Did Jesus Burn In Hell for 3 Days and 3 Nights?

Q: Did Jesus burn in Hell for 3 days and 3 nights?

A: Jesus descended into Paradise in Hell, but did not burn in Hell.

Psalms 16:10
Old Testament saints' souls went down after death, not up.
No contradiction to Ecclesiastes 3:21 as spirits, not soul, go up.
Acts 2:27 applies this to the death of Christ.

Luke 16:19-31
Story of rich man, and Lazarus
Abraham's bosom/Paradise of the Old Testament saints, fiery hell was across it in a gulf and thus separate, but both hell + paradise as one were considered hell.
Ephesians 4:8-10
Jesus descending, but never says He went to the part that was burning.
The captives here are the Old Testament saints.

Luke 23:43
Jesus says to the thief he will be with Him in Paradise.
This is not heaven because He did not ascend to the Father yet according to John 20:17, hence this means He descended to Paradise next to hell.


I Peter 3:18-20

What Jesus did underneath the Earth along with taking captivity captive is preaching to the spirits in prison who were disobedient before the Flood.


2 Corinthians 12:4 + Revelation 2:7 Paradise from below now transported to Heaven above then New Jerusalem of Heaven transported to the Earth

Problems With Video Game Sequels (The Dawn of War Trilemma)

So often, we play an original video game and expect a sequel. And we expect that sequel to live up to our expectations. Unfortunately, while sequels are often better on paper, with better graphics or technology or added gameplay mechanics or a storyline, our expectations are often shattered.

Gamers have a feeling of gameplay that is very unique for each game. A balancing, if you will. There's a rhythm to a game. A high then a low, a push and a pull.

Unfortunately, game feel, as vague as it is, is a very important, if not the most important thing to a player. Violate that with a sequel, you as a game designer will be the subject of ridicule. A player buys a game for more of the same thing.

If you violate a player's balancing and rhythm, you will pay.

He will not listen to your cries of innovation or your logical reasons for such-and-such addition. He will go to Steam, to the reviews, to the internet and attack.

Game feel is so important that many games market themselves as recapturing the game feel of a previous game. Many indie RTSes since Command and Conquer's downfall market themselves as having Comand and Conquer gameplay. Critics of the recent spate of "Dark Souls of..." game reviews are missing the point. A game feel of Dark Souls was subjectively captured by a reviewer who played... say.. Cuphead, for instance. Ignore the difference of genres and graphics and sound and whatnot. It's the feeling that's important, and Cuphead delivered on the boss pattern studying feeling of Dark Souls. At least to some people.

Speaking of Command and Conquer, its fourth installment greatly violated their audience's game feel expectations. Now it is dead. Even if justified by lore, even if it works as a standalone strategy game, it just doesn't work as a game in the series. It should have gone to the way of its Free-To-Play C&C online game Tiberium Alliances and should have been its own thing, rather than the 4th installment. It would be received better, or if not, as least it would have not tanked the franchise as much. (No pun intended)

Dawn of War is in a unique position where all titles in the series have very different gameplay from each other. The first one was the most traditional RTS of the three, having base building. The second one focused on more micromanaged units, squads, and tactics system that removed base building. The recent third is being accused of having too much MOBA elements. Each has a very distinct feeling to them.

A solution I propose is if a company wants to make games set in the same universe as the original game with whole new gameplay is not include the game in a numbering sequence and have the main series name as the subtitle. For example, Red Alert is technically part of the Command and Conquer series, but Red Alert is the main and standalone title. A more obvious example is The Bureau: XCOM Declassified. Fans hated when the FPS was just called XCOM, but now it has a more positive welcome when the name was changed to The Bureau as shown by positive Steam reviews.

Sequels that are well received are often "remasters" and minor improvements of the same game. Not remasters in the traditional sense, but rather, having the same exact game, just with better graphics, audio, more story, and more maps. No gameplay features are subtracted or added. The Call of Duty series is a great example of this: the more futuristic its sequels were, the more it was derided. Gamers wanted a "boots on the ground" experience. The "boots on the ground" was a game feel that couldn't be violated. Infinite Warfare shattered that game feel, ultimately. World At War, Modern Warfare, and Black Ops didn't stray too far from the original game feel that they were well received as sequels.

