So, if I'm reading this right, Zele is specifically talking about the prostate? 🤔
But honestly, I’ve heard this through so many layers of hearsay—my mom tells me, her sister tells her, and then the doctor tells the sister—so who knows how much gets twisted along the way? 🤔
I have a question, though I’m not entirely sure if this is the right thread or if there's a more specific one for this.
My grandfather is dealing with metastatic prostate cancer. He’s already been through surgery and chemo, but it’s come back. His markers are almost certainly pointing toward cancer—I don't have the exact numbers on hand, but his levels are somewhere around 300 compared to the usual 6. The catch is that his doctor won't prescribe any treatment without a biopsy first. The problem is, given his current state and age, the doctor actually admitted that a biopsy might cause more harm than good. He even mentioned that if it were his own father, he’d want to skip straight to the therapy. We tried bringing this up at a medical board meeting to see if we could just provide a signed, notarized consent form from the patient or his guardian instead, but they turned us down.
Is there any other way around this, or is a biopsy basically unavoidable?
Sam Wright21 said:I've caught up on all those posts in the meantime. The user who got insulted the most—the one who actually engaged with her—is also appealing to the ban corner to get her permanent ban lifted.
That’s beside the point. Personally, I have no issue with lifting the ban (even though I reported the posts), and honestly, some of the replies directed at me were pretty flimsy too.
From a moderation standpoint, though, the sanction stands because it targets the insults themselves—the kind of writing that kills any chance of actual discussion—rather than just whether someone felt hurt. The reality is she racked up enough posts over several pages that the cumulative points from the warnings triggered the permanent ban. From a strictly technical, rule-following perspective, there isn't much to argue against.
The only logical ground for a review would be if we considered the fact that all these posts happened in rapid succession on a single thread. If she hadn't immediately doubled down after the first warning, maybe it wouldn't have escalated to a permanent ban. That's really the only angle worth looking at.🙂 Then again, I remember her being quite lively in discussions before. Does that mean she loses her sense of direction whenever she hasn't been online for a day or two? 🤷
Lisa Morales4 said:Those "problems" or symptoms you're feeling? They’re really just signs that the vaccine is doing its job and being absorbed by your system. no pain, no gain 🙂
I'm not so sure about using that hyper-modern "Western" cliché in this context.
Sure, "no pain, no gain" works if you're trying to be an elite pro athlete. But it also means you'll spend the rest of your life dealing with a mountain of injuries, likely ending up with more health issues than some guy who just sits on his couch watching Netflix all day.
Pain is primarily a signal that something is wrong. Just as physical exercise for recreation should involve a gradual build-up without pushing past certain limits—unlike what happens in professional sports—the same logic applies to spiritual practice. Sometimes people approach it like a competitive sport, thinking there’s some "enlightenment trophy" to be won. Often, there are hidden motives at play, where they just want to feel superior to others because they can't satisfy their ego any other way.
But whenever we follow a "no pain, no gain" philosophy, the risk of "injury" goes up.
We need to figure out the goal of the practice, our actual capacity, and the risks involved before deciding on a pace. Most of the time, the situation is this: the supposed goals are just vague slogans (while the real ones are social or psychological), our abilities are overestimated, the risks are unknown, and our methods are only superficially understood.
Olivia Thomas said:I believe one can learn quite a few fundamental principles of Hinduism and Buddhism from Verlinde's book, "from rags to riches." While it certainly isn't an exhaustive survey, it provides a glimpse into the core tenets of those religions.
Not really. Like I said before, Verlinde is fine—he’s got a reasonable perspective, he doesn't overpraise or unnecessarily bash anything, and he sticks to his own experiences without falling into fanaticism. But the issue is he simply doesn't know the subject matter. He isn't presenting Hinduism or Buddhism; he's presenting the specific sect he belonged to and its particular interpretations, which is a completely different thing.
