Posts by Joseph Bailey41

restlessdriver said:I get the sense that a few people here have painted this guy as being deeply depressed or even suicidal. Honestly, I don't think that's quite right. He isn't more depressed than the average person... he just sounds disillusioned.

That’s just one side of the coin; he needs to find the other.

Someone who has focused intensely on their own niche interests, seen how the gears turn behind the scenes, can't just unsee it. You can't help him the way you're imagining. He has to find his own way through, just like the rest of us. It's exactly what he said: how can he be expected to help someone else if he hasn't figured himself out yet?

It makes sense why he’d avoid seeing a psychiatrist. After all, what is the point of psychiatry? To force a perspective back into socially acceptable boundaries. But he doesn't want to go back there, and frankly, he probably can't. There's a paradox in sending every deviation from the norm to a doctor—who gets to decide what the "true" perspective actually is?

The search lasts a lifetime, but if he keeps looking, he'll find it eventually...

I have a dog who is incredibly smart and sweet. Aside from the obvious bias, he really is the best dog I've ever known. But sometimes, he gets so profoundly sad... you know, when he looks at you with those soulful eyes that seem to reflect the entire hopelessness and futility of existence? That overwhelming cosmic melancholy? In those moments, you Must just toss him a piece of deli meat, because he truly looks like he hasn't eaten in a month.

Whenever there’s a neighborhood cookout or a block party, he shows up. He doesn't bark, he doesn't cause trouble, and he isn't annoying. He just sits there, looking mournful. It's impossible to stay indifferent; only a complete sociopath could deny him a bite of a burger, a slice of pizza, or some bacon... because it's the least we can do to soothe that endless, universal sorrow.

To be clear, he isn't neglected. He isn't "depressed." He goes on regular walks through the woods with us, sleeps in the bed, gets plenty of affection, loves his cats, and the kids absolutely adore him. Most of the time, he’s happy and upbeat. But there are those specific moments where only a completely heartless person could ignore his sadness.

Shallow, literal-minded people would say the clever pup just figured out a brilliant way to manipulate us for treats... but I simply refuse to believe that. ☕

Morgan Peterson6 said:He’s got a job, a family, and pets he absolutely adores—plus he squeezes in sports whenever he can.
He isn't some depressed guy walking around with a dark cloud over his head; you wouldn't even tell by talking to him—he laughs, he jokes...
I was talking to him yesterday, and when I told him he sounded depressed, he just said, "No, I'm just sad."
He says that after everything he's searched for, there's just this emptiness inside him.
There's nothing left to hold onto.
He just doesn't see the point in existing anymore.

He's really into that whole New Age thing—not like following gurus or those weird authors, but more about how we perceive our origins and where we go once we leave this dimension.
He thinks we're all just puppets in some kind of Matrix.
And honestly? That's what's killing him.

I don't know—I'm letting it go. I tried, but it's just not working.

I'm giving up.🙂

I don't even know why I started this thread. I care about him so much, but I just don't have the capacity to help him myself—our perspectives are worlds apart. Everything I say or offer as a solution just doesn't resonate with him because my idea of God and his idea of God are completely different... and frankly, I don't know anything about his version of God, and I'm not a fan of it either.

That sounds like a smart move. You mentioned earlier that you're a bird lover—do you do any bird feeding? Any particular species you're most fond of?

hiddenpuma75 said:It seems Beljki is right there with me in my own ignorance on this one. Beljki also has a real distaste for psychiatry.🤣

He just tends to use those fancy linguistic structures, throwing in terms like "cognitive" just to make things sound more academic than they actually are.😁

As for me, I’ve never stepped foot in a psychiatrist's office because, honestly, it always seemed like a total waste of time.

Between the high costs and being pumped full of meds that just give you a temporary illusion of feeling better, it's a lot.

Besides, it’s an open secret that people have the capacity—and the responsibility—to help themselves.

