The little tortoise had stepped away too much of the heart of the forest, was attracted by the noise, a weird sound had woken his senses, a natural gesture of a curious animal: saw, for the first time, an ax. Big trees had been cut in the middle. By the end of the day, the men went out and there left the ax carved un a tree log that was left nearby the ground. The little tortoise picked up that little ax and took it to master turtle. And with the waters of pain in his eyes, he said –master turtle, how to explain the complacence of nature?
And the master turtle answered that Nature is not complacent, she doesn’t possesses the revenge, so, master turtle said –there’s no how to cut that which grows naturally –and added –give the ax back to its owners.
But the little tortoise receded –no, master, those men need to pay for what they did, I’m also the nature.
And the little tortoise stepped away with the ax, carried on his shell, and went to the meet of the men of the ax: he was gonna cut as many as he could.
There is a history forward, of master turtle and the little tortoise, where he gives the ax for master turtle. To what everything indicates, he seems to have absorbed the lesson. The master turtle had told him that, for every tree that the man cut, another one will grow in its place: that there’s no separation on Earth.
But it’s a story that didn’t happened yet.
Those are beautiful stories, which develops on the histories and trespass themselves, and pass in another stories, and don’t solve in any history: all passage.
And will be shown along the many histories, histories those that never happened, but that, all know, they happen all the time, at every instant… I try to understand the human being and his eschatological parables, which logic possesses one only result, an end, the Apocalypse: are understood in a descriptive hermeneutic of oneself, where it pleads that such command to kill never existed, misunderstanding that the judgement carries on itself the ax, the sword, the dagger: that its technique of obtention of resources it’s the death, of which wouldn’t explain neither himself neither his own God. There wouldn’t exist the judgement if there was no death: without death there would be no sentence: and without the sentence there would be no judge. Each and every teaching of Christ is based on order to kill: the separation: the instruction is given to the man, to separate from earth: separate off the impurity: for it being the spirit of evil: This is all very well explained on the command interficite [ ‘bring till me and execute in my presence’]: it’s not a command that appears only once, but, it’s the essence of all the commands: it’s something that needs to be repeated: because it fills all the results: there isn’t absolutely nothing that explains the attitude of the Protestant on misunderstanding the command of Christ: not only a form of unsay him, as also, unsay that Christ is God: to deny that such a command existed is to deny that Christ is a Jew: that he would never be pure if he weren’t the image of the Torah.
Many times I’ve already searched for scholars: ‘Why did Christ ordered to kill?’, I asked: pretty basic things: ‘What’s the explanation of the 19:27..?’ : on atheists websites they place it as the misteries that the Bible doesn’t explains: because indeed, there’s no explanation: the Protestants sweat the shirt, and in the end, they go out through the backs: and abandon the table: it’s because Christ did this also: once, before the Pharisees, under threat of death, he ran away: Don John VI ran away too, of Napoleon: Don John was a Protestant: and Napoleon was under order of the Catholics.
At the end, Napoleon didn’t knew who to obey: there was a fight between servants and masters and neither he knew what he was. It’s incredible: but even in simple dialogs of the day-by-day, I talk to Christians: and they behave as protestants, and in the middle of the conversation they go turning into catholic: and with the catholic happens the same thing. For this, many times, I position myself between the angle of them both: because I know that there’s where they’re going to: and my position is to say: no, here won’t give, pick another place: and the sensation that I have is that they separate in two. Incredible this…
For this, many times I seem to be rude, as if I wanted to let Jesus naked. But what I say is nothing more than: Jesus was never nude: that he never behaved as a natural one.
Ora, if Christianity offends by that…. Sounds like a misunderstanding… : Jesus was against the naturalness: it’s when I say ‘go to shit…’, this kind of thing.
The understanding of this personality of Christ, that indeed ordered to kill, it’s completely correct the interpretation of the catholics, could not be another one: and for most incredible it may seem, it’s that, as Luther as Calvin, also defended the killing, and the most top scholars also, as Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, and the mega top, Novatian. Paul also. It’s not about a future judgement: the why Jesus ordered to kill is quite simple, because it’s not about a future judgement, but the functioning of something. For this, for most privileged that’s yours understanding of the issue, and you adorn this as a form of scapism, the to kill comes forward because this is the functioning of the judgement. In mode that, even though this is understood as the day of the Final Judgement, misunderstanding that the final judgement occurs at every instant, but that, that’s about a ‘future most ahead’, this day will come: and the command of to kill will be exerced. In mode that, even though you get yourself rolled up with the result, this day will have to exist: on the contrary, Christ will never exist.
On the photo, Hypatia being dragged by Alexandria Streets, contains many interpretative problems: but all agree that the scene indeed happened: and that it was very, but very much worse than this. And the obelisk backward is also correct: because she was executed, primarily, inside the Caesareum Church: a sense that one wants to avoid, that Hypatia suffered an Inquisition process before dying, being considered, the first witch of history: fact that the Catholics do not deny, and that the protestants manage to misunderstand very well..
On the topic Historicity of Hypatia is shown the tracer of the century on which the Christians reunited to define and redefine the history: if that ‘fisherman group’, that is that little group which believed on what they saw, would go forward with those ideas: the Christianism would lose itself on its own internal divergences. And in this moment, the Protestantism would rise as being contrary to all that killing: and that, somehow, he didn’t agree with that. I did a very special topic for this: the Desert of Christ, where I make a well-done alignment, on level of Torah and the Bible, of where the command to kill is present: and how this command trespasses from the individual to the collective: In mode that, the angle now is show a catholic under his thought about what was Hypatia: and of the Protestant, we have recently the movie Agora of Almodóvar, that, inclusive, was prohibited in some countries, but is very poor in the sense that follows the protestant standard of saying that that was ‘an evil’, that ‘the church of evil was in the power’, that ‘the Christians that lived in that time are not them’, ‘it was only the thought of a few..’: as if Christ had never given the command of ‘dragging the evil off by the roots, of dragging off the wicked parts with your own hands, if that was gonna cost you your entire body, that the ones who wanted to mutilate themselves or even take off their own lives on His name, that so did it’.
