it was already quoted, this doesn’t steps away the bad creation: and it doesn’t explains it: only as a way of solution of a convivence with the problem:
For this, the acceptation of the passage, is thornable, because it invalidates Christ: Christ would have never been pure one day, there are no other version for the man, only one: and all of them pass through the earth: and this was the main argument of the Jews, when they questioned ‘you’re a son of who..?’, ‘who’s your mother?’, ‘you’re a smart one, but where did your sanctity came from?’, ‘why aren’t you a sinner of birth?’: it was seeked a line of understanding, and it’s the most accept one, usually: the third son of Eve, the Sethists: and that Christ was Created before the Universe: an escapism of trying to antepose to error of God: but this is to admit the second err of God, because Christ would pass through the earth as well: that story that was already told in the beginning of my arguments.
It was believed that the man possessed his semen already fertilized, it was just deposit it in the woman: it was the same stupidity which he thought of the plants: that they contained in themselves their own seed, already fertilized and not only its reproduction organs. That destroyed Charles Darwin, what he called of the abominable mystery, why would God have spoken such a horseness, on affirming that the plants bring their own seed..?[!]. the plants were and have always been auto-flowering: there’s no fecundation on nature. Such a power would have been given to God, not to the universe: in a way that God responds unique and exclusively for his bad creation.
In a way that, any rational tentative is fail. What’s perceived is that the adopted form, primordial, for dealing with the question, it was the vein of the moral, this, which justifies the corruption, the rape, the regret and the recompense : which configured by itself as a Purpose.
Ora, every father justifies himself that he erred because your grandfather erred with him, and that the grandson will err too, and that, to err is human, because God erred as well: exactly, exactly… the education overrules over the senses: God affirms in the Bible that he erred another times, as it was described above, errors or actions, errors of movements, a wrong General, a wrong King, and even his commands and dis-commands: endless times God stepped back with Abraham and Moses, cities that he was going to destroy and gave up, and left the prophet with the face of imbecile, what God mostly did was threaten to break the deal, the dis-deal and the retreat of what he had written:
The Genesis 6:6 is another kind of error: for this, all this preamble is that one’s not so silly and stupid and try to seek for another comprehension : God was pretty clear: it’s another specie, for this one, there’s no solution, there’s no use Paul, nor Christ and nor the Resurrection either. Ow, no one wants this, isn’t it true? Even more, comming from God..[!].
Now that you already know what’s the kind of problem that you’re dealing with, it’s an error of conception, it will be of no use you build a house with the structure of its foundation wrong and think that whatever raises from there will be a fixing, and that the merit of your tentatives will take you to the heavens: because it’s affirm that God is accompanying its defect: this may even serve as an enhance for faith, if you have it, I mean, if you possess it: but going to deal with a problem of substantiality: God showed himself unable to purify the earth, on affirming that the face of the earth is not his face: the man came out on earth’s likeness as well, on what is not known: and it’s basically on this point that I wanted to arrive:
God affirms forward that the thinkings of the man are not equal to his feelings, and vice-versa: what does it means, exactly?
It’s interesting this question, because’s through there that the free-will escapes: and takes the front of the results, as if the past could be so easily erase, and could be so easily involved that that’s not part of the thinkings of God, as two separated things: oh, go to shit with all this: Cain killed Abel: what’s the classification of a rapist, of a killer? And why his thinkings are not in God? And is the thinking able to overwrite the feelings? Did Paul one day stopped being a murderer? Did he do exorcises with little kisses? He was arrested for what? Just because he only speaked shit or believed in shit? Did he said this smiling? How many times Christ commanded to kill? How to explain the interficite in the Parabola of the Talents, ‘bring to me and execute them in my presence’, and which was the feelings of God when he raped Mary, a fourteen year old virgin? Force of unable? I mean, no one knows how was it the possession, was it verbal? It wasn’t him, was an angel..? How many were there indeed? Did Joseph participated as well? Why would God possess a woman? Until where will he go with his bad creation? All this made me suspect who was it that created God, and what did he indeed teached to the man: if his heart prevailed as judgement, do not demystify that his judgement was one day his heart.
Maybe it would stay easier to understand the origin of the evil¸and not of the bad understanding: for this to be perceived, not as a misunderstanding, but as that which is not natural.
