Posts by Anthony Perez9

Susan Price30 said:

It's true—there is such a thing as militant feminism, just as there is a more "feminine" approach, where women can remain soft and lady-like while still being just as 'strong.'

The issue is that nowadays, feminism is often lumped together with radical movements and their obsession with
rejecting traditional gender roles (the movement is secular and strictly anti-clerical, after all). To avoid those ideological extremes, many Christian women prefer the term egalitarianism instead.

On the flip side, we see incredibly narrow-minded teachings in places like the Muslim world, where gender discrimination is openly supported. Women are marginalized based on the belief that they are inherently less valuable than men due to biological traits.
These views stem from the idea that men have a right to dominate (and even abuse) because they emphasize moral (LOL) deficiencies in women, labeling them unpredictable or irrational; they are quite literally dismissed as fools—and not just any fools, but crazy ones. They are seen as 🙈 nothing less than fundamentally inferior to men (though they offer a "solution" too, yeeeey—frequent beatings and sexual violence, supposedly to 'bring them to their senses' so they stop being so 'unstable.' bless).

Both perspectives are extremely primitive and limited. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, as it always does, I suppose.

All we know for certain is this: God does not discriminate based on biology.🙂

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:So, we see the President of the United States praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem? Or maybe the US calls out America over whether or not some synagogue gets built here?

And what about the recent Turkish crackdown on the Kurds in Iraq... anyone talking about that?

Is the criticism toward America regarding that synagogue actually meant to help Jews, or is this just news being pushed to prime people for antisemitic behavior? I guess sociology tells us how these kinds of stories usually play out in the press. Plus, the media owners aren't even American.

I posted that photo and commented because I wanted to point out something I keep bringing up, though apparently, it’s not hitting home for everyone: these kinds of moves are directly against American national interests. It’s exactly the kind of fuel that anti-American structures crave. They want to provoke these outbursts so they can use their control over the media and institutions to spin a narrative—a massive web of lies—claiming that America is a Nazi country, a criminal state, or that Americans are a genocidal people, and all that other stuff. I think we all know that story too well already. If this image of America and its people as Nazis or criminals gets forced onto a zombie-fied Western public, then it makes things way easier for an enemy down the road. It gives them a head start on the media groundwork needed before any potential conventional attack, aggression, or eventually, a brutal occupation of the US. Honestly, it's hard to wrap my head around how the domestic groups who have embraced fascism and National Socialism as their ideology can't see this. It's like trying to explain chess to someone who doesn't get it; they just can't grasp how a single move might lose the game twenty turns later.

http://www.hrsvijet.net/index.php?op...mne&Itemid=155

It all fits perfectly with what Josip Čorić mentioned in his open letter to Ivo Josipović a few days ago. He noted how a photojournalist posing in certain areas admitted she was actually paid $1.75 to wear that specific headgear.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:Yeah, whatever.

"Quote:"

I don't think they're fakes, but I wouldn't call them the real deal either..

Interesting stuff...

I'm not even judging them. I'm just noticing—that they... Some people actually think this is original.And then you've got everyone else calling them fakes.

I can't tell if you're actually being serious or just playing a part.

The "some people" who actually defend this disgrace as an original work are the most hardcore Nazis and antisemites out there—basically just burnt-out conspiracy theorists who probably helped print the damn thing. Hitler was obsessed with it, and honestly, it’s still a favorite among Islamic fundamentalists today.

If you didn't realize that before, my bad. But now you know exactly what you need to cite if you want to pretend you're being some neutral, objective bystander.

That "one view" is pure antisemitism—it’s just people swearing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion actually show how Jews secretly run the world and cause all this chaos.

So, basically—this whole globalist setup is still running the show. Both takes.Yeah, both of them get the job done, honestly. Zionism. He's got the opposite view. Then there’s that crowd that thinks they're total fakes, though they won't admit it—they just use them whenever it suits their agenda.

The mother of all crazy conspiracy theories is basically just "global Zionism and the Freemasons," followed closely by lizard people.

