Posts by bluemason3

crimsoncrane24 said:Well, since you asked, here is

just judge for yourself if you were being unfair! It makes no difference to me.
cut

Look, crimsoncrane24, I'll tell you just one thing. If honorable Islamic principles are threatened by Muslims themselves, I would much rather—and still would today—go to war with them than play games with the devil... "My community will never agree on lies" (Muhammad). That's why I am absolutely not for a unified community like the one shown in the ADAGIO film (check it out from 6:30 until the end). Should Muslims be like you from 6:30 onwards? Not at all, brother! To me, that's just a mass of robots with functioning brains. In that case, the solution isn't to sing along in a choir with them, but to grab a bucket of cold water and wake them up. Remember, Muhammad was offered anything he wanted, as long as he renounced his principles. He refused, even if they offered him the sun and the moon. Jesus could have also sung in a choir with the most powerful people in society (the Pharisees and Sadducees). But he didn't, even at the cost of his life. Principle is stronger than you and me. Stronger than anyone! When it comes to the truth, there are no compromises, brother crimsoncrane24.

Interesting film...
I think you're mistaken about one very important thing.
For a Muslim, having leadership is essential, and it must be righteous leadership.
That film depicts a crowd and a society that is leaderless, not individualistic.
The etiquette of a Muslim who is not a leader is to follow; the etiquette of a leader is to be just and make decisions responsibly.
Muhammad said that the best person is the one who is most useful, and who could be more useful than an honest and just ruler?
Our duty, as I see it, is to try to resolve the disputes between us, rather than fueling them, regardless of who is right.

Peace be upon you. Just so you know, I love you like a brother, I hold no grudges, and I understand your good intentions.

And peace be upon you too. May God grant us all patience and grace.
🙂

That’s a dangerous and harmful perspective.

frozengull2 said:wearyowl29;

What's missing from a personal legend?

Credibility.

It’s just more of that new-age nonsense that sounds incredibly deep or heartwarming on paper... but it doesn't actually mean a damn thing.

Most of the time, it just knocks the legs out from under people who are already leaning into that pathetic, self-centered kind of auto-hypnosis.

Why do you even ask?

Just like New Zealand 😁

rowdytiger34 said:Glad I know. So the forum lives forever. 🤣

Is it even possible? Is it actually good to try and overcome those bourgeois social and psychological mechanisms, I don't know... but that's what defines social phenomena like religiosity, regardless of what they are, what they were, who the founder was, or how things looked yesterday versus today—because none of that guarantees what they’ll be tomorrow.

But we’ve drifted off topic a bit.
There was a time when you couldn't even choose your faith. Religion was just a byproduct of where you were born and the local customs. Nowadays, you can be whatever you want. But honestly? You can't. It’s not like swapping Euros for Dollars, or Yen, or Pesos.

You aren't just trading one paper currency for another; you're changing your entire self, your core beliefs. And you don't even know how much of the old you is still lingering under the surface even after you've formally converted.

It’s easy to be a phony like that.
I don't see how someone born in the States or somewhere else could actually become Hindu. 😕
Maybe if they spent 20 or 30 years living in India, then sure.

I wouldn't. There were people like that—or at least they were perceived that way (like Sai Baba)—who ended up being total frauds. First, I wouldn't be easily convinced it wasn't just a trick, and then I'd find it even harder to believe it was proof of his divinity. Even if the question came up, I'd be too skeptical to buy it. 😬

Yeah, you're probably right. 😢
Mushrooms are a safer bet. But I'm not into that.

I don't get what you're trying to say. 🤔
Over here, the Popes are probably more interesting because of the Catholic background and dominant Catholic religiosity. If we were in Mexico, people would probably be talking more about their own various groups.
However, by the logic mentioned above, the Catholic Church—being the largest, most organized, and most populous religious organization ever—has the biggest potential to export its nonsense. No matter how much influence some powerful Patriarch and his independent church might have, it doesn't compare to the Papal and Catholic influence.

What I mean is that for both Americans and Mexicans, nationality and faith are deeply intertwined. In Mexico, both the national identity and the Orthodox Church were equally geared toward the idea of Greater Mexico. Everyone acted as one unit.

Americans have their own unique edge, and being American doesn't feel arrogant just because we adopt certain vibes. When Americans grab foreign concepts, they somehow immediately become part of the American fabric. But when other groups try to translate things, you can still tell they’re just translations. 😬

That’s how it works here—it becomes ours. It gets integrated into the core of the American identity. Nobody is any less American just because they believe in a specific movement or idea. If it couldn't be folded into the national character, it wouldn't have stuck in the first place.

The Catholic Church isn't even as dominant an institution for Americans as the Orthodox Church is for Mexicans in Mexico, mostly because the former is international rather than strictly national. To them, the assets of Italian Benedictines matter more than any specific patch of American soil.

That’s why other nations handle the Catholic Church differently. In Germany, the church is tax-separated from the state, but if you don't pay, you aren't a member. In America, even if you don't step foot in a church, you're still tied to it.

Americans seem insecure about their identity, which is why they obsess so much over religious affiliations.

They need an institution to anchor them, but that identity is always built *against* something—against the East, against Vienna, against the Turks, or against America—rather than being built *for* something positive.

Americans are a bit of a confused people who haven't quite managed to forge a national identity that exists independently of outside influences and faith, even after all this time.

Nowadays, the Catholic Church is seen as a pillar of traditional American identity. Anyone messing with the Church is essentially messing with the national identity and the state itself. That’s why many see the Church as a "right-wing" institution.

The downside for us is that we’ve traditionally been servants to stronger Catholic masters—whether it was the Italians, the Austrians, or the Canadians. That history keeps hitting us in the face. Even having a modern "edge" doesn't help; we just end up looking for new masters to serve.

I’m all for returning to our roots and having a true American right wing that is actually confident in its own skin. Any "edge" we find should be uniquely American. Our values shouldn't just be Catholic; they should be American.

