Watch for free exactly what? Anime or futanari? :lol:
I guess futanari should be included in the hentai section.

Okay, after reading the definition in the urban dictionary, I now understand what it is all about.
Yet I had to find images because it was difficult to put an image of a futanari in my mind.

I recommend you to search for futanari inflation. Interesting. Even more, if you are weeaboo like me.

don't be futaphobic — Lionino

I have never heard or read that word. I decided to search around Google and - on an anime web page - it says the following about futaphobic:

Is there a reason why they do this? o.O
Can't imagine they are homo-or futaphobic... I mean, I looked at their studio scenes they gave away recently. There is some really weird s***, but also several futa scenes.

The paragraph above is an answer to this:

If I remember correctly from the prior games to now is that illusion gender locks the male character so you are not able to do that in game. The only thing you can do is save the male pose in studio and then load a female in the place of the male character.

So you can get your still shots and with enough you could make a gif but as far as actually putting in a female to the designated male slot, I don't think that can be done and if it can, it will break the game or some illusion policy by laws. Again I am not sure so I could be wrong but that's how I remember it from the SBPR/PC days.

I am terribly lost...

BTW, the link to the whole thread is here: https://www.anime-sharing.com/threads/illusion-honey%E2%99%A5select-%E3%83%8F%E3%83%8B%E3%83%BC%E3%82%BB%E3%83%AC%E3%82%AF%E3%83%88-mod-request-thread.546759/page-13

True! Good point. Yet the cartoonist drew Trujillo, and the latter was alive at the same period as Franco's.

Humiliated and Insulted — javi2541997

10/10. Excellent. Dostoevsky never disappoints me. This time, the synopsis is about ethical dilemmas which are around familiar crises. Curiously, Dostoevsky didn't refer to religious themes in this novel. I can say the plot is 'secular' if we compare it with other of his works.

Currently reading: The Fratricides, Nikos Kazantzakis.

-- :down: -- science is being controlled by bureaucracy — Agree-to-Disagree

Do you mind if science is being controlled overall or just by the bureaucracy? It seems you want to set science and scientists free.

Walking with a dog also gives you an excuse to talk to people. If I didn't have the dog with me then I wouldn't talk to anybody. The dog gives me unconditional love. — Agree-to-Disagree

I walk my dog every morning. Apart from her unconditional love for me, and the sense of peace it produces in me to walk with her in the chaotic city, I appreciate the lack of contact with other humans, precisely. You say you are more able to talk with other people because you walk with your dog. Maybe you are referring to other dog owners...

I try to avoid groups of people because it gives me anxiety, and walking with my dog makes me feel I am protected by a bubble.

I walk a dog for about 2.5 hours daily. — Agree-to-Disagree

I wish I could walk more than just an hour with my dog. She is a small-dog breed, and she tends to get tired early...

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin. — Art48

Oh, of course, it is possible to knowingly sin. I think you are using God as escapism with the aim of not facing that you didn't actually behave according to some ethical principles. There are two classes of lying (as an example of sin): lying to avoid hurting someone's feelings and lying to cheat. But, in those two cases, you are aware enough that you are committing a sin, because you are lying.

There are a lot of ways to sin. Some are evil, others innocent. But all of them are predetermined, and not random.

The notion of "suffering" makes sense as a uniting theme, even if there are more joyful existentialists (or, if we prefer, post-existentialists -- thinking Derrida and Levinas now more than categorical classifications) — Moliere

Good point! I agree with you, Moliere. :up:

Both K and N explicated some kind of doubt about what we believe we're doing and why, and the latter existentialists -- so I interpret them -- attempted answers to those questions. In this sentence I mean "existentialists" in the historical sense, rather than philosophical sense — Moliere

True! Existentialists often considered themselves as 'weak' in philosophy because most of their writings were parts of novels, and not essays about philosophy in the proper sense of the technique. I was reading some notes about Dostoevsky's life, and he considered himself 'weak' in philosophy. But, paradoxically, his characters and the Christian dilemmas they pass through, were an inspiration to the existentialists of the 20th century!

Furthermore, I forgot a very important fact you mentioned in the comment, and it is the historical background. Indeed, existentialism depends a lot on this. Why X happens and how we should act, causes the circumstances we currently live in. This is another matter between the Russian authors and Kierkegaard.

The circumstances of our existentialism are the main cause of our despair or are we the ones who make those circumstances because of our choices?

