Hello people! I'm not sure if this is allowed here but I'm currently looking for a unique example of influential person in the Philippines (politicians, vloggers, etc. as long as they have influence) that have used the Fallacies of:
Equivocation
Amphiboly
Accent
Slanting
Slogan
Hyperbole
"Straw Man"
Need sources too! I appreciate for any help!
(posted for friend, time sensitive)

Week 11-12: Epic Journeys and Blank Verse
Day 1: Exploring Epic Storytelling - Activity: Analyze an excerpt from a classic epic poem. - Lecture: Discuss the characteristics and narrative structure of epic poetry. - Discussion: Share thoughts on the enduring appeal of epic journeys.
Day 2: Crafting Epic Narratives - Activity: Break down the process of crafting an epic poem. - Lecture: Explore the use of elevated language and heroic themes. - Discussion: Share and discuss individual ideas for epic narratives.
Day 3: Mastering the Art of Blank Verse - Activity: Analyze a famous work written in blank verse. - Lecture: Explain the structure and rhythmic qualities of blank verse. - Discussion: Discuss the freedom and constraints of writing in blank verse.
Day 4: Writing Exercise - Epic Journey Poem - Activity: Craft a poem exploring an epic journey or heroic theme. - Assignment: Write a blank verse poem on a chosen topic. - Vocabulary Words: Epic, Heroic, Blank Verse.
Day 5: Peer Review and Feedback - Activity: Peer review workshop for epic poems and blank verse. - Lecture: Discuss the enduring appeal of epic storytelling and the rhythmic qualities of blank verse. - Discussion: Share insights gained from reviewing peers' work.
Study Guide Questions for Week 11-12: 1. Discuss the characteristics and narrative structure of epic poetry. What makes a journey "epic"? 2. Explore the use of elevated language and heroic themes in crafting epic narratives. 3. What defines blank verse, and how does its rhythmic quality contribute to the overall impact? 4. Discuss the freedom and constraints of writing in blank verse. 5. Reflect on the process of crafting an epic poem and a blank verse poem. How did you approach the themes and rhythmic qualities?
Quiz: Assessment on the understanding of epic poetry, the characteristics of epic journeys, and the rhythmic qualities of blank verse.

Week 3: Limericks and the Art of Humor
Day 1: Decoding Limericks - Activity: Analyze classic limericks for rhythm and humor. - Lecture: Discuss the AABBA rhyme scheme and distinctive rhythm. - Discussion: Share favorite humorous poems and discuss elements that make them funny.
Day 2: Crafting Limericks with Wit - Activity: Write limericks individually, focusing on humor and rhythm. - Lecture: Explore the balance of humor and structure in limericks. - Discussion: Share and discuss individual limericks, highlighting successful elements.
Day 3: Understanding Free Verse - Activity: Analyze free verse poems for structure and expression. - Lecture: Introduce the concept of free verse and its flexibility. - Discussion: Discuss the liberation and challenges of writing without a strict structure.
Day 4: Writing Exercise - Expressing Emotions in Free Verse - Activity: Explore emotions and write a free verse poem. - Assignment: Craft a free verse poem exploring a personal experience or emotion. - Vocabulary Words: Enjambment, Cadence, Anapest.
Day 5: Peer Review and Feedback - Activity: Peer review workshop for free verse poems. - Lecture: Discuss the artistic freedom and impact of free verse. - Discussion: Share insights gained from reviewing peers' free verse poems.
Study Guide Questions for Week 3: 1. What defines a limerick, and how does its rhythm contribute to its humor? 2. Discuss the importance of the AABBA rhyme scheme in limericks. 3. How does free verse differ from structured forms of poetry? 4. Explore the challenges and benefits of writing without a strict form in free verse. 5. Reflect on the emotions and experiences expressed in your free verse poem.
Quiz: Assessment on limericks, the AABBA rhyme scheme, and the principles of free verse.
Week 4: Free Verse and Acrostic Poetry
Day 1: Embracing Free Verse - Activity: Analyze diverse free verse poems for individual expression. - Lecture: Discuss famous free verse poets and their impact on the genre. - Discussion: Share personal reactions to the artistic freedom of free verse.
Day 2: Crafting Emotion in Free Verse - Activity: Write a free verse poem expressing a specific emotion. - Lecture: Explore the role of emotions in free verse and the use of vivid imagery. - Discussion: Share and discuss individual poems, highlighting emotional impact.
Day 3: Understanding Acrostic Poetry - Activity: Analyze acrostic poems for clever wordplay. - Lecture: Explain the concept of acrostic poetry and its various forms. - Discussion: Share examples of creative acrostic poems.
Day 4: Writing Exercise - Personal Acrostic - Activity: Craft an acrostic poem using your name or a chosen word. - Assignment: Write an acrostic poem exploring a theme or concept. - Vocabulary Words: Strophe, Stanza, Consonance.
Day 5: Peer Review and Feedback - Activity: Peer review workshop for acrostic poems. - Lecture: Discuss the playfulness and creativity of acrostic poetry. - Discussion: Share insights gained from reviewing peers' acrostic poems.
Study Guide Questions for Week 4: 1. Explore the role of emotions in free verse poetry. How does it differ from structured forms? 2. Discuss the impact of vivid imagery in free verse. How does it contribute to the overall message? 3. What defines acrostic poetry, and how is it different from other forms? 4. How can clever wordplay enhance the impact of an acrostic poem? 5. Reflect on the creative process and thematic exploration in your acrostic poem.
Quiz: Assessment on understanding free verse, emotional expression in poetry, and the principles of acrostic poetry.

1. Parallelismus Membrorum:

- *Definition:* A rhetorical device where phrases or sentences are structured in parallel form. - *Example:* Create a poem using parallelismus membrorum to emphasize a profound truth or observation. 

1. Rubaiyat:

- *Definition:* A form of Persian poetry with quatrains and a specific rhyme scheme. - *Example:* Write a rubaiyat exploring the themes of love, mortality, or philosophical reflections. 

1. Blues Poem:

- *Definition:* Poetry inspired by the musical and emotional elements of blues music. - *Example:* Craft a blues poem expressing the struggles and resilience of everyday life. 

1. Erasure Poetry:

- *Definition:* Creating poetry by erasing or blacking out existing text, leaving only selected words visible. - *Example:* Create an erasure poem using a page from a newspaper or a novel, transforming it into a new narrative. 

1. Anaphora:

- *Definition:* A rhetorical device involving the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses. - *Example:* Write a poem using anaphora to convey a sense of urgency or reflection. 

1. Tetractys:

- *Definition:* A five-line poem with a specific syllable count (1, 2, 3, 4, 10). - *Example:* Craft a tetractys exploring the stages of personal growth or a transformative experience. 

1. Sijo:

- *Definition:* A traditional Korean poetic form with three lines, each with fourteen to sixteen syllables. - *Example:* Write a sijo capturing a moment of beauty or introspection. 

1. Blitz Poem:

- *Definition:* A form of poetry with a rapid, stream-of-consciousness style and repetition. - *Example:* Create a blitz poem exploring the chaos and beauty of urban life. 

1. Epitaph:

- *Definition:* A short inscription on a tombstone or a commemorative poem for the deceased. - *Example:* Write an epitaph honoring a fictional or historical figure with a poignant message. 

1. Prothalamion:

- *Definition:* A poem celebrating a forthcoming marriage or wedding. - *Example:* Craft a prothalamion capturing the anticipation and joy surrounding a wedding day. 

A sonnet is a 14-line poem with a specific rhyme scheme and meter. The two most common types of sonnets are the Shakespearean (or English) sonnet and the Petrarchan (or Italian) sonnet.

1. Shakespearean Sonnet (or English Sonnet):
   
   • Consists of three quatrains (four-line stanzas) followed by a rhymed couplet (two-line stanza).
   • Rhyme scheme: ABABCDCDEFEFGG.
   • Typically written in iambic pentameter (ten syllables per line with emphasis on every second syllable).
2. Petrarchan Sonnet (or Italian Sonnet):
   
   • Comprises an octave (eight-line stanza) followed by a sestet (six-line stanza).
   • Rhyme scheme for the octave: ABBAABBAA.
   • Rhyme scheme for the sestet: Various patterns, such as CDCDCD or CDECDE.
   • Often written in iambic pentameter.

Sonnets are known for their structured and intricate form, and they are commonly used to express themes of love, beauty, nature, and the complexities of human emotions. Notable poets who wrote sonnets include William Shakespeare, Petrarch, and Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
Upon the street, where bustling crowds align (A) A newspaper salesman, sturdy stand (B) His papers rustling in the breezy grand (A) In ink-stained hands, his stories intertwine (B)
With every headline, tales unfold, unfold (C) Of distant lands and local joys and strife (D) His voice, a herald in the urban life (C) Echoing narratives, both young and old (D)
Through ink and paper, stories find their flight (E) He's not just selling news, but dreams untold (F) Each page a canvas, vivid tales in sight (E)
In city hum, where stories often fold (F) He stands, a keeper of the printed lore (G) A newsman's heart, with every paper, more (G)

https://reddit.com/link/1cx458m/video/tyvfowea5r1d1/player
I have recently made a AI based youtube shorts channel for kids. It's doing great so far. Tbh this is the first time I got some youtube success. Kids' channels are growing the fastest on YouTube. Channels like Cocomelon get more views than Mr. Beast. This is the first video I made for this channel. Everything from script to audio and video is done with AI. Here are the steps I followed
First go to ChatGPT. Now that 4o is free for everyone we have better outputs. We use ChatGPT to generate rhymes or songs. 4o is great at it. The prompt:
Can you create 10 children's rhymes of 4 paragraphs each that are educational and entertaining? Please include a variety of topics such as animals, space, fairy tales, everyday heroes like firefighters and doctors, seasons, and important life skills like sharing and kindness. Each rhyme should be catchy, easy to understand for young children, and incorporate fun facts or moral lessons where applicable. Feel free to introduce imaginative characters and vibrant settings to make the rhymes more engaging.
You have 10 poems now. Go to Suno .com and create an account, you can use google. Now from the create page, select “Custom Mode”. Copy paste one the the lyrics/rhymes. For style of music I used, “children rhymes song”. Give a title and click on “Create”. The results are surprisingly good! Download the audio.
On to the last step. Go to adobe express. From dashboard go to animate from audio or just search on google, “adobe animate from audio”. Select a character and background. Upload the sound file. Wait till the video is generated. You have your rhymes video ready. This takes like 5-10 minutes only for the whole process.
I hope you guys found this post helpful. I run an AI tools directory called seekme.ai. I’ve listed over 13k AI tools. This post is an edited version of my recent newsletter post. Consider subscribing to my newsletter to get more of these tutorials and use cases of AIs. Subscribe here

I am not even talking about scriptural problems within the bible, You don't have to open a single bible to start seeing the problems,
1-) The Problem of Salvation and Faith (Why the plan of salvation is ridiculous, and has failed)
I.The ridiculousness of the plan
A. Demanding blood for remission of sins Heb 9:22 - Why is this the terms that god insists upon? Isn't he the architect of the parameters regarding sin, punishment, and forgiveness? Is he not able to forgive sin without blood sacrifice? Can he not say, “No blood sacrifice necessary, I just forgive you?”
B. God sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself by creating a loophole in the architecture for condemnation he engineered in the first place? This is your solution for a problem in which you yourself are the problem. It’s like a doctor stabbing people to be able to operate and save them.
C. Dying for someone else's crime does not equal justice in any court.
D. The sacrifice was not a sacrifice at all :

1. Jesus is said to be eternal
2. He spent a few days in misery out of his billions of years plus of existence
3. He spent a minutiae of a fraction of his existence suffering knowing he would be resurrected after the ordeal and spend eternity in divine luxury, and that somehow provides him justification to sentence us to trillions of years of eternity suffering without end?
4. Jesus is a supernatural immortal who suffered temporary mortal punishment and then sentences mortals to supernatural eternal punishment if they do not receive his sacrifice.
5. Why is three days of punishment followed by eternity in glory sufficient for all the horrible deeds any man has ever committed, but billions of years suffered in hell by a good moral person who does not believe due to lack of evidence is not sufficient?

2-) Nature of The Christian god
I. He is supposed to be an all Powerful and All mighty being and yet he died on a cross by his own creation (If you see someone claiming to be god and then you saw him hie before your very eyes, How on earth are you supposed to conclude anything else other than "This guy is a liar"?)
Modern Christians would respond to this saying "Only the Human part died, The Divine part wasn't affected"
Which again, doesn't make any sense :
A. Even when assuming a human sacrifice is somehow necessary for salvation, The sacrifice of 1 Human being can never be Enough to atone for the sins of all of mankind since Adam and Eve till the return of jesus.
I found a Coptic pope explaining this issue in detail, Here is a link to his book, https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/propitiation-and-redemption.html
Quoting from it : "The belief in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and fundamental for redemption. Redemption requires unlimited propitiation sufficient for the forgiveness of the unlimited sins of all the people through all ages. There was no solution other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to offer this through His Divine Power.
Thus, if we mention two natures and say that the human nature alone performed the act of redemption, it would have been entirely impossible to achieve unlimited propitiation for man's salvation. Hence comes the danger of speaking of two natures, each having its own specific tasks. In such case, the death of the human nature alone is insufficient."
It's very clear that saying only the human part died doesn't make any sense, Even according to the Christian theology itself.
B. The Trinity is based on a false idea
I know, It's a classic Argument against Christianity but you can't deny that it's an actual damning argument against the Christian theology.

1. God is all knowing but Jesus wasn't all knowing (mark 13:32)
2. Jesus is supposed to be god, but he is praying to himself to save himself with cries and tears?? (Luke 22:41-44)
3. Jesus is god but we can't say he is good because only god is good?? (Luke 18:18-19)
4. God can't be tempted by evil (James 1:13) but yet jesus was tempted by satan?? (Matthew 4:1)
5. Jesus is god but he can't do a thing on his own?? (John 5:31) 6.Jesus is supposed to be the same as the father, But their teachings are different? (John 7:16)

And so many more, Throught the bible i can't help but notice the intense number of verses which clearly states Jesus can't be god.
3-) The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don’t know the actual historical Jesus)
I. No contemporary historical evidence,
A. No historian alive during Jesus day wrote about Jesus despite ample opportunity

1. The kings coming to his birth
2. Herod’s slaughter of baby boys
3. The overthrowing of money changers
4. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem where he is declared king by the whole town.
5. Darkness covering the whole earth for hours on Jesus’ Death
6. The earthquakes at Jesus’ death
7. The rending of the temple veil at Jesus’ Death
8. The resurrection of Jesus that was seen by 500 witnesses.(Only Paul claims that, even tho he never met jesus)

II. The Gospels are contradicting, late hearsay accounts
A. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least after 70 A.D. (referencing fall of temple) by a non-eyewitness, and makes numerous cultural and geographical errors that a Jewish writer would not have made such as locations of rivers, cultural customs regarding divorce, locations of towns or Jesus quoting from the greek Septuagint etc. (see geographical and historical errors in this link, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/Bible%20Problems%20by%20Packham%201998.htm#ERRORS )
B. The other gospels all copied from Mark. Luke and Matthew contain over 70% of Mark and mainly make changes in attempts to fix blatant errors made in Mark and to correct Mark’s poor grammar.The writer of Luke even reveals to us in Luke 1:2 that he was not an eyewitness, but that the story has been passed down to him.
C. Four where chosen by the church father Iraeneus because he believed the earth was founded on four pillars and so too, should the gospels be founded by only four accounts.
Iraenus also revealed the names of the Gospels in the late second century, without any reason to assume they where the authentic authors - no one knows who actually wrote them!
D. John was initially considered heretical by the early church because of its variation from the synoptic but was overwhelmingly popular amongst Christians and so was included.
E. The book of Revelations was also considered heretical by many :
For centuries The Revelation was a rejected book. In the 4th century, St.John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against it. Christians in Syria also reject it. The Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, rejected The Revelation. In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianus produced a canon omitting The Revelation. Bishop Amphilocus of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus written some time after 394, rejects The Revelation. When St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books: among them The Revelation. The Church in the East never included the Revelation.
4-) The early church did not seem to know anything about a historical Jesus. Huge amounts of disagreement over Jesus in the first hundred years :

1. Some churches didn’t even believe he had a physical body, prompting Paul to write about that very issue.
   
2. There was an enormous debate between all the major early churches as to whether Jesus was divine or not, this was settled at the council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
   

5-) Which Bible?
A. Over 450 English versions of the bible All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
B. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain.
C. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.
Take a look at this example, 1- Revised standard version 2- Revised standard version Catholic edition 3- NEW revised standard version Updated edition 4- NEW revised standard version Catholic edition 5- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised 6- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised Catholic edition
How many attempts would it take to finally get it right ?!
6-) The Morality of the bible
I don't like using Morality as an argument because i believe it's a subjective thing, But I cannot help but notice how the morals of the OT and the NT are completely contradictory
In the OT god was Angry, Vengeful, Demands war, order genocides, Ordered the killing of children and even the ripping open of pregnant women.
But in the NT he somehow became loving, a father figure, saying if anyone hits you you shouldn't even respond back.

• In Conclusion: I don't think Christianity can be accepted as the truth by any logical person (Even most convert stories i heard were basically "I saw jesus in a dream" or "The holy spirit held my hand")

There is so many Theological confusion, A salvation idea that makes 0 sense, Lack of any form of historical critirea of knowing what is true manuscripts and what is hearsays (The authors of the gospels are all Anynomous),
There is even disagreement within Christianity itself about what stories go into the bible (Many stories have been found out to be false like John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:18)
https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/
The lack of consistency on literally everything makes it one of the least convincing religion in my opinion.

In these tales, the Kraken is depicted as a colossal sea monster that dwells in the depths of the ocean. It is often described as a creature of immense size, capable of causing massive destruction. According to legends, the Kraken would rise from the depths, its tentacles reaching towards the surface, creating powerful whirlpools and turbulent waters that could swallow entire ships. Over time, the Kraken's presence has extended beyond mythology, permeating popular culture. It has been immortalized in various literary works, art pieces, and films, solidifying its status as an iconic symbol of the sea's mysteries. Poet Alfred Tennyson, in his poem "The Kraken," describes the creature as a "giant form" that sleeps at the bottom of the ocean, waiting to be awakened. Jules Verne's novel "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" features a memorable encounter with a colossal squid, which is often associated with the Kraken. The Kraken has also made appearances in films such as "Clash of the Titans" and the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise, further cementing its position in popular culture.
Accounts vary regarding the exact size of the Kraken, but they consistently describe it as a creature of immense proportions. Some ancient texts suggest that the Kraken's size is so colossal that it can easily engulf entire ships. Eyewitness testimonies often refer to its multiple long and powerful tentacles, equipped with suckers capable of gripping and pulling down even the sturdiest vessels. The Kraken is said to possess massive eyes that can strike fear into the hearts of those who dare to look into them, as well as a beak-like mouth that can deliver a deadly bite. According to legends, the Kraken is a formidable hunter with a voracious appetite. It is believed to feed on large sea creatures such as whales, seals, and even other giant squids. The Kraken employs various strategies to capture its prey, utilizing its immense strength and agility. Some accounts suggest that it has the ability to drag entire ships underwater, using its powerful tentacles to ensnare and submerge its victims. The sheer size and force of the Kraken's attacks make it a fearsome predator of the deep. In recent years, scientific explanations have been proposed to account for the Kraken myth. One prevailing theory suggests that encounters with giant squids may have fueled the legends of the Kraken. Giant squids are colossal cephalopods that can reach lengths of up to 43 feet (13 meters) and possess long, powerful tentacles with suckers. The similarities in appearance and behavior between the Kraken and giant squids have led some researchers to speculate that the myth of the Kraken may have originated from real-life encounters with these deep-sea creatures.
Another perspective suggests that certain natural phenomena and optical illusions may have contributed to the belief in the Kraken. Whirlpools, water spouts, and floating debris can create visually striking scenes that may be misinterpreted as evidence of a giant sea monster. Additionally, storytelling traditions and exaggeration may have played a role in embellishing eyewitness accounts, further perpetuating the myth of the Kraken.

The Scriptures seem to imply that the kingdom of God isn't exactly synonymous with what is called "the Church." The Church was a temporary eschatological community of believers that existed on earth in preparation of a kingdom where God Himself would reign, and said community had Christ reign over them in the meantime. The head of the Church was Christ, with the Father serving as his head (1 Cor. 11:3). The Scriptures teach that, when all Christ's enemies were to be made his footstool, he was to give back all authority to the Father (Psa. 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:22-28), and it is this page's belief that this happened in 70 AD.
The following quotation is from the above hyperlink:

As for the "1000 years" mentioned in Revelation, they are apocalyptic metaphor for the 40 years Christ "reigned" (triumphed) over his enemies both human and spirit, with the final triumph being the judgement of apostate Jerusalem. The "1000 years" began with his ascension, and ended with this judgement.

Thus, the community to replace the Church on earth was to be the kingdom of God. But, what even is the kingdom of God, and why did God have to reclaim authority of His own creation in the first place?
To be as succinct as possible: man sinned, and so the great level of authority God initially granted us ourselves over the creation was stripped. As a result, the human condition has suffered and it must be redeemed for God to allow us to reign with Him in the way that He originally intended for us. God has always been sovereign, of course, but He seeks the good of man to make us stewards over His world with Him, as that was His original plan and this was His original view of what a kingdom of His truly looks like: a kingdom characterized by man's love for Him and love for others.
A Biblical understanding of Adam's sin, contrary to popular thought, isn't that we are guilty of what he did personally. We simply inherit his fallen nature and a fallen world as a result of his sin, the same way a baby could leave the womb already addicted to certain substances because the mother abused said substances while pregnant. It's not the baby's fault for its condition, it was the parent's. But the baby is born with this condition and enters the world like this nonetheless.
The implication of this is that we are all only guilty of our own sins, and whether or not we ever seek to treat (or possibly cure) our condition in the first place is on us. We were dealt a bad hand due to Adam, sure, but God doesn't hold us responsible for what our forefather did. God only holds us responsible for what we do, and whether or not we seek to be liberated from the dark forces which keep us in bondage to our sinful condition (Gen. 4:6-7, Deut. 24:16, Jer. 31:30, Ezek. 18, Matt. 9:9-13).
The whole Old Testament is essentially a record of God's people constantly breaking their covenant(s) with Him. There are individuals mentioned throughout that were, of course, commended by God and the Biblical authors for their righteousness in honestly pursuing to remain faithful to their covenant with Him. But even the best of these people often faltered and, in fact, did rather heinous things in their lives at one point or another. One of the greatest examples of this is king David, who was literally called by the Scriptures "a man after God's own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14, Acts 13:22). Yet, this same man at one point committed adultery and then murdered the man he stole the wife of to try and cover it up. This was a heinous thing, and David repented of what he did with genuine sorrow and guilt toward God. God ultimately forgave him, but not without a heavy hand of chastisement and earthly consequences for his actions.
All throughout the Old Testament, you see various men of God who were deemed righteous, but these same men were usually shown to have some major flaw that prevented them from living a life that could be characterized as consistent obedience to the commandments to love God and love others as themselves. There is something deeply wrong with man's heart, according to the Bible. Something so wrong, in fact, that a whole prophecy had to be given that promised to address the issue of man's seeming incapability to accomplish fulfilling the commandment to love consistently on their own without some sort of divine help from above:

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."-Ezekiel 36:26

Naturalistic philosophies see the physical world as all that exists. Humans beings are the result of mindless, chance causes and processes. Humans are essentially animals – highly evolved, but no different in significance than any other living thing. Thus naturalistic views demote humans. But this view leaves a lot unexplained. Why do humans practice altruism, benevolence, or acts of heroism? And what explains acts of incredible evil? Sure, naturalistic arguments have been made that true altruism doesn't exist, and that "unconditional love" is really just an illusion that's been disguised very well by our survival instincts that we've developed over a long period of time at certain stages of our evolutionary process. However, many people have found such arguments to be unpersuasive and naive when compared to their actual experience of the world as they mature in their lives and have what they know to be truly meaningful experiences that can't simply be reduced in the way that the naturalist wishes them to be. This realization was ultimately why I transitioned from hard atheism to agnostic spiritualism at one point or another.
On the other extreme of these things, transcendental worldviews and philosophies say that the physical world is illusory. Only the spiritual world is ultimately real. Humans are an expression of the divine spirit that is the essence of all things. If naturalistic views demote humans to the level of animals, transcendental views promote human beings. God is not “out there” somewhere; we are God. God is all, thus God is us. But this view doesn’t explain real evil. Why are people selfish? Why do they hurt others? What accounts for personal acts of evil like rape or terrorism? If we are all truly "God," then why would we ever do such things to what is ultimately "ourself"? And why can't a person who practices the belief that we are all actually "God" be only loving? There are so many people who adopt this view of reality who are constantly, day by day, finding that they struggle to be as truly loving as they wish to be because they will still sometimes find themselves thinking and doing rather evil and selfish things. I can speak from experience here, remembering throwing myself into the New Age movement when I was desperately seeking what I did not know at the time was forgiveness for and redemption from my sins because of who I was as a person up until that point. I was seeking the mythic "ego death" that promised me that I could truly be loving and find the forgiveness and redemption I was searching for, because I thought that if only I truly realized I was "God" all along, I could then accomplish these things all at once and simultaneously. I eventually found even this philosophy unsatisfactory when I came to the aforementioned conclusions concerning our great capacity for evil, and also realized that forgiveness can only exist if there are two parties: forgiver and forgivee. Such a thing is impossible if there is only really one being at play at the bottom of reality, and I knew deep down that forgiving oneself (at least, on its own) will never satisfy one's pursuit for redemption that we all inherently take part in whenever pursuing to mend even our own relationships with each other as humans. Further, love would be an illusion in this philosophy too, being that there is only really one party behind and in all of existence if "everything is God." Such an idea would make true altruism a farce, as well. There would be no such thing as real sacrifice for another, because there is no "another."
The French mathematician and Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal said, “Man’s greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach both.” Any philosophy that cannot fully account for human greatness and human depravity at the same time should be abandoned because it misses something obvious about the human condition. The religion of the Bible has a valid explanation for human greatness: people are made in God’s image. Thus we have dignity, value, and capacity for good. The Bible also explains human evil: the image of God has been defaced by sin. Our great capacity gets used for the wrong purposes. Our creativity is placed in the service of evil and our best intentions twisted for selfish gain. Something has gone terribly wrong. While other worldviews unduly demote or promote humanity, the Bible gets the tension just right.
Thus, human nature is puzzling and conflicting. Other worldviews—both secular and religious—struggle to account for this enigma, and don't offer satisfying solutions to the problem itself. The Bible, however, explains what happened when it tells us that man rebelled against God in the paradise that was prepared for him called "the Garden of Eden." We fell into temptation and estranged ourselves from God by tarnishing the image we were created in, and now are born with a natural proclivity to do evil, despite our best efforts to do good (that is, to do good consistently).
And so, the Bible promised a solution in the prophet Ezekiel that God will literally change our natural human condition, if we simply choose to humble ourselves before Him in faith to allow for such a change. While as unbelievers our inner disposition towards God is often rebellious, we at least still have the capacity to choose to do the righteous thing in seeking God that He may change us and forgive us if we so let Him. This is one reason why Jesus, (the one who made the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy even possible by his coming, sacrifice, ressurection, and outpouring of the Spirit upon his ascension), said that only faith the size of a mustard seed was required for something so miraculous as moving a mountian to happen, because so little is required from us to allow God to change us into the kind of person He's always wanted us to be, and yet changing the condition of our own heart can be compared to literally moving a mountain if we were to try and do so on our own strength alone. The mustard seed was the smallest of seeds, and yet if one simply planted it and nurtured it, it could become a bush so large that it was comparable to a tree with branches that stretched to the heavens for the very birds of the air to rest on.
It was when I came to these realizations that I prayed to God for the first time again, having been years since I did so, going so far back as to when I was a little child even. I prayed in the dead of night in my room, and asked God to show me the truth and to reveal Himself to me if indeed these things were true, and in an instant I felt His very presence in my room, and my heart was changed. To describe such an experience would be like trying to describe the taste of something to the man born without tastebuds, the color of something to the man born blind, or the sound of something to the man born deaf; there are no words, and it is only something you can know by experiencing it for yourself. Suddenly and all at once, I knew right then and there that Jesus really was who he said he was, that the one true God is the God of the Bible, and that I have been forgiven. As the time of this post, it's been 5 years since then, I'm 23 now, and I'm still walking with God.
My prayer for anyone reading this that may not know God for themselves yet is that one day, you will too.
Back to the topic at hand.
When Adam sinned, we fell under the tyranny of death, corruption, evil heavenly powers, and sin itself. When Jesus came, Jesus was the new and exalted human, the new Adam, through whom humanity could now realize their original destiny that was laid out for them in the Garden of Eden. Because Jesus, being a man, obeyed unto death, he has defeated the powers which held us so long under bondage; we are now promised liberation so long as we simply place our faith in his sacrifice to wash us of our sins and receive the Spirit of God that is also promised to all who exercise this faith.
We often think of ‘the gospel’ as the part that brings the forgiveness of sins (and of course, that is part of the idea), but ‘gospel’ is the announcement that everything has changed in the coming of Jesus and it leads us to a new kind of living.
The gospel Jesus preached and the gospel the apostle Paul preached were different, in that Jesus preached of a kingdom where God reigns directly and with all His faithful subjects as participants in that reign. The gospel Paul preached was about the exaltation and reign of Christ, and because Christ reigned, the consummation of the kingdom of God with earth could now finally take place (Col. 1:12-13). This consummation was put on hold during Christ's "millennial" reign, which transpired between his ascension and his return. However, the consummation has come to full fruition since that return.
We will be arguing for some of these claims by pointing out how central the kingdom of God actually was to Jesus' earthly ministry and message, and demonstrate what Jesus taught about how it actually looks like.
The term 'kingdom' appears 53 times in 42 places in Matthew, 17 times in 13 places in Mark, and 41 times in 29 places in Luke. When the 'kingdom' is qualified, Luke always refers to the 'kingdom of God' (32 times) and Mark follows this pattern (14 times). Matthew, on the other hand, prefers the term "kingdom of heaven" (31 times), using the phrase to refer to the same idea "kingdom of God" only four times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 43.
The Gospel of Luke records an event where Jesus responds to the population that lived near Simon Peter's house who believed in him after he had done his miraculous work there, but saw that he was leaving them:

"And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them. And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore [i.e., for this pupose] am I sent." (vss. 42-43)

The Greek word euangelion is often translated as the word “gospel.” In the Bible, this word is always used whenever it concerns the announcement of the reign of a new king. And in the New Testament, the Gospels themselves use this word or the phrase "good news" to summarize all of Jesus’ teachings. They say he went about “preaching the gospel [good news] of the kingdom [of God]” (Matt. 4:23).
There’s this beautiful poem in the Old Testament, and it’s in chapter 52 of the Book of Isaiah. The city of Jerusalem had just been destroyed by Babylon, a great kingdom in the North. Many of the inhabitants of the city have been sent away into exile, but a few remained in the city, and they’re left wondering, "What happened? Has our God abandoned us?" This was because Jerusalem was supposed to be the city where God would reign over the world to bring peace and blessing to everyone.
Now, Isaiah had been saying that Jerusalem’s destruction was a mess of Israel’s own making. They had turned away from their God, become corrupt, and so their city and their temple were destroyed. Everything seemed lost. But the poem goes on. There is a watchman on the city walls, and far out on the hills we see a messenger. He’s running towards the city. He’s running and he’s shouting, “Good news!” And Isaiah says, “How beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings [news]” (vs. 7a). The feet are beautiful because they’re carrying a beautiful message. And what’s the message? That despite Jerusalem’s destruction, Israel’s God still reigns as king, and that God's presence is going to one day return with His city, take up His throne, and bring peace. And the watchmen sing for joy because of the good news that their God still reigns (vs. 10).
Jesus saw himself as the messenger bringing the news that God reigns. Jesus also claimed to be the Son of man. This was Jesus' favorite self-designation, being used some 80 times in the Gospels. Notice, not just a son of man, but the Son of Man. Jesus was directing our attention to a vision described by the prophet Daniel:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him:"-Daniel 7:13-14a

At Jesus' trial, the Jewish high priest accused Jesus: "Art thou the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed [God]?" His answer left no room for doubt. "I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62). Because Jesus' was rejected and killed for threatening the power the religious authorities had over the people, the consummation of God's kingdom with earth had been put on hold until all of Christ's enemies would be put under his feet after his ressurection and ascension.
But again, what is the kingdom of God? What does it look like exactly?
Well, the way that Jesus described God’s reign surprised everybody. I mean, think about it. A powerful, successful kingdom needs to be strong, able to impose its will, and able to defeat its enemies in physical combat. But Jesus said the greatest person in God’s kingdom was the weakest, the one who loves and who serves the poor (Matt. 23:11-12). He said you live under God’s reign when you respond to evil by loving your enemies, and forgiving them, and seeking peace (Matt. 5). To us, this is an upside-down kingdom. But to God, it's right-side up. This was what God had originally planned for us: a kingdom where God reigns in our hearts.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."-John 3:3

Jesus was being quite literal here. You can’t see the kingdom until you’re born again and have the life of that kingdom. When you’re born again, you start 'seeing' differently. You see what others don’t see, you hear what others don’t hear, you know what others don’t know. And yet you may be physically in the same earthly location as they.
The kingdom of God is the totality of God’s influence that covers the world and heaven. It’s everywhere, but its manifestation isn’t everywhere. It manifests on earth wherever there are those who are born again and live as if God reigns in their hearts.
Before Jesus, John the Baptist announced to all people, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:1-2), as he saw a soon coming kingdom of God that would be ushered in by the Messiah. Notice that John the Baptist didn’t say that something “like” the kingdom would come and he didn’t say that the real kingdom might be thousands of years away. He said over and over that THE kingdom was at hand! Do you believe him? Did God inspire him to give a clear and accurate message or a mistaken one? If we dare to believe him, things might become surprisingly clear, simple and exceedingly optimistic.

"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."-Matthew 6:10

Jesus taught his followers of his generation to pray that God's kingdom come and that His will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Why pray for something that will just inevitably come by force, unless it was actually through our willing participation? That is, unless God's will is carried out through us "in earth, as it is in heaven"?

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."-Mark 1:14-15

It's very telling that these are the very first words the Gospel of Mark chooses to record Jesus as saying.
The kingdom is NOT something to wait for. Jesus says the kingdom is NOT something visible, and it is NOT something in the sky. The Kingdom Jesus taught is a spiritual reality that comes into the world through us. Considering that Jesus even said the kingdom was in and among the Pharisees in Luke 17, which seems almost offensive to consider, perhaps it is like a spiritual seed that has been planted inside each of us, and that activating faith in God makes it grow.

"Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it."-Luke 13:18-19

Jesus talked about the kingdom as if it would be a present reality, yet one that was growing in the world like a seed grows into a tree.

"And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."-Luke 13:20-21

To Jesus, the kingdom was something growing in us like yeast through dough, increasing in effectiveness.

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."-Romans 14:17
"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."-1 Corinthians 4:20

Paul says the kingdom isn’t something you taste or touch like physical food. It’s not even saying the right words. But rather the kingdom comes in the realities of righteousness, peace, joy and power that flavor our lives when we live empowered by the Spirit of God and God's Spirit in us.
Since Jesus the Messiah returned only 40 years after his earthly ministry, putting all enemies under his feet, the complete consummation of earth with the kingdom of heaven has finally taken place.
The kingdom of God has come, and it continues to come through us as believers. It makes progress like light shining into the world and dispelling the darkness.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."-Matthew 5:14-16

Hello.
My name is Flaviu E. Hongu. Some people including myself choose to spell my name as Flavius instead. I am what most would call a white dude. I was born in Romania in a fully Romanian family, and was raised by said Romanian family.
I would like to address specifically the people who use the term "cultural appropriation". There has not been even one case I've ever seen of someone saying cultural appropriation that wasn't a mistake. In every occasion I saw people partaking in and appreciating culture, not stealing it.
There have been cases where the person saying cultural appropriation has been actively racist to multiple groups of people, like when someone accused a young girl of mocking a culture for making funny faces while dancing their local dance. Well it turns out those "funny faces" that you criticized are actually part of the dance itself, and you made a fool of yourself and everyone who says cultural appropriation because you've just insulted their local dance.
I swear to god this is infuriating. Culture has always been meant to be shared, appreciated, mixed and changed. That's the whole point of culture.
My own Romanian culture is a mix of Roman (as the name suggests), Greek, Slavic, and also a huge chunk of Dacian which is the native tribe that inhabited the land before Romans conquered it.
By existing as a Romanian dude, am I fucking appropriating the Romans' culture for speaking my literal native Romanian language which comes from the Roman language? Am I appropriating the Slavs for being part of an Orthodox culture and using words such as slavă, ispravă, duhu sfânt, and slobozie? Am I appropriating the Slavs when the only word for clock in Romanian is ceas, which comes from the Slavic word for time? Should I still be speaking the Dacian language that the Romans eradicated and wearing only robes and herding sheep because I'm a native Romanian?
Or I'll do you one better, I live in Spain now, and I've been living here for most of my life, so I developed an appreciation for their culture. I think lentejas, garbanzos, and cocido are some of the most delicious shit humans have ever invented. Am I appropriating their culture when I unironocallh cook those dishes because I LOVE them? Or am I appropriating their culture whenever I speak their language, enjoy their music, read and quote their books, sing their poems and dance their dances???
The only way something can be qualified as cultural appropriation is if some group of people begins to do something that was developed by another group of people and then forbid and ban the original creators of thst practice from doing the thing.
I've never seen that happen in real life, and I don't thing it's even possible. If you ever feel like saying cultural appropriation, I think you mean cultural appreciation.
If I ever visit the US and see someone who isn't Romanian wearing my country's cultural clothes I'll LOVE IT. And if I walk down the street and see a dude wearing Adidas, doing the balkaner sitting, holding a bottle of home made țuică, going like "BA FRATE CE FACI MĂ?!" with a thick US accent and then he yells "SUKA BLYAT OH KURWA" and starts doing the Rasputin dance I will die of laughter right then and there, I will then join the dude in his comedic act, I will provide some original, real balkaner energy and will drink the țuică with him because it's funny as shit and I love that he even knows that much about my culture.
That's not appropriation. No one can appropriate my culture because no one can stop me from doing it and if they do it, I'll love it.
However what I did observe was that this "accusing people of cultural appropriation" thing is only ever done to white people. Like according to their logic a Kenyan cannot dance tango, and a Chinese can't play the piano, but no! They only ever target white people, and sometimes mock and disrespect the culture the white people are APPRECIATING out of sheer hatred for whites and full on ignorance.
As a matter of fact, according to their logic, if you aren't white you cannot and should not be wearing sneakers, pants, shirts, t-shirts, or glasses, you should not be using the English language, you shouldn't use cars because they were invented by a German, you shouldn't even be using phones and computers because it's a white cultural aspect.
Fucking bullshit I tell you.
The reality is that these people never ever target someone who is not white or someone partaking in other white culture. And I've heard them say things like white people have no culture which is why they feel the need to steal other's. Which is the most stupid and ignorant and even offensive thing I've heard. As a Romanian dude with a super rich culture, who also knows about the culture of other balkaners and the other countries surrounding my own, which are all inhabited by whites with a very very different culture, I feel invalidated. Do they think US culture is the only white culture? And also, they're even more ignorant than that because saying white people have no culture is like saying Americans don't have an accent. You don't hear the accent because it's YOUR accent and to YOU it doesn't sound different. And same as that, they don't consider American English culture a real culture because they see it every day.
People like that are actually just racists and hateful of white people and are using cultural appropriation as an excuse to insult white people and harass them for no reason at all. They are no better than the white racists, and their claims of white people having no culture is insulting and invalidating to the thousands of cultures that white people do have, all different from each other.
So, if you're the kind of person to say cultural appropriation, don't ever say that shit again, go ahead and stuff your stinky mouth with sarmale that you cooked yourself, go and put on an ie, go and dance a good horă and go put an entire oină bat in your ass.

beauty
which i have now
fades so quick
i can’t even grasp it
actors and actresses
statues looking at you
only the garb changes
one of the strongest emerging social trends that arise as a consequence of increased longevity is a necessity to think about slowing cognitive decline in the over 50’s which means attention to diet and supplements, exercise , general fitness and "wear and tear", alcohol and drug consumption
my feeling is we are going to see sharp divides between subcultures in this respect and a lot of individual variation
also, a lot of the public health advice and cultural opinions are wrong minded or ill-informed, you have to do your own research and experimentation
a way of looking at the covid public health debacle (which continues despite the cardiovascular and cancer risks of boosters) was to trade off a reduced death rate in the elderly for an increased vaccine injury problem for the young
a verse by touzi on #3 of master fushan’s sixteen themes translated by suru
the death within life
birds clench the falling blossoms before the emerald cliffs, every word responds to conditions, spreading throughout — they ask of coming west, pointing to the cypress in the yard, but how could the passage through the lush mountain peaks be shut ?
活中死。鳥銜華落碧嵓前。對境皆言到處傳。人問西來指庭柏。豈關蒼翠嶺頭穿。
my reply:
what cannot be shut
is always open
but to avoid the common herd
it is disguised
why write things people understand ?
they just make your life a misery with their missionizing of a contrary view
to confuse them is better
they can’t target you
no "master"
except the claim
fantasies about reality
seek a center
its doesn’t exist
non-existence or otherwise
ed. zen is full of fake claims to authority by the appellation of "zen master", same with any religion and its "pooh-bahs"
that’s the trouble with writing
its lasts forever
so
necessarily
you are writing forever
i am appreciating the philosopher gilles deleuze more
the untranslated portion at the end goes
so you understand, when you have such an idea, the important is not to know whether it is true or false
the question is to know if it is important, if it is interesting, and if it is beautiful
and it is the same in science, it is the same in philosophy, you know
waterslipt
a furball
widening ripples on
the smooth surface
of a reflective river
a platypus
ed. i was having lunch at a clearing on the bank of the mersey rivestream near the eastern end of bridle track road, the day was amazingly clear and windless and the river smooth and i noticed a platypus working its way feeding on the bottom to surface occasionally for breath then go back down again
this morning i serendipitously put on a shirt and trousers that "matched", i have always been sceptical of the concept, but since there are clothes that don’t match, there must be those that do match, though what constitutes the female sense of this, i still cannot fathom
the abdication of the duke of windsor was in fact a surface effect of a deeper political struggle, would britain become a client state of germany or would it resist ?
the outcome was not as obvious as you might think
taking actors as real
and a set as reality
is it any wonder
the dissembling mess
collapses ?
the circle of the contemporary
rubbish generating more rubbish
stay there at your own risk
sharing the same road for a while
but later
looking at the forks and branches
i realise
we are apart
inscribed on the tower at veneration monastery
in cold spring, a hundred-foot tower
i climb up alone, and then back down alone
who can manage such distances of the heart ?
david hinton
classical chinese poetry
the poet is tu mu (803 to 853 a.d.) with a bio on page 378 of the "classical chinese poetry" pdf link
definitely medieval with the mention of a functional tower
an interesting thing about frieda hughes is she did not have her mother’s talent, of course neither did ted
there is just a remarkable depth to sylvia plath’s work and this was despite all the obstacles, what genetic quirk created her or would , if her parents had more children, they have a similar talent ?
this prosaic world
because its written in prose of course
its not a poetic world
because its not written in poetry
if you take away the "zen master" or saint or prophet as an authority figure, what do you then have ?
Regulus replies:
People acceptant of the existent reality
my reply:
the monk asked zen master regulus "what is required to be enlightened" ?
zen master regulus replied "be accepting of existing reality"
the monk was left speechless
lee smolin doesn’t like jonathon oppemheim’s stochastic gravity approach
its interesting to watch lee talk with the constant gesticulatory body movements, almost tourette's, but he is using them to think, they are part of his cognition process
how simple is the world ?
its not that simple
and certainly not as simple as the way we view it to be
insight
takes you back
and obviates
some future lives
the brain
is
a
quantum
machine
words in a story
believable or unbelievable ?
don’t
be
fooled
.
words in a story
believable or unbelievable ?
don’t be fooled
so much knowledge
everywhere
each branch opens up exponentially
drowning in detail
its pursuer
i guess i have got so interested in hearts because of hunting and looking at them, in one animal, it beat for minutes cut out from the body; never seen any that had human like aging diseases
i think as a society we have lost touch with our own raw "viscerality", i hunt for my own meat; the killing, butchering and eating does bring one back in touch with that, the commonality with our homonin history
heart and lungs animation
the number of people who have no understanding of what even moderate levels of drinking does to their lives and long term health
you have won the existential lottery where the odds are so small of winning, no number covers it and to chip away at brain function with drugs and alcohol like that . . .
you want to experiment with doing some translation yourself with google and you will realise how its possible to construct almost any sense out of the chinese, its actually not meaningful to do any commentary without going back to the chinese, the variance is so large, translators follow their own biases to create a narrative that suits them
“ continuous as the stars that shine and twinkle on the milky way ”
wordsworth’s famous poem which he wrote based on notes by his sister dorothy was in effect co-authored by her
strangers to me
thirty years of no contact
exile speaks
of unwanted distance
.
strangers to me
thirty years of no contact
exile speaks
unwanted distance
ed. looking at a photo of my sister, niece and brother in law who are all very much changed since i last saw them notions of exile are not common in western literature, but are certainly there in the chinese
lost roads
can’t be recovered
what we have travelled
always
takes us
to
a different place
i love a sotherby’s auction , vast sums spent for my entertainment, all free, it don’t get slicker, a living made from networking skills and being personable
i was about to go negative on the painting by lucy bull, but on looking further i quite like her work
you have to be careful, auctioneers like these can talk the money out of your wallet
xu qiyao’s advice to his son on being successful in CCP politics
“ the path of understanding requires objectivity and experience ”
ed. the above is my reworking of the first lines of the xinxin ming which, amongst its more "normal" translations is
“ the great way is not difficult, just avoid picking and choosing ”
the xinxin ming is an abridged version of the mind inscription
心性不生何須知見
“ reality is either itself or not. is there any point to understanding this ? ”
ed. my translation of the first line of the "mind inscription"
"don’t interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake" — napoleon
i think in the context of divorce , what people find difficult is the necessity of switching to the extreme mindset of being at war and all that entails because that is what is immediately required
billie and finneas o’connell discuss how they created the "what am i made for" song for the film "barbie"
billie in her own words describes the process
“ Dr. Raszek provides insights from his participation in a comprehensive review concerning the utilization of synthetic uridines in mRNA vaccines (ed. covid) and their potential implications for cancer development
The discussion delves into the intricate mechanisms that could be at play, exploring how these synthetic components might inadvertently suppress the body's innate immune system, induce frameshifting phenomena, and contribute to the production of IgG4 antibodies, all of which could potentially influence cancer growth ”
my comment
i think we can expect an upsurge in cancers, especially amongst the elderly as a result of the misguidedly intensive "booster" campaign, though it may take a while to show
the forward momentum
of habituation
leading
to
habits
that
become
unbreakable
the fallacy of "negation"
its not this, its not that
but its what its not
negation is a stylised buddhist rhetorical technique, nāgārjuna of course and you get it in dogen, they’ll say something then walk it back through its negation
but having walked it forwards, there is a sense in which it can’t be walked back or it could not be walked forwards another way of putting it is there is no ontological unity, everything is constantly splitting apart
zen masters and the authority they carry are literary constructs
buddha is a literary construct
jesus, muhammad and moses are literary constructs
the egyptian book of the dead is a literary construct
does it bother you that your advice is so bad ?
no
the blindness of narcissism

In my days, there was no such thing as journaling. We had diaries and they had casings with locks on them.
As a kid I wrote a lot and all over the place. My parents are writers so they were encouraging. Although they would be technically analysing anything I would read to them, which was often disappointing, they never went through my stuff. Maybe picked something up to see if it's trash or not, but never thoroughly read my notebooks or my diary. Part of that is due to the fact that I, besides collecting pocket knives, didn't have any other bad habits.
Nowadays that I have just entered my third decade in this world, I write in the leather notebooks that I bind by hand.
I write poems, stories, lyrics, memories, dreams or just my thoughts and emotions, but always securely disguised in a literary form of my choosing, I've been doing this for years. I don't find writing blandly and directly excusable, unless it's a work email.
That being said, I want my journals to be discovered! Preferably post mortem, but that is the whole point of writing for me. To be read! So that others will know that I have walked this earth at some point in time.
Now I understand that some parents are insufferable, but I don't understand why it is so hard for people to hide a notebook.
Or to write in metaphors or use made-up characters or any of the serveral other ways that writers have used throughout our history to hide their true intention or context.
Is there a reason why a journal would be more difficult to hide? Or does writing in a more secretive discourse defeat the purpose of journaling?
I'll be interested in learning about your opinions or personal experiences on this matter.
PS: English is my second language, but I usually prefer English for my writings, since my mother tongue is too difficult to tame.
PS 2: I don't understand why some people are being aggressive in the comments. Is it forbidden to ask questions or want to learn about other's experiences?
In any case I thank you for taking the time to write a reply. Even the rude one's. It has at least displayed the quality of character of some of the people who need to hide their journals ;)

My(19m) two friends, we'll call them Charlie(19m) and Isabella(18f), are in a relationship with one another. I used to be best friends with Charlie before I moved. But when I moved we lost contact and fell apart. I recently moved back however, and that's when all of this started. I've known Isabella for years and we're really good friends, like borderline best friends recently. Isabella talks to me about her relationship with Charlie, and it's not the best picture. He's cheated on her, lied to her about it, stolen from her, lied to her about it, withheld rent money, refused to pay bills, refused to go to work, refused to clean, didn't remember her bday, wrote her a poem on a card 5 days later, didn't take care of their animals; they have have 3 cats, 5 kittens, and a dog; wore a catpiss covered jacket to work, refused to shower for 3 days, gaslights her, gives her ultimatums, has broken multiple items of hers, and just generally treats her "like a child he doesn't like that he's babysitting." To give context, she works 60 hours a week just to make ends meet. He has a job that pays $2 an hour more than her job that she got him. She bikes 20 mins to work at the ass crack of dawn. He walks 2 mins. She has one day off the whole week. He intentionally misses work and has even asked me to cover for him. I have no idea what to do, because on one hand, Charlie's my boy, and I shouldn't mingle in the affairs of my boy even if I know hes wrong. But on the other hand, Isabella is my friend and it feels wrong to see my friend in a toxic relationship and not try to get them out of it. It feels wrong to turn a blind eye to what is so obviously an abusive relationship just because I know the dude, even if at one point in time we were like brothers. So what do I do?

Term: Hyperbole

Definition: Hyperbole is an exaggerated statement or claim not meant to be taken literally, used for emphasis or effect.
Example: "I've told you a million times."
Freewrite Prompt: The backpack weighed a ton as I trudged up the mountain, each step feeling like an eternity in the scorching sun.

Im from Utah County and non-Mormon, so you can see the obvious fun I have dating /S. I'm not making this a sob story; the real reason I'm posting here is that it feels a bit more personal than most dating apps. I'm a pretty cheerful, confident guy. I can be a massive smartass and yap a lot, but I can have serious conversations and value communication. So, if you need an ear, I'm game, but do expect the same in return. I tend to be out and about a lot, usually doing stupid stuff and trying not to get hurt or in trouble while doing it. Most of the time, I'm a pro, but there are quite a few stories where I fumbled, lol.
I like to work out. I mostly do calisthenics. I'm admittedly fairly skinny but decently toned. I've also taken up running, but I'm not Usain Bolt, lol. I also play video games, mostly military simulation games like Arma and OHD. I also play platformers like Mario and Sonic, with Sonic being my go-to for my neurodivergent self. I'm big into history, mostly WW2 and the Cold War, and some WW1. I'm actually working on making a Cold War-themed board game.
On top of being a nerd, I do have a sensitive side. I know some of you have probably rolled your eyes, but hey, I like to write poems, and I'm a huge flirt when I warm up to someone. I'm looking for a sweet, caring person around my age and preferably living in the USA. I'm not picky, it's more important that we click, you know?
As for my values, I'm very liberal and an atheist. You don't have to share my views exactly, but I'm being upfront now to avoid causing issues later. I drink sometimes and don't use drugs. I don't care if you use pot, but anything harder is a no-go zone for me, as my family has some history with addiction. If you want to talk, I'm down to give you my Snap or Discord in DM