Take his take on Christians, for example. It’s a classic trope where they claim the "East" (yet another lazy term for a massive, diverse region) relies on impersonal self-reliance for salvation, whereas Christianity holds the advantage because it relies on God's grace rather than one's own strength.
In reality, Advaita Vedanta—which is impersonal—is an elitist, minority school within Hinduism. Most traditions are actually dualistic*, especially the Vaishnava traditions. They are remarkably similar to Christianity: salvation is achieved through divine grace, and practice boils down to devotion and building a relationship with that perceived Divinity.
The bottom line is that we have spiritual entrepreneurs in the West who are essentially creating modern sects based on Hindu heritage, tailored specifically to Western needs and circumstances. These aren't the same things you find in India, and some practices are way more prominent here than they ever were there. For instance, Hatha Yoga only became mainstream in India after it gained popularity in the West; it wasn't originally a mass-market thing. People like Verlinde then mistake this modified Western narrative for the general Indian experience. They make judgments based on it, or people like Blazevac declare themselves experts on Eastern philosophy, even though about 80% of their claims are factually wrong. I don't mean they are wrong theologically or philosophically, but their verifiable facts are off, proving they don't actually know the material they are lecturing on.
*not in the sense of the common Western usage describing a theological system of two gods—good and evil—but in terms of how Indian philosophies view the relationship between individual consciousness, God, and external reality. Non-dualists believe only Brahman is real and that all duality (our personality, a separate God, the physical world) is an illusion. Most traditional dualistic schools believe God is a distinct personality, partially or fully separate, and spirituality centers on our relationship with Him. But even there, a kind of "Neo-Hindu pop spirituality" is spreading, mixing everything together. I have no idea what the actual percentages are compared to traditional paths anymore, much like how self-proclaimed Christians here often practice things that have nothing to do with official Church theology.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I've read most of the authors mentioned (Anthony, Theresa, John...) along with several others, including some Eastern perspectives where I could get my hands on them.
Verlinde is a solid guy. He’s nothing like our local Blazevac, who spends half his time ripping off other people's ideas—acting like a fanatic bulldog instead of a rational intellectual like Verlinde.
That said, he doesn't have a deep grasp of Buddhism or Hinduism, nor does that really impact his scientific credibility. He was part of a Western-based sect, so he views Hinduism through that specific lens. It’s a bit like someone who only knows Christianity through the Mormons and then tries to challenge traditional Christianity by presenting their new belief system as the ultimate counter-argument. I haven't come across a single Catholic author who shows deep knowledge of the very things they reject, which is somewhat expected. Apologetics, by definition, requires fixed positions regarding religious systems, which inherently makes us selective and biased. It works both ways, of course. When Eastern scholars try to reinterpret Christianity by injecting their own narratives or finding things in the Bible that just aren't there (like reincarnation), it's the same thing.
It all boils down to an endless struggle for dominance using arguments that rarely hold water. But honestly, it doesn't matter. In a world where people write and read facts, nobody actually cares, even though everyone loves to convince themselves through various rationalizations that their opinions are somehow objective and unbiased.
analogstag29 said:Meditation itself isn't inherently dangerous in the way people usually wrap their heads around danger.
The actual risk factor in meditation is the meditator—that is, the individual who begins stepping into certain states of their own soul, touching upon what they truly are without even realizing it. So, the danger lies within the person practicing, not in the practice itself. Meditation is just the tool; the practitioner is both the cause and the consequence.
It’s the same logic you’d apply to asceticism, fasting, renunciation, celibacy, or deep contemplation. These are all means to an end, and in themselves, they aren't dangerous; in fact, they are generally considered desirable. Of course, the outcome can occasionally be risky, though that’s rare, but it remains a possibility.