The evil, resulting of the earth, was proposed, and this evil, primarily, nailed/hitted the woman, which was linked to a crawling animal, the serpent, and what follow is the will of God, a tentative of disexplaining the monstrosity of something. God called the nature and the animals of impure, the anima of the man is the same one of the reptiles, it doesn’t matter if he made them separately, he affirms that the same anima of the man was the same anima of the animals which he considered bestials: a classic ‘it was not I who did it!’, with a face of ‘it wasn’t like that that I wanted..[!]’: no, pals, in Hebrew, heart and juize it’s the same interpretation, there’s no reason to be accepted that the heart of the man it’s not the feeling of God: are the human feelings there were quoted, and not their thinking, it’s not the understanding that will improve them¸because it’s about something structural, it’s something defended by Christ, is a popular jargon: ‘stick that births twisted, dies twisted’; ‘from an apple tree are not born bananas’: in a way that the line of Purification must be, primarily, stepped away: because the Bible, the Torah and in Christ there are enough sentiments to know what this question is about. And the explanation is quite simple: the earth; and from the earth, the woman; from woman, the body; from body, the servant; and, for last, the Jew. Christ was a Jew, wasn’t he? The Jew was an impure from birth: the sons of Seth bared children with the daughters of Cain: this is the main scholastic line, the passage is in Genesis 6:1-4 [x]. Seth was the third son of Eve [Gen 5:3-[x]], that would be reposing Abel that died. No one knows who is the unknown woman that Cain married with, and the passage is all enrolled from the beginning till the end: and on it, God in the end of a melancholic venting, he affirms that he will take his anima off the man¸the creature that he created: that the man will now live only 120 years [Gen 6:3-[x]]: that Adam had lived 930 years [Gen 5:5-[x]].
In a way that, firstly, the history of Cain, since it was already spoken of Eve, the ungraced one [she had 150 sons..[!]], the base may be used as a good example of what’s been trying to reproduce. There’s a lot of sentiment in there, even though the passages are small, and all escapism of the Judaism, they’re silent, but at the same time they leave the possibilities which will be in lately understood as result¸and this creates a sentimental vortices, which leads us to the will of God: there, God says that Cain would have fed the earth and that, for this, he would be faded to not being able to remove her force, for having failed. He grabbed a fruit from earth and gave it to God, kind of grabbed from the floor: Abel gave his first newborn calf, the animal was his. This second-hand relation is hidden, but to Abel was given the condition of Lord, for this, he took care of the living-stock, and to Cain, the farmer, that which cares of the body, the servant. Cain went to till the ground, for a matter of proximity. The element earth is always present in the Biblical interpretatives: and it’s always in the mode negative to natural, for the natural contain certain feelings: and this is exactly what[?]: this is exactly a sentence: that shows that God, since the beginning, went involving the earth in an explanation that ended up generating an explanation for Christ. But this shows another thing: his sentimentalism: how that which he called “earth” had the face of the woman, had the face of the enemy: the unproductive servant: that which you need to plot out, to drag off: for in another way, he won’t give it.
Scavenge for this feeling, and you will find it, thousands of it, along the Bible: and ask yourself, at least once, what’s this, what’s the imposition, where did it came from and to whom it serves, what is someone who rises over another one, being bigger, to be more, to be better? On what, exactly?
Do this, it’s more important than the explanation of the whys: because it reflects an inferiority, someone that indeed doesn’t understands what’s a relation of possession. Don’t go for through the inequality line, this is a stupid one, you’re gonna fall in the explanation of the whys. But also, don’t be an asshole to the point of agreeing with God that ‘it was the nature that impose itself over the man and that this is about a reposition, because then you’re going to admit once more your weakness toward nature, this would explain even your inferiority, but it wouldn’t explain the will, if it is or not from God’s heart.
This line of thinking, of altering the natural, to impose the will of God, it’s unidirectional: Heaven-earth: and it’s explained that the evil must be dragged off,that the human feelings must be dragged off and that the feelings of God must be planted. The problem is not a DNA problem anymore: what was a problem in the body became a problem in the spirit: if it was already hard to accept a corruption on the body, it was not only the thinking of the man that was trash, but the spirit also: the DNA of God had been corrupted as well: and dirt spirit is what it doesn’t lacks between Paul and Christ: but this was an heresy for the Jew, who didn’t believed in spirit, but in anima: his anima became dirty, because he was a model of the first man, Adam, which had been revoked by Christ: and the woman, donkey, incompetent and unproductive, involved now with the Devil. A Roman of that time would vent about that he ‘had lost..’, that ‘the barbarians…’: and a Christian priest would say, ‘It’s tied up..! ..it was because of the Devil[!]: unite thyself with God that thy army will come out a winner[!].’ napoleon misunderstood this and for this he lost the Waterloo battle, or was it Trafalgar, whatever, he did not believed in Christ: in the end of his life, he would’ve converted, and left being a Muslim to become a Christian: it’s not about opinion when there are feelings involved.
Such feelings are seen in Christ, Matthew 13. These feelings are also rendered for woman, in a way that sentimental vortices are always linked to the results: and that which pleases and displeases God is always quoted.
In the same way, the genetic material, the celestials as the earthly, are so understood: the spirit of the Lord and the spirit of the servants, among the genetic material of God, of the Angels, of the Saints, of the Men and the women: the sentiment of heaven and earth are now divided.