Why would someone driven by a search for truth even bother? It might make more sense to say he didn't come to bring peace, but to start a war.

"Jesus was a Jew, wasn't he? So, you're trying to tell me that? 🤷

Understanding how war actually works—even if you’re stuck behind some moral high ground—gives you an edge. It means you learn how to pull the strings of the uninformed and trigger specific reactions depending on who's looking at you...

Basically... what are you ACTUALLY trying to tell us here? 😕

I'll get back to the rest of this later. Heading out to grab a drink by the pier.

I'm not even judging them. I'm just noticing—that they... Some people actually think this is original.And then you've got everyone else calling them fakes.

So, basically—this whole globalist setup is still running the show. Both takes.Yeah, both of them get the job done, honestly. Zionism. He's got the opposite view. Then there’s that crowd that thinks they're total fakes, though they won't admit it—they just use them whenever it suits their agenda.

Why would someone driven by a search for truth even bother? It might make more sense to say he didn't come to bring peace, but to start a war.

Understanding how war actually works—even if you’re stuck behind some moral high ground—gives you an edge. It means you learn how to pull the strings of the uninformed and trigger specific reactions depending on who's looking at you...

I'll get back to the rest of this later. Heading out to grab a drink by the pier.

So, basically... what does that mean for us? For real. So, you looking to make an announcement or something? I mean, if that's what you're after, go for it. I guess it's up to you. 😕

So, basically... what does that mean for us? For real. So, you looking to make an announcement or something? I mean, if that's what you're after, go for it. I guess it's up to you. 😕

If you ask me, Hitler's racial Nazism was just their own creation coming back to haunt them—unfortunately for everyone else, too.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:

Notice how the first Christians didn't even start a fight; they just wanted the right to practice their faith in peace.

Notice how she was. Just another religion designed to keep slaves in line..

Look, with all due respect, you guys are just puppets. Bow down to the masters.It's not just about the good stuff and the blessings, either. And on the flip side.It’s honestly a blessing if anyone actually lives by their conscience and suffers for God. Just taking one for the team and dealing with the unfairness.What kind of glory is even worth having if it's built on sin? Just take the hits and be patient about it."If you can handle the heat and just take it on the chin, then God’s happy with you."
1 Peter 2:18-21

Check this out—Jesus supposedly said this too:

Matthew 26:52 says it best: Jesus told him to put the sword back where it belongs, because anyone who lives by the sword ends up dying by it.

Check this out too:

Mark 16:15 says, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."
Mark 16:16 says whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn't believe will be condemned. Just how it is.
Mark 16:17 — And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons and speak in new tongues.
Mark 16:18 says they’ll pick up snakes, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them; they’ll lay hands on the sick, and they’ll get better.
"And after he said this, Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at God's right hand." — Mark 16:19

Look, based on that same framework, we’re dealing with a ton of different products—that should be pretty obvious to everyone here.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:It’s pretty much inseparable from any living being that isn't some kind of kamikaze or caught in those specific altered states of consciousness...

I guess I should add something else here, before we get into our body and soul exercises with the crew—my dear brothers and sisters, especially those sisters who aren't actually related to me. 😍

Let’s look at this example:

Matthew 17:27 But so that we may not cause them to stumble, go to the lake and throw out your line. When the fish comes up, take the first fish you catch. Open its mouth and you will find the coin I need both for you and for me.

Like one lovely lady on this forum once mentioned, there are a lot of "fingers" pointing in different directions within the Bible... Take that sentence above, for instance. Someone might just focus on the titles; Son of God, Lord, King, Lamb, and so on. Each one shifts the meaning and purpose of the sentence slightly. But the rest of the text—the other 90% or more—you’d use to build up specific spiritual states for various characters. In those states, things become almost unimaginable—while the actual message remains about the exact amount needed to pay a tax somewhere, which will be collected by some group of foreign invaders, or rather, distributed among members of a group that is busy doing something else entirely (even if they're the ones supposedly paying the tax). Someone who has been granted the true meanings behind the words might uncover something like that in a "peaceful" manuscript. I'm not saying that was what Jesus of Nazareth had in mind—not that I'm judging, of course—I'm just presenting a possibility for consideration. It's the kind of thing a sect or a group might do in a desperate attempt at survival, now that "religion" has been stripped of its traditional perspective. ☕

