Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 649
- OBE/Astral Projection 4
- Demonology 20
- Alchemy 22
- Magick 35
- Hypnosis 22
- Movies & Entertainment 31
- Tarot 5
- Gallery 4
- Posting - General Help 9
- Crop Circles 3
- Dowsing 3
- Mystery 102
- Conspiracy Theories 27
- UFOs and ETs 22
- News & Current Events 73
- Psychic Protection 10
- Psychic Training 26
- Remote Viewing 3
- Time Travel 12
- Reiki 34
- Meditation 20
- Past Lives 42
- General 120
Comments
Just consider a few stories from the Old Testament:
The Garden: God didn't tolerate Adam and Eve's sin. He didn't accept their lifestyle choice to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He banished them from Eden and left an angel with flaming swords to guard the entrance so they couldn't return.
Noah and the Flood: While the sanitized version of this story is pleasantly detailed in children's storybooks, we cannot forget this story is about immense judgment. Picture a tsunami of destruction instead of a nursery filled with smiling stuffed animals. The flood involved terror, suffering, and death. It was a catastrophic event that only one family survived.
Uzzah: One of the most uncomfortable accounts of divine intolerance is found in 2 Samuel 6. This story recounts Uzzah's attempt to steady the ark of the LORD after an oxen stumbled on the journey back to Israel. When he reached out and touched the ark (an expressly forbidden action), God didn't say, “Well, his heart was in the right place. I know he was just trying to help.” Uzzah's instinctive response was met with God's intense anger, and Uzzah was immediately struck down.
We could go on and on throughout the Old Testament, considering Achan, Korah, Aaron's sons, the Canaanites, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, just to name a few. All perished by the very hand of God. He did not tolerate their sin; he punished it.
I guess we have to try and stick together, ferz! Team!
Oskr, I was rolling my eyes at Robinson Crusoe/Sherlock Holmes/ @Brian. By the way, Brian didn't t quite explain time travel. So I will do what I must.
*points water gun loaded with pomegranate juice at Brian* *SHOOTS* Now your white clothes is ruined! Muahahahaahhaahaaha! I am so mean. It now looks like you murdered a pomegranate shrubbery.
Actually, Brian did explain it well, I just wanted an excuse to shoot someone with pomegranate juice. And since Chirag isn't here with his white clothes, the next best candidate was Mr. Robinson Crusoe. Robinson Crusoe makes Don Quixote de la Mancha seem interesting, and Don Quixote is one dull novel. Just voicing a literary opinion here.
Still got a few rounds of juice. Who's next? I will retire to my term paper now. Tootles!
Según Alejo Carpentier, «el Orinoco es una materialización del tiempo en las tres categorías agustinianas, tiempo pasado (el tiempo del recuerdo), tiempo presente (tiempo de la intuición) y tiempo futuro (tiempo de la espera)».
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.