God is Time

reply to post by Philodemus



That said, you made a generalization here that I would like to address. Now, there isn't anything necessarily wrong with generalizations if they are qualified properly. But if there is one thing I've already learned on this site, it would be you can never truly phrase a generalization to satisfy the requirements of all. Specifically, you said that in Christendom there are two gods. One for the ignorant masses (a 'false God') and one for the elite. But in part, that is a misrepresentation of Christendom. One of the basic concepts of 'the other half' of Christianity (if I may be general! i.e. Not Catholicism) being Protestantism is that; the dichotomy between what God and scripture are for the priesthood and what they are for the laymen is removed. Protestantism's entire focus is to worship Yahweh Elohim without the need of a earthly mediator (in the old testament the role filled by the Tribe of Levi; in Catholicism, the hierarchy). But that brings us to the role of whom the post-Greek world knows as “Jesus”. Which subsequently, can you weigh in on the concept of “the Christ”? Just interested in what you think. I was also wondering, if you believe in the Elohim, do you practice animal sacrifice? If not, what replacement do you use? If you don't sacrifice, why?

Interesting to me is how you choose to end your first paragraph. You did not say, “...what God is”. You said, “...what God may be”. Perhaps it was a slip of the finger and you miss spoke. More likely, I think it belies a more fundamental “ism” of your thought process and doctrine. It seems as though, as personal and knowable and as “revealed” as you want your God to be, there is still some level of uncertainty behind his actual “god-ality”. You approach it with an apparent sense of agnosticism. Now to THAT, I can relate. This leads me to the first problem I have always had with the idea of the Elohim, YHVH or any other name you want to give the ancient god (side note: YHVH is a plagiarism of another, earlier lesser god [for our readership]) and that is; he has apparently revealed himself to man and made himself known through a variety of media (i.e. the Torah, all of creation). But I have to do a side by side with that idea and the history of say, the past 5,000 years. And things just don't line up. I don't think he has made himself known to man even in the slightest. There's always this talk of a personal, loving and most of all, Holy God that loves is creation and wants to commune with us, but he left us so little to go on that is hardly fair to say that it has been a clear revelation. He gave us our minds and faculties and the ability to be scientifically minded but then didn't give us enough to really know him. Interestingly cryptic of him. Thus, leaving a large part of the affirming of his existence and attributes to assumption and worse, “faith”. Faith, hardly the virtue it's made out to be by those professing the reality of a God, has been over the millenia that which has facilitated the degradation of faculty and sense replacing them with blind submission to some proposition without an appropriate foundation in anything quintessentially trustworthy.
The only reason I have decided to go this direction is because of the way you chose to start your next paragraph.

So, to be exact, and entirely within the realm of fact, there is no 'Judeo-christian' God (or theology, for that matter). There is only the God of Israel, worshiped by the Jews, in the way the God of Israel prescribed, and the God of Christianity, which happens to be the same 'philosophic' God worshiped the world over, from the pagan east to Islam.

Entirely within the realm of fact? It is superfluously generous to put the assumption of the existence of ANY god into the realm of fact. It is more apropos to say that it is indeed outside said realm. That aside, the marvellous thing about it is in the same sense that the Elohim exists so does the Judeo-Christian God and so does the Easter Bunny for that matter. That's because they are all based on the same nothing. And if something can be established on nothing it can be dismissed on nothing. Inveterate proof, is not proof. The temple alone is a complete baldfaced counterfeit. The Torah, it's stories and it's god are a plagiarism of a collection of cultures and religions. But look at who I talking to here, I'm sure you'll fill in what I leave vague.
The belief in god(s)/God boils down to simply being an individualized notion of a personal choice due to a sensed spiritual or physical need that is going unmet due to a lack of natural means. The hope being that the supernatural entity will return allegiance and obedience by meeting the need.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

perhaps not with as much clarity,, or idle faith..

you take yourself to be of the elect?

what are your plans for action?

The supposed "elect" dew kNot exist.

As to clarity, All is clear when viewed from without.

The Universe is my Sandbox. Y isn't IT yours?

