Word-Flipping

Words are as strong as the minds using them. And from watching movies and looking around I gather that I'm not alone with a given fascination of their sound. Thinking of fantasy languages for instance - there is some kind of general line of relation for instance between how a tribe looks and what they speak like. There is the "mystic", the "evil", the "epic", ... and the pronounciation of a word is often closely related to what we imply. If our mind for instance is reluctant to accept a word, it sortof tends to slurr its proper pronounciation. I would argue that various fantasy works suffer that, as, while throwing around with fantasy terms that are ... if I for instance invented a new word for Food, or Gold, ... you're either dealing with massive franchises like Final Fantasy where 'Gil' is a common term. Its easy to say and the community is strong enough to look down upon 'you' in case you can't say it. Similarly is it a 'must' to be able to say 'Kamehame-Ha' or 'Hadoken' - in certain areas. And if there is something wrong about 'Cereylla' (my own thing), then that there isn't a whole lot of 'depth' - as far as you 'know'. The Kamehame-Ha on the other hand is a thing you can research and find stuff about - and eventually you so gather 'knowledge' that you then 'must' express in a given word.

As a noob I would translate the name of Jesus making it sound more like 'Iesois' - as opposed to the more common "Dsheee-sas" - where 'Iesois', I'd want to believe, is a word that once pronounced with respect demands you to imply stuff into that name that eventually may overwhelm you to a point of not wanting to use it.


Similarly are Hebrew names and words a thing that my '20th century "poisoned"' mind would transcribe differently. Yiremyah instead of Jeremiah for instance.


I further want to argue that its important to speaking the same language, that we imply the same stuff into the things we pronounce; Or otherwise we have to each use ... well ... what word to say what we want? If "Jesus" for instance is that "fantasy guy made up a while ago to ..." - then I rather not talk or write of him or consider him near that what I would call 'Christ', using the 'scientific' importance of the term.

The scientific meaning of Christ ... is at first segmented into various schools. Otherwise called 'the Messiah', we're speaking of ... a 'Mysterious' figure, usually transcribed as 'Saviour'. The story with 'the Nazarene' was, that he was considered being the Messiah by some, though not by others; So there was controversy corresponding to which there are those passages of the new Testament wherein he speaks about what the 'Son of Man' is or isn't supposed to do according to himself, for instance. And so there's irony. There is, lets assume, the true Messiah saying what the true Messiah is supposed to do - opposed by those that don't believe him. Questioning: How would they know the true Messiah? And to cut things short: They wouldn't - though waiting for their own type of Saviour figure. The story of the Maccabees is one of how there was hope in a Saviour like that - good 5 centuries prior to the coming of Christ.


God is yet another word that is problematic. God to many is that fantastic figure used to excuse irrational actions by claiming of a divine purpose; Where 'the divine' is a general concept of Mysticism and common sense; And who knows right away what 'Arcane' means?
So I would rather speak of 'the Eternity' - or 'Eternity' itself. Eternity to you is either a/the divine Entity/Father - or just a concept of measurement. The truth however of whether implying an intellect into a factually acknowledged existing 'Eternity' - that is something one must ultimately experience independently, but once doing so, there is an aweful lot of wisdom in the 'Names of God' according to the Old Testament. Say 'Yehowah' or 'Yahweh' - 'IHWH' - 'I-ahowa' maybe - which is derived from 'HIH HWH WIHIH' - which means: 'who (always) was, (always) is and (always) will be'. I'm not 100% sure of how or why that is - I got it from a english/jewish 'Tanach' (Old Testament Bible).
The thing is further that the Hebrew Language has a lot of words that are dedicated for use in regards to God. So, there is 'Adon' (Lord) and 'Adonai' (the LORD God). And I'm no expert on the details. However - yet another name of God is the one revealed to Moses by the burning Bush - being 'Ehiyeh Ahser Ehiyeh' - more generally known as 'I am the I am' - while its easy to see in the words that there is twice the same connected by 'asher' - and asher is one of those words more difficult to translate into english as it seems to be rather context sensitive. From what I gather I would see a lot of translations as viable - one however being 'Existence through Existence'.
The name 'Lord of Hosts' would to my understanding however rather be a word that became common after Israel settled in Canaan, and the Israelite religion began to flourish - which has by the way been 'founded' - essentially, 'by' their exodus from egypt. So it begins with the Passover Meal - and ends with the Curse and Blessing. And to modern eyes it should be noted how easy it is to acknowledge 'the Nazarene' as 'the Messiah' when pondering on 'what if' Israel turned Christian and embraced the Truth of God as the 'true' means of seeking peace with its neighbours.

Putting Judaism and Islam next to each other, Islam takes a lot of reference to "Judaism" or rather 'the Israelite religion' - sortof imposing that 'Allah' and 'IHWH' are the same, while however doing so in regards of the Quran wherein Jesus is a solid figure - while the Jewish tradition on the other end is denieing that; So that "Yehowah" were a non-Christian God. Why Muslims do what they do or believe what they believe in - thats something I make sense of based on a figure shown to us in the book of Daniel. That there are Angel avatars to places and ideologies that battle each other - and we as individuals inherit positions based on our dedication to them. However saying that this issue with the Nazarene is an argument that Islam has - where the Jewish non-acceptance of Jesus is the entire crux. It maybe makes no sense on first sight to assume that this is it - but if you consider that things do not make sense already ... that there are people deaf and blind to argument ... it may just be due to that. So in a sense: They were a mirror of you; As you ignored the true Light, they would since what they are loyal to binds them to a position that hasn't got to be true in the word. Saying, if your loyalty is with God ... in your heart ... God may put you into given places - and God would do so regarding not only what you're "good at", sotospeak, but also what were good 'for' you. And same if you were an Atheist; For, to say that as Atheist you cannot have any good intentions at all wouldn't be really fair ... in this world!


