God had gone away: The Judaism affirms this. God had given a message through his son: that, for having his feelings, the man would have to live in sin. The Christianism affirms this.
In no other specie or race, such perception occurred. It’s not an abandonment matter, but of end: God went away, separated, he left the Earth: and this gets clear on the feelings of Christ and his apostles, a resurrection, a return: a feeling of loss.
The man would have to abandon the earth, the man would have to abandon the woman, if he wanted to stay by his Creator’s side: in mode that the base of the Christian education is the laterality one: Christ will be on God’s right: a superiority position, the position of heaven to the man: and the condition of earth to the woman.
Possesses a methodology of reach: the father will separate from the son for the son to reach him: for understanding that, if the son is not abandoned, he will never have the feelings of the father: and this is the basis of the familiar education: the mother will do the same to the daughter: the abandonment is introduced as a functional stage of the seedling, which will accompany all the fructifying process: in mode that it’s questioned which are the feelings that accompany the education and, why is the death a primordial tool for the functioning of this system: the knife, the dagger, is the educational tool. But this is what was validated: the feelings of Christianism are considered essentials and adorned as the image of the perfection. This wasn’t what Plato and Socrates cultivated:
Even though you don’t understand anything of what Christ used to speak, one this is perceivable: the dissatisfaction: Christ was unsatisfied, for this, everything he spoke about, bring a result, almost a confession: God had abandoned the human race, for he was unsatisfied, on Genesis 6:6 [x] . No less curious that this is the default feeling of the Christianism, the dissatisfaction, even the sacrifice still wasn’t enough to contain the deserving, a gain. The Harvest in nothing can be hold as a natural explanation. The child borne satisfied because she’s still not perfect. A good example of this is Paul in 1 Cor 13:11: Paul affirms that when he was a child he use to see in certain mode, and when he died, he grew. You may understand in another way, but it’s what he says, it’s there, it’s just read. What’s the understanding of the childhood and the adolescence, do those phases really exists? Is it correct this Christian classification? Those are relevant questions: on the Ancient Greece, before all the Scientism appears, another actions were practiced. In mode that, there were structural problems in the middle of the teachings of Christ, which most of it were on answers to the Pharisees, which questioned him about his speeches on the Synagogues, things as the vacancy of the Law: how would it stay the sex before marriage, the sex during the marriage and the sex after the marriage: even because, historically, the Jews never took seriously the Law proposed by Moses, the one in flesh on Genesis, where the terms polygamy and polygyny are due related, it doesn’t says absolutely nothing that dis-relates the ancient Judaism of the modern Christianism: the lover never left being the concubine and neither the whore the real woman: both seem to have the same identity: the society assumed a double-judgement, in mode that the man can everything on the weakness which straightens him: he may sin as he pleases, because the repentance was guaranteed for him, the society is an adulterous of nature: but there are those who find beauty and understand the education on its favorable aspect: on this way, no one betrayed God.
Wow, would that’ve been a teaching of Christ that no one understood? He said that he loved John, but he liked Judas, Mark and Simon… how many did Christ loved? How many did Christ met? I’m not talking about the young man with whom he hid in the shrubs, but of the other ones, which were not mentioned… if he was pure everyone knows, but, how many did he purified? And how many were indeed purified? Because all of this is a form of learning: it’s the power that the master has over its pupil: it’s the heart putted on a plate in an educational table: it may be on the room or in the back of the yard: to educate is to practice, it’s not an effect of mind, but on that which’s felt. It’s known that Christ loved his pupils and Socrates as well: that they possessed distinct methodologies: in mode that’s not clear on which condition the sex separates them. I’ve already seen reports that Aristotle, on the end of his life, would have converted to Judaism: when Alexander the Great took over Jerusalem: there he would’ve met Rabbis: are teachings that are discussed inside the Judaism, and Aristotle is considered the best external philosopher among them: that geometrized and parametrized their religion. However, strange the Greece of 350 be surrounded with Judaic questions and the matter of the seed have been lifted. The Christians never were the precursors of the marriage: before Christ, Roman Law didn’t punished the adultery with death nor stoning, there was no capital penalty, only property ones, pecúnia¸ patrimonial ones: nor the Romans would allow that, on their territory, other people would practice the Justice other than themselves. In mode that the glamour of Paul, mainly in Timothy, there’s no single content on the epistles that says that Paul spoke textually that a man must love a woman: this is a transliteration : the word is diligati and not amare: Christ didn’t say amare one another, in mode that the educated marriage is also an institutionalized feeling. Christ says which are the conditions that the man may step away the woman, he says: exception for the fornication cases: Wow..[!] What did Christ meant with that..? I did an article only about it. But what’s intended with all this is that the understanding remain subjective: it was this way that Christ answered to the Pharisees: in a subjective way: not being clear on which exceptions were fit and not being clear on the temporality, the vacancy of his laws, at the same time on which affirms that a man must love another man. When he preaches the love between father and son, Christ defends a kind of relation between men, at the same time on which defends the one in flesh between a man and a woman: which are the feelings of the ‘one in the flesh’ and which are the feelings of the ‘sentiments between men’. For this, this article doesn’t end up the question: the understandings of the feelings by the Christian educational method is what will be explained on my next articles: for understanding that virtue and love are insufficient for solving the question.
