The issue of Imperfection
Now that all have realized that we all are somehow imperfect - we can add that God isn't THAT perfect either! (Woot?) Well - thats a stand-point. I would have written about Physics, Relativity and things to provide ... I'll get there when I get there. I however got to this issue while thinking of the contents - and while I wasn't sure about writing anything I now got to this here ... well, obviously!
The idea begins when going back to the beginning. While writing about Physics - so it seems - it is inevitable for me to also speak about God. I didn't think that writing about this topic would actually take me into this issue - but well - now its there! I've so come to speak about God and while at first my "point" was that nowhere in the Bible it is written that the Earth is flat! Well, it is written in the account of creation that God created a 'Dome' - and while 'Dome' would make us think about a Flat World - it isn't so that a sphere around a sphere wouldn't be at all so different. It is round, and, spheric ... and so I 'had to' point out that this passage where it is written that the Spirit of God floated above the ancient Flood is by the means of what is 'physically plausible' not matter of fact an 'Eternal Ocean' - but in terms of limitations either a limitted plane or matter of fact a sphere. So, my statement.
When folks are speaking about God it is a mess - literally - for whenever the discussion is in need of understanding God property wise, the ones think of Him this way, the others that way, and so, as there is no agreement on that already, how to move on?
What I share now though is wisdom mingled with experiences that may as well be taken out of context but I'm not made aware of any possibility how I could have understood that wrong! Quite the opposite. My wisdom in that matter is essentially verified, pivoted and climaxed by the presence of Christ - so - 'the Body of the Invisible God' (Colossians 1:15). It is the rule for everything that exists, and it can't be changed, that anything BUT God is limitted. This limitation is at first a limitation in time and space. It is limitted by time in that it has a beginning, and it is limitted in space in that there is an end to the object in all directions. Nothing can matter of fact manifest without being "spherically limitted". Here the first flaw of God is being Revealed. HE cannot change anything about it either! As "experiment" we can create ourselves a thought that simulates intelligence - and we can take that thought and try to let it control us. We can however not replace our self by that thought, while at the same time we are always in charge of it. Or, in terms of Chinese Philosphy I make up myself: If you pump air into a ball, the ball will be filled with air and the air will be filled with ball, but not will the ball become the air!
In conjunction to that there is the flaw of everything that is limitted, which is that it is never capable of entirely Understanding what it means to be Eternal. We can see it in our own limitation. We are bound to the concepts of limitation - therein we can understand everything that is limitted - but not how something can matter of fact 'be'. For something to 'be', it has to be somewhere at some point in time - but where is 'where' and 'when' is it? So, we are thereby bound to being limitted, in which we can dumb the whole case down to the raw point of saying: "I am" - period. That I am means that there is 'somewhere' and 'somewhen', where to me my personal 'point zero' is myself. In that to me I'm my own scale. My experience and memory of time is my time-scale and my spirit is my Universe.
So, 'God' is Invisible - which follows the rule of Eternity. There's the second flaw: God can't make Himself visible - but is visible to Himself only. Sortof. Everything that is visible is 'of' God and is manifest. Everything that is manifest is in turn limitted. In the same sense is all that we conceive 'packed' into a limitted vessel and while it is not yet packed it however yet still emerges as limitted manifestation. So the suggestion that everything that is not yet IS God, which is equal to saying that everything that is is made of Him.
Trying to understand 'The Eternal', we come to the question How this "looks" like since we are to Understand that God is Spirit and that everything is made of Spirit, and that Spirit is equally "Mass" as "Intellect", Existence is 'Eternal Mass'. Here is our Flaw that we cannot understand how something can be Eternal - or how 'Mind' can occupy Eternity. This conflict in combination with the conflict regarding Time is the Paradoxon of Time and Space. How can Space be Eternal? How can there be something "Eternally Far away" - or as we would say: Where nothing could be? Thus we have to suggest that Time and Space are not Eternal. We can so understand "The End of Time" as that which is 'now' - where in the same sense there is an End to Space as we know it - which is called: 'The Eternal Frontier' (It is an experience that God can 'grant' to someone to have insight into His magnitude. I am however going to discuss this matter individually at some point in time). This is well described by the Model of the Big Bang. What came before it, we can't tell. What is beyond it, who knows? But we can tell that our Universe is expanding - we can deduce how it all expands from a point of origin - while what happened at that point is what we call the Big Bang. (Hint: Saying that X seconds After the Big Bang 'time became' - well ... seriously? Maybe its a Mathematical issue, I would suggest, at which point I also have to jump on that boat and say OK, but I don't accept it as absolute Truth - it is just the Mathematical Truth of our Universe.) The Big Bang of Existence is hinted out in the Gospel of John right away: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God". Now, what happened there-after is more like one conclusion after another - and that shows us the basis of time. Here time however isn't accounted as 'fluid' - but as 'growth' - so - like the mathematical cognition of '1' yields the mathematical 'growth' of 2 which iterates into addition and multiplication - including 'scope' and 'infinity'. So, four steps - as 4 time units. Finally there is also time between each step, where each individual stage has to individually 'grow' to a level of comprehension before it allows the cognition of the next step. So, in that, there is a beginning to time - and it is introduced by 'the Word' or 'the Alpha and the Omega', while 'the Omega' may not be clear as of this.
