jebexclamationpoint

[T.E. Jentzen @Faithful2Pray]

Once I understood, I couldn’t go back… the Eucharist is what converted me out of Protestantism to Catholicism.
John 6:53-69

[jebexclamationpoint @MPotacious37397]

@TreeHouseBrewCo What geos are you distributing to

[jebexclamationpoint @MPotacious37397]

@safewordsorg Why would you embark on an adventure knowing for certain how is will go? Go to Mass and let the Holy Spirit do the rest!

[jebexclamationpoint @MPotacious37397]

@TreeHouseBrewCo What does it taste like though

[Johan @liebert_2026]

Joe Rogan on why the grizzly beats the gorilla and the tiger, and it has nothing to do with size:

The argument starts as a hot take and turns into a case.

Rogan: "Grizzly would kill a gorilla, dude."

First he splits the grizzly in two, because not all of them are the same animal.

Rogan: "There's mountain grizzlies, and then there's coastal brown bears, which are the same species, but they have much more access to protein. They're just eating salmon all day. And moose. Those things are giant."

Rogan: "They're huge. They run 40 miles an hour."

Then he turns to the gorilla, and points at the one feature that should win the argument for it.

Rogan: "Silverbacks have canines that are just for posturing."

Rogan: "Every other thing that has canines as big as a gorilla kills things. They just eat vegetables."

The weapons are real. The experience is not.
Even its nearest relatives hunt, which makes the gap stranger.

Rogan: "Chimps are very carnivorous. They eat a lot of meat. They eat a lot of monkeys."

Rogan: "But really, what they want is monkeys. That's their favorite thing to eat."

Rogan: "I had the director on. And he said, they didn't even show all the chimps eating monkeys."

Someone puts a Siberian tiger in the ring instead. Rogan does not take that either, and the reason is the same reason.

Rogan: "They're designed to fight. A cat is not necessarily designed to fight. They're designed to kill things."

Rogan: "I don't think the big cat is used to fighting."

Killing is an ambush. Fighting is a fight.

Rogan: "Grizzlies fight each other all the time and they fight for like 20 minutes and they tear each other apart and they don't get hurt."

Rogan: "Their skin is so flexible and so thick that they get just bit down on and they're shaking each other and then they just shake it off like nothing happened."

Rogan: "Grizzlies are out there. They're like Tyson in their prime. It's every two weeks."

He has watched it happen, hunting black bears over bait in Alberta.

Rogan: "They'll decide like who gets the bait, or they'll decide that a female is hot and she's ready to have sex, and they'll fight over the female."

Rogan: "I watched these two dudes just go at it, like 30 yards away."

The gorilla is stronger. The tiger is deadlier. The grizzly has done this hundreds of times.

[0x_Ito @0x_Ito]

Tony Robbins charges up to $1 million for a single speech. Decades ago, someone filmed him giving away the entire technique for free

This is skill arbitrage in its purest form - the gap between what you know and what someone else doesn't, sold directly

Robbins built an empire on exactly one gap: reading what makes a person say yes, and closing that gap in real time

By 1991, his company was already doing $50 million a year. Presidents, billionaires, hedge fund managers - Paul Tudor Jones among them - paid for private time with him

None of that came from a script. It came from a specific, teachable read: find what someone is already leaning toward, and anchor the offer to that feeling instead of fighting it

This footage catches him teaching the raw mechanics, not the stage show - no seminar lighting, no crowd, just the technique itself

That kind of footage doesn't usually survive.
Most of it stays inside $10,000-a-ticket seminars or rooms billed at six figures an hour

The skill was never secret. Access to watching it explained plainly was

[sacredchad @sacredchad_ig]

Ex-CIA agent John Kiriakou about his crucifix necklace ☦️

[Sam Steffanina @SamSteffanina]

nintendo lawyers having an aneurism as we speak

[Fr. Daniel☦️ @Fragbaza]

A Record of Sins According to the Passions

1. Neglecting Prayer

This category includes missing or leaving clerical and church prayers unattended. It also encompasses neglecting one's personal devotion to Jesus out of laziness.

