Posts by coastalfalcon61

I guess this thread is actually a perfect illustration of exactly what the original poster was complaining about when they decided to start this discussion. Just like in the Religion section, you guys have basically hijacked the entire topic with all these off-topic arguments and by constantly pushing your own specific worldviews onto everyone else.
Now, I’m not necessarily saying that believers are right or that their specific views should be taken as absolute truth, but I do think we should respect their right to use this Forum for their own conversations. It feels like you won't even let them vent or express themselves because you just relentlessly bury the topic under a mountain of trolling and noise.

The whole point of creating this Forum was to give people a space where they could have actual, decent human discussions, yet it seems like a small handful of you have decided you have the right to push others around—which is pretty bold considering you're guests in this digital house just like everyone else.

bluemason3 said:Would Buddhists or Jainists, as followers of an atheistic religion, be allowed on the PDF, or does this rule only apply to materialists? And what about us metaphysical agnostics who don't fall under materialism?

What about those Levey-style atheistic Satanists? Or religious Satanists? 😁

If the PDF is strictly religious, then you could have just as much conflict between different religious worldviews as you would with materialists. It's not as if all religions share the same metaphysics, nor is it true that there aren't massive differences between Catholics and materialists. Not all theists or all atheists share the same mythology or epistemology.

The logical move would be to have isolated forums for each denomination. Though, even then, you'd just end up with people arguing over, say, traditionalists versus progressives on a Catholic 🤣
Unless everyone gets their own private PDF, we’ll never have peace. 🤣

It makes zero sense.

We see the same thing with moderators—problems that are purely religious in nature, or even spiritual issues driven by people with very specific ideological and social agendas. Paradoxically, the most practical ones are the casual atheists. I highly doubt a Catholic, when trying to act like a modern believer, is worrying about whether a religious Satanist might show up and cause trouble.

In my opinion, the urge to shut things down and administratively control ideas points to a fundamentalist mindset and a desire to force a personal narrative. That's the real issue, not the atheists.

Whether a moderator is being a jerk or just enforcing rules is a separate conversation, but there's really no need to change the core policies of the PDF.

I guess you could say there isn't really any imposition of a personal narrative happening, provided that we give different interest groups enough space under fair conditions, where they can operate and have discussions relatively freely without being interfered with.

coppersailor28 said:Meaning.The skeptic sub-subforums.Providing a platform for "opinions"—or whatever you want to call this misinformation—is dangerous. Because these ideas are so unconventional, they can be harmful from an educational standpoint. In certain cases, like when it comes to health, they can actually be fatal.

Separating posts filled with such "opinions" and "information" into their own section sends a clear message: don't just take what's written here at face value. It’s a hint that you actually need to verify these claims instead of blindly accepting them as truth.

An example of a solid reason to open it.Skeptics.In one sub-forum, there was a sudden surge, for instance. On the sub-forum regarding the Corona pandemic. All those "opinions" and "information" coming from the sidelines. (At least regarding the subject matter) the relentless, gullible, and irresponsible users on this Forum..

A "Contra sub-subforums.By their very name—let alone their intended purpose—they can't possibly make any sense.

To what exactly? On the "contra" sub-forum...To go against.I?
Some post published on a regular sub-forum? Fine, whatever...
But... And then what?
The one we chose to go contra against in that manner, He’ll show up on the Contra sub-forum just to try and debunk our position.?

I think... The "contra" sub-forum was created for one specific reason: to give that user some peace on the main board. It exists so they can state their claims without being constantly picked apart by everyone who disagrees. 🤷

And why on earth would any rational person walk out of a room just because a claim was made, only to go around "contravening" that very same claim against the walls of some other room?

And there it is—an even better idea at this point. 🙂

What "opposing camp"?
If those proposals actually pass, you won't find anyone from the opposing camp left on this Forum.
There will only be. Subforums i Sub-forums Like-minded people. Looking at it. (quoting you):
"We should probably add some skeptical sub-forums for every topic, from everything to... Politics, Health, Religion, History, etc."

Religious users can simply make their threads
"their own quiet corner where no one attacks their arguments."

If their topic is legitimate (and if such a topic is opened in the appropriate section*), then they can discuss the subject in peace, provided they strictly stick to the subject matter itself.
(*such a quiet corner was precisely what the newly opened sub-sub-forum 'theology and religious practice' was intended for)

In short, there will certainly be peace in threads covering topics such as
proper mass etiquette (when to kneel, when to stand, etc.), advice on preparing for sacred rites, descriptions of necessary liturgical procedures, and so on... Basically, topics that are generally not debatable, since we are talking about 'rules of service' or membership protocols and similar matters...

I guess that’s one reason, though unfortunately, you'll probably find "uninformed, gullible, and irresponsible" types equally present among the Skeptics and those who believe they are the ones representing truth and objectivity.

Another reason for creating the Skeptics section is to give people with different viewpoints a place where they can feel free to express and share what they think they know, since we live in the 21st century where we all love to brag about respecting others' rights—so maybe at least respecting the right to a (different) opinion. A third reason is just practical, really—it helps drive traffic to the Forum and keeps users around longer.

And honestly, " contra sub-subforums " don't make much sense by their very name, let alone their actual purpose.

