Posts by hiddenpuma75

Jeremy Davis7 said:I’d never put you in that group of people who actually have the guts to say that just because something is labeled "spiritual," doesn't mean it actually is.

I'm pleasantly surprised here, Persifale.
Honestly, I’m starting to wonder why I even bother arguing with you!

That old saying still holds water: "All that glitters is not gold." Or, in your case—given all that neoliberal, quasi-spiritual, pop-culture, inclusive, politically correct, "good vibes only" nonsense—it's basically "know-it-alls who actually know nothing."

👍

PS.
This isn't aimed at Floverka... or more accurately, this whole trendy wave of relativism that mistyscout2 is always talking about.

1) For my part, things are perfectly clear. 😉

2) We don't know each other as well as you seem to think, and since I don't have any forum spies to dig up the juicy details, I can only judge based on our digital impressions.

3) I suspect we’re quite similar in how we carry ourselves—two peas in a pod, really. 😲

4) We write well, but we tend to be overly wordy; we lack that punchy, concise clarity that Ryan Wilson2 has mastered.

5) We think we’re pretty smart, 🙂 😛 but we're far too emotional. We aren't as "cool" as Ryan Wilson2, 🙂 which means we get burned easily by anyone who messes with our vibe.

6) We’ve been through the ringer and finally realized there's a reason they call the old stuff a classic.

7) It’s easy for us to clash because we’ve lived through enough to feel like everyone else should have figured it out by now. When they don't, and those "ignorant" types end up getting under our skin, we react too intensely, ruin the mood, and the cycle repeats *ad infinitum*.
We don't know how to bicker like those witty comedians 🙂 who fight constantly but keep it all lighthearted and sarcastic.
Take him, for example—he used to be known as the forum's biggest critic of women, yet they absolutely adore him.
As a sort of penance, he has to keep them entertained. 🙂
We, on the other hand, take our arguments way too seriously 🙄 because, let's face it, not everything is a joke—some things are life and death.

Until our next inevitable disagreement (because let's be honest, the audience finds it much more entertaining), 🍿
👋

mistyscout2 said:Florine wasn't suggesting that every single individual is some sort of "enlightened" being; rather, her point was that we are inherently spiritual by the very nature of existing within language, civilization, and culture. Just the mere fact that we possess this specific capacity for complex speech and organized culture is what fundamentally sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom... In a sense, humans are "spiritual animals" because of that connection. If you consider that every person possesses a "spirit," or that some kind of "spirit" is woven directly into the languages and cultures we inhabit—which it absolutely is—then everyone is, by definition, spiritual. This way of looking at spirituality is quite different from that trendy, "specialized" version of spirituality you see being peddled everywhere in our current post-Christian, transitional American society...

Regarding this idea of "oneness," that’s really the hallmark of that specific brand of New Age thought, which is where that tendency toward what you—though perhaps not strictly from a linguistic standpoint—call relativism comes from...

1) What exactly is flawed about using the term "relativism" (in the sense of rhetorically downplaying certain established, traditional values and achievements)?

2) If you don't like that term, what would you suggest using instead?

It’s how things work for a Reiki master, but really, it applies to more than just them.

REIKI.

Think of it as a subtle, modern intelligence test for two or more people.
The setup is simple: one person, calling themselves a Reiki master , sends the other person free, invisible light, energy, love, and plenty of visible smiles. In exchange for this service, they receive colorful slips of paper from the recipient—what some might call money.

The "test" is considered passed at the exact moment the person handing over those colorful bills asks the Reiki master:--

"Wait, why am I paying you for free energy, light, and love?"

Psychologists have noted that at this precise moment, the Reiki masters unexpectedly stop sending the love and the smiles
and launch into an endless series of metaphysical lectures and observations about how hard life is and how everything at the local grocery store is getting way too expensive.
This little test is incredibly popular across America, and many have successfully passed it (estimates suggest around 10,000 people, if you check Wikipedia).

(Note: there are various versions of this test called KAHUNA, MAHUNA, or the USUI test, but the core principles remain identical.
Some economists actually view REIKI and ASTROLOGY as mechanisms for redistributing wealth among the population. It’s essentially a subtle social mechanism where the person who lacks common sense but has plenty of cash gains "experience," while the person who lacks cash but possesses an education as thick as a textbook walks away with colorful slips of paper and a sense of satisfaction.)

Goldman Sachs said:Well, I honestly think an atheist can be spiritual too. In my opinion, there’s actually plenty of room for both to exist at once. I truly believe that spirituality isn't some metric you can just pull out a ruler for. It’s not something meant to be quantified or measured by anyone.It’s all well and good to try and quantify everything and put it on a scale, though I know hiddenpuma75 doesn't quite see things that way. Still, fair enough—he's clearly arrived at some different conclusions.

Look, just to be clear, I’m not talking about my conversation with Goldman Sachs here. I’m actually addressing the nine out of ten "spiritual gurus" on this forum who are constantly pushing these ideas of forced uniformity and leveling everything down. It honestly feels like being stuck in a Borg hive, where everyone is expected to chant the same mindless mantra: "We are all enlightened, we are all spiritual." Give me a break.

I decided to pick her quote and bold the core message, but honestly, you could find snippets like this every single day. You'll run into them constantly in any discussion about spirituality—whether you're talking to nine out of ten people claiming to be "enlightened" or just chatting with the local New Age crowd.