Ribbit

because for now i am trapped on this sand castle, surrounded by crabs..


those who could not help ( maybe if you can not help but do something it can be seen as destined or fate albeit hindsight is 20/20) but take heed to god's true word, and the current times, maybe those people are the supposed elect.

edit on 30-1-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Those that speak of God's True Word have no clue what IT actually IS, for if IT is written as such, IT isn't such!

While hindsight IS 20/20, foresight IS 20/15.

Those that say hindsight is 20/20, are admitting they're a failure but don't know IT.

Stop limiting yourself and soar with the Galaxies!

Ribbit

reply to post by Philodemus


Not that the Kabbalah doesn't speak of the philosophic God. Anybody acquainted with Hebrew and the hermeneutics of Torah knows that the entire 5 books of Moses is a book of metaphysics. Genesis, which is called 'Bere#h in Hebrew, broaches on an almost entirely metaphysical level. Exodus, called shemoth in Hebrew (Names), ventures more into the theological. In this book the God of Israel is revealed, and the divine process of mans redemption from the world of limitation is outlined. With each subsequent book, the Hebraic doctrine becomes more and more particularized, and less and less understood, or relevant, to non - Jews.


Do you feel that Moses wrote the books to which he is credited?
If so, how do you reconcile the differences in style?
If not who wrote them?

The proposed depth of the metaphysical and metaphoric nature of the first 5 books of the Torah imply that they aren't intended to be digested by the masses at all really. The fact that the story of creation, along with a multitude of other stories like the flood and the tower of Babel all are wrapped up in allegorical metaphysical mumbling puts those who have the time and resources to commit the necessary amount of study to their true understanding at a distinct at advantage over the rest of the plebeian masses subjecting them to suckle from the teat of the few. Actually, that exact process is outlined in the scripture as a virtuous methodology for the instruction and the passing down of knowledge for the chosen people. Sounds similar to Catholic hierarchical elitism. The masses do the believing leaving the understanding to the experts. Sounds a bit too prone to malfunction and misuse. But that could just be me.

Anyways, I will not debate whether or not God is time, which is an obscene concept to me..To think that you could reduce God to a mere archetype! My God, which is the God taught by the Jewish tradition, is both immanent (personal) and transcendent (philosophical), which is akin to the Sufi doctrine in some ways. He is Elohim, which is the totality of all of creation; not merely physical creation (Hateva, nature, which has the same numerical value as Elohim = 86) but all levels of metaphysical existence. YHVH, the uniquely "Jewish" God, is the content that is meant to fill the vacuum of the name of Elohim. In the traditional Israelite expression of faith "Shema Yisrael, YHVH Eloheinu, YHVH Echad", it is explained that the name YHVH, the personal God, the God which relates with man in dualistic terms, in this world he created for this precise purpose, is completely identical with the name Elohim. The metaphysical, and philosophical explanation of the gradations of worlds and levels of existence, is by itself devoid of moral direction. Theology fills that void. The name YHVH, the God of Israel, created this physical realm not to 'torment man' as Gnostics believe, or suckle energy from man, or exists as some cosmic reflection of mans own ego(the theories are endless which try to explain away the Jewish God) but IS God, the infinite being, which takes on a finite archetypal form in the same way that man exists as a finite and individualized unit, as a means to establish a one-on-one relationship with man. Yes, man is meant to know that God is beyond all description, the infinite Ein Sof, or Al Hoq (truth, in arabic). But in addition to this understanding, paradoxically, God wants man to abide by a particular moral code. This moral code is mans own 'creation', which is the unformed and chaotic exteriority of the social realm, which he completes by perfecting it through his own discrimination and particularization, in choice, of choosing the good and rejecting the evil. And so, the positive is integrated and the negative discarded (in accord with their fundamental natures). Through this action, society is completed. The veiling of the One, YHVH, which means 'being' and refers to all levels of existence, is designed to keep the other, separated and concealed from multiple. The ONE is recalled and brought down to exist WITH man, but not overwhelm him, and obliterate the individual units i.e. diversity, within created reality itself. We know where such totalitarian thinking leads.