In a way that this is the spinal chord of my arguments: independently of God having erred, there was, in his conception, the ignition understanding that he should separate heaven and earth, should separate man and woman, separate the Jews, to the point of affirming that, in the beginning, God separated heaven and earth: because the separation was his primordial act.
And this gets clear when it’s affirmed that the motive of separation of impurity. What doesn’t gets clear is what is the impurity through the sentimental vein: does the pure loves more than the impure? And this involves the understanding of what was pleasure for God, what’s his understanding about sex, and desire, and more yet, when the motive which explains the separation between heaven and earth is the sex:
Wow[!]: this question pulverizes the free-will, once the will of the man depends on his natural feelings, which were dressed with the feelings of God, and these have show unnefficient: at the same time that God blames the Earth for such feelings, and not the man: I’m not saying anything strange, the biblical understanding is this. The feeling of the Jew differs very much of the Christian one, but in deep, it’s this: the feelings of the earth.
Now, what are the feelings of the earth? What is sex for nature? What is the desire? The pleasure, the will…? because this overwrites the understanding of what was called woman: it was the understanding of the man. It was something that was already spoken in innumerous topics[x], it was a being of the masculine sex who wrote the bible, this sentimentalisms are also the understanding of a race, the Jews, races that, historically, were involved with sexual problems: and mysteriously, it was Paul’s church who “solved the problem of the woman, that instituted the marriage, that instituted the family, that other races didn’t had such an understanding…”: it’s a shit, because the Christians wrote lies about the other people, including the Egyptians, the Greeks and the own Romans, even the Babylonian had posture and codes of conduct against rapist, laws about divorce and about violence against the woman: the Jews were who had the adulterers posture. A law proposed by Augustus defined, for example, a punishment for adultery, no one would be stone, a simple indemnification would solve the problem, the woman were not even killed for this: an they were much more punitives with the concubinage, concubine women that were maintained outside of the marriage and were not considered lovers, and that lived in the same house as their master: usual practice, common and traditional in Judaism, on which Christ was very silent about [Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 [ x / x ] when asked about it by the Pharisees. Paul reopens the problem in Timothy and Corinth, but talks on a level of institution, I mean, he defended the marriage in Christ, and his letters, his epistles, were in their most written while he was in prison. The Christianism called many things by himself, in the sense of Redemption of the Judaism: and that, that by itself, would already be a differential: but all of this is shit, because what there’s most is adulterer pastors, adulterer families and what there’s most on humanity is adultery: and the point is not the anti-Semitism that’s at stave, but the origin of the understanding of all the sentimentalism that overwritted the concept of humanity: a smashing process of dis-naturalization of the natural
For this, the passages will be focused over a criteria, which I founded valid for the understanding of the problem, and not its solution.
What must be taken in mind in this moment is that the ones who identified the problem, independently of accepting it or not, and the ones who dealed with the solution, outsourced a obligational enforceability to all the humanity: now all had the commitment with the correction of the Creation: guilties would’ve been identified, among them, the main ones: the woman and the devil: and that now they should practice the criteria of salvation: in middle to the conquered freedom, the such free-will, hyper-dimensioned, the feelings that were to be practiced were quoted: to laugh, now, would be a commitment with God, in the same way that now, to cry, would be a commitment with the man, or , of the man; the nature, the real villain, was also involved in the solution:
Anything that was natural, since then, started being a suspect. It was much more than a relief, the condition of the afflicts, but a supposed understanding of the moral: to have pleasure with God would be the primordial: it’s not enough one only sacrifice itself, it had to love him as well: “ I killed for thee, my father: for this, I feel myself in the Highs..[!] I’ll do anything to please you” “ I’ll kill even my neighbor if it’s necessary, in case of his feelings are not equal to mine. My woman I already know how to treat, and my son as well: even the dog will be submitted: no harm, no impurity, will touch on the face of God, for my face is not only a sketch of a creation, it’s not only a resemblance nor an heritage, it was the commitment which I accepted: to fix that which I didn’t created.” .
Qualquer coisa que fosse natural, desde então, passou a ser suspeito. Era muito mais que um alívio, a condição dos aflitos, mas um suposto entendimento da moral: Ter prazer com Deus seria o primordial: não basta apenas se sacrificar, tinha que amá-lo também: “Matei por ti, meu pai: por isso, me sinto nas alturas..[!] Farei qualquer coisa pra te agradar”, “matarei até meu vizinho se for necessário, caso os sentimentos dele não sejam iguais aos meus. Minha mulher, eu já sei como tratar: e o meu filho também. Até o cachorro será submetido: nenhum mal, nenhuma impureza, irá tocar na face de Deus, pois meu rosto não é apenas um esboço de uma criação, não é apenas uma semelhança nem uma herança, foi o compromisso que aceitei: consertar aquilo que não criei.”.