Yes, they are linked to each other. Well, those approaches have a common concern and the latter is life. I also have my problems with discerning each of them. Sometimes, they feel closer than separated. Nonetheless, I still remain with the same thought that existentialism cares more about life than nihilism or other types of absurdism. If we compare different texts, I guess the differences are apparent.

One example of Dostoevsky:

But the martyr sometimes likes to divert himself with his despair, as it were driven to it by despair itself. Meanwhile ... you divert yourself with magazine articles and discussions in society, though you don't believe your own arguments, and, with an aching heart mock at them inwardly.... That question you have not answered, and it is your great grief, for it clamours for an answer

- The Brothers Karamazov, Book II, Chapter 6.

And then, a very different text by Camus but with a similar concern at the same time:

Sisyphus is stuck in an eternally pointless task. Now, if the world and everything in it are also pointless, the lesson is that the task of Sisyphus is identical to every thing that we will ever be doing in life. We are no different from Sisyphus; and if his punishment makes the afterlife a hell for him, we are already living in that hell.

https://friesian.com/existent.htm

This is very interesting! :smile: And we could spend hours and hours debating on this topic. Yet I think it is plausible how a text by an existentialist suffers from despair about doubting what is the right way to act. While a nihilistic jokes about this.

Interesting conversation here. — Fire Ologist

Thank you! :smile:

But I think you are both right, that the ethical is essential to existentialism, and Camus stripped it down too far, being the closest to a nihilist of the bunch. — Fire Ologist

Maybe we (if @Astrophel wants to be included) could be wrong, but yes, I personally believe that ethics are the key element for existentialism. Why? For the following points:

1) We all have to face dilemmas often. Discerning about what is the 'right' way to act makes us feel despaired. Some philosophers, like Kierkegaard, for instance, prefer to name this issue as anxiety. But the important element of the dilemma is that we actually care about life, we give it a meaning and this is why we suffer from anxiety about what is the right way to behave. A nihilist could not care about the way to act accordingly...

2) There is even more anxiety when we think about what will come afterwards. I mean, is there a Trial of the Soul?
If I lie, or I cheat, does my soul get rotten? Etc. For a nihilistic, this is all absurd and doesn't care that much.

Ethics was like their vehicle for delivering metaphysics and secondary to me. — Fire Ologist

Honestly, I do not know what comes first. I think ethics is a very relevant element in existentialism, but I don't know which is the proper approach, whether ethics, metaphysics, or meta-ethics.

:grin:

Well, my liquid has particularly a very strong taste, and it is more reasonable to mix it up with coffee.

I am referring to anise:

Unfortunately, it turns out not to be possible to put oneself on one's ignore list. — unenlightened

Imagine for a second this twisted metaphysical situation: one puts oneself on his ignore list, but it turns out that this is precisely what attracts the attention of the rest of the users. Yet the user who deliberately put himself on his own ignore list remains unnoticed by this fact.

PD: I don't know how I ended up with the above conclusion. I mistakenly put a strange liquid in my coffee this morning.

it begs the question, what is it about bad behavior that makes it evil? — Astrophel

Yes. Basically, what I learnt by reading those authors is that bad behaviour doesn't mean anything in the beginning. I mean, when someone is acting with bad manners or not accordingly, he is not aware of these actions. When only he is pushed to a trial of the soul, he realises if he acted or not with evil. If ever someone decides to act unethically on purpose, this means he has a huge problem because he cannot distinguish between good and evil. Nonetheless, most of the dilemmas are not that simple. I understand that most people don't want to act with bad manners, but each specific case has its exceptions. This reminds me when we debated about how a chain of bad behaviour can putrid my soul. We can agree or not that a spirit either exists or not, but if we care about these concerns and dilemmas, it means we care about life, and then we give it a meaning or a value. We are not nihilists, but existentialists. Kierkegaard argues that Abraham is his hero because he had a strong dilemma with choosing between he cared the most: his son and God. This despair and anxiety is a good example of an existentialist dilemma!

One is confronted by the question, is ethics rational in its essence? Kierkegaard said yes to this. — Astrophel

Absolutely, yes. I agree.

Thank you for your answer, Astrophel. It is a pleasure to have exchanges with you. :smile: And yes, I find your ideas interesting.

It is very strange how some people consider Kierkegaard a nihilist. When I read this OP, I decided to search for information to back up my points, and surprisingly, Kierkegaard appeared as an example of a nihilist. Very disappointed with this! I think K was a lover but pessimistic about how Christianity was ruling in Denmark. In his diary, K confessed he was a true Lutheran. If he was that religious and a believer in faith, how could some people label him as a nihilist? For a nihilist, life is meaningless and there is no despair about choosing the right decision because everything is pretty absurd (as Camus points out).