It seems an obscene concept to you first and for most because your diatribe is in reference to God, where as my analogy of God is Time/Time is God is based on the CONCEPT of god. Two different things. The concept of a chair is a bit different than an actual chair that has definition and attributes like size, mass, colour, etc. I was not reducing God to an archetype. I was comparing the general concept and attributes to a part of the space time continuum.

reply to post by absolutely


yea yea yea, but there can be true enoughs... that is how good and evil can objectively exist to humans... if one human right now killed every other person on the planet, for humans, would that be objectively good or bad?

for a large amount of humans (pre death) would that event be good or bad? the goodness and badness would exist, subjectively to the individual, objectively to the whole/majority,

reply to post by Philodemus


Your opening assumption about my beliefs was to point out that you consider what I believe in to be the god of the philosophers. Although it is not, why is it now in this paragraph you are talking as though I am speaking about your God? If I was to reduce him to such, what would it matter? What difference would it make if I said Elohim is really a leprechaun? None. Why? Because the “god” I was using for comparison, the “God” you believe to be real and leprechauns, are all make believe. There is simple no reason for me to believe that any deity every spoken of or written of is in any way real. Time is though. As relative as it may be, it is real. In all seriousness, there are far more reasons to believe that God doesn't exist then to believe he does. You've spent your whole life disbelieving one god after the next, why stop with only one left to go?

There is a lot of information here which in no way was lost on me. Ironically enough, I was raised a strict Baptist and you aren't going to believe this because you seem to be quite convinced that modern Christianity in no way comes close to your idea of God, but what you have described above is the idea of God as I have been taught since being a little boy. But you know of course the Baptist view of the NT and the Messiah, so that is I'm sure where the similarity in viewpoints ends. I lived the life that is ruled by this dualistic sense of God. An existence in which I am given freewill but controlled by a God that has preordained my every action and then judges me on what I have been preordained to do. Who creates something to fail and then gets angry, jealous and disappointed when it does? And then visits the iniquities of the father upon the children even to the fourth and fifth generation?

I completely, with every ounce of my being, reject the philosophical ALL which surmounts all distinction. Judaism is entirely different. The God of the Jews is behind the veil, concealed from mortal eyes. This is not because man is not able to experience the infinite - which of course is possible, but because the infinite is eternally closed off to mans prying eyes. The creator is not divorced from reality, and the infinite is not different or other from the created. Being and non-being are not different. They are one and united.

Listen, getting down to brass tacks, you reject philosophical assumptions because they don't fit your preconceived notion of God and I reject God because he doesn't fit my preconceived notion of how to verify something's existence/nonexistence. And that's really our stale mate, isn't it?


As for the time thing. It is interesting that the Midrash remarks that the Rabbis who translated the Torah from Hebrew into Greek deliberately translated the first word of the Torah "Bere#" as, "with wisdom", to avoid the predictable pagan interpretation that bere#h, which literally means 'in the beginning' was the name of a god; which would parallel their own myths, i.e. Cronus of Greek myth.

It is understood as well in Jewish esotericism that Bere#h is an archetype that provides the conditions for the subsequent creations; in other words, it is within time that creation unfolds. Not 'time' as we know it, but time in a sequential sense i.e. of causation. Distinction implies time, and so the Torah starts of with the word "Bere#h". The first letter, the Bet, being equivalent to 2, again implying that creation, or a discussion of the metaphysical, is an inherently dualistic process. The word Bere#h can also be read "in the first", which would mean, in the primordial homogeneity of the first cause, creation (multiplicity) takes place.

Again, I understand where you are coming from. I was taught by P.h.D's who spent years in seminary learning Hebrew so that they would not have to rely on the Greek or Latin. They saw the problems of the later translations, compilations and councils (Valentine, Nicea, the Vulgate, KJV) and dedicated their lives to translating the oldest manuscripts they could get their hands on for themselves. So, much of what you are saying comes as no surprise. I appreciate the effort you put in to explaining it all for those who pass by.

Unfortunately, it again means very little because it's based on a god that doesn't exist. I am an agnostic but since I've yet to encounter any real proof of a god I have to say I am an atheist in the same fashion that I am an a-unicornist.

reply to post by Philodemus


I don't need to give you a history lesson because you could just fight my facts with your facts and we wouldn't get anywhere and that's O.K. It was brought to my attention that I addressed previous posts that reflected members' beliefs in God with arrogance but, maybe what made it come across that way is simply my staunch humanism. But let me state for the record and without being a complete pompous prick that perhaps the MOST arrogant thing I have ever heard is someone that not only has the nerve to claim on absolutely no legitimate authority but their own, that there is not only a God, but that that God is unequivocally exactly as that someone describes Him to be. If the evidence isn't there at least suspend judgement. It's not so scary to think that the world isn't all black and white absolutes. We can find our own way through.

reply to post by thepupils

How do you know that we transition to something else?