I’d suggest kicking things off with an ultra-brief overview of how this new era of spiritual totalitarianism actually came to be.

We’ve all seen how historical totalitarianism has played out within organized religions. Throughout history, they have often been incredibly exclusive, operating under this rigid "us versus them" mentality—basically telling everyone else that they're wrong and headed straight for damnation.

The turn of the 20th century ushered in a brand-new brand of totalitarianism—one that flipped the religious coin on its head to introduce state atheism. The prevailing mantra back then was pretty bleak: they viewed all religions and believers as nothing more than souls trapped in a living hell. In their eyes, paradise was reserved exclusively for the proletariat.

Back in the 1970s, a whole new spiritual movement began to take root right here in the States before gradually spreading across the globe. We could easily call it the "New Age" era.
His whole philosophy really boiled down to this: just let life bloom, everything will work out in the end, and all you really need is love. That was his mantra.
There are endless directions and infinite combinations when it comes to spirituality. It feels like a sort of spiritual communism—an attempt at total equality where everyone is leveled out. It’s essentially trying to turn spirituality into a mass-market product for the masses.

Honestly, we might just want to step back and ask ourselves: what exactly is the problem here?

The real essence of this is somewhat subtle and potentially difficult to spot. I’m hoping I can manage to convey it clearly without letting the introduction drift into something overly broad or tedious. Please bear with me while I find my footing.

8)
The quote from Goldman Sachs was written with such a spirit of tolerance that, at first glance, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. She didn't seem to have any bad intentions at all. It feels like a classic, optimistic New Age sentiment—a prime example of "spiritual democracy" and inclusivity. It’s that kind of open-mindedness that attempts to rise above religious exclusivity and that old habit of thinking, "We're the only ones who have it right."

9)
I’d love to see if you can grasp how this modern obsession with tolerance and relativism has actually morphed into a new kind of totalitarianism—a new way of being completely exclusionary.

It seems like, all of a sudden, these kinds of phrases and perspectives have become incredibly trendy—almost everywhere you look. There’s this pervasive, almost auto-hypnotic quality to how people are repeating these exact same sentiments lately.

I think we’ve all reached that level of enlightenment.🙂
Honestly, I think everyone is just inherently spiritual in their own way.
It really doesn't matter who you are or what you do—or even if you choose to do nothing at all. In the grand scheme of things, it's all the same.
At the end of the day, I truly believe that every method, every teacher, and every single person out there is perfectly fine just as they are.

It seems like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I'm ready to get to work on your copy, but I need the source text first. Whenever you're ready, just drop the content here. I'll make sure to give it that polished, authentic American feel while keeping the original heart and soul intact. Looking forward to it!

10) It’s finally time to pull back the curtain on this "relativist emperor" and show you all exactly why he's nothing more than a fraud.

I mean, look—even if those statements are technically accurate in an absolute sense, they’ve essentially been borrowed or even outright lifted from the people who actually put in the work, took the risks, and finally made it happen.
This isn't actually trading based on skill or hard work; it's just playing around with inherited wealth or money that was taken from someone else.

At the end of the day, we really have to ask ourselves: what level of consciousness was operating when that was said?
We’re all part of the same whole, so really, none of this matters in the grand scheme of things.

Did someone actually achieve that, or is it just someone trying to ride someone else's coattails?
It’s easy for someone who hasn't actually broken a sweat to sit comfortably in their room and claim that nothing really matters. They love to act like there’s nothing left to accomplish or achieve because they’ve already "made it," so they just lie around listening to music while watching hiddenpuma75 ramble on.

b)
The rise of this new kind of totalitarianism is happening because... Don't you dare criticize what I call spiritual democracy and universal enlightenment.

The new proponents of "equality" will try to lecture you on how everything is essentially the same. They’ll tell you there are no differences, no standards, and no such thing as excellence—whether you're raising a child, writing a book, building a house, or tending a garden. Everything is just... fine.

They’ll offer you milk and honey, but
but
but

BUT THE SECOND YOU START CRITICIZING THEM, 😉

Notice the paradox here: everything is permitted, everyone is welcome, and we are all supposedly "spiritual"—except for the people who dare to criticize them. Suddenly, they aren't welcome anymore. 🙂

For instance, if someone like hiddenpuma75 points out a flaw, or if it's the Church, the government, or even the American Medical Association opposing Reiki masters,

and if you say to these "spiritual proletarians,"

"Look, not everyone is enlightened,"
"And not everything is spiritual,"
"Or that atheism isn't a spiritual path,"
—that a true spiritual school or a real teacher doesn't turn spirituality into a commercial commodity

well, then you're suddenly unwelcome!

They'll tell you that you just don't get it, that you lack understanding, and that you MUST be tolerant 🤣
and just accept everything.

I actually illustrated this point to a fellow forum member recently with a rather funny little example.

If everything is truly fine and nothing matters, why bother choosing which shoes to wear or which partner to date? ---

==================================
Ugh,

Sorry for the long rant, but it's surprisingly difficult to unmask this modern, foggy spiritual relativism
and the mediocrity that hides behind a cloud of empty phrases,

eroding time-tested values like tradition, discipline, and ethics,

as well as the actual measurement and testing of achievement and skill.
Essentially, they are undermining the very goal of religion through the methods of science.

They attempt to relativize excellence and the tangible fruits of one's labor
and those eternal truths.