The thermometer of the why of the non-acceptation of something comes from the linearity of the personality of Christ: what you can presume is that, initially, Christ proposed a democratic approach, seeking the convincement through the knowledge: and as the time went passing, he was getting bitter, and proposing the use of force, getting more authoritarian and dictatorial: and understood that, without the death, this would not be possible: the Purification would not happen. In my understanding, it’s stupidity to unsay what Christ said, because it’s very easy to drag off a page, or even, change its content. In mode that, I follow ahead with my thought, it possesses a good geometry, it’s self-explanative, and if some or the most of, don’t accept what’s written, patience. I follow ahead with my arguments, and I leave to those who have sobriety and conscience, on following questioning. What I’d say to those who are reading what I write for the first time is, there isn’t on me and intention of ridicularize Christ: but of showing his personality and his feelings.
I came to say things, didn’t came to listen: and for this, you need to hear somethings, that you’ve already heard before: for this, I may have or not, this is not important for me, the face of the enemy.
In mode that, to those which precipitate over the abyss, I have the authorization of Christ.
That history of the Little Tortoise: The Nature did not gave me the free-will.
ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA AND THE MURDER OF HYPATIA. `
“A FEW years ago the Rev. Charles Kingsley, an English writer of some reputation, saw fit to revive an ancient but often exploded calumny against one of God’s saints. This author was a clergyman of the English Establishment, and being presumably as well as pretendedly a man of education, one would have expected from his pen at least a moderately appreciative treatment of the grand characters whom he selected to illustrate an important, though little understood, period of history. But, according to him, the great Patriarch of Alexandria “has gone to his own place. What that place is in history, is but too well known; what it is in the sight of Him unto whom all live forever, is no concern of ours. May He whose mercy is over all His works have mercy upon all, whether orthodox or unorthodox, Papist, or Protestant, who, like Cyril, begin by lying for the cause of truth; and, setting off upon that evil road, arrive surely, with the Scribes and Pharisees of old, sooner or later, at their own place. True, 53 he and his monks had conquered; but Hypatia did not die unavenged. In the hour of that unrighteous victory the Church of Alexandria received a deadly wound. It had admitted and sanctioned those habits of doing evil that good may come, of pious intrigue, and at last of open persecution, which are certain to creep in wheresoever men attempt to set up a merely religious empire, independent of human relationships and civil laws; to establish, in short, a ‘theocracy,’ and by that very act confess a secret disbelief that God is ruling already.”
Obs.: Hypatia and Company, in the Papist understanding, or, the Catholic, did not believed that God was rulling: And this was a Pagan. The Pagans did not accepted the property over the body: for this Hypatia’s death was considered valid by the Catholics: an pure act of Cyril: Christ was with him: and he was in Christ.
“Such was not the judgment of Kingsley’s fellow-sectarian, Cave,1, nor of the Lutheran, John Albert Fabricius,2 than whom Protestants have produced no critics more erudite. But it is the opinion expressed by many Protestant polemics; for St. Cyril presided, in the name of the Roman Pontiff, at the Council of Ephesus (431), which confirmed to the Blessed Virgin the title of Mother of God.3 54 It is also the judgment of Voltaire and the entire school of incredulists; for St. Cyril triumphantly refuted the work of the Emperor Julian against Christianity.”
The Catholic proceeds:
“In the early part of the fifth century the great city of Alexandria in Egypt was still nearly one half pagan, and the Jewish population also was very large. No populace in the Empire was so turbulent and seditious, and therefore the emperors had invested the patriarchs with extensive civil authority, although the force at the prelates’ disposal was not always sufficient to repress the disorders of the mob. In the year 413 St. Cyril was raised to the patriarchate, and was almost 55 immediately involved in difficulty with Orestes, the imperial prefect. Often he conjured this officer on the Gospels to put an end to this enmity for the good of the city.
At this time the chief school of pagan philosophy in Alexandria was taught by Hypatia, a beautiful woman, and of irreproachable morals. Among her hearers were many of the élite of paganism. The celebrated Synesius had been her pupil, and his letters show that, although he had become a Christian bishop in 410 he still gloried in her friendship. But her most important scholar was the prefect Orestes. It is difficult to determine what was the religion of this man. He himself, on the occasion of an attack on his life by some monks from St. Nitria, had proclaimed his Christianity, but his general conduct would inspire doubt of his sincerity; and we may safely accept as probable the conjecture of the English novelist, that he was ready to renew the attempt of Julian the Apostate. The obstinacy of Orestes in refusing a reconciliation with their patriarch was ascribed by the whole Christian community to the influence of Hypatia; and one day in the Lent of 415 a number of parabolani4 and laics, led 56 by one Peter the Reader and some Nitrian monks fell upon the unfortunate philosopher as she was proceeding to her lecture hall, dragged her from her litter, hurried her to the great church of the Cæsareum, and there literally tore her to pieces.
Such, in a few words, is the substance of the account of this horrible event as given by the historian Socrates5 a writer contemporary with the great St. Cyril, and whom Kingsley professes to have scrupulously followed. But Socrates, hostile though he ever shows himself to the holy patriarch, does not once insinuate that this prelate was the instigator of the crime; while the Anglican minister does imply that charge, and openly lays all responsibility for the foul deed on St. Cyril.
