Posts by northernowl11

Nine days without sleep? Everything you’re describing sounds like classic burnout, but it could also be a sign that you're low on certain nutrients, like magnesium. Physical exhaustion definitely takes a toll on your mental state, too.

First things first: you need actual rest, plenty of sleep, decent nutrition, staying hydrated, and a solid multivitamin or mineral supplement. If you still feel this way after getting back on track, go back to your primary care physician and insist on some follow-up testing. Good luck.

John Johnson16 said:Ryan Wilson2 -Evil is not from God, just as we are not of this World and its flesh, but of the Ghost.
Anthony Cook8 -You’ve articulated everything perfectly, yet somehow you still choose to mock rather than truly see.
northernowl11 -I am certainly not elevating myself here; rather, it is those of you who believe that some hollow meditation involving the repetitive chanting of various mantras can actually save the Unicorn.

It is much like when a glimmer of light is kindled before a man, and he continues to extinguish it simply because he lacks the strength to open his eyes and gaze steadily into that Light, choosing instead to squint and struggle against it with all his might.

Who, me? I don't deal in Yoga or meditation at all.

Do you even know what the word "Yoga" actually means? It represents a unification—a joining of mind, spirit, and body, but also the union of a person with their higher, divine nature; essentially, oneness with God. Yoga teaches humility, self-discipline, and how to overcome the ego.

It isn't God who saves a person; it is humility and surrender to God that does the saving.

After all, a tree is known by its fruit, isn't it? If the fruit of yoga and meditation is a person free from Evil, devoid of arrogance, and whose thoughts and actions are pure before God (and there is only one God)—then what exactly can you find fault with those techniques?

Of course, there are those who will exploit any teaching for their own selfish gain, but that isn't the point here. With so much Evil in the World, you're actually fighting against Yoga. 🤷

Since we’re already quoting the Bible...

"...To those who were confident in their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, He told this parable: 'Two men went up to the Temple to pray—one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed, "God, I thank you that I am not like other people—greedy, wicked, unfaithful—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of everything I get." But the tax collector stood at a distance. He wouldn't even look up to heaven, but beat his chest and said, "God, have mercy on me, a sinner." I tell you, it is this man, not the other, who went home justified. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.'"

casualtiger2 said:I bring it up mostly for the sake of conversation flow—and historical justice, really (I can't forgive Brun and the rest of them). 😍
I usually don't bother replying to people on these forums with hardly any posts—they’re often just burner accounts—and I'll admit I haven't been following your posting history closely. So, it's entirely possible we actually *are* on the same "side" (but there are always enough other people out there who "get" what I'm saying).

nimblewolf11 👍

Well, thanks for the grace. 😉 By the way, what is the magic number of posts required to avoid being suspected of being a clone? Is hitting a thousand posts some kind of guarantee of authenticity? How many hours a day does one need to spend on an American forum to earn full membership status?
(Off-topic, but I couldn't help myself 😁)

I admit I haven't been following your contributions here, so it’s entirely possible we’re on the same "side" (though there are always enough others out there to ensure someone eventually "gets" what I'm saying).

I haven't been following your writing either, aside from this specific thread. It’s possible I’ve stumbled upon one of your posts elsewhere, but nothing stands out in my memory.

Generally speaking, I feel like I'm on the side of any well-intentioned "seeker." My impression is that most people visiting this topic fall into that category—though occasionally they get tripped up by their own egos (myself included). But if you take a moment to look beneath the surface, you'll see that most of us are actually striving for the same thing.

That’s why it’s so frustrating to watch generally good-hearted people here bickering over trivialities while missing the actual point. If I were to lean into conspiracy theories, I’d say someone (or something) is certainly profiting from that distraction.

This whole topic was born as a reaction to something, which was itself a reaction to something else, and so on. A pendulum, a swing, a perpetual motion machine.

The root of quasi-spirituality doesn't lie within religions or sects; the issue lies primarily in our own human weaknesses. We tend to choose the path of least resistance, shift responsibility onto others, or become exclusionary and defensive. Different religions are just different paths toward the same destination, but ultimately, the journey depends entirely on the traveler and their intention.

casualtiger2 said:I find myself asking the same thing: how can someone truly spiritual fail to recognize the essence of Christian doctrine? How can an intelligent, empathetic person get lost in semantics, mistaking the abuse of teachings for the teachings themselves, instead of resonating with the universal messages that lie at their very core?

Can one be authentic enough that belonging to a community (or a "flock," if you prefer the derogatory term used here) doesn't compromise their individuality? It’s a double-edged sword, isn't it? Even when a person physically distances themselves from the group, they remain a part of it. In that sense, there is no such thing as a solitary legend. Any individual "achievement"—spiritual or material—is ultimately the result of centuries, or even millennia, of collective human effort and insight.