Just look at the classic movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. A much better remedy than any shrink is finding community, staying active through sports, getting out into the mountains, or even just having a pet. Those are the true cures for all those imaginary ailments we obsess over.

MOTIKA 👍

The bottom line:

When a person finally learns to stop obsessing over themselves and lets their mind wander freely, the problems tend to fade away.😉

I think this might be the first time you and I have actually seen eye to eye on something.
Maybe the end of the world really is just around the corner this time.

Paul Rogers94 said:Wow... 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

So apparently I don't understand "basic concepts like an objective bottle of wine" 🎉 (there’s zero inconsistency there, right? This statement isn't just a total paradox and completely nonsensical—it's not an oxymoron??? How can you even think an objective concept exists? You actually have to decide if something is a concept or if it's objective; it can't be both simultaneously just because you want to sound intellectual. First, try figuring out what a concept actually is, then maybe it'll be easier to make a final call)

Read this paragraph of pure nonsense again—what exactly is this "my concept of perceiving a wine bottle"

"and becoming subjective"

And you don't find that ridiculous-grotesque-intellectual-sounding-nonsense all at once?

You're lost, man...

Do you have actual problems here, or are you just stupid as hell?

If it's the former, don't worry—love conquers all. 😍

But if it's the latter... there's no helping you.

I don't know if it helps, but I'm not much smarter than you, nor is anyone else who tries to engage in any intellectual debates using "arguments and evidence" with you.

Have you ever considered just showing him a little love instead?🙂

mistybison said:I believe a major issue with discussions like this is that everyone approaches the subject from a different angle. Take >, for example. One person might read it and accept everything within its pages as absolute truth without hesitation. Another might read it and attempt to intellectually deconstruct the ideas, interpreting concepts and comparing them to other texts. A third person might read it simply wanting to perceive reality through the lens it describes; they aren't interested in blind faith or intellectual debate, but rather in direct experience and insight.

That said, people value direct experience differently. For some, it is the ultimate goal of existence, and they will use any means necessary to reach it. They might experiment with various substances, follow strict diets, practice intense meditation, or retreat into complete isolation, often neglecting their daily lives entirely. Conversely, there are those who view such experiences merely as tools to enrich their understanding of life as it is. They maintain their health and stay engaged with the world, believing that ordinary life itself is the purpose, while spiritual insight serves as the seasoning.

Those seeking direct insight often struggle to communicate with people who lack it or have no interest in it. They find it difficult to accept faith without scrutiny, and they find philosophical debates—which often devolve into mere mental gymnastics or the analysis of a from a great teacher—to be exhausting. They can perhaps share their experiences with others who have had similar encounters or at least desire them. It is draining to try to convince others of what we have experienced, especially when explaining something inherently inexpressible to people who lack the will to even try to understand.

In my view, these are the primary reasons why meaningful dialogue on this subforum is so difficult and why fewer people choose to share their intimate spiritual journeys.

Regarding various insights, we must remain mindful of our own limitations. We are essentially just slightly more rational animals. Just as a dog cannot learn multiplication tables no matter how hard we try to explain them, a human living in three dimensions simply cannot grasp something that may exist in sixteen dimensions. Evolution moves slowly; despite all our advancements in medicine and technology, humans today are fundamentally the same as they were 2,000 years ago. Our cognitive capacity is limited. If we are unable to register or comprehend something, it does not mean that it does not exist.

Let's put that to the test. I'll try teaching my dog long division, and you try explaining the concept of meditation to Zachary Cox69. 😁

And since I'm always a fan of fair play, I'll give you a one-month head start. ☕

Zachary Cox69 said:His final words: "I commit my soul into the hands of God, my Creator, with absolute faith in Jesus Christ, my Savior."
(William Shakespeare 1564 - 1616)
"A belief in God is hardwired into the hearts of all people. Those who claim they don't believe in His existence are lying—because even they find themselves questioning everything when they're alone in the dark at night."
(Seneca, Roman poet, philosopher, and statesman, 4 BC - 65 AD)

A little bit of philosophy might nudge someone toward atheism—but dive deep enough into philosophy, and it usually brings a person right back to religion."
(Francis Bacon, the father of scientific methodology, philosopher, and statesman)

If we're using the word 'implanted,' then that implies it doesn't actually belong there—like it's some kind of foreign object. Kind of like getting silicone implants.

