In the Intimacy with Hashem
An episode of a crime: He wasn’t
in the bed’s scene when this happened, at Sinai, at the Synagogue, behind the
shrub, in the savagery of the human flesh, the Roman room, an American city,
too few known from Heaven: yes, Hashem was there: He not just saw as also
participated, it was Him who’ve ordained the Judaic people raping women. This
is Hashem’s Trial: yes, He asked to be judged: in the history, this is shown,
how was the trial of the guilty: there was a problem in Hashem’s defense: the
prosecutor was the nature, represented by the human female: it couldn’t be
Ariel – the mermaid, nor Moana – the warrior, neither Pocahontas, neither any
other woman of the Book: even though the script was well-known, it could not be
a woman, because if not, she would be a man. The crime was in the nature,
nature-of-the-flesh: if it is indeed something known by God: it was a sexual
problem that should be better explained by Hashem.
I’ve got to find answer for
everything – from killing women and children, to the deluge, Sodom, Christ:
yes, Christ’s problem is another, Christ’s problem it’s the woman: she
wasn’t his taste, because indeed, the apple’s transmuted past had hidden an
interesting detail: the vagina: yes, itself. The Tree hadn’t sex, thus there
wasn’t a causal-nexus with the action: the action was exclusitive in the value
[the virginity – in the purity’s sense], and inclusive in the integrity:
there was an agony taste in the moral: it was hidden in Eve’s taste: it was
something she liked, for this, delivered it to Adam: Adam was a taste for Eve,
as well: and she did this smiling: and so did Adam: because they were still not
dressed with the moral’s taste: there were motives for Hashem acting like this:
and for this, He displeased Himself with something. Yes, this is known by
everyone: because this was the result. The apple wasn’t His, but Eve’s: I think
so the Christians have the perfect understanding on this, that the guilty in
the scene, in the action, was the woman. Hashem is man and He prides Himself of
this: this doesn’t answer the problem that leaded to the rape’s Writing: where
was that a taste for Hashem[..?]: raping would make sense in the latu sensu of
a revenge, or even in a learning, for a Jew, that ‘it would be this that would
happen to his family, if he didn’t obey the Command’: but not of the love: even
though under the optics of an emotional of epoch, it wouldn’t fit defense, as
well.
And what about the woman – this,
which I refer to, the female..? The revenge could be inclusive in the moral,
but not for the nature: the love wouldn’t do this: “It was a village of violators, it wouldn’t be
a punishment to the enemy, but a Jew’s protocol, a bonus for the action,
something common between Jews and the enemy, a practice of epoch..”: Yes, I
understand all this: but this was not enough for Hashem, He knew this.
He told me His word was a signal
of His presence, that it would be something understood by all’s: He erred. And
He wanted something more, He wanted to know what was the love. This makes sense
for many of the Book’s passages, it’s something molecular: nor even
morphologically written the love is there: in nothing love is the
causal-nexus with that which He made: Hashem needed to learn with all that which
by Him it’s caused: He needed to cause to understand what the cause isn’t.
This is quite next to pope Francis’s explanation, on his evolutive concept of
God, and how all this is explained in Paul and Christ. I don’t know if this
would be the Rabbis concordance, as well, for this the importance of
Hashem’s intimacies: if the Torah’s continuity it’s the Christianism, as
well. Hashem was man, wasn’t gay, because it was the emotional of something
impossible for Hashem, otherwise He would have commanded ones raping men as
well: Hashem has a lot of things, but there are things He hasn’t: and
therefore, He didn’t create neither command the Jews on this. I’ve never seen
any biological study, until nowadays, which sustains the emotional-sexual
transmutation of someone: I think so, for those who’re undefined in the grid,
may assume momentaneous a colorful gradient: but this isn’t Hashem’s
manifestation. Hashem isn’t being judged for this. And indeed, I didn’t talk
about this with Hashem. There was something He didn’t like in the gays: the
violence: the violence was the causal nexus of all the senses, in that where
Hashem hadn’t hidden Himself: there was something He didn’t accept, in that where
He called the inviolable: it also stayed understood as Hashem’s
impossible. From there on, interpreting a Command passed to be judgeable,
it passed to be passible of interpretation: the admission that the Law could be
violated, in the latu sensu of a “new alliance”, a “new path to be firmed
in the concordance of a new human understanding”. There was a discordance in
surpassing, on that which Hashem possibilited for the woman, He turned
impossible to the man: impossible for the man being a woman. There was a
vagina in the apple. Hashem excluded the purity from the woman, but included
the virginity in the man, and even for this the circumcising: in that where
in the woman was freed and in the man was prohibited, there was a must of
indignation, of legitimacy in the matter: there was something wrong in the Law.
