You’re on a forum, not sitting alone on a park bench talking to pigeons. If you're going to post opinions or views—or if you're just posting nonsense because you have nothing better to do—then I guess you should expect people to comment.
Nobody is trying to convert you, nor is anyone expecting you to enlighten them. This is a forum, which is meant to be a space for exchanging ideas. Maybe try dialing back the sense of... 😵
It almost sounded like the birds in the trees have their own theological takes.
Chris Williams said:But did you start your own search with the divine in mind? You set out to find the ultimate truth, yet I guess you don't truly know who it is within you that is doing the seeking.
You seem to want to encounter the master of creation—whose very existence is debatable—rather than focusing on yourself, which is the only thing you're certain you actually ARE.
I guess I wonder why people are so preoccupied with me and my opinions—it seems like a bit of a waste of time, honestly.
I can offer you my opinion, though—I suppose—you won't be getting any actual insight from me. Yeah. Forgive me, but—if I may—he writes that true insight comes exclusively from God the Creator.
Well, now that we finally have some clarity on what's actually going on here, I suppose we should move forward with a quick, somewhat random question... Basically— It seems people are constantly accusing others of trying to "convert" them—I guess that’s just how things go sometimes. I said, I mean... what kind of linguistic transformations are we even talking about here—and are forced shifts like that actually permitted?
Look, since it isn't permitted—well, I guess the entire world just does it by force throughout history.
Then that’s fine—minus one point for spirituality, I guess.
Michael Gonzalez77 said:God lives within us, and the spiritual search does too. Ultimately, people just define these terms based on their own personal perspectives and life experiences.
I suppose you have a point there—if one actually bothers to distinguish things—in that most people aren't searching for God at all, but rather for themselves, and then they go ahead and label it a "spiritual quest."
It reminds me of that old saying—having an advantage in something isn't quite the same as possessing actual virtue. Unless, of course, someone happens to mistake their own ego for being some sort of divine instrument.
It’s a bit of both, I suppose—everyone eventually figures it out... much like how people realized there's no harm in touching someone's mother-in-law... just bump into someone in passing and observe their ego.
One has to test things—there isn't really any other way—even if people say don't do it; though, I guess those warnings only come from the egoists, since they're the ones who can't handle being nudged.
And all this happens simply because someone suggested that Christians ought to be humble toward everyone, yet the person who said that feels entitled to mock Christians to their faces—which, frankly, wasn't funny at all. So, the mockers get a little nudge in passing—just a reminder, nothing more. As for them—if those mockers want to turn it into some massive global drama—well, by all means, let them; nobody is stopping them.
Why would I even bother asking myself that instead of you?
Do you actually know who first came up with that ridiculous filler phrase, "To be honest..."? Somewhere long ago—it varies depending on who you ask, since some people just mimic others for a laugh— if you actually look closer at it, you realize that everything said prior to that moment— was essentially a lie. So, one day he finally decided to speak truthfully, and that’s how the whole "to be honest with you..." thing started.
Well, if you weren't aware of that little bit of trivia, now you are.
I suppose if you didn't know, there's an advantage in the idea that it's easy for a spiritual person to recognize what is truly real.
Lawrence Torres56 said:I’m just gonna be straight with you, okay? These kinds of posts actually kind of tickle my fancy—not because it’s specifically about you (I don't keep tabs on who writes what), but honestly, it’s just so "confusing" to see how people act and think, constantly invoking God in almost every sentence... while simultaneously totally ignoring everything that God is actually telling them... shouldn't someone who claims to be a devout believer care way more about what's written in the Bible than someone who doesn't even claim that identity? "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the sawdust is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." Matthew 7:1... The Golden Rule. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
And, if we're looking at it that way, who do you think actually comes out ahead: the person asking to be accepted exactly as they are, or the one lying to themselves and everyone else just to fit in?🤷
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but life has sort of taught me that the only way to actually find some inner peace is to just accept people for who they truly are; trying to change them? Yeah, that’s never going to end well...
Hold on, why weren't you being honest all along?