What exactly is the point of " arguing against " something in a 'contra' sub-subforum?
Maybe arguing against a post made in a regular subforum? Okay, sure...
But then... what happens next?
Is the person we were just "arguing against" going to show up in the 'contra' sub-subforum just to debunk our rebuttal?

I mean... the 'contra' sub-subforum was likely opened specifically so that user could have some peace on the main subforum without being constantly challenged by people who, because of their specific claims, just happen to disagree with them. 🤷

"Contra" is really just a term suggested as a synonym for the Skeptics. It might be a clunky word, but it was just a random suggestion, and I don't think it's worth overanalyzing it too much. Maybe the focus should stay on the concept rather than the specific wording. And hey, you're more than welcome to suggest a term you think fits better.
The point is that both groups (the skeptics/contra folks) should have their own corner where they can share thoughts freely, without someone from the opposing side jumping in to smooth things over or correct them, especially since that person often isn't truly qualified to do so because they don't fully grasp their perspective. Of course, it works both ways, so a skeptic shouldn't be trying to lecture the "believers" in their own space either. Truth is a pretty relative thing, and I don't think anyone has an exclusive monopoly on it.

And why would any rational person ever leave a room where a claim was made just to go 'argue against' that claim inside the walls of some other room?!

I don't think anyone is actually going to walk away just because of one single claim. But I suppose if a certain group of people is having their own discussions, and within those talks, someone is constantly pushing the envelope toward being offensive or dismissive on a daily basis, any *reasonable* person would probably just grab their friends and head somewhere else to finish the conversation, or maybe they'll just give up entirely. On the other hand, an *unreasonable* person might stay and keep arguing with them, which I guess just ends up being a waste of their time and energy.

And hey, at this point, there might even be a better idea: :five

Well, please feel free to suggest a better way of doing things if you happen to have one.

What do you mean by an 'opposing camp'?
If these suggestions actually happen, I guess there won't really be any opposing camps left anywhere on the forum.
There will only be subforums and sub-subforums consisting of people who agree regarding (quoting you here):
"... adding skeptical sub-subforums for every topic, from Politics, Health, Religion, History, and so on"

The term "opposing camp" was mentioned because, in my view, a skeptic’s opinions shouldn't be moderated by someone who holds completely different views. It seems to me that a believer shouldn't be the one moderating an atheist in a space specifically designated for expressing atheistic views. If an atheist shares an opinion, it might—and quite often does—come across as offensive or dismissive to a believer, even if the atheist didn't necessarily intend to be hurtful and was just trying to state an objective fact. A believer might approach certain questions emotionally since they experience faith in a way that is fundamentally different from an atheist, and because of that, they're going to perceive other viewpoints differently. And I suppose that's their right, which should be respected.

Religious users also have the option to start threads that could serve as
"their own quiet corner where no one will attack their arguments."

Okay, fair enough. I wasn't looking at the Religion section, so I didn't realize they had their own "protected" area.
From the original post, I mostly gathered that they felt bothered by the influx of atheists and the way they talk to believers, and that they were looking for some kind of solution to that situation.

bluemason3 said:I can think the other side is as foolish as I want, but the whole point of a debate is that it provides the opportunity to prove otherwise—especially to a third-party observer. If it were just two people talking back and forth, we’d be using a messenger app, not a forum.

The true value of a discussion lies in the arguments themselves. Someone's intelligence plays a role, sure, but it isn't the only factor. Just because there's a correlation between certain traits doesn't mean it's a guarantee; you have plenty of highly intelligent people who use their wits solely to ideologically double down on everything (using high IQ for sophisticated rationalizations), alongside "street smart," objective individuals with an average IQ. It's a bit more complex than just one isolated variable, even if, on average, one side usually ends up winning out.

Well, I think that’s how it works in theory, but unfortunately, in real life with actual people, it doesn't really function that way. Very quickly, the arguments tend to get replaced by unnecessary and exhausting attempts at outsmarting one another, or through belittling, insults, and provocation...
Maybe two machines could carry out a debate using pure logic without emotions taking over the conversation, but humans just aren't built that way, I suppose.

There is also another aspect to consider here. If there is a specific space where a group of people share common interests or hold similar views on a topic they enjoy discussing, and then people with opposing viewpoints show up, those original members will likely stop sharing their ideas and start avoiding that space altogether because others will begin mocking them, trying to prove them wrong, or simply dismissing them.

That is why I feel the right approach might be to open a dedicated skeptic or contra sub-sub-forum within certain sections. Maybe even one general skeptic/contra sub-forum for the whole Forum, which would then contain skeptic sub-sub-forums for every topic—ranging from Politics and Health to Religion, History, and so on. And perhaps we could let the Contras themselves moderate it, just to avoid a situation where the "opposing camp" is moderated by someone who fundamentally disagrees with them and holds completely different perspectives on the matter.
In that way, everyone would have their own freedom of expression within a community of like-minded people, and I imagine the moderators would end up having less work to do too.

Even though I am an atheist and an outspoken opponent of religion, I still believe that religious people on this Forum have an absolute right to their own peaceful corner where no one will attack them or their ideas. I guess the point is just to allow everyone at least that minimum amount of freedom and peace.