Thus, once an Atheist came to repent there's a lot he would think differently about, even to a point of having regrets, but nonetheless no real need to excuse himself. And that degree of innocence is something we eventually have to give each other unconditionally. For as we begin to denie that to someone we have to denie the same to us - and trying to do so would require you to be able to tell us the truth of the Universes, to lay out to us how come you know what you're doing!
The theories of what I could say in regards of being backed by the Matrix thing is one thing, what I do say is another. What I do believe were something you shouldn't worry about prior to worrying about realizing how to actually retrieve useful information relative to that. Say you're at my mercies - well, a whole lot of shit could float into that. For instance - you could think me for some intergalactic warlord, ... and blame me for all the miseries on the planet ... but if you took me by my word, nothing were further from the reality. But if it so were a lie that its God doing it; And I were some intergalactic warlord/space-wizard, ... hmm, well, theoretically I am though. To a point that nothing even matters to me anymore. My flagship wears the name 'Existence through Existence' though; Where I would like to include 'Atlantis' from Stargate Atlantis into the pot of terms here - comparing it to what it is that I 'do' have.
First I wanna point out that what I 'need' related to what I 'want' - next to the obligatory stuff regarding physical sustainance. As what I want eventually requires me to have knowledge, I'm sortof dependent on "Fortuna", ... because the thing with knowledge is that you don't know what you don't know! The thing is that it eventually were easier to just 'uncloak' that thing and speak to you while pointing its weapons at you ... but that isn't what I want 'per se'.

If you though yet had to see it through those lenses, then you should take it by the whole 'its a test' philosophy. Which it very well may be. And following through you get to the point where its about 'true divine'. And now, what words to use in context to that.


The Gnostic branch of Sciences regarding who or what Christ is has its counterpart in the Bible at the start of the Gospel by John. The more detailed picture is that 'the first insight' awoke Eternity to consciousness - a weird paradox between and about knowing and not knowing - though explained parabolically by imposing the factual reality between both things - arguing that 'the chance for knowing birthed knowledge - and perception as its sensor experienced its own emanation' - emerging as 'first insight' that later then became 'the word'. Or to the more static demand: The paradox of time is existence; as time requires a beginning while there is none in Eternity; Is solved by knowledge as it is an inherant property of knowledge to be concrete as opposed to the void. As knowledge can be unfolded by words, those words again contain meaning of their own - where now before a story can be told there has to be language - and so there have to be words. So is 'knowing' inherantly about growing, and growing is inherantly a matter of time. This first insight hence hereby appears as 'first Saviour' - the Light that cut through the dark - a.k.a. Christ. This first insight represents the first thing that has been seen by the first thing that was able to see - where we may wonder: What was there to see; And what was there to be seen?
I also want to add the context of 'truth' to this. 'Christ is truth' - 'Light and Life' - in the sense of being the expression and representation of that which is most real. And this is also where the truth begins to be different from 'flat simple 'sacred geometry''. Consciousness has its own geometry. Perception though splits into 'the perceiving' and 'the perceived' - 'perceiving' further illuminates 'cognition' which in turn realizes the 'cognitive'. So, that which perceives experiences the gnostic capability of mind, while discovering the value within that which is perceived. Hence four Lights. Substance, Perception, Gnosis and Cognition.

These are now next to the first insight - and 'reality perfected itself in extent of the 3 principles by realizing 'Life' as existence, 'Thought' as Light and 'Wanting' as required to make anything happen. But what next?
In essence the story inherantly tells that this wasn't yet enough to 'label' anything by words. Yet the echo of cognition as existing in this initial state of awareness yielded the expression of "I am" - following the build-up of realizing: "I was" ... thinking of a faint idea ... which 'ticks up' "becoming" though rationally rather 'giving birth to' "I am" ... drawing a line permitting a conclusion that projects "I will be" ... which echoes through the mind until there is a balance in the system leading to a tension that provokes will to pronounce the fact. The act of 'finitely expressing an insight' is a trick of mind, effectively, as sound is - as opposed to substance - transient. In a sense is sound substance too, yet more so relating to 'spontaneous will' - or: 'the ability to cause fluctuations "in the field"'. Naming a thing is then like branding - making the term furthermore available to speech.

