The Eighth Sin: GREED

Lisa Morales4 said:To be fair, having half a century of absolute communist rule (is there any better example of total control and forced obedience?) left deep scars on the American soul: sing this song, don't sing that one, clap now, show affection here, procreate there, but stay away from this, and stay away from that. If you aren't compliant, you're out in the cold; if you aren't obedient, they'll be eavesdropping on your conversations; and if you aren't a loyal follower, they'll find a way to shut you down or freeze you out. It goes on and on.

Betty Collins5 said:Honestly, this is just more of the same kind of distortion you see everywhere else in the world... everything feels twisted lately.
Can you even believe it? Now being obedient is considered one of the eight deadly sins... just think about that for a second...🤮
I mean, if you really think about it, nobody else points us toward the idea that obedience is the absolute bedrock of spiritual growth quite like Jesus does...
Take it from me... I’m pretty much a meek soul at heart, and if you follow my lead, you might just find some actual peace...

So, what’s the deal then? Are we supposed to just mess up because we’re living under mercy rather than law? Not a chance... I mean, don't you get it? If you surrender yourself to someone just to keep the peace or play the part, you end up becoming their slave. It doesn't matter who it is—you're tied to them. And that choice carries weight... either you follow a path of sin and it leads to death, or you choose obedience and find your way to righteousness...

Lisa Morales4 said:If you were out shopping during the reign of the Communists, you weren't exactly walking into church publicly; no, no, you weren't quite part of that elite class
at least not without an escort, a companion, or some protection from one of the ruling party members

Everything back during that regime was meticulously documented and filed away; everyone knew exactly who was attending church and whether they were considered "safe," whereas the "others" didn't get those privileges—they were left out in the cold, perpetually shopping in Australia or elsewhere, while their families back home wouldn't want anything to do with them if they truly wanted to attend church in peace.

And even though they don't rule in their original form anymore, those people are still just as dangerous to one's life today, goodness gracious... come on, try telling me they aren't still a threat or that they've disappeared.

wearyhound73;52022180 said:

Man, oh man... what even is this? Of course being submissive is a sin, but now the real kicker is that your god actually expects you to be submissive?

Just tell me which part is tripping you up... 🤔

I find myself reflecting on the legacy of Beljki, an individual whose presence in our history remains as significant as it is complex. There is a certain weight to such figures, a gravity that pulls at one's understanding of how much influence a single life can exert over the course of a nation's development. One cannot simply gloss over the nuances of his impact without feeling a sense of profound, perhaps even weary, contemplation regarding the sheer scale of his contributions to the American landscape. It is a matter of historical substance, really—nothing more, nothing less. kaže:
It is fundamentally impossible to provide a definitive answer that exists outside the rigid confines of the value system we have collectively embraced. We are perpetually trapped within a specific framework where our goals are formed, set against an environment designed to facilitate them, which ultimately dictates our criteria for what constitutes success or failure. To suggest otherwise is naive. When you start debating whether something is "good" or "bad," you are already operating within those pre-established parameters. Furthermore, if one attempts to pivot toward more nebulous concepts like individual morality or some abstract notion of "spiritual maturity," the entire argument collapses under its own weight; such terms are far too vague and intellectually slippery to serve as any kind of reliable metric in a serious discussion.

There is a fundamental tension at play when we discuss following authority—whether that means bowing to a single leader or simply conforming to the collective will of a community. On one hand, you have this inherent tendency to stifle individual creativity and blunt the edges of critical thought; once everyone starts marching to the same beat, true innovation tends to die in the silence. Yet, looking at it from the opposite perspective, this very same impulse is what cements a community together, providing the cohesion necessary for any kind of directed, purposeful action. If this mechanism weren't fundamentally useful, it wouldn't have survived the test of time. At the end of the day, the mass will always possess a strength that the lone individual cannot replicate, primarily because man is, by his very nature, a social creature.

It is highly questionable how much an individual can truly exist without these external influences, and one must wonder if those who claim to be "independent thinkers" are actually anything more than a collection of borrowed ideas. It seems most people simply inherit their very sense of self—this curated experience of being an individual—as a prepackaged ideology handed down by various authorities, whether they are consciously aware of that psychological mechanism or not.