Gregory Jackson said:Maybe, maybe... honestly, that chapter was closed for me a long time ago. It was still wide open back when I was just a teenager, though. Everyone picks their own path, and hey, I respect that. All paths eventually lead to God, 🙂 even atheists find Him in the end. And angels too, 😉

Well, Steiner helped your growth in this life more because you actually studied him and took his ideas to heart, whereas you didn't do that with religious leaders. That makes sense. Use whatever you feel helps you grow. I didn't just stumble straight into Jesus and Buddha either.

There are simpler ways of living to follow. For example, something like unnamed—the main guide is just: good thoughts, good words, good deeds. A person progresses way faster that way than through, I don't know, some random meditations or astral projections.

Like Meher Baba used to say:
"No amount of prayer or meditation can do what helping others can do".

Just keep going, maybe one day you'll discover the pure words of the avatars. As for me, I'll keep praying to the king of the castle, not the servants.🙂

From where I'm standing, I guess paths lead to the spirit rather than to God.
I feel like there's a massive difference there; the spirit is this abstract thing that you can't really define and doesn't necessarily demand faith, whereas God is a very human concept—something defined as almighty or good or a creator—and requires belief just to exist 😉

I think Steiner contributed more to your personal growth in this life because you actually studied him and took his ideas to heart, whereas you didn't do that with religious leaders. It makes sense, I guess. Whatever you feel helps you grow, you should probably just go for it. I didn't find my way to Jesus or Buddha right away either.

For me, I started out with Jesus; I was baptized and went through life as a Catholic for a while. Then, eventually, I moved toward spirituality without the religious framework.

There are much simpler religions a person could follow. Take unnamed, for instance—the core teaching is basically just good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. I think a person progresses a lot faster that way than they would through whatever meditations or astral projections they might try.
As Meher Baba used to say:
"No amount of prayer or meditation can do what helping others can do".

I don't really think you need a religion to live like that. Having good thoughts, words, and actions seems to be the fundamental bedrock of spirituality, not necessarily for moral reasons, but perhaps just because of how "spiritual physics" works, if you want to put it that way.
By studying Steiner and Leadbeater, along with some insights that followed later on, I came to understand why that specific approach to "goodness" is so necessary and vital. Before that, I was mostly involved in a sort of "cold" spirituality that gave me some results, but I guess it ultimately led to a plateau.

Gregory Jackson said:

coastalfalcon61 I guess I should probably start by saying that... well, what Drew Moore5 was getting at earlier really stuck with me, and I’ve been sitting here just mulling it over for a while now, maybe even a little too long if I'm being honest! It’s funny how those things work, isn't it? You think you've moved past a certain idea, but then someone says something just right, and suddenly you're back in that headspace, just wandering through all these thoughts and tangents. Anyway, I was thinking about what they said, and I kind of feel like there might be more to it than we initially realized, though I could be totally off base here, which happens more often than I'd like to admit! It’s just one of those things where you start pulling on a single thread and suddenly the whole sweater starts unraveling in your hands, you know? But yeah, I'm definitely leaning towards that perspective, even if it's a bit messy.
I guess I’d probably suggest starting off with this one, if that makes any sense, but yeah, maybe just dive right in with this. I mean, I was just sitting here thinking about how crazy things get sometimes, you know? It’s like we all go through these phases where everything feels totally disconnected, and then suddenly—bam—everything clicks into place, though I guess that's more of a theory than a fact, right? Anyway, I was reading some stuff earlier, and it really got me wondering if we're all just looking at the same mountain from different sides, or if maybe we're actually on completely different planets altogether. It's a bit much to wrap my head around, honestly, but there's something kind of beautiful about the confusion, I suppose. Like, if we knew everything already, life would be pretty boring, wouldn't it? We'd just be walking around like robots, which sounds kind of exhausting if you ask me. So, yeah, I guess I'm just rambling now, but I really feel like there's a deeper rhythm to all this chaos, even if it feels totally random most of the time. Just a thought!So, I think I’ll just post two of them right here, and then underneath that, I'll add whatever it was that Dragan suggested earlier... I guess.

So, there’s still a massive mountain of Steiner's lectures and books out there floating around, and honestly, I think I’ve got something like fifty of them sitting on my shelf right now, though I can't really say I'd go out of my way to recommend them to anyone, you know? There is definitely some pretty interesting stuff in there if you're into that kind of thing, but for me personally, it just feels like a bunch of unnecessary mental clutter that I don't really need to carry around.
Whatever, I mean, if you're actually interested in reading them, I can totally just post them up here whenever.

Let me take a look at those posts first. Thanks.

The whole concept of prayer is actually pretty simple, I mean, you ask and you receive, right? Though, I guess it’s not quite as straightforward as I made it sound in my last post because there are definitely some conditions involved. Like, if you haven't reached a certain minimum spiritual level—which, you know, comes from your thoughts, your words, and the actual things you do that you're praying about—then you probably aren't going to get anything at all. And it makes me wonder, too, like, where would that angel Steiner talks about come from if God didn't exist?