On the image of the dolls, it shows part of the problem of the conversion of love into virtue. The dolls represent Adam and Eve, at the same time on which they represent two men, on the possibility of one in the flesh impossible: the environment of forest around them, the Paradise, the uterus: the bank, the positions which they occupy on the creation: Lord and servant. The fire pit in front of them represents the desires, at the same time on which represents the woman vagina. The earth, in the form of skin, in subtle texture, forms, on the earth, the entrance of the thighs. God, more in the backs, is forming the angle between the man and the woman, and the angle between the two men, showing that the seed wouldn’t be possible without the woman: but that the desire of his, that he’d like to occur, would be between two men. The bank shows that, of nature would born two flowers: and that the seed could never be two parts of a same thing: the so desired unity, the seed, would naturally be of different parts, the universe would never be a uterus, but a dead field: in mode that the fire pit is forming the angle between man and woman.
The Bible and the Torah call the seed of semen. The ovule, the woman’s seed, would be discovered only in 1940: and that all the tentative of explaining the sayings of God in Genesis, that the plant already brings its seed ready, possesses the same sense of bringing the seed already fecundated: the most wrong understanding that was already had about nature until today: it’s inconceivable a God that conceived the universe dis-acknowledge the own essentiality of nature: it was enough for invalidate all its content:
Because the Word, in that moment, assumed a lie. It was thought that the Genetics forward would solve this problem: but the studies that succeeded post genome, and this is the actual position of the Genetic Engineering, is that there’s no substance on human biology on which one unique thing represents its totality: I mean, there’s no chromosome XX nor XY, this was a lie which was adorned and believed, because of the Word.
Charles Darwin, when he came across with the problem, once he writ the origin of the species, he classified the problem as The Abominable Mystery: the plants never could, never, bring their own seed, they could only bring their reproductive organs: he knew that what he had written was fail. Nor less interesting how the own Creationists took over Darwin’s theory, which, on latest instance, totally turned to them: it’s what Darwin was, a protestant, religious and one who feared God, financed by religious groups, with the only purpose of attributing the concept of specie: Darwin doesn’t mention the origin of man as being natural, the page on the man origin is in blank: in no moment Darwin assumed that the man came from the monkey, that the man came from Earth: Darwin gave the origin of all the species, but he didn’t gave the origin of the human specie.
The explicit objective of how the science conducted the understanding of reproductive question, didn’t granted: the unicity, the unity on God’s essence: which would affect the dorsal spine on which anchors the purpose of the unitarist doctrines: where’s an X there’s a Y: and where’s an Y there’s an X. the such unique substance, the pure one, didn’t occurred, it’s not natural, doesn’t occurs on nature: the human God has no natural backing.
It was made a study for this too [x / x]. Incredible too that Aristotle did a book about it, where he proposed that the female plants also had seed: this book of Aristotle was burned too,: there’s nothing scientific that can prove that the woman is ‘less divine’ than the man: in mode that, historically, to the man’s eyes, because these are the eyes of science, the understanding about the woman is indeed only helping on the reproduction: the secondary role, of which participation is sterile. But, however, the questions which involved naturalness, the love as the explicative vein of the unity, never was the love: a relation that was not reproductive, would never be productive: and that, for this, it would never be natural. Wow, Socrates was intelligent, but didn’t knew the Genetics: how do you mean he was not natural? How do you mean, what he felt was not natural? Is the human result something natural? To result something is something natural? How to argue that the male animal looks for the female animal only for procreation: and that that’s the sex[?]: it’s to define what’s sex for nature. What was seeked with the concept of specie was to guarantee that the man derives of a concept of humanity: that the bodies of Adam and Eve guarantee the entitlement of the human bodies: and that that proposed system would be the statute of God against the Nature: the humanity would carry a separatist entitlement, claiming a non-natural origin: that this non-natural origin would be subjected to rules of procreation: and that it preceded the nature, came before her, and that nature was made by it: however, dis-knew its own creation: how could one unique existent thing create something besides itself: in the same mode, the intention of overwriting love as being the virtue the origin of all things, in mode that what happened in Greece, occurred unique and exclusively because the Greek were questioned about their naturalness, because a race previous to their defined what was to be natural, as if nature had a center: the human result.