2. Pride and Vanity

Pride manifests through stubbornness, persistence in wrongdoing, shamelessness, and irritability. It breeds self-love, self-admiration, self-justification, and self-confidence. It also includes "Jakania" (the constant focus on "I") and all other forms of vanity. Anger frequently stems from this underlying pride and vanity.

3. Deceit and Lying

This involves outright lying, inaccuracy in storytelling, and specific manifestations of untruth through words, deeds, and the mental intent to deceive. When examining this sin, one must identify the underlying reason for the lie. Consider what prompted the deceit: was it a desire to belittle someone else, praise oneself, or acquire material gain?

4. Cruelty and Hardness of Heart

This passion shows itself through cruelty, refusal to help, indifference, anger, and irritability. All of these are manifestations of a lack of love. It also includes unforgiveness and related sins.

5. Other Disobediences

These sins include violating prescribed fasts and misbehaving during temple services or while performing one’s spiritual rule. They also include failing to read spiritual books, neglecting to read the Holy Gospel daily, and violating the holiness of the sanctuary.

6. Impurity

This category covers impure desires, unholy thoughts, daydreams, and shameful feelings.

7. Sins of the Tongue

These include condemnation of others, judging, blasphemy, idle daydreams, self-praise, and self-defensive speech. It also includes senseless laughter or laughing merely to please others, which amounts to a form of idolatry. When examining why you condemn others, ask yourself if it stems from a lack of love, high-mindedness, pride, idleness, a lack of meaningful communication, or envy. In this way, you reveal the passion that acts as the root of the sin.

8. Avarice and Carnal Indulgence

This involves pampering the body through excessive sleep and gluttony. It includes seeking excessive physical comfort, pleasure, and infidelity. It also encompasses an excessive, vain care for the outward purity of the body.

9. Intrusive Thoughts and Despair

This passion involves battling intrusive thoughts, dark desires, and the inability to overcome despair. Regarding these thoughts, you must identify their origin and cause—discovering where they came from and why they arose. Consider whether your personal will, interest, desire, curiosity, or a heartfelt inner conversation fueled them. Ask yourself why you did not immediately abandon the thought or drive it away. Ultimately, you must answer for the state of your heart and your will.

10. Laziness

Laziness can be divided into three distinct types: Laziness toward God

Laziness toward yourselfLaziness toward other peopleIf laziness overcomes you, the enemy has won and rejoices. The day is entirely lost if you fail to record the pangs of your conscience, your wayward thoughts, your verbal sins, and your unchristian deeds. If you do not truly desire to examine yourself in this way, it will be impossible to obtain true spiritual joy and rejoicing.

-Hieroschemamonk Sampson Sivers

[jebexclamationpoint @MPotacious37397]

@mindofachaser Just kill it next time not worth it risking your wife and child's lives

[JD™ @LostMyHats]

A lot of folks are shocked at this, wondering how an exemplar of Judeo-Christian values could hold this view. This is an excellent learning opportunity, because there is a perfectly logical explanation for Prager's perspective on why animated child p0rn isn't immoral: He's Jewish.

This is a great lesson on why the concept of "Judeo-Christian ethics" is a misnomer and conflates two contradictory, oppositional ethical systems that couldn't be further apart. Learning opportunity! I'll explain.

The first thing you must grasp is that Rabbinic Judaism formed for half a millennium AFTER Christianity developed and its canon closed, and largely in *response* to Christianity and oppositional to it. Its ethical teachings are derived from the traditions of the Pharisee sect, which are at times hostile to Christian values and often contradictory to them. That being so, Rabbinic ethics are often at odds with Mosaic teachings, from which Christian ethics are largely derived.