That "it" happened is a matter of Logic. An Eternally existing mind has to "at some point" see itself, prior to which, well ... who knows?
Well, prior to that there was only that which existed "since" ever.
The Misconception
Now is there that Misconception that God demands us, through the Bible, to be perfect. It is a Misconception because although the Old Testament does already impose very strict rules, they weren't given without a mechanism of atonement. That it exists can be regarded 'Logical' - inevitably logical - as we Understand that God is 'the Most Logical'. He would otherwise give us rules, well knowing that we can't heed them in this world (while some just and simply wouldn't out of purpose), without giving us a way to be satisfied by our own intention of being sorry. While the Law may be "flawed", the mechanism of Forgiveness is equally "trivial", but still it is an act of sacrifice. To be sorry imposes the question: How sorry? Sorry enough to give away a part of your property? And sorry enough to put diligence into giving away something precious? (The demand was that the Animal that is sacrificed is to be of High Quality - not just the worse and sickest goat in the fold - sotospeak.)
A passage most might now know of is one that reads: "And God repented". It makes one wonder how that can be true while in the same time we are bound to believe that He has a plan of Salvation. It is supposed that He had a plan but had to realize that time had revealed certain things of our nature that urged Him to change His plan. But that ... is a different issue.
It is however still there that finally, whatever we might think, there was Christ. We can't harm God, Christ is as close as it got. He got baptized and I perceive it to be a symbol beyond what else is valid. By being baptized we follow Christ in asking Forgiveness - by acknowledging the Atonement of Him.
And maybe it is just a "glitch" to help us Understand the entire thing on a more easy to read and quick to Understand Level. I have written about that often and each time came to different yet equally plausible and yet more and more complicated conclusions. If you want more, ask Him!
We aren't asked to be perfect. On top of that did God do the whole Moses thing 'after' that Repentance thing, so, what happened there is part of His solution. Many verses do thereby come to my mind wherein the Bible can be summarized into 'Creation', 'God paving a way for Himself', 'Christ' and done. We are left to proof that we are Worthy of His Love, and that is as perfect and good of a plan as can be. Maybe God was in deed running after ourselves, then repenting and saying: 'Nay'.
Still our Race was split into Good and Bad from the beginning. Some would yield of His grace by proving themselves righteous, others would yield of His wrath by proving themselves wicked. This simple and monotonistic system of 'reward and punishment' is another centralized component of the Old Testament. It is turned upside down by Christ - beyond which the Bible speaks of the Evil being King of this World. So, Evil is Good and Good is Evil, sortof - because that's how Evil rules - turning itself into that which is Good. It is the logical result of 'rectifying' the 'reward and punishment' system after the introduction of a Law. A Law means that reward and punishment can be considered in reference to given actions. So, I can sin if I offer my best sheep. If I only have good sheep I can commit as many sins as I have sheep. Thus I would be a banker and keep sheep just to ... so and so. In other words: The Law can be abused. In turn can it be abused to an extent where the wicked can turn punishment unto the righteous. While the Law remained after Christs ascendance, the position of God had been declared. It may seem to be confusing when approaching it with the Logic of a Lawyer. So, the one passage reads: All that believe in Jesus will be saved. Another says that there will be many who come to Him saying: "Have we not preached in thy name?" and He'll respond: "I know ye not!". So, there you go: All is Relative! Even so the Absolute to its Origin.