Zachary Cox69 said:Knowing something from the inside isn't the same as looking in from the outside. An addict might think drugs are great, too. But I don't need to consume them to understand the consequences.
Some people know a ton about groups like Temple Nation, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hare Krishna, or Scientology, so they're "informed," even if being involved is a bad move. Summoning spirits is dangerous, yet people do it anyway. Magic is the same way—black or white, people still mess with it.

Just circling back to my original question... what are the actual similarities between Christian meditation and Eastern styles?

Zachary Cox69 said:Copied from another forum:

"When people talk about 'Eastern meditation,' they aren't talking about Christian meditation—they're different things entirely.
A person can't just figure out God on their own through sheer willpower—God is beyond our grasp; He has to choose to reveal Himself to us.
In a Christian sense, Eastern meditation isn't prayer. Prayer is a conversation with a living God.

Joseph Ratzinger explained the difference between Christian meditation and the Eastern style quite clearly:
"To put it simply, what matters in transcendental meditation is that a person sheds their own self; they merge with the general essence of the world—so, in a way, their personality becomes a ruin.
In Christian meditation, however, I don't lose who I am; instead, I enter into a personal connection with the person of Christ. I enter into a 'thou' relationship with Christ, so my 'self' isn't lost—it actually reinforces my identity and responsibility.
At the same time, it opens up and penetrates the deepest unity—a unity of love that doesn't destroy you. So, to simplify it slightly, I’d say transcendental meditation is impersonal and, in that sense, depersonalizing. Christian meditation, on the other hand, personifies and opens up a deep unity born of love, rather than the disintegration of the self.
Christian meditation is, first and foremost, an encounter: the creature meeting its Creator."
-------------------------------------------
Christian meditation is a form of prayer, in a way. But during the actual meditation, you're silent before God. You reflect on Him—waiting for a revelation, seeking a deeper understanding of who He is and His nature. We often meditate (reflect) on passages from the Bible we've just read, expecting the Holy Spirit to reveal their deeper meaning. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be our teacher—and He is God, just as much as the Father and the Son. So, we direct our thoughts toward someone—and that someone is God.

Okay, those are the differences. But what about the similarities?

hiddenpuma75 said:Just to be clear, this post isn't a direct rebuttal to Dragan’s latest update from earlier tonight.

It’s honestly too easy to just get stuck in a political shouting match and reflexively argue against everything Dragan says just for the sake of arguing. I’m officially opting out of that cycle.

HERE IS MY TAKEAWAY:

The way I see the world is that women in any civilized society face the same ups and downs as men. Life involves suffering, regardless of gender—suffering doesn't care if you're a man or a woman.

The constant whining from certain feminists about "evil white men" has been effectively dismantled by people like Jordan Peterson and even Raspudić here in the States.

Of course, in primitive societies, life is undeniably harder for women, but that's a total truism.
It's difficult because, at that primal level, life is simply dictated by whoever holds the most power.😉

Are you suggesting that oppression doesn't exist in developed countries? Then how do you explain the homelessness crisis, workplace injuries, and all that? Let’s set aside gender for a second—those with more money, power, or influence naturally squeeze those with less. Suffering doesn't just fall from the sky; people create it constantly while trying to grab more than their fair share. Women in certain parts of the world managed to fight for their rights, not by attacking men personally, but by challenging the structures that allowed injustice to persist. And let’s be real: they didn't do it by being delicate little flowers. No one survives or improves their situation in this world by acting like a fragile butterfly.

If the number of homeless men really bothers you, feel free to go out and organize some aid. Just like you could comfort someone to prevent them from committing suicide, or stop using products made through forced labor... tomorrow you could start an association (all-male, if that makes you feel better) and actually work on solving these issues. But I get the impression these statistics are only waved around when it's convenient to protect one's own skin... or rather, to pivot back to the main topic... our own bruised egos caused by some random woman who barely pays us any mind. Not necessarily you, but guys who wave these grim statistics around like a flag, essentially shouting, "Oh, it's hard for me too because I have a penis"... which quickly translates to "women are just targets who spend all day painting their nails."

I really don't have the patience for that anymore. Credit to Dragan for trying to provide reasoned arguments about where this perceived female "superiority" comes from... but it's all for nothing if a junkie like Peterson keeps barking his talking points, and I won't even bring up Raspudić since you already know how I feel about him. If you think following caricatures of the male gender (or humanity in general) is the way to go... then we really have nothing left to talk about.

hiddenpuma75 said:Look, when I say that war is a normal phenomenon, I’m certainly not suggesting it's something desirable or good, nor am I saying we should go looking for it. What I mean is that conflicts—whether small or large—are a constant presence all over the world. And honestly, the most devastating wars were right here in our beautiful Europe that so many people seem to dream about.

There are countless causes for war, but it isn't as simplistic as our dear casualtiger2 thinks. It’s not just "men cause wars"—if that were the case, they could just take that 92% male fatality rate in combat as their karmic reward. 🙄

In my view, the factors leading to conflict include aggressive men, but also the women who drive them to such extremes. 😉 😁

It’s almost like you never served in the US Army. You know how it goes... duty first, marriage later. That’s usually how life worked out. Besides, I didn't get the impression that casualtiger2 was blaming young, testosterone-driven guys... but rather the older, more calculated individuals who actually orchestrated these conflicts for their own gain. Honestly, you can take those old myths about Helen any place you want; after all, what does a blind man know about beauty?😁

Personally, I wouldn't draw a line based on gender... it's more about character. I got the feeling you're a fan of books from Amazon... and this one seems right up your alley:

https://www.amazon.com/Dispelling-We.../dp/1583945482

hiddenpuma75 said:First off:

You're missing the point entirely—here's what she actually means:

Let's be honest: life is tough for every man and woman out there. It’s just one of those inescapable realities of being alive.

It’s true—life isn't exactly an even playing field, and some people definitely deal with a heavier load than others. But at the end of the day, every man and woman faces their own unique set of trials, both those tied to gender and those that have nothing to do with it.

Complaining to women that they are too pale. 🙄 To claim that men in positions of power are inherently to blame for everything—or that life is simply easier for guys and harder for women—is a massive oversimplification. In most real-world scenarios, that kind of sweeping generalization just doesn't hold up.

Everything is so deeply interconnected, and there are just so many unknowns, that it feels almost reductive to paint men as the perpetual instigators of war while casting women merely as the creators of flowers and butterflies. 🙂 🎉 🙂 We're looking at this from the perspective of elementary school students and kids up to about 13 years old.

Your attempt to pin the blame for wars on those terrible men is just as ridiculous as it would be if I tried to argue that mothers are the ones responsible for wars because they raised those men. 🙄 Honestly, if they had truly embraced their roles as mothers and women, they wouldn't have raised such flawed men—the very same men their own daughters are now calling out for being so problematic. 🙄

By the way, conflict is just a natural, unavoidable part of being human. It’s really at the root of so many things.

It’s pretty obvious that some problems just can't be solved any other way than through pure, unadulterated struggle. Sometimes, you're fighting for your very life. That’s just the reality of things—it was true back in the days of America, it's true across the globe today, and it'll be true long after we're gone.

Of course, just because someone wins doesn't mean they're automatically "right." But hey, at least they proved they were the better fighter. To me, that’s still a step up from endless, empty chatter or just settling for the status quo.

I really can't bring myself to agree with that. (And I don't mean regarding the existence of fatherhood, but rather whether it's "normal.") It's all just flower-butterfly stuff. 🙂

casualtiger2 said:I guess those wars were totally necessary—that women just initiated them and forced men to kill each other.

