There is a theory that a deliberate parallel exists between Lucifer being God's favorite angel who became so arrogant and rebellious that God punished him, and the "synagogue of satan" ie the "jews" being God's favored / chosen people yet also so deceitful and arrogant that history keeps punishing them. It is hard for most to wrap their minds around but it really seems that God's favorites tend to be the worst, but it seems to have a lot to do with God's primary focus of redeeming other beings, ie those most in need of a redemption process get God's spotlight.
To whom much is given, much will be expected. How we treat the least among us is indicative of our internal character. We are saved by faith and faith is made evident through our actions.
The actions occur and serve as a lens to reveal what lies within.
a) actions implies plural. What if the resulting reactions represent the plural within the single action? The plural reactions of the living within the singular action of dying...
b) OCCUR', verb [Latin occurro] - "to meet; to strike against; to clash"...that implies within the already established balance (momentum) of action/reaction, caused by the pre-occurring motion.
c) SERVE, verb [Latin servio, servo, to keep.] - "to work for". What if work represents EN'ERGY, noun [Greek, work.] - "internal or inherent power" and self differentiation of action into reaction represents the internal power?
d) LENS, noun [Latin lentil.] - "a transparent substance" aka transmuted (perceiving) from parent (perceivable); hence sub (choice) within dom (balance)...the stance of a surfer.
e) to reveal implies that it wasn't revealed before; yet energy had to be before revealed (perceivable) and revelation (perceiving) could coexist within.
f) "to reveal what lies within" implies energy having and simultaneously lacking self discernment. Why would everything (energy) lack something (discernment) and how could the self differentiation within energy represent the source for what's lacking?
On the other hand...the differentiated ONEs (perceiving) out of the self differentiating ALL (perceivable) would require inspiration to grow comprehension about perceivable; hence the growing comprehension to everything already revealed through perception.
Intent motivates action.
a) INTENT', noun - "the stretching of the mind towards an object". That represents the inversion of being form (living) within flow (inception towards death) aka the subject inside the "towards" objectification aka the reaction within enacting. The mind responses to impression (perceivable); which then allows compression (comprehension) for expression (growth), or if ignored, repression (loss).
The few suggest the many objects (idolized subjects) to lure their minds forwards; hence with the flow towards death aka progressivism.
b) MOTIVE (having power to move) -ATION (through action)...that implies being the reaction. As the living I have the power to move left/right; up/down; forward/backward....while being moved from inception towards death. Why? Because my temporary choice to move exists within the momentum (balance) of ongoing motion.
c) "motivates action" translates to "having the power to move through action action". That's a little too much action and much ignored reaction.
Intent is both innate and developed
IN'NATE, adjective [Latin innatus, to be born.] + DEVELOP, verb - "to unfold"...suggested intent tempts one to ignore being within perceivable innate (nature; to be born) development (unfolding mind). Growth of comprehension represents the unfolding of ones mind within all perceivable.
I even think there's more to it. One passage about them making clay bricks is almost humorous. Pharaoh made them pick their own reeds or whatever for making the bricks as punishment, and man did they whine.
In the same ballpark in the Bible is when Moses and Aaron keep nagging Pharaoh about the intense need for them to go out into the desert with their people for three days to make sacrifices. They said that if they weren't allowed, God would "put them to the sword".
There is ZERO evidence God said that to Moses or Aaron, and seems contradictory to me (ie they lied). Like the guy you replied to, perhaps even Moses and Aaron weren't so good, and the Israelites did seem to lapse into "infidelity" with God quite easily, didn't they?
You can look at a lot of those stories just a bit critically and figure out that the Israelites were pretty bad overall. If one questions one's moral standing, a quick comparison to those guys is rather reassuring.
Look at Solomon. The Third Temple Institute which is preparing things for the rebuilding of the Temple says that they are following the "wisdom of Solomon".
Ya know, the guy that extracted 666 talents as tribute every year and summoned demons. AND was responsible for God breaking up Israel in the first place. Big LOL on that one.
It actually made me think of the Wailing Wall today for some reason...which made me then think of the black wall with quartz crystals that Marina Abramovic and Zelensky made in the Ukraine dedicated to Jewish Ukrainian Holocaust victims. The Wailing Wall has the whole "copulating with Shekinah" thing and was supposedly the wall from an Apollo/Venus temple (and they force people to visit/pay respects (tribute...that word again)). For the other wall...are they celebrating killing off the real Jews(or the good ones)? I dunno, but that's a weird one. We do know that they aren't good people.
There is a theory that a deliberate parallel exists between Lucifer being God's favorite angel who became so arrogant and rebellious that God punished him, and the "synagogue of satan" ie the "jews" being God's favored / chosen people yet also so deceitful and arrogant that history keeps punishing them. It is hard for most to wrap their minds around but it really seems that God's favorites tend to be the worst, but it seems to have a lot to do with God's primary focus of redeeming other beings, ie those most in need of a redemption process get God's spotlight.
To whom much is given, much will be expected. How we treat the least among us is indicative of our internal character. We are saved by faith and faith is made evident through our actions.
How could life act; if it's reacting to being directed from inception towards death?
The actions occur and serve as a lens to reveal what lies within. Intent motivates action. Intent is both innate and developed.
a) actions implies plural. What if the resulting reactions represent the plural within the single action? The plural reactions of the living within the singular action of dying...
b) OCCUR', verb [Latin occurro] - "to meet; to strike against; to clash"...that implies within the already established balance (momentum) of action/reaction, caused by the pre-occurring motion.
c) SERVE, verb [Latin servio, servo, to keep.] - "to work for". What if work represents EN'ERGY, noun [Greek, work.] - "internal or inherent power" and self differentiation of action into reaction represents the internal power?
d) LENS, noun [Latin lentil.] - "a transparent substance" aka transmuted (perceiving) from parent (perceivable); hence sub (choice) within dom (balance)...the stance of a surfer.
e) to reveal implies that it wasn't revealed before; yet energy had to be before revealed (perceivable) and revelation (perceiving) could coexist within.
f) "to reveal what lies within" implies energy having and simultaneously lacking self discernment. Why would everything (energy) lack something (discernment) and how could the self differentiation within energy represent the source for what's lacking?
On the other hand...the differentiated ONEs (perceiving) out of the self differentiating ALL (perceivable) would require inspiration to grow comprehension about perceivable; hence the growing comprehension to everything already revealed through perception.
a) INTENT', noun - "the stretching of the mind towards an object". That represents the inversion of being form (living) within flow (inception towards death) aka the subject inside the "towards" objectification aka the reaction within enacting. The mind responses to impression (perceivable); which then allows compression (comprehension) for expression (growth), or if ignored, repression (loss).
The few suggest the many objects (idolized subjects) to lure their minds forwards; hence with the flow towards death aka progressivism.
b) MOTIVE (having power to move) -ATION (through action)...that implies being the reaction. As the living I have the power to move left/right; up/down; forward/backward....while being moved from inception towards death. Why? Because my temporary choice to move exists within the momentum (balance) of ongoing motion.
c) "motivates action" translates to "having the power to move through action action". That's a little too much action and much ignored reaction.
IN'NATE, adjective [Latin innatus, to be born.] + DEVELOP, verb - "to unfold"...suggested intent tempts one to ignore being within perceivable innate (nature; to be born) development (unfolding mind). Growth of comprehension represents the unfolding of ones mind within all perceivable.
God is merciful. As Jesus said "With man it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible "
I even think there's more to it. One passage about them making clay bricks is almost humorous. Pharaoh made them pick their own reeds or whatever for making the bricks as punishment, and man did they whine.
In the same ballpark in the Bible is when Moses and Aaron keep nagging Pharaoh about the intense need for them to go out into the desert with their people for three days to make sacrifices. They said that if they weren't allowed, God would "put them to the sword".
There is ZERO evidence God said that to Moses or Aaron, and seems contradictory to me (ie they lied). Like the guy you replied to, perhaps even Moses and Aaron weren't so good, and the Israelites did seem to lapse into "infidelity" with God quite easily, didn't they?
You can look at a lot of those stories just a bit critically and figure out that the Israelites were pretty bad overall. If one questions one's moral standing, a quick comparison to those guys is rather reassuring.
Look at Solomon. The Third Temple Institute which is preparing things for the rebuilding of the Temple says that they are following the "wisdom of Solomon".
Ya know, the guy that extracted 666 talents as tribute every year and summoned demons. AND was responsible for God breaking up Israel in the first place. Big LOL on that one.
It actually made me think of the Wailing Wall today for some reason...which made me then think of the black wall with quartz crystals that Marina Abramovic and Zelensky made in the Ukraine dedicated to Jewish Ukrainian Holocaust victims. The Wailing Wall has the whole "copulating with Shekinah" thing and was supposedly the wall from an Apollo/Venus temple (and they force people to visit/pay respects (tribute...that word again)). For the other wall...are they celebrating killing off the real Jews(or the good ones)? I dunno, but that's a weird one. We do know that they aren't good people.