What to do in this moment: go with Christ and Paul, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Esdras % Cia., the architects of the Word[?], those, who proposed heaven and the Messiah, the Jewish Protestant of time, those who predicted the end, the Apocalypse, the Restoration? I already said in another topic that there are three Torah’s: the Torah of Moses, the Torah of Babiloucos [crazy-Babylonian-Jew], and the Torah of Paul: from there forward it’s only interpretation, but these are the basics, in deep they’re all talking about a same thing, the unitarism, the same religion, where Christ is the angle of the question: something that was already said, I won’t debate on that.
In the previous topic, the Two Sons of God are a duality: and a duality, to be solved, needs, always, inevitably, of an angle.
Angle is a geometric understanding: two parallel straight lines, two flats, needs a perpendicular line to form the angle: and the angle, in Biblical terms, it’s the feeling: in mode that it’s a relation between the being and the to be in:
For this, the previous text talks about the feelings of God through his sons.
It was quoted Cain and Abel: and Adam to angulate them. Of course, Adam should have God’s feelings: so his two sons would explain the duality.
You can say: “You know very little about Cain and Abel, almost nothing.”: and I tell you: You are completely wrong: you’re very far, as a Christian, of understanding the mischief of the Jew, or even more, his intelligence and cynism. So, only an expert, someone who don’t see in one, two, or three, but who sees in multiple dimensions, it’s capable of seeing what happens, in time of execution, in the only dimension of mind, the reason, the human being’s chosen form for explain his feelings, explain that which he doesn’t have: and for not knowing how to have or how to obtain, nor being able to have or obtain, he invented the Seed, a construction of mind.
Once more, I won’t advantage on my usual way of expressing, which I make no effort at all, the words flow from me naturally, for not speaking only one language, speaking many: and among them, the feelings of Earth: that which I affirm and repeat, and throw in the face of anyone who affirms himself as being the possessor of truth, the lie that was validated, the history.
There’s a problem of the size of the universe, and this involves God’s personality and God’s feelings, that which is tried to be covered with the man, as if admit that God is no good was a sin: but because this would violate justice, and not because his feelings would be affected. Nor less arrogant and inexpressive, the such juridical content: that the moral of God was indeed immune to his feelings, as if God was separated. In a way that are the feelings of God that should come forward, for those who seek a parity with the Divine, or, a mirroring, those who try to attribute their own feeling to something external to itself, be it people, be it plants, be it crawling beasts of the earth, birds, cattle or the universe: anything that manifests beyond of what God feels.
In a mode that the moralization, the pertinent questions of the being, couldn’t, in any possible way, be an angle: this would be admitting that the heart and the thinking of God are distinct and separated things: and the man as an angle would solve the problem:
This is stupidity: for this is to admit that the Creation is about a process of Purification of the Universe, the purification of God. The things which involve, and this is the focus, are not mine, but the formatting of God: God is immutable, isn’t it? In way that the above sentence it’s not only a disaster over the Jews, nor much less a reaffirming for the Christians, that, miserably, saw in there an opportunity of their expression. In first instance, an explanation for the Jews that preceded, of the reason why that God unchose them: the such explanation of the Lamb, that which preceded the Creation, the ‘plan of God’, the such heart and mind integrated in Christ: the purpose perfectly ordained between Resurrection and Sacrifice:
No, pals, spare me, shitty preachers, priests, you are all dust, cements, there are no roots in your thoughts, you’re all copyists of yourselves, reflect to one another, the same standard feeling: the bitterness, the loneliness: someone who indeed never believed on anything: but this is very few for those who nothing feel.
But I’m not here as an enemy, nor the contrary is my intuit: but of explaining to you that which you never understood and that you’ll never understand as well: love is not what you believe: and the why that those who love don’t need Christ. This is not declaring the inexistence of something, as well as my motives do not need necessarily to be implicit, because they, by themselves would already explain my intention, the reason why I’m trying to help you to understand God.
For this, what I do here now, is to explain what I didn’t do in the previous topic: I spoke about the feelings, but I didn’t attribute the name to the cattle, at the same time, for a usual Christian, that who believe itself being a possessor, a possessor of God: The Word.
Well, the base I’m going to use is Genesis. And the passage is originally involved in Cain and Eve: those guys over there are not only suspects, as they’re guilty as well, in the interpretation of Christ.
What must be taken forward, before the interpretations begin -and this will occupy all the operational system, you may lose yourself among the explanations, because the escapes of reality, the weakness of those who believe on dealing with the problem, are also tormented with a must of ignorance: besides the cynism, the fakism, the inclusions, the changes and all that which reaffirms the own repentance of God, which could lead to an ultimate point that it was not God who wrote it.