So, I guess people tend to jump on one specific religion and just tear it apart in general, right? And honestly, if you look closely at any faith out there, there’s always going to be some kind of dogma or weird ritual that feels like it could use a little critique, I suppose. But maybe the thing is, those rituals and rules aren't actually the core or the heartbeat of the whole thing, you know? Like, the real essence lies in the actual teachings—you know, the stuff taught by Jesus or Buddha—which eventually became the foundation for organized religions. It seems to me that over time, all these distortions happened, where the formal dogmas and the repetitive ceremonies started becoming way more important to the average person than the actual spiritual wisdom, mostly because most folks aren't really looking for deep spirituality anyway, I guess.

I mean, I have to respectfully disagree here, because I feel like religious truths exist on their own merit, you know? Like, they've been around since the dawn of time, existing long before any specific religion even started and continuing long after, just because they're absolute. So, like, love God and love your neighbor, right? Because that’s really the path to enlightenment and actually making something of your life. But then again, there’s always that eternal, nagging question of which parts of a religion are actual truth and which parts are just... well, lies.

I definitely think we should be looking for information and personal experiences wherever we can find them—I personally try to pull from all sorts of different sources—but I just don't think it's quite right to dismiss religions entirely, or to put someone like Jesus and Steiner on the exact same level, if you'll excuse my bluntness. But hey, I guess we all see things differently. And since this thread is about Theosophy, it's interesting to think about how *theosis* in Eastern Orthodox traditions refers to the soul joining with God. If you look at where the term "theosophy" itself comes from, it probably isn't that far off from that concept either...

Even if we assume there really is an angel involved, I guess I don't see why that would necessarily prove the existence of God. For all we know, it could be something else entirely that isn't "omnipotent," you know? Maybe there are certain phenomena that trigger other occurrences which we just perceive as angels. I suppose I'd rather leave those possibilities open instead of jumping to conclusions when we're still essentially in the dark.

One should definitely seek out information and experiences wherever possible—I try to look at multiple sources myself—but I feel it's a bit dismissive to cast aside religions entirely or to put Jesus and Steiner on the exact same level, with all due respect. But hey, I guess we all see things differently.

In a way, I agree, because it seems to me that some religions do contain certain fragments of actual, useful spiritual knowledge or practices, and I think a true spiritual seeker ought to study every available source until they can eventually rely on their own direct insight.
But, in my opinion, that specific spiritual element within religion is almost negligible compared to all the unnecessary baggage that leads people astray. Looking at it practically, two thousand years of Christian religion has brought about far too much suffering, violence, and regression, while providing very little actual spiritual progress for humanity. Christianity has sort of created an absurdity out of itself. It feels like it would be much simpler to reach that small, useful portion of spirituality through other teachings that aren't religious—teachings that don't demand dogma and belief, and where the rest of the material is just as deep and useful. To truly receive knowledge, I think you first have to strip away prejudices—those ingrained beliefs and conditioning—which basically make up the entire foundation of religion.

To be specific, Steiner, with his "science," has contributed incomparably more to my own spiritual growth than Jesus has, even though a two-thousand-year legend hasn't been built around his enlightenment.
As I see it, the value of Jesus only exists if someone believes in him, because only then does he represent an ideal worth striving toward. There is very little actual knowledge left behind regarding Jesus after all these years, whereas Steiner left behind a massive body of work filled with concrete information.
Still, I think even Steiner should eventually be set aside, because even he can lead one down a wrong path through the unnecessary accumulation of facts, mysticism, and mythology.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Look, the term "Christianity" itself isn't some divine revelation; it’s just a label concocted by people and institutions to house their own specific set of dogmas, rituals, and hierarchies. 😉
The whole structure carries about as much divine weight as any other organized group with its own arbitrary rules and ceremonies.

Even the word "God" feels inherently heavy—it carries this subconscious association with fear and punishment 😬 that tricks people into a state of false submission, all while providing endless opportunities for manipulation.

It isn't our place, nor is it within our capacity, to attempt to conceptualize or define divinity. We shouldn't be trying to trap the infinite within human contexts of time and space, or writing about it as if we are the masters of the divine rather than its creation.

Nice one, Neo 👍

Gregory Jackson said:So, I guess, does he have any specific book you'd recommend?

Well, I mean, the idea of us and God within us is definitely a religious element 🙂 Worshipping God is one of the spiritual paths—probably the most important and "widest" one, if you ask me. I suppose you're emphasizing a kind of spirituality that has existed forever, totally independent of organized religion. Like what Meher Baba used to say—"God doesn't belong to any religion; all religions belong to God."

Yeah, I really love those descriptions and images of hers too. You have to keep in mind that those are all spiritual energies (angels are just some of them) that react to requests for healing or even just to the intention of a healer, provided they're as spiritually developed as Barbara. I hope she's still doing okay; she must be getting up there in years. I actually stumbled upon her third major book recently, though I haven't quite gotten around to reading it yet.

Oh wow, thanks so much for sharing that! I totally get that you should probably ask for some support or guidance before diving into anything major, though I’ve only really tried doing that a couple of times myself. I think I might try to 🙂 a bit more often now. You're basically asking them to take over the heavy lifting for you, haha...
Anyway, from what I gather, spiritual energies won't even budge a finger unless a person is already actively working toward a goal; that's when the assistance finally flows in. It's not like they just do everything for us while we sit around; we have to put in our part, at least the small bits that are within our control. Just a little side thought there, but you probably know better than anyone how much they've helped you.