Then again, everyone follows their own path, and every path serves its purpose in the end. A Christian might wander into the detours of "quasi-spirituality" just like anyone else.

We are all searching for Glass City, but perhaps we need to travel to India or to Lourdes to realize that it resides within us, and always has. But then again, what can you do? 🙂

The "problem" is that the core itself isn't inherently Christian.
Some Muslims tell me—and they're right—that those terrorists killing in Allah's name aren't actually true believers.
And honestly, it’s all a wash. Everything churches and believers have done up to this point—none of it represents true faith, and none of it is the actual doctrine.
Let’s be real—you’re basically just retrofitting old teachings to fit modern ethical standards. You take whatever happens to align with today's idea of a decent person—that elusive "ideal human"—and act like your faith invented those values in the first place. It's convenient, really. But you conveniently gloss over the absolute horrors actually written in the Bible or the Quran—all those atrocities committed by believers and their so-called "divine" institutions.
So, some people slap a "Christianity" label on it, others go with Islam, then there's Hinduism—all used to dress up basic human values and ideals. But honestly? You get those same principles just by having decent parenting at home—and yeah, even in atheist households.
And all that bad stuff? That isn’t actually part of your teachings—it’s just what you pin on everyone else. Real believers don't act like that. It’s always "the others" who are at fault—as if hell is always reserved for someone else.
I honestly don't get how you all can be so easily fooled—trying to sugarcoat things that just aren't meant to be pretty.
Whatever.
PS
Look, this isn't even about whether God exists or what His personality is like—that’s not the point. We're talking about outdated, misguided, and frankly, borderline violent doctrines—and more importantly, the actual damage they do to people who follow them.

Is there anyone out there actually authentic enough that belonging to a group—or a "herd," if we’re being cynical—doesn't kill their individuality? You know, like "sink or swim," right? Even when you physically walk away from the crowd, you’re still part of it. It's just how it works.

Look, I don't mean this any way that's offensive.
I wasn't talking about humanity in general—I was being specific about Christians. And look, it’s right there in your own scriptures and the sermons from your leaders: terms like "the good shepherd" and "the flock" are your own internal shorthand. It's similar to how Muslims love to boast about being "slaves of Allah"—I'm just using your own terminology, specifically as a counterweight to the idea of a "personal legend."

In that sense, personal legends don't really exist. Any "achievement"—spiritual, material, whatever—is just the end result of centuries, maybe even millennia, of collective human effort and insight.

In that sense, you don't really exist either—not even close.
It’s just humanity. That’s all there is.

Look, everyone’s on their own journey—and honestly, they all lead somewhere. Even a Christian might wander off into some "quasi-spiritual" rabbit hole every now and then. It happens to the best of us.

Look, I’ll say it again—in my book, Christians don't own a monopoly on true spirituality, and that doesn't mean any other path is automatically some kind of "fake" spiritual detour.
You guys held onto the monopoly on truth for way too long—it’s made you think you're some kind of ultimate authority on what's real for everyone else. Newsflash: you're not.
Who actually claimed that the core essence is Christian? Or maybe it’s Buddhist, or Islamic... you finish the thought. Is it possible for the essence to be anything else? Whose?

Quincy:

Some Muslims argue that those terrorists who kill in Allah's name aren't actually true believers at all. It’s all a lost cause, really. Everything churches and believers have done up to this point? None of it represents true faith or actual doctrine.

Of course they aren't. There’s this claim floating around that Al-Qaeda draws inspiration from the Bhagavad Gita. But what do you really think? Does the text itself incite violence? Or is the real issue just the twisted nature of the human mind—the kind of mind that burns people at the stake, impales them, or flies planes into skyscrapers, all in the name of God?

Quincy:

In essence, you’re just retrofitting ancient teachings to fit modern ethical standards rather than the other way around. You take whatever our current understanding of human potential and perfection happens to be, and then claim it was part of the faith all along. It’s a convenient way to cherry-pick the good stuff while conveniently overlooking the atrocities written right there in the Bible or the Quran—not to mention the actual crimes committed by believers and their "divine" institutions throughout history. So, some people slap a label on it like Christianity, others call it Islam, and some go with Hinduism—all to describe these fundamental human values and ideals. But isn't it true that those principles mostly just come down to being raised with a decent moral compass at home? Even in atheist households, doesn't the core of it all really just stem from how you were taught to act? All that negativity, all those failures? That’s not part of your doctrine. Those aren't "true believers." No, it’s always someone else—because in that mindset, hell is always inhabited by everyone else. I honestly don't understand how anyone can fall for this—how you can try to dress up and polish something that simply cannot be beautified. Chirp.