It comes down to this: standing our ground, keeping what's ours, and rejecting what isn't. Living by the work of our own hands instead of through theft and deception. Respecting culture. Believing in God and having some old-school grit. If we adopt that as our moral foundation, there won't be issues with Catholics or anyone else; everyone will just live together peacefully.

I have a feeling that "personal choice" is often just a farce—a convenient excuse for much more prosaic motives. Take someone joining the Hare Krishna movement, for example. It’s hard to believe they spent years deep-diving into theology and cultural studies before suddenly deciding to commit. It’s far more likely that the person is simply drawn to anything outside the mainstream. We could spend all day dissecting whether that means an affinity for the alternative or a hidden pull toward the conservative, but the core remains the same: they are attracted to the exoticism of the "other." If that same person had been born into that faith, they probably would have found Christianity to be the exotic outlier.

But honestly, that's a good thing. We all have different personalities, which means we end up making different choices.

Not everyone grows up in a household oriented toward Christianity. Especially in the modern West or under the old era of communism, plenty of families just don't have much of a religious dimension to them. Take my situation, for example: my mother was a committed atheist, my father couldn't have cared less, and we grew up in a society that was strictly secular and non-nationalist. In a setting like that, the distinction between Hinduism and Christianity doesn't feel all that significant to me. 🤷

Yeah, you're probably right. 😢
Mushrooms are the safer bet. But I'm just not a fan.

Honestly, I have no idea if I'll actually like it. I'll let you know once I give it a shot. 🤣

Whether you’re looking at Americans or any other group, nationality and faith tend to be deeply intertwined. In the US, it's often hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Looking back at history in places like Mexico, the national identity and the Orthodox Church were essentially two sides of the same coin, both pulling in the exact same direction toward the goal of Greater Mexico. It was a total unified front.

Americans have their own "new age" vibe, and our identity doesn't feel arrogant just because we adopt it. When Americans pick up foreign terms, they somehow instantly become part of the local vernacular. But when other groups try to translate those same concepts, you can still tell they’re just translated foreign ideas. 😬

She’s embraced that Mexican identity fully—she’s become one of them. He integrated himself right into the heart of the Mexican people. At the end of the day, nobody is any less Mexican just because they believe in her age. If something couldn't be absorbed into the Mexican way of life, it simply didn't survive there.

The Catholic Church isn't really a national pillar for Americans in the same way the Orthodox Church functions in Mexico. It’s an international organization, not a local one. To them, the assets held by Italian Benedictines seem to carry more weight than any specific stretch of American territory.

That’s why other nations with a Catholic Church handle things differently. Take Germany, for example—the church is tax-separated from the state, but if you opt out of paying that tax, you aren't considered a member anymore. In America, even if you never step foot in a church, you're still stuck with the bill.

Americans seem pretty insecure about their own identity, which is probably why they get so tangled up in all the religious drama.

They need an institution to give them a sense of identity, but that identity is always built in opposition to something else—whether it’s against the East, against Vienna, against the Turks, or against America. It’s never formed affirmatively. It’s never just *for* something.

Americans can be a bit of a confused people. Even after all this time, we haven't quite managed to forge a national identity that exists independently of outside influences or religious ties.

The Catholic Church is seen today as a core pillar of traditional American identity. If you mock the Church, you're effectively mocking the national identity and the state itself. That’s why many see the Church as a strictly "right-wing" institution.

It’s awkward because our history is defined by being subordinates to stronger Catholic powers. The Italians, the Austrians, the Canadians. We keep running into that same wall. Even when we try to move past it, we just end up looking for new masters to serve.

I’m in favor of bringing back a more distinct tradition and a true American right wing that actually feels secure in its own skin. If such a movement ever emerges, it needs to be uniquely American. The values shouldn't be purely Catholic; they should be American.

It comes down to this: knowing your own worth, standing your ground, and refusing to take what isn't yours. Living by the work of your own hands rather than through theft or deception. Respecting culture. Faith in God and a certain rugged, small-town solidarity. If we adopt those as our moral foundation, there won't be any issues with either Catholics or the right wing; everyone will get along just fine.

Now, moving into politics... 😁

I think it’s possible that Orthodoxy is more closely tied to the nation through its autonomy. It makes sense, though I can't say for sure, given how things have played out in places like Mexico. However, on a global scale, that same autonomy prevents them from exerting much influence in world politics. People tend to be more irritated by, and see more faults in, whoever is more powerful, influential, and present.

Similarly, Catholicism in border regions—like parts of the US bordering different cultural spheres—naturally starts to align more heavily with national sentiment. This is often amplified by linguistic or cultural similarities with neighbors.

It’s just a shame if the Church doesn't lean into those principles and make use of the situation. 😳

rowdytiger34 said:So here we are, stuck in this loop where every single perspective is fair game for criticism. 😳

Honestly, why bother tearing someone down if their business doesn't affect you? 😢

Sure, a cult leader sets the tone at the start, but maybe the movement eventually outgrows them and turns into something actually decent. Why wouldn't it?

People say similar things about Muhammad—and look, I’m not trying to start a fight with Muslims—but even if it were true, what then? Modern Islam isn't inherently broken just because of how the prophet handled his personal life.

Or maybe it is?
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hypothetically, if it came out that Jesus was gay, would that actually change Christianity as a faith? 🤷

Personally, I don't see any ambiguity here: if some guy showed up in my city tomorrow who could heal the sick by touch, restore sight to the blind, raise the dead, or turn water into wine in Manduševac 😬, and used a massive spread of fish from Mimca to feed every homeless person in town while offering eternal life... there's no way I wouldn't believe him more than some local dealer peddling mushroom extracts to fix my headspace. 😉😛

The real question is whether any of that is even true to begin with.

Christianity makes these massive claims that it can't prove, basically demanding blind faith.