Voltaire, the prince of incredulists, naturally gloats over one of the most delicious morsels ever furnished to his school. Having 57 compared Hypatia to Madame Dacier, a learned classicist of his day, he asks us to imagine the French Carmelites contending that the poem of “Magdalen,” composed in 1668 by Peter de Saint-Louis, one of their Order, was superior to the “Iliad” of Homer, and insisting that it is impious to prefer the work of a pagan to that of a religious. Let us fancy, then, continues the Sage of Ferney, that the Archbishop of Paris takes the part of the Carmelites against the governor of the city, a partisan of Madame Dacier, who prefers Homer to F. Peter. Finally, let us suppose the Archbishop inciting the Carmelites to slaughter this talented woman in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. “Such precisely,” concludes Voltaire, “is the history of Hypatia. She taught Homer and Plato in Alexandria during the reign of Theodosius II. St. Cyril unleashed the Christian populace against her, as we are told by Damascius and Suidas, and as is satisfactorily proved by the most learned moderns, such as Brucker, La Croze, Basnage, etc.”6 And in another place7 Voltaire dares to ask: “Can anything be more horrible or more cowardly than the conduct of the priests 58 of this Bishop Cyril, whom Christians style St. Cyril? . . . His tonsured hounds, followed by a mob of fanatics, attack Hypatia in the street, drag her by the hair, stone and burn her, and Cyril the Holy utters not the slightest reprimand.” Again:8 “This Cyril was ambitious, factious, turbulent, knavish and cruel. . . . He caused his priests and diocesans to massacre the young Hypatia, so well known in the world of letters. . . . Cyril was jealous because of the prodigious attendance at the lectures of Hypatia, and he incited against her the murderers who assassinated her. . . . Such was Cyril of whom they have made a saint.” And as late as 1777, when the octogenarian cynic was already in the shadow of death, he wrote: “We know that St. Cyril caused the murder of Hypatia, the heroine of philosophy.”9
Since such is the judgment expressed by Voltaire, at once the most shallow and most influential of all modern writers on historical matters, it is not strange that the masses have accepted the romance of Hypatia as recounted by most of those fosterers of shallowness, the encyclopædias and dictionaries of the day. 60 Even in some of the least superficial of these presumed authorities, such as the “Nouvelle Biographie Générale” (Didot, 1858), and the “Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique du Dix-Neuvième Siècle” (1873), the accusation against St. Cyril is clearly put forth. In the former work we read the following the pen of a celebrated writer:10 “It is hard to believe that the hands of St. Cyril were not stained in this bloody tragedy. The historian Socrates, who gives its details, adds that the deed covered with infamy not only Cyril but the whole Church of Alexandria.” In the latter we are told: “Hypatia was massacred by the Christian populace, at the instigation of St. Cyril. . . . According to Damascius, St. Cyril, passing one day before the residence of Hypatia, noted the crowd who were waiting to hear the daughter of Theon, and he thereupon conceived such jealousy of her fame that he resolved to procure the death of the noble and learned girl.”11
Voltaire tells us that the guilt of St. Cyril has been proved by the most learned men of the eighteenth century, “such as Brucker, La Croze, Basnage, etc, etc.” Let us pass, with a doubting smile, this extravagant encomium on writers of very ordinary calibre, and see how these Protestant authorities arrive at their horrible conclusion.”
I didn’t resisted, and… I’ll only make a short addend:
‘Did you understand, Protestant, why you need me, your ignorant..?’
The protestant want to be a critical of the catholic, at the same tame on which he needs him to live. In some moment, Voltaire managed to get rid of Christ, because he was a Deist? As if Christ and Jesus were different persons…[?]: one is against the act but validates the fact that the functioning of something was the other one who did it. But let’s go forward with the letter, congratulations to the catholics: they don’t deny nothing,: and reaffirm everything they did: and even strips wave, saying that there are no proofs against Cyril, as he reaffirms, a pious act: ora, Voltaire, you’re also a murderer, because the murder of Hypatia, is the historical marker of something. Hypatia wasn’t only a teacher of Alexandria: she was the responsible for the Library: Hypatia died defending the library of Alexandria of being burned by the Christians, but was not only for this that she died: the purity and the existence of the woman depended on her rape: and indeed, she was raped before dying: because pure and virgin, only someone possessed: the Virgin Mary: only after Hypatia’s death that Mary would be considered Virgin and Mother of God. There’s a problem of large caliber: the Schism: something that had been Created by Novatian on 250 after Christ: the Lapse Theory: the Christian faith would be around with an ultimate problem: the repentance: and the mystery of the repentance would only be solved by the Mystery of the Holy Trinity: and the Holy Trinity could only be solved if Christ were raised to the status of God: and for this, would be necessary raise the status of Mary.
Historically, two decades before the murder of Hypatia, the Roman Empire was already Christian: and a Law stablished that each and every one who was not a Christian, in Rome, would be murdered: a killing started: Alexandria would be the last chapter of this killing: all the pagan schools were closed: and anyone who teached philosophy or anything that were not Christ, would be dead.
‘What do you mean, ‘the Christians were going to learn from Hypatia..?’:
For the ones who don’t know Hypatia’s history straight, may think that those people were going there only for a chance of trying to eat the Greek: no, pal, you’re wrong: Hypatia’s students were Christian Bishops: any Ruler which entered in Alexandria, would, inevitably, become a student of Hypatia: for many, she was considered the biggest philosopher of her time: the math practiced by her and Theon are used still today in the ultimate calculations of NASA, and the revision of Ptolemy’s work on Almagest was something unpalatable to the Christians till today.
I’ve readed many Christians critics also, of the calculations, those that tried to criticize the critics that she did: the actual academy reckoning is that the calculations of Theon and Hypatia were correct, ad that the calculations of Ptolemy were, indeed, wrongs. It’s known by all which study Astronomy, that our calendar is entirely wrong, just as the clock is also a broken tool: the stars had testified the human error: understanding that they needed this things to see themselves: and so the mirror of humanity was so well defined: that which he called natural.
Other thing to be said is that, among this tempestive story, is about the ‘findism’: To write about Hypatia was never an opportunity: there’s no opportunity for whom you have affection with, because there’s no explanation for that: there’s no clive of justifying the history, because indeed this is not about an explanation: for this, angulate Hypatia, was perceived by me as a pleasure. And if I understood Hypatia different, it’s not a form of overwriting her, nor to turn her immoral either, but to rescue the nature that was always present on that being: and that the men killed her as no other, it was never seen nothing equal to Hypatia till today. For this, for me, the summary judgement of Christ doesn’t even has as relevance as this history of pain. My interest for the life of Hypatia is secondary, Hypatia was never a martyr for me, and her history came till me in middle causalities, because her history is the most well hidden history of humanity: there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, that Hypatia wrote: she was erased. Her disappearing is even most incredible than the disappearing of Christ, those eighteen years that he disappeared and no one knows for sure even if are his, I say, no one knows for sure how old was Christ when he died: some say it was by 15, while another, by the 60’s, the image of the Shroud, as all know, do not represent him. What is argumented is that the choice was of God: he, God in the human mode, a part of what separated itself but that was never indeed separated, this seems to be the truth indeed, the Separation: catholic and protestants, declared enemies, but all Christians an infinite ambiguity, which challenges the imagination: both equally guilty for discussing equally the sin, if for the heresy fits forgiveness.
Any Christian would kill Hypatia, if for Christ this represented a Salvation. For Hypatia, that’s the condition. For the history, that’s the condition: to be judged by Christians: in mode that the defense is the accusation.
