Posts by Paul Anderson15

Gerald Jackson48 said:Materialists are out there actually building what spiritualists only dream about.

Exactly. That's why we really need both sides of the coin. 😁

Gerald Jackson48 said:I see Akasha as basically the spiritual version of the internet. On the web, you’ve got all the world's info right at your fingertips if you just google it. This feels way simpler. There aren't any hellish planets involved, and even most Christians are pretty much on board with the idea... Just watch out for those pop-up ads and cat videos trying to distract you while you're on your digital journey.

You're right, I knew that sounded familiar! 👍

David Vaughn75 said:Look, if you go around doing shady stuff, you can just head straight to the hell planets for all I care.
You’re gonna get slapped with the consequences and own up to it.

And honestly, messing around with Akasha is the fastest way to end up on those hell planets.

Where exactly are you pulling this "information" from? 🤦

darkraven said:If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

True, at least when we're talking about spirituality—anyone can identify however they like or believe whatever they choose. However, if you're looking to join specific religious denominations, there are usually certain rules you have to meet.

darkraven said:If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

I know some people who call themselves atheists just because religious folks get on their nerves, yet they aren't even sure what they actually believe since they've never really sat down to think about it. Personally, I don't feel the need to police anyone else's labels; their faith, or lack thereof, is their own business.

darkraven said:If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

You see plenty of people like that—they don't actually live by the values of the faith they claim, but they like the social status of being seen as believers. It honestly turns me off a bit, but then again, it's not my place to interfere.

darkraven said:If we go by that logic, we might as well throw every definition in the trash because apparently nothing means anything to you. Anyone can just claim to be whatever they want, regardless of whether they actually fit the description or not.

So, according to you, someone could call themselves an atheist even if they believe in God, effectively disqualifying themselves from being an atheist by every logical standard, but hey, if they say so, so be it.

And some person could claim to be Catholic even if their entire worldview has absolutely zero connection to Christianity, simply because they insist they're Catholic.

For instance, I've had all my sacraments. By your logic, I'm a Catholic too, even though I'm probably further away from the faith than anyone could possibly be.

And you honestly think that's fine? You don't see anything absurd about that at all?

😵

If you say you aren't Catholic, then you aren't Catholic (even if the church records still list you as one unless you officially requested to be removed).

darkraven
Do you honestly think that’s normal? You don't find any of this totally absurd?

😵

To be honest, I find all these religious labels pretty ridiculous. They seem so absurd to me that I don't feel any need to define myself as anything specific. I tend to pick and choose practices from various traditions, hold my own evolving beliefs, and mostly rely on my own lived experience rather than someone else's interpretation of things. But then again, just as it seems absurd to me when someone calls themselves a believer, an agnostic, an atheist, or anything else, it’s probably just as absurd to them that I stay "undecided." I don't think these are things we really need to stress over too much.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Heh, honestly, I have no clue. If he wants to make a case for himself, he can step up and explain it. It’s not my job to be his defense attorney.

To whom? The devil or the Bear? 😂

Matthew Castillo5 said:He isn't Christian; if my memory serves me right, he leans more towards some kind of Hinduism.

Where on earth would he come from then? 🤔 (Though, I suppose there are some demons over there too, but they're really just minor characters meant to be dealt with by the actual deities. 🤣 )

David Vaughn75 said:Look, you claimed the whole "path of the devil" thing was just some Christian fairy tale.

It’s not some made-up story—the devil is real, and he’s out there doing his work.

Yeah, and? What does that actually have to do with taking responsibility for your own actions?

David Vaughn75 said:Look, you claimed the whole "path of the devil" thing was just some Christian fairy tale.

It’s not some made-up story—the devil is real, and he’s out there doing his work.

Look, if you're a Christian, I have no interest in debating your faith with you. Let's just agree to disagree on that one. 🙂

David Vaughn75 said:So you're one of those people, huh? One of those folks who thinks they can just do whatever the hell they want without ever facing consequences because God loves everyone unconditionally. Typical.

No, what makes you think that?

David Vaughn75 said:Akasha is a real, tangible place, and honestly, anyone messing around with that stuff is probably heading down the devil's path

The "devil's path" isn't even a real thing; it's just a Christian invention. I don't doubt for a second that Akasha is real—I personally find answers to some pretty tough questions there all the time—but I have my doubts about whether the Halls of Ament actually exist. Their purpose seems redundant since they perform the same function as Akasha, just on a much lower level, so I suspect they might just be a metaphor.

darkraven said:.

Look, if someone actually believes in the existence of a (wicked) God, they aren't atheists. Period. Atheism is defined by the lack of belief in any gods—doesn't matter if you think they're benevolent, neutral, or straight-up evil.

Believing in a god is called theism, plain and simple. If we're talking about believing in some kind of malicious deity, that’s just a specific flavor of theism, not atheism.

End of story. Mic drop.

Not true. 😁

If someone checks the "Catholic" box on a census, then they are Catholic. It doesn't matter if they show up to Mass every Sunday, on Christmas and Easter, or just when they're getting married. It’s the same thing if they actually believe that Jesus is God, conceived by the Blessed Virgin, or if they view those stories as fairy tales. If they've taken the sacraments, even the priests would agree they're Catholic, whether they're a saint or a sinner.

The moment someone publicly identifies as an atheist, they are an atheist—regardless of whether they occasionally let out a "thank God" or a "damn it, Jesus." Essentially, an atheist is an atheist as long as they consider themselves one. The same logic applies to agnostics, pantheists, and all those other modern spiritual labels. You are what you say you are, and everyone else needs to respect that.

darkraven said:People who claim to believe in God but absolutely loathe Him, or those calling themselves atheists when they really aren't, are basically just confused misotheists or dystheists.

Bottom line, Nicole James is spot on here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villain

Look, if you have a moral compass and some fictional character does something that goes against everything you stand for, you’ve got every right and freedom to label them as bad or evil. It's basic logic.

And in the real world, what philosophers call the "problem of evil" is a legitimate issue, and it is a valid argument against the existence of a God with certain specific attributes. There are plenty of other similar arguments out there too. So what if someone finds one of those convincing? Does that automatically turn them into some closeted believer who’s just acting out of spite against God? Give me a break.

If someone identifies as an atheist, then they are an atheist, regardless of whatever emotional confusion they might be going through. Religious affiliation is often a rational choice—fitting into society, playing it safe for the afterlife, and so on—but spirituality is a different beast entirely. It touches the emotional and even the physical aspects of being human, so you can't really pin it down with strict mental labels.

Justin Baker6 said:During the creation of Our Universe, the Halls of Ament were built by Metatron and Shekinah to house the knowledge that WE accumulate during Our incarnations.

Exactly. From what I understand, Metatron represents the masculine aspect of God—the Word—while Shekinah embodies the feminine, or the physical body. Since human consciousness and physiology exist in such a positive feedback loop, it’s highly likely this is a mythological representation of that connection rather than a literal, physical location. The article also brings up Anubis, whose role is to weigh the hearts of the deceased, which suggests that the heart itself could be the actual meeting point for Metatron and Shekinah.

I haven't had a chance to work with Metatron yet. How about you?

Gregory Carter67 said:Sounds too good to be true. You get a newsletter, and suddenly that newsletter is making you question your entire spiritual vibe. I've heard plenty of theories, but this is a new one.

I don't see why anyone would be surprised—signs show up in all sorts of ways. One person might witness a burning bush, while someone else just gets an email in their inbox. 🙂

It’s not quite Akasha, though it definitely hits a similar note for me:

https://www.timwhild.com/activations...all-of-amenti/