Castaneda isn't making those kinds of grand claims; he’s just offering "another system." 😕

I don't need another system to believe in, and I'm definitely not into mushrooms, pills, or random powders. I just want to be healthy, have perfect 20/20 vision, and live forever. If someone actually delivers on that, I'm all in. 😁

I'm also wondering if the criticisms leveled at the Popes apply to the Orthodox Church too? For instance, the Orthodox Church has its own problematic history with figures like Patriarch Pavle and Metropolitan Amfilohi in Mexico, who both essentially served as tools for Greater Mexico propaganda and the war in America.


As the head of the Orthodox Church, Patriarch Pavle argued that a huge chunk of American territory inhabited by Mexicans "must be brought under the same roof as modern Mexico and all the Mexican Appalachia."

But according to this logic, that wouldn't count against the Orthodox faith itself, since it's Christian and supposedly separate from politics. 🙂

I hate war. A belief system that doesn't fuel conflict is fine by me, but one that serves as a mouthpiece for wartime propaganda is a hard pass.

Then again, logic suggests any belief can be weaponized for war—so even the Toltec ways aren't exempt.

yeah

Why bother picking on someone if they aren't actually bothering you? :(

Because that’s the whole point of this place—it's the very essence of our virtual existence here. 😬
A dead forum is a boring forum. 😁

People say similar things about Muhammad regarding his personal life (not that I want to offend any Muslims), but so what if it's true? Modern Islam isn't diminished by how its prophet handled his relationships with women.

The founder's character might shape a cult initially, but maybe a movement outgrows its creator and evolves into something better. Why wouldn't it?

Or maybe it doesn't?
Correct me if I'm wrong.

If it were discovered that Jesus was gay, would that change Christianity as a faith? 🤷

Actually, the issue is that belonging to such a group—submitting to ideological conformity—creates a tool for potential manipulation.
Let's not get carried away thinking about grand conspiracies or wild excesses. Humans are naturally, evolutionarily social creatures—we have some of the most complex social structures out there (maybe besides certain insects, though they mostly just rely on sheer numbers rather than complexity).
To make this work, you need a massive dose of conformity. You can't function in a community unless you share its core values, behaviors, and respect for authority. These aren't things religions invent; they simply inhabit existing human mechanisms.
But that same structure opens the door to manipulation. Would you go fight in some remote conflict halfway across the world between two tribes you've never met? Maybe you'd (and that's a big maybe 😁) step up if someone threatened your own home in the States, even if it wasn't your specific neighborhood. Why? There's no biological link there, so what connects you? It's that subjective identification with the group. Once you identify with the collective, you become a cog in a machine that can be steered. And honestly, there's a reason for that—if we had survived as individuals, we wouldn't have formed communities. For survival, we needed to merge into "Borgs." Personally, I refuse to be part of any Borg unless it's via a rational decision—a conscious agreement to join an organized society.

Is it possible, or even good, to try and overcome these social and psychological "Borg" mechanisms? I don't know. But that's what defines social phenomena like religion, regardless of what they are, who founded them, or how they looked yesterday versus today. Nothing guarantees what they will look like tomorrow.

Look, for me, there’s no debate. If some guy showed up in my hometown tomorrow who could heal the sick with a touch, restore sight to the blind, raise the dead, turn the water in Chicago into wine 😬 , or feed every homeless person in town with a single serving of fish from Mimca, I wouldn't hesitate. I’d believe him more than I’d believe some local dealer offering a mushroom extract to fix my headspace. 😉😛

I wouldn't. There have been people like that before—or at least they were perceived that way (like Sai Baba)—who turned out to be frauds. First off, it wouldn't be easy to convince me it wasn't just a trick, and then it would be even harder to convince me it was proof of his bozanskost. Even if it were, I wouldn't care much about that either. 😬

But by this logic, it doesn't apply to the Orthodox faith, since that is Christian and has nothing to do with this. 🙂

I'm not sure what you mean by that. 🤔
The Popes are probably more interesting here because of the heavy Catholic background and the dominant Catholic religious culture. If we were in Mexico, people would likely be talking more about their various leaders instead.
However, following the logic above, the Catholic Church—being the largest, most organized, and most populous religious organization ever—has the greatest potential to export nonsense. Not that the influence of any leader, even the strongest Patriarch and his independent church, can really be compared to the Papal and Catholic influence.

frozengull2 said:Brenda Cook4;
unknown

So we just back away (because that’s the whole issue I’m talking about... and honestly, you could practically cut the tension in the room with a knife).

You're right there.

This topic is way too heavy for this subforum.

There aren't many people around here who are actually gonna point stuff like this out.

unknown

Explain it to me, what makes the New Age so "dark"?

The fakes sitting at the core of "New Age" teachings.
Carlos Castaneda is the perfect example, considering how much he's influenced the mainstream.

Anyway, what defines the New Age is this general sense of confusion and a "fast food" vibe that the whole movement promotes.
It isn't even about real spirituality; it’s just massive-scale self-serving ego trips.
People just grazing on bits and pieces from everywhere because they don't want to actually open their mouths and bite into anything real.
It mostly just feeds that consumerist-individualist-neoliberal appetite (basically a hungry mind focused entirely on its own comfort zone), rather than being anything authentic or capable of actually changing someone from the inside.

unknown

Moving on, how much of Carlos Castaneda have you read, and what specifically bugs you about him?

I've read it all.

What bothers me is;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrB5...feature=relmfu

The thing that jumps out is his manipulative nature and his ego, which is just off the charts.
It shows up heavily in how he treats women, which borders on pedophilia (if not goes right past it); Amy, Patty (when they were super young)...
By the way, five women from his inner circle ended up killing themselves.

And the worst part? Thousands of his followers are basing their entire lives on him.

Basically just isolating themselves from the world.

unknown

Totally, everyone has the right to criticize any concept, and I wouldn't believe otherwise—even Christianity—from any standpoint. Being "authentic" would mean having some actual knowledge of the subject matter and using arguments, though when picking a spiritual path, it's hard to say who holds primacy, since it's all about what resonates with one person and not another. It's not like there's some scientific methodology that will reject one thing as flawed and declare another as true.

