Posts by Brenda Cook4

Alexander Hayes3 said:I literally just got my post pulled, and then I get hit again—on the exact same thread ( )—by another moderator (Brenda Cook4), though this time they used a much broader, more "creative" justification:

It’s pure trolling without any actual counter-arguments, just condescension and talking down to me like, “this is stupid, this is kindergarten level”—just straight-up insults, one after another.

Look, I know you're swamped with work and dealing with endless complaints, but please, just read this post and tell me: is this really an attack devoid of substance? I was being perfectly civil, addressing everything point by point.

To me, this just highlights the general vibe over on the Religion board, where people can slander the Pope to their heart's content without any fear of consequences : calling him a pedophile, a criminal, an enemy of humanity, a Nazi, an antisemite... while Dawkins is treated like some untouchable saint.

So, what are you saying? That we aren't allowed to comment on public figures on this forum? If that's your take, then you clearly don't have a very clear grasp of freedom of speech and expression... yet you have no problem starting threads anathematizing atheists and secularism.

Regarding the flagged post—you respond to almost every single sentence with an attack. Everything is "kindergarten stuff," everything is "stupid," everything is "pointless." And then you wrap it up with that previous line about "how is it even possible to speak ill of the Pope." You're simply patronizing your interlocutor, looking down from a height, and instead of offering counter-arguments to potential claims, you mostly just repeat what’s already been said.

Dawkins isn't some "untouchable saint," but it seems like you'd prefer if he were—say, like the Pope. Well, sorry, but that's not happening.

wearyrider16 said: 🤷 Can someone help me understand? ...why all this heavy philosophizing if everything is already laid out for us. Why bother acting smart or making up some personal version of "truth" when the truth is right there in front of us. It was revealed through someone who provided perfect wisdom and teachings that are easy to grasp—but only for those with an honest heart. For a heart like that, the truth just sticks! 🙂 ?? All we have to do is accept it and embrace it!!! Honestly, one wise and perfect man, even though he was rejected by many, once said: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me (Jesus Christ). Why is that so hard to swallow?? Who does it bother so much, and what part is unclear that everyone feels entitled to invent their own version of a shared truth??? Maybe it's just to impress others with how much they know?? Or maybe people are just disappointed in those meant to carry the message??? Or what?? Truth can only be one thing. It’s simple. You don't need a PhD to find it!!! Without truth, there is no real path, and without the right path, there is no life!!! 😉 Btw, I'm not claiming these words as my own. I realized this while studying the life of Jesus Christ!! 🙂 + On our own, with our limited abilities, we can't truly know God or the truth about ourselves. We need humility, heart, and the spirit of wisdom that God provides!!! 🙂 Your forum friend wearyrider16!!! 👍

First off, you don't need to write it all in caps; we can see it and read it just fine.

Now, for the answer: it might feel like everything is "given and revealed" to you, but it doesn't work that way for everyone. In fact, many people don't even consider the things you're talking about to be factual—to them, it's just unfounded, somewhat tedious, secondary rationalization of these philosophical questions.

Tell🙂

hiddenhound3 said:I have no desire to infringe upon anyone else's personal convictions or insights, nor do I wish to correct what others believe, so I shall leave matters exactly as they stand.🙂

That is precisely the point... yet there lies the true absurdity regarding religious people. Their most beloved go to God or Allah, while others simply weep because they feel "envious"—resenting that those individuals move on while they remain stuck, languishing here in the Valley of Tears.

One of the most profound lessons a person can master in this life is acceptance. It is an act of active Love, directed toward oneself and everyone in one's orbit. By refusing to resist, we preserve our energy for the specific path laid out before us. Consequently, embracing the tears is the most effective route toward happiness—happiness defined as a fundamental state of being.🙂
A truly happy person will not look upon the journeys of others with envy or negative emotions.

...that's exactly it—just accepting things... and honestly, I'm leaning into the sadness for what's been lost lately... because, much like how Osho used to say, "sorrow is an exquisite delicacy"... so just let your heart ache and let the tears fall when they need to...

hiddenhound3 said:Of course, I am not necessarily looking at things through a linear lens, nor am I clinging to any hope for improvement; rather, I see it as a continuous cycle that moves forward regardless of us (and by us, I am not referring to our essential souls, but simply our personas, our egos, and our material existence).

