General StuffPosted by Nicole Wed, May 16, 2018 02:00:05
These two go together. Whenever we talk about Hell there also is the 'individual' - deserving - of it ... or not. We then get to speak of qualities ... . But there's another link between Hell and Individuality.
Here I find that within myself there is a thought. It would be there as of my composure - and basically I can turn it on or off. It has been there all the time, just ... it has been lost somewhere in the chaos of consciousness. While now I see a certain structure to it, I recognize it by a given familiarity I have with its presence despite not having 'seen' anything other than its consequences. ~~
These in general would be my ~two mindsets~ or otherwise appearing as ~gender conflict~ (although the latter has a bit more to it).
Now, this one thought is really pivotal in my mind. But as I would bring it up as such, ... you might not recognize its relevance. The question there is simply 'Sex'. Yes or no. And while you might wonder what its right position is; How could I tell? Well, there's something of a ... well, 'coat'. Like a dark pelt - something that just sticks out as odd. And thats the 'no' position.
This is why whenever I get to seriously inspect myself, that gets turned on sooner or later and that has a consequential ripple effect onto me. It there are simply aspects of myself that basically "force switch" it on, which is how come it to be-eth in the center of it all.
Now is there something such as a 'no sex' 'bubble' in there somewhere, but its part of the 'on' constellation. So basically, there is 'no' question.
If you now were to imprison me because of that - thinking of it as a thought crime - what would happen? I might wonder, where did I go wrong, and either I lie to myself or I only grow more confident in it. This, in terms of confinement, is I guess the issue. Whether the prisoner comes to realize its wrongs or not.
What I now have to think about is the question for co-existence. As there is so a line between 'saved' and 'not saved' - what makes the difference? Can't we co-exist? As it stands, the situation is that the argument goes: "When given enough power, they'd totally screw us over!". But is that a good enough argument?
Well, all it takes - in the beginning - is baptism. As a whole, with all that belongs to it. Repentance and belief in Christ. Thats what you are to do. A simple action that resembles your desire for doing the right thing. But ...
Well, the problem is that with right there is wrong and that imposes the question for punishment. And the issue with that is that it eventually doesn't work and only makes things worse.
That is why one 'has to' let go 'of the world' sotospeak. Allowing God to regenerate you. So, if there's a thing you like - and it is built from good and bad foundations - you aren't crippled by those bad foundations anymore. Otherwise, well ... whatever 'excuse' you have for being on that way, it essentially tries to justify things that are bad - and there, I think, from Gods perspective is no twisting or turning it. We are flawed beings and ... as the saying "the way to hell is paved with good intentions" goes, thats our problem. If you hold on to them and get thrown into hell the story just unfolds in a different scenario. You'd still feel justified in whatever shtick you got going - and the only reasonable counter measure were some 'Hell' wherein you had the chance to see your errors eventually.
And baptism is I think only there to make it easier. So - salvation by a symbolic act is less difficult than salvation by ... gaining some state of higher Enlightenment. Unification in that sense I think is only there if you want more. Or - well, it is inevitable. As much as that the two come together. Well, one comes as a part of the other. And Enlightenment is more simply the 'bigger', more relevant thing.
But ... well. Thats just a theory. A Hell Theory!
|Choose site to share content on|