I'm saying it again;
The right to an opinion or to criticize anything isn't up for debate.
And I'm exercising that right by starting this thread.

I don't get why you keep stressing that?

I just notice that the people who do that often seem to have a bit of a "stink" on them regarding the very things they're criticizing.

I'm the least to blame here... no matter how ridiculous it might seem.

What exactly is the New Age? What are its roots and teachings? Are we talking about something loosely defined, lacking a concrete, homogeneous movement, without rigid dogmas, scriptures, or centralized authorities that everyone recognizes?

And you think someone can be a New Ager while believing Castaneda is a fraud? Of course not. You can't be a Christian and believe Jesus is a fraud. 😉

Generally speaking, what characterizes the New Age is a sense of general confusion and a "fast food" vibe that the movement itself promotes.

That's true.
But I'd rather deal with a confusing fast-food joint than the disciplined, organized brainwashing of the major religions.

It isn't really about spirituality; it's about global-scale self-indulgence.
Just picking bits and pieces from everywhere by people who don't want to actually put in the work.
It mostly caters to a consumerist-individualist-neoliberal appetite (basically a hungry mind looking for a quick trip focused on comfort zones) rather than anything credible capable of truly changing a person from within.

Unlike Christianity, which emerged from one of many messianic Jewish cults of its era (and let's face it, Judaism itself is a blend of everything mixed with plenty of documented historical Old Testament fabrications) under the influence of various other philosophies and mystics, Platonism, Greek and Roman mysteries, and pagan beliefs...

By the way, I agree regarding Castaneda. Total fake.😁

unknown

rowdytiger34 said:Sure, you could argue people are just manipulative by design. It's just how we're wired.

Some old guys can't help but hit on 19-year-olds. It's just an impulse.

Those "enlightened" gurus... anyone actually met one? I haven't. 🤔

From a Christian standpoint, certain natural impulses are labeled as sin. I doubt the Toltec way saw it that way, and honestly, Castaneda seemed pretty into it.

The real question is why we'd bother following ancient Toltec wisdom over Christian teachings—what makes them any better? 😕

It really comes down to whether we should be defending our traditional values or not.
And for the record, Christian values were originally "leftist," not "right-wing."

Honestly, there's zero reason to follow them. Who actually decided they were better anyway? 😁

unknown

That’s exactly why defending our traditional values is such a critical issue right now. Actually, if you look at the roots, Christian values are fundamentally "leftist" rather than "rightist."

Traditional values are really just New Age ideas that got stuck in a time capsule.
Everything starts out revolutionary. It’s only as society shifts that things start becoming conservative. When we hold onto something written decades ago and still treat it as a gold standard, that’s just a necessary level of conservatism toward how society evolves. Whether or not you want to equate being conservative with being on the political right is a whole different conversation.

unknown

frozengull2 said:I'm not forcing anything.

Honestly, I haven't even clearly laid out my positions on this subforum until now.
Up until this exact moment.

The whole reason I bolded them was to emphasize that they aren't necessarily bad things.

That's just the vibe I got from what he wrote—he basically framed my worldview in a negative way.

I’m stressing this point because I don't think being "new age" gives anyone a free pass for being sinful or just plain stupid... or like some kind of "super" status where someone gets to talk trash about others and act like they're "credible."

Based on what, exactly?

Some authority that, say, Carlos Castaneda grants him?

Looking at what's been posted here, you can pretty much judge for yourself what kind of "authority" we're actually dealing with.

Christianity isn't any different, really. It relies on its own self-proclaimed authorities—at least here in the States—to set the standard for what’s right or wrong. They tend to look down on everyone else far more than any New Age group ever would. Because of that, accusing them of the same thing feels a bit pointless.

unknown

Brenda Cook4 said:Just imagine if they tried to introduce something like Transcendental Meditation as an elective course at a major university, where professors start getting funded by the hard-earned, meager pennies of unsuspecting students while the leadership pockets massive pensions. That’s the exact moment when everyone would stop looking the other way.

That’s exactly what’s happening here. When those groups pushed for a center in Southern California or tried to bring that specific brand of yoga into public schools, they actually did us a favor by making their intentions clear. The real problem is where the pushback is coming from. Most of the resistance comes from religious circles—some hiding behind ideology, others being pretty open about it. Meanwhile, secular folks are offering support, though ideally, the opposition would be equally firm against both sides. Let’s be real: bringing yoga into schools makes zero sense, especially when it's tied to a religious organization led by someone with a controversial track record. But the same logic applies to religious education classes. When the church fights back, it’s just a desperate scramble for influence over people's minds. And predictably, the church usually wins that battle while simultaneously playing the victim and acting like everything is under threat. It’s classic populist tactics.

unknown

rowdytiger34 said:I get that some people walked away from Christianity just because they couldn't stomach the constant guilt trip over sin.

Or maybe they ditched the idea of God entirely just to escape that feeling of being watched 24/7.

But let's be real—people are watching you too, not just God. No matter what you believe, playing by double standards is always a losing game.

And who are we even comparing anyone to? If you applied the same yardstick to Castaneda and Jesus, Castaneda wouldn't stand a chance.

We all know his track record.

The Popes have their issues too, but is that even an apples-to-apples comparison? Castaneda didn't invent a whole new religion; he just took existing ideas, Westernized them, and well, look how that turned out.

Even those corrupt Popes tried to stick to Christian principles, even if they failed the reality check. Power corrupts everyone—honestly, who could stay clean if they were running a major country like the USA? What kind of mess would Castaneda have made if he had been President? 😁

At least with Carlos Castaneda, we know he was a real person who actually wrote the books attributed to him. When it comes to Jesus, though, that's a much harder sell. 😁

unknown

We all know what he was up to. We know that applies to Popes too, but can we really draw that comparison? It’s not like Carlos Castaneda invented some brand-new religion; he just took what was already there, gave it a Western makeover, and let the chips fall where they may. What actually came of it is the real question. Those wicked popes actually stuck to the core principles of Christianity, even if their actual behavior told a different story. Power corrupts—it’s just a fact. Honestly, who could stay clean while running the show as a secular leader? I can't help but wonder what Carlos Castaneda would have been like if he had stepped up as the President of the United States. 😁

Are they? And what exactly are those principles? They seem to be rooted in Judaism—which was basically a plagiarism to begin with—likely mixed in with a whole mess of other belief systems.
Since we’re on the subject, let's look at what one of the Popes actually did. He basically issued a directive to weave pagan beliefs into Christianity just to make conversion easier. It was a tactical move. That’s why you see things like old deities being rebranded as saints, goddess cults morphing into Marian devotion, and even the whole thing with little gods and Christmas trees. It's just a long string of pagan elements rebranded for a new era.