...Right, so the cycle just carries on... though, honestly, maybe even that will come to a halt one day. I'm not even sure if it's actually going anywhere at all... perhaps it's all just an illusion anyway...

wearyowl29 said:

I honestly can't stop thinking about Florine! There’s just something about her that stays with you, isn't there? I was sitting in my kitchen this morning—sipping on some coffee from Starbucks, mind you—just reflecting on how certain people leave such an indelible mark on our lives. It’s funny how that works! You meet someone, and suddenly their energy becomes part of your own internal landscape. Anyway, I digress! My point is, Florine is truly one of a kind. Just a bright, shining light in this big, messy world of ours. kaže:
How do you all approach the whole idea of death? Do you get those pre-emptive jitters about your own end, or are you more the type to sit in quiet mourning when someone passes away? Personally, I tend to drift into deep thought about it quite often! It’s one of those heavy topics that always seems to pop up when you least expect it. I find myself pondering the "big picture" more than I probably should. Sometimes I think about my old grandfather—he was such a stoic man, always focused on the present moment—and I wonder if I'll ever reach that level of peace. Anyway, I’m curious! Is it something that keeps you up at night, or have you found a way to make peace with the inevitable? Let's chat!

Someone else’s passing is always such a heavy reminder that our time here isn't infinite. It hits you right in the chest! But honestly? I’ve been thinking about it lately—what’s inevitable is never truly a loss. We aren't just vanishing into thin air. Death is really just the long way home, bringing us back to exactly where we started. It’s all part of the cycle!

Honestly, we’re just standing here crying and mourning like we’re losing our coastline to the tide—but really, we’re just mourning ourselves.
We really are selfish to the core, aren't we? It’s just one of those things. I was sitting on my porch yesterday, sipping some coffee and watching the neighbors, and it hit me: humans are wired this way. We focus on ourselves more than we care to admit!

That’s exactly my point—it’s like stage lighting. There's this backlight that sets the entire tone for whatever drama is playing out on center stage.

Sure, people act for their own sake, but that doesn't make me feel any better right now... I still feel that heavy ache whenever I think about the ones who are gone. It all feels so self-centered.🤷

hiddenhound3 said:So you don't think about death, you say? Does the thought truly never drift into your mind unbidden?

I do not grieve for the deceased because I am firmly convinced that I must allow them to continue their journey. Quite literally, I believe that every tear I shed acts as another weight around their neck. I would much rather they be free, soaring unhindered wherever they wish or are destined to go.

...but honestly, this existence probably wouldn't be what it is without the backdrop of mortality—I don't know how it would look, but the fleeting nature of life certainly provides its color...

That is almost certainly true. In principle, I view death as a conclusion, though not as the end of existence itself, but rather as the conclusion of a single chapter.🙂

Oh, absolutely. I see it as something inevitable... but it feels so distant from me, almost imaginary. That’s why I told you—it feels like something that might never actually arrive. Because of that, these thoughts don't carry any heavy burden; they’re more philosophical. Honestly, I don't spend much time worrying about tomorrow, either...

I believe the deceased are right where they belong, yet I still find myself feeling sad.

Maybe it is just the end of a chapter, but if you feel like this current chapter isn't exactly a walk in the park, there's no guarantee that the "next" one won't be just as rough... or even worse.

hiddenhound3 said:I have contemplated the concept of death on countless occasions. My encounters with it have rarely been direct; rather, I have witnessed it through the passing of loved ones, whether they reached the natural end of their journey or were overtaken by the heavy weight of illness or profound sorrow.
The sudden passing of an acquaintance online has once again prompted me to reflect deeply on this subject. While others offer condolences and shroud the deceased in mourning and gloom, I find myself experiencing a strange sense of lightness.
A person is finally liberated from all suffering, pain, and those endless existential dilemmas that plague us. They have finally attained ultimate truth, cast off the heavy shell of mortality, and now dwell in an undisturbed eternity. To my mind, this is news of the highest order—so profoundly good that nothing could surpass it.

How do you approach the idea of death? Do you harbor fear regarding your own end, or do you find yourself consumed by grief for those who have passed?

WIND-SWEPT TOY

Suffer without tears, live without curses,
and embrace a peaceful misfortune.
Tears are hollow, and lamentations
will not soften the bitter sleep.

Surrender your faith in life to the drunkard,
and let the winds carry you wherever they may;
allow yourself to be swirled like a leaf
within the frantic whirl of a mad gale.

Fly like a leaf caught in the vortex,
for flight is your very essence, soul.
Not for the earth, nor for the grave,
is the flower that possesses no roots.

T. U.

I don't really dwell on my own end; it’s almost like I live under the assumption it’ll never actually arrive 😬...but I definitely feel the loss of those who are gone... I still ache for my very first dog.

If this life we’ve been dropped into is one big surprise, who's to say what kind of shock awaits us on the other side? If you’re sitting there thinking death might be some great release from the struggles of this world, well, don't be too surprised if things look exactly the same—or even more intense—on the flip side. 😬

..But honestly, without the backdrop of mortality, life probably wouldn't have any substance at all. I can't quite wrap my head around what it would be like... but that "flavor of life" definitely gets its color from knowing it ends.

ps
this isn't supposed to be from this PDF😢

Sandra Morgan2 said:He had plenty of reasons to be afraid. Nihilism? It’s absolutely devastating to the psyche.

Paul Jones7: "Quote:"

Whether someone overcomes it or not... that's entirely up to the individual. Some people can handle the weight, and some just can't.

I honestly don't see how anyone can stomach that nihilistic nonsense and still keep their sanity intact.

Paul Jones7:

Existential crisis? It’s really just an experience of deep, landscape-driven introspection.

If you’re talking about that crisis triggered by facing nothingness—that absolute void—then I am totally with you. You nailed it. You defined it perfectly with just one single sentence.

I don't see a leap into the abyss of nothingness and a plunge into a nihilistic void as being one and the same. One is an expansion of consciousness; the other is its darkening.

I also think the author of that opening post was dealing with some kind of third type of abyss in their mind. 🙂

...Sunyata definitely isn't nothingness or nihilism... obviously...

Now, whether someone can actually remain "balanced" through it all—whatever that means—is a whole different conversation...

Sandra Morgan2 said:Aha! "Hovering" is certainly a convenient way to frame overcoming that existential dread. It’s the same elegant solution Nietzsche used when he threw himself into that seductive abyss staring back at him. He spent his final ten years falling into that void like a complete lunatic.

But Nietzsche didn't see it as some kind of free flight; he was actually terrified of nihilism. Whether you overcome it or not is entirely up to the individual. Some people can stomach it, others simply can't. You experience an existential crisis through deep, internal landscapes... and being called a "lunatic" is really just a label people slap on you.

electrictrucker18 said:Just picture the scenario: suddenly, you find yourself drawn toward something that goes completely against everything you thought you believed in... maybe it's a sweet, wholesome girl fantasizing about a threesome, or a college professor at some big state university wondering if he should just surrender to a myth being dangled in front of him... you know what I mean? 😁

So, basically, a person finds themselves standing at a crossroads, facing a path they never imagined they'd even consider taking...

I actually have a friend who's dealing with a challenge right like this—something that could totally flip his entire life upside down—and honestly, I just don't think it's a smart move. How is a person even supposed to fight off a temptation like that?

N. argues everywhere that the world acts as your mirror... and the same goes for the abyss. Deep introspection can sometimes just lead back to pure nihilism—that empty space where there’s no false comfort found in various secondary rationalizations. But then again, someone might look at it differently: staring into the abyss isn't a fall. If the bottom is a bottomless pit with no end, then falling is actually more like flying or hovering... and that's how you transcend existential despair.

How would you even go about explaining it... I mean, if you're the one starting a thread because you actually want a high-quality discussion, it’s probably best to lay out a bit more groundwork in that opening post, right? Otherwise, it's a pretty great topic, though...

Steven Clark2 said:You don't need to, because you aren't an idiot. Your mistake was simply a clumsy choice of words, which resulted in you being docked 500 points you didn't truly deserve. Even if you did earn them, someone could have been more reasonable and said, "Alright, we went a bit overboard there; just be more careful with your phrasing next time."

In truth, I would be quite interested to see whether, based on some standard in Rhode Island or similar, statements claiming the Catholic Church is a "criminal organization," or calling the cross "the greatest evil," could be considered serious offenses. There have been similar remarks made quite nonchalantly under the Religion category, where people seemingly felt they were being more popular by making the most provocative statements regarding Christianity (though that really just refers to Catholics, whereas Roger Barrett2 is, incredibly, a Protestant). I am genuinely curious if there are any legal grounds to view such comments as insults or as speech that incites intolerance and hostility.

steelskipper5, there is no point in labeling things that way, because you aren't correct. You cannot justify making those kinds of statements just because of your personal views on faith, especially not under the rather flimsy excuse of "free speech." Of course, you might even be right on the facts—but that isn't the main topic here—and that style of rhetoric only serves to discredit you. I honestly don't care how you take this, or if you get angry; I certainly don't harbor any ill will toward you, nor should you feel the need to lecture me on what does NOT belong in a conversation accepted by civilized society (furthermore, such speech can actually be actionable) or within this forum (personally, as an admin, I would delete posts like those without a second thought).

He didn't get any 500 points at all...

Roger Barrett2 said:Who’s actually losing their mind here—is it me, or is it everyone else?

So, here we go. Our friend John Doe decides to equate the Church to a criminal organization, claiming, "I honestly think we're talking about a literal criminal enterprise working against the people" I flagged the post, yet it stays up without any penalty whatsoever.

Fast forward back two months, when I made a comparison linking homosexuality to corruption What did I get for it? A 100-point deduction and a three-day ban with the explanation: "Reason: inciting animosity by equating homosexuality with: 'Yes, gays corrupt society just like corruption, prostitution, and alcoholics do.'"

Look, corruption is a crime punishable by law, whereas being gay isn't. How am I supposed to make that distinction without hitting a wall? Now, John Doe does the exact same thing—inciting animosity by comparing the Church to a criminal element—and suddenly everyone is looking the other way.

I'm calling for consistency: either he gets the same 100-point hit and a three-day ban, or you apologize to me for the mistake made in my case. That’s the only fair way to handle this. There is no middle ground.

Well, look, someone could technically sue steelskipper5 for libel (if what he said was untrue) through a private lawsuit, but he has every right to express his opinion regarding an organization (rather than individuals), especially within the context of the thread he's responding to. On the other hand, you can't engage in discrimination or demonize people based on their sexual orientation—that's illegal under U.S. law, and it violates forum rules too. So, as far as I'm concerned, no points deducted and no ban for you.

rowdyhawk10 said:Fine, it’s probably better that I’m not banning him over that specific post. From what I recall, back when he called Muslims "lazy"—he didn't get banned then, just a 45-point deduction for a personal attack rather than hate speech. Meanwhile, on the flip side, harrybonnot got hit with 500 points for a much more harmless post, all under the label of "hate speech."

Look, I’d simply ask hollowtrucker77 to put those two posts side-by-side. Let them explain why one gets 500 points for "hate speech" while the other only gets 45 for a "personal attack." That inconsistency is exactly why I started this thread in the first place. To me, the criteria just don't add up.

What are you even talking about now? Which post? Did I personally sanction him? Please, send me the link.

And honestly, this is your recurring issue—claiming that harrybonnot's post was "far more harmless." It’s the same pattern over and over: "I would have given Harry a red card too, but... but... but..." It might be worth reading his post one more time.

And without even quoting your other post here—why are you bringing up (and reporting) a clone of Viseslav? Is he actually banned as Master John? No, he isn't. So that's what we're discussing. Is he currently posting in the religion section under the MASTER's nickname? No. So what are we really talking about? Are you noticing the other clones? No? How is that possible?

Like I said, what I truly dislike is seeing the PZK used as a weapon against anyone who doesn't share our views. This is pure intimidation, and it's certainly not the first time.

rowdyhawk10 said:Thanks for getting back to me, and sorry if I'm a little late to the party here. Look, honestly? It breaks my heart that @sarafciger got banned just because of the post I flagged. I took a quick peek at his profile, and the guy doesn't even participate in the religion section—he just sort of stumbled into it by accident with that one post. In my opinion, deleting the post should have been plenty. He isn't one of those users who spends all day spreading hate on the religion forum (unlike some of the newer folks like Viseslav3 and a few others). I made my reasoning very clear, yet the moderators left the post up instead of just scrubbing it. That’s exactly why I filed an appeal.

Just to set the record straight—@sarafciger didn't actually get banned from the religion section because of your report. His post on the top thread was simply deleted after the appeal process (which seems to align with what you're saying about just deleting it being enough).

The only thing I really take issue with is that you brought up the religion section at all, though now it looks like you only did it to mention @Viseslav3 and turn this whole thing into a platform to call out a user you personally don't care for. If I can say one thing, it's that Viseslav—or rather, Master John—isn't acting out of any kind of hatred. He speaks strictly from a spiritual perspective regarding various doctrines, and I have to emphasize that he does so with an incredible command of the subject matter he's critiquing. I have never seen even a hint of "hate" from him; it's nothing more than a pure assessment of a certain spiritual path—in this case, religion—which is worlds apart from those two nasty posts you mentioned in your opening. You won't find anything like that coming from Master John. It’s truly a shame you haven't been able to see that this whole time.

I have to share an answer I saw over on Yahoo once—it actually lines up perfectly with what I was thinking earlier. It’s pretty much spot on:

This isn't a "religious forum." Think of it more as a forum for discussing religious topics. Atheism is one of those topics. It’s specifically about a lack of belief in God, not a lack of belief in Linux operating systems or The slow food movement, so any conversation involving atheism definitely fits right here in this section.

* This isn't a "religious forum." It's a forum meant for discussing religious themes. Atheism is a subject under the umbrella of religion. It's the absence of belief in God, not the absence of belief in Linux operating systems or The slow food movement, which is why discussions about atheism belong in this category.

We can't really categorize atheism under philosophy, for instance. It isn't a philosophy in its own right, nor is it a spirituality or an ideology—it's simply, and always, defined by its opposition to theism.

Take this religious forum as an example: religious forums where it’s perfectly standard to see one of the PDF resources titled atheism/agnosticism/humanism
.
*It is actually quite impressive and highly educational to see how they embrace all different belief systems right there on the cover.

Robin Palmer6 said:I'm not entirely sure if this is the right subforum for this kind of thing...

Answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Please don't dodge the question; be serious for once.

If you had the opportunity to kill just one person without facing any legal consequences,
would you do it?

If your answer is yes, everyone else will view you as a psychopath in need of psychiatric help, while those others pretend to be morally superior innocents.
If your answer is no, everyone will know you're lying—even if they don't call you out on it—because it would be obvious they'd all lie too if they said no.

My answer is yes.

But why would anyone actually do it?😕 In what sense? Just because you find them annoying, or because you're a cannibal, or to push someone's buttons, or in self-defense?

And why do you assume that saying "no" is just people playing the saint?

Personally, I'm a vegetarian because the mere thought of someone being killed just to serve me dinner on a plate is horrifying—so how could I ever want to kill another person?

Does that mean the law is the only thing holding us back? And how did we even end up with laws like that in the first place, if it wasn't born from the collective conscience of our society?

wearyowl29 said:We can't survive without water, food, or sleep, but we also can't thrive without a little magic. We crave miracles just as much as a thirsty plant craves a drink.
Sure, we could technically stumble through life without ever knowing love or being loved. We could manage to navigate an alienated, lonely world... but the moment we reach out for something miraculous, everything changes. We need them. But why?

Whether it’s overnight healings, sudden spiritual awakenings, undeniable physical signs, saints with a heavenly scent, weeping statues, the sun itself defying physics, the Shroud of Turin, or even a freshly unearthed relic from Noah's Ark—it doesn't really matter what the specific event is. What matters is that they carry that essence of wonder meant specifically for us.
That sense of wonder is pure soul food!

Miracles actually happen—they really do—but they aren't for everyone. One psychologist I know says you have to be truly open to them by maintaining a positive mindset. Honestly, in this day and age, staying positive is a miracle in itself! Looking at life through a hopeful lens and seeking out the good... maybe it sounds a bit naive, but hey, it might just work. Action creates reaction.

Positive thinking plus a belief in miracles equals... well, miracles. Miracles don't have hands, so they can't exactly walk up and turn our doorknobs for us. We have to leave our doors wide open. 😲
I just hope we don't accidentally let something else slip in instead...☕
I mean, how can someone who refuses to believe even expect a miracle to show up?

Miracles have used their own kind of alchemy to turn skeptics into believers; they take root
whenever faith starts to flicker and fade, recruiting a whole new following. You could say miracles are a heavenly flick of a magic wand that transforms our lives—if we let them... 🤷 or perhaps miracles are just the ultimate expression of our longing for proof, a desperate search for meaning... or who knows, maybe it's something else entirely...

What are miracles to us, if not the very thing we thirst for most?

It all depends on how you define a "miracle." I mean, think about it... the rolling swells of the Atlantic, stars piercing the night sky like lit torches, the Milky Way flowing above us like a celestial river, the canopy of a quiet forest, a sudden breeze, a warm summer night... do you actually see them? They're everywhere if you look.

...O soul, thy free flight into the wordless,
Away from books, away from art, the day erased, the lesson done,
Thee fully forth emerging, silent, gazing, pondering....
Walt Whitman