In mode that, for Hypatia, you will never have a first hand history, that you can say, ‘this one is trustable’, ‘this one was not messed up..’ on which the linearity is not an interpretation: in mode that, in my study, I’ll even give the link of all sources considered valid. In mode that the base of my arguments here, are historical.
In the photo above, the Christians burning the Library of Alexandria
But I ask all about the matter of Historicity, about the Myth Hypatia, once that, for all the effects, Hypatia never existed: if she’s a philosopher that nothing said and never wrote nothing of her own fist, she doesn’t exist. But I find it very weird someone validate the existence of someone who never wrote nothing of its own fist: and disdeserving the historicity of one, which other people validates its existence: more yet, contradict those which affirm to control the existence. It’s the case of Christ, which unique historical validation comes from Flavius Josephus [Testimonium Flavianum]:
Excerpt from Antiquities XVIII:
18:3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
I had readed Josephus, I mean, Flavius Josephus, a Jew writer, which is used as source by the Messianics, for testifying the existence of Christ.
The Orthodox Jews reject that the testimony given in the book Antiquities XVIII is indeed yours. This is the most accepted biography among the serious scholars: the unique historical report outside of the bible that Christ existed comes from an inclusion.
The catholic church, on the exactness of the pagans, or, at equally position, the protestants, of having some substantiality on their arguments , in the same way, it never showed its originals, if is that it has them, if didn’t burned them also: but indeed, never has nothing on hand: except for forged ideas, forged because don’t assume indeed who introduced them, but doesn’t escapes the compromise neither deviates of the responsibilities of the Institution. For this, besides the arrogance, accept with elegance their tentative of reposition, because in facto, their tentative is also fail: outside of the Bible, Christ doesn’t exists. There’s no scholar, Roman or Greek, in the time of Christ, that acknowledged him or that had, by venture, mentioned him.
The to kill is angle for the Inquisition because the Christians, otherwise, would be reduced to a small group: and purify the all, would be the commitment of all. If such crimes that humanity practiced and practices all the time were not allowed, there wouldn’t be a concordance with the obtained results: the concordance is that the better came from the results: without the slavery, there wouldn’t be capitalism, without the suffering there wouldn’t be the work, and without the sacrifice, there wouldn’t be Christ: we are talking about the personality and the feelings of something: of a survivor spirit of the holocaust, : that the reactive core of those ideas continued alive, and that the fire pit, the inquisitor furnace, is what keeps this system alive: the core of democracy is the dictatorship: the punishment by force and death to anything that affects the Christian moral: didn’t change absolutely nothing. The catholic, as himself has said, defends, with a washed face, that Hypatia died for the well of the Christianism and that Cyril is a Saint: Cyril not only killed as also participated of the Death: Are how all the inquisitors are considered: as Saints: and observe the command of Christ: ‘bring till me and execute in my presence’: how come Cyril not be there, pal? Hypatia passed through an Inquisition Ritual before dying: the law that authorized Christians to kill pagans, also authorized them to rape virgins: there’s a problem of huge caliber, which involves the virginity, and this will be angled later. You can say that God didn’t commanded to rape anyone, but, in this case, re-see Deuteronomy 17, Deuteronomy 13 and the super incredible Numbers 31: it’s just a piece: read it all[.]:
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
In Numbers 31, God commands the Israelites to attack Midian and kill all the men, all the married women and all the male children but to keep the virgin females as the spoils of war and distribute them among the soldiers.
According to the story, this was due to ‘two Midianite women had allegedly “tempted” two Israelite men to worship other gods’.
But, ‘Christ spared the adulterous woman of being stoned and murdered..’: But… why he spared? On what Christ spared the woman? There was a problem on that woman, she needed to be purified, and the purification occurs firstly on the individual plan. When Christ appeared, God had abandoned the Jews. Deuteronomy was written under an epoch on which the sons of Israel, pure or not, obeying or not, were under a pact with God. Christ finds the Jews under peccary conditions: we find a Christ believing on demon’s possessions, barring a personal fight with the evil: the Desert of Christ is the testimony of this meeting with Satan. The conditions of the Jews, on that moment, would turn any Jew into unjudgeable, even on that which they considered worse: the adultery: the jew had turned back to zero: worse: had become negative: no Jew could be a judge: the jews could not be ever with God again, without fist confess all their sins: and demanded for that ultimate conditions of the renounce: the Sacrifice: he did not authorized that that woman become a repentant, at the same time on which validated that the conditions of the sacrifice constituted into an acceptation of the guilty: and what he was affirming on that moment was that all jews had become adulterous, turning evident which was the reason of the adultery: the Apocalypse was the result of the beginning: the woman was the Apocalypse of the man because she leaded the man to believe in another Gods, not only for believing in other gods, but for trying to make the man believe in two Lords. The passage is as quick as the one of Genesis, because indeed there’s a convenience on accepting the idea of the adultery. There’s a preemptude on the spatial occupation: the pre-occupation of the Torah on loving God above all things, it’s the worry of the Gospels in that ‘that who loves any other thing more than Christ won’t be deign of him’ : those are totalizing ideas that require an ultimate result, introduced as choice and free-will, but the obligatoriety is implicit: and for being the neuralgic center of something, it’s involved with the origin of all things: the acceptation of an idea, the gravitational reactivity hits a critical point of fusion: and it’s in this point that killing becomes human, for the man cannot choose the death. It’s curious because, if death didn’t existed, there wouldn’t be choice, once the heaven constitutes into a choice.
Christ frees the adulterous woman and she goes home: as if the husband would accept her back, and as if there wasn’t any competent authority in the place: Christ, on that moment, has the power over all the human beings and only him can save the woman, the reason of all the adulteries: as also overwrites that only a man like him can purify a woman: and that the woman accepts it, if she doesn’t loves a virtuous man like him, she’ll be never loved: and if she wanted to be loved by him, only that way.
When I was younger, I used to debate about those things: ‘.. wow..! no one seen this?!?!!?’, ‘ isn’t there anyone seeing that this is a theater…? That this is a dissimulation of the Torah…?’ : in mode that you only relax a little after you start to perceive the manipulation of things, and is on this moment that you start to perceive that which was involved. But, of course, you must already have some long road reading the issues, because, otherwise, it will be impossible: the Judaism took care for that the information that would reach the woman was one and the information that would reach the man was another.