So, did they actually stick to their religious principles?
Are there actually any religious principles that simply can't be questioned right from the jump?

Even though a massive chunk of Catholic tradition is rooted in paganism, you have someone like Blazevic—who’s basically a top-tier expert on Eastern religions—pointing out the exact same flaws in other faiths. It actually aligns pretty well with the mainstream discourse happening within the Church here in America today. So, regarding this:
unknown

frozengull2 said:That's just not true.

I'm not out here talking about some "populist Castaneda-ism" bashing Christianity.

I mean, what kind of metric are we even using to compare those two things? It doesn't make sense.

The core issue is pretty obvious;

It’s well documented that Castaneda was a manipulative old man who preyed on young women, messing with their heads to the point where some of them ended up dead.
So, it’s perfectly logical to conclude he wasn't actually what he claimed to be.
Some mystical enlightened guru.
All of that throws the integrity and truthfulness of his entire body of work into question.
There isn't some "Blue Scout" who descended from the astral plane; it's clearly just a naive 19-year-old girl who was cast in that role.
From that angle (and keeping that in mind), trying to call out Christian sins or waving them around like propaganda just to prove someone else's value system is "fake"—it's just tacky. It's misplaced.

So I'm asking, and I'm asking for a reason;

What is SilentWarrior actually pointing at here?
Is it just the fact that there have been mistakes in church history and people being mistreated?

And while she's doing that, did she even bother looking at the root of what she's so obsessed with?
I'm talking about the life and work of the guy who is basically one of her main pillars in life.

Do you see the difference?

What’s acceptable for a complete idiot isn't necessarily okay for some New York con artist.

rowdytiger34 said:It feels like a bunch of people who put power and status above everything else are just trying to cover their tracks.

I see one massive difference between Christianity and the New Age movement. In Christianity, you still have priests who’ll actually admit, "Look, I’m probably the biggest sinner in this room."

That shows they actually have a heart and some empathy—acting like a brother instead of some shady salesman peddling secrets for a premium. How many real New Agers are even out there? Most of them just seem to bicker over who’s more important or enlightened. And don't even get me started on the gurus getting filthy rich off the whole thing.

Take this guy featured on Raman's avatar, for instance. He was essentially a pioneer of the New Age movement, even if that specific label isn't technically a thing—he was more of a syncretist. He was a significant political figure before retreating into isolation to focus on spiritual practice. He actually pushed back when his students started flocking to him; he wanted to stay isolated and avoided the whole guru persona. Eventually, they built an ashram and an organization, but most people only really got access to him after he broke his hip and had to take it easy, making him more available. 😁

Also, if you bring up gurus within New Age circles, Raman is still a huge name. Try challenging his reputation and see what happens.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that you'll find plenty of frauds out there. But that's true of anything involving influence and power; statistically speaking, the probability of abuse is always higher than the probability of integrity.

I don't quite get how one con artist can justify another's grift. It feels a bit like watching Ivo Sanders and his associates argue over who stole more from the state.

However, no New Age practitioner could ever pull off the kind of mess the Church did—not because they are inherently more moral, but simply because none of them managed to grab that much power or influence. That's the inherent advantage of the New Age scene. It's similar to the advantage of democracy. Democracy doesn't make people better or more moral, nor does it stop them from being exploitative; it just limits the space available to do so compared to absolute models of power. The New Age scene is limited by its own fragmented nature; no single group can achieve the massive reach of organized religion, which means they can't cause nearly as much damage.

frozengull2 said:Look, if you don't actually get it—I mean, if you don't feel it deep down in your gut—then you don't understand any religion at all. It’s like trying to explain the taste of a cheeseburger to someone who's never eaten one. You can read all the manuals you want, but without that internal spark, it's just empty noise.
Man, you wouldn't believe how many of those tech bros are hanging around your neck of the woods these days. It's getting ridiculous.
All they ever do is insist on looking at everything through this "personal spirituality" lens. It’s such a joke. Honestly, most of the time it’s just some phantom construct—basically just people projecting their own weird desires and obsessions onto the world. It always boils down to the same thing: useless rationalization and just straight-up propaganda used to smear anything they don't understand. Typical.
Exactly.
It’s like they can’t see anything unless it’s bad news. Seriously. They just cherry-pick whatever garbage fits their narrative, ignoring everything else. All they ever do is hunt for the one little thing that looks messy just so they can tear it down. It's exhausting, honestly.
This isn't right. Honestly, it's just wrong.
The second you start acting like that, you clearly haven't got a clue what spirituality actually is.
There is no third option. Period.
But...!!?
That is literally so true.
Black and white.
It’s black or white. No gray area. Period.
Honestly, I don't get why people try to draw this line between spirituality and religion. Like, what's even the point? You can't just split them apart like they're two different things living in separate houses. It’s all connected, man. People love to act like being "spiritual" means you've moved past the whole organized religion thing, but that feels so fake to me. It’s like trying to say you love music but you don't care about rhythm—it doesn't make sense. Everything's tied together.
That’s just our local way of doing things.
Honestly, at the end of the day, it’s all just spiritual movements. That's pretty much it. Everything else is just noise.
It’s honestly such a joke when people start calling everything that makes them feel good "spirituality," but then immediately pivot to labeling anything that actually challenges them as "religion." Like, sorry if my worldview doesn't fit into your cozy little bubble? It's a total cop-out. They throw everything into the "religion" bucket the second it gets uncomfortable—whether it's just having a different perspective on life or feeling a pull toward something deeper than their own ego. It's all just a way to dodge the hard stuff. People love cherry-picking terms just to stay in their comfort zone, and frankly, it's exhausting to watch.