I say this because the liege, the one who is reading his first bible, don’t even imagine that there’re another hundred ones equal to this: and that all those hundreds are different of his – the orthodox Jew hates the Christian, because he changed the Torah completely, at the same time that the Pharisee was the guilty of such operations. And besides that, more than fifteen thousand of institutional associations, divided between Catholics and Protestants, each one claiming for itself a different Christ – in a way, buddy, that you, for cleverer that you are, you have no chance at all. And if you’re crappy Brazilian who doesn’t speak another language besides this shit, then you’re even more ignorant. The advice that I’d give you, is: you better keep your mouth shut, keep your truth between your legs and go hide in your room, or stick yourself in a hole when an image reflect bad on your senses. I don’t gain anything with this, I’m not a blogger, and don’t need to give satisfaction as well: it’s just that, people that I love could read this one day, and this would somehow help them to not pass for what I’ve passed: having to understand this shit, that those shits tried to throw up on nature: that which never was and will never be the body of God.
And it’s exactly at this point that we begin: that of which Adam was made of: The Clay: Why God did Adam from clay and didn’t made him from his own Word? Why didn’t he clapped his fingers and Adam appeared? I did a quotation from Harvard and Oxford experts, the shock troop of Holy See and of the American Republican Army, Protestant: the duality to be won, here’s being treated as the two sons of god
It’s not my need to explain what I write, but because in another way, no other one would be able to angle the question. And believe, it’s not arrogance of mine, no: I feel like God, a repentant, on having to explain the feelings of the others and not mine: and in this sense, I’m in contraposition with the Philosophy: exactly, I’m against the philosophy and the philosophers: for the sine qua non condition on which the truth terminated itself: to philosophize is, essentially, rationalize: and rationalize is to produce unities for, right next, integrate them in a total dominant.
Oh, c’mon…[!], this is attribute to the being a concept of strong-force: the existence of a strong-force in the universe would constitute itself in an obligation: to the point where Liberty constitutes itself as an obligation as well. this would reduce the feelings unique and exclusively to the criteria of Justice, an interpretation. If such a thing could be made or by itself was initialized, what we call truth it’s indeed about a separation.
The technique of the obtention of truth by the vein of the unity is, essentially, reductionist: The unity is, essentially, that which separated itself.
In way that, to unify is to attribute a state to the being. The being is the position which he occupies: the human feelings would be hostage of his position: more yet: the man feels the position that he occupies.
The philosophy seeks to rationalize the universe, and this includes God, from the human angle. And this is, in gross gauge, a denaturalization process, where the definition of God is the imputation of the human feelings toward natural.
The philosophy walked toward an only comprehension of all things: one unique source, one unique Creator: and this includes the own concept of Creation: Body and Spirit as separated things:
And this is the primordial act of human action: in the Beginning, God separated heaven and earth: it’s the first action of God. However, the philosophy seeks to promote the integration of the duality, arguing that at some point, in the future, forward, they’ll be together, the beginning and the end will be a same thing: this is an angle. And, for being about an angle, it’s about a possibility: the good proportional to the infinite evil: the abyss of mind.
Such technique could not produce such result if it didn’t initialized death. The death is the first thing which one believes: and it’s the only consumed truth. Philosophically this is understood as the price of reason. For this, the Philosophers – and this worth’s for all, inclusive for Christ – at the same time that declaimed among the exposition of their results, unnoticed the separation, for understanding that the conscience possesses the power to aniquilate them: and time becomes a play on their hands, so big is the commitment with that which they practice: a solution for the body. Therefore, philosophy is, in latest instance, not only the definition of things, ‘of what is this made of?’, or, ‘what does this makes?’, but the destruction of duality: this is the posture of every philosopher.
Now, no less interesting that, along the history, and this includes of the own rationality, not all the people that inhabited the planet thought this way. It’s admitted the unity as the unique principle of all things for the understanding of a race, that dominated the form of thinking: thesis-antithesis-synthesis: it’s how thesis is understood: the antithesis will kill the thesis; heaven will kill the earth; the man will kill the woman; the spirit will kill the body; the Lord will kill the servant: because God will destroy the universe and remake it continuous times, until he reaches the perfection.
Oh, go to the shit with all this: because in deep, this is a dis-explanation. It would be most simple and virtuous to simply admit that “don’t know”: because this is the feeling of God above, God repented because he didn’t know: and it would also be prettier for God, since the angle is philosophy, to admit that he failed in such conditions. It’s not to exempt God of a culpability, nor seeking with this a better definition of moral, because the question doesn’t require such an effort of surpassing: the feelings of God there are clears.
However, for all that was mentioned above, the son of a bitch who wrote the Torah, whoever he is, in the condition of philosopher or not, gives his interpretation: and from there forward, what comes next are the clear gestures of Cain: fugitive: the eternal silence of rolling up, toward the breaking of a presumption.
