Posts by Peter Phillips32

William Roberts3 said:So "lucid"! 🙂

Man, after reading that, a picture popped into my head. I'll try to sketch it out here...

MMMMM MMMM MM mmmmm Mmmm m m
.................................................. ....................

The top row represents (for now) thoughts and the gaps between thoughts. The second row is those little dots that are always there—kind of like the "background" or the "screen" where thoughts and the absence of thought show up. I don't know how else to explain it besides using that unknown perspective. The top row is dualistic, the dots are non-dual, and together they make up an incomprehensible truth—neither dual nor non-dual, neither both nor neither. Just pure Consciousness, Life, Oneness...

Right now, most people are stuck in MMMMM MMMM.
MMMMM MMMM means people are living almost entirely inside their heads, so they don't even see those dots underneath; they only see the world through their programmed, filtered lenses...

"Those with limited vision are fearful and indecisive: the faster they rush, the slower they progress." — Seng-Tsan

Those bolded "Mm" letters represent those heavy, rigid filters. But there are these tiny moments where those filters drop—intervals and pauses between thoughts—and because of those empty spaces, you can actually see "below" at the non-dual dots. That interval is that moment of unknown, like a slice of Pure Consciousness. A brief "Seeing" without the mental chatter. You just "see the absence of thought." But pretty soon, the mind comes rushing back in, all bold and strong, trying to explain away the unexplainable (the mind's whole thing is trying to shove everything into some neat little box 🤣)

Once that "clear vision" window shuts, everything gets clouded by heavy mental noise or just that "empty void" feeling. And honestly, every description of true clarity, including the stuff written during those brief flashes, is totally flawed and inaccurate because it's written from memory via a blurred lens. It’s all written after the fact, trying to use words in a > way, because you can't describe it non-dually—you can only "feel" it. ----> "See for yourself" Shoitsu

I think there's a slight misunderstanding here. During those brief flashes of clarity, "Seeing Sees" with absolute, unmistakable sharpness—it's just a fleeting, inexplicable taste of Truth. When you're in that state of pure "Awareness," there's zero need to try and measure how wide or deep that clarity is. There's just no reason to. Only the > or the persona would feel the need to check. And that "checking" is exactly what causes the window to slam shut, clouding everything up with overthinking, analyzing, proving things, comparing it to what they already know, or getting lost in that hollow emptiness... it just smudges the lens. But even a millisecond feels like an eternity, and that tiny flash leaves such a sweet, permanent mark that it can totally change someone's life without actually changing anything at all. Before long, another, more lasting interval shows up. 😉 You can't force it.

A brief "Awakening" is exactly the same as constant "Awakening"

In constant "Awareness," thoughts still drift in and out, but they aren't heavy or overwhelming anymore; they aren't the main event. Awareness illuminates the thoughts and everything else that pops up, letting you "see" Everything in its true, clear light.

Once you get that clear "Vision," all the questions just kind of melt away on their own... nothing left to wonder about...🤷

So, basically, a person has these supernatural senses that let them feel the supernatural. But it's not just that you need those specific senses to feel it; those senses themselves exist entirely outside the material realm. Because if those internal spiritual senses weren't outside the physical sphere, we could actually claim our world is non-dual.

Basically, Person A, just by existing as they are, can't experience anything spiritual. They have to undergo a shift to become Person B—which is what people call "awakening." As Person A, their spiritual sensors aren't even switched on, and once those spiritual senses kick in, they've effectively become Person B.

When Person A tries to describe spirituality—essentially describing what they saw while they were being Person B—they're lying, or at least misrepresenting reality, because they're trying to explain someone else's perspective through their own limited lens. Person A and Person B are complete strangers to one another, almost like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde versions of spirituality, separated by a level of mental difference so massive it borders on total incompatibility. They just don't speak the same language.