“But, Anne, is the love against
the gays? Isn’t the homosexuality natural??”: excepting the procreative effects
– there are studies that proves the homosexuals are more procreative and that
they’re the majority on the planet – , it doesn’t exist motives that the nature
be contrary to the understanding of a relation where the love may be involved,
in the smile: the thing is this isn’t Hashem’s understanding: it’s ironic that
Hashem had practiced the most variated kinds of violence, being a confess
defendant in the grand majority of them, and not have denied Himself on being
judged for this: something He didn’t change. I say this because, if for Hashem
love is something few understood, it would be lucid supposing He’d understand
the gay-relation, once nature itself didn’t create any impeditive clause, in
that by where the discord followed: God’s prejudice: and this be an impeditive
clause of forgiveness, acceptation and blessing, in the latu sensu of a broad
understanding and recognizance of something that overwrites the moral in the
latu sensu of the Law: because, for Hashem, it was something He didn’t err: And
for me, it makes sense, because the preferences – in the latu sensu of the
taste –, it’s something unjudgeable, in the latu sensu of something that
cannot be absorbed for not being a pleasure: it’s something that satisfies
better the concept of natural senses. So, in that where I consider an
error of Hashem, a violation to the love, the gay understanding on the matter
hasn’t bigger relevance, because the elemental in the nature it’s the flower:
the flower is the love’s sense: the growth isn’t a love’s function: the family
by itself doesn’t answer by the love, because it doesn’t guarantee the flower,
in the latu sensu of a violation. In mode that the flower’s seed is Hashem’s
worrying, much more than the plantation: And even for this our conversation
was possible.. I was writing a book when this conversation happened, and this
conversation’s dynamic was another, quite different from the narrated one in
the Book, even His way of expressing and wills. So, certainly, the Rabbis will
question, that ‘this isn’t Hashem..’: but the understanding of prophecy
isn’t mine, the understanding of ‘prophets’ it’s human, who’ve
defined the prophet wasn’t Hashem. In the highest that the servitude
reaches, the right term is the messenger: and this isn’t Messiah,
as well.
Well, the message was the
following :
The Prophecy:
1*. The Animal-Vegetal
2*. The construction of
the World’s biggest building, of mirrors. Cities in grades [pt].
3*. A collision in high
speed, or something of the kind. More than 400 thousand or million deaths.
4*. The cities that will
turn Island.
5*. The phase
6*. The red tower, in the
middle of a red desert.
7*. Two animals that will
dominate the world: the hyena with lion’s mane, and the pigeon with wings of vulture.
In the face of one of the animals, the eyes way distant from one another.
*1 Refers to an
unknown structure, half-virus, and half-bacteria, and essentially, plant.
*2 Refers to a hegemony’s suppression, and loss
of political autonomy.
*3 I
don’t know for certain how many digits, but it refers to an explosion. It refers to the coordination and the control
of that which’s being constructed: the collision of the mirrors. It’s a drawing
- the impact of the light. But it may also be understood as two neurons in high
speed, colliding one towards the other: the destruction of the human synapse.
What happens to the earth also happens with the
human body. A collapse in the neural system: something’s functional structure,
breaking, in a self-collision.
*4 It refers to four cities, four big
capitals, in four different continents. One of them was New York, and not
Miami: the statue of the Liberty was in mud: but this may have another meaning
as well, for there wasn’t nor date neither name in nothing that I’ve seen, the
way as I’ve seen it’s nothing similar to Nostradamus’s, and neither similar to
my natural way: and even for this I’ve called Hashem, because it was somewhat
similar to the Book’s understanding, for this these thing’s understandings I
couldn’t leave in your hands, as they’re related to many things, things these
which I haven’t spoken about, yet.
*5 The phase it’s
explained in the path of pain, a
passage from Goraxx.
*6 Something to do with the terrestrial
orbit, whether the rotation or the translation, the axis, or, the core. It’s a
vision, it’s not a too big building, it has four floors, it doesn’t look
nothing in the earth, maybe an element which’s not from it. Natural phenomenon
are involved with this image. It also refers to the intuition, something that
cannot be rationalized, the position – the fix. I haven’t the exact
comprehension of this image, because it changes form, and takes the form of a
prism, and it emits a red light, of high intensity, as if it were a rocket, or
a technology. I’ve made a drawing of this structure, it will be published along
with the stories.
*7 The discórdia [pt], the loneliness and the
selfishness. The image it’s the face of
two worldwide leaders, they’re not in fight, but together. These animals are
already around : and they’re well-known: they’re the structural body of
something.