For this, I won’t debate with the question, because unity doesn’t promote me another technique of extraction of the truth that’s not to reproduce its results. I know what’s about, and I won’t go forward with this. What I say to the privileged one who’s being able to read something different, is:
Don’t act like an asshole and try to use my argues as gasoline for your judgement, because you’ll break your face: nor less act as a coward who tries to reset what saw and listened because that challenges your senses and a new image may step you away of an inexistent equilibrium: go ahead, keep on reading, and if a new image surges in your conscient, do not seek for a confrontation, less yet adequate it: start learning, or, perceiving, that multiple images exists, that the universe is interdimensional: and that this doesn’t explains the being, but the comprehension of something more enigmatic, that this is the X of the problem: the angle: the feel:
God is not one, but four, Christ is not one, but four: what they are is not more important than what they feel: for this, the emphasis in this passage, that’s not even from the Bible: it’s from the Torah: In the words of Moses: that, who teached God to think and teached Christ as well: and we must admit that one day, God spoke, independently of the real meaning of God, that, for the Occident, the Torah is the reference: The Christianism is only it’s results.
In way that, on Genesis 6:6, it’s the Rock: she shows, for the first time, the feelings of God toward his Creation not toward his result: God admits the fail on Creation, at the same time that he blames the Earth for this: the genetic material of Adam: the clay was the image of the Earth, and not the image of God.
An expert in Christianism knows that Paul went to the limit of possible on dealing with the question, along Corinth, and he did what he could: and it’s what it gives.
But such answer, the such angle, it stayed bugged, because indeed there’s no solution. And Paul didn’t go nothing beyond seeking a concordance of reaffirming that the first man was born this way, at the same time that he affirmed that the new man is the correction of God: the repentance.
And if Paul failed -and that’s my understanding, Paul seeked for a concordance with the Torah, as it was already mentioned -, Paul didn’t want to start a new religion: the rejection of the Judaism leaded him to this: and for Christianism, this sounded like a solution: but for Judaism, as a punishment.
It’s not just affirm that God repented, but that he remade his Creation: to repent, in Biblical terms, is to step away from the sin and, in this case, it would indicate that God stepped away from man: attributing to the man the defect of his Creation:
This is not the correct understanding of this passage, it fits in another passages, such as Exodus and in the minoritary prophets and, even in David, Ezekiel, Samuel. All the other cases are related to the question as the Judaism understands it: The Jew failed: and this left God furious, reaching the extreme of Noah. And the question, it’s rendered with the personification of evil: the unexplained evil appeared, and God went following his process of purifying:
Nope. This is a ridiculous line: it’s the philosophy’s preferred: and it is inconclusive: I do not recommend to the inexperienced to follow this line of ratiocination: this is a trap of the own Judaism: he leads you, simultaneously, to produce fake results, at the same time that he leaves half-opened the winner possibility: the sentence runs along, together with the enforceability: being so, to follow my vision it’s more interesting, because it will avoid the waste and the contradiction. You’ll be tempted to give up. And, for inconsistence of the absorbed material, it won’t be even digested. And as consequence, the atheism takes over forever: and new ideas won’t be allowed because of the understanding of God and the existence of a Creation: And the feeling that was left of the human being, is: he accepts it because, good or evil, things works: and democracy, excluding the others, it’s the worse: This is ridiculous, because it’s to affirm the repentance of God.
In way that the question stayed opened and if you went for seeking it, just like every problem of the unitarist duality, you’ll have divided opinions. For this, I insist once more that you have nothing on your hands, Pope Francis has nothing on his, neither Vatican has it as well, nor Luther, never had, nor Augustine too, nor Paul, nor Christ: because the problem is original: anyone who subscribes it, even though it claims precedence, it’s involved in tie of the question:
The feelings of God are the same feelings of the human being[?]: start with this question.
“Fuck! I’m gonna have to read the entire Bible..!”: It’s not necessary: I’ll join some parts: and they’ll be enough to take you to a solution. Don’t have it as a result, though: for there’s no result on Nature. Understand this as a solution for the unity.
So, before answering, let’s go to the hard work of explaining the own Bible itself: and the passages which remounts the Beginning.
What I say to the beginner is that, forget the Democracy, the Capitalism, the Corporatism, and all the existentialism that surrounds the philosophy: because since the sciences were moralized, their comprehension became compromised.
It was something that I saw in my primordium’s, Comte and Durkheim: one a catholic and the other one a Protestant: the Sociology fathered the other sciences considered Positives: physics, chemistry, biology, math, geography[…]: all of them were chosen because they produced one unique result, one unity…: but they’re all flat, they operate in one only dimension, they’re not able to explain the feelings: being so, the understanding that, in the smallest particle, the dust, could be the existence of the spirit of God:
This would be the Beginning, for ‘God first created the body, then he constructed’: this concept is geometrically wrong, because duality possesses no passage: in way that God would never be in the interior, for the simple fact of not having it: God would be on the side and not inside: this explains death and, also, at the same time, the separation: the feeling of loneliness, the isolation and loss of God.