In mode that, was set, firstly, the salvation on the individual plan, at the same time on which turned explicit that this would reach the collective, because it wouldn’t be beautiful for the face of God the coexistence of humanity, where only a small core was pure, and the rest would continue pagan: it was a failure that the protestant didn’t wanted to carry on the backs: it would be dis-deserve the Catholic deeds.
Christ goes ahead when a prostitute kisses his feet: a woman would only left being a whore in that conditions: and the condition was the acknowledgement of her condition of a whore: only then she would leave being a repentant.
It is the understanding of something, is aligned with the Torah. Where, exactly: In the desires: there isn’t in Genesis that word, desire: there is much talk about pleasure and will: and that’s where I question what are God’s desires and what are the desires of Christ: did they had Desires? Strange the human being being accused of desires, that weights over the woman’s head, and God and Christ don’t have it[?].
I asked several times to Christians about this: and no one knows how to answer: and I don’t have the answer seems to be a good solution. The explanation, I mean, the best explanation for the Torah is justly the Gospels: the man has desires, but the word that is used is weakness , and this is rendered once again with the enemy, is involved with the Earth, is involved with the clay, is involved with the face that God doesn’t have: but before the word take a mortal-physique of the moral the word is translated in evil : and mysteriously be resulted in will. Let’s be honest with that which was written, that which was translated and interpreted, that there isn’t indeed an explanation for the desires: nor of its origin nor its Dynamics of functioning: the bible talks of something of which it hasn’t the precise knowledge: in mode that, the weakness is the only thing that it has on hand: to accept the will as the main vein of acceptation of an idea, it’s to accept the reason invasion on the heart : it’s to accepts that heart and mind are the same thing: and simply as a bizarre explanation, misclassified¸ that ‘the heart of the man is not equal to the thinking’s of God’: it’s to accept that ‘I love that which I believe in’: “Fuck, Anne, but it’s like this, so…”: no, pal, it’s not like this so… in mode that, the difficulty is on explaining what does ‘weakness’ means exactly, what’s the representativeness of this word ‘Weakness’ for the Unitarist Universe.
As I already said, there’s a convenience on not explaining it. In mode that, if weakness and desires are understood as the same thing, Desire will be understood as a bad thing: to desire is bad: this explanation is in the Judgement of the Law66, The Love and The Law, you must have already readed. And if you readed the Law, must have seen the size of this confusion: God wouldn’t appear beautiful and smiling in the beginning saying “Dominate over the nature” just because he found that beautiful: the Bible was made to explain this: and notice: it needed Christ. So, don’t get thinking that desire is a small shit, because, what happens indeed is that you read so many shit that you ended up misunderstanding everything, and if you ask yourself what is desire, you won’t be able to answer: and if you ask if it’s licit to itself to have desires, you will say yes, but if you ask if will it be licit if your wife have them, you will say no. what to do, then…?
The problem is that Christ admitted to have weaknesses, : and one of them it’s the alcohol, and also, the food: also, he didn’t accepted the death: it was what he believed until his last minute of lucidity. The reason of why the rationality finds difficulties on passing by the desires, was the same motive that took God to say that, in mode that there isn’t indeed an explanation for the desires: there’s an explanation for the best form of combatting the desires: a reasoning most simple is that that feeling was involved with the Earth and not with the Heaven: a group of obligations distributed to the man, of which the woman is the main vein of access to this result: more yet: the unique: if the woman is not submitted, there will be no truth.
In my texts, which are all related to the unitarism, I correlate a word of hard comprehension: the Naturalness: a service that I’m providing to the Christians: explain to the human being what is natural, at the same time, that he’s not such a thing, because indeed, he isn’t. The method that I chose was to remove the naturalness of Christ, was an historical error that happened, by the theologians that succeeded him. And as these ideas went humanizing forward, it was seeked for dressing the Nature with the Gospels: this happened before the Renaissance and came debouch in the Illuminists, but along the history these ideas were always constituted, because they were submitted to the use, that which became a costume: there wasn’t indeed a free acceptation: indeed, the contrary: that the Inquisition don’t let me lie, at the same time that all this is small near Hypatia. In mode that there’s a doubt about on what the woman was prostituted:
Many times I call the Christian woman in a general way as a whore, and this may seem rude once more: but my concepts are not exactly the same usual concepts: whore is the woman who lets herself being possessed by an image: whore is that person who possesses itself: it’s a servant: servant of Christ, servant of the Man and servant of the Devil. The love understood under a concept of servitude. A strict relation of use. Such concepts are not natural: conditioned to gains, rewards, where the relation of exchange demands by obligation the submission, where Christ will always be the first Lord. You really think that all women on earth act and think like this? And even so misunderstand the transactional relation? Cleopatra, by instance, is a woman that is understood as a whore by the Christians, and she had never been one, and she was involved in a relation with the serpent , in a relation quite Salome. It’s another one that will be involved in the History that Didn’t Happen, Cleopatra was a Priest and she spoke nine languages, and the man that she loved was Mark Antony. Women born in the Occident were involved in a kind of incestuous relation with God, an incestuous relation with Christ, an incestuous relation with the man and an incestuous relation with the Devil: they need to understand better their vocation and what kind of function they play. And if the posse of her image doesn’t constitutes indeed to a prostitution. Those who are not in this stereotype, disconsiders my arguments for are not genuinely Christians: the definition of woman, psychologically accepted, only the Christian one:It’s the case of Hypatia. For this, I recommend Christians to read the stories of this Greek, that didn’t needed Christ to establish herself.
But this things cannot be so easily comprehended without firstly the feelings of Christ being better understood. And the feeling of Christ is exactly with His Father, he is the same: dominate over the nature: possess the others and thyself.
Ow.. Christ didn’t say that? So you don’t know Christ.
Hypatia wasn’t in the condition of whore: she didn’t need the lord to save herself: this dis-characterized every parable of Christ. And it’s intriguing, Hypatia: and my parallel with her is that she was the most virtuous, and I , the less virtuous: it’s an interesting specie of greatness, and, it’s not exactly like this: she said ‘the philosophy saved me’, and I said, ‘no, Hypatia, the philosophy killed you’: and she said ‘the pleasure had been converted into virtue, at the same time on which to philosophize was no longer a pleasure’: it seems that this was the solution that followed, to become a virtuous. And nowadays, Hypatia’s are what doesn’t lacks. In the same mode, don’t confuse Hypatia with Perpetua: it’s not about race, color, or gender, but a very simple matter: the usability of the body. In a Christian society, everyone possesses the woman: the woman is possessed in the moment that she’s born: and my thought is pretty clear about this: on this conditions, throw me in the sewer: was the same thought of Hypatia.
