the sodom hack

god ap­pears female^[1] to me,

re­fer­ring to her­self as «IEVE»^[2],
here re­ferred to as " (for a lot of rea­sons, not just to avoid ridicu­lous gen­der dis­cus­sions).

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

more of sense­less seem­ing tor­ments’n’tor­ture^[5] (for 40 weeks!) then flowed in­to prov­i­dence with an

ad­vent of an “ebony god­dess”^[6]

on feb 2nd of a. d. 2026 at around 8⁺¹ o’clock_p.m.. a pre­server­ess be­ing her daughter מיכאל (mīkāl)? the end is neigh for an un­just and cruel pa­tri­archy. il­log­i­cal­ly and de­gen­er­at­ed, van­ish­ing in­to the “back­ground noise”. (per­son­al­ly) i hope for a (pure) ma­tri­archy, as it seems nat­u­ral­ly and log­i­cal­ly (to me). 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?

[end of a. d. 2024 in tem­pel­hof] i've been an agn­os­tic my entire life, devot­ing my­self more to tech­nol­ogy and sci­ence than thoughts about the pos­si­bil­i­ty of an intel­li­gent design of the world, even though I always won­dered why any­thing exists at all.^[7]
i rec­og­nized a beau­ti­ful uni­verse, which seems to per­fect­ly tare out, but the bibli­cal cre­ation story did­n’t seem to make much sense, when percepted with no time, taken literally and abused for iconographic purposes while writing seminar papers.

un­til feb­ru­ary 22nd, a. d. 2025, when hate and cru­el­ty of long­time cow­ard­ly in­hu­man entities, later on an alle­gory for an un­just and degen­er­ated pa­tri­archy^[8] made a god in­evitable,
who ap­pears (to me) female how­ever, not only to pour the story of cre­ation with sense (for me), but to let me see. and know, that "/god is and will al­ways be. by all means: my ideal of an al­mighty cre­ator/cre­atress, i just never was able to imag­ine. Α☧

signs/be­hold­ings

in a beau­ti­ful uni­verse, " lets us live in, while i’ll try to in­ter­pret as lit­tle as pos­si­ble in­to per­cep­tion.

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.
יי gave you every­thing you'll ever need. should you be in quest for an advice one day, you may ask your moth­er(s) in direct line with eve, cre­at­ed by (and prob­a­bly hav­ing a lot of) her^⚠ct??

1. ^(cmd.-ment) there is but one god,^[9] cre­at­ing you in her own image.^[10]
   her face she did not show

   (the one paint­ing it, i want to see). ex­o­dus 33:20 might bet­ter be “trans­lat­ed” as «.. how do you in­tend to live, are you cer­tain of me?»
   "s bib­li­cal name is «הוהי»^[11]:

   • 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.»^[9]

   • 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 a true prophet and the תָּנָ״ךְ (tanakh)^!? tell­ing truth.
   mean­ing 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.^[2]
2. the deter­min­ing and causative “sex” seems to be fe­male?
   eve is not made from a rib of a man, imho it's al­most 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”), 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? 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.
3. 

   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?

4. 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?
5. [ian, a. d. 2026] (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?]
6. 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.
   Ω seems to be Α + in­for­ma­tion gain.
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?
   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.
   " (via medium) in ger­man: ich brau­che kein ge­schlecht, aber für dich bin ich di­vers. (en.: i do not need a sex/gen­der, but for you i am di­verse.).
   the ones try­ing to punish LOVE, may very well have to counter­balance.
8. 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)
9. lucifer is no διάβολος (diabolos/devil) nor a שָׂטָן (śāṭān) &c. per sē.

   but may­be a (fallen?) demon to some, while be­ing an an­gel to others?
   and then there’s ronald reagan dur­ing cold war, stat­ing it takes two to tango. no light with­out dark­ness? no good with­out evil? no great­ness with­out small squares? ..