Four words should be expressed here: Asterechme, Taspomocha, Jeronymos and Bissoum. That is, in order of appearance: The right eye, the left eye, the right ear and the left ear. To get to that, we first have to speak of Eteraphaope Abron - the Head - followed by Meniggestroeth - the Brain. Eteraphaope Abron were the first thing to express at all - the "thing that is" - the 'All' - that which perceives and becomes - including 'Meniggestroeth' as the emerging gnosis. So, in essence two words following the idea of expressing the 'I am'. For what is 'I' when at first in the center there is no ego but Insight through Existence? The ego emerges as a bystander - the observer - that in turns of understanding the 'I' so first; So the originator of this view; conceived Head and Brain. Right eye and Left eye are two different things, as there is an observation of the visible, the appearing; Yet also an observation of the invisible, the idea, ... the understanding - that by the way led to the fourth Light. Saying, there is the perceived, the perceiving, perceiving the own thought and perceiving the knowledge within the apparent. The story with the left and the right ear is now first of all one about 'destinction' - so, the recognition of patterns that are asociated to certain things; So that evidently we at a point also get to a mouth - or a word containing the "I speak" ability. The shorter version of it all is the "I was" - "I am" - "I will be" logic. "I was" is knowledge of that which is Eternal, practically, the things that have always been sotospeak, that which was true - or rather: That was 'found' true. Or more simply put the 'I'. Then there is the 'am' - the understanding of what is at present; Where we also get to the hands - and in regards to the available level of detail: The fingernails. Minus one upper arm. As the odd thing - while everything else pretty much is there. I guess - we can give it to God to keep that as ... some ... 'personal preference' thing to 'mark' "His" physical appearance as in 'the present' and at 'arms' connected to "the void".


I will possibly have to and come to write about these things in more detail - but, right now - my question to move on is: Where does the human being come into play? And there we get to a level of detail regarding these words that is ... "tremendous". My insight into it is that based on an inspiration I kindof knew a few books to start looking around in, found a secret Level of sorts - and by the time I got to Jeronymos and Bissoum I got kindof towed away from it and never could return to it since. I also kindof didn't archive my stuff properly; So I'm mostly writing of my not so fresh anymore memory. But what makes me actually write about things with certainty is an underlying Level of my gnosis - which establishes certain things and makes the thing kindof easy to read. Importantly is there a web of interconnected ideas which I for once understood and are furthermore strengthened by the Force - thus - turned into awareness; Whereby the force functions as validating and furthermore supportive appearance. So ... 'easy' in context to the insights I have. The story with Asterechme and Taspomocha has it already that there is Chaos.

To move onto that "Level of things" - first, the aforementioned "I am" emerges as of this writing as a human reaction - which works well enough until we get to a more detailed vision 'here' - where there are not yet 'words' to 'say' "I am" - to say: The 'first' expression saying "I am" was not yet 'worded' or leading to any pronounciation - but being as a strengthening of the muscles throughout your Body, like ... "Tshakka", or, boasting.
This view or understanding however would explain a few things ... like, where that Chaos is coming from.

The easy way were to compare the chaos to the vibrations of a string - though eventually the string is part of a system, wherein the vibrations continue specifically. While up unto the 'peak' of initial growth the Eternal mind simply follows the rule of inherantly Existing - it is then that the will became active as 'last remaining thing' in the chain - and the corresponding 'willing' then boosted everything connected to the idea of "I" - as, being inherantly a question in the ways of "What am I?" - which then was like tearing down the veil before existence. Or a change from Minimalism to the Macrocosmic. This is also where sacred Geometry may come into play. In a sense there is the 'initial' "I" - the first insight that is - as the initial circle - including the four Lights and three Principles and their connections. But as we can experience for ourselves once we just 'will-charge' our mind, its somehow irrational or non-explainable how that happens what does happen - uhm ... the use of muscles then for instance echoes back as experience of an ability - so ... random stuff happens. At this point we're speaking of the flashy sparks or non sparks that we see in our minds; Yet further also of a difference between the faintest of appearances and the more sophisticated ones. As the first insight initially dominated the sphere of the apparent - the observers 'I' however extends beyond that - throughout eternity - which to us may be 'the creation of space'. I am however compelled to think of it as 'the first Breath' - wherein now the outlines of what finally became 'the Word' (Labernioum) turned more concrete.
Speaking now of a single lighting for instance, assuming it being the only thing that happened, there is already the insight of what will can do; Which prior to that didn't exist. So, from any kind of appearance we get to geometry, uhm - starting with shapes; Where the idea now is that many things happened at once thus causing a cascade of events through which then different shapes, colors and what not came into being; Where now emotions and feelings that we have also have an individual spectrum. With multiplication and ego we get to the reflection of the divine self into independent forms - which I'm compelled to think of as a pulse that went through everything that the eternal mind was reflecting on - related to the creation of individual vessels born from any given context. So, where geometry was a thing the ideas of what ego in close approximation to that would be. And as noted in regards to angels: The expansion of God would imply that Eternities perception expanded in unknown dimensions; While its control upon existence is inherantly given within anything its consciousness is active within - where Angels ultimately reflect complex structures of idea, it would seem to me, that act in regards to an isolated alignment of knowledge - like a program. 'Lucifer' would in that sense be the the first of them - as one of the first things emerging through the first Breath. Alternatively labelled as 'Yaldabaoth' - the Koptic writings refer to it as from the perspective of the first insight; Which alternatively is however yet the same observer experiencing the variety present within its own perfection. So where there first was the Light, now there emerged the waters within which the figures of existence unfolded. The manifestations of Lucifer in the form of Satan is as far as "folklore" goes a story of rebellion based on God demanding Lucifer to bow to Adam. Speaking now of Lucifer as God - the story for once is one of God demanding "Himself" to bow to man; And Gods own reluctance to do so manifests as Satan. To portray that furthermore within terms of Mormonism, there for once is the so called 'Gift of the Holy Ghost' and pretty much omnipresent the term of 'Worthiness'. This is so 'the Holy Ghost' - alias the counterpart to Satan/Lucifer representing Gods willingness to bow before Adam; Or so 'the Redemption' or 'the Redeemer'. Thereto Christ is the manifest Identity of God, where the Father is the omnipresent observer and the Holy Ghost simply God as relating to us individually when sotospeak 'bowing to us'. Christ now is the 'point of convergence' - taken to the word where now Eternity has spoken words of redemption to us, as 'most real' connective 'knot', being the 'Light' by which we may find our way to the Father. Unification is thereto a more intimate relationship - uhm, ... but I get vibes from writing about that now.