In mode that the desire is an integrant part of that which was treated as an unity: the love. And it’s a difficulty point of the two religions: how they deal with the love between men: and how the love between men that occurred on Greece chocked them, that really bothered them: a must of “this exists on us, but’s not like yours…”, as if the Greek was burning the tape of the Jew, it seemed like Socrates was saying “You are like this, and want to adorn something…and for this, want to say that I’m not natural…’: ore, how not to argue that, if the man loves Christ above everything, is he not an homosexual[?], in the crass sense where homosexuality reaches: the love to another man: this makes looks like the word love has some birth problem.
The Homosexuality from Socrates to Christ was a topic that I wrote a couple years ago and translated to French, there were lots of losses on the transliteration, certainly the history may be better readed in my language, Portuguese, [x], but it is with a good approximation.
What I do now is justly show what would be love in terms of Christianism, the dimension of this word, of how it relates with virtue, utilizing itself of the same concept of interiorizing things¸ transforming into image and contextualizing the most relevant biblical passages, where it may be extracted another form of learning: through the sentimental angle, you be able to angle the rationality.
It’s incredible, you’ll perceive this: this generates another images: and many things which passed unperceived, be better readed and interpreted.
In mode that you don’t need to be necessarily an antichrist to read what I write, nor necessarily agree with me: what I think of Christ is not so relevant, it’s how I feel toward him and is how he feels toward me too: we’re insignificant for each other.
But it wasn’t like this in the beginning: I attributed a big significance, and went to look what this guy said: not because indeed he existed, but how the thought completely different of me, any phrase of mine was contrary to Christ. And the difference is not exactly in the thoughts, but on the feelings: that guy never loved anyone: he never knew what’s love. It’s horrible you hear that…people don’t take seriously what they say, because indeed they don’t take seriously that what they believe, and the society exists in function of this. For this, the intention of leaving Christ naked, once he himself would never feel nude on nature, not that he so didn’t do, but that nature would say –‘Christ, you’re dressed…!’ –she would certainly say –‘what’s up, Christ, are you hiding from your father…? Are you wanting to sin…?
In mode that the explanation for Christ is Jesus: there were two Christs: one was incredible, the one of Paul, friend of the whores and comrade of the men: the other one, an outbreaked one, and ordered to kill: two different feelings: but on nature, where’s one, there’s two: in mode that, on each Christ, there was two Christs: and, in total, four Christs:
For this, the Gospels are four: in mode that, in the case of Socrates and Christ, what’s seeked to expose is how questions about the angle of sex were understood and, only an introduction: indeed sex is something that, just as love, need to be thorough: and this cannot be contextualized in the basis of Paul nor the Gospels: but in biblical terms, this necessarily implies in the Torah: the book which Christ adorned and with which Christ adorned himself, and was a bedside one: wherever he went to, he carried the Torah in his head and all his movements were coordinated interpretative actions of the results contained therein: he was a Jew, and had the feelings of a Sadducee and Pharisee, he was very little Nicene. A person that better translated Christ was Novatian, Paul translated very well Jesus – the Christ that only he saw. All this questions will be better addressed in Hypatia, one of the next publishing’s: because the philosopher was also treated inside homosexual questions, and was brutally murdered by questions that involves the virginity and the woman.
Another good article, on which I seek a comprehension on the angle of which’re the feelings of Christ It’s the Desert of Christ [x], which was also revised and translated.
People that are not used to my form of expression, the homosexuality is the person that possesses itself, that only loves itself, but needs an external image for this to occur. Another important terminology is the word posse: the posse, always that putted on terms of spirit is property over the body: analog to heaven and earth, lord and servant:
The body needs to pay for the posse of the spirit, for the property over the body indeed occur… .
In mode that the body will only be lord, the owner, if he possesses a servant spirit. It seems weird, but that’s how it works.
I write over another angle, for this, loose a little more time when I invert the standard rationalism, don’t be afraid of seeing questions that apparently had already been solved, the misunderstanding is a cumulative process; this will also help on the rationality crash, to deal with the questions, if so the reader allows. Another questions related to this theme, on what reaches the homosexuality, it’s in a very nice topic, which come on stories: and I must be editing soon: David and Bathsheba, Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and Adam and Eve: and the last one, the mega production, Devil goes on Hollywood, to be published in approachably middles of the next year
In mode that, much of what I do now is related to this stories, which I recommend you all. Now, the mentioned topic, the Desert of Christ, is recommendable, just as the Homosexuality from Socrates to Christ, for a better comprehension of the material which’ll be edited