This feeling is what accompanies the People of God: this is perceivable in the interior of the glasses in Mark 7: Christ believed that the Universe was flat… the water is over the body and not inside of it: that song of Renato Evangelic Russo [no one knows who is Renato and who is the Russo, but is believed to be the same person], ‘words are that which heart doesn’t feels’.:
Said in another way, the man would never have, or, never had the feeling of God.
Isn’t is incredible? The first feeling on which one believes, the first connection between the thinking of God and the feeling of God it’s the death? You believe in death, right? I mean, every body dies, right? Every body possesses an end, right? Did you knew that the Jews were the only people who believed in death? Then they tried to backtrack, unbelieved..; Christ died, didn’t he? And then he Resurged, wasn’t it? Independently if this will or not happen to you, what is the feeling that’s being traded in there? How does this hits your natural feelings? The death, by itself, plays a functional and organizational role on the Unitarism: but this is not what I’m talking about. There’s a geometry of the senses where the end relates with the beginning: indeed, it’s necessary that you understand this relation, even because this relation is understood as the solution for the problem, [woe!]..: but, the feelings of the Living Christ are the same feelings of the Resurged Christ? How much of this is involved with the Sacrifice? What kind of commitment was this, ‘To accept the death’? does it improves the loss of a dear one? Is it the projection of a future? A escapism? Which is the relational value of death, on which it serves the judgement? How then does the gains and losses are produced, in that one that it’s not awaken yet, that was removed of his deepest dreams[?]: what kind of feelings does it loads the creation of Christ? And how this rules over the feelings, to the point of the pleasure be submitted to scenery of constant losses and functional gains? How does this overwrites the will?
It would be interesting the simple understanding of the question: but it’s involved in an impossibility, the heart of God escapes by the man’s hand… moralize was needed and misunderstand as well.
For this, the feeling had to be hidden in the entrails, in the interior of something. For this, the feelings of God are not something that flows, but that possesses a localization: the same active principle of moral, beginning and end: the duality: God would be always outside, and never inside. Perceive that the Beginning is a place and the End also is: two different positions.
So you can have an idea, think in another question: The feelings of Christ in Heaven are the same feelings of Christ on Earth? Or it variates with the situation? This is very interesting, because, if he possesses the understanding of God, he would have repented as well: or, otherwise, Chris reaffirms that God didn’t erred[?]: It’s important that this is understood and solved, even for those who so denominated themselves as ‘relatively incapable’, because all this came from baptism, a specie of circumcising: and suddenly you have on your hands a contract which you didn’t signed yet, signed for you: and now you’re a hostage of a prognostic, of a result, ‘You’ll be a Christian’: The destiny became a marked card and stopped being a dice…: or no, the dice already possesses its results pre-conceived, it’s not about luck, in way that the principle could never be understood as death without that being a conclusion: someone accepted the death for you, and now you became a hostage of a commitment: it’s not about an explanation, the senses simply don’t accept: this has the face of the man and not the face of God: or then, God has the face of the man: there’s no space for the thinking to go forward: the question is a wall. It exists a separation, and it’s being hided: the duality was not solved: but, otherwise, it’s being customized, machined and involved in possibilities mutually excludent, as if each eye could see two different things at the same time and say that it’s seeing one thing only.
The understanding of spirit would become inefficient, the human being would be involved in a conflict without solution, would live eternally of half-truths, always creating an opportunity of scape: one cannot live dragging his eyes off the face and cutting the hand: it’s what philosophy wants: to hide the feelings on the words and attribute to them a spiritual value.
No, I don’t accept this, for this, religion failed with me, at the same time which allowed me to perceive God’s feelings. And what I say is: the feelings of God are the same feelings of the man. I’ve already readed many people who affirms this, but do it without conviction, without arguments, nothing scientific: and with no context as well.
A crap: that’s the word: and that’s what I think of the word also. Unfortunately, I cannot be fast, and what’s on me is not proving anything to myself, but for love: whoever that reads what I write, treat these writings as a manual, much more than a path or spiritual guide: even those who confront a problem on their faith: The pleasure of God is the start point. The understanding of sex is the important point, desire and will are the four parts of God: And the comparison of what are those natural fluxes, if they’re natural indeed, and how was this configuration in Christ is the scientific base of my arguments: the feel.
And this is what the latest treats: and now its material base, Torah and Gospels.
But I can’t even call my methodology of original: believe it or not, this was the base used to raise the Torah and the Gospels, which, in the articles, I’ve been calling of The Black Box: there’s no how to speak about love without passing by these four variables.
And the difficulty on explaining is exactly in the fact that, that which should be the four integrating parts of God, are not indeed separated: but the tentative of hiding them through a unidimension, or, a fake duality, generated the concept of Box, on which love is converted into virtue.