Furthermore, when we talk about the realms of the spirit, consciousness, purpose, struggle, and God, we are entering the territory of higher science. This isn't something you just stumble upon casually, like some magic trick where everything is suddenly revealed with a snap of the fingers, Harry Potter style. This is serious work. The ultimate goal is enlightenment—the total comprehension of the cosmic struggle in its entirety, the Absolute. We often say an enlightened person is someone who no longer carries questions; everything is clear to them, they understand who everyone is and what they are meant to do, and there are no more doubts left. All that remains is pure love and light, and such a soul is finally redeemed.
Fear vanishes, those illusory chains fall away, everything becomes crystal clear, and the person finds themselves in complete peace. It is a state of bliss and serenity, perhaps the most precious state of being available in this world. Such a soul has learned everything and is fully committed, standing ready to transcend the limitations of the human skin and all the passions of the flesh, ultimately leaving behind the sentence of that very body.
So, to put it simply, meditation is the vehicle, but the destination is something else entirely. You don't reach it easily; if it were simple and straightforward, everyone would be a saint, but we all know how rare a saint is, especially in today's world. And mind you, being a saint isn't a title you earn; it's a state of being, which I think is pretty obvious.
The whole point is to transcend the mind and the physical passions through these various methods to finally discover the most vital thing of all: why you are here, or rather, who you actually are.
It's about the neck, not the light😁 A gun or a car isn't dangerous on its own; it's the shooter or the driver. But you can't be a shooter or a driver without the gun or the car. It's all a matter of perspective. Honestly, I don't care how you phrase it philosophically; the point is that the issue exists.
During my time at a pretty solid yoga institute, I rarely saw meditative practices recommended as standalone sessions. Usually, they were just tossed in at the beginning as part of the physical routine. Occasionally, there’d be some mantra work—mostly for those following Hindu traditions—but even then, it was almost always bundled with the physical exercises. We did practice them, sure, but instructors often emphasized that this stuff was more for personal use rather than something to use with clients.
On the flip side, when dealing with clients facing psychological issues, we’d regularly ramp up the physical aspect of the program and strip out the contemplative elements entirely (even though mindfulness is being pushed into physical workouts quite a bit lately).
Even though people talk endlessly about spiritual philosophies, most of us usually dive into practice because something in our lives isn't working right. It's driven by problems, not just a pure hunger for truth. Plus, our modern lifestyle is worlds apart from the environments where these contemplative practices actually originated. Trying to meditate in a high-speed society where your senses are constantly bombarded isn't the same thing.
People are different, too. Everyone processes things uniquely and has a different baseline constitution. One common cultural trend I notice is an overabundance of stimulation paired with a lack of core stability, and neither is particularly helpful for deep practice.
All in all, you can't say meditation is inherently dangerous, but you can't call it safe either. It all depends on the individual, their approach, the bigger picture of their lifestyle changes, and any prior preparation. It’s like anything else. It's hard to find a food that's perfectly healthy for everyone or an object that's guaranteed to never cause harm. We just need to stop treating these techniques like religions, elevating certain methods as "magic bullets" that solve everything instantly and suit everyone perfectly (unlike the "inferior" options offered by the competition, of course). A more grounded approach works fine. A technique is just a technique; it’s only as useful as it is to the person using it. It doesn't have inherent value just because someone marketed it well to make it sound cool. For some, it might be great; for others, picking mushrooms 😛 😁 might be more useful than any meditation.
Look, I know the history and the lifestyle of the Carthusians inside and out, but that’s beside the point. There’s no sense in spreading stories we can't fully verify. I wasn't there personally to witness it—it's stuff I heard a long time ago, and my memory might be playing tricks on me.
Two things really matter here:
1 - Spiritual discipline comes with risks. We're talking social fallout, physical strain, or even psychological effects from the practice itself. People aren't built the same way, yet the rules and methods are often applied like a one-size-fits-all template.