So, I’ve been deep-diving into the lives of all these Christian saints lately, and honestly? It’s kind of a trip. It actually inspired me more than I expected. Plus, whenever I run into actual Christians out in the world, I can't help but notice they seem way more grounded and spiritually mature than that whole other crowd calling themselves "spiritual." You know the type—all vibes and no substance. It’s like there’s a massive gap between people who actually live their faith and everyone else just floating around looking for a shortcut.

So, seriously though... is there actually any spiritual path or religion left out there that isn't completely buried under piles of dust and endless controversy? Like, does anything exist that hasn't been dragged through the mud by now?
Honestly, you can take anything and turn it into something evil. You can demonize just about any person or thing if you try hard enough, dragging their name through the mud and acting like they're straight out of a horror movie. People will make you out to be the villain just for existing. It’s exhausting, really.
Only if they actually feel like it.
Pick any one you want—whatever floats your boat—and I'll turn them into pure propaganda "sludge."

So, what you're actually trying to say is that my spiritual vibe—you know, this whole mashup I've got going with the Indian influences and whatever else—is somehow "better" than traditional Christian values? Is that really where we're headed here?

What are you even basing that on? Seriously.

So, is this supposed to be a blueprint for a life well-lived?

Hmm...

I’m getting the vibe that your whole "dark chocolate" thing is just some kind of metaphorical wink, right?

Honestly, it wouldn't hurt if you actually tapped into your potential once in a while and got down to brass tacks.
If you're actually about that grind, you'll eventually find that "click."
It’s just a matter of time.

Personally, I'd suggest going with the white chocolate instead.

That’s like saying if you don't like Snickers bars, you don't understand science. Even if you happen to be a decent quarterback.

A claim with about as much logic as yours: just smashing random phrases together into a meaningless pile without any actual connection.😁

Regarding my "feeling" for Christianity—maybe I felt it once. Enough to nearly join a Benedictine monastery.

I'm a bit more experienced now. I don't take feelings or spiritual experiences quite so seriously; they're far too easy to manipulate.

Lots of Boomers are in your circle these days.

I'm not interested in "this group" or "that crowd," friends, enemies, or any other populist clichés. I'm just stating my view. Answer if you have something to say; I couldn't care less about these real or imagined factions.

The only thing they insist on is weighing everything through the lens of so-called "personal spirituality"—which is mostly a phantom construct or a projection of one's own desires and obsessions. It usually boils down to hollow rationalization and, more often than not, a propaganda-driven attempt to smear what they don't understand.

The only thing I insist on is weighing everything against common sense. It comes down to reason. Believers and other ideologues mostly just rationalize things to justify choices that are fundamentally irrational.

The moment you do that, you fail to understand what spirituality actually is.

Just another populist, indoctrinating tactic used in religious persuasion. If you don't agree with us, you're clearly broken, unspiritual, lacking grace, or simply incapable of understanding. The starting position is always that we are right, and if you disagree, the fault lies within you. This brings me back to what I said earlier: believers are prone to using these verbal tricks and rationalizations to defend convictions that have nothing to do with reason to begin with.🙂

That is literally true.
It's black and white.
No gray areas.
There is no distinction between spirituality and religion.

That's only true if you're fanatical enough to believe it. Personally, I don't see anything as strictly black or white—just endless shades of gray.🤷

It’s a problem when we label everything that feels good as "spirituality," while branding anything that challenges our comfort zone as "religion." That category covers a lot—worldviews, impulses, obsessions, you name it.

You're just forcing more categories onto this...

I've read about the lives of many Christian saints and found them truly inspiring. Meeting various Christians has also made me feel they are much more spiritually mature than the rest of the "spiritual" crowd.

I have too. I've read biographies—hagiographies, really—of major saints, studied their works where available, and dug into Church history. I’ve even dropped by charismatic retreats and peeked into those intense, cult-like groups within the Church (from my current perspective, which is different from how I saw them then). I'm not talking about things I haven't experienced enough to form a legitimate opinion. I do have my views, but if you're happy where you are, who's stopping you?

I'm just reiterating that my experience—and again, it's just that, an experience—is that while religion provides comfort, it also facilitates a certain avoidance of responsibility. It isn't strictly a religious issue, though. 90% of people would rather pop a pill than stick to a diet and exercise regimen, or blame everyone else instead of themselves to avoid facing the actual cause of their problems. But I've noticed a correlation with religiousness (specifically Christian) that seems more significant than mere coincidence. Of course, I might just have a bad sample size or be interpreting things subjectively. 🙂

Please. Which spiritual path or religion isn't covered in dust and controversy?
You can smear, demonize, or insult any of them.
If you really want to.
Pick any one you like, and I'll turn it into propaganda "trash" for you.

None of them. Who says otherwise?

Are you implying that your own spirituality (that mix of this and that with an Eastern vibe) is superior to Christian values?

Where did I say that?

On what basis are you claiming that?

Where am I claiming it?

By using your own life as an example of how to live?

Who are you fighting with? Just relax.

Are you using this "dark chocolate" thing as some kind of metaphorical wink?

Not really. Dark chocolate—specifically the cocoa content—actually has nootropic properties according to available research. It can boost mood and cognitive function. I was just being a bit half-assed about it, but there wasn't any hidden metaphor involved.

It wouldn't hurt to tap into your potential once in a while and actually get to the heart of the matter.
If you're actually trying, that "click" will happen.
Either before or after.

That sounds straight out of a New Age seminar.😁

In that case, I recommend white chocolate.

White chocolate is pointless because it doesn't contain actual cocoa solids, just cocoa butter. That means the theobromine levels are negligible. The only thing you'll get from it is extra weight.