The Entry Point
You might have deduced that I actually wanted to write about something else. Well, obviously 'imperfection' is the focus, while as this has thus far discussed the imperfections of the Lord, we now come to ourselves. In that case I'm hinted that I may be as bold as to turn the sheet around and start by saying that we are in deed perfect! We are as Perfect as God within the restrictions that cannot be changed. Thus, in what way ever we may appear to be flawed, it is just the product of what we are, of our very own perfection. We have what we have, so, know what we know, are what we are, etc. - from where on we are just the way we are - and that this is 'flawed' as well is described via the word 'Mangle'. The mangle is this: At first we have to picture ourselves like spheres - so - take a smiley and thats a human spirit. Now is this spirit without face, at the beginning. It may recognize itself following the perfection of the father, thus recognizing the own self and an eye pops up. But that is beside the point. More to the point is it so that we exist within time and space, and while beyond ourselves there is God, within God is everything that is and nothing prevents me from arguing that 'thoughts' can 'interlap'. In other terms: When we speak of 'external emotions' we speak of spiritual forces that 'interlap' with our mind. Or, our thoughts, our sight, exists 'within' our mind - which is in about the same thing - or exactly the same thing. So we can reduce it to 'seeing'. The one would see a red ball in the size of an eye, the other a black column that spans right through his/her center. This is the offset at which a human individual would live to exist - and what happens there-after is already influenced by that 'first experience'. In addition can I say, as theorem, that each individual is already created with an individual 'inscription' of sorts. I picture it like marbles. Some have one color, others are full of colors, ... well ... in which case we might say that we are like 'marble' - or in extension of the 'stone metaphor' - like a mountain wherein now all sorts of stuff may be found. That this 'all' that we are is yet at all times always only a portion of the all that we are, that is the Mangle.
Striving for Perfection issues another problem - and mangle. The problem is that we need to know what perfection means, while at the same time the parameters of perfection diminish individuality. Thus, a higher demand of perfection yields the mangle of variety. It is now so that we can call this a point and think about it and wonder what we want to be - thats our freedom! But ... as you might guess from the "tone" I started this ... there is a 'But'. "But" (to the But) - at first - already the point of individuality as virtue is objectionable - so at least from the perspective of Righteousness. That again is objectionable from the perspective of 'individualistic perspective', so that between perfection and individuality there is no peace. In the greater sense each 'model' of individualistic society is also a model of perfection - thus, while there is no objection to allowing individuality to exist within different ideas of perfection, that is what is logically projected to be the model of existence for the near and further future. Yet each Model must comply to standards that prevent corruption from spreading therein. In that sense Good and Evil are inter-compendial issues. Thus at first the concept of Wickedness existing within its own terms of Righteousness is a legitimate suggestion - the legitimacy however abruptly comes to an end where this wickedness needs Victims. In that sense paradise for the wicked is a place filled with only wicked people - and how that is going to evolve, well, is again wickedness that I wouldn't want to exist anywhere, whether I have the right to express this oppinion or not! It is so that one would seek to gain dominance and this dominance is established to victimize the rest. While on one sight we might say that it is 'deserved', it would yet have to be so - at which point I might change my oppinion about it - that the dominant individuals should be those at the bottom of the wickedness chain. Otherwise the wicked would rule upon the wicked and thus living a wealthy life - and that is my problem with it - while others yet are made to suffer. It is however not my objective to formulate a paradise for the wicked. My spirit however tells me that if I were God I would have a huge issue with supporting an existence like that - I'd much rather just lock them all away to have peace with them.
The Vision of Hell that I've had is the following: In Hell one is to loop through all emototions that occur to a victim of wickedness. That is then finally the 'dense' version of that paradise for the wicked. Logically.
The Magnificence and the Beauty
There is however the issue of Masochism - the bold willingness to submit to an order of wickedness to the personal gain of pleasure. In the same terms there is the issue of Sadism - the bold willingness to impair the life of another through wicked actions to the gain of personal pleasure. It is are two grains of individuality that fit together and make up a realm we may have to call 'the Underworld'. A sadist who would yet act righteous in interaction with someone who isn't voluntaring as victim is however more righteous than someone who is just and simply wicked and perhaps sadistic - period. So the context between Heaven and Hell expands around the separation of Good and Evil within a given individualistic compound.
On another note are 'the pleasure in establishing Order' something that is similar to Sadism, so as both are dominant. The counterpart to Masochism is the pleasure of living within an established Order. While those stand as ideological 'goods' compared to the other ideological 'evils' - also that 'good' knows its own Good and Evil.
What we have to see as living within this World is that God is very well capable of leaving us to our selves. The more He does for us, the less we can do for ourselves. The less we can do for ourselves, the more we are infantized and logically that is not something God 'would' do forever. Definitely not when there is a good in allowing us to do things for ourselves (although to those that 'submit' there would be just be a neglectable difference) - and this good is already evident when there is only one human individual who has the pleasure to rule!
