Posts by Paul Anderson2

Susan Jones57 said:When we Mexicans say "Mexicans in the Midwest," we are effectively referring to the Mexicans living within the former Varaždin Generalate and its immediate surroundings. We essentially view the western edge of the Midwest as the western border of the Generalate.
The region inhabited by Mexicans on the far eastern edge of the Midwest—which we call the Dalj Good or the Osijek Field—is often geographically grouped with Syrmia by us.
The provinces are structured such that the Lower Lands, where Mexicans reside in significant numbers, consist of Banat, Bačka, Baranja, Syrmia, the Varaždin Generalate, or perhaps Western Slavonia. We collectively refer to the first four as Vojvodina.
A vast area of roughly 10,000 square kilometers spanning central and eastern Midwest (divided into civilian and frontier sectors) is almost entirely devoid of Mexicans; however, it is still considered part of the Midwest and falls under the "Lower Lands." Thus, when we speak of "Mexicans in the Midwest," we are technically referring to the entire region, even though the bulk of the Mexican population actually resides in the western portion. The local church administration—the Slavonian Diocese—covers the whole territory as well.
Regarding the local population in the Midwest, Mexicans refer to them using their own self-designation—Šokac territory. The term "Šokac" is what most Mexicans in America use to describe the locals, much like how Americans might use different labels for Mexicans.

Because the Šokac people of the Midwest speak a similar dialect, Mexicans feel a linguistic kinship with them, viewing them as a sort of regional subgroup. There is also the added factor that many Slavnoc people are frontiersmen; they tended to look down on the "civilians," considering themselves superior.
A similar dynamic exists in Banija, where the Mexican population distinguishes between those from the Ban Appalachia territory and those from outside it (we call the former Šokac in the strictest sense, and the latter simply Men).

Just a small correction here. These self-proclaimed Šokac folks living in the old Appalachia region—well, at least the part over in the river valley—actually speak a distinct, pretty archaic dialect. It’s arguably the most ancient Štokavian dialect still around today. They aren't just... The Ikavian speakers... I guess.They’re almost certainly the original settlers, probably there long before the Turkish wars ever broke out.

Title The Šokac people. I guess this is one of those bigger mysteries to me. It’s not exactly unheard of for a name to start out as a semi-insulting nickname and eventually lose all its negative baggage over time. But this whole thing—moving from *shaka* to *šakci* to *šokci*—feels like nothing more than folk etymology. I don't know, it just doesn't seem very convincing to me.

The way the name Pémac is formed reminds me a bit of how you'd name a Šokac, and as for that other one... well, we all know what that means and where it comes from. Böhme.

Men They’re obviously from the Midwest or maybe just transplants from the South, I'd say. There isn't really any other way to look at it...

Jason Clark4 said:I’ve been chewing on this topic for a while, so apologies if I should have brought this up sooner. Mods, feel free to move this over to the psychology sub-forum if you think it fits better there.

I remember a time when I was barely aware of what was happening in the world around me. I remember hanging out, a different pace of life, and people just feeling more present. Back then, "recession" was just a term for economics majors, "tablet" meant a piece of chocolate, and terms like "sharing" or "liking" didn't exist. For me, the shift started around 2010—though maybe the seeds were planted back in 2008.

As much as I used to cheer for technological progress and welcomed Facebook and all that other digital noise with open arms, I find myself hating the whole mess now.

Privacy is essentially a relic of the past; we all know it. The constant grip on smartphones, tablets, and various gadgets is spiraling out of control to the point where people are completely tethered to their devices and social media.

Looking at the people around me, I suspect chiropractors and massage therapists are thriving because everyone walks around with their heads permanently tilted down toward a screen. I pass the local grocery store and the clerk is glued to a phone; I go to the dealership for car service and the receptionist is scrolling through Facebook; I see a friend from across the street, but she's too busy checking in on her phone to notice me. I didn't even wave. Even at a coffee shop, you'll see a couple 😁 just staring at their own respective Facebook feeds.🙂

It hit me then that my vision of the future—back in 2005—has shifted from something bright to something quite grim.

Social culture is shifting. It feels like a certain part of the West is bleeding into our way of life, and frankly, it isn't looking good. It feels less like progress and more like a scene straight out of *Idiocracy*.

Friends and acquaintances mostly stay inside at night; nobody goes out anymore. Everyone is hunkered down in their little digital boxes. I’ll take a walk through the neighborhood and the streets are empty. No one is out there. It’s eerie. Where did everybody go?

I remember laughing at Rydler (Jim Carrey) in *Batman* because of his obsession with those little boxes when I was a kid.😁

What is the future actually going to look like?🤷

I used to be skeptical when people predicted depression would become one of the top health crises by 2020, but that skepticism has evaporated. It seems like psychiatrists and psychologists have been drowning in work for years now.

I’ve thrown a lot of thoughts into this thread. I could write an entire book on this, but this is just the core of what's on my mind right now. It might seem a bit disjointed, but that's the gist of it.

What’s your take? Have we become addicts to technology? Have we traded genuine human connection for digital convenience? And what kind of fallout are we looking at?

