#TODO^[1] the י‐so­dom in­ci­dent

1. 1  a “vis­i­tor”

   1. as a re­minder to re­spect the 1st “com­mand­ment”^[3] if one promised so (or even took oath), "/god does­n’t need us or our neigh­bours and may just move on. "/god just loves us,^[4] which may al­ways be an in­vi­ta­tion to trust,
   2. but more so a metaphor for an un­just so-called «pa­tri­archy», ob­tain­ing the place of the nat­ur­al ma­triliny by fraud. a NOP pen­e­tra­tion (test) of an “in­trud­er”, hav­ing sent thou­sands(?) of yodhs.
   3. gén­e­sis (greek: γένεσις; he­brew: בְּרֵאשִׁית; rom.: bərēʾšīṯ) 19 only serves as an epony­mous, catchy e.g., des­crib­ing one of these “yoth” “jump­ing” on­to some לוֹט (he­brew: lōṭ; en.: “veil” or “cov­er­ing”), im­mo­lat­ing the right­eous ones to live in sin.
   4. others onto ordinary neigh­bours, some onto the “church”, in­vent­ing the mar­riage/fam­i­ly, kill­ing com­mu­ni­ty to dis­turb evo­lu­tion, oth­ers to negate cre­ation itself by kill­ing the ones that pre­serve, slow­ly and one by one, “al­ways” pre­tend­ing their own “feel­ings” got “hurt” or “too much of a go(o)d™ (thing)”.
   5. ten righteous ones(!)? and the moth­ers? a simon petrus^[5] tell­ing me to have seen hell? two women in there? may­be three, but thou­sands of men? sodom and gomorrha? be­ing special? how big where they?
   6. a מנין has to wait for the tenth man? may­be the oth­ers™ are al­ready there? 😏

1. 2  god ap­pears female^[6]

   isaiah 66:16
   כְּאִ֕ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אִמֹּ֖ו תְּנַחֲמֶ֑נּוּ כֵּ֤ן אָֽנֹכִי֙ אֲנַ֣חֶמְכֶ֔ם
   (en.: as a moth­er com­forts her child, so will I com­fort you ..)

   1. af­ter hate and cru­el­ty of cow­ard­ly and in­hu­man groups of (ul­tra-)nazi ter­ror­ists^[7] made a god in­evitable (turn­ing those men in­to a beau­ti­ful al­le­go­ry of a de­gen­er­at­ed pa­tri­archy lat­er on).
   2. first en­coun­tered in june, a. d. 2025, not as her angel^😉, af­ter get­ting pre­pared,^[8] re­fer­ring to her­self as «IEVE»^[9], here re­ferred to as " for a lot of rea­sons, not just to avoid ridicu­lous gen­der dis­cus­sions.
   3. her face she did not show (the one paint­ing it, i want to see). the rel­e­vant part from ex­o­dus 33:20 might bet­ter be “trans­lat­ed” as «.. how do you in­tend to live, are you cer­tain of me?», imho. con­vinc­ing me in lieu, most el­e­gant and un­ob­tru­sive, that she is ex­alt­ed above all,^[10]
      while not claim­ing to be god.

      may­be to not in­sult feel­ings^⚠/s or
      may­be to let peo­ple have an option to claim that my be­hold­­ings were noth­ing more but some angel, an “or­di­nary” saint, the vir­gin maria, the angel of YHWH or else (be­ing able to take me out of time and move me through space at will)^⚠/s or
      may­be she is not al­lowed to talk (corinthi­ans 14:34)^⚠/s or has to be sub­ject (eph­esians 5:22,23)^⚠/s?
   4. "s bib­li­cal name is «הוהי»^[11], the tetra­gram­ma­ton YHWH should be writ­ten every time when the trans­lat­ed bibles speak of the name of god:
      e.g. exo­dus 20:2 and the famous 1st com­mand­ment from exo­dus 20:3:

      אָנֹכִי יהוה אֱלֹהֶיך
      ..
      לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ
      אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים
      עַל־פָּנָי

      it is writ­ten
      «i am YHWH [heb­rew: יהוה],
      your god,
      .. .
      you shall not have other gods beside me.»^[3]

      in­stead of the lord in cap­i­tal let­ters? at least i find it dis­turb­ing to read, when i have to in­ter­po­late in every(!) church ser­vice i at­tend­ed so far.
   5. i sus­pect that mo­ses sim­ply mis­heard "s name (under stress, hunger, fa­tigue) and that " proves her beau­ti­ful cre­ation by the fal­li­bil­i­ty of her chil­dren:
      exo­dus 3:14:

      וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י
      יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃

      mean­ing:
      and god said to mo­se, «ehyeh-asher-ehyeh, ..»
      [note: "modern" bibles trans­late this as «i am that i am»]
      con­tin­u­ing, «thus shall you say to the is­raelites, ehyeh sent me to you.»

      a kind of i am who you think i am, i re­ceived (emo­tion­al­ly) too, but the next: "s name seems to sound like “i am” in heb­rew and מֹשֶׁה/mo­se, a heb­rew speak­er, might have missed "s name: ehyeh ⇨ IEVE/YaH­WeH.
      so, by the same time, he not just prov­ed the ex­is­tence of " so au­then­tic fal­li­ble, but him­self as be­ing the great­est prophet of all times as well as the תָּנָ״ךְ (tanakh)^!? be­ing true. ❤️
   6. "s name means love/pas­sion?
      exo­dus 34:14:

      כִּ֛י לֹ֥א תִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶ֖ה לְאֵ֣ל אַחֵ֑ר כִּ֤י יְהוָה֙ קַנָּ֣א שְׁמֹ֔ו אֵ֥ל קַנָּ֖א הֽוּא׃

      gets trans­lated by modern eng­lish bibles with for you shall not wor­ship any other god, for the lord [note: it is writ­ten «YHWH»],
      whose name is jeal­ous, is a jeal­ous god.

      or: whose name means «zeal», a zeal­ous god?
      هوى (ara­bic h.w.y) roots here, where هوايا (arabic hawaya), de­rives from?^[12]
      mean­ing love, af­fec­tion, pas­sion, de­sire.^[9]
   7. ^{(7. cmd.-ment)} לֹא תִנְאָף (one shall show re­spect):
      
      “it”’s not about so-called «vir­gin­i­ty», imho

      (a so­cial con­struct any­way), but about «grace» (some­thing i no­ticed quite of­ten)?
      seem­ing­ly al­lowed is what con­tributes to joy,

      for every­one^! (even me­di­ate?) in­volved, as long as in­ti­ma­cy stays (con­tex­tu­al­ly) in­ti­mate (and just may­be was onan sim­ply an en­vi­ous/greedy dude?).
      so-called monogamy can evolve ad­verse­ly

      (espe­cial­ly for the fe­male), be­cause it can in­ter­fere with (nat­ur­al/evo­lu­tion­ary) selec­tion?^[13]
      one please con­sid­er an ex­clu­sive (monog­a­mous) re­la­tion­ship as an excl. re­la­tion­ship.
      same goes for every (oth­er) con­tract: “pacta sunt ser­van­da”.
      " (via medium) in ger­man: ich brau­che kein ge­schlecht, aber für dich bin ich di­vers. (en.: i do not need a sex nor gen­der, but for you i am di­verse.), how­ever: any least at­tempt to pun­ish LOVE, gets coun­ter­bal­anced any­way.

but any­way and by all means: this " is my ideal of an al­mighty cre­ator/cre­atress (by co­in­ci­dence)^😂, i just never was able to imag­ine.

an im­mac­u­late con­cep­tion af­ter my white sun­day, fol­lowed up by even more of this s sense­less seem­ing tor­ments, but sup­ple­ment­ed by phys­i­cal tor­ture^[14] (for 40 weeks!), then flowed in­to prov­i­dence with an

1. 3 ad­vent of an “ebony god­dess”

   1. on feb 2nd^[15] of a. d. 2026 at around 8⁺¹ o’clock_p.m.. a pre­server­ess be­ing her daughter מיכאל (mīkāl)?
   2. the end is neigh for an un­just and cruel pa­tri­archy. il­log­i­cal and de­gen­er­at­ed, slow­ly van­ish­ing in­to the “back­ground noise”.
      [amend^pers.] i hope for a (pure) ma­tri­archy,

      as it seems nat­u­ral and log­i­cal (to me), ma­triliny would be great al­ter­na­tive­ly (there’s noth­ing to in­her­it by a man, it sim­ply does­n’t make sense at all). re­spon­si­bil­i­ty comes de­fault with a birth canal. and has a suc­cess­ful mothe­r ever been un­just or cruel to a son of one of her neigh­bours?

