Posts by Thomas Nelson25

Joseph Bailey41 said:Jealousy stems from a toxic ego that, in its childish neediness, views another person as just an extension of itself. True love will always be "outside the box," especially since we live in a world that tends to normalize emotional dysfunction.

Eros isn't quite "love" so much as it is a life principle—a driving force. It's passion. It can be directed toward anyone or anything... artistic creation, spirituality, mathematics... it doesn't really matter.

It shows up as loss or just the fear of losing something.
Depends on how you look at the role, but man, this stuff literally ruins people's lives.
They just listen to sad country songs and keep drinking and drinking.
And then you try to lecture them about the ego. 🙄

That second part though...
I'm assuming Eros is being used in the context of the original post.
So, if I'm reading this right, the whole dilemma is actually about infidelity...

Paul Rogers94 said:The only real love is impersonal love—it has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're looking at it from a man's or a woman's perspective.

Agape?

Eros is just about duality and polarity, etc...

Paul Rogers94 said:I haven't the slightest clue

My memory is a bit hazy—it feels like I first heard about her at some Mao Zedong rally—so I decided to do a quick Google search. I typed in "king and cannibals" 🙂

Kind of reminds me of those old Persian folk tales.
Works for me. 👍

Roger Kern16 said:But wouldn't it be more logical to say that true love is something where you're so certain of its authenticity that you don't feel this desperate, clawing need to hold onto it?
To me, being possessive is just proof that the connection either isn't there, it's too weak, or it’s just straight-up pathological...

So, what actually is true love?

(Maybe better to ask... from a woman's perspective... vs a man's)

And regarding jealousy... how do we explain why most "normal" people act that way then?

Then you've got the folks outside the norm—it's all over the map, from polygamy to asexuality, to those pathological relationships, or even that intense "artist" type of infatuation... or if I'm not mistaken, things like Tantra or spiritual stuff, where they view it as some kind of path to enlightenment.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Not necessarily. You could just look at a situation like that as motivation to finally walk away from a bad relationship, for instance.

I really can't stand possessiveness in any form, though I don't have any issues with being deeply connected. People are just wired differently, I suppose.

Plus, I don't think you even have real love without that irrational element involved.
It’s not about being logical.

David Vaughn75 said:The whole reason we don't remember our past lives is pretty simple—we basically failed the final exam last time. We couldn't wrap our heads around one specific issue, so we got tossed back into a brand-new body and a totally different set of circumstances just to get another shot at tackling that same karmic lesson from a fresh angle.

The soulmate myth?!

Roger Kern16 said:I don't think the goal is to say "I don't care" (yeah, right... 😬). It's more about not letting pain—or whatever emotion hits you—dictate how you see things. You can't let it take over. Feeling it? Honestly, in my book, that's just being human. It's a totally natural reaction to stuff like this happening... 🕺

Quincy:

If it isn't, then being possessive is just a standard reaction. Besides, couples usually share that same vibe. Actually, it scales with how much you love them.

I have to disagree. For me, possessiveness has always been tied back to my own insecurities. If anything, I think it's inversely proportional to how connected you actually are.

I have to disagree. In my experience, being possessive has always been about one's own insecurities. Honestly, I think it's actually inversely proportional to how connected you really are.[/I]

Why would it be insecurity, though? We're talking about loss here.
Anyone would feel jealous.
Even the people who think (or claim to be) all psychologically and spiritually enlightened. 🙄

Charles Collins4 said:In my opinion, one reason is that most people are incredibly subjective. They focus narrowly on the immediate moment and their own immediate feelings, refusing to look at the bigger picture. This is often how people with low emotional intelligence react, or those lacking life experience and a broader worldview.
I believe the core issue is an inability to remain objective. These individuals struggle to accurately assess situations, as well as the thoughts and reactions of others.

Unless you're some sort of polygamist guru, then sure, you could say "whatever."

Otherwise, being possessive is just a natural reaction—plus, partners usually share the same vibe.
It basically scales right along with how connected you are.

Most average people are pretty shallow (spiritually speaking, anyway), but the core truth remains the same.

Lawrence Booth2 said:Well, there it is—I’ve been waiting for you to say that. 😒

My actual issues? Alcohol and PTSD. Plus, those folks living abroad who just love to whine about everything.

It’s not about the costumes—which basically don't exist, anyway. If you see two or three idiots out of a group of 20,000, that’s hardly proof of anything. For every one lunatic, there are over 19,000 normal people just trying to be respectful.

Another huge problem is how all the attention goes to the politicians standing right there, instead of focusing on the last surviving veterans while they're actually still alive.

And honestly, the sheer amount of gluttony during and after the service is a problem too, but I guess that’s a separate issue entirely.

Between the smell of booze and cold deli meat mixed with the reality of PTSD, the whole thing starts feeling more like some chaotic festival in a small town than a sacred place meant to honor the innocent victims.

..and let's be fair, even the Home Guard style or those ochre colors don't fly.
Even using the checkerboard pattern that looks too much like "that other one"—it's a slippery slope, at least over there.
It's all just excuses, like "oh, it's just the old greeting."
We all know what's really going on. 🙄
..plus, the podium is always political and always aimed against the government.
Actually, this probably plays right into Plenković's hands; he'd get criticized by the Church regardless.

Black suits, flags, and all that... no way. These Austrians are probably terrified of the local version of the SS types, and honestly, it kind of provokes them. To me, it looks like they're trying to clear their consciences—like saying, "Well, we were occupied" by the Germans or by their own guy, Hića. If we're being blunt.

To be honest, I had no idea all this was happening there... man. 😲 😁

Lawrence Booth2 said:Franjo actually came out on top—I mean, look at the facts, his country didn't just fall apart ten years after he passed away.