I feel like I should mention that Steiner doesn't really grasp who I'm actually talking to, or really anyone else for that matter. It's just how the universe operates—if I reach out to God and the prayer is sincere, God isn't necessarily going to be the one to jump in immediately because there's this entire spiritual hierarchy beneath Him. Instead, a guardian angel or some other energy or entity that's a better fit for that specific request or need will respond. So, I guess he isn't wrong about how the response happens, but the request definitely went to the right address first. Even though a person could pray directly to a guardian angel, that first method seems a bit better and opens up way more possibilities for getting an answer.

And honestly, I feel like a lot of people who criticize Christianity don't even realize what they're actually criticizing. Sure, you can critique the church, the priests, certain practices, or even the holy books (since they were written by imperfect humans), but at its core, Christianity is a teaching, a roadmap toward God, and a way to find your life's purpose. If someone misses that essence and can't figure out how to direct their own life because they feel the church or the clergy is blocking their view, then they're really just critiquing their own spiritual level.

I guess I’d probably suggest starting off with this one. I guess I might be overthinking this, but I really feel like we should take a moment to consider how much weight we’re putting on these specific arguments. It seems to me that maybe we aren't looking at the full picture when it comes to how these policies actually affect people on the ground, though I could be wrong about that. If you look at what coastalfalcon61 was saying earlier, it feels like there’s a certain logic there, even if it isn't entirely perfect, and I suppose we have to account for that nuance if we want to have a real conversation. I don't mean to sound dismissive, but perhaps we should be a bit more careful about jumping to conclusions before we've weighed all the different sides of the issue.I'll post two entries, and then right underneath those, I'll include what Derek recommended.

There’s still a whole mountain of Steiner's lectures and books out there; I think I have about fifty of them sitting around somewhere, though I can't really say I'd recommend them to anyone. There is definitely some interesting material in there if you dig through it, but for me, I guess it all just feels like an unnecessary burden.
It doesn't really matter, I suppose; if you actually want to read them, I can just post them here.

I feel like I have to say that Steiner doesn't really grasp who I’m actually reaching out to, and honestly, I don't think anyone else quite gets it either. I suppose it's just how the universe operates—if I direct my prayers toward God and that prayer is considered valid or "accepted," God isn't necessarily going to be the one to step in and react immediately. There is this whole spiritual hierarchy in place beneath Him, so it's more likely that a guardian angel or some other kind of energy or entity, something more suited to that specific request or need, will be the one to respond. So, I guess I can't say he's wrong regarding how the prayer actually gets answered, but the initial intention was sent to the right address from the start. Even though a person could choose to pray directly to a guardian angel, I think the first way is probably better because it seems to open up more possibilities for a response.

I’m not really saying that Steiner actually "knows" who you’re talking to, but I suppose it isn't entirely impossible, either. For instance, if there isn't a God like the one you're praying to, and if the way your mind processes prayer works just like anyone else's when they do the same thing, then maybe a person is essentially just talking to themselves and their own convictions.
I guess I personally don't quite wrap my head around the whole concept of prayer. If you’re truly looking to connect with some kind of higher spirit, maybe it would make more sense to focus on your own actions and let your deeds speak for themselves rather than relying on prayer. To me, prayer feels like it might work as a form of quiet contemplation, but I find it hard to believe it can actually serve as a direct line of communication to the divine.

I guess it feels like a lot of people who go around criticizing Christianity don't actually know what they’re even talking about. I mean, sure, you can criticize the Church, or the clergy, or even the Holy Scriptures—since they were written by imperfect human beings—and you can certainly take issue with certain practices or specific traditions, but that’s not really the point. At its core, Christianity is a teaching, a roadmap toward God, and a way to find the ultimate purpose of one's life. If someone can't see that essential truth, or if they fail to figure out how to orient their own life because they feel like the Church or the priests are getting in the way, then maybe they should just look inward and question their own spiritual maturity instead.

I wouldn't exactly say that everyone out there is criticizing things they don't truly understand. I used to be a Christian myself, but I moved past the phase of attacking the Church or the clergy a long time ago. To me, Christianity is really just the teachings of those specific people and that institution; it isn't some entity that exists entirely on its own. I suppose the only part of Christianity worth holding onto is the actual teaching of Jesus, which is where you might find some genuine spiritual components. Even so, I feel like those teachings still lack the depth and breadth required to justify the massive circus that grew out of them and continues to exist today, even if we assume Jesus became Christ.
Since we’re on the subject, I guess I honestly feel like studying someone like Steiner, or maybe even another spiritual teacher, holds more weight for me than trying to study Jesus, especially considering how much of a myth and legend people have built around his potential enlightenment or devotion.

George Wood2 said:A very subtle analysis indeed.
However, this question of yours is quite crucial to me: “would I also discard my current beliefs, knowledge, and practices just as easily, provided there was any merit to them?”
There is nothing to discard, even if you possess all of it, practice it, believe in it, and think through it systematically, logically, or academically. One is simply beyond all of that. Thoughts, feelings, various types of knowledge, and all that nonsense—none of it is the problem.
What about "mind control" or those programmed spiritual instructions and processes? That is a total illusion. Those are merely mental delusions—original sin, if you will, stripped of its religious connotation.