Back in 1971, women finally gotthe Swiss Vote(in the canton of Vermont, not until 1990!)

Back in 1985, women finally gained the freedom to open their own bank accounts and land jobs without needing their husbands' permission first.
🎉

Nancy Lee84 said:Joseph Bailey41, they caught you right where you thrive... you're totally running the show 🙂

Oh, that. Thanks for translating. 😁

To be honest, I don't even remember when or why I wrote that... but I really don't feel militant at all. That just feels so third-dimensional and unspiritual. I spend my time reading Sensata, hugging trees, celebrating the lunar cycles, and soaking in the endless abundance of Mother Nature—plus, I'm already planning to attend a womb blessing workshop next year.

And then yesterday, I got some great news—it turns out my ego boundaries are incredibly firm; they've healed, just spontaneously. Maybe the same thing happened with my Virgo opposition... I haven't had a chance to check yet.

Love is the law. 🎉

mistywalker16 said:That sounds like militant feminism to me—mostly because, behind the curtain of the reality we actually live in, there's an ongoing gender war driven by extreme ego states. It's something certain individuals have managed to build up within their social circles (and failed to control), and the higher the level of imbalance, the more brutal it gets—which, frankly, is currently devastating the most capable segment of the male population.

Women have absolutely succeeded in this takeover due to an inherent predisposition they've started leveraging—not to foster love, but to concentrate power. The whole thing was facilitated by the old concept of virginity, which has lost all its relevance. Now, the modern woman can just visualize what she wants in her head, leaving us with a public sphere full of shallow caricatures who, in their own truth regarding how they actually function, are essentially incapable of truly realizing themselves as women anymore. At this stage, you also see homosexuality acting as a stronghold—which is really just a deviation of sexuality fueled by the "modern female ego," where the very origin of love used to reside.

The problem is massive, and it's only going to get worse unless we find the guts to face it head-on (and it's really just a matter of time before we have to). We are facing one of the greatest revolutions—a revolution of the mind for most people... triggered by a realization of who we actually are, which is ultimately what drives the advancement of consciousness.

I’m sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you're getting at. 🤷

Could you maybe explain that in plain English?

James Miller2 said:Evil always goes hand in hand with high intelligence and great cunning.
I don't know a single evil person who wasn't above average in intelligence.

My view is that intelligence becomes a flaw the moment the mind overshadows humanity.

Some highly intelligent people fail in life because they cannot assimilate into society due to other deficiencies, such as a lack of socialization.
Therefore, intelligence is not a necessary factor for success or a happy life. However, it is a very good starting point for those who know how to use it.

With intelligent people, just as with those who are less intelligent... the question is whether a person possesses organized moral values that override their intellect.

Also, does the person have the ability to channel their frustration and the things they cannot control in a positive direction, or will they take matters into their own hands and commit evil?

If that were actually true, your IQ would surely be off the charts, but looking at your posts, I’m not seeing much evidence for that. Honestly, you seem to be contradicting your own "theory" here.☕

Zachary Cox69 said:

=Unknown;76912931

What a complete failure of a spiritual teacher—if he couldn't make them understand something that simple within a year or so—that his role wasn't to be a militant liberator for the state of Israel from the Roman occupation, but rather a peaceful redeemer of humanity's sins. It was a mission of peace, not war!
What kind of idiot would miss the chance to clarify that? To show he was a peacemaker, not a terrorist. Were the apostles mentally slow? Or was Jesus just blind? 😵

If I weren't worried about getting banned, I’d tell you straight up: you're being a total fool here. Your take is shallow. Look, as a Christian, I'm trying to explain this to you—Jesus came to liberate people from sin, not from earthly rulers. But it just won't sink in. They were primarily looking for liberation from foreign rule, much like how Americans might feel regarding certain systemic injustices. That was their focus. Later, once they saw the risen Jesus, they never viewed him as a way to break the Roman occupation again. Get it? Why don't you try explaining the actual importance of this to someone who's being dense.