Are you arguing that we convert to a non-lifeform? That we lose our intelligence?

Or are you saying that our intelligence is kept but our body is lost?

I don't see why this should be true.

What about a boulder that's split in two? What happened to the original boulder? Does the original boulder "die" and go to heaven? Does it become a ghostly boulder and wander the earth like an apparition?

Why must humans live forever? What about frogs? What about mice? What about bats? There're millions of species to choose from. Probably many many more over the length of life's time on planet earth. I read that rain forests are like incubators and that several species go extinct every few days when they're cut down.

I want to live forever too. Anybody would. But we have to be reasonable. My own opinion is that we don't live forever, but it's not needed since my thinking is we live forever through our children and others.

We don't focus on the similarities between people enough or the changes a eternal person would go through. If you examine these two things, you begin to see that we live forever through each other.

My word is not gospel. I just wonder why you think what you think? What leads you to believe that the thoughts that inhabit our brain are somehow re-translated after death into a lasting form of light? That this light carries with it the holographic aura of our mind, our memories, our opinions? That we rejoin eternity?

Because I think you're doing what we're all doing. You're coping with mortality!

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by absolutely

 

yea yea yea, but there can be true enoughs... that is how good and evil can objectively exist to humans... if one human right now killed every other person on the planet, for humans, would that be objectively good or bad?

for a large amount of humans (pre death) would that event be good or bad? the goodness and badness would exist, subjectively to the individual, objectively to the whole/majority,

edit on 30-1-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

this post is an example of nonsensical evil inventions

from where do u assume that killing another is good for u? gods dont kill each other this is to animals when animals by definition are possessed so never acting conscious

even who are in the military order completely convinced that they kill and die for country values sake, cant bear the consequence of killing one man in clear conscious state

conscious belong to freedom true dimension, which is exclusively through absolutes realms
killing another consciously is killing u, which is an impossible equation so definitely source of profound lost in the sense that u will be then at least lost urself stand as someone constant

it is weird how a lot of u here keep insisting to mean being conscious animals, which is a contradictive sentence that cant exist
u show actually how far u care for getting smthg which explain why u can invent anything for

the situation of absolute power has nothing to do with the situation of relative individual in objective terms, where the individual must keep struggling to act in absolute realms to mean relative existence rights

even if satan itself was an individual among others ones without possible hide behind powers on absolute objective ground, he wont kill another to live

why u keep meaning saying things that u never do, speak of urself

I should have made my own beliefs clear. I have also embraced the finality of death and it has made me closer with my loved ones as well. I like you Philo, you're ok.

"I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." - Isaac Asimov

"If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters... , then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because, I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world." - Angel

Originally posted by JonathanNicholas
Because, if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world." - Angel

kindness is the relative value, when absolute value is its freedom superiority then u cant ever see it objective

therefore relativity is the answer of true existence present realities freedom as positive source to relative free rights

noone get that freedom is essential fact to be constant first in order to consider anything

like noone get too that true relative is superior value to absolute from what relative cant b unless absolute exist so relative is only what admit absolute superiority by stepping out free while staying connected to positively in meaning it always first

I would also like to apologize to Philo and company in advance for what is sure to be poor spelling and even worse grammar.

We use very little of our Brains true capabilities...and thought in ALPHA Wave state tends to be the key to accessing past...present...and future. CATS brains are always in ALPHA state and it has been proven that a pet...especially a DOG who also can do this...WILL KNOW....at a tested maximum of 9 minutes that their owner is coming home.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Can you please list references to these so called tests? 9 minutes of ALPHA wave state induced clairvoyance for pets? Negative, no such experiments exist. At least no reputable ones.

The FBI and Law Enforcement use these people often to locate Bodies or Lost Children with some amazing sucess...