But hey, big claims need big evidence. Why should anyone buy into your claim that they are fundamentally broken or incomplete, or that your specific path is the only way to fix it? Why is your story the truth and not, say, what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

You've got a little slip-up there. During those brief moments of waking up, "seeing is believing" at its most intense, most crystal clear level possible—it's that fleeting, inexplicable taste of Truth. During that moment of pure clarity, there's zero need to go checking how wide or deep that clarity goes. There's just no reason to. Who would bother doing that when "Awakening" itself is right there in front of you? Checking and verifying is something the Ego/persona—the mask we wear—needs to do, and that "checking" is exactly what causes the window of clarity to slam shut, getting all foggy with overthinking, analyzing, trying to prove things, comparing it to stuff you already know, or just drifting into a hollow emptiness... it essentially smudges the lenses. But even a millisecond feels like an eternity, and that brief "waking up" leaves this indelible, sweet trace behind that can totally flip someone's life upside down without even technically changing anything. Pretty soon, you realize 😉another, more permanent interval is coming. You can't force it.

If we can agree that an unawakened person isn't the same as an awakened person, then an unawakened person can't possibly claim that a fleeting moment of awakening is the same thing as constant, sustained awakening. They haven't experienced both states, so they can't compare.

Brief "Awakening" is exactly the same as constant "Awakening."

When you’re living in this state of constant "Awakening," thoughts still drift in and out, sure, but they aren't these big, heavy, bolded things anymore—they aren't the center of the universe. This Awakening just kind of shines a light on everything, letting you actually experience the Whole in its true, unfiltered clarity.

Look, I honestly can't take a single word you say about being constantly awake seriously when you clearly aren't actually there yourself.

And honestly, once that moment of clear "seeing is believing" hits, the questions just sort of evaporate on their own; there isn't even anything left to ask.🤷

If things really worked the way you're claiming, we wouldn't have all these people second-guessing what they felt through their own intuitive senses. Plus, there wouldn't be such a massive crowd of people all describing wildly different experiences, sometimes even totally contradictory ones.

There’s this fundamental flaw baked right into how people describe those brief moments of unknown, and honestly, there might be a massive mistake in even treating these little flashes of unknown as something inherently "good" or beneficial for the individual.

Think about it—someone living in an unaware state is basically stumbling through life with blurry vision, totally clueless about what the world actually looks like through the eyes of someone who is truly awake. There's a massive gulf between being unaware and being awake, even if both states technically persist. If an unaware person hits one of those short bursts of unknown, they suddenly see things with total clarity, but then, almost instantly, they slide right back into their usual fog where everything is hazy again.

So, if the world is a blur to them normally, then whatever clarity they caught during that flash of unknown becomes just as inaccessible once the moment passes and the vision goes fuzzy again. This means that pretty much any description of "clarity"—unless it was literally scribbled down while the person was mid-unknown—is fundamentally flawed and unreliable because it’s being recounted from a state of blurred vision.

And hey, let's throw another layer onto this fundamental mess.

It’s worth asking: just how much clearer does an unaware person actually see during one of these brief bursts? I mean, what kind of metric can you even use to verify the depth or the scale of that clarity when it hits them?

Unless an unaware person reaches the exact same level of perception and insight as someone who is fully awake during that burst, you can't really trust that what they saw was actually accurate.

But man, that just opens up a whole new rabbit hole of questions.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

placidorca16 said:Right—those are reproductive capabilities in general, not just childbirth, which is part of that set... but why would I bother explaining basic concepts to people who can barely write?🙄

As for legal stuff, go talk to an attorney if you're confused.

And what exactly do you mean by "moralistic coercion"?🤷

So, look, I mean, here I am again, just... me. Honestly, I've been sitting here thinking, and I figured, why not? I'm just gonna dive right into this, even if I end up tripping over my own feet halfway through. It's kind of my thing, isn't it? Just rambling along while trying to make sense of everything, though let's be real, "making sense" might be asking a bit much from someone like me. Anyway, so, I'm basically saying that this time around... Literally uneducated. Look, I honestly have no clue what you're getting at here, because you haven't actually laid out a single thing on this thread. Do you seriously think I’m supposed to sit here and dig through your entire post history just to figure out where you stand? That’s a bit much, don't you think? So, let me ask you straight: what exactly is this list of "abilities" you've assigned to men versus women? What specific traits are you using to claim we can be equalized, and what other random qualities are you planning to toss into that arbitrary bucket just so you can go ahead and declare women more capable than men?

What exactly do you mean by these "moralistic pressures" you keep harping on about?🤷

See, that’s exactly what you’re doing in that quote up there. You're basically handing me this half-baked answer where you slowly twist the context around until I'm forced to agree with you just so I don't end up looking like some total monster, you know? It’s like you're trying to corner me into accepting your own views as the only ones that matter by using this weird, heavy-handed moral high ground to pressure me.