Which god is telling whom what? It’s all pretty incomprehensible, aside from the fact that everyone knows there are plenty of "gods" out there, and most are just frauds.
And talking about having a "greater advantage"... sounds like an Olympic event. But look, we aren't running the 100-meter dash or clearing high jump bars here to measure who has the bigger lead.
Ultimately, though, people generally change on their own—though, I guess, with a little outside help. For instance, once a child grows up, they stop being a child and start conforming to the adult world around them. Now, that all depends on the environment, because sometimes it just amplifies flaws. You know, it’s where that saying comes from—how some people's faults end up overshadowing their virtues.
It makes you wonder: why is it that we only ever talk about virtues? In other words, shouldn't those things actually be demonstrated? It reminds me of a recent comment from a journalist regarding a certain American politician: 'He's full of virtues, fighting against terrorism, but he certainly isn't interested in fighting child trafficking.'
So, I suppose the whole thing is more than debatable, isn't it?
For instance, I can clearly see that you all lack an understanding of the distinctions here.
Now that I’ve identified that—I suppose I'm being judged by you all for it. Quite funny, really.
Just so you know, taking everything at face value wouldn't even hold up in a small-claims court. So, by that logic, even a local municipal court has more sense than this— if you weren't already aware that matters of spirit would be handled in federal court.
I don't think there is anything you could write that would actually catch my interest. (We have known this since day one—two years ago, to be exact—so we aren't exactly newcomers here.)
Honestly, I’ve never had much patience for people who make a big production out of 'accepting me with all my flaws'—sorry, but it's just tedious. People like that—if they ever reach any kind of success—it won't be because of that mindset. That's just my take.
So, what is the point of even having this conversation? Oh, right... It's not really meant for us—it seems more intended for someone else...
Yes, as I’ve mentioned several times before, those "boundaries" aren't going to be particularly obvious to most people, which—if I recall correctly—leads back to my point about how prone people are to prejudice. For instance, the idea that someone who knows more is just being envious of someone who knows less? That’s an immediate setup for bias.
The issue is that the person with less knowledge often assumes the more knowledgeable one is just trying to lecture them, and that's where the typical ego kicks in for the less informed... they adopt this attitude of, "don't you dare tell me what to do."
But look, if things actually worked that way, teachers wouldn't even exist; we’d either all be students or we'd all be teaching each other.
I suppose the mere thought of that spectrum is uncomfortable for some, it reminds them of murky waters where you can't tell who's drinking or who's footing the bill.
It’s funny—I've noticed that certain people who claim to be spiritual can't actually distinguish a spiritual person from a non-spiritual one, let alone tell the difference between offering judgment and simply being judgmental. It’s honestly a bit depressing; you have to wonder what's going through their heads—if they're even thinking at all.
Anyway, I’m sticking to what I said earlier; I don't really second-guess my own take on these things.
Judging someone and passing judgment aren't even close to being the same thing—let alone identical.
If we're being precise, "judging" and "passing judgment" might be closer in spirit.
So, really, it all comes down to two tiny vowels making an entirely different distinction between definitions.
One way to look at the benefit of this is: A spiritual person understands they have both the capacity and the permission—to judge, and honestly, that’s somewhat expected of them. Because, well, what kind of spiritual person would they be if they didn't realize that judgment is tied to intellect and knowledge—not just regarding spiritual matters, but about life in general?
Look, it’s probably a bit much for you to judge whether someone's perspective is actually flawed here. After all—and I might be wrong about this—you haven't exactly given off the impression that you're intimately acquainted with the views of God.
Actually, those aren't really strengths anymore—they've become liabilities.
When someone insists on writing "god" with a lowercase 'g', it's just one more piece of evidence in a larger pattern. Now, one could argue that you're actually referring to the "god of this world"—Satan, I suppose— since in that specific case, the lowercase usage would technically be correct. But that would change the entire context of this conversation, as we clearly wouldn't be talking about the same thing.
There’s still a lingering question mark surrounding your inquiry into what a "spiritual advantage" even is. Judging by the comments, it seems spirituality is being confused with mere physical examples.