Again, sources please. The use of the word "sensitives" perplexes me. How does "sensitive" differ from what we refer to as "psychic"? Nevermind, it is irrelevant your "sensitives" have never had one single success let alone "amazing" successes.

there are other types of Sensitives that are Hired for Military Applications. Although these programs ran heavy in both the U.S. and CCCP during the Cold War...they are not dead. I have witnessed a form of ability called Remote Viewing...I was like...Ya...Right! This is not going to work! But It DID! And to a degree that I would never have believed.

Once again if you please a list of references to successful repeated experiments. Remote viewing has been a proven failure for many years. Even our military cut funding when not a shred of hard data was produced.(again, repeatable experiments)
I'm sorry to go off your topic but I find it fascinating how on the one hand you seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to science (you certainly know much more than I do about physics) and yet you have allowed yourself to fall prey to what I believe to be preposterous notions of animal psychic abilites,psychic detectives and remote viewing. Even the most rudimentary investigations into these proven hoaxes will declare beyond shadow of doubt that not a shred of recordable data exists to support these pseudoscientific theories. Please accept I do not mean to sound harsh as I am sure you will have your share of things to say about this. (and I respectfully await your response) I just don't understand, are the thoughts that you you shared with us on this thread regarding space and time NOT based on proven science?. All I can say is you had me at "dangerous people job" but you lost me at "pet psychic detectives"
P.S.
We use MUCH more of our brains than many prefer to believe. The idea that we as humans only use 10% of our brain is yet another myth that has been debunked by science many,many moons ago.The fact is it is now believed that over the course of a day we use 100% of our brains.
P.P.S
Again, I read what you typed about your dangerous people job description. Please don't kill me.

reply to post by Philodemus


Reply to opening post, god does reflect time, but god also reflects the sun. Both god and the sun are eternal, maybe not to modern science but to the ancients. God and the sun are both responsible for creation. Both are said to be the light of truth. God allows evil to exist on the earth, the sun allows darkness to exist on the earth. Unlike time, the sun is a real tangible object. So if you are going to worship something it might as well be the sun. SUN not son.

reply to post by jonnywhite



If you look at it through science: we are energy, when our bodies stop living (die) where does that energy go?
It is transferred to something. Explain where our energy goes when we die?

Originally posted by thepupils
reply to post by Starchild23

 

Great explanation! I don't believe time is GOD. All other forces have mass/energy. Why dosnt time have that property? Time is a tool for man, created by man. Time is relative to distance & planetary revolutions.

Can someone explain how all forces have mass/energy
Except for time?
Or is it because time is not a force, but a creation from mans mind.

Time is, admittedly, a range of perception. However, that does not mean it doesn't exist outside of consciousness.

A tree that falls in the forest is unheard by us, but does that mean it makes no sounds at all? Why then, does a bird 100 feet away take flight, although the tree came nowhere near it?

Why does time not have mass, if it is a force? Because it isn't a force. It is a measurement, a definition for a dimension, just as with distance. Distance doesn't have mass either.

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

Have you ever experienced a 'time' when it was not now?
Everyone lives in the now, but not everyone knows it.

It is you who is lost in time - lost in mind made delusion.

How can SumThing live in the Now that is NOthing more than a figment of WE's Imagination?

You are Lost in Time!

Ribbit

That's true! Now is always the past, and the future is always now. And yet, according to metaphysical theory, the past is always now, because it's vibrating in the strings of some other universe. So if the past and the future is always now, the only thing that doesn't exist is now, because it's always the past...but even the past is always now. But if now is always the past, and the past is always now, then there is no need for the word now, because it is in reality the past. The word past always defines now, but the word now doesn't define the past.

Which renders now obsolete. There is only past and future, which form the ever-present figmentation of now. Is that what you're saying?

Originally posted by JonathanNicholas
I should have made my own beliefs clear. I have also embraced the finality of death and it has made me closer with my loved ones as well. I like you Philo, you're ok.

"I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." - Isaac Asimov

"If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters... , then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because, I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world." - Angel

Isaac's expectation's are not fact. They are a defense mechanism enabling him to cope with the idea of death. He fears what lies beyond, and so becomes an atheist so as to reassure himself that no boogeymen are waiting at the gates of death.

I also am convinced that acting out of the kindness of your heart purely (or largely) for the benefit of your own speculative afterlife is, to a certain degree, morally depraved.