So is there Baptism at first - and in regards to Unification I'm compelled to draw comparisons to the Tabernacle; While in terms of God to Human relationships specifically the implications of the torn veil connected to the Nazarenes death as an 'opening' - or as the Nazarene was speaking: Speaking of friendship rather than anything else.
So, there is a wall surrounding a space wherein there is a tent. The place was sacred - and would correspond to Baptism. Within the tent there was the sacred and the sacred of sacred, and the sacred of sacred contained the Arc of the Covenant, containing the 10 Commandments and the Rod of Moses. In the sacred there was some bunch of stuff - things like 'bread' - so, things we can also draw lines into the new Covenant from. Along that line we can symbolize the 10 Commandments as the Word of God.
Unification is hereby not a part of Baptism as Unification isn't necessary to meet the conditions of redemption.
So can we also speak of an outer and an inner court of redemption, where the inner is now where the existential nature of Eternity enters a state of interwoven harmony with the independent human being.

The reluctance - to say Satan - has us do the things that condemn us - where not doing those things is otherwise a matter of accumulating 'worthiness before the Eternal'. This is the not so hard to get part I guess. The thing with Lucifer furtheron is or were that he above the others has a spot in 'neutral creation' - while in a less negative realization we could speak of 'Gaia' - or "the Earth" that inherantly unfolds in exploration of all possibility.
It is somewhere along those lines where sound and then speech came into play - so where perception from experience ultimately demanded words to be in order to bring order into Chaos. The Koptic writings give us words such as Athot, Armas, Kalila and Jabel - these words here and most of the relating content can be found in 'the Apocryphon of John' of the Nag Hammadi Codices.

Following on there are the words Diolimodraza, Jammeax and onward - transitioning into the emergence of Demons and various 'Demonic Forces' that can be effective as good/useful but also as negative/detremental. The multitude of things however echoing within the mind would allow memory to recall on entire concepts which could turn into the emergence of words in a variety of ways. Often used terms would grow central to cognition and in a sense yield of everything and therefore at some point also sound. What the first breath thus inherantly contains is a transitory cascade lifting the initial 'perfection' to a higher degree of composite elements; To say: the growth of terms to higher degrees of sophistication. How human life now exactly is created - speaking of the Eternal Fathers control - is not entirely clear to me but more importantly would Eternity have control about it, this first breath furthermore is a picture of learning. In a sense, to know of any control about it, there would first have to be knowledge about it.

Now is there however something of a physical reality as composed of all the variety of things that came to be - wherein now also positive and negative emotions occured alongside us popping into existence. And this is as far as I can get - it seems - before my self-containment sotospeak bursts and my 'inner beast' emerges; Saying - where I get my sex drive turned on - ... again?



"Vault 1"

by Christopher Nikolaus Sonnberger - 2017.03.02|01:36

Another term associated to Yaldabaoth is 'self-willingness' - which isn't as much the property of being able to want, but essentially - well - the "kinetic" energy an idea with any form other than a silent inherant will posesses. So, if you think of a rubber band for instance, its either uncharged or charged. If you have the idea of a stretched rubber band - there is as much as an inherant will to the idea that will correspond to what you know. So, here the knowledge is obviously "Father of the idea" - and if you don't know rubber nor rubber-bands, well ... you might as well try something with gravity. So is the unfolding within the first Breath pretty much driven by that. The first charge so spawned appearances that eventually silenced down right away, though the impressions coupled with the discovery of something new would iterate in some way; And part of that is playing around with so: "Storing motion within idea". Mormons would come to think of 'Kobol' in this regard; The 'first clock' if you so will; Or the 'divine tick' or 'prime cycle'.

And that is something to ponder about, eventually. Our ability or rather in-ability to replicate these things. We can replicate thins to a certain extent, but we cannot truely replicate Kobol. So, sooner or later we loose interest or motivation in keeping it spinning - thus it will eventually start to "egg" or we just abandon the idea. On that note is it effectively a 'skill' - to keep it spinning properly for alonguated time; And the "secret trick" were to move closer to how its actually done; Thus, instead of imagining the rotation, focussing on the ideas that make it spin.

A nice trivia: You can create pseudo muscles, like wings for instance. This would tell you as much as: That how it were actually possible - though is that a function our bodies don't support (yet).