On the other hand, I personally believe that a true nihilist doesn't recognize the existence of a sacred authority. For example, the quote of 'without God, everything is permitted' by Vania Karamazov. This phrase is wrongly connected to nihilism, but what Dostoevsky goes beyond just that.

Indeed, if the loss of God means the loss of all meaning and value, then actions are without meaning or value either, and one cannot say that it matters whether actions are "right" or "wrong," since those words, or the corresponding actions, don't mean anything more than anything else. Dostoyevsky, indeed, may be counted as himself an Existentialist, but in a theistic rather than the French atheistic manner,

https://friesian.com/existent.htm

Every character of Dostoevsky is Christian, but often display what later will seem to be Existentialist attitudes and ideas. The main concerns explore such themes as suicide, poverty, human manipulation, and morality. Dostoevsky deals with Christian basic values, which are presented via a unique tension between the fictionality of the Christian characters and the readers' experience of the existential reality of their religious problems. Christian Themes in Crime and Punishment.

What I attempt to say is that while K and D are true existentialists for dealing with ethical dilemmas, Camus is a nihilist because he doesn't bother to debate about this issue. :smile:

@Amity

Browsing around the Internet, I found this cartoon about Francisco Franco. It is a 1962 satire by Herblock.
I see some interesting details: the cartoon shows an aged Francisco Franco and Eagle (the motto of Francoist Spain) sitting in a decrepit castle, as he gazes at portraits of Hitler and Mussolini, who are gone. Yet, on his right, there is Trujillo. The dictator of the Dominican Republic.

It surprises me why the cartoonist didn't draw Salazar when he was alive in the same period as Franco...

If we can gaze at the back of Trujillo's portrait, it seems there is another one by another dictator. But it is blurred, and I can distinguish who it can be. :chin:

By the way, this is a 1962 cartoon and Franco lived another 13 years...

I cannot think of a single philosophy that advocates the idea that there is just one point to being alive, unless you mean living itself (as opposed to being caught up in silly ideas or failing to reach one's potential, however the latter might be conceived). None of this has anything necessarily to do with religion. Religion is only necessary for those who cannot, or don't wish to, think for themselves. — Janus

Is it? Is there a possibility to think for ourselves? Or are we influenced by external ideas and dogmas? Religion is not the only system which induces people to behave in a concrete way or conduct. If I were able to think by myself, what would be the point of establishing basic principles of morality and ethics? Every of us needs to be taught to the 'right' way. It doesn't matter if it is secular, religious, philosophical, civil...

Hello Jussi, welcome abroad.

I think professor Deigh didn't actually misunderstand Camus but he put this author in the wrong group or literary current. Everything you explained about Camus is perfect, and I guess Professor Deigh is in the same sense. But he is not an existentialist but a nihilist. Honesty, when I read what professor Deigh thinks about existentialism, precisely here: ...despair about life and choosing from it the values and principles by which one will live. I thought about other authors or thinkers. My opinion is that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky can fit in the 'despair' of choosing the right code of conduct to live.

Fyodor Dostoevsky expressed religious, psychological, and philosophical concerns in his novels. His works explore such themes as suicide, poverty, human manipulation, and morality. These are a real example of existentialist, or a existentialist literature that maybe Deigh was referring to.

I think Camus goes beyong than just that. I agree when you say his work are metaphysical in the sense of the absurdity of the beginning of the world. Furthermore, nihilism is life-denying, so it is not worried about ethical dilemmas or the anxiety of what is the right choice. Camus affirms that life is meaningless, but further declares in the preface “that even within the limits of nihilism it is possible to find the means to proceed beyond nihilism.”

My conclusion is that while Camus was looking for 'what is a purpose' of life (nihilism), existentialist authors debate the despair of what should be the proper behavior to follow in a life already produced.

And therefore, i suggest, Prof Deigh may have misunderstood Camus in a pretty drastic way. Am i right? — Jussi Tennilä

Partially. He was indeed a nihilist... But I don't know if we can label his works as true examples of existentialism. I think it is not that drastic. Both concepts seem similar, but they aren't.

Yes, it is very relaxing, Hanover. Those tracks also help me to focus on doing a task. It is weird and complex to explain, but the few musical notes accompanied by a murmur makes me feel isolated from the world. Like I'm in a bubble.

Rainstorms are pretty good too.