I guess you might be struggling to wrap your head around this because, maybe, you’ve just limited yourself to a very simplified version of spirituality—something basic enough for the mind to digest without having to work too hard.
Honestly, the best thing you could probably do right now is just try to stick to what you keep preaching, or what people call "walking the talk." I truly believe there isn't any better way to learn than that. 😉

Spirituality and the world itself are probably much more complex than your current beliefs allow you to see.

George Wood2 said:An interesting observation, 🤣 indeed; except that I agree with the parts I disagree with, offering a secondary perspective that the aforementioned proud moderator hasn't quite grasped yet. Not yet... Mind you. But he copies and follows 🙂, which is pointless 😁 though admittedly clever. Yet, he truly lacks any sense of tact when he abruptly cuts off a spontaneous dialogue in his own secret. 😬
But all of this, it simply is, It is!

I suppose there’s a reason why I edit certain dialogues. Spirituality is such a vast field, and I don't think it should ever be narrowed down to just one single approach, teaching, or specific goal. To be honest, I sometimes notice a bit of an irritating streak in the way you express yourself and approach things—and please don't take this the wrong way—that feels somewhere between mocking others and acting like you have all the answers from some high horse. I guess I just don't want to risk your style or your perspective killing anyone's desire to join in on a discussion, especially other people here who are interested in spirituality but might be looking at it through different lenses or traditions. I wouldn't want every conversation to turn into a contest of wits or a way to shut people down instead of being constructive and actually building something together.
If someone doesn't understand something, I feel like—well, within this forum environment, since real life is a different story entirely—it’s better to either explain it kindly or just stay quiet... using riddles, asking leading questions meant to highlight how someone else is wrong, or using broken, disjointed sentences that only make sense to the person writing them, isn't really helpful. It just seems to cause more misunderstanding and maybe even a bit of resentment.

Paul Rogers94 said:I wouldn't say they're just copying and following; there's actual consistency there. It's not like a blind chicken stumbling onto a grain of corn every once in a while—there is a logic to what is being said. They don't contradict themselves without reason, which wouldn't be possible without some foundation of true understanding. You can't fake that.

I don't know about quoting, but here are just a few things that meet resistance despite actually being expressions of deeper insight.

That's how the biker puts it; and there are plenty more wise and profound thoughts:

'stilling the mind allows for direct realization and insight'

'what requires the mind isn't spirituality, but rather exactly what needs to be cast aside'

'I've already written somewhere that I have discarded my beliefs several times—once my faith, and a few times the knowledge I identified with. And I would have no problem discarding my current knowledge again...'

🙏

Would you also be able to discard your current beliefs, knowledge, and practices just as easily if there was any truth to them?

And as you clearly know, reasoning is not the path to realization. Isn't that in itself a rare and respectable thing? Or perhaps the act of casting off current knowledge and beliefs is a serious leap toward realization.

Honestly, it gladdens me when someone truly possesses that kind of understanding. 🙂

That sort of genuine insight usually meets massive resistance from those who simply don't get it.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be put to the test.

The difference is that you, quite rightly, have no desire to engage in an utterly senseless debate with an irrational mind—so you come across like some enlightened autistic. Meanwhile, the biker has a neurotic syndrome or maybe just a "professional deformity"—perhaps some vestige of a certain mental control practice where one stays composed while debating every idiot, even though it's a suicide mission.

Long live the trash. 🤣

Free shrink analysis.

Thanks, S. P., for the kind words 🙂

I guess I'm not entirely sure I deserve them, though, since I feel like what you mentioned in those quotes is really just the baseline for spirituality—it seems like something that should probably be pretty obvious to anyone who has even a passing interest in the spiritual side of things.

Feel free to speak your mind, after all, that's why we're all here. 😉

Nicole Carter82 said:I guess you’ve really gone and written quite a bit there...
So now I’m the one at fault just because I didn't catch which way you were heading right away? I guess I might have missed it, maybe, but it feels like I'm getting blamed for something that wasn't exactly clear.🤣
The title was just "how are you all feeling."
I just answered based on how I was feeling at that exact moment, I guess.
It never even crossed my mind that anyone would take what I said and twist it into something else entirely.
That’s actually kind of a problem, I suppose, because whatever it is that triggers that association in you probably says more about who you are than anything else.
I guess this is probably that space where we just share quick thoughts or how we're feeling, rather than me sitting here writing entire long-winded monologues about things like greed or self-denial and all that stuff.
I guess I was just noticing how many times you’ve been tracking my login activity lately.😵
Since you went ahead and started this whole thread assuming that I... I guess I know. For her.😵
I guess I’m just wondering about this whole idea of "protecting" minors—because, honestly, what would they even be doing on a forum like this anyway?
I honestly thought this was meant for adults?!
You’re acting like you’re protecting minors by insisting that I write out the word "cigarettes."🤣
I guess you can go ahead and do whatever you want regarding that spirituality moderation thing; it doesn't really mean much to me, so I'll probably just try to steer clear of it whenever I can.

I guess I ended up rambling a bit because it was pretty obvious that all of this really upset you, so I just wanted to try and explain myself and clear up the misunderstanding between us. Besides, since you started a whole new thread on the Governor's page that so many people are following, I figured I might as well take the opportunity to clarify a few things for everyone else on the Spirituality sub-forum who might drop by after reading your post.

I didn't mean to imply that you were at fault for any of this, I was really just trying to walk through how things ended up in this position. I think I even apologized earlier for misinterpreting things on my end, and if I happened to say anything that came off as offensive, I'm truly sorry about that.
My main issue right now involves a few members on the Forum who act like they own the place, and because of them, I find myself having to step in and moderate threads way more often than I’d actually like to. It's just one of those things where, if I don't go through everything and address every single violation, I guess I run the risk of someone complaining that I'm being selective with my enforcement, so I end up having to police everything just to keep things fair.

If you take a look at the very first post in the "How I'm Feeling" thread, you’ll probably see what I mean—it isn't really about someone venting about their cravings for a cigarette, but more about how they're processing things from a standpoint of spirituality. I guess the temporary decision to give up nicotine during Lent doesn't quite fit under the Spirituality moderation section, because it's essentially just a religious custom, which I think belongs over in the Religion forum instead.

I’ve been keeping an eye on when you log in, just so I can tell if you might have had a chance to see my message, and I guess I just wanted to figure out how we could find some time for you to get back to me so we can hopefully move past this whole circus surrounding nothing. I feel like that approach is probably fair enough and maybe even necessary on my end. If you aren't comfortable with people seeing when you're active on the Forum, though, you should be able to change those settings in your profile options.

I honestly assumed you’d be aware of the "spirituality moderation" thread, especially since you follow that specific Forum and actually posted a message there that we’re basically dissecting right now. That whole discussion has been sitting right there on the first page for about a week now, so I figured it would have been on your radar.

I guess minors on this Forum act just like everyone else—they read through threads and post in the topics that actually catch their interest. I don't really see any reason why the Forum, or even the Spirituality sub-forum specifically, should be restricted only to adults.

I mean, I suppose I could just write out the word "cigarette" if that helps clarify exactly what we're talking about.
I tried to meet you halfway by sending back a post that doesn't really belong in the Spirituality section, just so you wouldn't stay upset with me. But, looking at what you've written here, I get the feeling that doing that probably won't change anything regarding the situation or how you feel about it anyway.

Even though you mentioned that spirituality isn't really a huge priority for you, I guess you should know that you’re always more than welcome to jump into any discussions regarding spirituality whenever you feel like it.

Hi Nicole Carter82,

I guess we should probably just take a step back here. If there’s a misunderstanding, I think it can be resolved pretty easily without everyone getting worked up over nothing.

Just to clarify my side of things... first off, I actually left both of our posts visible in the original thread, How are you feeling, for a little while, mostly because I wanted to give you a chance to respond in case I had totally misread what you meant by "lighting up." I also tried to be careful by adding "assuming this was about vegetables" as a bit of a safeguard. I noticed you’ve logged onto the Forum at least twice since then, and since you didn't reach out to let me know I’d misinterpreted your post, I moved it over to the Waste - unnecessary/inappropriate posts and more section, where it’s still viewable. So, I haven't deleted your post, and I certainly wasn't just tossing it into the "trash"; I was honestly just waiting for a reply that never came.

Secondly, if you missed my response in the original thread because it slipped past you or something, you probably saw that I opened a specific thread called Spirituality Moderation - notices, questions, and suggestions. In the opening post of that thread, I wrote: "Hey everyone, please feel free to post any questions here if there's any confusion regarding moderation, or if you have suggestions or advice regarding this sub-forum."
That thread is basically intended for all sorts of misunderstandings, disagreements, or general questions, and I try to answer everything on the same day. I think it would have been a bit more practical to post your question there so we could have cleared this up immediately.

Thirdly, regarding why I brought it up—within the Spirituality sub-forum, people frequently mention drugs in a positive light quite often. You see people openly talking about using various "substances," or posting images themed around marijuana and things like that. Aside from that (which isn't about you specifically, but rather about what doesn't belong in this sub-forum), there is also a fair amount of vulgarity, like inappropriate language or crude YouTube clips and images. Since I took over moderation duties, I've decided to put an end to those kinds of "bad" habits, because, at the end of the day, we are in the Spirituality section, not hanging out on a street corner outside a 7-Eleven with a beer in hand.
Your post struck me as just another instance of mentioning "weed" in a positive context, which is why I tried to politely ask you not to do that, adding the note "assuming this was about vegetables". I can't really speak to how things are tolerated in other sub-forums, but they won't be tolerated in the one I moderate. I'm not judging what anyone does behind closed doors, but the Forum is visited by minors who shouldn't be given a bad example under the guise of "spirituality." Ultimately, drugs and spirituality don't really have anything to do with each other, regardless of whether we're talking about adults or kids. It might be okay theoretically to discuss how certain substances affect the human state, but not in a way that encourages their use.
Furthermore, moving a post to Waste isn't a sanction, as you suggested. A sanction would be a formal warning or a ban. During my time as moderator, nobody has even received a warning, even though there have been situations where other moderators definitely would have handed them out.

Fourth, since we're going through this point by point—you were posting in the Spirituality sub-forum. It would be nice to try and stick to the core theme of the section. I have no idea if you've renounced smoking in your recovery, so I didn't frame your post in that context. It’s also not entirely clear to me how spirituality relates to wanting to light a cigarette, potential nicotine addiction, or recovery. A lot of threads in Spirituality get cluttered with random stuff, which makes the whole sub-forum messy and hard to read for people who actually want to read about genuine spiritual matters.

To be honest, your reaction to this misunderstanding seems a little exaggerated to me, and it feels more like it's aimed at escalating the "problem" rather than actually fixing it. Regardless, I want to apologize to you for partially misreading your post and if I said anything to offend you. I am perfectly willing to move the post back to its original spot, provided I can edit it to add the word "cigarette" at the end. Still, I’d just ask that you keep the purpose of these types of posts in mind within the Spirituality section, as I'll soon be cleaning up all the threads to remove things that don't belong here. I'll leave only a few threads for things not related to the topic, like the Chat section and things like that.

And honestly, feel free to just reach out to me directly in the "spirituality moderation" thread or through a private message from now on. I’m really not trying to act like some big shot or anything, like you suggested, but I think I'm actually a pretty reasonable person who's easy enough to talk to if we just communicate normally. 😉 I guess I should point out that in my previous post, I actually used the phrase "please" twice without even once resorting to a single swear word, showing any sign of irritation, or acting at all aggressive.

I suppose I’ll just paste the original posts at the end, if that makes things easier to follow. Since some of what you wrote above might be a little hard to parse without the quotation marks or specific citations, I figured this might help clarify exactly what everyone was saying.

Nicole Carter82 said:I guess I’m just really looking forward to getting things fired up again.🙂

coastalfalcon61 said:Hey there, Nicole Carter82,

If I’m understanding this correctly and we’re talking about "vegetables," I guess I should probably ask that you try to avoid posts like this in the future. I really don't want to be a killjoy or judge anyone for what they choose to do on their own time, but since we are on a public Forum, it feels a little awkward having everyone read through stuff like this. It doesn't seem to have much to do with spirituality moderation, either.

I guess I just need you to try and understand where I'm coming from.

frozengull2 said:Maybe it sounds super trivial, but you can actually tell a ton about someone just by looking at their avatar or username. Everything counts—the handle, the profile pic, the signature, where they say they’re from, all of it.
Even if they just picked something on the fly because they couldn't be bothered... you know, just some random, "whatever" choice... it still gives off this vibe of being totally uninterested.

Especially when that person starts really vibing with their profile over time... like they start "customizing" it or refreshing it, tweaking the visuals or the bio to make it feel more *them*.

That whole process of "finessing" an avatar becomes this subtle way of communicating. It’s like sending out signals to everyone else on the forum, expressing how they’re feeling internally or how they’ve changed lately.

It's almost like a call to action or a little challenge, right? Like saying, "Hey, I'm right here, come figure me out."

Wouldn't it be more effective to just click through to someone's profile and maybe scan their last fifty posts, rather than trying to form an opinion based on personal associations with an Avatar, a location, or a signature?

I figured I’d breathe some life back into this thread by sharing some reading material to help everyone get acquainted with Theosophy. Since we're dealing with spiritual literature, I guess my best advice would be to avoid taking everything at face value or accepting every single word as absolute fact. It might be better to just focus on certain core ideas and concepts, and then maybe try to synthesize those with other spiritual teachings and wisdom you encounter along the way.
You can find a whole collection of Theosophical books available for download over at https://www.teozofija.net/knjige/

Frlan - theosophical training and yoga

Frlan - written and unwritten theosophy

Frlan - daily life of aspirant

Frlan - great path return

Leadbeater - visible and invisible man

Leadbeater - ego

Leadbeater - theosophy manual

Leadbeater - power and use of thought

Leadbeater - clairvoyance

Leadbeater - astral

That was really beautifully put 👍

mistybison said:One might consider facing the fleeting nature of existence, the question of meaning, and our inevitable mortality. As long as the mind is preoccupied with practicalities—survival, career milestones, or hitting targets—it stays convinced that happiness is just around the next corner. This allows us to push these existential questions aside temporarily. However, they eventually resurface, making it vital to address them proactively.🙂

Furthermore, regardless of external circumstances, a person cannot escape their own temperament and character. People with melancholic or depressive dispositions, those who are perpetually dissatisfied, or those prone to conflict can achieve everything they desire yet still fail to solve their most significant challenge: themselves and how they perceive reality. Even those who are loved, young, attractive, and successful can fall victim to suicide.

While it is certainly important to pursue goals with concrete intention, life remains complex. Things rarely go according to plan, and many variables are entirely outside of our control. We often assume a specific achievement will provide fulfillment, only to find we were mistaken, while sometimes exactly what we need arrives unexpectedly. Very little in this world is permanent or unchangeable.

I'd say you actually can escape your old self and change your character if you try hard enough, though I guess it’s usually our surroundings and the people closest to us that make that kind of change feel almost impossible.

I don't know, I feel like this whole topic doesn't really fall under the umbrella of spirituality so much as it does psychology. To me, spirituality is more about connecting with the unseen forces surrounding us and letting go of our own ego, especially when it comes to those constant internal drives and personal desires.
At least, that's how I see it, I guess...

Hey there,

I was wondering if it might be possible to change my username from motorizer to motörizer?

It seems like when I was first signing up, I just couldn't get the system to accept that specific spelling with the "umlaut" (ö) over the letter.

Thanks so much, 🙂