That is not true kindness. It is investment in the security of one's own soul through selfishly committed favors, which shows not a heart of gold, but a money sign wearing a hero's cape.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by thepupils

 

How do you know that we transition to something else?

Are you arguing that we convert to a non-lifeform? That we lose our intelligence?

Or are you saying that our intelligence is kept but our body is lost?

I don't see why this should be true.

What about a boulder that's split in two? What happened to the original boulder? Does the original boulder "die" and go to heaven? Does it become a ghostly boulder and wander the earth like an apparition?

Why must humans live forever? What about frogs? What about mice? What about bats? There're millions of species to choose from. Probably many many more over the length of life's time on planet earth. I read that rain forests are like incubators and that several species go extinct every few days when they're cut down.

I want to live forever too. Anybody would. But we have to be reasonable. My own opinion is that we don't live forever, but it's not needed since my thinking is we live forever through our children and others.

We don't focus on the similarities between people enough or the changes a eternal person would go through. If you examine these two things, you begin to see that we live forever through each other.

My word is not gospel. I just wonder why you think what you think? What leads you to believe that the thoughts that inhabit our brain are somehow re-translated after death into a lasting form of light? That this light carries with it the holographic aura of our mind, our memories, our opinions? That we rejoin eternity?

Because I think you're doing what we're all doing. You're coping with mortality!

edit on 30-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

If you want someone to prove that the soul has an intelligence of its own, and leaves the body after death to wander an astral plan until reincarnation, then I want you to prove that it DOESN'T.

Don't argue with a theory unless you've got a solidly proven theory of your own. It is known as obstinacy, and does nothing in the way of education, besides block growth.

Originally posted by thepupils
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

If you look at it through science: we are energy, when our bodies stop living (die) where does that energy go?
It is transferred to something. Explain where our energy goes when we die?

What happens to the Energy flowing thru that Lightbulb when you pull the plug and Disconnect it from Source?

Ribbit

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by thepupils
reply to post by Starchild23

 

Great explanation! I don't believe time is GOD. All other forces have mass/energy. Why dosnt time have that property? Time is a tool for man, created by man. Time is relative to distance & planetary revolutions.

Can someone explain how all forces have mass/energy
Except for time?
Or is it because time is not a force, but a creation from mans mind.

Time is, admittedly, a range of perception. However, that does not mean it doesn't exist outside of consciousness.

A tree that falls in the forest is unheard by us, but does that mean it makes no sounds at all? Why then, does a bird 100 feet away take flight, although the tree came nowhere near it?

Why does time not have mass, if it is a force? Because it isn't a force. It is a measurement, a definition for a dimension, just as with distance. Distance doesn't have mass either.

What if it's the other way around? Instead of Time existing outside of Consciousness, what if IT exists within Consciousness?

Ribbit

Ps: As to your last comment, apply thoUght to IT and ask, what is thoUght? Is IT a Force or a Measurement or ????

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

Have you ever experienced a 'time' when it was not now?
Everyone lives in the now, but not everyone knows it.

It is you who is lost in time - lost in mind made delusion.

How can SumThing live in the Now that is NOthing more than a figment of WE's Imagination?

You are Lost in Time!

Ribbit

That's true! Now is always the past, and the future is always now. And yet, according to metaphysical theory, the past is always now, because it's vibrating in the strings of some other universe. So if the past and the future is always now, the only thing that doesn't exist is now, because it's always the past...but even the past is always now. But if now is always the past, and the past is always now, then there is no need for the word now, because it is in reality the past. The word past always defines now, but the word now doesn't define the past.

Which renders now obsolete. There is only past and future, which form the ever-present figmentation of now. Is that what you're saying?

kNot exactly!

What If WE have repeated this experiment (Earth Endgame Matrix) hundreds of times in the Past? Then what your person is dew'n right Now, your person always does right Now, so then, how is it you can only dew sumthing Now, when you've already done it hundreds of times in the Past? With that, your Now is also your Then and since WE will run this Matrix many more times to come, then your Now is also your When.

Law of Predestined:

If everything is as it always has been, then everything will be as it always has, even if Free Will is involved."

Naught-Knot Riddle

If you are thought naUght
And I am kNot thought
Then Now is Then
And Then is When
What yOu and eYe can't be taught

Ribbit