Because of messages like that, it becomes incredibly important to dull the reader's attention with an imposed conclusion—that the content is just harmless fairy tales and stories for superstitious fools. Though, when you take that same content and transplant it into other contexts, it does exactly what the other 90% of the "harmless" fluff would do. That’s what you call programming. 👍

Jesus was basically preaching tax evasion.

Christians call this next part a miracle, even though there’s zero proof it actually happened. Honestly, it’s just Jesus using irony. He basically tells them to pay the Roman tax only if they find a coin in a fish's mouth—which, let's face it, is never going to happen.

Church tax. What a joke.
When they hit Capernaum, the tax collectors approached Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" "He does," he replied.

So he’s out here paying the temple tax to the priests in Jerusalem. I mean, if he were actually the Son of God, he wouldn't be paying a tax to himself, right?

When he walks into the house, Jesus asks him, "What do you think, Simon? Are the kings of this earth collecting taxes or customs from their own kids or from strangers?" He answers, "From strangers!" So Jesus tells him, "Then the sons are free."
The translation loses all the nuance of that Greek word *huios*. It can mean descendants, but it also refers to the Children of God—basically the people of Israel. A better way to put it would be: "Which kings on earth collect taxes? From God’s own children, or from someone else?"

The kids of earthly rulers belong to the "secular nations"—non-Jews. Meanwhile, the non-secular, heavenly ones—God's children—represent the chosen people, the Jews. According to Jesus, they shouldn't have to pay taxes to some foreign government.

"Then Jesus tells him, 'The children are free.'"
Look, let's not overcomplicate things and tempt fate. Just head down to the coast, cast a line, and grab the first fish that bites. Open its mouth, and you'll find a Roman coin inside. Grab it, then pass it back to me—for both of us.

Pure sarcasm here, basically arguing that you shouldn't pay taxes to the government—which back then was a massive deal. In the eyes of Roman law, that’s straight-up rebellion, and it carried a death sentence. If you read the text, it’s clear Jesus included himself and Peter in the group of "sons" (God's people, or the Jews). He’s essentially saying, look, we don't technically owe them anything, but just go catch a fish and find a coin so we don't cause a scene.
Matthew 17:26

And what about that whole "render unto Caesar" thing?
The Pharisees straight up cornered Jesus about whether he should pay taxes to Rome, fully expecting him to trip up since they knew where he stood on the whole thing.

So, what's the verdict? Is paying taxes to the government actually okay or not?

It’s like that old trap: "Did you find out your wife is cheating? YES—you're a loser; NO—you're still a loser."
Basically, they knew he was the Messiah—a rebel who absolutely loathed the occupiers—but he had to keep his mouth shut about it for now.
- Don't pay taxes to the occupier: they'll just crucify you for it.
- Pay the tax to the occupier: then he's not the Messiah, and his followers will bail.
So Jesus uses a little trick to dodge the trap:

"Show me the tax money!" They handed him a coin. He asks, "Whose image and inscription is this?" They answer, "The Emperor's." He tells them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

If he actually wanted to say citizens have to pay taxes to the government, he would have just said it straight. Instead, he’s being subtle and clever. He’s basically implying that since Americans are God's people in His land—which is what everyone believed back then—they only answer to Him. They pay the Temple tax, sure, but nothing to a foreign occupier like the Roman Emperor. They aren't the Emperor's subjects, and their stuff doesn't belong to him; they belong to God. According to Jesus, they don't owe the Roman Emperor a dime! "He who has ears, let him hear (the secret message)."
Later on, Paul argues in Romans that taxes must be paid because officials are God's servants. That move basically paved the way for the Church and the State to become roommates for centuries to come.