Look, I’m still waiting on you to actually say something meaningful about free speech—specifically regarding the rights of people who don't fall in line with your worldview—and what the actual legal precedent looks like under the Constitution and laws of the USA. You're dodging the question. And while we're at it, you still haven't cleared up that murky, nonsense logic of yours where you try to equate male and female capabilities by claiming women are somehow more capable. If that's the case, why don't you just come out and say it? What exactly is this supposed "fundamental purpose" of being more capable that you're hinting at? Just lay it out.

ps.
Look, if you’re going to insist on bundling childbirth and general reproductive health into one big category—which, by the way, means you're counting way more than just the actual act of giving birth—then fine, I guess I can play that game. If we're being that broad, then I can just grab the concept of "strength" in its entirety and start listing every single specific example of power out there. I mean, just look at how many different strength-based disciplines they cram into the Olympic Games, let alone everywhere else. It’s a total reach, but hey, if we're stretching definitions, let's go all the way.

edit (just adding this here because I don't want to lose the thread of what I was saying above)

placidorca16 said:Right—those are reproductive capabilities in general, not just childbirth, which is part of that set... but why would I bother explaining basic concepts to people who can barely write?🙄

As for legal stuff, go talk to an attorney if you're confused.

And what exactly do you mean by "moralistic coercion"?🤷

So, if you're gonna hide behind the Constitution and legal precedents, why bother even bringing them up? It makes zero sense. You haven't actually explained how the law or any legal practice has anything to do with freedom of speech when it comes to feminism—especially since you’re out here actively suing people just because you don't like what they have to say. It's a total contradiction.

placidorca16 said:Look, I clearly stated that women generally possess more abilities than men. Being able to give birth is an ability—that’s just a fact. Or do you and your little crew think it isn't? What exactly am I "claiming" I didn't say? 😕 Don't try to put words in my mouth that I never uttered or even thought.

Feel free to point out where I actually mentioned anything about a 'conspiracy.'

You didn't say it, but why on earth are you interrogating me about why I edited my original post? As if editing isn't allowed—as if a person can't make a typo and fix it, like everyone else does. Why even ask if it matters to you?😕 Why would that even matter to you in the first place?

Well, look, you actually wrote that women "have more abilities," which honestly comes off as nothing but passive-aggressive provocation, and then you proceeded to list exactly one single thing: giving birth. But hey, if we’re playing this game where we acknowledge men are physically stronger, then that's +1 for strength on the male side and +1 for childbirth on the female side regarding overall abilities for both sexes, respectively.

So, not only are they not "more capable," but you promised a whole range of abilities and then only delivered one. Can you manage to cough up at least three more besides just having babies?

Just for the sake of clarity, could you please list these male and female abilities that are supposedly equal, under which category you can then tack on childbirth as a "superior" female trait?

On top of that, you completely dodged the question about how free speech even fits into this mess. Check post #11. Just a heads-up, I'm asking how legal precedent actually handles free speech regarding this specific topic, not how you wish the law worked.

Henry Cox78 said:Support the ladies. 😍

Down with those who violate the Constitution and laws of the USA. 👎

So, why don't you try answering post #11 instead of just showing up here to chant slogans? It seems like if you can't answer post #11, you probably don't even understand what it's asking.

Secondly, look, I'm all for supporting people in their charitable endeavors, but I draw the line at including baseless claims, half-baked answers, moralistic coercion, and those kinds of cheap tricks used to push agendas that some people find totally objectionable.

placidorca16 said:The Constitution: Articles 3 and 14

The Equal Rights Amendment—specifically the sections regarding direct discrimination and inciting discrimination, which is happening right here on this forum, covering Articles 5 through 9:

"Article 5.
Gender equality means that women and men are equally present in all areas of public and private life, holding equal status, having equal opportunities to exercise all rights, and enjoying equal benefits from achieved results.
Article 6.
(1) Gender discrimination (hereafter: discrimination) refers to any distinction, exclusion, or limitation based on sex that results in undermining or preventing the recognition, enjoyment, or use of human rights and fundamental freedoms in political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or other spheres based on the equality of men and women, including educational, economic, social, cultural, civil, and every other area of life.
(2) Discrimination based on marital or family status is prohibited. Treating women less favorably due to pregnancy or motherhood is considered discrimination.
(3) Discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited.
(4) Discrimination regarding the ability to obtain or acquire goods, as well as discrimination in the provision of and access to services, is prohibited.
(5) Inciting another person to discriminate is considered discrimination under this Law if done with intent.
Article 7.
(1) Direct discrimination is any action conditioned on sex that places a person—or could place them—in an unfavorable position compared to another person in a comparable situation.
(2) Indirect discrimination exists when a neutral legal norm, criterion, or practice places persons of one sex in an unfavorable position relative to persons of the opposite sex, unless that legal norm, criterion, or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means used to achieve that aim are appropriate and necessary.
Article 8.
(1) Harassment and sexual harassment constitute discrimination under this Law.
(2) Harassment is any unwanted behavior conditioned on a person's sex that aims to, or actually results in, violating personal dignity and creating an uncomfortable, hostile, degrading, or offensive environment.
(3) Sexual harassment is any unwanted verbal, non-verbal, or physical behavior of a sexual nature that aims to, or results in, violating personal dignity, particularly if it creates an uncomfortable, hostile, degrading, or offensive environment.

There's also a whole series of violations regarding the Civil Rights Act, which similarly defines direct and indirect discrimination, inciting discrimination, and its scope of application, such as a public medium like this forum.

And here’s a link to the international UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which the US has also signed—so feel free to read up:

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm

Or—and stay with me here—are you just expecting everyone to magically do their own homework once you've finished announcing your latest theories?

For those out of the loop: these aren't exactly "my ideas."🙄 I just expect anyone working for a major US news outlet to actually know—and follow—the laws of the country they're reporting on. Honestly, that’s what the relevant authorities expect, too.

Okay, look, I’m not done reading or asking questions yet, because this isn't the whole story. You can't just run a legal system based on one single piece of legislation, so I'm wondering where—and how—freedom of speech in the US fits into this messy picture. Like, what kind of views are people actually allowed to hold when they happen to disagree with feminism, and what are the boundaries for what they can and can't say? What level of freedom of speech do we even have in America? And if you actually know your way around the law, what does the actual legal practice look like regarding those fine, subtle lines you aren't supposed to cross?

It really worries me that the law includes stuff this vague and murky,

(2) Harassment is any unwelcome behavior conditioned on a person's sex, which aims to or actually results in an injury to personal dignity and creates an uncomfortable, hostile, degrading, or offensive environment.
(3) Sexual harassment is any unwelcome verbal, non-verbal, or physical behavior of a sexual nature that aims to or represents an injury to personal dignity, especially if it creates an uncomfortable, hostile, degrading, or offensive environment.

because that kind of language can be interpreted however anyone wants it to be.

We’ve got, for example, Muslims who face all sorts of discomfort, hostility, and degradation just for criticizing Islam and Muhammad, even when that criticism is totally justified, and why shouldn't there be people who, for whatever reasons—justified or not—disagree with certain aspects of Islam or its followers? Why would there be freedom of speech regarding religious matters, but not regarding feminism?

And people also criticized SOPA; folks pushed back against recent attempts to implement SOPA, which contains provisions that are also incredibly general and fuzzy, allowing people to be accused of just about anything. I mean, if I don't want some internet law because of its ambiguity, why on earth would I agree to a gender equality law that is just as vague?

For those out of the loop: this isn't about "my ideas."🙄 I expect anyone working at a public portal to know and respect the laws of the country or countries involved, and that's what the relevant authorities expect too when it comes to these matters.

This is just unrealistic, and if the government hasn't explicitly laid out exactly what skills moderators on private forums need to have, then the expectations you're trying to impose on them are legally, capitalistically, and personally irrelevant.

placidorca16 said:Dear moderators,
It’s honestly wild how several threads regarding feminism—currently active over in Politics (specifically those regarding "feminist protection of domestic abusers" and various "feminism" discussions)—are completely ignoring blatant sexism, misogyny, and direct violations of the Constitution and federal laws, not to mention international standards. A few users (the original poster, along with felix, bongo, and others, plus the thread starter) are basically just insulting women and their capabilities in general—spreading outright lies about female intelligence and skill as if they were "facts," despite having zero evidence to back any of it up. It's baffling that the mods aren't stepping in, especially since these posts have already been reported.
Does this mean the owners of this forum also endorse the misogyny, sexism, and falsehoods being directed at women?
I’m looking for an official statement from the administration here—this isn't just a breach of forum rules, it’s a violation of the Constitution and the laws of the USA, as well as the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Which specific parts of the Constitution are we talking about here, and what exactly is being violated by those clauses?

and the laws of the USA,

Which laws specifically? Which sections within those laws? What part of them is actually breaking the rules?

as well as international conventions against discrimination against women (UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women).

Which conventions? Which exact points from those conventions are being crossed, and how exactly does that happen?

Or are you just expecting everyone to go out and do their own homework once you decide to drop your big ideas on us?

Look, I just wanted to jump in here and throw my support behind the mods—they’re doing a solid job trying to civilize this absolute zoo of a forum. 😍

rowdytiger13 said:The pressure being put on the moderators over on the Religion subreddits lately has been intense, and honestly, it’s being directed at some really decent people who don't act entitled at all.
I actually stumbled onto the Religion community by accident, but I stayed because the vibe was great—until now.
I feel bad about starting that "serieses and non-Muslims" thread; I have zero intention of discussing anything related to Islam ever again, and I’d suggest everyone else does the same, especially since people are now threatening each other with police involvement (if someone had told me that was happening, I wouldn't have believed them).

I really don't get how these forum bullies think they can scare people away from certain topics, especially when that's exactly what they're trying to achieve in the first place.

Actually, if anything, this just motivates me more; it's a sign that things are finally moving in the right direction. Whatever they're doing is working, so they might as well keep at it.

I'm still going to stand by the liberal, modern believers while staying firmly against the conservative, fundamentalist, and fanatic types with their backwards, stuck-in-the-past ideas.

And as for the whole thing about people threatening to call the cops just because someone was making fun of Islam... 🤣
Or acting like, "Oh, just wait until I call my crew (which is basically just one tiny little slice of the religious community), then you'll see." 🤣

Bradley White73 said:Quote : Guns of Brixton

I don't really know, for instance, what ROIBOSS eats for breakfast, whether he prays, or even what kind of jokes he tells, but personally, I find him to be incredibly polite. He’s definitely one of those positive examples you encounter here.

I guess I wonder if people truly grasp the distinction between the concept of freedom of speech and the actual impact of what someone says out loud. It’s one thing to have an opinion, but it’s another thing entirely to express it. For instance, do you think it’s okay to joke around at someone else's expense, even if you know they're feeling uncomfortable in that social setting? Maybe there's a fine line there that gets blurred more often than we realize.
I wonder, do you think it would be appropriate for newspapers or TV news stations to start labeling Muhammad as a pedophile or a murderer, or even comparing him to Hitler and running caricatures of him? It would probably seem pretty ridiculous, wouldn't it? I guess it makes you wonder... if that's actually an option, then why on earth isn't anyone doing it? Maybe there's some reason I'm missing, but it seems like a missed opportunity, doesn't it?

I guess it’s because people are either weighed down by a sense of guilt—or perhaps they're just reacting to the passive-aggressiveness you're using here—or maybe they're simply terrified of the fallout. There's always that fear of the chaos, the disorder, and the actual bloodshed that tends to erupt even after provocations that are far less intense than what you've written about.

Sure, maybe, but all of that will eventually end once there are more progressive Muslims around.

Justin Harris12 said:Why on earth would you want to moderate Islamic topics? 🤷
Are Muslims considered true believers and second-class citizens?
The more you write, the more it becomes obvious that everything I’ve been saying is actually coming true.
You’re acting like some kind of martyr here, playing the victim while you moderate this place as if you’re the sole authority over the entire forum. And what was that about Joe? What exactly are you getting at? Are you talking about what Joe wrote last night? 🤷
You’re going straight for the ad hominem attack against me, even though I haven't criticized you as a person—I only critiqued your moderation, because that is your role here. If your username was "Kitty Kitty," people would be complaining about the handle "Kitty Kitty" rather than targeting Tyler Cruz32 personally. You keep accusing me of using ad hominem tactics, but this isn't the first time you've resorted to lying; I’ve already proven that not a single sentence I wrote was a lie. By extension, that means you were just making up your own version of the truth, which is nothing more than blatant lying.

Look, when it comes to all that behind-the-scenes drama, honestly, neither I nor the rest of the folks here on the forum really care. You just have to learn how to deal with it—it’s as simple as that. It's like at work; a regular employee doesn't need to be privy to the CEO's private strategic plans for the corporation. That shouldn't be their concern. An employee's job is to focus on their own tasks, hit their targets, and get paid according to their job description. Period.
So you can just go ahead and grab yourself a ban without actually telling us what's going on over there. Just mentioning that "something" is happening is nothing more than a pathetic excuse, and honestly, I don't think this whole situation should have even leaked onto this thread in the first place.

The decision has been made, and frankly, I’ve got nothing left to say about it. My only regret is that such a call was ever made, because this tendency to blindly defend the moderators is going to be the death of this forum. You all are going to learn the hard way that being a moderator shouldn't mean getting automatic protection; being an admin means making fair decisions that serve the community. Right now, the reputation of this site is being dragged through the mud, and if things keep going this way, it's nothing but a downward spiral from here.

[my bold]
Yeah, 🥳right, in your wildest dreams. ☕

edit:
Muslims aren't a race, so that accusation of racism doesn't even hold water.

edit2:
Who else hasn't seen this?Achmed the Dead Terrorista. 😬

ironmarlin1 said:That leaves us staring at the daunting question of whether any common ground can actually exist between us. I mean, how are we supposed to truly grasp what the N. Overman is saying if we have no way to latch onto his thought process—if there’s no shared essence, no underlying idea, or even a flicker of a concept provided by the N. Overman himself to act as a bridge? Or, if we follow the logic of Wittgenstein, how does an N. Overman, who clearly operates within the realm of a private language, manage to make sense of his own internal monologue in the first place?

The N. Overman, or honestly, just religion itself—the whole phenomenon of it.

To me, the N. Overman is basically just a fancy pseudonym for some ideology that presents itself as supernatural or superior, something kept on life support by a group of people who care way more about those collective ideals than they do about their own individual selves.

There’s no real dialogue there, no actual debate, nothing except for those circular discussions designed purely to keep the ideology breathing. It's all just echo chambers where any argument that challenges the beloved dogma or its foundations isn't even considered valid. At best, they’ll just keep dissenters at a polite distance and smoothly dismiss their points, or sometimes just write the people themselves off entirely simply because they don't fit the ideological mold or have different personal leanings.

The truth is, even the people making up the "N. Overman" don't truly understand it, because the N. Overman is really just a messy amalgam of different folks with wildly different perspectives from various eras. And the specific ideas chosen to be part of this "overman" identity were picked simply because, at that specific moment in history, they were deemed necessary to "improve" the concept—which usually just means they grabbed whatever was best available at the time. It’s like what Amanda Jackson5 said regarding Hegel's scattering of logic; a certain point is reached where the subject matter has been developed enough that a complete logical system becomes possible.

Look, there's no issue if you just want to wrap your head around how the N. Overman was perceived in some distant era, or if you want to go off and develop your own personal interpretation of it.
But whether that N. Overman is actually talking to you—to you, specifically...

That's pretty much it.

rustymaker5 said:"The best way to flush out those toxic feelings of self-pity is to just be genuinely grateful for all the good stuff you actually have going for you in life."

"Gratitude is honestly one of the biggest secrets to living a full life; it acts like a magnet for good things and positive events because being thankful puts you in perfect sync with the Universe." (Nancy Pelosi)

I mean, come on, there isn't a single person on this planet who doesn't have at least something good happening in their life... 😉

So, what we have here is some sort of technique, followed by an explanation of gratitude, and then a little extra flavor on top. But honestly, this whole method feels like a band-aid fix to me. It’s like tossing an ice cube onto a red-hot stove. In your next post, you mention it's supposed to be a daily ice cube. Well, I don't know about you, but I think it's a pretty big stretch to assume that eventually, through some kind of cosmic physics, the stove is actually gonna cool down.

Why not just go out and find a permanent solution instead? Or do you feel like it doesn't really count unless you spend some time suffering first?

brightviper50 said:I’m 33 years old and my husband passed away just 11 days ago... I have two little ones, ages 3 and 5, and I honestly can't see a way forward. It just isn't fair. 🙂

I’m lost—what does fairness even have to do with any of this? Care to enlighten me?

Brenda Cook4 said:Okay, look, this whole thread was meant to be an ironic take on that other thread, One Moral Question for Atheists, but using a hypothetical involving "pre-pubescent kids and sexual assault" is definitely crossing a line.

But here’s the thing—I laid out options for how or if that crime should happen because I had to start with something heavy enough to stick, something that would force the religious crowd—those self-appointed guardians of morality—to face the fact that they commit horrific atrocities too. It’s not like they can't find a way to justify those acts within their own twisted logic. And honestly, what better starting point than a classic >?

So, we're talking about one side of the moral coin here, and I still haven't heard a single decent explanation as to why my topic is banned just because I used an analogy based on a massive social taboo. This is a space removed from real-life consequences, which usually makes it easier to have a grounded, realistic conversation about topics that overlap with the whole > mess.
But apparently, this isn't "over the line"; it's treated like some sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered the second anyone shows a hint of outrage.

So, seriously, why shouldn't I be allowed to spark a debate on religious morality by using a >?
I’m not buying the "over the line" label unless you actually provide a real reason instead of just making a flat assertion.

I’m honestly just sitting here scratching my head—what even is going on?
See, I actually went into this thinking those religious messages and all those old-school methods might actually hold some weight, so I figured I'd take a crack at applying them to the people who spend their entire lives so graciously, and let's be honest, quite condescendingly, preaching them to everyone else.

Are you guys trying to tell me that these religious approaches and sermons are totally useless? Or is there some other convoluted excuse coming my way to try and shut down what I'm saying? 🙂

ps.
If nobody can figure out which specific thread on the Religion board I'm talking about, I can lay it all out for you if you really need me to. Just say the word. 🙂

Jeremy Ross said:Moderators, could you please close this thread as soon as possible?

The reason is simply because they're a forum member. Peter Phillips32 He goes into graphic detail about sleeping with his dietitian. The whole thing is gross—honestly, it makes me want to gag.

Honestly, someone should just ban Peter Phillips32 already.

Look, it was just a basic description meant to fit the context of the topic; it definitely doesn't count as being "detailed." It really grinds my gears when people throw around such shameless lies.

And if this thread is supposedly making everyone "literally vomit," then I’d love for anyone feeling sick to go ahead and snap a photo of their "work" (make sure there's a timestamp and you include the site name and your username) so we can actually verify this claim. Thanks.

The thread isn't even gross; okay, maybe it's not exactly pleasant to read, but it serves several necessary purposes that would become pretty obvious if people just let this uncomfortable discussion exist.

And someone should just ban Peter Phillips32 while they're at it.

Not gonna happen—I'm pretty sure I have the protection of pure Reason on my side here. 🙂

edit:
Also, I'm still waiting on an explanation over on the thread I started.🙂

Justin Garcia7 said:In short, how can I offer spiritual comfort to someone grieving a deep loss? They were incredibly close to this person—talking every single day—and now that they're gone, it feels like life has lost all meaning. It’s hard to watch them suffer like this; they've spiraled into such a dark place and have completely neglected themselves. Even though some time has passed since the death, things aren't getting better. Spiritual teachers often say that being too attached isn't healthy, but how do you explain that to someone who doesn't see the world through a spiritual lens? It feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. They've shut everyone else out and only find any semblance of joy in their remaining family members, which makes me terrified of what would happen if they lost someone else. I try to bring up spiritual perspectives to help, but all they say is that the memories are killing them and that there's no point in looking forward because you won't be conscious to experience anything anyway.
I just need the right words to help them start finding happiness in the world again, rather than just clinging to the few people they have left.

Welcome to the club, stranger—you’ve officially entered the long, winding road toward escaping your own ego. But honestly? You're chasing shadows here. You're looking for some kind of cheat code or a magic spell, because let me tell you, there isn't some secret string of syllables you can whisper into someone's ear that suddenly flips a switch and gives them this unstoppable, endless ability to "find joy in everything." That's just not how life works.

In short

There is no "in short." There's no shortcut. What you actually need is a massive overhaul of your perspective, a bunch of different ideas, lived experience, theory, actual practice, constant self-testing, and a heavy dose of reality checks. Mastering any of that doesn't happen overnight, and it definitely isn't an "instant" fix.

cosmictinker21 said:Whatever, just let it be. We’re still a work in progress... evolution isn't exactly moving at breakneck speed anyway...😁

I can't actually watch videos through links, so I'm flying blind here. If you want my take on whatever this is, you'll have to give me the rundown... just paste the transcript or give me a summary of what’s happening in the clip. Once I know what we're looking at, I can weigh in... though I make no promises on being particularly enthusiastic about it.

I mean, I'm totally on board with that philosophy, honestly, right up until the moment I decide to stick my nose in and meddle.

cosmictinker21 said:😂😂

You're looking for too much... if you did, it wouldn't be a dream.😁

Man 🙂, if that's the case, then how far off are we from ever actually reaching that supposed "knowledge society" everyone keeps yapping about?

Zachary Young8 said:I’m heading out from the forums for a bit anyway since I'm moving. We'll catch up in a few months, and then we can see what actually happened to those 4 million dollars. Though, I suppose in dreams, time doesn't follow any linear sequence—everything just happens all at once.

So, why is it that in dreams you never find yourself actually reading books, or learning anything, or being skeptical, or using any logic? It's like there's zero critical thinking or actual confrontation between reality and what you want, you know?

Benjamin Taylor6 said:If you want to talk about a truly enlightened soul, I actually know one. He was a marine engineer I worked with back home on my island. The man is the absolute definition of enlightenment.
We used to call him "The Watch Hater" as a nickname because of his bizarre obsession with timepieces.🙂
Here's the proof:

He loves animals, but he can't stand watches. Just like any truly enlightened person should!

So you mean he shows it through being lazy, having zero ambition, and just... radiating that "starving artist" vibe?

He’s a buddy of mine, a marine engineer from my hometown back home. He is basically the walking definition of enlightenment.

Do you think it would be easier for you to just shut him down if you didn't have to deal with him every single day?

And honestly, how much does this supposed "enlightened" guy even affect you?

Paul Jones7 said:And apparently, Pascho is the gold standard for everything... our one true north. 🙂

I'm Pascho Pata'q. (Pata'q being the opposite of a coward, if you catch my drift). Everything else is up for debate.

wearyhawk83 said:I’ve noticed that most people dabbling in what we call "spirituality" actually advocate for this kind of approach.

Why do you all think "spiritual quests" are sick mental dysfunctions?

I mean, why bother breaking a sweat or bleeding out to actually achieve something when you can just pay someone else to handle the heavy lifting of manifestation for you? It’s all about outsourcing the effort, right?

Paul Jones7 said:I don't think the searching is what causes the restlessness, really... I think it's the expectations—you know, that pressure to actually achieve something—that does it. If you just let go of those expectations, the restlessness kind of disappears.

Meh, I'm tossing this advice straight into the trash because it makes zero sense, especially since you aren't even following your own damn rules. ☕

Anthony Perez9 said:Jeff Foster is just some guy from down the street. Enlightened. Why couldn't we be?
2012 is the year for enlightenment (just like any other 😉 ).



The game:
http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/re...magine-a-game/

🙂

“In the beginning,
trees were trees,
mountains were mountains,
and rivers were rivers.

Then came the time when trees were no longer trees, mountains were no longer mountains, and rivers were no longer rivers.

Now, trees are trees again,
mountains are mountains again,
and rivers are rivers again.”

- Zen proverb

Just another one who can't contribute anything useful to society through a real job, instead just parasitizing off everyone else. A semi-professional—and I say that loosely, because my standards are pretty damn high, okay?—public performer and writer.

Enlightened.

Oh, enlightenment. One of those buzzwords that makes your spirit feel like it's having an orgasm... Man, what a pathetic existence you have on the day you supposedly reach enlightenment.

Why couldn't we be?

Because it's through diluted garbage that these negligibly unknown appropriate changes actually happen.

Anthony Perez9 said:You mentioned a few heavy hitters. 👍

It’s high time we strip the halo off these "spiritual quests" and call them what they really are—just broken, dysfunctional mental loops. Thinking God is going to swoop in and fix us because we're too weak to handle it ourselves is just another way of turning our backs on Simple Awareness. 🙂

I mean, it won't be long before seeing a psychiatrist or a therapist becomes the default response to religiousness (which is basically just an umbrella term for all those psychosomatic ailments tied to joining some kind of religious cult or whatever).