But I know what Hypatia felt in the moment they took her to the Caesareum church, tiered her cloths and raped her before killing her: it’s the drawing, the canvas that the nature painted of the human being: the Theater of Mind: What my eyes see, my heart doesn’t feels.
Of the groups Sadducees, Pharisees and Nazarenes, could only left one group: the others would have to be killed. Wether you accept the Holy Trinity, or you’ll die. I won’t stick in this issue because I have all the data, documents from thick-shell historians, are not second hand literatures: it’s Harvard and Oxford: it’s what it has of most top: along seven years, I chose the bests.
So you won’t see a history of Hypatia on the basics and a reflexive content.
It’s not just one, but many different angles, about what was that: no one wants to explain it like that because it’s convenient for the groups which explains it. I’d say to the reader that pay attention that the catholic don’t deny anything and reaffirms all: for understanding that that was the moment of historical decision of the Christianism, that the Church of Paul would never go ahead without Novatian.
The Novatians did not disappeared, neither were extinct: they only became the spirit of the Catholics: it’s what the Catholics are, Novatians. And the Nazarenes continued around, in flocks, the Protestants, as they are, carriers of disagreeing opinions: the servant of the servant. Therefore, I’ll follow with the Catholic, that at least has an opinion and don’t open of it and don’t live as a Vaseline Protestant that doesn’t even know indeed on what he believes: that which Novatian predicted, his theory of the Lapse: a repentant. The spirit of the Democracy is a Dictatorship: and the freedom is only a circuit that alternates in phases: we are entering the Novatian’s phase: because it was something that it never stopped being, on its neural core: Novatian:
There wouldn’t be Cyril without Novatian: not just him, Augustine, Jerome… : and Novatian was right: it was how the protestants appeared: they were exactly that group that Novatian predicted: the repentants: in mode that, if you don’t know Novatian, what was the Novatianism, how did the Nicene ideas appeared, which resulted in the story of Virgin Mary, you don’t have how to understand Hypatia’s story, an neither your own: because Hypatia was exactly in the path of the Novatianism: it’s exactly what the Nitrian Monks were: Novatians. Orestes was murdered by the lapse: and so did Synesius of Cyrene. In that moment, the Christians had to decide about something very important: and Hypatia would give them all the results that they wanted. All the Libraries of the time were burned, not only Alexandria: and millions of people were killed, on the biggest slaughter that the humanity has ever seen. Interesting how the destiny of the History went stop by in there, in Alexandria: and its whys, once more personifying all the results. It’s obvious that the catholics are proud of their whys: it were them who created the world: in the same mode, the Protestants need to be omissives, thinkers, sculptors of opinions, sensible to the historical unpredictables, which the incompetence of the other, somehow, beneficiated him: how good to have nearby that scrotum guy that makes you walk forward, that when look in the mirror, says ‘Shut the fuck up, it’s I who’s talking!’: and before the protestant gets pissed with the truths that surrounds their heads, it was good if he questioned himself, before anything else, why the catholic occupies an essential place on their weakness.
Well, the motive of these investigations is quite simple: Christ was the guilty. He gave two commands, equal to his father’s: he created the heaven and the earth: Christ not only defended the lapse, as also, the repentance. So, if it’s a duality, it’s useless stay angling: I’ll continue with the catholic brush and reaffirm where Hypatia connects with all this: because connection is what it doesn’t lacks: even if you want to close your eyes to don’t feel nothing, the others will be seeing as well: I mean, God is seeing, of how much coward you are: and toward an historicity, steps back on your weakness. It’s something that Christ wouldn’t do: he would listen the enemy: in mode that the historicity is what it doesn’t lacks. I chose the bests, including, Dzielska: because few histories of the world were so much harassed as Hypatia’s.
Even the movie of Almodóvar [Agora], already sent him my critics, for wanting to transform Hypatia into a martyr: Hypatia didn’t died defending Gods, she didn’t defended political parties, Alexandria was involved in her life, just as her domestic doings: Hypatia was a normal citizen , couldn’t be charged of corruption of minds: if the Theology harassed her, for finding there some interest, I’d say that she was involved, much more than she involved herself: Hypatia didn’t lived toward the results, therefore, she could not be considered a revolutionary of epoch, to the point of instigate masses against a local government, neither less against an idea, that didn’t even had a body. Hypatia was not in opposition to nothing, she wanted to continue what she was used to do everyday, to teach in Alexandria, for those who wanted to listen to her sayings: it’s the maximum that one can say about Hypatia. Now, indeed, I have to give the merit to the catholic, because he constructs his truth very well, I mean, he manages to hide well the things: ora, ‘Cyril knew the house of Hypatia…!’: no, he didn’t knew just the house, he already arrived in there with the sentence of Hypatia on his hands: Cyril was sent to Alexandria with one unique mission: to kill Hypatia and destroy the Library. It was not a vanities fight, as the Christians so want it, I mean, catholics and protestants converge in the same point, that it’s about a ‘passionate crime’, with motives or without motives, Cyril killed Hypatia: at the same time that they argument that Christ has nothing to do with this. No, Christians, pardon moi, I won’t send you to shit, but it cannot be this way. The version of yours doesn’t provides, because there aren’t two versions on nature: just because it were you who wrote the history, for this, the ones considered valid and of first hands, are only of Christian historians, the pagan historians don’t provide, because they don’t possess the same consistence as the catholic ones: for this , before you go further with your ideas, I say that is good for you to return to Josephus case and see what indeed you have on hands to offer me as history, and say that mine is a story that didn’t happened.
It’s what the catholic is saying: the protestant goes to make a critic and makes shit, because he thinks that he’s defending Christ, because their Christ is Jesus… the catholic really freaks out: and has reasons…
“But in vain do they call on Socrates. This historian, although very hostile to St. Cyril, as he constantly shows himself, and although his Novatianism12 would render him very willing to incriminate an 61 orthodox prelate, does not charge the holy patriarch with either the instigation or an approval of the murder. And, let it be noted, Philostorgius, also contemporary with Hypatia, and an historian of as much reliability as Socrates, narrates her death, but does not even mention the name of St. Cyril in connection with it, although, indeed, he inculpates the Catholics. The same may be said of Suidas. As for Nicephorus Callixtus, this schismatic author should not be brought forward in the matter, as he lived nine centuries after the event, and could know nothing whatever concerning it, unless from Socrates and Philostorgius. Furthermore, the best critics of every school tax this writer with a fondness for fables.