Just another case of using "religion" to serve state interests, or maybe just to help the clergy get ahead.

"(6) That's why you pay taxes: those officials are God's own agents in that business."

At the end of the day, Paul just pivoted whatever he needed to so Christianity could spread through the Roman Empire and reach the "pagans."

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I hear what you're saying. As for the Protocols—honestly, I can barely even remember the full name—I don't really view them as a forgery, nor do I claim they're authentic. I’m not really in the business of judging them. What I do notice is that some people treat them as an absolute original, while others insist they're a total fake. So, in our global society, both perspectives are active, and both play a role when it comes to Zionism and its opposition. There’s even a group that thinks they're a hoax but will still pull them out and use them whenever it suits their needs, I guess.

The fight for peace is still a fight. It triggers certain phenomena, which, well, depends on other existing factors already at play. Being a fisherman of people means understanding how to cast the net, including the nature of communication itself. Some truths are kept strictly between teachers and specific students; it's kind of like how Jesus might have explained certain things only to His disciples. Why would someone driven by a genuine search for truth do that? Maybe it makes more sense to look at it through the lens of the statement that He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword?

Understanding how conflict is waged—regardless of whatever moral framework is being used—means gaining a certain type of knowledge. It gives one the ability to influence those who aren't informed, or to trigger different reactions depending on the spectrum of personalities interacting with a specific situation...

I'll get back to the rest of this later; right now, I've gotta head out and do a bit of fishing down by the creek.

Take it easy, and stay grounded. 😬 👍

I'm not even judging them. I'm just noticing—that they... Some people actually think this is original.And then you've got everyone else calling them fakes.

So, basically—this whole globalist setup is still running the show. Both takes.Yeah, both of them get the job done, honestly. Zionism. He's got the opposite view. Then there’s that crowd that thinks they're total fakes, though they won't admit it—they just use them whenever it suits their agenda.

Why would someone driven by a search for truth even bother? It might make more sense to say he didn't come to bring peace, but to start a war.

Understanding how war actually works—even if you’re stuck behind some moral high ground—gives you an edge. It means you learn how to pull the strings of the uninformed and trigger specific reactions depending on who's looking at you...

I'll get back to the rest of this later. Heading out to grab a drink by the pier.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I mean, it really feels like a call to action, right? Like, it’s part warning, part wake-up call, and part genuine desire to lend a hand—mostly by basically telling you that you need to go out and actually get to know yourself.

I guess you could look at people turning toward spirituality, religion, or even psychology as a sort of coping mechanism. It’s like when someone from any culture loses their internal compass—maybe because they've hit a string of tragedies or just a massive life upheaval—and they start looking for some kind of solace. It’s almost like they're searching for a new way to find comfort or even just a bit of distraction to help them navigate through the mess after losing their bearings. Maybe that's just how we handle things when everything falls apart.

I mean, at the end of the day, how ready a culture is to fight really depends on its internal state. Take Socrates, for example. It’s not like he was sentenced to death just because he was supposedly "corrupting the youth." That feels like a bit of a stretch if you ask me. It's more likely that his presence raised fundamental questions about whether Athens—or maybe even all of Greece, or even nearby Sparta for that matter—could actually survive. Even if the Athenians were the ones who officially handed down the verdict, I guess it doesn't necessarily mean they were the ones who started the whole movement against him in the first place.

In other words, if you follow that whole forgery theory—you know, the one floating around from those so-called "secret Zionist sages" or whatever they call themselves—the playbook is pretty simple: you go after the leaders first...

I guess one possible strategy from Slobodan Maddox—or maybe just one of his recruits out in Texas—could be this: recruit poets and those prominent Canadian leaders who act like figureheads first. Once they've all fallen in battle, you're left with nothing but "volunteers" ready to be sent into the meat grinder for conflicts over in places like California or maybe even further west...