A tree is known by its fruit, after all.

In other words, success is the proof of a person's worth.

👋

Laura Evans3 As I was saying:


Are you absolutely certain about that? I’ve been thinking about this lately, and honestly, I think we need to talk more about what we actually want out of life. It sounds simple, right? Just "desire." But when you really sit down and peel back the layers, it gets complicated fast. We spend so much time chasing things because we think we *should* want them—the bigger house in the suburbs, the fancy title at a firm like Goldman Sachs, or just keeping up with everyone else on social media. But there's a huge difference between those external pressures and that quiet, genuine pull from within. I used to be terrible at distinguishing the two. I'd spend months working toward a goal, only to reach it and feel... nothing. Just a hollow sense of "Is this it?" I've realized that true desire isn't about hitting a checklist; it's about finding those things that actually make you feel alive. It’s okay to admit that what you want might not look like what everyone else expects. In fact, it's probably better if it doesn't. Does anyone else struggle with this? How do you tell the difference between a fleeting whim and something that actually matters to your soul? Has there been any word from the administration about having a second moderator step in to review that decision? 😬

Yes. 😉

Laura Evans3 As I was saying:
Why on earth? 😁
Will that change your mind? It feels like they’re operating under this unspoken rule where the moderator is just automatically right about everything.?
Next time you get flagged by a moderator, are you going to keep doubling down and talking trash, or will you actually take a second to wonder if you might be the one in the wrong?

Until the moderators and admins actually step up and provide some concrete examples, there isn't much for us to say.
I was simply sharing some observations based on my own personal experience.

I’m fully aware of the fact that I’ve been "in the right" on two separate occasions—which is just a polite way of saying I was unfairly penalized.
The admins didn't exactly step up to help me when I voiced my concerns publicly about everything being discussed here.

They actually ended up stepping in later to fix their own exaggerations and errors, which I think proves my point.

I remember one instance where I was hit with an absolutely ridiculous fine—it felt like they slapped me with a $1,000 penalty out of nowhere.😲 It’s quite a heavy blow—he was hit with a sentence that carries some serious weight. It's a really tough accusation to face, and honestly, the conviction itself feels incredibly harsh.
The admins didn't lift a finger to help me, even after I made a public complaint about the whole situation. Honestly, the reasoning behind the accusation was so absurdly ridiculous it felt like a sketch from Monty Python. Apparently, according to hiddenpuma75, I’m "as tedious as a bout of food poisoning." 🤣 )
Just some behind-the-scenes chatter between two moderators—one being a virtual friend of mine who seems to actually value my perspective and what I bring to this community, and the other expressing a desire to walk back a decision they made.

Honestly, if that moderator hadn't been so determined to be flexible and fair, the administrators wouldn't have stepped in to help me at all—even though everything was laid out right here for everyone to see, fully documented and available for public review.

Since opening this thread, I received a private email that serves as a real teaching moment for all of us.
I’ll leave out the sender's name and certain specific details, but I want to share his testimony along with my response.

You're asking stupid questions.
You're calling out the admins, but the admins are just a handful of like-minded people who, frankly, couldn't care less about anything and just exist to laugh at everyone else.
Take me, for example—I was stripped of my moderator status just because I sent an admin a private message.

Good grief.
Honestly, you're better off just giving up on this forum altogether... don't even bother getting worked up.

1) To be honest, I’m not actually getting upset here. This whole thing is endlessly entertaining for me; it's genuinely fascinating to observe how different personalities clash. To me, this forum is like watching a great movie.🙂
The mere fact that I've been posting here for eight years, watching mods and admins come and go while hiddenpuma75 (aka the brand 😉) remains constant, really says it all.😉

2) I truly appreciate the lesson and the blunt honesty regarding the "underground" ways the moderator-admin hierarchy actually functions.

3)
I am a firm believer that discussing any issue helps bring certain patterns to light, and through the alchemy of conversation, everyone involved undergoes some kind of transformation.
Even if your legitimate requests fail because of a moderator's stubbornness or some administrative ego games, you are still planting the "seeds" for improvement next time.

Because, well,

nobody is ever 100% wrong.
And nobody is ever 100% right.
👋

Laura Evans3 said:I think you might be skimming a little too fast... 😁

Come on, give us something to work with—a specific example, a link, a thread, or even just a case you're thinking of.

I’d love to hear some thoughts on this from everyone—the admins, the mods, and even my fellow forum members alike.

Here’s my reasoning:

Based on my own experiences here, and just looking through the various complaints filed by others, I’ve started to get the impression that the administrators NEVER actually uphold any (legitimate) appeals regarding a moderator's decision.

It honestly feels like there's an unwritten rule in play: the moderator is always right, no questions asked.

So, I'm curious—can anyone point to actual instances where an admin stepped in and sided with a user against a moderator's action? How common is that, really?

👋

hiddenpuma75 said:But where on earth did you get that from??😲
I think you've been typing so much lately that you've become a little careless—both intellectually and factually speaking.

Everything regarding Jesus, the entire Bible, and all holy texts can actually be distilled into just two sentences.
Everything hangs on them, including the powers that be!!
And it all starts with the first one:

Love God with all your heart 🙂

So where does this ugly addition about telling both sides to go to hell come from??🙄
---

Besides, Jesus showed us how to live through his actions rather than just his words.
He tells us and suggests to everyone: choose the cross (suffering, loss) over making compromises
with the world and its clever little calculations.
Better the cross than even the slightest concession to spiritual corruption. He wants us to finish the job of purging corruption (spiritual entropy) within ourselves to reach our original state—liberation. PERFECTION!!