Now is pleasure yet a Mystery to be solved (which is - weird to read since as Desciple/Apostle (to be) I should scoop of the wisdom of the Most High and thus have an answer. The answer though is ... Relative!). At the very least we can destinguish various forms of pleasure. Watching a Movie or listening to a Song is 'perceptive' pleasure. 'Knowing' something can also yield pleasure and is a 'situational' pleasure. There also is pleasure in activity, which is 'creative' pleasure that furthermore "crosses Symptoms with the Pistis-Sophia issue". Like situational and perceptive pleasure share a common trait, can 'creativity' be separated into the part of creativity and the part of activity. So: "Each of the four Grand categories of Pleasure aligns to one of the Four Lights" (Four Lights: Is a thing you will definitely stumble accross sooner or later and thus is given no further explenation herein ... although ... service!). These four Lights (Mercy, Perception, Level-Headedness and Peace [I understand that without a proper introduction it may be a bit mind-bending to get the terms into the right context]) as pillars of cognitive existence (Substance, Perception, Activity and Reason [Mercy equals Substance, Activity equals Level-Headedness and Reason equals Peace]) make up the whole - while similar to that there is no pleasure of any kind without matters of a corresponding kind. Without Knowledge no pleasure in it - as first instance of course - but without any activity and perception there is no knowledge - so is the pleasure in Knowledge dependent on the presence of activity. Pistis-Sophia and [something-something] have to harmonize.
Thus so an imperative demand: To exist in paradise means that the individual adjusts to the likes of the other. This however is a more delicate and yet marvelous thing than it might seem. At first is it difficult to 'demand' alignment without any 'fair' relation or otherwise diminishing the variety and thus potential enjoyment. In other words is it more acceptable to allow an individual to unfold freely - at least so to that individual, which is metaphorically each and everyone of us - if it so can contribute to the greater joy. That is the delicacy as the further we expanded the idea the closer we'd get into supposed 'grey-areas' and further off we'd get stuck within Chaos - and that isn't what we should be desiring! Marvelous however is the point that this demand yields that the alignment can be designed. So is there "the Fifth pleasure" - which is simply put "(by) the Grace of God". Here becomes possible that the individual 'aligns' - but does so in first place to the own joy. This is independent of the individuals very own individual joy within aligning to possible individuals. On the counter side is there "the One Anti-Joy" - which disiables us from entertaining a certain course of action. It is also by this Anti-Joy that we may experience the scope wherein the design of our own Alignment exists (or would exist). It is of course however so that alignment unto "the Grace of God (Light and Darkness around Clarity)" is in some ways a conscious submission to a certain degree of Blindness or 'Conscious Illusion'. Thus, on the full broad-side of it there would for instance be the conflict within Love - or its value when regarding it to be carried by ... one term makes it sound more negative than the other. It is carried by God, but God appears within the illusion as part of it - even invisibly yet only deducable through its existence - so that God shifts into un-awareness as we live our individual existence. At some point this triggers the idea that we might hypothetically not even want it anymore, or how could we tell? So - narrowed down - is this feature of Paradise the logical pickle. It is where nature is mixed or even replaced by something artificial - and the line blurrs the more we are attracted to its grace! The Alternative - without going into the negative extremes - is a purely pragmatic organization of society - or otherwise that what would remain as the 'central compound of perfection'. Central because here the credibility of individuality is broken in favour of our own perfection - which we might continually regard as the highest grade thereof. It is however not the point to remain at this topic for any longer!
Existence is Flawed!
Thus from the get go it gets clear that we're all sitting in the same boat. At this point this is to be a message of individuality - to pronounce a rightful and righteous recognition of an individuals individual traits as opposed to extremist formulations of a grand unified scheme of perfection. A common ground for all that follow the Lord is to pass through Baptism - something that is linked to a mechanism of 'cleansing' that is to free us of the 'rough edges' that nobody needs or wants. It does however not change "too much" - but yet - quite a lot - it depends. The factor of individuality comes into play when regarding the magnitude in which an individual would have to change to become "appropriate". "Appropriate" is though an idealization - or: The 'lesser' 'appropriatization' happens through Baptism. Here we are cleansed, but not necessarily fitting into (a given) society. The greater is now what this entire whole was intended to be all about.
The term is called 'the discrepance' - or the 'in-alterable gap', where 'in-alterable' is not to say that it isn't possible - it is entirely comprised within the idea of the individualistic ideal, thus: 'artificial'. It is described as the difference between an individualistic ideal and the central ideal. Within this discrepance it is now possible to describe an ethnical context to the central idea. If the central idea where to not eat pork, and the individualistic ideal were to eat pork, the ethnical context is that the individual is a sinner. The individual discrepance is to say whether an individual would now rather be a sinner or withdraw from eating pork. Pork can furthermore be associated to Filth, an additional feature, where however another sin exists within demanding a corresponding purity. It is however entirely trivial to be obsessed about imposing rules regarding food - as however done in the Old Testament (so, the Old Testament prohibits the consumption of unclean food). The Ministry of Christ however describes the triviality behind such rules - as further the Letter to the Romans gets off about the whole entire Law issue. The end of the story is that by accepting the guidance of the Lord we are 'guided' into our ideal. Though it might be predetermined - it is yet our own free will by which we navigate through reality and correspond to God. The more consciously we wish to deduce our way to go, the more control we have upon our destination. This is an abstract to the counter-part where the destination would be descriptively irrational - where for instance the story on me is that my Discrepance made it impossible for me to live in heaven and hence I got cast into the Underworld. Finding myself emotionally placed into that reality gave me an idea of where my ideal would take me - and it was a mix of enjoying my pleasures and reasoning about them that took me there. So, where else would a Masochistic individual end?
The journey practically began during my youth where I was hetero-male as somehow possible for me (though I wouldn't describe myself as a dense pack of testosterone!). The humiliation of my own anal virginity on my own terms and conditions (curiosity as very impaired description) has the result that I can value its impact on me into more or less of it. Individuality can however be regarded as another fundamental failure because it is to some extent not within my power to change what I enjoy. So, allowing me to follow my curiosity is almost like a trap. It also stands as abstract to the idea of supporting an individuals intrinsic joys - while yet this entire discussion is utmost nonsense when regarding that these issues are the natural consequences of equilibrium. It is a problem though - one that is climaxed by the dilemma: For once God might take account on which of my actions are due to His influence in destinction to those that are naturally mine. Within both categories we would now ask the question for what is right. The issueing of a healthy ideal is what might go against my individualistic joy, supporting my individualistic joy thus were opposed to a healthy ideal at which point I'd be naturally sick. This sickness does however not exist within the individual scope of my pleasures, but in relation to an external oppinion. Thus it is really each individuals very own task to communicate with God about these things and to appreciate that what He does beyond our cognition. That especially matters within reality as He would denie us something that we actually do want. What we are is thereby something that at first we have to accept, then those that we are settled with, and then those that are entirely different by nature. What I had to accept is that the place where I practically "took myself" is the place where I would want to be at - which might already be artificial but at some point I am rather thankful for the joys than entertained by the cognitive conflict of existence within the reality I am supposed to intellectually intertwine with.
Intertwine and Recombine nation
Intellectual Intertwinement is the key term. Whatever society we exist within, be it our current environment or a future one - hypothetical or factual, we have to intellectually wrap our mind around existing within it or we just find our personal intellectual intertwinement. It is either way an abstraction to our natural course - and by the way the environment matters to us we acknowledge it as more or less positive to our most immediate consciousness and deepest subconsciousness. Because after all the entire issue is a matter of choice - someone has to at some point make a decision. At first God made the decision to just take what He regarded as ideal for everyone - which is supposedly the result of His repentance. (I can't help but always feeling guilty when I think about it). The picture I see is a vertical grid and dots, sphereoids or particles, that in the idea transition that grid. 'The Ideal' is a certain alignment of dots on that grid. The fact is that the individual attracts different dots differently - being thus intrinsically incapable of harmonizing with the ideal on individual effort alone. (I understand that this thing got tiring from some point on - I'm open to suggestions! I also already see that I can delete a lot of what I have written to append this part to the previous part ... but I want to get this out today!). The reaction is that God can now go and see how individuals would link into a harmony nontheless, enforcing certain aspects of our individuality that yet leaves the factor of our 'minor discrepance'. Eventually - at least to my menthal constitution - that all leads into a whole lot of perversion. My mind is already intertwined with a Satanic ideal, where Satan is the Force by which He governs the Underworld. By His Grace, by Light and Darkness, I came to get there. By the Light I learned what I enjoyed, by the Dark I learned what I should avoid. Because an ultimately crushing darkness tormented me while my mind was again attracted to this reality - including a comprehension of how this attraction is to be legally described - it only took a single prayer to verify that it was "a" right way to go. That however was my reaction to it. Someone else might have been more persistent or whatever, where so it is the oppinion about what I did right or wrong that issues just that individuals own course.
What you make of this, dear reader, is going to be subjected to how you plot your course. The spirit shows me -now- how the same effects take someone to somewhere else, where a crushing darkness would cause a dis-attraction towards me that might be coupled to an idea of how to internally adjust to that. This at first might take you into a position where you 'have to' call me Evil and maybe worse - thus ignoring an answer to the question of whether I have actually done right or am just down-right ... uhm ... well, to be worried about. It are however points like just this one right here where the individualistic reality is regarded as ... well ... that what it is! An illusionary compound - in favour of having 'this' common ground where we can all intellectually interact while our individual background is entirely irrelevant. At this point it should however become evident that being 'here' can be tiring - where the desired relaxiation is naturally taking us to the point where we just lean back within a cozy/comfortable environment. A biblical picture of comparison should be John who would constantly lean on to the Lord. John at that would also be the exact opposite to Peter who would rather seek out conflict. This is however not indicative, or well ... it is in some way indicative of "where" now either of the two would "end". John would embrace the Grace of God more thoroughly than Peter who would rather step back to take an individual, conscious approach on the matter. The difficulty of this subject resides within the menthal nature of the issue. Things that are natural, things we do yet barely notice ourselves doing or reacting to, are all of a sudden put under the microscope. Eventually that yields the side-effect that one is more thoroughly questioning these intrinsic procedures and that to the eventuality of getting stuck cluelessly. Then, dear Friend or reader, you are only one short breath of time away from experiencing a standard interaction of God! The page flipping around and you waking up one day and all will be dandy! Thats just the way of things. Whatever bothers you at a time is like particles of dust floating around in the air - which with given time will settle and support your reason passively rather than being a subject to it. This will allow you to look one bit further - standing on top of the mountain at what is ahead rather than guessing while you're yet walking towards it. Or, looking at clear weather as opposed to looking through a thick rain. That means that whatever is important to you now, is already you in your perfection. After all the only thing that is right, the only thing righteous after all, is righteousness! Righteousness is influenced and interfered or supported by a lot of different things - which can be taken as positive and negative - although the negative is the big issue. While joy in trivial things might render us less capable of righteous actions, "our true Joy is Righteousness in and of itself" (emphasis is on 'true') - if you wanted it so.
To me it seems that all hope is lost - Gods attempts to lead my own ways to my own consciousness to make me contemplate and think about my way seem to be futile, but, thats the logical goal of intertwining with an individualistic reality. In my own words: There are nomads and there are settlers. I'm a nomad to this world as I already settle in another - while essentially I'm a Settler who finally wants to come to a rest. I don't suppose that we are way too different in that - we all may want to or have to settle at some point - but we are different in other ways - and it after all remains to be relative. I get settled with Satan as my Souvereign, who is God. That's what it means where it reads that nobody will lecture the other anymore about recognizing the Lord (Jeremiah 31:34) - because God is many things - most of all: Generous. His Generousity is so large that it cannot be regarded as a virtue, it is a property, it is self-understood, it is His nature. How long this compounded solution will last is up to us, but in my reality He is both: The one who damned me and the one who seduced me! I would wish that I could be damned forever because I have subscribed to being a toy in my Sourvereigns hands and sacrificed my free will to be imprisoned to His desires. It may appear weird when there are only two possible compounds in sight - but I'm assured that there are plenty. As the Bible tells about the Children of Abraham being as plentifold as there are stars in the Sky, it only takes a grasp at deep space imagery to picture that if this statement is accurate - theres Plenty! (Saying: A Galaxy is already a lot of stars - and while those at some point might seem to be little, there are Galaxy Groups, Clusters and well - yea - at some point its still finite!) Yet so they are numbered - and that is basically my last piece of gnosis for this section: We are many, but, not infinitely many, thus if we want Love we need to adjust to the things that are because only then may dreams become reality! That or we were just very very lucky! I guess I'm an odd-ball, maybe even THE odd-ball, and I feel to understand that my only hope is within the Lord!
To however not leave just like that, so I'm inspired to tell, there is a biblical image that wraps this "only two compounds in sight" issue up in a simple manner, where a sheep and a lion peacefully chill out on a green willow. May your path be a nice one!
Stardate 55290.08368