2 - There’s a massive double standard at play. When looking at "outsiders"—or those seen as alternatives within the church—people immediately attack their methods or their religious affiliations. But when things go wrong on our side, we always find a way to rationalize it. It’s never a systemic failure; it’s always just down to the individual.
analogstag29 said:Look, if you're going to claim you "know" what's happening, could you actually walk me through it? I'm genuinely curious—give me some specifics. Which monastery are we talking about, which order, when did this happen, where was it located, and what kind of madness actually went down? I'd really love to hear the details...
Well, it’s all second-hand information, so I won't play telephone with you. Unlike those fanatics over in the Eastern Bloc who swear by their own little circles, this is just hearsay. I haven't seen it personally, nor have I checked any official records, so I could easily be wrong (or maybe there's some other "influence" at play, right?).
If my memory serves, it was a Carthusian monastery... there were some suicides...
Regarding Christianity, I’ve seen my share of outbursts in monasteries. Their version of history tends to be very selective and apologetic—honestly, it’s best to just tune it out.
I was scrolling through an international forum recently and saw a group going on about how they regularly cry or have complete breakdowns during yoga sessions. It sounds like a circus, 😁 but it's not entirely unfounded. Releasing pent-up stress through yoga, relaxation, or meditation can work, but things can also take a darker turn. I don't know the exact percentage—I doubt anyone has conducted a study precise enough to pin down the numbers—but there's no denying it happens. There are even academic papers on the subject. I think there's a specific term used in some wellness circles, maybe something like "relaxation syndrome," though I could be wrong. Just hearsay, really.
Personally, I’ve witnessed everything from simple headaches and minor psychological shifts to much more serious mental and even physiological issues. It isn't happening every single hour, but it definitely occurs.
Whether we are looking at an election or not, you can rest easy knowing the candidates are thoroughly prepared. As for Biden, I can’t say for certain, but he remains under the watchful eye of Henry Kissinger, much like how Rod Blagojevich used to be managed. It’s just a bit of schooling in Vienna, I suppose; at least we are following a global trend in that regard. 😁
Regarding how one actually gains entry, I suspect it requires a recommendation from someone already within the inner circle followed by a secret ballot. Or perhaps they’ve streamlined the process lately because their membership numbers are cratering due to all the internal conspiracies. I can't say for certain. I'll give that coward a call tomorrow to ask him directly, then I'll let you know. 🤣
You didn't answer me. They hold elections, and nobody ever complains about them being rigged. No one appoints them directly. Does that mean everyone voting is part of Freemasonry, or just members of a political party—or at least a large enough majority to manipulate the outcome? Or are the elections just so skillfully faked that no one suspects a thing? And what happens to those pushed out by a new election? Take the Democratic Party, for example; the old guard, the most powerful people in the party and sometimes even in the country, have vanished. Is it factional warfare among the Freemasons? That's some heavy nonsense right there. I mention the Democratic Party because I have info through a family member who is an official in the party. It’s normal to have power struggles, and sure, there might be some backroom deals, but there aren't any massive, hidden, supranational conspiracies or machinations. There's zero evidence for anything like that.
Sure, we might just be a provincial bunch, but the principle is the same wherever democratic elections happen. For any small clique to exert that kind of control over the entire party and state machinery—with so many different bodies checking each other—their numbers and logistics would have to be on a much larger scale. Honestly, it's impossible, unless we start believing in alien mind-control technology or something.😁
Nancy Doyle said:I wouldn't go so far as to say they've lost their edge; if anything, I suspect they are more potent now than they have ever been. If you look at certain historical records, it appears that only Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy stand out among the American presidents as having not been part of the 33°. One.. In my view, hitting that 33rd parallel is more than enough to qualify for a seat as a Prime Minister or a President anywhere on the map; it’s a threshold that defines leadership, though the actual architects behind those appointments remain shrouded in shadow. You can be certain it isn't the people casting ballots during an election who are pulling those strings. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that even if the votes are actually being counted, the entire slate of candidates has been pre-selected by design.