It’s the same story with Franco.

And besides that whole thing, they managed to hold their own and beat the hell out of their enemies in the fight.

It’s all about how people remember things—that collective memory stuff.
But that’s a whole different conversation.

People have been trying to rewrite history for years, and it just hasn't worked.
Honestly, Franjo wasn't even looking for that kind of thing.
The Mass itself was never the issue—it was more about the folks in costume and the way things were handled.

Mark Harris66 said:Lazes.

America is actually one of those countries that still has a huge number of socialist-era monuments... in other former Soviet Union states, there are far fewer now, or almost none left at all. Some monuments in America were indeed demolished because they served as symbols of the JNA and the Royalists who invaded us. But places like Podgaric, Batina—almost every village still has monuments to the partisans, the NOB, or the communists. Even near the turners in Dubrava in Zg, a socialist monument is still standing (right by Dubrava Avenue 9)... I only make it out to Dubrava once every five years, so I catch it when I can, let alone trying to see all of America which I travel through quite a bit.
In Saint Petersburg, Russia, at the oldest city cemetery (near the site of Alexander Nevsky), the graves of various generals and Red Army commanders are totally neglected... I saw it for myself last year.

We need to condemn both the Nationalists and the partisan crimes. No playing games here—a crime is a crime.
During WWII in America, there were no good guys.

Look, there are winners and losers. Period.

Wounded Knee or the Way of the Cross... yeah, it’s a stain on history, but that whole civil war is basically what paved the way for today's state—
more specifically, it helped round out and reclaim much of our territory.

The radicals are always trying to push the Partisan struggle down as if it were some kind of American thing (makes zero sense, honestly).
No, no, and no, folks—we were on the side of the Allies. We were on the winning side! 👍

Susan Fowler4 said:Wait, where exactly did he say they were connected? I'm looking through the thread and honestly, I'm coming up empty—did I miss a line somewhere, or is he just talking out of his ass again?

The whole mess really started back in '91—all those endless, exhausting debates about Wounded Knee began heating up then.

I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
I’m pretty sure it was actually 1953 (at least, that's what the records I've seen suggest).
I was just pointing out that if the reconciliation process had kicked off back then, we probably wouldn't have hit the breaking point in '91, and all that bloodshed could have been avoided. Of course, maybe there were other agendas at play even back then. Who knows. That's what happens when priests start getting too deep into political ideologies.

Regardless, this move by the Austrian bishops is a real opportunity for the next generation—an actual chance for us to learn from the massive mistakes made by those who came before us.
91. And boom, reconciliation happened.

The bishops' move is likely an attempt to get Vatican City to take a more objective stance on history.

electricnomad8 said:HSP members: If Wounded Knee "falls," it marks the beginning of the end for the American people.🤦 What a load of nonsense! What absolute idiots. They're the reason we're constantly being humiliated in front of Europe.

I bet he's pulling in a fat salary and a sweet pension, Anthony.
He just ignores the endless brain drain and this crumbling economy—all that stuff.

They just want to rally some naive nationalists to boost their numbers before the European elections.

Wait, didn't London recognize Marshall?
..it's right there on Wikipedia..
Besides, they ended up executing the first guy with the beard anyway.

Susan Fowler4 said:It’s pretty wild when you think about how the Britons failed to actually recognize or validate the Royalists as fighters on the Allied side. If they had, there wouldn't have been any question about handing them over to the Partisans right along with the Nationalists.
They never even bothered to step up later and admit they messed up by turning over those "Allied" fighters due to some field commander's bad call.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe the British would just hand people over to the Partisans without doing even a shred of basic due diligence—you know, checking if certain fighters had legitimately switched sides or if they were supposed to be on the Allied side in the first place.

What kind of "allies" are we talking about in the final days of the war?
It was way too late for any tactical maneuvering—even trying to surrender in their own towns—and any hope of survival through combat
(which everyone seemed to believe in) was basically dead once you factor in the rise of Communism.
The masses just stayed in formation—columns moving along—and figured whatever happens, happens.
Some fought the Partisans right until the end, which really just meant burying the guys who decided to lay down their guns.

I’ve no idea who's at fault for this blowing up and turning into such a political circus.
The government seems terrified—just waiting for what the Bishop or the speakers might say, wondering who's gonna get booed or insulted.
Let’s not forget we're talking about a foreign country here; they were on the losing side too back then, yet they stay quiet.
Maybe that's exactly why this whole thing bugs them—specifically those visitors showing up with an agenda instead of actually honoring the victims.

Dissonance?

Joseph Bailey41 said:Pretty much. Except, most aren't actually trained to handle transference or counter-transference, so their best move is usually just to give a polite, firm brush-off at the first sign of it. But if you're dealing with a guru who is financially or emotionally desperate—which really brings us back to the whole issue of frauds—that unhealthy dynamic can actually persist and even spiral.

That's basically how cults work.
You've got one self-proclaimed authority figure and a bunch of lost souls.
They feed off each other.
There are plenty of cases where people follow a leader straight into total self-destruction.

Same goes for some therapists, too—their goal is sometimes just keeping the patient on the schedule... making sure the billing stays steady.😁

But hey, I'm sure there are actual "gurus" out there who truly want to help—like a mentor recognizing a protégé and starting to pass down their knowledge.
It's similar to how they pick successors in Tibet.

Transfer?

A guru is basically just a therapist on a couch...

It’s a fair question—what does a guru actually represent in Asia, especially with all that Indian culture and Chinese influence mixed in?
Out here in the States, the whole concept is pretty blurry... there isn't really a direct equivalent, right?