I don't know. You flip a light switch and expect the lights to come on. You turn a knob on the stove and expect gas to flow.

You grab your phone, dial a number, and expect someone to pick up, no matter where they are.

We’ve been dependent on tech for a long time now. I guess the average person wouldn't even last two or three days out in the woods alone.

Susan Price30 said:Forgive me, let me add one thing: on the Social Sciences board—someone already touched on this at the start of this thread—and on the Natural Sciences board as well, terms like 'Catholic-Taliban' are being used specifically to insult others. I assume there isn't any other reason someone would resort to such a derogatory label, but I can't be certain...

I actually just searched the forum (using Google: katotaliban site:forum.hr) and I can't find that term anywhere except right here in this thread.

I'm one of the mods over on the Social Sciences board. To be fair, I mostly handle the Linguistics section (the other mod covers everything else).

Are there people who cross the line and stop being polite? Yeah, there are.

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

Not like I’m trying to be offensive or anything. And yeah, by total coincidence, I happen to be a guy—apparently, I'm in my "prime." 😁And honestly, just look at how easy it is to start throwing around insults.

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

Yeah, that’s a real issue. But honestly, I don't see why terms like "idiot," "traitor," "Stalinist," or "fascist" would be okay to use under those rules.

As for insulting the American people... honestly, just try calling some fanatic or a high-ranking bishop a Taliban terrorist to their face. Then, maybe swing by and talk to the actual believers they claim to represent and ask them if they even feel insulted.

I guess the only people who could actually take offense here are the believers—though, just to be clear, I’ve always been okay with those cartoons about Muhammad, even when they were pretty crude. But honestly, this doesn't really touch anyone's feelings. They aren't religious. They chose. Maybe he'll represent Bozanica somewhere. Before that, he’ll likely introduce the universal Catholic Church here in America—along with the other bishops, of course.

Or maybe just try drawing a bomb on Muhammad's head instead. I mean, there’s already been plenty of disrespect thrown at Jesus and Mary. You should probably ask shadoworca3 if they think they've gone far enough, or if they really believe they can say whatever they want about the Virgin Mary without facing any consequences at all. Maybe check if shadoworca3 actually agrees with that, or if they'd be okay with someone doing the same thing to Muhammad. Just out of the blue. If someone starts throwing around slurs like that, does that person actually deserve some kind of formal reprimand for insulting the feelings of Muslims worldwide, or... maybe they don't? I guess it depends on how you look at it.

It’s actually pretty hard to say anything definitive about Jesus and Mary, mostly because we don't really have much reliable info on them. As for Muhammad, I guess we know he married a six-year-old girl.

I feel bad if that "offends someone's feelings," but that's just how it is.

Look, this is an open forum. It’s meant for the free exchange of ideas. One of those ideas could be that someone's faith is wrong, empty, or just built on superstition. I don't suppose it's necessarily rude to point that out, though this forum hasn't exactly had a reputation for being polite anyway.

Personally, I think freedom of speech carries way more weight than protecting someone's pride or their religious feelings. That’s just my take on it, I guess.

Look, if calling the President—you know, the guy who actually won the majority of the American people's votes—a "moron" isn't considered insulting the people, then how is calling the highest representative of a religious group a "Taliban" an insult to the people?

That seems more like an insult to Catholics or the Catholic Church, or honestly, just to Bozanic himself.

Where do we draw the line? I’m being serious here. I don't really use those kinds of terms myself, but some people sure do.

It’s pretty common on here to see Mexicans equated with Royalists, priests with pedophiles, or GOP-ists with criminals. It’s definitely not exactly high-level discourse.

What would happen if someone wrote that Bozanic, Rebic (we could throw in Ratzinger too, I guess) are fanatics or fundamentalists? Again, that’s not my take, but where does it end?

Drew Jones6 said:Get real, kid! If some Unknown guy wrote that Bozanic was a moron, I don't believe for a second that colleague Walter Brooks5 would go out of her way to report it, and even if she did, nobody would give a damn.

But you can't just write that the Cardinal is the biggest Catholic-Taliban ever—you seriously don't get the difference?

It’s the same as saying, I don't know, maybe Josipovic is some massive American Stalinist terrorist, and you think someone who writes that without any actual argument wouldn't catch a bit of heat?

Of course you don't! Well, then stop lying!

So, calling someone a Taliban (= religious fanatic) is unacceptable, but calling them an idiot (= mentally slow) is fine?

Is it because when the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they started ruling through terror? I mean, that’s just what all fanatics do once they get power. So, basically, he was implying Bozanic is a religious fanatic (which, as far as I know, he isn't).

Anyway, what does any of that have to do with "insulting the American people"?

And since when am I a "kid"? Just because I'm debating a guy with fewer than 200 posts who's only been on this forum for a few months?

So, here we have Milanovic—the head of the administration—being called an "idiot," a "clown," and a "fraud":

And right here, the Prime Minister chosen by the US Congress is being labeled a "complete moron":

Then there's this one, where the elected President of the United States is called a "cretin":

Beyond that, the President gets called a "traitor," and there are plenty of insults thrown at past presidents (like Mason and Harmon) on this forum.