Look, you aren't actually talking to me here. You're addressing a religious dogmatist, and I’ll be the first to admit there are plenty of those around.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no "us" versus "them," at least not in the way you’re framing it. I see you and me on the same side of this, and frankly, it’s a shame you don't see it that way too.

Quincy:

This isn't about whether God exists or what His nature might be. This is about flawed, outdated, and at times, borderline violent doctrines—and the actual impact that following them has on people's lives.

Ultimately, responsibility lies with the individual. This is my response to Fyodor—if your intentions are pure, or if your soul remains untainted, you will naturally recognize what is divine, or whatever the atheists choose to call that higher power, within any teaching. The path to enlightenment is about overcoming the ego, not feeding it.

In a way, Castaneda managed to crack open certain doors that many find incredibly compelling, yet he ultimately fell right into the ego's own trap.

At the end of the day, one really ought to follow. Learning that actually nourishes his higher consciousness....rather than just anyone. A person. Why bother trying to become Castaneda, or even Christ himself? A person's greatness isn't derived from their name or their individual identity. True significance lies in the message they carry and the integrity with which they deliver it. After all, a life should simply be a reflection of the truths being preached.

In that sense, you don't really exist either.
Only humanity exists.

Like I said—it’s all just a matter of perspective. Both sides hold weight.

Once again, from my point of view, Christians don't have a monopoly on true spirituality, nor are all other paths inherently misguided attempts at it.

I agree.

You held a monopoly on the truth for far too long, which is why you think you're the ones qualified to judge it for everyone else. Well, you aren't.

Who exactly is this "we"?
🙂

We all know there is only one who sees everything and is actually capable of passing judgment. 😉

Anthony Hayes2 said:I find myself asking the same thing: how can someone truly spiritual fail to recognize the essence of Christian doctrine? How can an intelligent, empathetic person get lost in semantics, mistaking the abuse of teachings for the teachings themselves, instead of resonating with the universal messages that lie at their very core?

Can one be authentic enough that belonging to a community (or a "flock," if you prefer the derogatory term used here) doesn't compromise their individuality? It’s a double-edged sword, isn't it? Even when a person physically distances themselves from the group, they remain a part of it. In that sense, there is no such thing as a solitary legend. Any individual "achievement"—spiritual or material—is ultimately the result of centuries, or even millennia, of collective human effort and insight.

Then again, everyone follows their own path, and every path serves its purpose in the end. A Christian might wander into the detours of "quasi-spirituality" just like anyone else.

We are all searching for Glass City, but perhaps we need to travel to India or to Lourdes to realize that it resides within us, and always has. But then again, what can you do? 🙂

Fair point, but it isn't just about belief or inventing hot water or a "New God"; it’s about practice. Even within Christianity, new practices are invented, though they always try to ground themselves in old theory to avoid being labeled heresy. An edgy person feels no obligation to respect tradition in their practice; they might radically break away or eclectically patch together elements from different traditions... though who that actually serves is debatable. 😵

Transcendental meditation is a blend of various traditions, making it a new practice in its own right. One issue is that it demands more time than praying the Rosary or going to Mass, making it incompatible with a standard job and a "normal life." Yet, hardly anyone in the West wants to practice spirituality like a beggar or a hermit; they want to use spirituality to supplement their existing material comfort. Consequently, someone devoted to a spiritual practice that clashes with work habits becomes a parasite on society. If we assume the community must survive—physically speaking—it's clear that no sane spirituality can support idleness, unless that spiritual work is strictly segregated and regulated, like priests or monks. Where does the individual and their personal legend fit in? Can one declare themselves a "solo priest" or a "solo monk" without simply being a failure? 🤣

I'm not defending anyone's attempts, but people should be more aware of the risks and responsibilities involved.
It makes sense to the person who has chosen that path, and we shouldn't dismiss that. I believe any path can be valid and lead to the destination (eventually), provided the underlying intention is pure.

Anthony Hayes2 said:I find myself asking the same thing: how can someone truly spiritual fail to recognize the essence of Christian doctrine? How can an intelligent, empathetic person get lost in semantics, mistaking the abuse of teachings for the teachings themselves, instead of resonating with the universal messages that lie at their very core?

Can one be authentic enough that belonging to a community (or a "flock," if you prefer the derogatory term used here) doesn't compromise their individuality? It’s a double-edged sword, isn't it? Even when a person physically distances themselves from the group, they remain a part of it. In that sense, there is no such thing as a solitary legend. Any individual "achievement"—spiritual or material—is ultimately the result of centuries, or even millennia, of collective human effort and insight.

Then again, everyone follows their own path, and every path serves its purpose in the end. A Christian might wander into the detours of "quasi-spirituality" just like anyone else.