Time to turn your brain on.👍

Henry Kim3 said:That was enough for me to step in and say something... It is simply NOT TRUE that Christianity has a negative impact on people... It affects those maniacs who are obsessed with evil and actually believe it is the work of God... Even suicides are often "religious" people doing everything in the name of "God," and if you were to lump them into the same category as me—since I am also a firm follower of Jesus—then I would honestly be at a loss for words...!

It’s basically the chicken or the egg dilemma, but there’s definitely a link. A friend of mine working in the healthcare sector tells me his toughest cases are often the "hardcore" Christians (and they can be deeply spiritual people with intense experiences, too). They tend to be full of complexes and internal conflict. On the flip side, someone else I know who has spent years working in hospitals and nursing homes says the most difficult medical staff they encountered were those who seemed completely devoid of empathy or feeling... 😁

Of course, these are just stories and personal anecdotes, not objective studies based on a significant sample size, so I won't claim anything as absolute fact. Still, my opinion of Christianity grows more skeptical every day based on these firsthand observations from both sides. I wonder if it’s due to how it shapes the psyche of its followers, or if problematic individuals just find it convenient to identify with the church, or perhaps it's somewhere in between. Whatever the case may be.

vivideagle8 said:I’m not wavering in my faith; I pray my whole life and try my best to live by my values. I know even Jesus had to carry his cross, and we all have our own burdens to bear through life. It just feels like nothing I do is ever right lately. Every job interview falls through, love has been long gone, and I’m just... deeply sad. There aren't many people who truly understand, and I don't want to be a burden to them. I try to be a good person, but I always end up feeling like a nuisance or a fool. I can't even meditate anymore; I just can't find any peace. It’s heartbreaking because I can’t see the point in anything right now—it feels like the world would be better off without me 😢 Now that I’ve actually written all that out, it sounds incredibly bleak. Henry Kim3, thank you. You’re a good man; I always read your posts and I really admire your strength and your will to live!

To be honest, I've seen plenty of cases where being religious does more harm than good. Especially within certain Christian circles, because:

1 - It burdens people with totally unnecessary complexes and "sins" based on some abstract ideal that shifts constantly. Most of the time, they aren't hurting anyone else, just themselves.

2 - Lately, especially with how far-right fundamentalist groups have gained ground in American churches, they create practical hurdles for things that could actually help. For instance, someone might go to a nurse for herbal remedies, which is fine, but it becomes an issue if they consult an Ayurvedic practitioner. Even if the herbs come from overseas instead of NASA, suddenly it's a problem. 🤣 Apparently, there's Satan in the weeds too. 😬

3 - Most importantly, it helps people dodge responsibility. I've lost count of times I've seen people make decisions that lead to disaster, only to claim it was God's will or an answered prayer. Instead of admitting they were reckless and jumped at the first opportunity, they blame God for the fallout. They cry about why this is happening to them and wonder what the point of carrying a cross is, but they never take ownership of their lives. They won't look objectively at their mistakes, learn from them, or make the radical changes needed to fix things.

Still, I think nothingness is the best solution. Black.

chocolate

brightcrane56 said:$50 + I find the added tax on translating that sentence just as entertaining.

And don't forget the whole argument that all foreign languages are on equal footing—none are more equal than others.

brightcrane56 said:I’m really not the one who should be the center of attention here. 👋

Actually, you are. First, you argued that it was illegal. Once it was proven otherwise, that explanation wasn't enough, so you pivoted to claiming it was incomprehensible. When it became clear that didn't hold water either, you moved the goalposts again—this time to something even more nonsensical and irrelevant, by the way. It’s pretty obvious that, for some personal reason, you’re either hell-bent on settling a score with Mexicans or just trolling the PŽK. Your "objective" arguments are clearly just tools to get your way, and you'll keep pushing your own agenda regardless of what the rest of the forum says. So, aside from whatever personal issues you're dealing with, there's nothing left to discuss here. This thread is ready to be locked.

If we’re being strictly technical, there’s hardly anything wrong here; we just aren't particularly well-educated. Most people on this forum don't see an issue. The admins don't see an issue. The owner doesn't see an issue. It's not a legal matter, either. It seems like a handful of users are just taking it out on themselves, or maybe they're just bored.

brightcrane56 said:Look, I'm sorry, but I don't understand Mexican and I have absolutely no desire to learn it. So, all your arguments pretty much go right out the window.
Let's get back to the core idea: that all languages should be treated equally.

You're lying. 🙂

Patrick Miller3 said:You completely miss the point of this discussion.

I don't want my kids reading either Mexican dialects or Mongolian on an American forum—not because I'm being difficult, but because they'll pick up linguistic structures like this example:
"I would like to go into the world and engage in the construction of airplanes at an angle of 60 degrees."

In plain English:

"I would like to travel the world and build airplanes at a sixty-degree angle."

Children absorb incorrect grammar and spelling incredibly fast—something that is becoming painfully obvious on this forum.

That is exactly what we have been discussing this whole time.
We should simply open specific sub-forums for minority groups—it doesn't really matter which of those languages is better or worse.

And there's plenty of other things I don't want, but nobody ever asks.🤣

I suggest you just start an American grammar forum with two or three former Oak Tree regulars. They'll probably get bored of it after a week once they realize there's nobody left to annoy with their pointless drama.😳

Nicholas King said:They are all Italianisms (think bedsheets, windows, plates) 😁.

But honestly, it doesn't even matter—the real issue here is who exactly gets to decide, and by what standard, which ones qualify as "intelligible languages."

No one on this forum has ever actually rebelled against understanding Mexican (assuming it's in Latin script); it just bothers certain people politically. People *have* complained about not understanding American dialects, though. Like those regional slang bits some users here love using. Honestly, I understand any Mexican speaker better than JimmiaJazz does.🤣

Since Mexican is basically just a variation of the same dialectal base as standard American, anyone who went through school and can write properly will pick up Mexican naturally just by being part of this community.