In this part of the country, power tends to concentrate within the local Rotary Clubs, which some theorists argue serve merely as entry points for Freemasonry. The Lions Club operates along much the same lines, though they have certainly lost their edge over the years. Their high-society charity galas are, frankly, an insult to anyone with a functioning intellect. They’ll charge ten thousand dollars for a ticket to support some hospital, yet the attendees will likely blow that exact same amount just on the festivities that evening; the math of their "humanitarianism" simply doesn't add up. Perhaps such theater works at more superficial levels of society, but calling someone like George W. Bush a humanitarian is nothing short of nauseating.
Does it mean that when candidates are chosen during U.S. primaries or at party conventions here, the voting is rigged? Do you think that happens here too? Do you think Joe Biden is a Mason who was a hand-picked candidate? 🤣
I don't see any need for filters. If you're interested, contact a Masonic lodge directly. From what I understand, the rule is that a candidate has to seek membership themselves; they aren't recruited. After that, they enter a specific procedure—I've forgotten the exact details. No filters, no mysteries, no nonsense. 😳
Nancy Doyle said:What do you mean they don't exist? When I mention 33°, it’s patently obvious I’m referring to the Scottish Rite. It remains a murky mystery who these people actually are or what they represent, creating a perfect vacuum for speculation. Since we are discussing spirituality, I find myself wondering how they even claim any connection to it. Most of them strike me as nothing more than thieves or war criminals—individuals clearly devoid of any shred of empathy. Or perhaps they slip some ayahuasca into their drinks during those skull-shaped meetings, leaving them under the delusion that they've swallowed all the wisdom in the universe? 🤣
It’s confusing because people keep bringing this up as if we're talking about various levels of Freemasonry, which just isn't right. No matter who you are within the Scottish Rite, if you're in those foundational lodges, you aren't going past the third degree.
Besides, why is there such a massive push for those 33 Scots while everyone just ignores New York City? Is it just because it sounds nice and symbolic?
It feels to me like most of them are just old guys hanging out in some exclusive men's club. They don't seem to have any real grasp on the influence stemming from the Civil War era—though, to be fair, even back then, that impact was probably more indirect than direct.
Personally, I find all this talk about spirituality and mysticism—along with those massive global power players—to be pretty overblown.
There aren't actually 33 degrees. There are only three, and they're consistent across all lodges.
However, those extra levels exist within certain organizations—specifically groups that only admit people who are already established Masons, which means they have their own internal hierarchies and tiers. There are quite a few such organizations, three of which are particularly influential and prominent, and one of them utilizes those 33 degrees.
Of course, this all applies to the English tradition, not the French style.
Jeremy Ross said:Silvio Berlusconi is a Mason. People claim he isn't anymore, but honestly, that's just a lie.
The Masons actually kicked that specific branch out long before his recent political career really took off. Apparently, they were getting too messy with selfish interests, which goes against their whole thing.
That doesn't mean the group vanished; it just means they aren't recognized as "legitimate" anymore. Nobody can stop them from hanging out however they want. There are plenty of quasi-Masonic organizations out there that aren't technically part of the main circle but just mimic their internal structure.
Honestly, people overthink this stuff way too much. People join all sorts of clubs. It's nothing unique to the Masons, and frankly, they probably have less influence today than some tiny political party or a mid-sized non-profit.
crimsoncrane24 said:Are you actually claiming that Catholics having a Pope is a danger?
Your way of thinking is dangerous. Narrow-minded and dangerous.
I am. There was a time when it was serious enough that the Pope actually ran things. Nowadays, thanks to secularism in the West, it’s much less pronounced since we don't really have religious states anymore.
Whenever people start demanding a single leader, things get potentially dangerous. It doesn't matter if it's a religion, politics, or any other ideology.
Turning off your own brain and ditching critical thinking just to follow someone else is narrow-minded and dangerous. Throughout history, that's always been a recipe for disaster. Pluralism doesn't lead to conflict or war; that requires a homogenized force, a charismatic leader, and followers with their brains washed.