Jaspers makes an excellent point that from a worldly perspective, Jesus looks absurd.

But he adds that this same world, which worships rocks on Mars, looks just as absurd when viewed from the perspective of Jesus—the embodiment of love.

The solution to the koan is:

come to me and follow me; otherwise, I cannot help you.

Jesus teaches that love is a force stronger than decay, even though it appears utterly powerless because it has renounced all aggression.

Modern systems of deception (primarily bureaucratic clericalism on one hand and blind materialism-naturalism combined with apathy and mental gymnastics on the other) do everything in their power to compromise love and ultimate truth.
These are perfect systems designed to hide the final truth, and Leontiev was right to call the modern schoolhouse a training ground for the spirit's infidelity.

That’s why Jesus says:

"I have come to reveal what has been hidden since the beginning of the world."🙂

and

Please, notice that the Gospel doesn't rebel, because light cannot spring from rebellion.
As Paul wisely noted, love does not rebel; instead, it waits patiently and endures all things.🙂

What is it waiting for?
It’s waiting for that same vibration of authentic love—that same SPARK —to be born in the one who meets the chance encounter between the rocks on Mars, the magical stone juice on Earth, and God. It holds the only reality that, even by sheer lucky chance, generates life and those 3 billion lines of digital code hidden in our DNA.🙄

Man, what a difficult and long process it is, striving toward the point of OMEGA as De Chardin taught us.

By the way, evolution is a holistic process involving both the objective and subjective dimensions of existence, because evolution moves purposefully—not randomly—toward greater external complexity and deeper internal consciousness.
....
And now, just a few little crumbs for Al to pick up... if he's still hungry...

...
...and blah blah blah 🙂

If anyone’s actually listening, then let them hear.

👋

----

If you look closely at history, you’ll see a recurring pattern: every single era eventually births its own unique system—a new paradigm designed specifically to obscure the most profound, ultimate truths. It's a constant cycle of creating frameworks that shroud the true spirit of truth.

Back in Jesus' day, you had the Pharisees. They were the type who obsessed over the letter of the law while completely missing the spirit of truth.

Then, with the rise of organized Christianity, we saw the emergence of the clergy and clericalism—essentially, just a more sophisticated breed of Pharisees. They seem to believe they can trap the spirit of truth within a web of new bureaucratic rules, even though that spirit blows wherever it pleases.

3)
When the Enlightenment first began to strip the clergy of their absolute grip on power across Europe, it didn't actually end religious influence; instead, it gave birth to something far more insidious—a much more dangerous, deeply embedded form of scientific and political clericalism that operates behind the scenes.
Which corruption technique is even more flawless and continues to reign supreme today?
It’s nothing more than pseudo-scientific political Pharisaism—a blatant attempt to bureaucratically secularize the Gospel. Honestly, no matter how you spin it, that kind of approach is inherently corrupt. They’re trying to replace faith with a new god: "blind luck."
On the other hand, there's this tendency among the clergy to try and turn the spirit of truth into nothing more than a bureaucratic checklist.

Think of the Gospel as the ultimate code for heart initiation—it's about awakening and revelation. It isn't just some historical record or a collection of dated events; rather, it’s a living force that actually creates history itself.
You just can't solve that kind of thing with politics. To secularize. It feels futile to try and "scientifically analyze" Him, simply because you can't pin Him down within the constraints of time. He exists outside of it—standing beyond the reach of time altogether.
It all stems from that dimension of oneness, where we learn by example that this world is essentially an outsider—it isn’t the primary reality.

The time has finally come to reveal "that which has been hidden since the beginning of the world."
They’re reaching for the very core of our being to finally put an end to that deep-seated corruption—the kind that takes hold when a person places their entire faith in mere matter, whether it's the ground beneath our feet or the rocks on Mars.

Jesus spoke about that sin against the spirit of truth—the very essence of reality—as the one unforgivable offense. It’s essentially building a deceptive system designed to hide the light. To me, it feels like a total betrayal of the soul.
It’s nothing short of a crime. These systems of corruption and decay are designed to obscure the reality of things, using a thick fog of clericalism, political maneuvering, and scientific materialism to hide the truth from us.

I was just sitting here wondering—what was that one beautiful word the Greeks used to describe something truly wonderful? It’s been on my mind all morning.

PNEUMA HAGION

And what exactly is the spirit of truth? 🙂

That’s just how it goes—

When you actually have the ears to hear a bird sing, everything changes.
You don't even need to check her credentials.🙂

5)
The spirit of truth breathes life into everything, making all things feel new and fresh again. It’s the very thing that truly sets a person free.
There’s something about the way Greek words sound—they have such a beautiful resonance to them. In the original text, John refers to it that way.

The spirit of truth. That's the spirit of truth right there. 🙂

That’s what I call true openness and a real lack of bias.
It’s a pure manifestation of the spirit of truth, cutting right through any opposing force.
Anyone who stays open to that spirit of truth is always ready and willing to welcome just about anyone.