You might also like this one:

To be honest a cleric or a believer might ever only refer to the maybe/perhaps/hoped for 'God' instead of the misleading/unethical 'God is true' proclamation. — PoeticUniverse

Well, if someone is a true believer, I think he gives God's existence for granted. When a believer thinks that, perhaps, there is a possibility of the existence of God, they start to experience anxiety, or more specific, a crisis of faith. Some battle doubts about the veracity of the Christian faith itself (“Does God truly exist?” or “Does another religion or belief system more truly reveal the nature of ultimate reality?”)

On the other hand, why do you claim it is unethical to state 'God is true'. I agree that proclamation could be fallacious or misleading. Yet desiring 'God is true' doesn't make unethical behaviour for a believer. It could be unethical to believe in Christianity, and act against the principles of this dogma. For example, no giving credit to God's mercy when a believer is put in dilemmas or not following Christian ethical principles, such as moral code, standards, behaviours, conscience, values, rules of conduct, etc.

Benk, there is not anything to be ashamed of! I imagine you in a beautiful dress with cute clogs, picking tulips, under the ochred-coloured sunset of Rotterdam. :heart:

Something like this:

I agree with your post, Timothy. But I don't know what to say. My aim is not to argue about a specific religious branch. I am fully aware that religious belief is not unique, and I have even already discussed this in another thread, where some users started to rant about the bad 'influence' of Christianity due to the Spanish empire. And then, I asked them: what kind of Christian group are you referring to? Because it is obvious that there are a lot of distinctions between Catholics and Protestants, for instance.

Nonetheless, I think I will keep learning more about Christianity from a personal perspective. It is the main religion - and custom - where I live. I am not bother to understand different religious perspectives. It will be interesting, but I am not ready yet.

Look how many exchanges and debate Kierkegaard produces! More than 200 replies have this thread, when we are 'only' discussing spirituality from a Christian Ethics view...

All good. Godfather the best. — Mikie

Every time I watch the movie I discover a new detail. What an excellent movie. And John Cazale was a fabulous actor! What a shame the cancer took him away so soon...

Humiliated and Insulted also known in English as The Insulted and Humiliated, The Insulted and the Injured or Injury and Insult… (also known in Spanish as Humillados y Ofendidos) by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Униженные и оскорблённые, Unizhennye i oskorblyonnye

Jesus! Why is the Russian language that difficult?

What Wayfarer also points to is that Christianity (like most faiths) can be made to argue anything at all — Tom Storm

I agree.

it's in the interpretation you choose which may have nothing to do with what the religion may in fact stand for or have originally intended. — Tom Storm

And that's why I struggle with religious faith! :smile:

Also: google doesn't know "anfaestgalse". My mothertongue's German, and the word doesn't sound very Germanic either. Some sort of typo? — Dawnstorm

Firstly, I am sorry because I didn't write the word correctly. The word is correctly written in this way: 'anfægtelse'

I think I haven't expressed myself clearly, but I will explain my concern again:

Context: Kierkegaard, in his work Fear and Trembling, discussed the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham during the Binding of Isaac.

K presents this problemata about contradiction and anxiety with three different questions open to debate or discuss:

A) Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical?
B) Is there an absolute duty to God?
C) Was it ethically defensible for Abraham to conceal his undertaking from Sarah, From Eliezer, and from Isaac?

In the book, and the answers to those questions, Kierkegaard states: During three days and three nights, Abraham suffered from 'anfægtelse', because doubt was set in motion. Abraham had to choose between the ethical requirements of his surroundings and what he regarded as his absolute duty to God.

This anxiety experienced by Abraham is described by K as anfægtelse. My Spanish edition translated it as anxiety as well. But I found English works which translated it as 'trial of the soul'

This is very interesting...

What did K actually feel like? Anxiety at the moment or what could come afterwards?

you're worrying a lot about this topic, and from a non-spiritual perspective such as mine this looks like the extent of what spiritual trial might be. Judge, jury and defendant in one person, only the defendant isn't much interested in defense.

It's this soul stuff I don't properly understand, though, so I'm likely wrong. So: — Dawnstorm

A trial of the soul is a concept used by Kierkegaard. Precisely, K talks about 'Anfaestgalse' a Danish word which there is a big debate on what really means. I have the Spanish version, and it is translated as 'anxiety', but I found some English papers and the authors translated it as 'trial of the soul'. Approaching the main topic of this thread, I wonder if, after behaving badly or unethically, there would be a trial about my soul. I mean, is there a cause and effect? It is obvious that in the tangible or real world there are a lot of consequences. People stop trusting me and I lack confidence and I suffer from anxiety. But I want to dive deeper into this matter. Afterwards, is there a possibility that our spirit will experience a trial because of our actions? By the way, I am not referring to karma.