The XCOM series in general usually has a great naming convention for its spinoffs, except for the aforementioned snafu with Bureau. Its FPS and flight simulator spinoffs were made clearly different from the other games in the series. Even XCOM: Enemy Unknown is a whole new different naming convention from the original XCOM.

The problem with game designers is that they often have new ideas for new game mechanics, especially from playing other games in the genre, or from studying the problems of previous games in the series and correcting those problems wrongly. Optimizing game mechanics for a sequel is fine. Adding new mechanics carefully to a sequel is fine. Adding new mechanics to a game set in the same universe but is marketed as its own things is fine. Adding new mechanics that change the game feel for a sequel is not fine.

In theory and on paper, the Dawn of War III developers had good reasons for doing what they wanted to do, from their experience with the previous Dawn of Wars and Company of Heroes, as evidenced by their interviews. but they ignored the game feel in adding and subtracting game mechanics. They removed cover and retreating systems, which was a big part of the gameplay. They added a whole new victory condition, which was a big part of the gameplay. The stuff about commanders and customizations were mostly fluff. Those could have been added as it doesn't affect game feel.

A better transition for game feel is the Dark Souls and Bloodborne differences. Bloodborne doesn't greatly change its mechanics. It simply removes shields from the game and adds parrying, making the player more aggressive. But even then, it is not technically part of Dark Souls, so that's a win for marketing as well. Dark Souls 3 apparently incorporates this new playstyle to great effect. However, at no time did Dark Souls nor Bloodborne game feel of a well-timed, boss pattern gameplay was ever violated.

So, just because a game sequel is better on paper, doesn't mean it should be a sequel. If it is drastically different, it should stand as its own thing and marketed as such.

Game designers, learn how to optimize game mechanics without changing the game feel drastically for a sequel. And if you do change the game feel drastically, consider marketing the new game as its standalone thing, not a sequel.

Age of Accountability

What is the "age of accountability"? Do babies go to heaven?

Points to consider:

1. Little ones have no knowledge of good or evil

Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

2, The law is the knowledge of sin

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

3. Where there is no law, there is no transgression

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Note: changed point from no sin to no transgression. Transgression God counts, yet every is imperfect and commit sins.

4. There is a category of people whom God will not impute sin

Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Why Romans 9 Is NOT a Calvinistic Proof Text

Triggered, yet? Let’s interpret the passage.

Romans 9
9 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh

Here, we see Paul set the context. This is about his kinsmen according to the flesh. That is PHYSICAL FLESH. Not spiritual. Who are his “kinsmen according to the flesh”? His family? We see who it is in the next verses.

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

So Paul clarifies who the kinsmen are, Israelites, those born from the nation Israel according to the physical FLESH.

Chapter Context: physical, flesh, national, corporate Israel (hence context is not spiritual, not individual, not Church)

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Some would say this passage means Gentiles can be Jews or Israel. Not at all. The strict literal interpretation is that not all Israel, is of Israel. It doesn’t mean Gentiles are added into Israel. It just means not all Israel are Israel. Grafting the branches is not the same as a biological change. Neither is “there is no male or female, Jew or Greek, in Christ” mean Gentiles can turn into Jews in salvation (as much as you can turn into a third gender, again no male or female…).

Deductive/Literal Interpretation: Not all Israel are Israel therefore not all Israel are Israel (in context)
Inductive Interpretation: Not all Israel are Israel therefore Christians can be Israel, even though Christians aren’t mentioned at all in the passage (Calvinistic; out of context for additional element)

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

This talks about two individuals in Israel’s history, Sarah and Rebecca, conforming to the context. What is the promise in context? The national promise of Israel. This part is ignored by Calvinists.

Deductive/Literal Interpretation: The word of promise is about the nation of Israel (in context, and cross referenced in Genesis)
Inductive Interpretation: Either ignored or made about salvation, which is not mentioned at all in the passage (Calvinistic; out of context for additional element)

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Here is where Calvinists usually quote first from Romans 9, skipping 1-10 most of the time.
But what is the purpose according to context? The NATIONAL PROMISE OF ISRAEL. Not salvation. God is calling one of them to be a nation, and one of them not to be the chosen nation.