The whole point of a teacher is to make it clear that he isn't a militant Jewish Messiah, but a universal peacemaker. It's the exact opposite of what they had in their heads. How could Jesus not have explained that clearly to them? FOR GOD'S SAKE, if he hadn't, then the apostles and those 72 followers would have gone around preaching that they planned to join Jesus in an armed revolt against the Romans! And that's no joke—that would have been incredibly dangerous!

This is superficial and totally detached from reality. They preached the Kingdom of Heaven, not an earthly one.

LATER??? After Jesus came back from the grave and cleared things up? Seems a little late for that, doesn't it? It's almost as if Jesus Christ INTENTIONALLY led them to believe he was an armed rebel (selling everything just to buy swords!), so they would preach it that way—making it look like the Messiah-Christ fit the traditional mold, which would lead the Romans to catch and execute him for insurrection.
Jesus was a great deceiver of the apostles.

Again, too shallow. He taught them to "turn the other cheek," "love your enemy," and "forgive seventy times seven."

As a former Catholic, I know the dogma and the faith well. Ask yourself why Jesus deceived the apostles. He wasn't so clueless that he didn't see how they viewed him—as a militant savior for Israel. That's what they believed right up until he appeared after his death. lol What a joke.

Just imagine if they HAD gone out and told the crowds: "Hey, we messed up before; Jesus wasn't a militant liberator, he was actually the peaceful Savior from sin—born of a perpetual Virgin from God—so go get baptized!" And then masses of Jews flocking to be baptized. Ha ha ha.

You’ve clearly never actually encountered Catholic Jesus. You’ve obviously stepped too far into the occult—that’s why you’re so confused.

Look, it doesn't specify what kind of snake it was—whether it was venomous or not—and it definitely doesn't say he was bitten (which is what you're assuming). But it's obvious the locals were incredibly superstitious. It's just one of those silly stories meant for the naive... "No, the snake didn't hurt him, just like Jesus proclaimed!" lol

Where is your head at? Seriously. They think Paul committed some massive sin against God and that God is punishing him with a snake bite—but then, seeing that he was bitten and nothing happened, they view him as divine. It's crystal clear to anyone with sense. Apparently not to you.

I couldn't care less—I'm just sitting here having a beer. If you end up in hell, who cares? Not my problem.

Man, Christians these days... there was a time when people weren't even afraid of lions, yet now everyone is shaking in their boots over a simple moderator ban. O tempora, o mores. ☕

Anthony Perez9 said:So, Jesus basically told people to pick up snakes, claiming that having faith in Him would somehow protect them from the venom.

Basically, it’s just some hillbilly nonsense. The liar snuck that in. So, according to the Bible—which is supposedly the word of Jesus-God—we aren't even allowed to change a single thing without facing eternal damnation. Real fun.

"The guy who supposedly wasn't even part of that Gospel originally? Yeah, some liar just slipped him in there."

Theology is just way too full of those kinds of sugarcoated lies. 🙂
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you.

I'm pretty sure that interpolation was just cooked up later to make Mark line up better with the other Gospels. Unlike Mark, those others love including stories about how Jesus showed himself to his disciples and his broader mission. So, nah, Jesus probably didn't actually say that.

There’s more to it. But we're only talking about stuff that could actually be plausible. Honestly, there's a good chance even more was faked, but without any original documents or independent witnesses to back it up, the whole thing is just a messy blur of anonymous writers and religious propagandists.
They just throw a bunch of Old Testament details at you in this desperate attempt to prove Jesus is the Messiah, even though if that guy actually existed, there’s basically zero proof left of what really went down.

Yeah, let’s be real—the people out there grabbing "inspiration" from those quotes are really just looking for an excuse for their own insanity.

It's the same old story with the people speaking in tongues, casting out demons, or obsessively worshipping the Virgin. Same nonsense, different day.