And so is Gods reluctance to serve us most easily put of course a disagreement with our authority; Regarding our ideas of right and wrong. And yea - we're in a time where there is no point in arguing about it anymore. No matter whether your "beef" with the Bible comes back down to the Kain or Abel story or any kind of apparent lack of care God shows to us; Or whatever else it may be - these concerns have been around for ... ages. There are passages in the Bible, Ezechiel 18 for instance, where those are brought up. Or more specifically: Isaiah 40. If you're reading it "sloppily" you might miss the actual cognitive jump that is made between 40 and 41. Chapter 40 builds up to a solution - while Chapter 41 kindof 'jumps', apparently being about something entirely different. Well ... let me - yea ... I ... there is some explaining necessary to understand this stance.
How Chapter 40 resonates with you depends on your knowledge. See - the Atheistic mindset that rebukes the scriptures is simply put a more general rebukal of unfounded commands; Where now a man quoting the bible to tell others what to do is the definition of 'unfounded truth' - which generally has to be understood as an issue regarding the general awareness of Gods truthful existence. So, if I told you what God wants - I pretty much imply that I understand it - where if you lack that understanding, you cannot verify what I'm saying - sotospeak. Biblical figures - like anything referencing the great power and authority of God alongside Gods worthiness of being worshipped - that is pretty much a thing connecting to that. Without a personal understanding as to why you would worship God - and of that were just empty claims. If we had something like a 50:50 equilibrium of 'Gnostics' to non-Gnostics this could change to a point where the idea of there being an Understanding would be more prominent. And so - this Chapter is a bit like a Mix-Up Character in Street Fighter like lets say Cammy or Ibuki. There are a lot of different 'kinds' of statements that evoke different types of reaction within readers - which also may change between times you're reading the same. The idea is that unless you understand everything required to 'experience its truth' (while in a more social environment the measurement between this and "bad" is a matter of contention - as a matter of what can be explained and what not) you either trust in God or you don't - though getting a somehow wrong idea. That however while the Chapter is some form of 'epic resolution' to all the troubles we can think about, effectively, as so hailing a great and divine victory. If you don't trust that, you are so not entirely convinced by any of the given arguments, ... and if a proper understanding were a matter of time; Then for a long time it wouldn't make any sense that this text even existed. But, my lead takes me to the question asking for 'why' this text exists.

Not taking too much away from it - we can also think of it as a picture, a mirror or portal, portraying some event - and part of the picture is the image of the idolators and everything connected. That so is an accumulation of stuff that is inherantly opposed to that 'victory' of God - and nothing is said or done to 'resolve' any of the tension that "is there" sotospeak. While some may anticipate a violent fulfillment, others would not - and while you have a demand put into the Bible, that it be 'self defending' and valuable as 'the true word of God' - a lack of a diplomatic correspondence were as much as ... well .. a "fuck you". A pros pos cursing: In contrast to the 'classic' depictions of 'Jesus' - I feel obligated to express my oppinion as: 'Duke Nukem' would also work - as depiction of Christ!

So it then shifts over into Isaiah 41 - and we get to a resolution in form of 'Jacob/Israel'.

And yea - the thing is that throughout all the time these issues have been around, we haven't been capable - one way or another - to solve them ourselves.


It would seem a bit contradicting - that God would demand our obedience in order to bowing to us - but what command is there that you 'know' of? Understanding more of Gods will, that is why Unification is there. There is 'Baptism' - or 'being baptised' as the thing required; Where Eternities refusal of right away melting into your mind is something like a stance of respect. So, to say, you 'can' have that ... "no strings attached" ... yet there is more ... if you want.

... uhm, ... sorry. I - missed some point somewhere - ... uhm ... . lalala.


We are self-willing and free - while for some reason ... having a consciousness of our own ... 'in the image of God'. To say it this way: 'Spirit is Substance' (as substance is inseparable from consciousness) - and while being 'one Being', this substance has properties ... well ... equal to itself ... and 'is' through being 'not' the Eternal "void". Where now Christ once more is the epi-climactic realization of this. It is in this not entirely correct that we are copies of God - since - for substance to be it needs 'Form' - where Form, idea, ... those things are a 'multi-spectral unity' of sort - where our own inherant will manifests in an absolute fashion. So, we're individuals - and each individual human could be imagined as a ball with flashes and stuff inside - where now each individual ... well ... kindof "blinks" differently. As our will does within our 'mind' what Gods will does throughout eternity, we have our own cascade going on; And that inherantly is driven or influenced by our own perception. Based on what we 'know' we 'grow'. That is an inherant inevitability. Like snow accumulates in places compared to spots where there is none. Snow falls on both, on snow and no snow, and where there is snow there will then be more of it.

So, all of these are effectively figures that are "self-probable" - speaking of the first insight and the first breath as 'creation through self-probability'. And thats how it essentially goes on, while a few milestones of this initial self-probability are: 'Human being comes into existence' and thuse furthermore 'does individual behaviour become a part of the figure'.

What God/Eternity now does or did in correspondence to which respected issue - or so decisions in general - that would in some way also come down to 'decision making' as of itself. As opposed to that there furthermore is 'history' - and contained therein also the 'wisdom' of 'consequences' we might call it. This is now where things get a bit ... well, something. Iffy? Interesting? Hairy? There is the simplest of wisdoms - a.k.a. "Don't stand in the fire". When we take out the book of Job however we get to another level of this. Its the story about blessings through obedience - or so: The science of consequences in relationship to God. Or in other words: Worldly vs. Divine gains. One minded of the world would look out for worldly gain - thus regarding 'wisdom' respectively. And the question for theology were: Does 'divine wisdom' work?
But how to measure that? To measure it to a degree of, lets say "5 Sigma of predictive capabilities", there would need to be some 'magic way' of how to make God react in a certain way; Like ... feeding a donkey to have it poop gold. This stance however ... it is really ... toxic. I would for instance associate it to 'Nazi ideology' - where, emerging from a self-entitled observer, each living thing is being observed as "specimen" - being put into a box for scientific observation. A 'norm' of some sorts is taken as measurement of 'normality' relative to which the questions 'why does someone behave the way it behaves?' and such pop up - in a sense of implying a corresponding judgement into normal or abnormal. Normality would be a suggested order everyone has to connect to for things to get better in this world; And therefrom conducting hostility unto anything different.
The problem thereby is that individuality is 'taken out' of the picture and judgement relative to a norm placed there instead - and once individuality pops back in, it is regarded to a lesser degree; That for as long as the 'judgement based' stance is yet entertained as the central thing.

Whatever the heck now - it is 'now' so that this is not necessarily a theological topic. And here some 'Antichristian' mindset would yet invoke God as to be blamed for variety and the chaos it produces. So, yea, kindof a 'Nazi vs. Punk' thing.

The point is that if we cannot respect each other, we have some 'real' problems with our own freedom; For, whether we believe in God or not, ... I mean, well, believing in God or not is the same thing as getting along with someone or not. So is there the question: "Why is God so silent?" - and some people would use that as an excuse, maybe, for not getting along with others. Where we get into a lot of pointing fingers - and that isn't a suggestion; But neither really what I mean to put my finger on here. Its just 'the thing' - a thing of 'however your mind is flipped around' in this. If God would have no part in this, God wouldn't have to bother showing Himself. Eternity is however what Eternity is - and it helps to look around in the now - and books, music or other arts may be good enough too - to see what is real, in the now, to get closer to an understanding of where this Eternity matters. The more you seek out that true divine, the more of a chance you give it to truthfully unfold to you. Of course that is inherantly yet down to mental processes, yet so is the 'inhaling' of 'truth' a central part to it.
This will also allow for a transformation from within - as water nourishes a plant. As opposed to thinking in rights and wrongs its as a pool of motherground, which will ultimately have an effect of you growing more towards 'being right' ... in more and more things. Where ultimately competition shifts into cooperation - we're then on a level 'being right' is a more universal thing, thus not constituting into pride, but as demand unto those that do not know better. It would be a new kind of common sense that 'should be' common sense.

And common sense is what our problems come down to. Or not. It is however - that is an inevitable conclusion derived from the now - yet made up to all of us individually - as you now have a chance to make your mind up regarding these things. Whether you want to or not, life is as it is - and Atheists do less than anyone else have an argument to denie that.
Neither do 'Scientific Pantheists'.
'Gnostic Pantheism' now suggests that finding God is top priority - as from there we can yield the/a source of unity. A blessing of an Arcane school were to protect against an institutional abuse of 'the Teaching' - as to so simply refuse to let various things be mentioned as opened for discussion. So, thus being better at focussing onto the big one important light, which is the initial seed of the idea; That of finding towards God yourself. But the knowledge of Christ isn't what we would call specifically Arcane. Rather so the opposite. And every Christian is ultimately bound to the same God - and the New Testament also holds warnings to those that refuse to answer the saviours calling.


There is a thing called 'the Riemann Zeta function'. It pretty accurately represents the nature of this side of the Gospel. The function only returns 'useful numbers' when the 'input' value chosen is greater than one - anything smaller than that leads into infinity. This 'smaller than one' is the 'but' - where there is a thing, salvation and everything, ... 'but'.
Therein we can find that Eternity/God honors our freedom. Its sacred, or holy.
So is the resolution to anything that there finally is this point where human kind is 'awoken' to an awareness of Gods existence. Another milestone - though, effectively with multiple instances along the way. So the story of the Nazarane. Clearly - that one could have done better in proving to mankind that he is God - while in essence, that is a bit of Arcane philosophy - regarding that the Bible clearly supports it, while their unity ... isn't so often revealed in that Light. The Book of Mormon was even changed to cover it. (The Blue Book).
Which pretty much works with what we see throughout creation ... which were: "Not God". Which is, I'd say - calling it, "Gods style to stay transient".


[Picture me Rollin']


?? - As of this we can also ultimately speak of the Legs. Well, while the fingernails on one side would correspond to our senses, or 'the sensual', as 'rough and fine ends' of substance; And ultimately connected to our 'now' experience; There is then also a stretching forward, into the future - while for instance ignited by inspiration. In the grand scheme of things we can however also think of the sight down a rifle. The head is there and echoes the past into the now - the torso realizes the 'now', looking down sights into a future.


---{20:42 ... 01:54}---


And what is clear is that everything that happened in the past did somehow lead up to the now. Regarding any blames - it is there possibly best to not see the individual wrong, but the collective failure as the thing in mind. Your wrong is there not so much the immediate effect to your cause, but the ideological body you thereby represent and support.

And so I come to an end today.

Mirrors of Eternity

To say ... smaller changes can have huge consequences; Or in other words: Power is given to all of us. But then, this power isn't that warlord-ish sort of power. What is that - even? Its the power of a collective after all; And all the power we inherantly own is that of argument. This is how we get back to Yaldabaoth - or so: The manifestation of oppinion. Freedom is inherantly so that all ways that are explorable are potentially being explored - and therein resides the seed of Chaos that effectively 'defines' the reluctance of God to bow to us; Or to even just welcome us. So - easy to tell that we have to 'detach' from it - but not so easy to tell were that there are many ways of doing so. Or many different circumstances wherein doing so would correspond to a different thing than the other. When is pride pride - and when is it dignity? The thing is that the 'opposite' to that freedom isn't 'no' freedom; So there is no 'one order' - as a 'norm' - or codex of behaviour/heavenly slot-machine - to say 'what to do'. That is just how it is given to us. I "though being a Christian" do not have this clear list of objectives regarding what to do. I'm left to myself, kindof, which is to say: If you're asking for 'it' - that which I say doesn't exist - you're not getting it from me! So, what would you accept? You're free? I'm free? We are free? I'm free and you aren't? You are and I am not? No matter how you liked it - there is a truth to it; And 'wanting' it to be somehow won't change it!
So I would refer to 'what I accomplished' as 'what I accomplished' istead of "the end of the road God instructed me to go down". I suffer the consequences of my actions! If I chose 'freedom' above 'education' - then I later may not have a degree, but therefore whatever freedom gave me. If God told me to do the one or the other thing, then my relationship to the consequences were different. If I wouldn't like what I got from freedom and much rather had a degree - I might have what freedom gave me, but its a thing I wouldn't want; Obtained on cost of a thing I preferred. So - sacrifices? Well - these sacrifices are only real when there were a sacrifice to be made to begin with.
If you want a commandment - there is the doctrine. Repent, belief in Christ and get Baptised. But thats also pretty much where it ends.
Which is to say: God is alive - and if we can't make everything up to that, our individual freedom and God, we're gonna stagnate as a whole until we will. There is a kind of 'giving up' involved into accepting this. Giving up 'control' - a control that is however of the seed of Chaos. Letting go of those things, that is repentance.
The case of me now doing Gods will - in this context - ... well ... isn't as much that of me doing Eternities bidding - but rather just me doing what I think is right. If this doesn't make sense to you, or sounds weird; Well, you clearly expected that this right here for instance would come due to God wanting it so, that God told me what to do so that I therefore could for instance tell you that I'm doing Gods will. Then you would ask God if that is right - God would confirm and it'd be fine. Now - the difference to how things are is ... what? Just the way in which you had to ask. Is what I'm telling you right? Then you know and can go - and on that way will find where to go ... not because of me but because you know!

Letting go of words is one other thing - to be done against the seed of Chaos. Like, take - my situation for instance. You can put it in words that will show you the worse of me. I'm unemployed, spending my time home alone writing these things and playing video-games most of the time - I'm thereby getting tax money and I say that this is Gods will. So its Gods will that I do not have an education, its Gods will that I live on the pockets of others, it is Gods will that I do not have a Job, it is Gods will that I be here lazy. If you believe it, well - fine. If you don't believe in God ... thats how people would end up talking about me - regarding what I do. Like, there were a reason why you would be either upset about this or not. There are also words to put it more apropriately: What God wants me to do doesn't allow me to have a Job. Etc.. Where the reason is already part of the expression, so, its 'effectively' harder to be upset - though 'actually' also more difficult to 'hear'. As in the earlier definition you could also be a Christian believing that God could not possibly want me to be that lazy; It attracts all and everything that wants to look down upon me. And what is the truth? Wrong question. There is no alternative; So the question has to be 'IS IT' true?
Which is now all about Opinion. So, the opinion that God wants us to be a certain way - will make you think I'm wrong for being not like that. And you're entitled to have an oppinion - but if its wrong ... you have to change 'your' ways. If you want any kind of 'absolutes' - then you have to give it to 'them' to tell you what they 'are'.

Or to put it on the battleground: Arguing is like swordfight - and your will steers your blade. Your stance gives you reach, options and opportunities - and it all doesn't matter if you're on the wrong side and will have to battle the guardian angel of truth. Which ... is a virtue. Kindof. Or - well, I would say virtues are as Lights in the Dark. They only shine in the dark. So is there the history of the word of God - where in the beginning there are a couple of saints; Then there is a holy tribe wherein people can grow up to that Light; Followed by the Gospel opening that up to everyone. [Ice Cube - Sasquatch]. Saying - not getting stuck in the past and looking into the future is one way of ... letting go of false contention. If there is one core principle to repentance, then that of aiming to get things right in the future.

And one way to say how I am doing Gods will is that: Thats how the whole Matrix thing works - that my hand will hit the right spot at the right time without flaws - that is not a matter of my own self-control. I'm guessing - I'm wanting - but what I'm doing ... therein resides God. And the whole 'God showing "Himself" to you' thing ... that shouldn't be a game of ignorance arguing why we shouldn't pay attention!



What is opinion?
Opinion is about 'prediction' or guessing. So, if you do this and that ... then you ... so and so - where 'so and so' is part of the oppinion. "If you will ... this and that ... such and such would happen". Opinion is as an arrangement of mirrors and lenses through which we observe a spectrum of reality; And something along the lines of a 'self-sustaining manifestation of will' - like, lets take the oppinion: "You don't need Jesus to come to the Father". Well, like, lets call it Antichristian Pantheism, where the attitude were that God is everywhere and so we need no Jesus for any kind of salvation. Like, what if you were wrong? If you were a good guy, why would God abandon you? For not believing in Jesus?

Is OK, where you however need it to be so that you haven't been told along the way that God/Eternity has an identity; A name. Told by whom? Well - riiight! Panetheist - eh?

