Posts by hiddenhound3

crimsonjackal63 said:If we just go straight from the very beginning all the way to the end, we’ll wind up right back where we started.

But if we try to head straight from the end back to the start—well, we just end up at the end.

So, what actually came first: the chicken or the egg? Or more accurately—the Beginning or the End?

There is neither an origin nor a conclusion; the very fabric of existence is far too dense and multilayered to be so easily categorized. It seems quite futile to view "beginning" and "end" as two opposing poles. Everything is essentially one continuous state, though I suppose it is simply more practical for the human mind to track time through a linear lens.

I find myself wondering if anyone else here remains preoccupied by that age-old, circular debate regarding whether the chicken or the egg holds primacy in our existence.

Ryan Wood98 said:I suppose so... but then again, you could have a paranoia where you worry your own relatives might try to poison you over an inheritance... which might be totally unjustified, yet still feels like a grounded fear.

Then there's the paranoia that people—like lizard people—are spying on you using electromagnetic waves. 😲

Or even the idea that some secret society is INTENTIONALLY poisoning us through jet contrails. 😲

So, as you can see, that appears to be a much more intense manifestation of paranoia.😬

It is even collective in nature!

Ryan Wood98 said:Jel'da, it does lean toward paranoia, I suppose. 🤷

And I think there might be a certain loss of touch with reality happening here as well.

Indeed, paranoia is never actually grounded in reality.🙂

I might be misinterpreting the situation, but I would venture to say this is simply a manifestation of paranoia

Ronald Rogers27 said:Lust + energy, combined with entertainment + ideal of abundance = a fake sense of prosperity. It’s an illusion, and it’s heading straight for a global disaster.

YES or NO? Tell me why.

Ronald Rogers27

I am struggling to grasp the core logic here; I feel as though I am missing the central thread of the argument.

To be perfectly honest, what confuses me most is this concept of 'sex + energy'—forgive me, but if it isn't too much trouble, could you clarify exactly what you mean by that term?

Andrew Sanchez572 said:So, there you have it. I was awarded 10 points just for suggesting that men belong in a sperm bank—which, mind you, was intended as a joke and was actually a response to a long string of genuinely sexist posts over in the Spirituality subforum. Through the sheer accumulation of these points, I eventually earned myself a permanent ban.

I hold no grievances; I merely wish to set the record straight (and I am posting here because the Spirituality board won't let me back in).
Best regards, hiddenhound3, and stay strong, 🙂

Honestly, what a bunch of eccentrics... 😘

I have no intention of complaining either, but I am officially announcing my boycott of Spirituality until Dragan decides to step down.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:On the thread host change, I actually got slapped with a penalty for "trolling" because of a post that looked exactly like this:



So, yeah, the post above was nuked and I got hit with 10 penalty points for going off-topic. The moderator’s whole deal is that there’s absolutely nothing offensive in that specific post.

But here’s the thing—if we’re following the logic that the first post isn't offensive, then by that same math, the post below shouldn't be offensive either.



Except, surprise, surprise—that post got me slapped with 45 points. That’s a full-blown penalty for "insulting" someone.

😕

.............

I mean, seriously, how is this even trolling? The post just lays out the blatant double standards these "spirituality" mods are running—and they're doing it right in a thread meant to discuss the moderation itself!

Are you guys in administration actually starting to realize what kind of people you've put in charge of moderating this place?

Whom exactly are we discussing in terms of insults? 😢

Dragan hasn't made an appearance in the spirituality section for months. I may not contribute much myself, but I find myself reading quite frequently because there is usually something interesting to stumble upon..
When, out of nowhere, we see a host change from Dragan, accompanied by a topic that is nothing short of rude, provocative, and dismissive: That’s how the moderator spoke.

If it weren't so pathetic, it might actually be funny.

The very first thing he posted was incredibly cynical and insulting (and please, let's not pretend this is some sort of inside joke that we simply failed to grasp):

1. I am your Moderator, and you shouldn't have any others besides me.
2. Love your Moderator as you would love yourself.

Ban him immediately for trolling, for his blatant abuse of power, and for mocking the sacred texts of the
Survivor
. 😉Now, I'll leave it to you all to decide whether I am being serious or just messing around.

here is an example (taken from this page):

I will be penalized—you may decide on the nature of my punishment yourselves.
Whether it be collectively or individually, whether the consequences are mild or severe.
The cause could be trolling, spamming, sexism, or perhaps something else entirely.