Thanks, Jesus—you're a real piece of work. 😉
You've been holding that same grudge for 2,000 years. 😂

Basically, it’s just some hillbilly nonsense. The liar snuck that in. So, according to the Bible—which is supposedly the word of Jesus-God—we aren't even allowed to change a single thing without facing eternal damnation. Real fun.

"The guy who supposedly wasn't even part of that Gospel originally? Yeah, some liar just slipped him in there."

Theology is just way too full of those kinds of sugarcoated lies. 🙂
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you.

I'm pretty sure that interpolation was just cooked up later to make Mark line up better with the other Gospels. Unlike Mark, those others love including stories about how Jesus showed himself to his disciples and his broader mission. So, nah, Jesus probably didn't actually say that.

There’s more to it. But we're only talking about stuff that could actually be plausible. Honestly, there's a good chance even more was faked, but without any original documents or independent witnesses to back it up, the whole thing is just a messy blur of anonymous writers and religious propagandists.
They just throw a bunch of Old Testament details at you in this desperate attempt to prove Jesus is the Messiah, even though if that guy actually existed, there’s basically zero proof left of what really went down.

Yeah, let’s be real—the people out there grabbing "inspiration" from those quotes are really just looking for an excuse for their own insanity.

It's the same old story with the people speaking in tongues, casting out demons, or obsessively worshipping the Virgin. Same nonsense, different day.

Thanks, Jesus—you're a real piece of work. 😉
You've been holding that same grudge for 2,000 years. 😂

Basically, it’s just some hillbilly nonsense. The liar snuck that in. So, according to the Bible—which is supposedly the word of Jesus-God—we aren't even allowed to change a single thing without facing eternal damnation. Real fun.

"The guy who supposedly wasn't even part of that Gospel originally? Yeah, some liar just slipped him in there."

Theology is just way too full of those kinds of sugarcoated lies. 🙂
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about you.

I'm pretty sure that interpolation was just cooked up later to make Mark line up better with the other Gospels. Unlike Mark, those others love including stories about how Jesus showed himself to his disciples and his broader mission. So, nah, Jesus probably didn't actually say that.

There’s more to it. But we're only talking about stuff that could actually be plausible. Honestly, there's a good chance even more was faked, but without any original documents or independent witnesses to back it up, the whole thing is just a messy blur of anonymous writers and religious propagandists.
They just throw a bunch of Old Testament details at you in this desperate attempt to prove Jesus is the Messiah, even though if that guy actually existed, there’s basically zero proof left of what really went down.

Yeah, let’s be real—the people out there grabbing "inspiration" from those quotes are really just looking for an excuse for their own insanity.

It's the same old story with the people speaking in tongues, casting out demons, or obsessively worshipping the Virgin. Same nonsense, different day.

Thanks, Jesus—you're a real piece of work. 😉
You've been holding that same grudge for 2,000 years. 😂
And look... if you spend your entire childhood being teased because people question your parentage, you might as well learn how to laugh at it. 😉

frozenstag9 said:I'll be sure to dive much deeper into this later—I want to share more about those Light Riders who descended upon our planet, because, if you ask me, we are actually their direct descendants.
For those of us who live to ride nothing but pure light sine waves, we're really just carrying on their ancient legacy.

Sounds good. To be honest, I've always been more of a Silver Surfer fan than a Kal-el guy. 🕺

frozenstag9 said:Look, it starts with self-love—once you master that, loving everything else becomes second nature.
🤣

That’s a solid point. I mean... if we're supposed to 'love our neighbor as ourselves,' but we can't even find any sense of self-worth to begin with... well, we're kind of stuck, aren't we? 😬

frozenstag9 said:While those stuck in rigid religious dogmas are just trudging along a single, narrow path... we're out here riding the wave of light!
It’s honestly way more thrilling for us—we’re basically surfers cruising through the universe.
Just imagine how wild it'll get once we master the art of materializing and dematerializing right on that wave of light...

What exactly would you be materializing, or dematerializing?