Historic Christianity teaches that sin is fundamentally an offense against God's holy nature. People are harmed because sin first violates who God is. As a result, its ethical discussions often focus on inherent right and wrong and immutable moral standards based upon God Himself.

Rabbinic Judaism tends to define sin more as disrupting justice within the covenant community. As a result, its ethical discussions often focus on concrete harm to people, restitution, and legal obligations.

This stems from the Talmud's legal orientation. Rather than asking, "How does this offend God's nature?" it more often asks, "Which commandment was broken? Who was harmed? What restitution is required?"

So while Rabbinic Judaism certainly recognizes sins against God (like idolatry or Sabbath-breaking), its moral reasoning often emphasizes observable human harm far more than historic Christian theology, which roots all morality in the character of God Himself.

This is why, for example, Jewish Temu-Sharia, Halakha Law, is a two-tiered system of justice, with one punishment for harming goyim, and another for harming Jews. In Christianity, it doesn't matter who you kill or rape. It's equally sinful because it's a sin against the character of God. In Rabbinic Judaism, WHO you harm determines the severity of the sin.

Even in Israel today, the Knesset voted to make killing a Jew in Israel a capital offense, but not a Gentile. That passed just this year. It's inconceivable in the Christian world, but in Jewish ethics, that makes certain sense. Prager, therefore, is just being consistent. Unless it harms a specific person, it's not a sin. A Jew thinks, "Who is due restitution?" If no one is harmed, it cannot possibly be immoral.

When you factor in other differences in morality between the "Judeo" and the "Christian" - for example, Rabbinic Judaism's explicit denials of the Imago Dei - you can see how much work that hyphen is actually doing. For example, consider this from Pirkei Avot 3:10:

"Anyone with whom people are pleased, God is pleased; anyone with whom people are not pleased, God is not pleased." Can you imagine that wiggling through to the Christian ethical system? Absolutely not.

Some Christians wonder why Rabbinic Jews are so overwhelmingly in favor of abortion. But their religion teaches that the Torah - the first five books of the Bible( (which include God's Moral Law) are subject to "human dignity": "Great is human dignity, for it overrides a prohibition of the Torah" (Berakhot 19b).

Rabbinic Judaism even teaches that it's a bigger deal to sin against other people than God Himself: "For transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; however, for transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases the other person" (Yoma 8:9).

This is why Rabbinic Judaism really is a lawyer's religion. It's one big series of loopholes to be creatively exploited to evade God's standards. No real human offended? No restitution to pay? No victim besides God Himself? He doesn't count. It doesn't matter.

[Kaizen D. Asiedu @thatsKAIZEN]

This is seriously impressive and shows why Nayib Bukele is one of the most competent leaders in the world.

He has the right balance of intellect and common sense.

[jebexclamationpoint @MPotacious37397]

@EithanDHaimMD >basic pattern identification is discriminatory

[jebexclamationpoint @MPotacious37397]

@justalexoki Counterpoint: Eucharistic miracles

[Genius Thinking @GeniusGTX]

School spent 18 years teaching you a reflex that destroys real conversations.

Conor Neill puts it plainly:

"You finish your pitch and the customer says, 'Your product is too expensive!' You arrive home a few minutes late, your partner says, 'You are always late.' There's a dirty plate left on the table 'You never wash the dishes.' What do you say in this moment?"

Here's the trap Neill identifies:

"Most of you, me included, went through 14 years of school where we were taught one way to respond to questions. Teacher asks, 'How do you spell cats?' Student: 'C-A-T.' Teacher asks, 'What is osmosis?' Student explains in detail. For 14 years, you've been taught to give answers to questions. If you went to university, you probably had another 3 or 4 years of giving answers to questions."

And that conditioning costs you:

"In real life in persuasion, in getting to what the other person is really about, what their needs really are, the worst thing you can do is give an answer to a question."