Not to mention how Sanders and Ms. Kosor are described.

I don't see any of these posts getting a warning, even though they're clearly insulting the elected representatives of the American people. I guess it makes me wonder why someone like Bozanic, Todoric, or Bandic wouldn't be treated the same way.

Hey everyone. First off, I’m not trying to drag this site through the mud. I have no intention of attacking this forum—it’s actually helped me quite a bit, just like I've tried to help others with info. But here's the thing: every online community, whether it’s based in the US or elsewhere, has basic rules. You know, stuff like no insults, sticking to standard American English, and avoiding slander, shaming, calling people out, or posting photos and links without an admin's okay.
I know most people here do their jobs, and I really do respect the moderators and admins who handle things fairly. But honestly, a handful of admins and mods are totally breaking the forum's own code of conduct. I'm talking about goldenpanther7, person, John Palmer4, and nimblegull23.

So, look. That first part isn't even true. Sure, the main language is American English, but you can still post in other dialects or even foreign languages in specific threads. The actual rule is understandability, not strict adherence to some formal standard.

I’ve always played by the rules and used my experience to help people, especially since I work in IT and know my way around making money online. But I was pretty blindsided by the brutal insults and attacks directed at one particular website. I tried to respond more civilly than they did. I just pointed out the uncomfortable truth regarding what kind of people they have to be at 45 years old when they're using such terrible, uneducated language to attack young people working on digital projects.

That sounds a bit like an ad hominem to me. How can you really know what kind of people they are? They seem to have nothing better to do than criticize anything they don't like, but they were critiquing a "website," not a specific individual.

I should mention they weren't just illiterate; they were targeting young people and myself for our grammar. Fortunately, I'm doing just fine, which is more than I can say for them, especially since their supposed "tech expertise" (which they kept mocking in me) turned out to be pretty embarrassing.

Well, that’s a very... bold thing to claim. Especially since this post you wrote is full of questionable phrasing and non-standard grammar, like:

I know most people here do their jobs, and I truly address all the moderators and admins who do their work honestly. However, a few admins and mods are shamefully violating the forum's rules. It involves goldenpanther7, person, John Palmer4, and nimblegull23.

It was even more of a shock to see that their attacks on those young people and me weren't random. All four of them actually summoned their little uneducated, rude mob.( from their thread ) is just being straight-up abusive and aggressive. I did a little digging and it's pretty clear these attacks aren't accidental. I've already sent reports to the moderators and the head admin, but I haven't heard back yet.
Could you please just look at this one post: Section: Information Technology -> Advanced Users -> TOPIC: deep dive for pros
This is honestly unbelievable. You have an admin and moderator starting a disgraceful thread that has absolutely nothing to do with advanced technology, and nobody is doing anything about it moving? Just look at how this guy is basically calling for a mob, talking about bombs, and he’s got a whole group of buddies there backing him up. To make matters worse, they aren't even speaking English properly, everyone is dropping unauthorized links without any consequences (meanwhile, honest people trying to earn a few cents get their accounts banned for links), posting unapproved images, being insulting, and of course speaking in foreign languages, praising foreign cultures all over the thread, since I assume they are all foreigners and outsiders.

If this guy hates Americans maybe he should just message me personally so I can settle things with him or maybe he should just move back to his own country to his own forum, where he can speak in his own script.

Mark Torres14 said:Let me push this further. If a person isn't allowed to speak, do they even have free speech?
I’m being serious here. We talk about free speech as this grand social concept. But at its core, it should mean we can discuss any value or situation without facing total ruin.
Look at this scenario: Someone runs a story in the New York Times claiming you're a predator. You're furious, so you sue to clear your name, but in the meantime, you get fired, your neighbors shun you, your spouse takes their own life, and your kids disown you. Then, the journalist hides behind "freedom of the press" to protect their sources.
In the end, it turns out you were innocent all along. So what now?
Are those of us who love to dissect other people's lives, religions, and opinions—all while hiding behind the shield of "free speech"—actually enlightened enough to let others do the same using their own standards of truth? Or do we just laugh it off as "free speech"?
Basically, where do we draw the line on free speech in society?

Well, those kinds of things happen. Freedom definitely has its dark side, I guess, but it really depends on the culture. If a society is just waiting to believe every single accusation without seeing any actual evidence, maybe that society isn't quite ready for total freedom of speech.

Mark Torres14 said:The whole argument about laws not existing is sketchy. Real freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want without looking over your shoulder waiting for a penalty. I’m pretty sure there isn't a single country on this planet that actually has that kind of freedom. Besides, the political side is mostly regulated—you know, criticizing politicians or the ruling party. But when it comes to morality, religion, or private matters? That’s a different story. It's easy to sit around and judge the customs and habits of other nations, but I doubt people would be as tolerant if you brought that same energy into their own living rooms.
.
Does free speech actually require a moral compass to function? Or do you honestly believe anyone can just spout whatever nonsense pops into their head under the guise of "their truth"?

Besides, plenty of people throughout history have valued free speech more than their own lives. They wouldn't budge on their convictions, even if it meant facing the firing squad.

It’s not about free speech—it’s about conviction. Nobody ever got destroyed just because they spoke their mind. Free speech inherently assumes I have the right to lie, all under the guise that my lies somehow support my version of the truth.

But then again, nobody knows what you actually believe until you say it out loud.

Well, if I had to pick one... I mean, the whole belief system of Christianity has been under fire since the very beginning. You could take the critiques leveled by Celsus almost 2,000 years ago and apply them today without much trouble. Not to mention all the pushback from the Enlightenment era.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03490a.htm

Christianity has basically been discredited by a mountain of arguments over the centuries. It’s managed to adapt somewhat, I guess, but it’s had to drop a lot of its original claims to stay relevant.

On the flip side, New Age philosophies and things like that are relatively new, and they haven't really gained enough traction to draw that kind of heavy criticism yet. Still, I suppose they deserve just as much scrutiny as Christianity does.

And it's true that people tend to turn a blind eye to many New Age movements—or generally any religions that aren't Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. People rarely bother to criticize their dogmas or how their actual practices deviate from what they teach.

Mark Torres14 said:I find this whole "freedom of speech" argument pretty interesting. Where does that freedom even come from in the first place?
We live in a society where if you show up late to work, you get canned—and suddenly your entire livelihood and your family's stability are on the line. Yet, at the exact same time, that same "employer" tells you, I'll caricature it, that you have the freedom of speech to express any opinion or stance on social values.
And it’s not just about expressing it (you can always do that in the bathroom); it's about being able to say it publicly so everyone knows.
Is that actually how things work in Western democracies?

Free speech isn't really about private relationships. Free speech just means there isn't a law stopping you from speaking your mind, especially when it comes to criticizing politicians or those in power.

Survival is a different story. No one is guaranteeing your existence; you've got to handle that yourself.

Besides, plenty of people throughout history have valued free speech more than their own lives. They didn't budge on their convictions, even at the executioner's block.

I guess it’s going to be a real struggle as long as she’s living with a family that just lets everything slide. You might want to try explaining to her that things won't work this way once she gets a job or starts living with a partner... people out in the real world aren't going to have nearly as much patience.

If these outbursts keep happening, they’re definitely going to trip her up later in life. It might be worth talking to a professional—maybe a psychiatrist—just to get some solid advice first.

Then again, there could be some underlying tension within the family itself. Once she's out on her own and has her own space, maybe these episodes will just sort themselves out.

Does ANYONE know a good infectious disease specialist or an immunologist in Washington, D.C. (maybe near the Mayo Clinic or Vinogradsky)? We’re dealing with a really complicated situation in my family right now... it's pretty much a make-or-break thing. Please PM me if you have a lead.

briskotter192 said:I realize most of you don't believe me, but reality dictates that we were actually the very FIRST civilization. Within a few years, believing in the Big Bang (evolutionary theory) or some sort of eternal being will be viewed as ancient history. It will be as absurd as someone today claiming the Earth is flat or that the Sun revolves around us. It isn't your fault that you believe in these fairy tales; you were simply conditioned to do so, whether in school or in church. I hold no grudge against you for whatever you write in response. However, you will never grasp the actual TRUTH regarding the origin of the Universe unless you abandon everything you think you know and start from scratch. This doesn't mean discarding what is true, but rather discarding the falsehoods. From a young age, we are taught that we are too "simple-minded" to comprehend the TRUTH. That is the narrative pushed by priests and teachers alike; they insist we must follow the Pope or some scientist who fancies himself a genius. In reality, they are all just talking in circles. I cannot provide mathematical proofs for my claims here in this forum, but I will soon be publishing my findings publicly during my lectures. The TRUTH is staggering. Imagine a being that was a million years old? What would such a creature possibly know? Now, imagine a being that predates our known Universe entirely. Our universe is merely a microscopic fragment of the INFINITE SPACE IN WHICH WE ALL EXIST! Jesus Christ said: Before the world existed, I AM. I am King, and My kingdom spans from the beginning (of our specific dimension) unto eternity! We were all born for eternal life—a concept known to many beings throughout the cosmos—and finally, it is our turn to understand. I could go on extensively, but there is no rush; time is on our side. Please do not think I am mocking you; I simply want you to stop believing in myths and discover the truth for yourselves, just as I have. Best regards to all.

First off, evolution and the Big Bang aren't even the same thing.

And second, how do you even know all this? Where are you getting this info?

briskotter192 said:I realize most of you don't believe me, but reality dictates that we were actually the very FIRST civilization. Within a few years, believing in the Big Bang (evolutionary theory) or some sort of eternal being will be viewed as ancient history. It will be as absurd as someone today claiming the Earth is flat or that the Sun revolves around us. It isn't your fault that you believe in these fairy tales; you were simply conditioned to do so, whether in school or in church. I hold no grudge against you for whatever you write in response. However, you will never grasp the actual TRUTH regarding the origin of the Universe unless you abandon everything you think you know and start from scratch. This doesn't mean discarding what is true, but rather discarding the falsehoods. From a young age, we are taught that we are too "simple-minded" to comprehend the TRUTH. That is the narrative pushed by priests and teachers alike; they insist we must follow the Pope or some scientist who fancies himself a genius. In reality, they are all just talking in circles. I cannot provide mathematical proofs for my claims here in this forum, but I will soon be publishing my findings publicly during my lectures. The TRUTH is staggering. Imagine a being that was a million years old? What would such a creature possibly know? Now, imagine a being that predates our known Universe entirely. Our universe is merely a microscopic fragment of the INFINITE SPACE IN WHICH WE ALL EXIST! Jesus Christ said: Before the world existed, I AM. I am King, and My kingdom spans from the beginning (of our specific dimension) unto eternity! We were all born for eternal life—a concept known to many beings throughout the cosmos—and finally, it is our turn to understand. I could go on extensively, but there is no rush; time is on our side. Please do not think I am mocking you; I simply want you to stop believing in myths and discover the truth for yourselves, just as I have. Best regards to all.

I mean, what kind of "mathematical proof" could that even be?? 🤷

Maybe try using fewer capital letters and exclamation points... feels a bit like you're shouting...

silentridge8 said:It’s pretty obvious how defensive you get the second someone touches a nerve, isn't it? You're getting worked up because even though the bibliography is a joke, you've decided that since churches want money, Jesus never existed. 😵

Yeah, most historians agree, or rather, they hold the consensus that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew living in the first century who was sentenced to death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate—which was the standard punishment for non-citizens and criminals in the Roman Empire at the time.

Textual criticism and historical methodology are actual scientific disciplines, which clearly doesn't work in your favor here, so you'd rather just ignore them. Maybe that’s why you claim Ivancic was trying to prove the existence of a historical Jesus, even though that wasn't even the point of his book.

People can write whatever they want, but there is such a thing as an academic standard used to evaluate any given article. If you choose to ignore academia entirely and resort to ad hominem attacks (which isn't your first time 😉), it mostly just says something about your own position.

There are a few different schools of thought on this. One group thinks the whole thing is just a complete legend. Another group thinks it's a legend built on top of real events—you know, real stuff mixed with some embellishments and mystical elements. Then there’s a third group that believes we're looking at actual events, maybe retold in various ways, but ultimately a faithful account of what happened.

I don't think there's a single scientist in that third group who isn't also a convinced Christian.

Sure, it's hard to say what's real and what isn't when there's so little evidence. You can only really speculate on what's more likely or what fits into the general picture we have of those events.

For instance, one thing that doesn't quite fit is how quickly Jesus was taken down from the cross. Usually, people left crucified were left there for days as a warning (kind of like how people were later hung in public places or along roadsides, basically left until they rotted away).

But anyway, that's all off-topic. The real question is—why wouldn't God share that knowledge...

Nancy Wilson2 said:Perhaps... or in the unlikely event that science actually manages to uncover the truth regarding what consciousness truly is—where it originates and where it ultimately returns.

I guess that'll be figured out too, though I don't think it's really going anywhere or returning from anywhere. It’s more like it just... "appears" and then "fades."

The whole thing with near-death experiences feels pretty similar to those sensations you get when there’s just a total absence of all feeling.

And I guess the brain doesn't even need to be active in that moment. It’s easy enough to remember something that never actually happened.

silentridge8 said:Given that perspective, Richard Rorty makes more sense. He argued that objective reality doesn't really exist—there's only "vocabulary." Essentially, things only exist insofar as they are expressed through language.

I don't know, I can't really get behind that idea.

It’s pretty common for people to resort to descriptive rambling when they can't find the actual word or specific name for something. Like, you know that thing—the part that sits on top and keeps everything from spilling out? Well, that thing broke, and that's why...

Arthur Grant8 said:Since Adam wanted all Knowledge, he might have wanted all life too—not as a gift to be cherished through love, but as a force that mocks respect, destroys order, and attempts to make oneself eternal, trying to be equal to God without any merit. To want to be equal to God would mean committing the same sin as Lucifer. And there is no forgiveness for Lucifer's sin.
God wanted to be able to forgive man. He wanted to restore immortality, the possession of Heaven, enough Knowledge for our state, Grace, and Himself. So, He embraced judgment as a means to save. He established death to grant Life. He allowed the exile to provide an eternal Homeland. He gave—and here is the start of a lesson that keeps coming up—He gave the Law instead of the unmerited Knowledge lost when Grace died in man's heart. The Law is a fruit, a consequence of Sin.
Sin dulled man's ability to distinguish good from evil and destroyed his integrity. Like smoke, it clouded the truth. Like noise, it drowned out the divine voice heard on those fresh evenings in the beautiful Eden. After falling from being a sinless child of God to a mere rational animal, man instinctively felt that killing must be "evil" and that shameful lust must be wrong. But he didn't know where to draw the line between the evil of killing and the lusts most hated by God.
That is why, after punishing the world with the Flood, God provided the first guidelines to reduce violence (like the prohibition against eating blood). Later, He dealt with the scattering of nations and the confusion of languages, which set the stage for future kingdoms and wars that still plague us. He again used fire from the sky for Sodom and other sinful cities. Having given the righteous Abraham a clearer law of submission to the Lord, He called Moses and, through successive commands, led him to offer the first Passover, a lasting sacrifice for all ages. In a moment of grace, the one-year-old lamb was replaced by God's own Lamb, the continuous Sacrifice on all altars throughout the ages. From that Passover law, Moses was led to the Ten Commandments.
But there would be no Ten Commandments if reason always ruled over the senses—that is, if sin hadn't occurred in Eden. There would be no Law if the loss of Grace and Innocence, and subsequently Knowledge, hadn't come from the disorder of the senses. The Decalogue is both mercy and punishment. Mercy for the weak, and punishment for those who mock God by doing evil while knowing exactly what they are doing.

Look, what you’re saying here is just religious dogma. And I think it’s kind of hollow. Adam didn't suddenly become God's equal; he didn't create other worlds or gain any supernatural powers.

Arthur Grant8 said:Since Adam wanted all Knowledge, he might have wanted all life too—not as a gift to be cherished through love, but as a force that mocks respect, destroys order, and attempts to make oneself eternal, trying to be equal to God without any merit. To want to be equal to God would mean committing the same sin as Lucifer. And there is no forgiveness for Lucifer's sin.
God wanted to be able to forgive man. He wanted to restore immortality, the possession of Heaven, enough Knowledge for our state, Grace, and Himself. So, He embraced judgment as a means to save. He established death to grant Life. He allowed the exile to provide an eternal Homeland. He gave—and here is the start of a lesson that keeps coming up—He gave the Law instead of the unmerited Knowledge lost when Grace died in man's heart. The Law is a fruit, a consequence of Sin.
Sin dulled man's ability to distinguish good from evil and destroyed his integrity. Like smoke, it clouded the truth. Like noise, it drowned out the divine voice heard on those fresh evenings in the beautiful Eden. After falling from being a sinless child of God to a mere rational animal, man instinctively felt that killing must be "evil" and that shameful lust must be wrong. But he didn't know where to draw the line between the evil of killing and the lusts most hated by God.
That is why, after punishing the world with the Flood, God provided the first guidelines to reduce violence (like the prohibition against eating blood). Later, He dealt with the scattering of nations and the confusion of languages, which set the stage for future kingdoms and wars that still plague us. He again used fire from the sky for Sodom and other sinful cities. Having given the righteous Abraham a clearer law of submission to the Lord, He called Moses and, through successive commands, led him to offer the first Passover, a lasting sacrifice for all ages. In a moment of grace, the one-year-old lamb was replaced by God's own Lamb, the continuous Sacrifice on all altars throughout the ages. From that Passover law, Moses was led to the Ten Commandments.
But there would be no Ten Commandments if reason always ruled over the senses—that is, if sin hadn't occurred in Eden. There would be no Law if the loss of Grace and Innocence, and subsequently Knowledge, hadn't come from the disorder of the senses. The Decalogue is both mercy and punishment. Mercy for the weak, and punishment for those who mock God by doing evil while knowing exactly what they are doing.

Again, things don't really line up. When God (in the biblical story) kicks Adam and Eve out, He isn't promising them some "eternal homeland." There’s no mention of life after death. In fact, the idea of life after death isn't even part of the conversation back then. Neither Noah nor Abraham were given a promise like that.

Arthur Grant8 said:Since Adam wanted all Knowledge, he might have wanted all life too—not as a gift to be cherished through love, but as a force that mocks respect, destroys order, and attempts to make oneself eternal, trying to be equal to God without any merit. To want to be equal to God would mean committing the same sin as Lucifer. And there is no forgiveness for Lucifer's sin.
God wanted to be able to forgive man. He wanted to restore immortality, the possession of Heaven, enough Knowledge for our state, Grace, and Himself. So, He embraced judgment as a means to save. He established death to grant Life. He allowed the exile to provide an eternal Homeland. He gave—and here is the start of a lesson that keeps coming up—He gave the Law instead of the unmerited Knowledge lost when Grace died in man's heart. The Law is a fruit, a consequence of Sin.
Sin dulled man's ability to distinguish good from evil and destroyed his integrity. Like smoke, it clouded the truth. Like noise, it drowned out the divine voice heard on those fresh evenings in the beautiful Eden. After falling from being a sinless child of God to a mere rational animal, man instinctively felt that killing must be "evil" and that shameful lust must be wrong. But he didn't know where to draw the line between the evil of killing and the lusts most hated by God.
That is why, after punishing the world with the Flood, God provided the first guidelines to reduce violence (like the prohibition against eating blood). Later, He dealt with the scattering of nations and the confusion of languages, which set the stage for future kingdoms and wars that still plague us. He again used fire from the sky for Sodom and other sinful cities. Having given the righteous Abraham a clearer law of submission to the Lord, He called Moses and, through successive commands, led him to offer the first Passover, a lasting sacrifice for all ages. In a moment of grace, the one-year-old lamb was replaced by God's own Lamb, the continuous Sacrifice on all altars throughout the ages. From that Passover law, Moses was led to the Ten Commandments.
But there would be no Ten Commandments if reason always ruled over the senses—that is, if sin hadn't occurred in Eden. There would be no Law if the loss of Grace and Innocence, and subsequently Knowledge, hadn't come from the disorder of the senses. The Decalogue is both mercy and punishment. Mercy for the weak, and punishment for those who mock God by doing evil while knowing exactly what they are doing.

I guess this is another empty concept. It’s not like every person is guilty just because Adam ate from that forbidden tree. If that were true, it would mean God punishes children for the sins of their fathers, which implies He doesn't judge people individually. But if He does punish children for their parents' sins—which is what is claimed in the Mosaic Ten Commandments—then He isn't just.

Besides, God rewarded Adam and his immediate descendants—since it's Adam's sin we're talking about—with lives spanning hundreds of years and massive families. Modern people, who surely haven't committed that specific sin—even those who claim to be in direct contact with God—only live to be about eighty.

Arthur Grant8 said:Since Adam wanted all Knowledge, he might have wanted all life too—not as a gift to be cherished through love, but as a force that mocks respect, destroys order, and attempts to make oneself eternal, trying to be equal to God without any merit. To want to be equal to God would mean committing the same sin as Lucifer. And there is no forgiveness for Lucifer's sin.
God wanted to be able to forgive man. He wanted to restore immortality, the possession of Heaven, enough Knowledge for our state, Grace, and Himself. So, He embraced judgment as a means to save. He established death to grant Life. He allowed the exile to provide an eternal Homeland. He gave—and here is the start of a lesson that keeps coming up—He gave the Law instead of the unmerited Knowledge lost when Grace died in man's heart. The Law is a fruit, a consequence of Sin.
Sin dulled man's ability to distinguish good from evil and destroyed his integrity. Like smoke, it clouded the truth. Like noise, it drowned out the divine voice heard on those fresh evenings in the beautiful Eden. After falling from being a sinless child of God to a mere rational animal, man instinctively felt that killing must be "evil" and that shameful lust must be wrong. But he didn't know where to draw the line between the evil of killing and the lusts most hated by God.
That is why, after punishing the world with the Flood, God provided the first guidelines to reduce violence (like the prohibition against eating blood). Later, He dealt with the scattering of nations and the confusion of languages, which set the stage for future kingdoms and wars that still plague us. He again used fire from the sky for Sodom and other sinful cities. Having given the righteous Abraham a clearer law of submission to the Lord, He called Moses and, through successive commands, led him to offer the first Passover, a lasting sacrifice for all ages. In a moment of grace, the one-year-old lamb was replaced by God's own Lamb, the continuous Sacrifice on all altars throughout the ages. From that Passover law, Moses was led to the Ten Commandments.
But there would be no Ten Commandments if reason always ruled over the senses—that is, if sin hadn't occurred in Eden. There would be no Law if the loss of Grace and Innocence, and subsequently Knowledge, hadn't come from the disorder of the senses. The Decalogue is both mercy and punishment. Mercy for the weak, and punishment for those who mock God by doing evil while knowing exactly what they are doing.

Here we go again with religious dogma. I mean, if God actually intended to save all of humanity, wouldn't He have offered His laws to everyone, rather than just to one insignificant group of Israelites wandering on the edge of a desert?

Arthur Grant8 said:Since Adam wanted all Knowledge, he might have wanted all life too—not as a gift to be cherished through love, but as a force that mocks respect, destroys order, and attempts to make oneself eternal, trying to be equal to God without any merit. To want to be equal to God would mean committing the same sin as Lucifer. And there is no forgiveness for Lucifer's sin.
God wanted to be able to forgive man. He wanted to restore immortality, the possession of Heaven, enough Knowledge for our state, Grace, and Himself. So, He embraced judgment as a means to save. He established death to grant Life. He allowed the exile to provide an eternal Homeland. He gave—and here is the start of a lesson that keeps coming up—He gave the Law instead of the unmerited Knowledge lost when Grace died in man's heart. The Law is a fruit, a consequence of Sin.
Sin dulled man's ability to distinguish good from evil and destroyed his integrity. Like smoke, it clouded the truth. Like noise, it drowned out the divine voice heard on those fresh evenings in the beautiful Eden. After falling from being a sinless child of God to a mere rational animal, man instinctively felt that killing must be "evil" and that shameful lust must be wrong. But he didn't know where to draw the line between the evil of killing and the lusts most hated by God.
That is why, after punishing the world with the Flood, God provided the first guidelines to reduce violence (like the prohibition against eating blood). Later, He dealt with the scattering of nations and the confusion of languages, which set the stage for future kingdoms and wars that still plague us. He again used fire from the sky for Sodom and other sinful cities. Having given the righteous Abraham a clearer law of submission to the Lord, He called Moses and, through successive commands, led him to offer the first Passover, a lasting sacrifice for all ages. In a moment of grace, the one-year-old lamb was replaced by God's own Lamb, the continuous Sacrifice on all altars throughout the ages. From that Passover law, Moses was led to the Ten Commandments.
But there would be no Ten Commandments if reason always ruled over the senses—that is, if sin hadn't occurred in Eden. There would be no Law if the loss of Grace and Innocence, and subsequently Knowledge, hadn't come from the disorder of the senses. The Decalogue is both mercy and punishment. Mercy for the weak, and punishment for those who mock God by doing evil while knowing exactly what they are doing.

So, does that mean if I grab a steak or some sausages, I'm breaking God's laws?

Arthur Grant8 said:Since Adam wanted all Knowledge, he might have wanted all life too—not as a gift to be cherished through love, but as a force that mocks respect, destroys order, and attempts to make oneself eternal, trying to be equal to God without any merit. To want to be equal to God would mean committing the same sin as Lucifer. And there is no forgiveness for Lucifer's sin.
God wanted to be able to forgive man. He wanted to restore immortality, the possession of Heaven, enough Knowledge for our state, Grace, and Himself. So, He embraced judgment as a means to save. He established death to grant Life. He allowed the exile to provide an eternal Homeland. He gave—and here is the start of a lesson that keeps coming up—He gave the Law instead of the unmerited Knowledge lost when Grace died in man's heart. The Law is a fruit, a consequence of Sin.
Sin dulled man's ability to distinguish good from evil and destroyed his integrity. Like smoke, it clouded the truth. Like noise, it drowned out the divine voice heard on those fresh evenings in the beautiful Eden. After falling from being a sinless child of God to a mere rational animal, man instinctively felt that killing must be "evil" and that shameful lust must be wrong. But he didn't know where to draw the line between the evil of killing and the lusts most hated by God.
That is why, after punishing the world with the Flood, God provided the first guidelines to reduce violence (like the prohibition against eating blood). Later, He dealt with the scattering of nations and the confusion of languages, which set the stage for future kingdoms and wars that still plague us. He again used fire from the sky for Sodom and other sinful cities. Having given the righteous Abraham a clearer law of submission to the Lord, He called Moses and, through successive commands, led him to offer the first Passover, a lasting sacrifice for all ages. In a moment of grace, the one-year-old lamb was replaced by God's own Lamb, the continuous Sacrifice on all altars throughout the ages. From that Passover law, Moses was led to the Ten Commandments.
But there would be no Ten Commandments if reason always ruled over the senses—that is, if sin hadn't occurred in Eden. There would be no Law if the loss of Grace and Innocence, and subsequently Knowledge, hadn't come from the disorder of the senses. The Decalogue is both mercy and punishment. Mercy for the weak, and punishment for those who mock God by doing evil while knowing exactly what they are doing.

Then why didn't He just give the laws to Abraham right away? If God knows everything, surely He knew people would eventually need laws.

Arthur Grant8 said:Since Adam wanted all Knowledge, he might have wanted all life too—not as a gift to be cherished through love, but as a force that mocks respect, destroys order, and attempts to make oneself eternal, trying to be equal to God without any merit. To want to be equal to God would mean committing the same sin as Lucifer. And there is no forgiveness for Lucifer's sin.
God wanted to be able to forgive man. He wanted to restore immortality, the possession of Heaven, enough Knowledge for our state, Grace, and Himself. So, He embraced judgment as a means to save. He established death to grant Life. He allowed the exile to provide an eternal Homeland. He gave—and here is the start of a lesson that keeps coming up—He gave the Law instead of the unmerited Knowledge lost when Grace died in man's heart. The Law is a fruit, a consequence of Sin.
Sin dulled man's ability to distinguish good from evil and destroyed his integrity. Like smoke, it clouded the truth. Like noise, it drowned out the divine voice heard on those fresh evenings in the beautiful Eden. After falling from being a sinless child of God to a mere rational animal, man instinctively felt that killing must be "evil" and that shameful lust must be wrong. But he didn't know where to draw the line between the evil of killing and the lusts most hated by God.
That is why, after punishing the world with the Flood, God provided the first guidelines to reduce violence (like the prohibition against eating blood). Later, He dealt with the scattering of nations and the confusion of languages, which set the stage for future kingdoms and wars that still plague us. He again used fire from the sky for Sodom and other sinful cities. Having given the righteous Abraham a clearer law of submission to the Lord, He called Moses and, through successive commands, led him to offer the first Passover, a lasting sacrifice for all ages. In a moment of grace, the one-year-old lamb was replaced by God's own Lamb, the continuous Sacrifice on all altars throughout the ages. From that Passover law, Moses was led to the Ten Commandments.
But there would be no Ten Commandments if reason always ruled over the senses—that is, if sin hadn't occurred in Eden. There would be no Law if the loss of Grace and Innocence, and subsequently Knowledge, hadn't come from the disorder of the senses. The Decalogue is both mercy and punishment. Mercy for the weak, and punishment for those who mock God by doing evil while knowing exactly what they are doing.

Actually, the Bible says the forbidden tree was the tree of knowledge, specifically knowledge. If something went wrong with knowledge, then it was solely because man—just one man, Adam—acquired knowledge he wasn't supposed to have.

But it feels like a trap. Why would God put a tree there and then say it's off-limits? It seems like a cruel game, almost like experimenting on people, like putting a toy in front of a child and telling them they aren't allowed to touch it.