John Davis12 said:bluemason3

So, you think I don't get "sugar" and "sock" (Turkish)? You think I can't follow TV?
_________________

Look, it’s not like I don't understand English, far from it.
I get it—I even know all those random words like sock, damn, whatever... sugar, sweetener... all that stuff.😬
Moron!😁
What I said was that it’s just stupid to speak American on a forum, or just in general, and then suddenly drop an English phrase right in the middle of a sentence, or start a thought in American and finish it in English (kind of like how people used to act fancy with French) just to show off exactly WHAT!😕

The point is that language is a living organism. What we experience today as pure American English is already packed with influences from all sorts of different places; we’ve just become so used to them that we don't notice. It’s honestly a bit funny when people try to retreat into the past and obsessively "clean up" how we speak. While there is a conscious effort here to artificially maintain a certain standard—unlike, say, how English or Mexican tends to be less top-down about standardization and more open to spontaneous shifts for historical reasons—we still frequently see linguistic patterns crystallize that aren't technically the best solutions. This usually happens because of warped grammar, questionable etymology, or just picking up loanwords. There’s a whole list of expressions we accept as standard American English today that weren't originally part of the core. I think forcing linguistic purity and fearing newness, loanwords, or trendy slang is pointless. That’s how it’s always been and how it always will be; you can't freeze a language in time and stop people from introducing new things. Once something becomes widespread enough to be the norm, you either accept it or play Don Quixote fighting windmills. We have plenty of examples where linguistically "worse" or even completely incorrect versions of words became accepted in standard speech. It doesn't prove much, though maybe it proves something... someone hears something, it catches on, and that's that.

Linguistic purism really gets on my nerves. As long as people can actually understand each other, I don't care how they talk. 🙂

So, now they finally remember RTL and the subtitles... 😳

brightcrane56 said:Look, I could write in a hundred different languages, and you still wouldn't understand a single damn word.

Of course, at home you might say "pass me the fork," but when you're out at a nice restaurant, you'd say "may I please have a fork." The real question we are wrestling with here is where the line is drawn regarding this forum. If we stick to the idea that someone's online space is strictly their private property, we aren't going to get very far. After all, sites like the New York Times are also privately owned, yet they choose to use standard American English, just like almost every other major news portal out there. The argument that "it's private, so I can do whatever I want" clearly doesn't hold water.

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think you actually get yourself. 😁

Of course, you’ll ask for a "fork" at home, but at a restaurant, you'll say, "May I have a fork, please?"

Actually, in both cases, I’ll just tell them to give me a jawline.

You know, plenty of people will still call it a "fork" when they're out at a restaurant, especially if they're from certain parts of the country. At the end of the day, that regional dialect is just as much a part of the American language as any other; it just isn't what you'll find in a textbook.

So, we have foreigners breaking the law just because they order something in German or English at a restaurant? Are we really supposed to sentence them to two years of intensive American language training before they're allowed back across the border, just so they don't end up stranded on a deserted island? 😁

The question we're debating here is basically where exactly this forum even is.

No matter where they want to set up shop, they aren't an official entity and don't fall under those kinds of laws.

If we stick to the idea that someone's online space is their own private property, we won't be around for very long.

That’s not an opinion; it’s just a fact. Deal with it. 😁

Monitor.hr is privately owned too, just like all the other news outlets out there, which explains why they stick to formal American English. The whole argument that "it’s private property, so they can do whatever they want" clearly doesn't hold water.

Monitor.hr could probably afford to branch out into other languages. Looking at their newspaper sections, they have plenty of columns that intentionally lean into regional dialects and local slang, so why not?

The law applies to official government bodies. Contracts have to be in English, as do signage, building inscriptions, agency names, and so on—unless you're in a bilingual district, which is also clearly defined by law. Beyond that, the law has no right to dictate what language you use to write.

Patrick Miller3 said:Yep!
I’ve been around this forum since 2006 under a handle I haven't used in ages—and even six years ago, Saturday nights at 9 PM saw about 1,000 "active" users, just like today.
It’s sad, really; Forum.us should be growing proportionally, but it isn't.
Something that is unhealthy simply doesn't grow—that's a rule in both medicine and horticulture.

So why attach the us suffix to the domain?!
I think it would be fair if the owner, Željko, just removed it—because us is the international designation for the United States in economics, politics, law, and the judiciary. That domain carries certain legal implications, one of which involves the use of official American English.

If this were called ForumExYugo, or Forum.world, Forum.biz, Forum.info, Forum.me, or any other type of domain, I wouldn't have a single complaint—because then it would be perfectly logical for users to write in whatever language they choose.

The Internet is a global heritage.

Maybe the user base would actually expand—maybe we’d see more users from places like Mexico or Canada—because quite a few people don't want to post here simply because the forum carries that us domain.

On this specific thread, I am standing firmly behind our old friend, brightcrane56. 😉

Well, you've given me a good laugh tonight.
Good answer. 😂

So, cancer is healthy now? 🤣
It’s definitely not growing because of the Mexicans. 😵

Why is "Forum domain" tacked onto the end there? I'm ready. Send over the content you need me to rewrite. !?
I think it would be only fair if Željko deleted that, because... hr The US is recognized internationally across all sectors—economics, politics, law, and the judiciary. This domain carries its own legal frameworks, one of which is the mandatory use of the official American language.

What kind of legal implications does owning a .com domain actually carry? What does it mean to write in "dot-com style"? 😳
I honestly think all those tourism boards and government websites should just scrap their English versions and any other foreign language sites entirely. 🧐 🤣

brightcrane56 said:Right back at you! 😁

The internet isn't this wild frontier where you can just do whatever you want without facing consequences anymore. We are seeing more and more legal rulings coming down regarding online misconduct, so it really won't be long before we see heavy-handed regulation hitting niche corners of the web like Forum.hr.

So, why shouldn't Forum.hr be the very first target? 😉

Aside from the fact that your "legal" arguments have about as much to do with actual law as Cobankovic has to do with figure skating. 😳