People tell me I’m right more often than you’d think though some have been polite enough to point out where I’ve missed the mark...
Honestly, those little quirks in how people express themselves aren't really surprising, even when they're telling you that you're completely wrong because, well, who else is going to talk to you if not people who already agree with you?
It’s been said before—that whole "too many cooks in the kitchen" thing and how everyone judges themselves and their surroundings by their own skewed standards making it pretty much impossible to grasp everything at once, all things considered. Or, if you actually try to wrap your head around it, you won't know what to do with the information—you have to filter it. And once you start filtering, you end up with almost nothing left, maybe a tiny fraction. You take the small bit that matters and toss the rest. That's it. (Some people might find this overly complicated—they probably don't get it.)
Ultimately, a true advantage isn't what people claim it is, but what God defines as such. But since it's understood that most people don't particularly care about God's opinion, we're left talking about people—and clearly, not in a way that makes sense. - It essentially implies that humans are smarter than God himself. Meaning, if God says don't do something or don't believe something, all these self-appointed interpreters will step in to explain why you should do it and believe it anyway. It’s a reversed process, I guess. Which is why modern society seems lost on the difference between virtues and flaws.
I suppose we could debate this forever, but it wouldn't lead anywhere much, other than everyone just stubbornly sticking to their own views.
I imagine someone might tell me I'm "partially" right again. Heh.
Weighing pros against cons rarely leads to anything particularly productive. In fact, I suspect most people can't even tell the difference between the two to begin with. If that's the case—well, it’s just confusion, I guess.
Why all this philosophizing—I mean, don't you realize that... ...giving someone the chance to actually 'do something' just proves that the rest of you couldn't care less about them. So, I suppose an individual will manage just fine without your help.
What was predicted for these modern times? Maybe that many people would simply put on a show of outward spirituality? Yes, that was indeed predicted—don't ever forget it.
Has anyone else failed to realize that when you resist quasi-spirituality —you basically earn a penalty point from the universe itself.
Does anyone still fail to grasp how rare true virtues have become in today's world? Take, for example, if you're walking down a street in Chicago and pass someone crying and you see them—you aren't blind, after all—but you just keep moving along without stopping because you simply acknowledged their presence and nothing more but you didn't actually stop or approach the person whose tears you witnessed...
Is that a spiritual advantage, or is it a flaw?
(A very simple question, presumably without much room for debate, right?)
It’s an illusion—thinking people are all cut from the same cloth...
In reality, they tend to lead with their flaws rather than their strengths. They say, 'Accept me as I am, flaws and all, and then maybe— just maybe—I'll surprise you with my virtues.'
In certain spiritual circles, this kind of logic is practically standard. But— frankly, one should be careful; keep a scale handy. —if someone's shortcomings outweigh their merits, they aren't really worth much of a second glance, I suppose.
The idea that "pros and cons are one and the same" will probably remain incomprehensible to most.
It’s an assertion that even the speaker can't quite decode themselves-- because, I guess, there isn't really a "key" to be found here—not that anyone actually needs one... since all the doors are already wide open, allowing you to... drift in and out of rooms indefinitely, just circling through them over and over until the day comes when you finally wonder if having that freedom is actually a benefit or just a flaw.
Larry Moore83 said:So, what you're saying is... we should be arming ourselves? Is that really where we're headed? 😁 In that case—I’ll just grab my five-pointed star, pin it right to my headband, and let's go!🎉
We aren't doing that—we're human beings, after all.
Larry Moore83 said:And then there’s this whole business of declaring oneself...😵 Who actually needs a census on how many atheists or believers are out there? It isn't like you can go apply for a job based on being an atheist—as if there were some specialized niche waiting for someone holding a first class certificate. 🤣 I mean, really, who is this for? Being an atheist, or, well, the alternative, obviously. 😁
Maybe this will actually matter to someone at some point—I guess. If they’re really planning to print zodiac signs on everyone's driver's licenses, they might as well just include whether you're a believer or an atheist while they're at it. So, I guess we could actually start asking ourselves who—or what—these divisions would even serve.