There remains, then, only Damascius, on whom Voltaire and his latest copyist, Kingsley, can rely for justification in their ghoulish task. But Damascius was a pagan, a declared enemy of Christianity, and it was the interest of his cause to besmirch the fair fame of Alexandria’s patriarch. And of what value is his assertion, made a century and a half after the death of Hypatia, when compared with the silence of her contemporaries, Socrates and Philostorgius? Again, the very passage of Damascius adduced by the foes of St. Cyril 62 betrays the shallowness of this author’s information. He represents the patriarch as surprised at the numbers awaiting the coming forth of Hypatia, and as asking who it was that could attract such a concourse. Is it possible that St. Cyril, the best informed man in Alexandria concerning even its most trivial affairs, the all-powerful patriarch whose spies were everywhere (according to Kingsley), did not know the residence of the woman who disputed with him the intellectual empire of the city? And Damascius makes still more exorbitant demands on our credulity; for he gives us to understand that until St. Cyril saw that crowd of her enthusiastic disciples, he had not even heard a name which for years had been renowned in Egypt.”
Obs.: the Suidas refers to the above passage as his arrival in Alexandria, questioning what was that crowd and that that made an enormous sense on what he came to do in Alexandria.
It’s something that might be happened at any time, the Suidas understands that that scene produced impact not only in Cyril, but anyone who passed in Alexandria, it seemed the Mountain Sermon.
There was an envy indeed, but wasn’t this feeling that dominated the crime scene, it was not about Mozart and Salieri: Cyril, in some moment, desired to possess Hypatia… that which was his and he didn’t possessed: and to convert her on something that was his. It’s the case of Caesareum, where the ‘ritual of purification’ occurred, that wasn’t even a church, was a monument from Cleopatra to Mark Antony, being, at the time, one more recent-acquisition, of the many invaded temples and converted into Christian properties, because the posse is a system of conversion of the death: once owner of the body, you can do whatever you wat with it: inclusive burning it. For this, the tentative of the catholic of invalidate the Suidas, and that, what that configures, in the first moment, it’s only a characteristical trace of Suidas, which also investigates the feelings of the characters involved, known in the entire world as an honest work, which doesn’t beneficiates of catholic sources to write the history: the Suidas, on many passages, suffered censures and ‘adequations’ to the Christianism, therefore, its online version is not a good reference: entire literatures disappeared. For this, unless you speak the original idiom and don’t fall into a compromised transliteration, you won’t have access to this informations as well.
Therefore, Suidas is a valid literatures, yes, whether the Catholics like it or not: and this worth’s for Damascius and others.
Questioned about the piece of Damascius, the World Public Library gave the following information:
This is the face of Alexandria: the Library disappeared, just as also its information: it must make part of the Dead-Files of the Vatican: that, which is hidden on heaven, which considered the valid history: a form of guaranteeing the death on earth.
But Hypatia continued alive…see, you…[!]: even on this Hypatia was compared to Christ: even without nothing, she survived the history. And not less curious that the Illuminists, those that the contemporary philosophers so much adorned, adorned Hypatia, their inspiratory muse. It’s to whom the catholic writes, Voltaire: the French philosopher that used Hypatia as source of inspiration of his renunciation and as justifications for his historical casuism. And so the catholic proceeds on his historical interpretation, the Life of Cyril, because of Hypatia he didn’t said absolutely nothing, except that Cyril was right on killing her, sine qua non condition for the divination of Mary. Hypatia wasn’t a goddess, and he needed to prove this: there’s only one God, there are no others. Hypatia did not resurrected in the third day and this was indicium that his theory was right, it validated everything that Cyril did. The mades of Cyril were so many and his criminal conduct impeccable, that he was the Proclamator of the Virginity of Mary, which proofs that he was the right man for the function. On Synesius letters for Hypatia, that which the Catholics left, Synesius shows, in the condition of Christian Bishop, an enormous pleasure on talking with the philosopher, in a small part of a letter he refers to her as a philosopher, ‘mother, friend, sister and woman’: and in another ones, he refers to how Cyril speeches were a shit, boring, and of how all of that which Cyril talked about was empty, repetitive and hateful, referring to Cyril and his followers as ‘bull tongues’, which advanced aggressively over those they consider opponents.
Those letters proves that Synesius, a Christian, who had accepted Christ as his unique Lord, had entered in Lapse. Ora, how may someone who knew Christ put someone in degree of superiority toward the truth[?].
What I’ve readed of reference to Hypatia for the own christianity which followed, are beautiful things, truly testimonies of love and incomprehension, but all this doesn’t arrives so well to my ears, because what one wants with this is to transform Hypatia into a Christian, thing that she never was and would never be.. I think that the death is a powerful system of conversion: and in this sense, it costs to glorify and attributes a life to that which is already dead, a recycle of the moral, see some utility on death. A recognizing that comes in the form of Purification… it was the last thoughts of Cyril in life: ‘I freed Hypatia, she must be thanked with me..’: the property, the image converted.
The Catholic Follows:
“We are not writing a life of St. Cyril, still less a hagiological essay; but we must remark that the general tenor of this prelate’s career, his exhibition of constant zeal and virtue of a strikingly heroic character, which caused his enrollment among the canonized saints, would prevent us from supposing that he could ever have been a murderer. Of course, absolutely speaking no metaphysical impossibility is invoked in the supposition of Voltaire, Kingsley, etc.; but if it were accepted, we should expect to discover some trace of heroic repentance in 63 the after-life of the patriarch. Now, in the remaining thirty years of his career, active and open to inspection though it as, we can find neither the slightest trace of such repentance nor even any avowal of the crime. But we need say no more. The charge is as gratuitous as it is malicious, and will thus be considered by all fair minds until at least one contemporary or quasi-contemporary authority can be adduced in its support.”
1 “Lit. Hist.,” article “Cyrillus.”
2 “Bibl. Græca,” pt. iv, b. 5.