Fine, I agree that spamming and trolling clearly violate the forum rules.

However, sexism? That isn't prohibited by law, nor is it forbidden by our own community guidelines. Why should such behavior be sanctioned? Is it simply because our esteemed host change happens to be sexually enlightened?

🤷 😕

I am formally requesting leniency regarding the excessive banning occurring here. The moderator, Dragan, has effectively purged all the engaging contributors from this space:

innocent, kuc kuc imaliko, mislim, pohota, dušan (who was actually unbanned in the interim)

It has become quite tedious 😕

He is constantly policing the board and deleting posts, having essentially invented a new set of arbitrary rules. Now, anyone who dares to disagree even slightly with Komaja is immediately slapped with a penalty for trolling. There is no room for democratic discourse here; criticism is only tolerated if it serves Komaja’s specific interests.

In my estimation, we are dealing with a significant control freak whose behavior will ultimately stifle this already fragile spirituality subforum.

Such heavy-handed tactics will only succeed in creating a mass of clones who will eventually seek to provoke him intentionally.

I kindly request that higher administration take notice of this situation.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:She had plenty of solid points during that thread over on the Spirituality Forum—you know, the "complaints and grievances" one—and then boom, banned. And you haven't debunked a single thing she said.
I've thrown plenty of good arguments at you too, and you haven't shut any of them down either.

So yeah, this whole thing is just total nonsense.
Talking to you guys, the mods over at the Philosophy Forum, is basically pointless unless you follow the script provided below:

@steelridge58, yeah, sure, whatever you say. 😍

@mistyfox812, nice one, brilliant as always. 👍

Cheers,

(And I'm done with this debate. You guys are exhausting.)

Do you want to know my one true grievance with the moderators? It is that they even bother to engage in debate with people like you in the first place.

Your arguments lack any substance, and you perpetually resort to whining and playing the victim.
If people conducted themselves with basic decency, moderators wouldn't even be necessary... take me, for instance. I have no need for moderation. When I encounter someone being difficult, I simply walk away (unless they send vulgar private messages—like these), rather than indulging in mindless, ego-driven bickering.

From my perspective as an objective observer, you appear to be someone who is merely running in place.

Furthermore, you cling to this forum so desperately that I am almost inclined to believe you harbor some sort of ulterior ambition.😁

Besides, why are these conflicts from the Philosophy Forum being imported here? You seem to seize upon every single opportunity to pick a fight with someone.

casualtiger2 said:The "yellow" thing was actually just aimed at Unknown and about a dozen other users he kept tagging with the same label.
I didn't ask for the moderator gig—it was thrust upon me—but since I’m already in the seat, I might as well do the job with some integrity.

The offer is still on the table: we've got maybe 40 active members here talking about Philosophy (not counting the bots).
Most of you have already agreed that I'm just the wrong guy in the wrong place. You only need 18 more votes and I'll step down. Voluntarily.

As far as I am concerned, there is no need for you to leave; the Spirituality section truly requires a moderator. However, you must refrain from acting on mere whims. That is all. Furthermore, please stop coming in with that attitude of "I am your God," because even if you follow Tantric practices, you cannot disrespect followers of Abrahamic faiths in such a manner under the unwritten rules of tolerance and decency.

Sean Cruz said:You conveniently skipped over my last post, which says quite a bit about you. Yes, you’ve certainly given yourself permission to pass judgment. What do you actually know about me? Do I belong to that group of radicals who pushed out the moderates, or as we say back in Boston, did the wolves come in and drive out the sheep? Who are you to judge me? Does my advocacy for a specific topic give you that right? And now Florin is criticizing the moderators?😂 Well, as far as I can tell, you're the first person Florin has ever addressed this way.
And exactly which "spiritual" topics am I supposed to write about? The ones promoting drugs or your little cult?
Get real, man. Being a moderator doesn't make you a god.

'elda... and here I am, just a blooming flower.😍

casualtiger2 said:Well, you pretty much nailed my intentions. 😬
I’m not kicking anyone off this forum.
Maybe a few people might leave on their own once they realize there aren't enough gladiator matches, tears, or blood (aka arguments) to go around.
Sure, having one solid, large group of decent forum members wouldn't be a bad thing. And they don't have to "fit" me—meaning they don't need to think or feel exactly like I do. But they do need to respect the space enough to make this place worthy of the name spirituality. Among the people I actually respect, there are plenty who hold views completely opposite to mine on just about everything.