In
additional notes, the message carries a second term in its initial base: ‘When
the Winter make itself present”: the Winter
refers to waters:
when the waters starts to rise: the waters in matter don’t refer only to the
oceans, in their physical known form: because the understanding of water, in
the organic, it’s another. Four are the Earth’s rivers: and they refer to the
human emotional: from there on, the understanding is sequential, starting by
the animal-vegetal: a structural change of the human body – something the DNA’s
explanation doesn’t reach, for being the genome one more human idea, something
that goes beyond the microbial understanding. And explaining the animal-vegetal be something more complicated: but it’s something that I
come doing, already: it wasn’t something that appeared, but that was awaken:
the understanding is that the human being has to try structuring himself with
this thing, and not, destroying it as he comes doing: for its importance in the
planet’s emotional structural, where the waters are involved. If this doesn’t
happen in 10 years, Earth’s core will turn into reactive, and the waters
temperature will rise, much more than anything, the human being’s thermal body
temperature will be elevated by two degrees, to support the energetic demand in
the organic. In mode that não adianta talking anything about these things, because you don’t know
what’s the nature, and much lesser yet what’s the love.
This conversation happened 10
years ago, and it would begin in 2020. At that time, I had 15, now, I’m 33, and
I should’ve published it a year ago, and I’ve lost the paper and only recently
I’ve found, it was published in another language inside another language,
inside this book I was writing at the time, Goraxx, for this
it carries this name. A fable, replete of drawings. And due to authorship rights matter and some
kinds of censure and legal bureaucracies in my Country, I’ve made it this way -
but with Hashem’s approval. Hashem got interested by what I was writing at the
time, it was how I’ve understood the conversation. I’ll write about this, too,
it’s something present in the stories, the flower’s nature, Sewa.
My relationship with Hashem it’s
of respect, He didn’t identify Himself like this, ‘Hashem’, also didn’t give me
a face nor a body, for this, I’ve identified as something unknown for me, as
well: but not as something strange. I didn’t feel violated in any sense at all.
It was just one night, and I’ve took notes on everything, in concordance with
the images I’ve had seen. None of that made sense by that time, and it was
basically at that time that I’ve begun reading the Book - in part to understand
that which I had listened: it wasn’t something I’ve given the due importance or
even believed, particularly, I don’t believe in prophecies, and neither in
something as being Hashem. It was something that happened in that which I was
writing.
It’s strange the human being
dribbling the passages, the language it’s something strange to the natural:
Babel. So, I firstly had to understand the language structural problem, the way
as the communication happens. I write stories, but I don’t invent them – the
registry of these pages in my country’s national library was made in 2010: it
wasn’t something I’ve kept as proof, I just didn’t relevei that this
would indeed be something relevant for the humanity. In mode that, in the else,
I didn’t understand as something mine exactly, and even for this I’m delivering
it. I think so now these things may make sense, in the latu sensu of the limit
of something’s violation: the flower’s symmetry it’s the pair: the pair it’s
only possible in a male-and-a-female: earth’s symmetry is pair: the pair’s symmetry it’s the sap: And the
sap’s symmetry it’s the heat: And the heat’s symmetry it’s the fire. The flower
it’s something structural in something’s emotional, which cannot be destroyed: the
pair structure it’s different from the homo-structure: It’s not a matter of
fertility, neither of exclusion: but structural of passage. Before one
misunderstands the love completely, the flower structure needs to be explained.
Was how I’ve understood the message: if the flower continues to be violated,
the ten years that will follow won’t be a fatality, only these events will
happen, and they will mark someone’s dissatisfaction .. and I indeed haven’t how
to go more beyond, because indeed, I didn’t accept Hashem, I didn’t seek for
judging Him, because He had already judged Himself as wrong, not in the
cynicism of that who doesn’t know what he did, in the “no notion” latu sensu,
neither of that who doesn’t get to hold himself: but of that who doesn’t do
anymore: Because indeed, raping women it’s unacceptable: for this, I cannot
guarantee if Hashem will still rape someone. With me this didn’t happen, He was
very polite, He didn’t take off the shirt, nor even the shoes, He remained
dressed, and the conversation for all the senses – and this was how I’ve
understood the message – was about the love. He also didn’t Command destroying
the gays – those who doesn’t accept His taste: He just affirmed His taste was another.
The world is gay, and this gay sentiment ended up prejudicing the natural males
and females that were involved in a prostitution system, and this went on
destroying the flowers -those, who’d have
condition of supporting the emotional of structures of passages of the
earth. So, if the love was something unknown for Moses, uncomprehended in David
and inexistent in Christ, it’s because indeed there was something wrong in
Hashem, in that which He followed as well. So, the sensorial structure God, in
that where the universe it’s involved, it’s also something unknown for the
Theology that practices Hashem’s understanding. My like to Hashem goes because He
sought for guaranteeing the structure of the flower, that the human , in the
latu sensu of its functionality, didn’t step himself away from this,
independently of his emotional state, that the weaknesses for no angle were
placed ahead as obstacle of a Command, which would certainly result in
violation. I think so this clears up Hashem’s intimacy, because the sex was
the philosophy that followed: and if this happened it was because the love was
violated.
So, I don’t know if Hashem will
go ahead with this. And I think so where
I was involved in this it’s because I’m half Jewish and from Levi’s house. I
think so this may make sense for the Jews, because the Judaism was something
that I’ve stepped myself away as well, just as the world. I’ll also make a post
on this, it will help understanding better who’s writing these things.
What I’d say is that you continue
reading the stories, they’re very interesting, as much in that which refers to
the structural-time, it’s something also current. I didn’t oppose myself
writing it, I’d just like to have better conditions, this contributed only for
the delay on the publishing’s, I’d like to be writing another things, but the
science created a logistical embarrass, and the Christians are divided, and the
Jews are still lost, and the love was that which didn’t happen: So, as these
things are too broad, I was obliged to lengthen myself a little more, to revert
all the cynism and mental difficulties of the observer: I’ll go – in the stories – talking about this,
it’s the best way, and I think so the only one, of you understanding what’s
happening: because otherwise, you’d never know. And I have to thank Hashem for
this as well. But indeed, I’ve never talked to Hashem once again, so, I think
His emotional state didn’t change, and if He wanted to make some changing on that
which was written, He’d already have done. The else I leave for you. And it’s how I understand this document, it
carries Hashem’s sentiments - and in a certain way, mine as well. And in a
certain way, it carries an optimism: if Hashem managed to arrive in the love,
the human being can succeed, as well: and this includes even the own gays, I
mean, that they cease to be so procreative and limit themselves more to their
spaces, even though in the understanding of nation, in the latu sensu that the
flower’s nature don’t be violated anymore, in middle the limit of their bodies,
in that where it wasn’t possible, for otherwise, that wouldn’t be a taste: for
being the contrariety the mother of the violation, and not exactly a Hashem’s
failure.
That said, I won’t go more
beyond. In the stories this will be shown in better definition.
“Anne, how do you know it was
Hashem and not the enemy..?”: Because He didn’t blame the love, but something
He did: And if this happened, it’s because He was configured, as well: because
raping women isn’t something that would come from a natural male:
there’s no temptation in that where there is no desire. So, I think the
homosexuality it’s something that already existed in the ancient Judaism, and
that it was this that taught the man raping as being a taste of God. It
was something I’ve read in the Greek’s story, as well: a special kind of
violence which’s only practiced by gays, the own gays themselves affirms this:
in mode that the term “gay” refers to a special kind of violation, which was
practiced and educated as being something natural of the being. It is
natural from the Gods perceiving themselves in middle the human sentiments. The
Creation stepped-away the understanding of these things. But there’s not how
misrelating the sentiments, in that where the understanding of God and the
human are involved, in the latu sensu of an action, where something’s
practice was initialized. There was something that was seen in the natural, and
this created a conflict, it was by where the discord followed, but because
there existed something in the other edge: and it was justly this something
that -historically- produced all the violation to the nature: and not exactly to
the nature-of-the-flesh, but the flower’s nature: to the point of the own
nature as vein of passages having unstructured itself, as well: in a gross
mode, the nature, in its various structures, seems to have followed the gay’s
concordance, as well, and practicing violations as well: this is understood as desembaiamento: usually, are structures
extremely procreative, and are involved with the unstructured growth, parasites
structures that like to fixate themselves in something. In mode that these
things cannot be explained so easy in ideas and observations, using only the
material that was Written, because the material that was Written it’s also
limited. And this explains the messenger’s figura [pt], in that where his
sensoriality it’s involved with sound and images: the language, by itself, it’s
not a referential of knowledge: the perception it’s not involved with the
knowledge, but with other abilities, too few comprehended, even for those who
have it. In the stories I try to explain how does it works the system of words
addressing and its system of marking in time: it’s not about a choice, but of
something being vein of passage: it’s part of the flower’s presets,
explaining, as well, the love: There are structures that don’t know what’s
this: more yet: what is it staying without this: what is it never talking to
God once again, or, with the Gods.
The Universal Fear was the way
as He wanted to be identified. It was how He wanted to be understood in the
Book, as well. It’s in the core structure of the Command. So, I think this in
only an entertainment more for you, because the prophecy it’s the science’s
name, it’s the name of the justice in matter, in that where everyone follows
and believes. So, for me, I’ve understood it more as a curse, in the latu sensu
of one problem more, to my ears.. . And having to explain the Christianism for
the Christians, in that where Christ and Paul are involved, and Sadducee and
Pharisee where the Judaism it’s hidden, in that what hid itself – The Word, it
stayed involved in metaphors, of hard learning and reflexion: I think so Hashem
it’s right in ending this up for once, once the half will never be an
entire: I think so the integrity will fail, for any angle, as much as the
results will never be solved, in that which already wasn’t, and for
this, happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment