Yahweh/hawah/hayah - "was" aka that which was (perceivable) before that which is (suggested). Ones consent to any suggestion implies a sacrifice within perceivable.
Not sacrificing "animals", but "anima/animation"...hence ignoring fluid (perceivable) when holding onto solid (suggested).
Your dissection was fairly astute, in that it recognized that sacrifice is a materialist ritual in place of esoteric understanding.
Since you've decided that's your special power :) take YHWH apart, learning how the word is formed letter-by-letter.
Words divide by de-fin-ition. Unfortunately we use them to commune.
So I'll never downdoot you, because you serve a purpose here that others won't provide.You do give the answers that the literal interpretation suggests.
That said (oh oh):
In the beginning was The Word aka Logos (all contained in all words aka Google) plus one.
Through lower division we get wordS.
Involution/Evolution. Always return to the source: That is, put them back together as one. Then we may learn what something is, as opposed to what it is not, based off it's opposite. I'm not an ant-semantite, I just know it's limitations.
When the 'law' and the 'will' become one thing, this 'will' becomes extraneous.
Until then it leads to error.
Your analytical bent would help, should you venture a little higher and look at what is behind Gematria and in fact, words, letters and number..........as ratios of ONE.
sacrifice is a materialist ritual in place of esoteric understanding
a) EXO (inception towards death) towards ESO (life) implies sacrifice aka whole (motion) establishing a place for each partial (matter) by internal separation (momentum).
b) Material-ist implies ones consent to suggested material-ism, hence matter/material holding onto other matter.
take YHWH apart, learning how the word is formed letter-by-letter.
a) ONE...it doesn't matter which letters are suggested; only ones consent LETTING another shape words with it.
b) Oneness (whole) generates ones (partials) by setting each apart from one another. The foundation for wholeness and apartheid implies ONE...for all is one in energy.
c) Words (suggested information) can only be shaped within sound (perceivable inspiration)...the former tempts one to hold onto; while the latter can't be held onto.
special power
Power (inception towards death) generates specials (life).
Words divide by de-fin-ition.
Ones consent to a suggested definition implies one to be a DEAF PHONECTICIAN aka one who ignores to discern self as divine (partial) within holy (whole) of perceivable sound.
The difference between division (being against) and separation (being within) can only be discerned by self...not by consenting to the suggestions of others; which tempt one into a conflict of reason aka into division aka into ignoring self for another.
One cannot choose among suggested choices without ignoring to be choice within perceivable.
Unfortunately we use them to commune.
a) Few suggest chance (fortune) to tempt many to ignore choice.
b) Few suggest pluralism (we) to tempt each singular (one) to ignore self for others.
c) Few suggest commune-ism to tempt each consenting one to become part of a collectivist many.
There's no "many" in nature unless one counts other ones as many. Each one within nature is distinct; different; apart from one another. Instead of looking for difference in alike behavior...notice that each one exists at a different position from one another.
You do give the answers that the literal interpretation suggests.
Which I try to break down within perceivable solution; like that interpretation aka interpreting action implies ones reaction to suggest an interpretation of perceivable action.
Interpreting perceivable inspiration as suggested information corrupts the one consenting to it; because then one holds onto words instead of adapting to being moved within sound.
Both answers and questions implies suggestion; only solution implies perception, hence being problem (life) within solution (inception towards death).
In the beginning was The Word...
...which you contradicted with "the word is formed letter-by-letter". I simply describe that contradicts by taking apart both words and letters, while trying to describe SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire; whole; unbroken".
Only within whole can partials (life) have beginning (inception) and end (death).
plus one
That implies lacking self discernment of being one (partial) within oneness (whole) by trying to add to whole.
In reality...addition of one implies inception; subtraction of one implies death; multiplication of one implies intercourse for off-spring through one another, and division of one implies separation of oneness into ones.
Consenting to monotheism implies one consenting to another ones suggestion aka 1+1=2...that contradicts MONO (single; one and only).
Perception implies one; suggestion implies plus one...if one consents to it.
Through lower division we get wordS.
a) Sound remains whole; while each partial instrument within choose to put words together by LETTING each other suggest definitions for them.
b) Others suggest one to get (suggestion) so that one ignores what one got (perception). One cannot get more than reality already offers...endlessly trying to get fiction "gets one got".
Always return to the source
The trick here is "turning"...transmuting ingredients in and out of base doesn't turn, it moves differently within (life) same direction (inception towards death).
Law (need) coming to be will (want) aka want (life) struggling to resist temptation within need (inception towards death).
Each ones free WILL of choice within oneness of natural LAW aka balancing on land; breathing air and being solid within fluid of water.
I'll never downdoot you
It's logos/logic aka a conflict of reason (updoot vs downdoot)...no matter which side one chooses. Only implication (if/then aka if oneness; then ones) prevents conflicts among one another.
a) Free will of choice can only exist at center of balance...others suggest agree vs disagree (imbalance) to tempt ones choice to incline towards a side, hence balancing self.
b) Ones will (life) can only exist within all way (inception towards death).
c) Does life agreeing or disagreeing with the process of dying change outcome?
Rincewind: "But...what if I really; really hardly disagree with dying?"
Yahweh/hawah/hayah - "was" aka that which was (perceivable) before that which is (suggested). Ones consent to any suggestion implies a sacrifice within perceivable.
Not sacrificing "animals", but "anima/animation"...hence ignoring fluid (perceivable) when holding onto solid (suggested).
Your dissection was fairly astute, in that it recognized that sacrifice is a materialist ritual in place of esoteric understanding.
Since you've decided that's your special power :) take YHWH apart, learning how the word is formed letter-by-letter.
Words divide by de-fin-ition. Unfortunately we use them to commune.
So I'll never downdoot you, because you serve a purpose here that others won't provide.You do give the answers that the literal interpretation suggests.
That said (oh oh):
In the beginning was The Word aka Logos (all contained in all words aka Google) plus one.
Through lower division we get wordS.
Involution/Evolution. Always return to the source: That is, put them back together as one. Then we may learn what something is, as opposed to what it is not, based off it's opposite. I'm not an ant-semantite, I just know it's limitations.
When the 'law' and the 'will' become one thing, this 'will' becomes extraneous. Until then it leads to error.
Your analytical bent would help, should you venture a little higher and look at what is behind Gematria and in fact, words, letters and number..........as ratios of ONE.
https://kupdf.net/download/jesus-christ-sun-of-god-ancient-cosmology-and-early-christian-symbolism-by-david-r-fideler-ocr_58a100e36454a7335db1eb87_pdf
Word
a) EXO (inception towards death) towards ESO (life) implies sacrifice aka whole (motion) establishing a place for each partial (matter) by internal separation (momentum).
b) Material-ist implies ones consent to suggested material-ism, hence matter/material holding onto other matter.
a) ONE...it doesn't matter which letters are suggested; only ones consent LETTING another shape words with it.
b) Oneness (whole) generates ones (partials) by setting each apart from one another. The foundation for wholeness and apartheid implies ONE...for all is one in energy.
c) Words (suggested information) can only be shaped within sound (perceivable inspiration)...the former tempts one to hold onto; while the latter can't be held onto.
Power (inception towards death) generates specials (life).
Ones consent to a suggested definition implies one to be a DEAF PHONECTICIAN aka one who ignores to discern self as divine (partial) within holy (whole) of perceivable sound.
The difference between division (being against) and separation (being within) can only be discerned by self...not by consenting to the suggestions of others; which tempt one into a conflict of reason aka into division aka into ignoring self for another.
One cannot choose among suggested choices without ignoring to be choice within perceivable.
a) Few suggest chance (fortune) to tempt many to ignore choice.
b) Few suggest pluralism (we) to tempt each singular (one) to ignore self for others.
c) Few suggest commune-ism to tempt each consenting one to become part of a collectivist many.
There's no "many" in nature unless one counts other ones as many. Each one within nature is distinct; different; apart from one another. Instead of looking for difference in alike behavior...notice that each one exists at a different position from one another.
Which I try to break down within perceivable solution; like that interpretation aka interpreting action implies ones reaction to suggest an interpretation of perceivable action.
Interpreting perceivable inspiration as suggested information corrupts the one consenting to it; because then one holds onto words instead of adapting to being moved within sound.
Both answers and questions implies suggestion; only solution implies perception, hence being problem (life) within solution (inception towards death).
...which you contradicted with "the word is formed letter-by-letter". I simply describe that contradicts by taking apart both words and letters, while trying to describe SOUND, adjective (Latin sanus) - "entire; whole; unbroken".
Only within whole can partials (life) have beginning (inception) and end (death).
That implies lacking self discernment of being one (partial) within oneness (whole) by trying to add to whole.
In reality...addition of one implies inception; subtraction of one implies death; multiplication of one implies intercourse for off-spring through one another, and division of one implies separation of oneness into ones.
Consenting to monotheism implies one consenting to another ones suggestion aka 1+1=2...that contradicts MONO (single; one and only).
Perception implies one; suggestion implies plus one...if one consents to it.
a) Sound remains whole; while each partial instrument within choose to put words together by LETTING each other suggest definitions for them.
b) Others suggest one to get (suggestion) so that one ignores what one got (perception). One cannot get more than reality already offers...endlessly trying to get fiction "gets one got".
The trick here is "turning"...transmuting ingredients in and out of base doesn't turn, it moves differently within (life) same direction (inception towards death).
Sleight of hand: "Turn around...Every now and then I get a little bit lonely...And you never coming 'round"... https://genius.com/Bonnie-tyler-total-eclipse-of-the-heart-lyrics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcOxhH8N3Bo ...over one billion views yet seldom one with sight.
Law (need) coming to be will (want) aka want (life) struggling to resist temptation within need (inception towards death).
Each ones free WILL of choice within oneness of natural LAW aka balancing on land; breathing air and being solid within fluid of water.
It's logos/logic aka a conflict of reason (updoot vs downdoot)...no matter which side one chooses. Only implication (if/then aka if oneness; then ones) prevents conflicts among one another.
So you agree you will always disagree.
We're making progress already.
kek
a) Free will of choice can only exist at center of balance...others suggest agree vs disagree (imbalance) to tempt ones choice to incline towards a side, hence balancing self.
b) Ones will (life) can only exist within all way (inception towards death).
c) Does life agreeing or disagreeing with the process of dying change outcome?
Progression "makes" each one within apart from one another; those consenting to suggested pluralism (we) ignore to re-make self.