You claim, for instance, that I insulted someone. On what basis are you making that claim?
Nobody here actually knows anyone, yet everyone is busy judging everyone else. You, Florin, and Alexis are the worst offenders (and you mostly just claim everyone else is a negative influence; weirdly, it's usually the moderators, who were apparently chosen for some reason to be in those roles?!).
What are your actual intentions here? Are you here to write about spirituality, or are you just waiting to jump at the moderators every time a topic doesn't go your way (trying to get certain threads banned while pushing others... which will happen anyway, just maybe not according to your "concept").
PS
For the record, I don't know much about the other users, just like they don't know much about me.
But I do know that Alexis hasn't started a single thread—not in philosophy, not in spirituality. And that’s not me judging her character, just her activity as a user. It’s definitely not an insult.

Look, you're just talking nonsense. I actually know at least three people from this sub-forum in real life, and I haven't had a single disagreement with anyone, nor do I view any of them negatively. Now, you're attempting to attribute thoughts to me that have never once crossed my mind.😕

What is wrong with you...?

casualtiger2 said:Of course she can criticize anyone or anything. It’s not my job to defend her.
But then, why am I not allowed to criticize her criticism?
And why can't I just say her critique isn't relevant to me?

Florin, why don't I have the same rights in this situation?!

I still believe what I'm doing is for the benefit of the forum members. Most of them, anyway.😉 😍
PS
Sorry, but I'm not exactly a fan of yours either.

No, you are acting out of a deep-seated need for control—a complex, if you will. To quote your own sentiment: 'YOU believe she lacks the right'..

She certainly possesses the right; she holds every right afforded by the law, our community guidelines, and her own personal perspective. You have no authority to dictate to her what rights she does or does not possess, as if you were an officer making an arrest.

It is almost as though you believe your opinion carries any weight at all. ☕

casualtiger2 said:@ steeleagle13 and Helel, last warning regarding off-topic posts—I really don't want to spend my entire evening cleaning up after you two.

@ Enchantress - thanks 🙂

@ Donna 😂

@ normall - look, I’m gonna have to ask you to change that avatar. Violence just doesn't fit the vibe we're going for here—and before you jump in asking why we can't include violence, let's start with ourselves; if we change, maybe the world around us will follow suit.

I’m a fan of public polls, and most of mine will stay that way. We’re all hiding behind nicknames here, anyway—and honestly, if someone is too afraid to stand by their opinion even behind a screen, what are they even doing in a community focused on spirituality?

@ Benjamin Long, I still maintain you have no business critiquing the state of the philosophy or spirituality forums—especially not the moderators, who have put in thousands of times more work to make these spaces decent. If I'm wrong, please, enlighten me with your actual contributions to those boards (you know, specific threads you started or solid essays/debates you led).

@ I agree with steelridge58 that nobody actually asked the philosophers if they wanted spirituality shoved into their space. On the flip side, in that poll with the massive turnout, the spiritual crowd voted for independence—which is what I think would be best—but that was basically ignored.
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less where the spirituality section is "physically" located. As long as it’s one click away, it’s fine. What matters is who is writing the content and how they do it.

Up until a few months ago, philosophy was my gold standard—the perfect forum, perfectly moderated. Good people, good conversations—even when things got heated.
Spirituality was pretty much okay, too. steelridge58, remind me again what the actual issue was with the old spirituality board (aside from the lack of a permanent moderator)?
Then the "yellows" showed up and chased off the "reds." One guy with a mission ended up pulling a few others down with him; one argument led to another, and before long, nobody knew who was running the show. Unfortunately, that same guy—using the exact same tactics—came back to shake things up in philosophy, too (exactly what Alexis seems to be rooting for). Threads became personal, petty, non-philosophical, and just plain mundane. It kind of wrecked the philosophy board.
In my opinion, the spirituality forum was torn apart out of the best intentions. When everything moved, topics were shuffled and "sold off." Things that naturally belonged together were scattered across the internet.

That’s just my take on how things went down, and I might be wrong. But regardless, it’s in the past. Here we are now—the spiritual folks over at spirituality, the thinkers at philosophy, and all of us together with two goals: to learn something and have a good time.
So, it’s on all of us to make sure this place stays decent for everyone.

Hey everyone!

Personally, I find myself in disagreement with every single one of Benjamin Long's opinions; however, I believe he possesses the absolute right to critique anything, including this very forum. We live in a free democratic nation where our laws and Constitution are not violated simply because opinions and criticisms are voiced publicly.