Watch what happens when you answer:

"If someone says, 'Your product is too expensive,' and you say, 'No it's not! It's only €1,000'; you've lost every chance to understand what else is behind their reasoning. If you get home and your partner says, 'You're always late!' and you say, 'No, no, no, Tuesday I was definitely here on time', you're gonna have a crap weekend."

Why does the brain default to this?

"When your partner says, 'You're always late,' emotion goes up. And what happens? The thinking part disconnects. The way to make someone stupider is to insult them, object to them, tell them they are wrong. When you're asked a question, there's an emotional reaction, and the higher emotion goes, the lower thinking goes."

And it won't fix itself without work:

"If you don't practice this response, you're not going to be able to do it in the moment. If you don't practice repeatedly how you'll respond to 'You're always late,' 'You never wash the dishes,' 'Your product is too expensive,' 'Your competitor is better,' 'You failed us 3 years ago,' 'I don't trust your company', you're not going to be able to do it in the heat of the moment."

The alternative Neill teaches:

"When you are asked a question or given an objection, I want you to say: 'I understand.' And repeat in your words what they're saying. Then give an open question back."

In practice:

"'Your product is too expensive!' → 'I understand that money is an important factor for you. What other criteria will be used in making this decision?'"

He calls this Conversation Aikido:

"Martial arts are about using the energy and force of the opponent against them. In Judo, if someone punches you, you pull their arm and allow the energy to keep flowing. In Aikido, the concept is you go toward the punch. You go toward the energy. If someone punches you, if someone asks you a question, if someone objects, the Aikido method is to go toward them and see the world from their view."

For the harder personal moments:

"'You're always late!' → 'I understand you feel frustrated.' 'I understand you feel let down.' You'll have to work on this quite a few times over the next 10 years to find the set of words that captures what the other person feels, what's behind it. Then ask: 'What can we do now?' 'What happened during the day?' 'What would you like to talk about?'"

By defending, you go blind:

"When a client says 'You're too expensive' and you say 'No, we're not!' you learn nothing about who else they're considering, what other criteria are important, what process they've gone through, who else is involved in the decision."

Neill's guarantee:

"By giving the answer, we shut down the possibility of hearing what's really going on in the other person's mind. But if you say 'I understand,' accept the energy coming from the other person, and give back an open question, I guarantee that if you do it 4 times, the answer to your 4th open question begins to be the real underlying need, issue, or interest of the person you're listening to."

[PUREBOLLOCKS @PUREBOLLOC51085]

@Insolent_Bandit AN INDIAN DESCRIBING HIS OWN COUNTRY....https://t.co/atvWdW96qM

[Massimo @Rainmaker1973]

Tribesmen in the Amazon listens to opera for the first time

[Bree Solstad @BreeSolstad]

The cloistered Carmelite Nuns of Wolverhampton allowed a 2-person camera crew into the monastery. This was the first time anyone other than a doctor or priest had entered in 90 years.

The footage is amazing. This is my favorite 10 minute section, especially when the youngest and oldest nun sit down and challenge the filmmaker about God.

Truly a breathtaking and beautiful life lived completely apart from the world. Set apart and wedded to Christ forever!

[jebexclamationpoint @MPotacious37397]

@CircusSSCaine Ffs they literally said they are coming for your children

[Defiant Ghost @TheDefiantGhost]

Jay Dyer on Tucker Carlson: How Medieval Philosophy Nominalism created modern transgender ideology:

“Nominalism is the idea that there are only names to things, not essences. So there’s no human nature. No dog nature. The ancient world believed things have real essences. Words described metaphysical reality.

Occam started denying that. It influenced Luther. Then Hume, Kant, the Enlightenment…

If things don’t have essences, then they don’t have genders objectively — everything is just a name.
So I can just name myself he, him, Zer, Z.

That’s the logical train from medieval philosophy to postmodern gender ideology.
It flies in the face of lived experience. You basically have to be indoctrinated to believe it.”