That’s just how it goes. "I will uncover what has been hidden since the very beginning of time." '' 🙂

Of course, Satan isn't some independent entity living in a vacuum. Think of it more as a symbolic representation of inertia within the manifested world—essentially, the force behind corruption and the deliberate obscuring of the spirit of truth. It’s the mechanism used to protect and preserve the deceptive systems already at work through our worldly, crooked structures.

8) In a way, we’re constantly witnessing the "anti-christ" in motion. If you look at physics, it's essentially entropy; spiritually speaking, it’s that process of obscuring and corrupting love, which is meant to be our ultimate truth.

9) It is only the constant movement of the spirit of truth PNEUME hagiona 🙂 that balances out that corruption through infinite enlightenment—by maintaining an intense presence of reality against the lies.

Man, that was a pretty heavy topic to wrap my head around.

I think I'll go get some rest now.

👋

Joshua Hernandez9 said:.. honestly, I’m just sitting here waiting for the day you finally wrap your head around what some simpleton writes..

(.. though it's pretty funny watching you try so hard to respond to something that's clearly gibberish..)

.. the guy *is* an anarchist..
.. his whole existence was a systematic teardown of the machine..

.. just being someone who functions outside the rules—that's the threat..
.. even the mere idea that a person can live without that structure is a threat to the establishment—if people actually believed it..

.. that's the point.. the fact that he didn't give a damn about the system is exactly what broke it..
.. for crying out loud.. you totally missed the entire premise.. (.. again.. for the millionth time..)

Not at all! After all, he gave such obedient and balanced advice about walking on a razor blade.

Goodness gracious, give God His due and the Emperor his!

Besides that, you should really take a look at the post hiddenpuma75 wrote above. It perfectly illustrates how genuine love doesn't need to be combative; after all, true light never comes from a place of rebellion. 😉

Alright, here's that next section.

Please, let’s be careful not to let the Gospel become a source of rebellion; after all, you can't expect any light to emerge from a spirit of revolt.
That’s why Paul says so wisely—love doesn't go looking for a fight; instead, it stays patient and endures everything.🙂

What lies ahead?
It’s that same unmistakable energy—that genuine, heartfelt vibration of true love. It really is the same. I can't quite wrap my head around this one. There seems to be a misunderstanding or perhaps some missing context here. Could someone clarify what we're discussing? I'd love to get in on the conversation once I'm up to speed! Imagine being born to someone who finds stones on Mars, discovers magic rocks right here on Earth, and actually crosses paths with God. It’s wild to think that luck is the only reality we have—that even a total fluke of chance is what generates life and that three billion lines of digital code tucked away inside our DNA.🙄

👋

by the way,

The Gospels aren't a religion, though they’ve certainly been turned into one!
At its core, esoteric Christianity is actually one of the deepest, most challenging ways of life to truly grasp and practice. It’s honestly no surprise that the bureaucratic, institutionalized version of Christianity has fractured into roughly 800 different denominations and sects—it feels like those structures just clutter the mind and distort the message.

According to the actual Gospels, salvation isn't about waiting for some static paradise or expecting Jesus to swoop in on a rocket ship to save you.
There’s no hiding, no waiting around, and no false sense of security; instead, you have to actually step onto the path and walk it.
That is how you achieve true liberation.
It happens right now, right here, and every single day is essentially judgment day.

How?

By giving everything you have. 🙂

Because there is no greater expression of love than giving of yourself—
not just physically, but metaphysically as well. 🙂

redtinker36 said:.. Jesus wouldn't be a complete personality ..

.. I think Marxism is truly rooted in labor .. and it interprets social relations and man himself .. starting from his position within that labor ..
.. This doesn't have to be .. direct .. and it isn't .. because a capitalist can just as easily question his own standing .. as a class adversary .. and I believe the greatest ideas were born that way .. through the play of opposites .. yet labor remains the foundation for everything ..
.. Even our entire modern world .. stands upon .. the act of doing .. people are defined by their place .. in the world .. by human actions within the world .. amidst all that chaos of events .. driven by people ..

.. A Marxist Jesus has no grounding in labor .. he exists outside of that world ..

.. Let's say that isn't the issue .. .. let's look at something else instead ..

.. Philosophically .. Jesus is only half a personality ..

.. Well .. now this situation gets interesting .. because one man has had half of his humanity erased .. not for athletic .. but ideological reasons ..

.. The half that was left to him is .. the god of love .. who meets stone with bread ..

.. And the half that was deleted .. is anarchy .. or individualism .. being beyond the system .. beyond any regime ..
.. When he says give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's .. the unspoken continuation is .. screw them both ..

.. His .. socially unattached .. half .. was enough to drive him to the cross .. because he accepted neither his neighbors nor their gods .. .. and later .. once that half is totally .. erased .. he becomes .. the perfect guardian of the establishment ..

.. So .. his love .. stripped of his independence .. turned a .. great man .. into the ultimate coward ..
.. A coward tailored to fit every single coward .. across various neighborhoods over the last two thousand years ..

.. One last thing ..

.. I'm taking this opportunity .. to apologize to the real man .. because I held him in contempt as a coward and a piece of trash simply because that's how he was presented to me .. and I wasn't able to piece together the other half into .. a real human being .. .. because that .. certain .. coward .. just pissed me off so much ..

.. I'm taking this opportunity .. to damn all that paradise .. which took a man .. damn it .. who was almost God .. and managed to turn him into a coward .. just so it could survive .. on its own .. surviving in such a base and filthy way ..
.. May all that paradise be cursed .. and may its every seed be cursed ..

But where on earth did you get that from??😲
I think you've been typing so much lately that you've become a little careless—both intellectually and factually speaking.

Everything regarding Jesus, the entire Bible, and all holy texts can actually be distilled into just two sentences.
Everything hangs on them, including the powers that be!!
And it all starts with the first one:

Love God with all your heart 🙂

So where does this ugly addition about telling both sides to go to hell come from??🙄
---

Besides, Jesus showed us how to live through his actions rather than just his words.
He tells us and suggests to everyone: choose the cross (suffering, loss) over making compromises
with the world and its clever little calculations.
Better the cross than even the slightest concession to spiritual corruption. He wants us to finish the job of purging corruption (spiritual entropy) within ourselves to reach our original state—liberation. PERFECTION!!

Jaspers makes an excellent point that from a worldly perspective, Jesus looks absurd.

But he adds that this same world, which worships rocks on Mars, looks just as absurd when viewed from the perspective of Jesus—the embodiment of love.

The solution to the koan is:

come to me and follow me; otherwise, I cannot help you.

Jesus teaches that love is a force stronger than decay, even though it appears utterly powerless because it has renounced all aggression.

Modern systems of deception (primarily bureaucratic clericalism on one hand and blind materialism-naturalism combined with apathy and mental gymnastics on the other) do everything in their power to compromise love and ultimate truth.
These are perfect systems designed to hide the final truth, and Leontiev was right to call the modern schoolhouse a training ground for the spirit's infidelity.

That’s why Jesus says:

"I have come to reveal what has been hidden since the beginning of the world."🙂

and

Please, notice that the Gospel doesn't rebel, because light cannot spring from rebellion.
As Paul wisely noted, love does not rebel; instead, it waits patiently and endures all things.🙂

What is it waiting for?
It’s waiting for that same vibration of authentic love—that same SPARK —to be born in the one who meets the chance encounter between the rocks on Mars, the magical stone juice on Earth, and God. It holds the only reality that, even by sheer lucky chance, generates life and those 3 billion lines of digital code hidden in our DNA.🙄

Man, what a difficult and long process it is, striving toward the point of OMEGA as De Chardin taught us.

By the way, evolution is a holistic process involving both the objective and subjective dimensions of existence, because evolution moves purposefully—not randomly—toward greater external complexity and deeper internal consciousness.
....
And now, just a few little crumbs for Al to pick up... if he's still hungry...

...
...and blah blah blah 🙂

If anyone’s actually listening, then let them hear.

👋

----

granitesurfer36 said:Thanks to everyone for the advice and for being so understanding, but Angela Newman33 is completely out of the loop. It’s been 16 days now and I'm feeling so much better 🙂...the shame and guilt have faded, along with that constant loop of wondering why, how, or if we could have seen it coming and stopped it. I’ve finally accepted that it was his decision, and there was nothing we could have done to change it. The human mind is a strange thing; I've always relied on psychoanalysis to understand my own actions and attitudes to find a way toward healing. This time was no different... thanks again, everyone.

You didn't mention your father.
How are you feeling about him?
Do you empathize with him at all, and do you agree that what he went through was incredibly difficult?😢

In my experience, suffering has a way of waking us up; it leads to a genuine understanding
of ourselves and others that feels much deeper than any joy ever could.

Beyond that,

Love is, (among other things), finally being able to grasp the suffering of another soul.🙂

mellowraven22 said:Check out the bolded part from that link you sent:

Enough said.

And honestly, my own personal takes have zero impact on how I moderate.

Richard Perez3, you can lock this thread for all I care. This is just a waste of time.

1)
I think you might be missing the point, though perhaps that’s just because atheism tends to view everything through a lens of pure randomness and lack of purpose.
So, what exactly leads someone down the path to nihilism? 😉

And it’s certainly not a pointless take to many of the folks on this forum.
You still haven't actually answered my question: what kind of logic are we using here that justifies such a heavy-handed penalty just for insulting a fellow member?
Only 45 points.

And as for that rather ambiguous little phrase you cooked up—"opening pointless threads"—well, you certainly have a way with words!

Exactly 100. 🙄

Also, on that note... I'm afraid I don't quite follow you there. Could you clarify what you mean? He responded by pointing out how pointless the whole topic is, especially since it’s actually just a Gallup poll.
Is it really appropriate for just two atheists to be moderating religious discussions within an organization like DIO?
It’s hard not to feel a sense of skepticism here. Honestly, given everything that's been going on, I think any doubt anyone feels is completely justified.

a)
It really all comes down to the same old story: nepotism and those closed-door cliques running the show.

It feels a little absurd, doesn't it? Having an atheist moderate discussions about religion—especially when so many of them include statements in their signatures claiming that religion is inherently evil. 😉

It feels just as absurd to have someone moderating pet forums when they’re out here claiming that cats and dogs are actually the same thing.
Honestly, I can't decide who's more eccentric: people who refuse to touch anything, or pet owners who seem perfectly fine with everything being covered in fur and slobber. It’s a toss-up!

I really think we should have let people express their thoughts openly, but there was one major oversight in the design: closing off the conversation just leads to more frustration, especially when you follow it up by penalizing people with a massive 100-point deduction. It feels like one mistake just triggers another.
And now, everyone gets a front-row seat to see exactly where things went sideways and how you missed the mark.