For you to have an idea, Christ in the Bible refers to love as mind, spirit, will, pleasure, heaven, Himself-God […]: but he doesn’t refer to flesh as love, he doesn’t refer to earth with love, he doesn’t refer to woman with love, neither refer to body as love.
In way that you’re leaded to comprehend that love is a virtue, an unitarist concept of justice, that seeks a relation, a parallelism, an equality: in way that, it’s made necessary, before anything else, the comprehension, in Biblical terms and, primarily the Torah, because, in this sense, the Bible is a second-hand literature, the Bible cannot and won’t go beyond Torah: not even when it quotes a Resurrection: each and every practical example are materializations of the Torah: and nor Christ, nor anyone, succeeded it.
Now, besides all this problematic that involves the rationality and the feelings of God, historically, they were involved in a large educational process of five thousand years, in way that the believe is involved in a sociological process where the submission of ideas and their incorporation precedes the birth of any creature: the deployment of the judgement imposed himself in such a conditioning, that the own thought may be compelled, or even, abducted, to consider if it’s about a ‘natural process’, an ‘step[ism]’, that’s all about a ‘evolutionism’, and that the Christianism, indeed had a ‘neutral role’ on these ideas: or more yet, that ‘God would be writing the story on background’…: of course that no atheist would think this, but however is the explanation, the history was dictatorial: the to believe was written over blood: and even though this is too easy and visible to trace, killings are what it didn’t lacks, there isn’t indeed a guilty: the human benevolence, understood inside the square is that, the status of humanity needed this interpretation: and the escapism of the most deepest answers, over that which stood misunderstood and butchered along the time, hostage of conformity, once that in the own abstraction it became a hostage of the juridical butchering of the question: God is the father and is the judge: Christ is the son and the heart: and so per say, the family is formed: the montage of the future follows ahead, and with it, the objectives of the present, assuming the compromise of the maintance of a idealism very well constituted.
So, nothing more fair than analyze the chief-car, the dorsal spine of all this idealism: the Family: Who is the father, who is the mother, what’s their relation: and this is present in the beginning:
And the answer, it must attend to a singularity: and any anima vivendi involved in the process of acceptation and social tolerance, it’s perfectly in the framework of the Jew.
If you’re part of the discordant group, that sees something wrong in the feelings of God, that Christ didn’t had one face, but many, and disagrees that Christ felt of parachutes on Earth, that he was already God Reincarnated and that the historical concept of his explanation is considered valid, I’ll make one more observation: it never existed any historicity about Christ. I did a special article about this: the unique writing which validates that once Christ existed comes from Flavius Josephus, and Orthodox Jew, which was framed as doubtable and fail. In another words, Christ only exists in the Bible: and in nowhere else.
But for my arguments, on example of I do in the Torah, I’ll consider his existence as valid, because what interests me are the feelings of his Words, and not his comprehension.
But, the feeling of Christ would be predicted: for it was born from the duality of Cain and Abel: which were already involved in an antecessor duality: Heaven and Earth, Spirit and Body. And these relations, involved in an educational corporatism, which had as primordial focus the Family, of the success of the Jewish micro-company to the Christian capitalism: an heritage of generation.
This methodology, of which symbolism is in the Prodigal Son, or in the Devil, the usurper son, or a seductive woman, adulterer, or a servile mother, they were always associated to causes and effects, it was involved in a kind of specific duality: the personality of God.
And this is my discordance: God defined himself and the other: and this overwritted the natural: God speaks to himself as the good part and the nature as the bad part: and the natural nothing has to do with this: it’s about the definition of the man.
And my argumentation is that nature is not indeed in the definition of God. But the sentimentalism of God is, on its latest instance, his own feeling divided. Indeed he’s not talking about the enemy’s family: this may seem even more absurd, but it’s something unhideable in Judaism. Cain was a Jew, and he was born in Adam’s family, he wasn’t any stranger. Eve too, was another who was well known to God: it was God who created them all:
And from Seth to Christ, they’re all well known. The list is mainly formed by scrotums , few are renown, the own Christ used to complain about the sons, of the parents and also of the grandsons. Once he was almost thrown off the cliff, because he liked to humiliate the Jews in a generic way, treating the Jew as impure, serpent, sick[..]: there wasn’t much favor on his words, except for the fact of the favor that his words could favor that people : at the same time on which he excluded himself of the condition of a Jew in the measure as he confirms hat he was there unique and exclusively in a commitment stablished with God, at the same time that it was a commitment that God assumed with him: it was always an explanation of why was the Torah made: a contract: in a way that it makes sense understand that the feeling of God is the feeling of the Jew: in mode that, in this sense, it is so possible to extract the feelings of God, through the Judaism, it’s the same as affirm that every human being is equal to the Jew.
In a way that, in the next topic it won’t be more explanations I’ll tell a story, with images, it’s the Cain and Eve one, and it’s basically what was posted previously and, now, rendered: it’s a pre-amp for the new kind of approach.