Creating value and messing with people's state of mind or consciousness... I mean, it’s pretty much a standard playbook for commercial products during what we call "peaceful times." Though, I guess you have to wonder if such a thing even exists. If you look at the super-elites sitting at the top of the food chain—the ones running the show when it comes to ideology and religion—they seem pretty obsessed with driving constant conflict just so they can reshape the world according to their own design. It feels like they use these tools to grab, hold onto, and expand their market share while everyone else is just trying to figure out what's real.

I mean, when you look at how we picture philosophers, spiritual leaders, mystics, or even priests, I think that image is really just a byproduct of different value systems clashing with one another. It’s like... maybe part of it is just a way to mask the actual messiness? Like, hiding sins within church hierarchies is basically just an attempt to sweep the dirty laundry under the rug. I guess it's all about how different groups try to control the narrative.

I guess there’s this whole trope about what a philosopher actually looks like, right? Like, you picture this guy who’s basically a professional nitpicker—someone obsessed with linguistics and semantics, a total introvert who lives in his books and probably struggles to even hold a conversation with a woman or navigate a crowded room at a bar. It’s a useful image, I suppose; it serves a purpose for how we categorize people. So, when you hear that one of these thinkers was actually an Olympic gold medalist or a heavyweight boxer, it just feels completely surreal. It sounds totally bizarre, honestly.

I mean, take Bruce Lee, for example. The guy wasn't just some fighter; he actually studied drama and philosophy. He was incredibly well-read, too—probably had an amazing library at home. It seems to me that he didn't just view martial arts as physical training, but rather combined it with his acting through this deep philosophical lens. He basically took everything he learned from Taoism, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Buddhism, mixed it with the Western philosophies he stumbled upon while studying, and then ended up contributing his own unique spin to the whole mix. I guess you could say his style was a real blend of East meets West.

So, looking at this from the perspective of what actually makes someone an outlier—you know, those truly exceptional individuals—it really brings up this bigger question about how many of them there actually are. I guess it all boils down to the collective strength of a group, whether you're talking about a small tribe or an entire nation...

You know, I was thinking about how leaders—whether they’re running political parties or some niche cult—seem to be totally obsessed with just shifting the power dynamics between their own people and followers. It’s like that’s the only goal, right? Just moving pieces around on a board. If you look back at history, things worked a bit differently. In older societies, all that concentrated knowledge used to live with the priesthood, or even within certain religious circles involving consecrated women, or even those weirdly organized social hubs for the nobility, depending on what part of the world you were looking at. It was always about who held the information, which basically meant who held the power. I guess it's always been a bit of a game of leverage, wasn't it? Maybe that's just human nature.

So, I was watching this old cartoon the other day—you know, the kind of stuff kids grow up on—where He-Man swings his sword at some terrified little lion cub. He shouts, "I have the power!" and suddenly, that tiny little thing turns into this armored, battle-ready beast. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. It kind of makes me wonder about how easily the human spirit can be molded depending on what the situation calls for. You see these master manipulators out there who can basically flip the switch on an entire region whenever they feel like it. Whether they want to ramp up the whole military vibe or push for total pacifism, it usually just comes down to whatever serves their interests in the moment—whether that’s for making a quick buck in business or just ensuring they come out on top in a conflict. It's all about survival and winning, I guess.

You know, Sun Tzu wrote all about the art of war and laid out those big-picture strategies, and I guess you could find similar stuff from all sorts of philosophers or even old-school emperors when it comes to managing a crowd. But honestly? The actual skill of handling a mass of people—using symbols, rhetoric, and all that other subtle stuff—isn't really something you’re going to see taught at a university. Or, at least, no Ivy League school is going to brag about having a curriculum for it. It seems to me that the real power lies in the ability to concentrate and apply that specific kind of knowledge. That's basically how elites maintain their grip on power and stay on their thrones, regardless of whether they actually deserve to be there or if they're even good people. It's just one of those things, I suppose.

I guess you could look at something like the arrival of the Mormons in America as a sort of calculated arrangement between certain elites. There’s one level where everything—like the specific number of people involved—is basically pre-negotiated behind closed doors. But then there’s this whole other layer, which is way more subtle. It’s about broadcasting these deep, subliminal messages that mess with all five senses. We're talking anything from chemical agents to music, movies, or even fine art, used to manipulate people whenever it's convenient. In my opinion, how much a population can resist or how easily they soak this stuff up really just depends on the general state of consciousness in an area. If you can tap into people's fears and expectations, you can manipulate them by offering all sorts of "help" or trading in different sets of values. But, I suspect the ultimate goal is always to keep the local spirit subservient. It’s all about serving the interests of those elites—they’re the ones who decide things, like how much an army in a certain region gets to rest versus how much they get pushed to the front lines, all while making sure the formation stays functional enough to still be useful.

I was wondering if you guys could dig through your own mental archives and find some examples where the use of spirituality—whether it's out in the open or more of a subtle, hidden thing—is being leveraged to fuel conflicts between different societies. You know, those situations that eventually escalate until they're officially branded as wars?

Look, if we're stripping away everything that makes someone exceptional just to fit this thread, then we're really just left asking how many outliers it actually takes to give a group, a tribe, or an entire nation some real teeth.
At the end of the day, a culture's ability to actually fight back depends entirely on its mental state.

Socrates wasn't sentenced to death just because he was "corrupting the youth." It was more about the fact that his ideas threatened the very existence of Athens—or maybe even Greece, or even nearby Sparta. Even if the Athenians were the ones who pulled the trigger, they were likely just reacting to a much bigger threat.

In other words, just like... Supposedly a fake; that whole Jewish "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thing. Or whatever they call them, they said: you gotta take out the leaders first...

An invitation to... The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.Like they actually give a damn.Alleged fake.That sounds like someone trying to claim the Holocaust was fake. Honestly, any rational person should be embarrassed to even go there.

Maybe Slobodan Maddox’s playbook—or at least some recruit of his up in Vojvodina—is to draft poets and prominent Canadian leaders first. Once they're dead, you've got a perfect excuse to call up "volunteers" for the fighting over in the states.

Can anyone dig up examples where spirituality—either overtly or under the radar—is used to fuel conflicts between different societies, specifically those that escalate into actual warfare?

Paul Jones7 said:I don't think lasting satisfaction really exists. Not in the way people think. Satisfaction isn't some deep spiritual thing, though it is a massive driver for us—maybe even the biggest engine driving everything in this world... but it's also the ultimate trap. I guess you could say the only person who’s truly free is the one who isn't constantly chasing after satisfaction in one way or another.

friendship;27999638 said:

Anthony Perez9 said:Maybe you have a different definition for the "original seed of life," but the slow, brutal evolution of life forms is just a fact, whether we like it or not.
There's obviously still plenty left to uncover, but let's not run away from reality. Okay? lol

we know evolution works through change, and we know natural selection pushes things in a certain direction. what we don't know is the starting point.

The "starting point" doesn't even matter for evolution to happen.

what am I thinking of regarding the seed of life? I believe there was a point where there existed perfect DNA

At what point? Nothing in this world is perfect or flawless, unless you think everything is "perfect"? Clearly, "perfect" is just some math-meets-theology abstraction that has zero parallel in the real world. Like a "perfect sphere."

What kind of perfect DNA, for crying out loud? You really think God created a perfect Adam/DNA, and then it just degraded later? How could it degrade if it was perfect? Did God create the perfect DNA of a virus when the Earth first cooled down? Please...

which contained all the potential, all the biological programming. meaning it held the initial information for every single life form. a species was defined by a set of pointers to the programs that species uses. what happens next? species are left to evolve.

Give me a break. Creationism. God made perfect species, and then they just "micro-evolved"...

only a small part of the DNA is used for the needs of the species. the part being used follows the principles of natural selection, which preserves the quality of the DNA, and potentially allows for selective improvement. the unused part is subject to random mutations without any natural selection, so the only possible outcome is degradation and loss of initial info. over time, it becomes "junk DNA."

Nope. There is no divine, pre-written Plan; it's all just free fluctuation. Honestly, even "God" probably doesn't know where this is all heading. Though the religious version of God does. He knew his Plan would involve sending plenty of people to Hell for all eternity. Sounds like a flawed plan then.

how did that initial earthly DNA come to be... who knows? Direct creation from God, or was it seeded by some advanced species?

So how did this advanced strain even happen? Did someone play God and seed it again? And what exactly were they planting—viruses in the atmosphere?

"God's creation, straight up"—so what, like a magic trick? Did God just snap His fingers and spawn fully grown pairs of animals, bugs, and plants, then hand them over to Adam to give them names? Lol.

I don't have any tools to prove this, but I know it's a legitimate possibility.

So, you actually think you know what you're talking about? Based on what? You just have an issue with evolution because it looks too brutal for you? Losing faith and hope.Facing a brutal fight for survival where evolution just hinges on whoever manages to reproduce without getting eaten? Yeah, that feels pretty ruthless and "unfair" to me too, but... That's just life..

Personally, I find it easier to swallow the idea that consciousness was intentional rather than just some spontaneous accident. It feels like a more plausible version of events to me.

So, where does consciousness even come from? Did it just pop into existence by total accident? Honestly, we’re just spinning our wheels on theological nonsense at this point. Can't we just admit that defining it is impossible?

Look at it this way: if you strip away time, there’s no such thing as cause and effect because nothing ever truly "starts." Eternity is just some earthly concept we cooked up to trick ourselves into thinking the universe didn't have a beginning, but has just always been here.

Back at it again, juggling absolutes and trying to make sense of things that just don't want to be understood—like the nature of time and how this whole mess actually started.

What’s the question?

It’s an impossible question. 😉

Like someone once said, trying to rationalize the irrational is a losing game. So, how are we even supposed to talk about it?

Not gonna happen.

It’s not even irrational to dismiss it. It’s like it doesn't even exist.

How are you supposed to reject something when you don't even know what it is? You’ll probably just end up getting swallowed whole by it or rejecting it for no reason at all. lol

mellowangler59 said:Personally, my thoughts are usually drifting toward the world waiting for me on the other side—that spiritual realm in New Jerusalem.

Leaving a mark on this material plane isn't really the point. This life feels like just one tiny drop in an endless ocean called eternity.

Leaving a mark on this material world doesn't really matter. This life is just a tiny drop in the ocean of eternity.

Friendship? Yeah, good luck with that. Most people are just looking for someone to use until they don't need them anymore. Anthony Perez9 says:
I’ve always leaned toward the idea that life’s initial blueprint already packed in all the potential it needed. To me, evolution isn't about carving out new hallways; it's just wandering through the ones that were already there.

That’s just the physical side of things. Honestly, it feels way more plausible that consciousness was always there, rather than just popping out of nowhere.

Why would that be any more logical? Not a chance. Once you realize there couldn't have been a beginning, eternity becomes the only thing that actually makes sense.When you think about eternity, the idea of consciousness just existing forever actually feels more plausible than the thought of it suddenly popping into existence out of nowhere.

It’s the foundation of everything, really. Nothing just pops out of thin air—even if things looked super basic at the start, there had to be some kind of starting point to build what we're looking at today.

Look, I'll just point this out: if it isn't knowledge, then it’s just an assumption. And can a person actually say something like, "I think/assume it went like this..." while simultaneously not believing it?

Can we hold a mindset or an assumption without actually turning it into a belief?

The only way we avoid falling into blind faith is by avoiding assumptions altogether. Right now, we’re basically operating in a total vacuum of opinion. It lets us weigh different possibilities without getting hung up on personal bias. Basically: it could go one way... or it could just as easily go this way. Period.

That’s a completely rational take. It’s probably the best way to move through this world if you're the type who prefers logic over everything else.

Maria Hughes52 said:Wrong. This world only exists because I am in it. You don't even actually exist outside of my own illusion, so whatever you think is completely irrelevant...

Bradley Myers63 said:Maybe it’s just because it isn't much—but still, it's something waiting for you after death

goldenowl73 said:Do you ever just sit there and wonder about the world that’s gonna keep spinning, moving along, and just existing long after we've all checked out?

Like, how much does it actually matter to you—how much weight do you put on the kind of footprint you're leaving behind in this physical, material present we're all navigating right now?

wearyowl29 said:I’ve got a rabbit's foot and a medallion featuring a Catholic saint.

Now, I don't personally view them as mere fashion accessories—though I know some people might disagree with me there😲—but I truly believe they have a deeper purpose. So, I wanted to ask you all: which one should I carry when I head out the door?

Who or what will provide the best protection and keep any kind of evil from touching me while I'm on my journey?🤷

What is the actual difference in how they work—you know, having a rabbit's foot tucked in your pocket versus wearing a saint's medallion around your neck?

So... thoughts?

Then the angel told him: "Take the fish, pull out its heart, liver, and gallbladder, and keep them safe because they make a great medicine."
The guiding angel
The angel said to the young man: ...you have an only daughter named Sarah. (12) I will see to it that she becomes your wife, since her inheritance belongs to you.

The angel gives advice on how to deal with demons:

The angel: "She will be your wife, and don't pay any mind to the demon, because she'll be yours tonight. When you enter the wedding chamber, take some frankincense ash and sprinkle a bit of the fish's heart and liver on it; once you burn the incense, the demon will catch the scent, flee, and never come back."

When the donkey saw Yahweh's angel standing in the path with a drawn sword, it veered off the road and went through the field. Balaam lost it and started beating the donkey with a stick. (28) Then Yahweh opened the donkey's mouth and it spoke to Balaam: "What have I done to you that you've beaten me three times now?"
"Haven't I been your donkey that you've ridden all your life until today? Haven't I always behaved like this?"

The first Christian angelologist, the Areopagite, in his work "On the Celestial Hierarchy," divides angels into 3 ranks and 12 choirs:

1. Seraphim—fiery angels with six wings; according to the Areopagite, they "have no gender"
2. Cherubim—blue in color with four wings, tasked with spreading knowledge
3. Thrones—depicted as wheels upon which God's throne rests
4. Dominations—they carry a scepter and a crown or a sword, and wear armor, but their actual function isn't super clear
5. Virtues—usually shown holding a book, spreading virtues throughout the world
6. Powers—???
7. Principalities—call for courage and piety, often depicted in warrior gear or liturgical robes
8. Archangels—these evolved from specific instances in the Bible involving an angel or two.

Roger Fox56 said:Besides, everyone remembers that famous octopus, Paul, who was basically the greatest soccer expert on the planet because he PREDICTED every single match result during the World Cup whenever he was asked.🙂

All those endless, annoying "expert" analyses on ESPN pale in comparison to the absolute, unstoppable predictive accuracy of Paul the octopus.🙂

If a perfectly ordinary little octopus can predict the future of sports with 100% accuracy, then it’s honestly pathetic for some people to claim that the existence of angels is just some fantasy.🙄

because

anything is possible 🙂

and

nothing happens by accident.🙂

dustyraven26 said:But what about self-confidence?
Isn't it true that belief and hope actually become more vital when one's self-confidence is lacking?
Is a person brimming with confidence, who feels they have no need for belief or hope, truly dead?
Naturally, genuine confidence is forged through action, not through mere fantasy.

________________________________
Identify the issue, resolve the issue, move on.

Paul Jones7 said:Sure. I guess you could break it down into three distinct paths:

1. I believe in God—meaning, my position is that He exists.
2. I don't believe in God—essentially, my stance is that He doesn't exist.
3. I'm just sitting on the fence regarding whether God exists—I don't really hold a definitive position either way.

So, 1 would be theism, 2 is atheism, and 3 is agnosticism.

Paul Jones7 said:Well then, what do you call the actual belief that there is no God?

I mean, I guess you could just say that concept doesn't even exist... 😉

What you're describing sounds more like agnosticism—it sort of sits in this weird middle ground where it doesn't quite fit into the category of faith or the lack thereof.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.