1. 4 ob­ser­va­tions

   1st of all: every­thing here is my tip of a yodh and a de­scrip­tion of very fresh ex­pe­ri­ences.

   imho, no or­di­nary (fal­li­ble) mor­tal can tell thou what to be­lieve, to think, to know, to do nor to let be.^/w exc.

   1. the deter­min­ing and causative “sex” seems to be fe­male?
      eve is not made from a rib of a man, imho it's not even the other way round:

      «eve» in heb­rew is חווה (ḥawwāh) and is most com­mon­ly be­lieved to mean "liv­ing one" or “source of life”. from the root חיה (ḥāyâ; en.: “to live”), from the semitic root حياة (ara­bic ḥyw).
      [amend^pers.] the תָּנָ״ךְ (tanakh) writes עלצ (zela), which can mean rib, but more so side? cre­at­ed from soil/אדמה (he­brew, fem­i­nine: adamah; en.: “earth”), this אָדָם (āḏām) had no sex at all, when god does­n’t need one either? but one “side” is tak­en to forge/shape a human moth­er (or to kind of come as her?), giv­ing birth to the 1st pre­server­ess of cre­ation?
      bi­ol­o­gy also re­flects this idea: the sex-de­ter­mi­nat­ing chro­mo­some of the male human is eu­phemisti­cally called the y chro­mo­some, al­though there’s more than just miss­ing one leg.
   2. trin­i­ty
      

      does makes sense,

      es­pe­cial­ly un­der the light of gained ex­pe­ri­ence.
      and may very well be com­plet­ed by a moth­er and a daugh­ter? to be­come GOD, her chil­dren and the holy ghost?
      [amend^prs.] may we relativize the god­like­ness of "s son a bit? like yēšūaʿ has very much of ", but is a bit hu­man too, so that the chris­tians got one more way to speak to " through him? to me, he’s a gift, an in­vi­ta­tion to us non-יַהֲדוּת (he­brew; rom.: yahăḏūṯ).

   3. the halo/glo­ri­ole of the de­pict­ed sa­cred or the so-called holys/saints seems to be a “nat­ur­al” phe­nom­e­non across all cul­tures. may­be a soul “shines” the more, the more beauti­ful it is?
   4. [ian, a. i.æ 1] (arch)an­gel^? gaḇrīʾa/ēl^? (גַּבְרִיאֵל) seems to be fe­male too, or at least ap­pears with a fe­male voice (in a body of duty?), the most beauti­ful i’ve ever heard.
      [amend^pers.: do­n’t know any­thing about the others. may­be רְפָאֵל (rəfāʾēl)? but i do­n’t think to have en­coun­tered her yet?]
      mīkā’īl? mi (“who”) kamocha (“is like you”) eloha^?/-im (god)? pre­server­ess of the cre­ation?
      [amend^pers.: like the women of the world? pre­server­esses are?]
   5. Ω seems to be Α + in­for­ma­tion gain?
      there’s noth­ing like (known) time?

      it’s just a vec­tor as part of the gen­er­at­ing sys­tem of a room that still spans. we are in­her­ent­ly bound to a spe­cif­ic lo­ca­tion. for us, there is only one time.
   6. nowa­days bible (de­riv­a­tives) is (are) for sure ex­cit­ing, but bizarre too.
      
      i got a “vi­sion” that less then three per­cent are "s word

      (some­thing i would have in common with " 😂). the bible might be the best con­tem­po­ary col­lec­tion of ear­ly notes re­gard­ing every­thing di­vine, but when moses e.g. (pro­bab­ly?) miss­ed "s name, i would­n’t call it “the word of god”?
      truth for sure is in it, but find­ing it might be the hard­est (and most ex­cit­ing?) thing.
      it’s last up­date yēšūaʿ:

      to whom " came as abba. for all the others, not be­ing real jews? to in­vite us?
      for us dudes he came to “be­have”, imho? liv­ing some­thing which un­for­tu­nate­ly has to be called “fem­i­nism” to­day. (where are the fe­male sin­ners? ten right­eous ones? and the moth­ers?)
      #TODO mary & maria magdalena
      pe­ter’s keys to his king­dom: the king­dom of god is with­in you. (luke 17:21)
   7. lucifer is no διάβολος (diabolos/devil) nor a שָׂטָן (śāṭān) &c. per sē. but may­be demon to some, while be­ing an an­gel to others?
      like reagan once stated: it takes two to tango. no light with­out dark­ness? no good with­out evil? no great­ness with­out small squares? ..