Based on your current attitude, I can already tell that I will no longer be frequenting this sub-forum.

To me, this whole situation reeks of autocracy.

It is unfortunate, but I find your conduct distasteful. As a moderator, you ought to be serving the community of users, yet you seem to have convinced yourself that you are some sort of enlightened prophet.

Brian Thomas612 said:So, does any non-biblical documentation about Jesus actually exist?
I know there were some accounts out there, but it turns out the authors were identified much later on...
basically just frauds interested in other agendas, so I’m taking it with a grain of salt. 👎

Furthermore, Jesus is never mentioned within the USSR... and the New Testament was not compiled until decades after the death of Christ.

The only New Testament evangelist speculated to have lived during the same era as Christ was John; he was supposedly the sole literate individual among them, being merely a sixteen-year-old, unmarried youth.

Consequently, all other gospels and revelations emerged much later. There is simply no living witness who actually saw Jesus in person; such claims exist solely as New Testament myths.

Michael Moore3 said:You should check out the documentary "Zeitgeist"
In it, you might see how Jesus appeared throughout different eras of history within various cultures under different personas. What all these figures share—including Jesus—is that they don't represent a physical person, but rather the sun's journey across the sky. Jesus's death after three days and his resurrection represents the time of year when the sun is at its lowest point in the sky (which lasts three days), followed by the days getting longer (the resurrection). That’s why Jesus's life is celebrated at this same time every year.

Just as American religion evolved from ancient Egyptian roots (which I mentioned before regarding the word "Amen" and the transcription of much of the Bible from the Egyptian Book of the Dead), the Egyptians believed God was invisible. Like many ancient peoples, they felt you could only perceive the divine through creation, and the most brilliant of those creations is the sun. The point is: you can't see God directly, but you can see God's sun—His son.

So, what Jesus claims holds up if you interpret it through the lens of the ancient beliefs that gave rise to Christianity.

Here are a few more examples:
You know the story about the wedding at Cana?
Cana is actually Canaan; Americans celebrate weddings to mark the union of Yahweh (masculine energy) and nature (the earth) during the spring—when the heavy rains begin to fertilize the soil. The mother asks Jesus to turn water into wine (essentially asking the sun to pull the water up so the vines can produce grapes). And that is how Jesus turned water into wine...

The story where Jesus feeds the multitudes with fish on a mountain:
The fish is a symbol of Christianity. He didn't physically feed people fish; he fed their spirits with his teachings (Christian doctrine).

And here is some symbolism for you:
The name Israel:
IS-RA-EL refers to three distinct Old Testament deities: ISIS, AMON RA (the sun), and EL (Saturn).

shadownomad4, Jesus's teaching is one truth and one way, but certainly not the only one. Believing it is the only way simply because "that's what he said" makes you a follower who doesn't understand why they do what they do, justifying their actions through a higher purpose they can't grasp or even see—they just believe.
That kind of belief leads to many errors because it removes individual responsibility, especially since one attributes their own actions to divine intervention through themselves, as seen in your example.

That is correct; you have articulated that beautifully. In truth, there is no physical evidence confirming the existence of Christ. Jesus serves as a spring deity, an embodiment of the self, and a symbol of the sun and the cross—representing both life and humanity.

I find great personal affection for Jesus and the profound symbolism he carries.

Falling in love persists right up until the moment it simply ceases to be.😂

wiredbear2 said:Well, here I am, eagerly waiting to get my hands on 'Love Lasts Three Years' by Frédéric Beigbeder, just so we can see what the most popular cynic has to say about the whole subject 😉
Apparently, he tries to blend scientific theory with his own personal history...

How long does that initial rush of being in love actually last? It feels like such an intensely personal experience... I suppose it lasts right up until the moment you stop being individuals and start becoming a single, inseparable unit 👍
And once that happens, you might as well head to the altar, because eventually, you just end up feeling like siblings... or after a certain number of years of marriage, you basically become like two sisters living under one roof... 😂

Some people claim you should run as far away from that book as possible because it is overhyped, pretentious, and frankly irritating.
However, since I haven't read it myself—I have been actively avoiding it based on various recommendations—all I can tell you is to prepare yourself for a massive spectrum of reactions, ranging from total fascination to deep disappointment.

@wiredcrane11, I suppose I am simply too much in love right now to offer any coherent insight into the nature of falling in love, other than to say that it feels wonderful. 🙂