3 Writing to the clergy and people of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine said: “We have deemed it proper that in so important a matter we ourselves should be in some sort present among you, and therefore we have appointed our brother Cyril as our representative.” And, writing to St. Cyril, the Pontiff says: “You will proclaim this sentence by our authority, acting in our place by virtue of our power; so that if Nestorius, within ten days after his admonition, does not anathematize his impious doctrine, you will declare him deprived of communion with us, and you will at once provide for the needs of the Constantinopolitan Church.” It is quite natural that Protestant polemics should be hostile to the memory of the great “Doctor of the Incarnation,” who thus apostrophized the Blessed Virgin in the Council of Ephesus: “I salute thee, Mother of God, venerable treasure of the entire universe! I salute thee, who didst enclose the Immense, the Incomprehensible, in thy virginal womb! I salute thee, by whose means heaven triumphs, angels rejoice, demons are put to flight, the tempter is vanquished, the culpable creature is raised to heaven, a knowledge of truth is based on the ruins of idolatry! I salute thee, through whom all the churches of the earth have been founded, and all nations led to penance! I salute thee, in fine, by whom the only Son of God, the Light of the world, has enlightened those who were seated in the shadow of death! Can any man worthily laud the incomparable Mary?”
4 These were an order of minor clerics, probably only tonsured, who were deputed to the service of the sick both in hospitals and at home. Their name was derived from their constant exposure to danger. The first mention of them in a public document occurs in an ordinance of Theodosius II., in 416; but they are here spoken of as having been in existence many years, and probably they were instituted in the time of Constantine. In course of time they became arrogant and seditious, and were finally abolished. At Alexandria they numbered six hundred, and were all appointed by the patriarch.
5 “Hist. Eccl.,” b. vii, § 15.
6 In his “Dictionnaire Philosophique;” article “Hypatia.”
7 “Examen Important de Milord Bolingbroke,” chap. 34, “Des Chrétiens jusqu’à Theodose.”
8 “Discours de Julien contre la Secte des Galiléens.”
9 “L’Etablissement du Christianisme,” chap. 24, “Excés de Fanatisme.”
10 M. Aubé, in vol. xxv, p. 712.
11 Vol. ix., p. 505 — Cantù does not touch the question of St. Cyril’s responsibility for this crime. This is all that the great historian says concerning Hypatia: “Theon, a professor in Alexandria, commentated on Euclid and Ptolemy, but became more famous on account of his beautiful daughter Hypatia. Taught mathematics by him, and perfected at Athens, she was invited to teach philosophy in her native city. She followed the eclectics, but based her system on the exact sciences, and introduced demonstrations into the speculative, thus reducing them to a more rigorous method than they had hitherto known. Bishop Synesius was her scholar, and always venerated her. Orestes, Prefect of Egypt, admired and loved her, and followed her counsels in his contest with the fiery Archbishop, St. Cyril. It was said that it was owing to Hypatia’s enthusiasm for paganism that Orestes became unfavorable to the Christians. Hence certain imprudent persons so excited the people against her that one day, while she was going to her school, she was dragged from her litter, stripped and killed, and her members thrown into the flames.” (Storia Universale,” b. vii, c. 23. Edit. Ital. 10; Turin, 1862.)
12 This heresy was an outgrowth of the schism of Novatian, who, instigated by Novatus, a Carthaginian priest, tried to usurp the pontifical throne of St. Cornelius in 251. Its cardinal doctrine was that there were some sins which the Church can not forgive. It subsisted in the East until the seventh century, and in the West until the eighth.’
The explanation is that Cyril was not a murderer: he was a soldier of Christ: and who Kills in the name of Christ is not a murderer: Christ said so, exactly: interficite: ‘the one who doesn’t agree with me, doesn’t agree with his Lord, bring to my presence and execute him’: all this passages are in the topic The Desert of Christ: the personality of Christ, in the individual and in the collective plan: where the lapse is the treatment of the addiction. For this, the Bible, on level of Paul and Gospels quotes firstly two personalities of Christ: the catholic assumes the personality of the Bad Christ, and the protestant, of the Sick Christ. To deny them is imbecility and, indeed, you’re wasting your time reading what I write: you should start from zero and read the epistles of Paul and the Gospels once again. If you never readed, you’re also an unserviceable, because you will believe in the translators of Christ : I’ve already talked about this: you may understand this as a joke or take this to the most high possible of indignation. I also feel like this, so, seems to me being this the primordial feeling on any conversation.
You don’t think that you’ll read what I write and get out entire: because you won’t : in the same mode, I see on this positive points on that which involves specifically the believing: you cannot don’t know such facts and simply say that they don’t exist, without not even investigate.
In mode that this is an intro, the History of Hypatia is far from the end: as I said, those histories comes followed by historicity. Anyone who reads the history of Hypatia for the first time enters in bolt right away: and desperately wants an explanation for what was that: very well, you will have one explanation to what was that. It’s incredible, even though I know what was that, I’m always wondering, ‘what was that…?’, ‘why did they killed Hypatia, why that way…?’: and from then, it doesn’t stops anymore: and even without knowing much of the history, you make a silent conclusion: she died worse than Christ: and she didn’t kissed the cross.
Hypatia had given a command to her pupils: don’t kill anyone in the name of God, neither order to kill: a command different of Christ, whether you accept it or not, go to shit, is what Christ said, it’s written: Hypatia died by order of Christ, don’t pretend that you are Jesus because you are also involved on this. Now, if you have nothing with this, already lost the disinterest for the world, but’s interested on knowing some things, disconsider what I said: you’re Christ and don’t know: and that’s the difficulty: in the hour of pressing the button, you always say ‘Christ wouldn’t do this…’, is an echo that comes from very, very far:
‘Christ…Christ…Christ… why did Christ ordered to kill…?’.
‘…But the legend says that, when the little tortoise returned to the local, he found wolves, snakes and serpents, and they said –hey, tortoise, leave it all with us. –and having said this, the tortoise entered in deep sleep, and when he woke up, the human beings had left the place, and the tortoise could watch everything germinating once again: he had understood what the master turtle had spoke to him. When he left there, the ax had already rotten, and that that would never be absorbed: and that that was never part of his shell. It’s another story, another legend, but what the tortoise knew is that this ax would never be found, that that was all only the history of how the Tool had appeared on Nature: The History of the Ax.’
I didn’t came to block the light, but to repose the darkness.