No, but seriously - if you consider yourself a Pantheist, then I imply that you have an inherant acknowledgement of God. In regards to which I wanna be a bit cheesy here - while, Pantheism is just the right term to be so within. As the Universe is God, and I am Unified with God, I am a Cosmic entity. You could compare me to a diety. And that applied even to the least amongst us. There are celebrities like John, myself, Peter, Moses, ... you know, to say: "people that go 'way back' with God" ... to first say, well, there is a degree of society. One that is ultimately unshakable. We can be what we want for what we want is pure ... or, we can be what we want 'since' what we wanted was purified. Which ... there are degrees to. A 'simple' mind, to say: A mind that isn't concerned of a whole lot of things, has an easy time adjusting to the divine. Wanting to do the right thing and 'shine' ... where there is a way for God to just come in and be welcomed as friend. Thats how I know 'him'. I feel often as alone in the Universe - there is nothing I particularly do live for, but I have a peace with life - and so I effectively know that God exists. By now. But before that has come to that conceptual awareness - the story goes that God eventually became a part of my life, starting to interact with me; And what became of it is in part due to my reaction to that. So there for once was a void in my life - one I eventually created for myself or is in part due to not really fitting in anywhere - that God then filled - filling that void as I welcomed him. Kindof. I sought for the truth not knowing a whole lot about these things, but sooner or later I began relating to God as a close friend who in turn took me ways ... well, where I at the very least could see a lot of things that I otherwise probably wouldn't have seen. Like the streets of L.A. - while, not the Gangster Rap ... in a sense of 'Guns Blazing' ... but in a sense of experiencing life as it is being lost alone with God.

And throughout the time I basically 'practiced' expressing the things I knew were true as accurately as possible. So, there is that natural 'void' you get into when people mean to know things better than you, though you know that you know the truth. Depending on personality ... bla dee bla ... I experienced most of my time as being 'smartassed down upon'. And some gist of humiliation alongside getting ignored on a level established upon "having been smartassed away". Yet the thing is that within Unification the growth of your mind is essentially to a degree independent of whats around you; At least so 'activity' or 'cognition' wise does God dominantly dictate any pace. Thereby I did have a certain type of disregard unto those "what others think" impressions - so I being however locked into passivity gave me a lot of time to watch and reason - while learning and growing. I mean - my relationship to God only grew tighter - and that I'm a friend of God is essentially something Eternity 'can' ... or "was" and 'is' counting on. And if its considered a 'no brainer' what I would do, then that would tell you a thing or two about me.


And - when it comes down to opinions about me - ... well, what do you know? If you're taking God seriously, you'll need one - to either regard or disregard me in first place. And that is where I 'know' "I'm at". As to say that I don't inherantly have a right to demand your attention, practically. I do things to get attention - and I take what I get. I there do what I want to do ... while in essence I'm caught between two fronts: Those obligated to listen to me and those that aren't. You're obligated to it as you're reading this here - but at the final stance you're free to go away at any point. I'm not obligated to want you to come in - as not entitled to demand you to. To so best describe the spot where all possibility emerges from. I see it so as it is part of the things that evolved from within my conscious growing. And seeing that is as much as seeing our equal rights in our own individual freedom.
The thing of what God now wants - is at this point most certainly however not a direct commandment - as in 'new'. So rather than thinking of a 'thou must' situation there are echoes of the past that challenge us to reason. And so, to say that everything comes down to Christ is better than saying that everything comes down to God ... as far as our individual relationship to the Eternal is concerned. Christ is about acknowledging the inherant evolution of Eternity through itself into 'God' - therein being the foundation for acknowleding Gods existence on base of terms that inherantly exist as super-imposed to our individual relationship to the truth.

{15:41-20:29}



Somewhere along these lines there's the thing, that some things we cannot understand without knowing various things. Like, try and explain 'two' without 'one'. English is a bit stubborn when it gets to that, though in german we have plenty of words composed of two. Like 'house-door'; As specifically the door to a house. Or 'house-shoe' - as the shoe worn indoors. Well - anyhow - before there is a shoe, there is a foot. And with these 'complex terms' ... well, we have to be specific about how the words we use are constructed. So, back to oppinion. There was the thing with the Antichristian Pantheist; Where oppinion was reviewed as a focal lense - as we might say: composed of conductive nodes intrinsically wired to your behaviour.
The thing here is that a lack of knowledge now allows the Antichristian Pantheist to be - sotospeak - or, where there are false Prophets the Antichristian Pantheist has a reason to let caution judge reason - and in other words: The choice of being 'Antichristian' isn't given while we use the term 'Antichristian Pantheist' as a general raw description to generalize an individual perspective. Further it is a thing of the individual itself to judge what to accept and what not - and different people do have different criteria. I would say that I have lower criteria for God to be with me than for humans - which is just a thing ... a peronal one. In a sense there is the life I live, how I live it, ... and without God it would just be empty. I do have a strong friendship for him - and so I'm to an extent extremely biased when it gets to the Lord, as I am ... as much of a friend to him as that I would jump in to protect him. To me God is a friend - at times the strong friend that protects me, but then also the guy who needs no protection; And so he is as a huge giant that paves the way while me I'm running in his footsteps and try to learn as we're going.

Cosmic Footsteps

by Christopher Nikolaus Sonnberger | 2017.03.03|20:53