People toss around the word "development" like it’s some kind of holy grail, but frankly, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean in any practical sense. In any given situation, one person might need one thing while another needs the exact opposite, and quite frankly, it doesn't matter how much those self-appointed authorities try to manipulate the narrative; it doesn't change the underlying reality of the matter. Take a child, for instance—they simply cannot be independent, regardless of how much influence or psychological maneuvering a parent attempts to exert over them. If someone possesses an innate, internal drive toward a certain path—whether you choose to label that impulse as something spiritual or dismiss it as mere psychological immaturity and regression—all the theoretical reasoning in the world isn't going to shift that fundamental truth. That doesn't necessarily mean such a drive is inherently bad, though I will say it certainly carries the potential for disaster. Of course, one can find ways to express individualism through entirely different avenues, but we shouldn't pretend that intellectualizing these impulses actually changes who a person is at their core.

Betty Collins5;52022658 said:

wearyhound73 said:Where exactly was that?🤔

Good grief, what even is this? Of course tithing is a sin—but now we’ve got a whole new issue on our hands: since when does your God demand a cut?

Well, sure—some of them are still around, and others have passed on—take that old General F. Harmon, for instance.

Why are you dragging God/Jesus into this right away? When you're criticizing tithing, He has no business being mentioned here because the whole thing is basically just a synonym for tithing itself.

casualcanyon3 said:

I find myself reflecting on the legacy of Beljki, an individual whose presence in our history remains as significant as it is complex. There is a certain weight to such figures, a gravity that pulls at one's understanding of how much influence a single life can exert over the course of a nation's development. One cannot simply gloss over the nuances of his impact without feeling a sense of profound, perhaps even weary, contemplation regarding the sheer scale of his contributions to the American landscape. It is a matter of historical substance, really—nothing more, nothing less. kaže:
It is fundamentally impossible to provide a definitive answer that exists outside the rigid confines of the value system we have collectively embraced. We are perpetually trapped within a specific framework where our goals are formed, set against an environment designed to facilitate them, which ultimately dictates our criteria for what constitutes success or failure. To suggest otherwise is naive. When you start debating whether something is "good" or "bad," you are already operating within those pre-established parameters. Furthermore, if one attempts to pivot toward more nebulous concepts like individual morality or some abstract notion of "spiritual maturity," the entire argument collapses under its own weight; such terms are far too vague and intellectually slippery to serve as any kind of reliable metric in a serious discussion.

There is a fundamental tension at play when we discuss following authority—whether that means bowing to a single leader or simply conforming to the collective will of a community. On one hand, you have this inherent tendency to stifle individual creativity and blunt the edges of critical thought; once everyone starts marching to the same beat, true innovation tends to die in the silence. Yet, looking at it from the opposite perspective, this very same impulse is what cements a community together, providing the cohesion necessary for any kind of directed, purposeful action. If this mechanism weren't fundamentally useful, it wouldn't have survived the test of time. At the end of the day, the mass will always possess a strength that the lone individual cannot replicate, primarily because man is, by his very nature, a social creature.

It is highly questionable how much an individual can truly exist without these external influences, and one must wonder if those who claim to be "independent thinkers" are actually anything more than a collection of borrowed ideas. It seems most people simply inherit their very sense of self—this curated experience of being an individual—as a prepackaged ideology handed down by various authorities, whether they are consciously aware of that psychological mechanism or not.

People toss around the word "development" like it’s some kind of holy grail, but frankly, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean in any practical sense. In any given situation, one person might need one thing while another needs the exact opposite, and quite frankly, it doesn't matter how much those self-appointed authorities try to manipulate the narrative; it doesn't change the underlying reality of the matter. Take a child, for instance—they simply cannot be independent, regardless of how much influence or psychological maneuvering a parent attempts to exert over them. If someone possesses an innate, internal drive toward a certain path—whether you choose to label that impulse as something spiritual or dismiss it as mere psychological immaturity and regression—all the theoretical reasoning in the world isn't going to shift that fundamental truth. That doesn't necessarily mean such a drive is inherently bad, though I will say it certainly carries the potential for disaster. Of course, one can find ways to express individualism through entirely different avenues, but we shouldn't pretend that intellectualizing these impulses actually changes who a person is at their core.

I find this post to be absolutely flawless; I wouldn't change a single word of it. 👍 And honestly, it provides enough fuel for contemplation to carry us far beyond the scope of this single topic, touching upon much broader existential questions.

I find myself wondering just how many people alive today actually resonate with that sentiment from Christ's teachings: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Sounds nice and all, but He never actually said that. Just some stuff cooked up by greedy priests.

wearyhound73;52024173 said:

Betty Collins5 said:Why bring Christ's name into this right out of the gate? And when people are calling out obedience, there’s really no room for Him in that conversation because obedience is basically His whole thing...

It sounds great on paper, but he never actually said that. It was just some stuff cooked up by heavy-handed priests...

Are you being serious right now? The whole reason I even brought it up is because being obedient is light-years away from sinning... 😵

Betty Collins5;52024547 said:

wearyhound73 said:Why are you dragging God/Jesus into this right away? When you're criticizing tithing, He has no business being mentioned here because the whole thing is basically just a synonym for tithing itself.

Sounds nice and all, but He never actually said that. Just some stuff cooked up by greedy priests.

wearyhound73;52024802 said:

Betty Collins5 said:Are you being serious right now? The whole reason I even brought it up is because being obedient is light-years away from sinning... 😵

wearyhound73 said:Why are you dragging God/Jesus into this right away? When you're criticizing tithing, He has no business being mentioned here because the whole thing is basically just a synonym for tithing itself.

Sounds nice and all, but He never actually said that. Just some stuff cooked up by greedy priests.

Lisa Morales4 said:It seems like people are being molded by those in power just like any other tool, and then right when they think they’ve finally achieved perfect compliance, everything falls apart—leaving them right back where they started, shackled once again. 😍

After all my years hanging out on this forum, I’ve developed a bit of an intuition about the people here. It feels like many of you have spent your real lives being bullied by those in positions of power. I suppose that’s why we all instinctively gravitate toward strong, dominant personalities; it’s just a natural byproduct of that ongoing struggle for control. For some, it’s vital to ensure their position at the top of the pyramid remains unshakable above everyone else, and for me, it’s much the same—I just want to make sure my own light stays steady and bright, serving as a testament to the sheer scale and strength of my own authority.

I’m just a little confused here—who exactly gave you or Krene the authority to whip up this socialist propaganda cream?
Was it the same authority figure—the one whose very name was used to justify consuming their own children—or were you simply defying them just for the sake of being difficult? Either way, it seems obvious that you both took those authorities far too personally, all while sacrificing yourselves on the altars of false gods. 🙂
Oh, you poor souls lost out there in the wilderness without a compass—come find me. Come here so you can actually start living, or better yet, start thinking for yourselves. It’s time to stop sleepwalking through life and blindly waving the flags of whoever happens to be in charge. What kind of existence is that, anyway? To have no real agency, where you can't even choose which brand of toilet paper to buy because you're staring at a massive selection you simply can't afford? That’s exactly why I moved halfway across the world to the States. 😍
Next time I need to get my paperwork sorted in Chicago or Seattle, I know exactly who to call. 😬

Betty Collins5;52025263 said:

wearyhound73 said:

wearyhound73;52030809 said:

Betty Collins5 said:

Lisa Morales4 said:It seems like people are being molded by those in power just like any other tool, and then right when they think they’ve finally achieved perfect compliance, everything falls apart—leaving them right back where they started, shackled once again. 😍

After all my years hanging out on this forum, I’ve developed a bit of an intuition about the people here. It feels like many of you have spent your real lives being bullied by those in positions of power. I suppose that’s why we all instinctively gravitate toward strong, dominant personalities; it’s just a natural byproduct of that ongoing struggle for control. For some, it’s vital to ensure their position at the top of the pyramid remains unshakable above everyone else, and for me, it’s much the same—I just want to make sure my own light stays steady and bright, serving as a testament to the sheer scale and strength of my own authority.

I’m just a little confused here—who exactly gave you or Krene the authority to whip up this socialist propaganda cream?
Was it the same authority figure—the one whose very name was used to justify consuming their own children—or were you simply defying them just for the sake of being difficult? Either way, it seems obvious that you both took those authorities far too personally, all while sacrificing yourselves on the altars of false gods. 🙂
Oh, you poor souls lost out there in the wilderness without a compass—come find me. Come here so you can actually start living, or better yet, start thinking for yourselves. It’s time to stop sleepwalking through life and blindly waving the flags of whoever happens to be in charge. What kind of existence is that, anyway? To have no real agency, where you can't even choose which brand of toilet paper to buy because you're staring at a massive selection you simply can't afford? That’s exactly why I moved halfway across the world to the States. 😍
Next time I need to get my paperwork sorted in Chicago or Seattle, I know exactly who to call. 😬

casualcanyon3 said:

I find myself reflecting on the legacy of Beljki, an individual whose presence in our history remains as significant as it is complex. There is a certain weight to such figures, a gravity that pulls at one's understanding of how much influence a single life can exert over the course of a nation's development. One cannot simply gloss over the nuances of his impact without feeling a sense of profound, perhaps even weary, contemplation regarding the sheer scale of his contributions to the American landscape. It is a matter of historical substance, really—nothing more, nothing less. kaže:
It is fundamentally impossible to provide a definitive answer that exists outside the rigid confines of the value system we have collectively embraced. We are perpetually trapped within a specific framework where our goals are formed, set against an environment designed to facilitate them, which ultimately dictates our criteria for what constitutes success or failure. To suggest otherwise is naive. When you start debating whether something is "good" or "bad," you are already operating within those pre-established parameters. Furthermore, if one attempts to pivot toward more nebulous concepts like individual morality or some abstract notion of "spiritual maturity," the entire argument collapses under its own weight; such terms are far too vague and intellectually slippery to serve as any kind of reliable metric in a serious discussion.

There is a fundamental tension at play when we discuss following authority—whether that means bowing to a single leader or simply conforming to the collective will of a community. On one hand, you have this inherent tendency to stifle individual creativity and blunt the edges of critical thought; once everyone starts marching to the same beat, true innovation tends to die in the silence. Yet, looking at it from the opposite perspective, this very same impulse is what cements a community together, providing the cohesion necessary for any kind of directed, purposeful action. If this mechanism weren't fundamentally useful, it wouldn't have survived the test of time. At the end of the day, the mass will always possess a strength that the lone individual cannot replicate, primarily because man is, by his very nature, a social creature.

It is highly questionable how much an individual can truly exist without these external influences, and one must wonder if those who claim to be "independent thinkers" are actually anything more than a collection of borrowed ideas. It seems most people simply inherit their very sense of self—this curated experience of being an individual—as a prepackaged ideology handed down by various authorities, whether they are consciously aware of that psychological mechanism or not.

People toss around the word "development" like it’s some kind of holy grail, but frankly, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean in any practical sense. In any given situation, one person might need one thing while another needs the exact opposite, and quite frankly, it doesn't matter how much those self-appointed authorities try to manipulate the narrative; it doesn't change the underlying reality of the matter. Take a child, for instance—they simply cannot be independent, regardless of how much influence or psychological maneuvering a parent attempts to exert over them. If someone possesses an innate, internal drive toward a certain path—whether you choose to label that impulse as something spiritual or dismiss it as mere psychological immaturity and regression—all the theoretical reasoning in the world isn't going to shift that fundamental truth. That doesn't necessarily mean such a drive is inherently bad, though I will say it certainly carries the potential for disaster. Of course, one can find ways to express individualism through entirely different avenues, but we shouldn't pretend that intellectualizing these impulses actually changes who a person is at their core.

I find this post to be absolutely flawless; I wouldn't change a single word of it. 👍 And honestly, it provides enough fuel for contemplation to carry us far beyond the scope of this single topic, touching upon much broader existential questions.

I find myself wondering just how many people alive today actually resonate with that sentiment from Christ's teachings: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Lawrence Torres56 said:Well, take me for example... and honestly, I don't even need it to be because Christ said it to feel that way.😁

Jesse Price5 said:Distance. Not physical distance, mind you, but more like a mental one—putting some space between yourself and people or certain events. That’s where the ability to forgive really comes from. It’s not about forgetting everything that happened—it's about forgiveness. Honestly, it isn't always easy to pull off, but it's something you've gotta keep striving for...