I'm not sure what difference a "soul" makes. I never had much use for the concept of "sin", for example. — Dawnstorm

Because sins, bad actions, unethical behaviour, lying, etc, Have to affect someone or something. Don't you think? I believe those affect the vitality of the spirit.

too afraid of the world maybe? — Dawnstorm

Yes, frankly.

It is said to be the etymological origin of the word 'sin' — Wayfarer

Ah! Interesting, thanks for that Wayfarer. It is a pleasure to learn something new. :smile:

It is indeed a good metaphor! I understand what you took from it. Well, everything can be a lesson, don't you think? Even the bitterest consequences of our actions.

If I am not wrong, that quote assumes the sense of being alive is making wrong choices perpetually. There is not anything bad with this, until we pass some limits though. It is not the same as making mistakes for being ignorant than for acting deliberately.

Aren't you inflicting one upon yourself right now? — Dawnstorm

No! I don't think so. There is nothing here which causes me infliction. It is completely otherwise. I think it is good to open myself to others in this thread.

Given the same act, do you find it easier to forgive it in others than in yourself? — Dawnstorm

Indeed. Why does this happen? Well, because when a person (like me) is used to acting in a mask constantly, it is not that difficult to keep acting in the same way. OK. I say sorry to the ones I lied to. But how do I know I will not lie again? This is where the problem arises. I don't want to cause that bad behaviour as part of my 'nature'. At the moment, the only solution to this issue is redeeming myself. To start, finally assuming that acting badly has its consequences and there will be a trial to my spirit after all.

I'm neither spiritual nor religious, so I probably can't fully understand what you're going through. — Dawnstorm

Hmm... Didn't you ever feel anxiety for not acting accordingly to values and ethics?

Bear in mind, one possible derivation of the word 'sin' was 'to miss the mark'. — Wayfarer

Right. It is a softer way to see it.

You often suspend your ethics? Errrr, that doesn't sound so good. — Astrophel

I know Astrophel. :sad:

That's the main point of my concern in this thread. Back in the day, I wasn't aware I was suspending the ethics to achieve ephemeral pleasures, but I did it now. It was not pride but ignorance. At least, I am very aware that I didn't act with purpose or deliberately.
Thanks to this exchange, I am getting to the conclusion that, although I often acted wrongly, and my spirit started to get dirty, I realize I can start to clean it up by proceeding with confession.
If I didn't expose myself on this site, I would suffer from deep anxiety. Don't take my wrong, I suffer a lot in my daily life, or as I call it, the physical/tangible world. I don't usually trust people, I am a reserved person and my opinions or concerns don't usually go out of my mind...
Why does this happen? Well, I already expressed myself and I think I did it clearly. Due to my corrupt actions, I feel fear and anxiety about being rejected.

If I hadn't been honest with my parents (who are the most sacred), how do I know I would not act in the same way with the rest of the people? I usually feel I deserve to be 'ghosted' by the rest, etc. It is scary how all of this is only in myself (or inner me). That sordid feeling that the spirit is dying. Well, I am happy to know I am at this point now. Better later than never. Imagine how many unethical acts I would have done without realizing this problem.

Will there be a trial of the soul after all?

Cool! A bit weird, but the murmur gives me chill vibes. Maybe I am weird too!

You might like this. Ambient by way of spiritual jazz. — Noble Dust

By the way, that track is amazing and brilliant. It is the kind of ambient music I am looking for. These diamonds are very difficult to find around the internet, but I know you have many interesting tracks on your list. Thanks for sharing them with me.

@Noble Dust

Sure! And why not? If it works, it works. I just say, that "it works," is the workings of Mind. — ENOAH

OK, whatever... maybe the spirit and the mind are more tangled than I used to think.

Why? What demonstration of this do you have? This sounds more like an odd compulsion. — Tom Storm

My only demonstration is experience. Whenever I behaved unethically, I felt bad afterwards. But, beyond just my anxiety, it is obvious that my decisions caused a negative impact on the receiver. That's for granted. Sometimes, I deserve the lack of confidence some people have in me.