Just a tiny grain of evidence here to show how atheists discriminate against anyone who dares to criticize them.
----------------------

(I’d really appreciate it if an administrator could weigh in on this, rather than just the moderator who clearly made a series of blunders.)

(Of course, the moderator in question is more than welcome to chime in but I would truly value a response from an admin.)

So,

1)
I am formally accusing the moderator Tyndall of violating our site rules by slapping me with 100 penalty points for supposedly "opening senseless threads."
(All because I started a poll asking whether it's even appropriate for just two atheists to moderate discussions about religion.)

2)
My proof lies right here in our community guidelines: http://www.example-us-forum.com/showthread.php?t=190123

If you look closely, it is clear that there is NO such thing as a 100-point penalty for "senseless threads."
(It honestly makes no sense—if insults only cost 45 points, why on earth would opening a "meaningless" thread trigger a massive 100-point fine?)

3)
From this, it follows that Tyndall essentially made up this penalty and the point value out of thin air.

4)
As for a psychological explanation for Tyndall's unfair and unprofessional conduct, I think I see it quite clearly. For those wondering, here is the real reason:😉

Since Tyndall is a member of that atheist group "Teizam" (essentially representing God 😉),
which I write about critically—as someone who stands against atheism—it's obvious his actions weren't objective or in the interest of the forum, but were driven by spite and a desire for revenge.

This is a textbook case of a conflict of interest, DISCRIMINATION, and unfair treatment that ignores the rulebook, despite the fact that he holds a public moderator position on this platform.

5) I should mention that we don't actually know each other. I didn't even realize he was a moderator, and we hadn't had any friction until he suddenly targeted me here on the feedback board, where he even shut down my thread suggesting ways to improve the site.😲

Take a look for yourselves: http://www.example-us-forum.com/showthread.php?t=459826

(I'm not sure if he was the one who closed it or if it was another moderator, but it's clearly an act of bad faith. It's absolutely absurd to shut down a thread where users are trying to propose improvements for the community.)

While it seems like the secular worldview—much like the decline seen in various social movements across the globe—is on a downward trend, we really need to stay vigilant and recognize how this mindset actually manifests in our lives.

That brings me to a few questions for discussion:

1) Should we distinguish between an atheist individual and atheism itself? Specifically, can we view atheism as something detrimental to society and the human spirit, while maintaining that an individual atheist isn't "lost" because they have the capacity to change?
, though an individual might evolve over time.

2) Or, in your opinion, are the historical atrocities often linked to atheism simply the logical conclusion of an atheistic way of thinking?😉

----
Here is my opening argument for the prosecution:

pro primo

First, atheism tends to deny, mock, and dismiss religion. It essentially labels everything that religious people hold sacred, meaningful, inspiring, or transformative as inherently "bad."

2) Atheism offers nothing positive in return; it fails to provide any real answers to the most profound questions regarding the universe and the human condition.

3) By its very definition, atheism is a state of ignorance, as it rejects what it does not know or practice.
(For instance, since atheists don't engage in meditation, prayer, contemplation, fasting, pilgrimages, or various other vital spiritual disciplines, THEY LACK ANY REAL UNDERSTANDING of the subject matter.)

4) Given the proven phenomenon that atheism is most prevalent among the younger demographic (those under 30!), it often feels more like a form of rebellion than a deeply considered worldview.
From this fact alone, one could argue that atheism is a product of ignorance, as young people may not yet be equipped to grasp or practice the complexities of comparative religions and their essential spiritual traditions.

5) History shows us that the most influential and significant figures in human history were NOT atheists.

(Think of names like Newton, Einstein, Buddha, Jesus, Saint Paul, Muhammad... and so on.)

( I would really appreciate it if an administrator could step in here, rather than just the moderator who made this very obvious error)

(Of course, the moderator in question is welcome to chime in , but I am specifically requesting a response from an administrator)

So,

1)
I am formally contesting the decision made by moderator mellowraven22, who penalized me with 100 negative points for supposedly "opening senseless threads."
(This happened because I started a poll asking whether it’s appropriate for just two atheists to moderate discussions regarding religion.)

2)
The proof for my claim can be found right here in the forum rules:

It is clearly stated there that there is NO penalty of 100 points for "so-called" senseless threads.
(It honestly doesn't make sense—if insults carry a 45-point penalty, why on earth would opening a thread deemed "senseless" trigger a massive 100-point hit?)

3)
From this, it follows that moderator mellowraven22 essentially fabricated this specific penalty and point value on his own whim.

4)
As for a psychological explanation for mellowraven22's unfair and unprofessional conduct, I think I see it quite clearly. For those who might be wondering, here is the real reason: 😉

Since moderator mellowraven22 is a member of that atheist group "DIO" (which stands for God 😉),
and since I write critically about them and hold views opposing atheism, his actions weren't objective or in the best interest of this community—they were purely retaliatory.

This is a textbook case of a conflict of interest, discrimination, and unfair treatment that falls outside our established rules, even while he is performing his official duties as a moderator on this public forum.

5) I should mention that we don't actually know each other. I didn't even realize he was a moderator, and we had zero prior conflicts until he suddenly targeted me here on the site, where he even shut down a thread I started to suggest ways to improve the forum. 😲

Take a look for yourselves:

(I'm not sure if he was the one who closed it or if it was another moderator, but it’s clearly an act of spite. It’s absolutely absurd to shut down a thread where users are trying to offer constructive improvements for the forum itself.)

silentsailor5 said:Because someone who’s 30 might actually contribute less to this community than a 21-year-old. Or because some people provide much more value by engaging in discussions rather than constantly trying to start their own threads.

1) You seem really intent on making exceptions to the rules, getting all philosophical when what we actually need are clear, concrete guidelines.

2) If we followed your logic that men are physically stronger, we wouldn't go ahead and start a women's division in
boxing just because you happen to know a woman who can outmuscle plenty of guys.

3) If we argued that nobody under 30 sits on the boards of major corporations or heads the most important government agencies, we wouldn't be forming executive boards filled with twenty-somethings just because you know a PhD candidate who finished their doctorate at 22.

4) Sure, someone can contribute just by replying to posts, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that if a person hasn't started a single thread in the psychology section and rarely participates there, they REALLY shouldn't be serving as a moderator for psychology.😉

ambertinker2 said:I’m all for supporting this request, though I have to admit one thing feels a bit off to me. It just doesn't seem right that on an American forum dedicated to religion, the moderation is being handled by someone from a different faith and a different country, while we don't have a single Catholic or Christian moderator on the team at all. 🙄

It looks like ambertinker2 hasn't quite learned her lesson yet; she’s still making the same old mistakes.
Since they say repetition is the mother of all learning, I figure there's no harm in saying it again.
We’re just going in circles with this same old argument, repeating ourselves instead of actually focusing on what needs to be learned here.
Well, let everyone see exactly who else is showing up to religion with her.
------

ambertinker2 As I was saying:
No, this is an American Reddit thread, hiddenpuma75. Where should American citizens have specific rights guaranteed?And honestly, that’s exactly what they should be doing—speaking their minds in public. 🙂

Look, let’s get one thing straight: this isn't some exclusive club or a private government site. This is an open space where anyone can jump in and share their thoughts. Being a citizen of this country doesn't give you any special privileges or extra authority here—we all play by the same rules on this Reddit thread.

Look, you’re absolutely entitled to your own opinion, and I certainly wouldn't dream of disputing that.
Look, that right doesn't stem from being an American citizen; it comes from the very nature of this Reddit community, which offers that same privilege to absolutely everyone. That’s exactly where the strength, the beauty, the freedom, and the true fairness of this platform lie. 🙂

The problem you haven't quite grasped yet is that your take on this is simply incorrect—and I believe I’ve already laid out exactly why. Let me walk you through it one more time.

It’s pretty simple when you look at how things work on specialized religious boards: if you’re on a Catholic subreddit, the moderators are Catholic, and if you’re on an Islamic one, the mods are Muslim. But since this isn't a religious space, I believe everyone should be welcome to step up and moderate. Everyone is welcome here.

I honestly think you’d love having her as a moderator—she’s such a devout Catholic.
I honestly feel that anyone *except* an atheist should be chosen for this role. To me, it just feels fundamentally absurd to have someone acting as a moderator when their entire worldview is centered on the idea that religion is inherently evil or somehow negative.

Look, at the end of the day, we have every right to voice our desires and put forward suggestions. But it feels like neither my wishes nor yours actually carry any weight. It doesn't even matter what our background is; being an American citizen should mean something, yet it feels like our input just falls on deaf ears.

The day I’m told I can't voice my opinion here in America—because some Muslim immigrant from another country is allowed to moderate the Religion section on an American Reddit thread before any Catholics are even considered—that will be the day I realize something is seriously wrong with this country.

You're chasing windmills again, seeing ghosts that only exist in your head.
Of course you have every right to speak up, and believe me, you certainly are.
You just don't seem to grasp that we’re dealing with a genuine conflict of interest here.
Whether someone is Muslim or Buddhist, they should have every right to serve as a moderator.
I have to admit, it feels a little surreal that there isn't a single Catholic in this group, but honestly? It’s even weirder to me that the moderators are all atheists.
But honestly, that’s exactly why we’re talking about this. If we lay it all out there, maybe someone will finally see how absurd the whole thing actually is. Hopefully, through the simple process of open conversation and genuine understanding, things will eventually start to shift.
So, let's just hope we can become Catholic and move on from someone who claims to be an atheist.

By the way, as far as I know, Danae and Blaise are either Catholic or Christian, so I really don't get this whole argument about the mods not being Christian.

Fake liberalism is just clouding our vision so we can't see how things actually are—and I'm never going to stand for that.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with the idea that ANYONE should be able to moderate a public Reddit.
That isn't "fake liberalism"!

With the exception of religion, where an atheist shouldn't be allowed, much like how someone opposing animal rights
shouldn't be moderating a pet forum.

For instance, I personally can't stand philosophy and think it's actually dangerous for the human soul, so I definitely shouldn't be a moderator for a philosophy group because, in my
worldview, I'm essentially fighting to dismantle
the very right and respect afforded to philosophy itself.

But don't silence other Americans who have every right to speak their minds on an American forum, and no Muslim is going to stop them. And honestly, neither is a Buddhist. 🙂

Wait, who exactly is silencing you? 🙄

Look, just because your preferences aren't winning doesn't mean you're being silenced.
That's the big flaw in democracy: the idea that five idiots' voices carry more weight than four wise people.
Personally, I'm not a fan of democracy either—it feels like an absurd social order—but that's a whole different, much longer conversation.