We are all searching for Glass City, but perhaps we need to travel to India or to Lourdes to realize that it resides within us, and always has. But then again, what can you do? 🙂

Fair point, but it isn't just about belief or inventing hot water or a "New God"; it’s about practice. Even within Christianity, new practices are invented, though they always try to ground themselves in old theory to avoid being labeled heresy. An edgy person feels no obligation to respect tradition in their practice; they might radically break away or eclectically patch together elements from different traditions... though who that actually serves is debatable. 😵

Transcendental meditation is a blend of various traditions, making it a new practice in its own right. One issue is that it demands more time than praying the Rosary or going to Mass, making it incompatible with a standard job and a "normal life." Yet, hardly anyone in the West wants to practice spirituality like a beggar or a hermit; they want to use spirituality to supplement their existing material comfort. Consequently, someone devoted to a spiritual practice that clashes with work habits becomes a parasite on society. If we assume the community must survive—physically speaking—it's clear that no sane spirituality can support idleness, unless that spiritual work is strictly segregated and regulated, like priests or monks. Where does the individual and their personal legend fit in? Can one declare themselves a "solo priest" or a "solo monk" without simply being a failure? 🤣

I'm not defending anyone's attempts, but people should be more aware of the risks and responsibilities involved.
How much time meditation actually takes might be better answered by those who practice it regularly... but I know people who have meditated for years and contribute immensely to their communities through their work. For them, meditation provides stability and focus, which is incredibly useful in any profession.

I don't know any "failures" who practice meditation, but I certainly know plenty of people who clock in from 9 to 5 but only actually work two or three hours. And then, on Sunday, they head to Mass. To me, that is a form of "pseudo-spirituality."

Practicing spirituality doesn't just mean going to church or traveling to India—it manifests in how you act every single day.

True spirituality is absolutely applicable to our material reality; in fact, that might be the very key to recognizing it. We make choices at every moment—and I agree that each of us must be mindful of the risks and responsibilities those choices carry.

casualtiger2 said:

You probably misread the intent—which happens when people cling blindly to dogma.
A personal legend is actually quite credible, contrary to what you think.
Instead of just blending into the crowd and following the herd, everyone should try to find their own "life story."
Basically, figure out who you are, look at where you're standing in this world, and live according to your deepest needs based on that reality.
That's what a "personal legend" is, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Sure, someone might see it as an egocentric trip, but there’s no real difference between that and New Age stuff, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism.
Christianity isn't any more "authentic" (whatever that implies) than a person's drive to explore, understand, or follow other paths.

PS
I honestly wonder how someone smart and sensitive can get behind teachings—full of violent, outdated elements—and an institution that has historically caused so much harm.
You probably misread the intent—which happens when people cling blindly to dogma.
A personal legend is actually quite credible, contrary to what you think.
Instead of just blending into the crowd and following the herd, everyone should try to find their own "life story."
Basically, figure out who you are, look at where you're standing in this world, and live according to your deepest needs based on that reality.
That's what a "personal legend" is, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Sure, someone might see it as an egocentric trip, but there’s no real difference between that and New Age stuff, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism.
Christianity isn't any more "authentic" (whatever that implies) than a person's drive to explore, understand, or follow other paths.

PS
I honestly wonder how someone smart and sensitive can get behind teachings—full of violent, outdated elements—and an institution that has historically caused so much harm.
You probably misread the intent—which happens when people cling blindly to dogma.
A personal legend is actually quite credible, contrary to what you think.
Instead of just blending into the crowd and following the herd, everyone should try to find their own "life story."
Basically, figure out who you are, look at where you're standing in this world, and live according to your deepest needs based on that reality.
That's what a "personal legend" is, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Sure, someone might see it as an egocentric trip, but there’s no real difference between that and New Age stuff, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism.
Christianity isn't any more "authentic" (whatever that implies) than a person's drive to explore, understand, or follow other paths.

PS
I honestly wonder how someone smart and sensitive can get behind teachings—full of violent, outdated elements—and an institution that has historically caused so much harm.
I find myself asking the same thing: how can someone truly spiritual fail to recognize the essence of Christian doctrine? How can an intelligent, empathetic person get lost in semantics, mistaking the abuse of teachings for the teachings themselves, instead of resonating with the universal messages that lie at their very core?

Can one be authentic enough that belonging to a community (or a "flock," if you prefer the derogatory term used here) doesn't compromise their individuality? It’s a double-edged sword, isn't it? Even when a person physically distances themselves from the group, they remain a part of it. In that sense, there is no such thing as a solitary legend. Any individual "achievement"—spiritual or material—is ultimately the result of centuries, or even millennia, of collective human effort and insight.

Then again, everyone follows their own path, and every path serves its purpose in the end. A Christian might wander into the detours of "quasi-spirituality" just like anyone else.

We are all searching for Glass City, but perhaps we need to travel to India or to Lourdes to realize that it resides within us, and always has. But then again, what can you do? 🙂