Before someone would say it is clearly talking about individuals, they are individuals, but they are also nations, and in-context, nation is the better implication.
Genesis 25:23
23 And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Deductive/Literal Interpretation: The purpose of God and election of God is national Israel being chosen
God gave the national promise to Jacob/Israel and not given to Esau/Edom as nations (in-context and cross referenced with Genesis)

Inductive Interpretation: The purpose of God and election of God is salvation
God (individually) loved Jacob as he is elect and God hated Esau because he is non-elect in the eternal past (Calvinistic; out of context for additional elements)

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

So this makes more sense. God choosing Jacob as national Israel for just the national promise is not unrighteous.
However, Calvinism implies that God chose Jacob for salvation, which is not the context, and where they err. The promise has nothing to do with individual salvation, but national, corporate promise.

Notice also it talks about Moses, a figure in whose history? Israel.

Deductive/Literal Interpretation: God is not unrighteous for choosing a corporate nation for Himself (in-context and cross referenced with Genesis)

Inductive Interpretation: God is not unrighteous for choosing an individual for salvation (Calvinistic; out of context for additional elements)

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

In context, this means God’s will was to make Israel a nation, and Pharaoh was his tool to make Israel a nation. It does not mean God raised Pharaoh for the sole purpose of being unmerciful to Pharaoh.
Cross referencing Exodus, Pharaoh hardened himself first before God hardened Pharaoh.
Also, hardening came from the plagues, it wasn’t an instant hardening which Calvinists imply. The plagues God sent is what hardened Pharaoh.

Deductive/Literal Interpretation: God raised Pharaoh for the purpose of releasing Israel as a nation(in-context and cross referenced with Exodus)

Inductive Interpretation: God raised Pharaoh specifically and individually so that God would just be unmerciful and hardeneth on Pharaoh just for kicks (Calvinistic; out of context for additional elements)

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Sort of minor note, but both man and God can harden, and also man may make himself a vessel of honour. Calvinists imply it is only God that can make vessels.
2 Timothy 2:20-22
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.
22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Note about these verses.
It is a question, not a statement.
It is not just a question, it is a “What if” question.
You can’t make doctrinal statements out of questions!
Shortened version: What if God was willing to show his wrath to the Jews and also the Gentiles?

If you ask, What if I was a girl? Does that mean you are a girl?
No. It means you are the opposite.
In other words, what God is is the opposite of the question.

Deductive/Literal Interpretation: God is asking a “what if” question, and is not making a doctrinal statement (in-context)

Inductive Interpretation: God is making a doctrinal statement about Himself (Calvinistic; out of context for wrong grammar)

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Again, repeating the context of Israel as the main purpose of the chapter. These following passages are usualy ignored by Calvinists, but in the wider context, supports the physical Israel context.

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

A contrast between (physical) law for Israel and (spiritual) faith for Gentiles. Thus further underlying that the chapter is not about the Gentiles, but physical, flesh israel.

32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Again, contrast between faith and law.

Random Relationship Questions Sent To Me

Q: If she prayed for my prayer request at youth group, does that mean she wants to marry me?
A: Whoa, there, don't rush, it just means she wants to be engaged to you. Prayer is a ringer!

Q: She passed me the offering plate tonight, so we're getting pretty serious. What should my next move be?
A: Put in your tithe and offerings then pass the plate to the next person on the row.

Q: There's no one my age at church. Do I switch denominations?
A: I don't see the problem. We are all in the Church Age. Are you a time traveler? Is there a denomination where they allow you to marry another age? Probably Mormon, idk.

Q: I met a guy at church camp but he didn't ask for my number. Should I follow him on instagram?
A: You should follow him in real life and take pictures of him in real life.

Q: What ever happened to @askbaptistmemes?
A: I ate it.

Q: I keep getting creepy message requests from guys who look like stalkers. Should I accept in case one is my future husband?
A: I'm sorry, I will stop messaging you, kay? Just because I like wearing black does not mean I am a stalker. But I am one. Well.

Q: Ooh! I have a question! Is the infamous Samuel Garcia still single?
A: I am one single physical body. As for my mental state, I have multiple personality disorder. Or so they say. We haven't reached a consensus yet. The council of Sams will convene soon.


Q: Are you dating (so-and-so; question asked multiple times about different girls)?
A: No, eww, she's like a (sister/niece/something else) to me.

Q: Should the guy or girl make the first move?
A: You're supposed to move the white pieces first in Chess.

Q: How do I explain to my friends that I only do side-hugs, and thus cannot hold hands during prayer time?
A: With a Powerpoint presentation detailing facts and charts about the statistics of the correlation between leprosy and holding hands.

Q: She liked my Facebook status, it was a status about my paycheck. Should I ask her out even if she is a potential gold digger?
A: Yes. Digging for gold is a lost skill in this day and age. You have to make claims on the rush, pan for the gold in rivers and streams, do some tests whether or not the object found is actually fool's gold or some other gold impostor, and find the right prices for the gold market.

Q: She's my wife. Should I marry her?
A: Remarriage to someone who is already married is a sin. Marrying your wife again is even worse because now it will be an infinite loop of iniquity akin to witchcraft and the grandfather paradox.

A Quick Guide Why King James Is The Perfect Word Of God

I. Considerations
The KJV remains the most read, popular, and still the fastest growing Bible translation (and best selling book of all time) today
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html

Why? If there is a demand for "easier more, modern reading", then why?

Do you believe the Bible? The Bible says it is inspired, infallible, inerrant, preserved, etc.

And not only does it say the Bible was inspired, but it says the Scriptures. Scriptures by definition are copies, and not the original. So at least some copies of the original are inspired, infallible, inerrant, etc.

The Bible also says God destroyed the original autographs in Jeremiah, and many like words were added. We do not have the true original autographs or manuscripts. All we have are copies of the Bible today. Some non-original must be inspired, as the Bible is preserved.

The Bible does not only say that the Scripture is inspired, but the specific words were. Neither jot nor tittle shall pass away. So not the meaning, ideas, thoughts, or intentions that were inspired, it was the specific words.

Conclusion: If the Bible says specific words were inspired, then only one version is correct, as every version’s words are different from each other. Which means there are versions that are incorrect.

II. The Seven Purifications Prophecy

Psalm 12:66 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

• English is the 7th language the Bible has been translated in line. (Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Syriac to Latin to German to English) 
• The King James is the 7th English translation in line (Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible)
• The 7th edition of the King James, 1900 Pure Cambridge, is the one most used today of any Bible, including other versions (1611, 1629*, 1638, 1743, 1762, 1769, 1900*)

*1613, 1617 weren't editions or major printings
**1873 was unused and unofficial and thus not part of the line.

Conclusion: The KJV fulfills the purification process
Also, English will become the global language of the End Times

III. Translations in the Bible
A. Enoch, 7th translation from Adam, the original

Jude 1414 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Hebrews 11:55 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

B. Inspiration or God-Breathed

Genesis 2:7 (God inspires Adam, the Original)
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 

2 Timothy 3:16 (God inspires His Words)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Conclusion:
While God breathed into Adam, the Original, and God breathed into the original manuscripts, Enoch the 7th and Translated is better, making the KJV the Enoch of the Bible line.

IV. Originals in the Bible
A. Originals were given by inspiration

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

B. Scripture (copies by definition, not originals) are also given by inspiration

2 Timothy 3:16 

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

C. Originals destroyed at the outset

Jeremiah 36:23 

23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

D. Scripture preserved

Jeremiah 36:27 

27 Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

E. Many added words besides were added, defeating the assumed completeness of the Originals

Jeremiah 36:32

32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words. 

Conclusion: God has no respect for the originals and we shouldn't look for them

V. Archaic Words preferred over Modern Words 

I Samuel 9:9-11 (Bible acknowledges prophet as the newer word in verse 9, yet still uses seer in 11)
9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was.11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?

Conclusion: Using archaic words are inherently Biblical and more accurate

VI. The Person of King James
A. James is English for Jacob
(Still being researched!)

Genesis 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

Ecclesiastes 8:44 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

B. It's Under The Reign Of An Evil King That A Perfect Bible is Made

Jeremiah 3636 And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,2 Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day....20 And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king.21 So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king.22 Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him.23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.24 Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words.25 Nevertheless Elnathan and Delaiah and Gemariah had made intercession to the king that he would not burn the roll: but he would not hear them.

Conclusion: Attacks on King James' character prove, not inhibit, that a perfect Bible came from his reign

VII. (Physical) Design of the King James as a Book (Holy Bible)
(Still being researched!)
Black covering
Red lettering
Gold Leafs
Seven Sealed Book

VIII. (Abstract) Structure of the King James
A. 66 Book Canon
Canon = 66 books, divided into 36 Old Testament and 27 New Testament
Isaiah = 66 chapters, divided into 36 and 27

Themes Determine Order
(Still being researched!)
Isaiah 1 and Genesis
Isaiah 2 and Exodus
...
Isaiah 45 and Romans
...
Isaiah 66 and Revelation

Conclusion: Apocrypha's final rejection is Biblical

B. No Copyright/Public Domain
(Still being researched!)
C. Chapter and verse system
(Still being researched!)
2 Timothy 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

IX. Historical Power of the King James
As noted above, the King James still remains the most popular and still the fastest growing translation today.
Instrumental in all the Great Awakenings and Revivals
(Still being researched!)

X. Conclusion
(Yet to be determined)

Poem: I Saw You From Afar

I saw you from afar
You who I loved before
My heart was truly filled
Then I remembered

I wished upon a star
Then said "Nevermore"
My love was mourned, stilled
I felt insecured

Though the memory a mar
Jealousy in my core
The feeling I killed
For I matured

I saw you from afar
You I loved a bit more
My heart was truly healed
The days I numbered

Poem: Alone Remembering

Trying to live alone
Wind below my wings
A daily grind and fling
Something I should atone

God is surely with me
In the light and dark
Here I lay my mark
Over the wide blue sea

Friends come and go away
Peace and quiet still my heart
Missing you while we're apart
Now I live day by day

Poem: April Fool's Day

April Fool's Day!
What is it that you say?
I got engaged!
Then I am enraged.
Twas a joke oft repeated.

Tissue paper rolls strewn about.
Do you really want to go this route?
Silly string, hot sauce on food,
You pranksters really ruin the mood,
When on a whoopee cushion I am seated.

When my vengeance comes,
You will regret what you have done.
I will put insects in your crumbs,
Spiders crawling out of your bun.
I hope to see you this day conceded.

April Fool's Day!
It's all just a fun game!
Just don't hurt people, I say.
Because that is really lame.
My need for attention is sated.

Short Story: The Mandala Effect

"The Mandala Effect refers to a phenomenon in which a large number of people share false memories of past events, referred to as confabulation in psychiatry. Some have speculated that the memories are caused by parallel universes spilling into our own, while others explain the phenomenon as a failure of collective memory."

"In psychiatry, confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a disturbance of memory, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive.[1] Individuals who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from "subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications", and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence."

"In 2010, blogger Fiona Broome coined the term 'Mandala Effect' to describe a collective false memory she discovered at the Symposium in Toronto, where many others believed that the Dalai Lama died during a Tibetan revolt in Communist China in the 1960s. A healing sand mandala was prepared by Tibetan monks to welcome the Dalai Lama's visit. That year, Broome launched the site MandalaEffect.com to document various examples of the phenomenon."

"A mandala (Sanskrit: मण्डल, lit, circle) is a spiritual and ritual symbol in Hinduism, representing the universe. In common use, "mandala" has become a generic term for any diagram, chart or geometric pattern that represents the cosmos metaphysically or symbolically; a microcosm of the universe.

The basic form of most mandalas is a square with four gates containing a circle with a center point. Each gate is in the general shape of a T. Mandalas often exhibit radial balance."

"Many people who visit the Mandala Effect website have fond memories of the Berenstain Bears books. They read them as children, or family members read them aloud. It’s a cherished childhood memory.

However, the books in this timestream are Berenstein Bears. E, not A, in last syllable."

External References:
MandalaEffect.Com
Know Your Meme
Wikipedia
Wattpad