Dostoevsky (if he wrote this) is wrong. It should be: 'If there is a god, then anything is permitted.' Of course Dostoevsky didn't really put it like this
... — Tom Storm

I promise Dostoyevski wrote it in the way and sense I quoted above. It is is written in the Karamazov Brothers. I think the phrase actually appears as it is written, but maybe the translation differs. I remember the phrase when Ivan and Smerdyakov had the wish for the death of their own father.

Smerdyakov claims that Ivan was complicit in the murder by telling Smerdyakov when he would be leaving Fyodor Pavlovich's house, and more importantly by instilling in Smerdyakov the belief that, in a world without God, "everything is permitted.

What is spirit? — Tom Storm

Good question, Tom. I am writing a lot of posts about the spirit, but I haven't defined it yet! For me, spirit is the representation of ourselves in the intangible world.

But still I think we are talking about healing one and the same thing. Whether we call it Mind or Spirit. It might be convenient for discourse to think of the Mind as, for e.g., the seat of reason, and the spirit, for e.g., as the seat of the sacred, and thus of guilt and despair. They are not divided, but the same thing. — ENOAH

This point is very fascinating... Then, according to your argument, the mind can experience the anxiety about not acting accordingly as well. I wonder this because the mind is where the ration is allocated, and the latter helps us to see the problems and ethical dilemmas more objectively...

You suggest that the Spirit alone can be healed by confession. Yet many forms of psychotherapy involve speaking out your mind's issues to a qualified other. As long as it needs healing by apologizing, — ENOAH

Thank you for your help, understanding and support. But I don't feel I am ready to go into therapy yet. I choose to confess because I feel it is more personal. It is like a redemption with myself.

But yes, K was very disturbed in his struggles with faith, his long nights of inner struggle. Good thing he didn't marry Regina Olsen. — Astrophel

There is an interesting debate about what would have happened to Kierkegaard if he got married to Olsen!

I am certainly not against such a thing, but I think one has to rethink Kierkegaard as a model for spiritual guidance. The existential revolt against Hegel's rationalism puts all eyes on existence, one's personal existence. — Astrophel

It is a great guidance to feel myself better. But, sadly, I don't always understand Kierkegaard. This is due to my lack of knowledge about religious topics. Thus, th content of the Bible or Christian dilemmas. Being a spectator of K coming from an atheist background is fascinating, but I assume I lack key points that maybe a person with a religious background would have. For example: An atheist background would affect me in the sense of denying the existence of a spirit. Thanks to K, I learned this actually exists, and I can experience a tormenting trial of the soul because I often suspended my ethics.

Hello NOS, thanks for your feedback.

Firstly, spirit means something to me. I understand this concept created a big debate in the thread because I read that most fellows don't give this word the credit it deserves. Some argue it is about the mind, and you claim it is the individual behavior after learning for making mistakes. All of these arguments are perfectly taken to improve my knowledge, but what is the cause of behaving accordingly then? Here is my second point in this thread:

I personally believe that every sin, lie or bad action has consequences. I don't tend to see them as a quick response. I lied to my parents but I learned the lesson and I keep living. No... It goes deeper than that and at least this is how I see it. One person doesn't end up with this anxiety because of just one mistake. It is about very corrupt behavior for a long time. When these actions are repeated, the spirit could be dying, getting rotten, putrefacted. If I didn't feel this way, I think I would be an AI. It is not too easy to learn the lesson, or furthermore, to emerge unscathed.

That is what it is about... Suffering from the anxiety of being aware that I had done terrible things. How can I heal this? Some say to go to a therapist, others to see a priest, etc. The only way is to confess. This action goes deeper than just apologizing.

My intention is not to be wholly good. I just don't want to fail in temptations... If I lied to my parents is due to trying to flirt with a woman. Nature surpassed my innocent spirit. But now I understand this clearly: I haven't taken this into account because I was ignorant about taking care of my spirit! I thought there was no soul! No rotten experience! No corruption of the essence! Because without God everything is permitted' as Dostovesky would say... Well, I would say: Without a spirit, everything is permitted.

It might be better to put it where some people feel they belong. There are probably just as many people (perhaps more?) who find churches cold, intimidating, unremittingly vulgar or simply unsafe on account of having been abused (or know people abused) by religious clerics and laypeople. Just saying. :wink: — Tom Storm

You are right, Tom. It is true that churches can be intimidating for some. I will not lie and say every sacred temple is friendly. Here is another big difference between the groups inside Christianity. While Gothic churches are tenebrous, Lutheran churches are friendly, minimalist, transparent, etc. And they give a sense of peace. This is what I felt when I was in Denmark at least. :sweat: