Posts by Lisa Morales4

Susan Price30 said:Who's to say someone actually "escaped" all that? (It sounds to me like you're convinced they've moved on to a "better place")

If this was simply a matter of consciousness and the state of the soul here —then the torment continues on the other side... those who failed to find Calm during their life most often won't find it in death either... in fact, the torment is usually even more intense and powerful...

It also depends on what the transition itself—death itself—was like: violent, sudden, suicide, or peaceful and pleasant, etc., etc... which could serve as an indication of what awaits them on the other side.

are you trying to say that for someone whose heart breaks from pure grief and misery, they might just keep weeping on the other side😕

and what about God's promise regarding everyone written in the Lamb's book of life:

He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying, nor pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

His gates never close, and there is no night there.

on the first page, some beautiful souls were mentioning acceptance and letting go, and Samthing told me something so lovely:

In that very moment, I felt both sorrow and serenity, both life and humility.

blessed are those who are so deeply loved that they can find their own peace in their eternal resting place, as long as there are those here to mourn them with peace and humility.

cosmictinker21 As expressed by:
I sometimes wonder if we’ll ever reach a tipping point in this world of ours—this constant path of least resistance—where enough wise people finally gather to actually step up and do some good.😢

We're getting close...

Just as we first debated the evolutionary process of the Fall from Eden to the earth—which really means the transition of spirit becoming matter—we are now slowly converging back into One. It’s happening through a cosmic balance of creative spiritual Force, guided by Nature's plan.

Brandon Wright54 said:There’s no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" kind of feminist. There are just different schools of thought—liberal, Marxist, radical, trans-feminism, cyber-feminism, and so on. You can't claim one woman is a "real" feminist while another isn't; everyone is acting on their own convictions. It turns out there is no universal archetype for a feminist, nor even for a woman. The whole idea of a "universal female identity" relies on forcing people into a specific mold. Personally, I’m not a fan of the radical approach where they advocate for the entire female population solely based on sex, ignoring the fact that women can unconsciously play into sexist roles themselves.

The strategy I mentioned has been used in feminist circles for years to emphasize the constructive nature of gender—it has nothing to do with being a lesbian or just enjoying one's body. A femme fatale is a siren who uses her appeal like a weapon—think Medusa. Honestly, I’m not even sure how much physical appearance matters in this whole feminism debate; I find the issue of female body representation far more interesting. And I really don't get why you'd see Mother Mary or Princess Diana as "avant-garde" women... that doesn't quite track for me.🤷

It’s because they gave their entire lives to challenge the status quo. They served as global sources of inspiration, acting as messengers and prophetesses—true agents of change who carried Christ's Spirit.

In addition to those women we already discussed, I’d like to add one more to the list:



A writer and Persian theologian, Tahirih paid with her life for her desire to disrupt the status quo; she stood in a public square, right in front of the men's council, and tore off her veil. The crowd was scandalized, and one man was so shaken by what he saw that he actually took his own life on the spot.

The spirituality and the work of that proactive woman, Tahirih, remains incredibly fertile ground today. Her influence isn't just limited to feminist spirituality across the globe; it’s globally relevant to humanity at large. Tahirih acted as an apostolic trumpet, an announcer, and a bearer of the new Christ's Spirit to the world, signaling a shift toward a new direction—essentially starting a new faith that marked the beginning of the end for existing religious divisions, calling instead for universality and unity by ending all sectarian strife.

To honor this extraordinary woman, a prominent Baha'i theologian publicly bestowed upon her the name "Tahirih," the Pure One.

Brian Foster3 said:At its core, this is just pure, unadulterated greed, taken to the extreme...

If women weren't constantly trying to impress people and instead actually demanded that men be spiritual—like, if that became the actual standard or "trend" most women looked for—men would be rushing to find enlightenment faster than you can blink. 😉

But let's be real, women want something else entirely...(just follow the money in those women's magazines)

So you think they just want to please men?🙄

dustyskipper3 said:That biblical perspective is essentially rooted in creationism. The Creator made the world, the plants, the animals, and then, as the peak of creation, He made Adam in His own image—followed by Eve from his rib to be his companion, though she was led astray by the serpent, and so on. So, when people blame all the evil in the world on women—that whole cherchez la femme idea—well, even Bora Čorba acknowledges that sentiment. But the theory of evolution offers a different view, I think. It suggests our genes aren't inherently more valuable than those of a fruit fly; in fact, we carry quite a few of the same genes. Similarly, a woman's genes or her X chromosome can't be a priori less valuable than a man's genes or the Y chromosome. The issue, perhaps, is that how much certain genes are "valued" is determined by whoever holds power in society, which has mostly been men, so suddenly the traits carried by the Y chromosome become "superior." There isn't really a difference, if you think about it, between gender discrimination and racial discrimination—it all comes down to genetics. Those Nazi racial theories claiming an "Aryan" race exists, while others like Slavs, Black people, Roma, or Jewish people are "inferior," aren't any worse than the widespread theories regarding the genetic inferiority of women, which both rely on a creationist worldview. In the past, the Bible was used to justify slavery, claiming Black people were lesser beings in the eyes of God, but today we understand that the New Testament actually forbids all forms of slavery. I suspect the same logic should apply to women, though I suppose it depends on how believers choose to interpret it in practice. On one hand, the right to choice should mean liberating women from a kind of servitude, yet on the other hand, some see it as violating human rights—specifically the embryo's right to life. It’s not a simple problem, maybe, but I personally don't believe an embryo can be considered a person. I’m not sure if that’s just a product of secularization, because I suspect that historically, people didn't consider a conception to be a person either—only someone who was born or could potentially survive birth. Yet, today, our knowledge of evolution and genetics has somehow birthed a new way to subjugate women, based on the idea that humanity begins at conception. So, education and secularization don't always lead to progress in consciousness; they might just lead to new types of fundamentalism. For instance, there is very advanced science in Iran—oil engineering, for example, and they produce enriched uranium—but still...

That's right: just as a fruit fly has a right to life, so does (a single) embryo.
Everything is wrapped in the same love.

slymaker9 said:Look, at the end of the day, people work primarily to secure their livelihood. It’s great when you find a job that allows for genuine self-fulfillment, but that isn't easy to come by in an economy with such high unemployment rates.

In my current environment, it would be very easy for my desire to transfer to be misconstrued as laziness or a lack of work ethic, but I couldn't care less about that perception. I reached my breaking point, and I had to take action.

I mean, let's be real... not everyone you run into at the office is radiating good vibes. Some people will honestly just drain the life out of you, but hey, the electric bill doesn't pay itself.😢

Hang in there.

Brandon Wright54 said:There’s no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" kind of feminist. There are just different schools of thought—liberal, Marxist, radical, trans-feminism, cyber-feminism, and so on. You can't claim one woman is a "real" feminist while another isn't; everyone is acting on their own convictions. It turns out there is no universal archetype for a feminist, nor even for a woman. The whole idea of a "universal female identity" relies on forcing people into a specific mold. Personally, I’m not a fan of the radical approach where they advocate for the entire female population solely based on sex, ignoring the fact that women can unconsciously play into sexist roles themselves.

The strategy I mentioned has been used in feminist circles for years to emphasize the constructive nature of gender—it has nothing to do with being a lesbian or just enjoying one's body. A femme fatale is a siren who uses her appeal like a weapon—think Medusa. Honestly, I’m not even sure how much physical appearance matters in this whole feminism debate; I find the issue of female body representation far more interesting. And I really don't get why you'd see Mother Mary or Princess Diana as "avant-garde" women... that doesn't quite track for me.🤷

It's the same way you'd view Mother Courage by Bertolt Brecht.🙂

slymaker9, the joy you get from dancing depends entirely on whether you're dancing with the right partner

In the same way, the satisfaction you find in any project is really just a reflection of how much you enjoy working with your specific team

Rachel Williams18 said:The whole concept of being "commanded or subservient" has basically mutated from its raw, primal roots into the most insanely complex system we know—how society itself is structured. Let’s be real, the Great Goddess mentioned in the first post doesn't stand a chance against a guy swinging a club. A club is a club, and at the end of the day, he's the one calling the shots.

On a completely different note—and this has nothing to do with matriarchies or patriarchies, I swear—something else entirely has dressed up in the gown of some unfairly oppressed, downtrodden harlot. This thing? It’s thirsty for revenge and power. It’s the kind of force that wants to tear down the very foundations of society, or rewrite the eternal laws of the cosmos... or even the laws of physics and hard science.

Yeah, right. As if.

It’s wearing a mask. It isn't who it claims to be.
And honestly, neither is he.

It’s a total masquerade. Vicious, soulless, and completely devoted to its master.

That Great Goddess? She’s just a lady in red—basically a masked Golem.

Yeah, exactly! That's how you could look at it. 😛

Even that guy with the club eventually realized that as long as brute force is what matters, the intellect is essentially ruling the show. 😍

In a way, that Goddess actually triggered this entire process of stratification and hierarchy:
while some men ran toward escapism, others—the men of the future—swapped out the club for a flower in their hand. 🙂

She craves vengeance and power; she is the one who will tear down the foundations of society, reshaping eternal cosmic laws or the very principles of exact and natural sciences.

You must be joking, 😛
is what Superman used to say, right before he fell for Louis Lane and found his true partner—his own Batgirl, with whom he’d spend his days chasing down fake goddesses in red or masked giants.

Brandon Wright54 said:Some feminists even lean into that femininity just to mock it—turning it into this exaggerated caricature to make it look fake...

Those aren't feminists; they're more like "unlucky attractive" lesbians,

A true feminist is more like a femme fatale—someone fully aware of her femininity, someone who enjoys it and values it enough to step outside modern norms just to highlight and truly celebrate it.

In my eyes, feminism has been embodied by figures like Mother Mary, Mother Teresa, Lady Diana, and Joan of Arc.
They were all goddesses of love in their own right through their femininity—strong, standout, original, and avant-garde women who, in their own unique ways, through exceptional spirituality drove unconventional historical shifts in the evolution of human society.

Anonymous said:I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

XX

Anonymous said:I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

Exactly—spirituality is where intuition and intellect finally merge.

Anonymous said:I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

True, spirituality eventually weaves itself into the fabric of general culture.

Anonymous said:I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

That's why you shouldn't worry about what's around you; it’s enough to first know yourself, and then simply have one person in your life who serves as a sufficient mirror.

In the "world at large," hardly anyone cares whether you are male or female anymore.

In fact, even within the Catholic Church, women aren't in the shadow of men. Quite the opposite, actually—given the sheer volume of their energy and commitment to church life, women are often leading the way. They hold roles ranging from special ministries to reading, managing the entire music program, various liturgies, leading youth groups, prayer circles, and social or charitable organizations. They are responding to the call for "all the baptized to be aware of their active contribution and responsibility in the life of the Church" (Millennium Ineunte, no. 46).

Women are answering the call to collaborative service within the Church, where "a mature Christian expresses unity in Christ by working together to fulfill His mission in the world" (from Word to Deeds, USCCB).

Susan Price30 said:And they actually listen to you because you aren't? *smirk* (though that wasn't even what she meant)

Maybe it would be a better idea if we didn't turn this debate into a personal attack, sis.🙂

Sorry, I should have clarified—please don't take this personally.
Weren't you trying to suggest that it's harder to be spiritual if you happen to be a woman?

I reacted that way because I've always found myself reflecting on that exact thing: the idea that it's harder for a sexy blonde to prove she's intelligent, simply because everyone assumes she's just there to look pretty for some corporate executive.

But I've come to realize that when it comes to spirituality, that isn't the case at all.
Not that I'm being indiscreet, sis, but I consider myself "advanced sexy"—and specifically because of my approach to spirituality, I've never felt like people only see the surface or the packaging.

And that also serves as an answer to lonegardener's question about whether sexiness can be something spiritual: it doesn't just *can* be, it absolutely *is*.

Sexiness comes from within.
The guys could probably speak more to that, considering how many women are absolute knockout visuals on the outside but leave them feeling empty inside—what does that actually stir up in them?
I suppose the answer depends on the men's own level of spirituality: if they're hollow, then a superficial secretary will be the peak of their existence.

Susan Price30 said:What a lovely post.😍 Spot on...

Regarding the answer to the bolded question: I think about this almost constantly, and the more I reflect on it, the more it seems to me... that being physically unattractive, or at least plain Jane, makes it much easier to strive toward reaching a higher level of spirituality (at least the kind of spirituality that I personally find attractive and interesting).

But then again, everyone has their own battles to fight or finish (if not those, then something else, right?) ...so in the end, it all comes back to the same thing.

So, you mean people don't take you seriously because you're just too sexy? 😍

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

Dualism will persist as long as our race is ruled by muscles, and as long as those notions are woven into our very minds and ways of thinking.

As we overcome our ego, more unisex approaches begin to emerge. So, dissolving duality isn't really a task for "feminist spirituality" specifically, but rather for spirituality in general, regardless of gender. After all, spirituality doesn't wear pants...

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

... which just goes to show how provocative and stimulating your statement is. 😍 👍 Tradition might say that’s a quality more typical of Eve, since she is stereotypically the queen of stirring things up.

I believe you're a man, so you couldn't technically be a feminist, but through your own spirituality, you've contributed more than any of us here to dissolving that dualism by embracing oneness, or the unity of beings.

Of course, a person's spirituality—their inner essence—illuminates and radiates outward, piercing right through a computer screen to the other side of the world to shape the landscape of their external self. This includes their physical reflection, body language, diction, and so on.

By choosing this thread title, you're highlighting that exact issue: that very duality.

dustyraven26 said:Exactly, untying that knot.
Climbing through those layers of realization is really just the process of loosening that knot—allowing the reach of our perspective to extend further.🙂

But holding onto hope that we can achieve that state while still clinging to worldly attachments seems pretty unrealistic. History suggests that’s just an illusion.

My dear friend, don't just believe and hope—actually take that belief and hope and leaping into action with the spirit of a superhero, which is precisely what it means to untie that knot.

As it is in heaven, so it is on earth.
Think of all the spiritual leaders and saints who paved the way by letting go of physical desires, essentially dying to their old selves to be reborn into a higher plane.

As for life after death, I can't wrap my head around it; for me, living here and now, it's just a concept I can't personally verify.

If you live free from the pressures of the physical world and exist within timelessness... if you exist beyond time itself... then we realize there isn't actually a boundary between "now" and "then." It's just a simple transition through a doorway.

Find joy right where you are, in your own space, right this second, 🙂 because everything is already yours🙂—it has been yours since the beginning and will be forever.🙂

Exactly, untying that knot.
Climbing through those layers of realization is really just the process of loosening that knot—allowing the reach of our perspective to extend further.🙂

But holding onto hope that we can achieve that state while still clinging to worldly attachments seems pretty unrealistic. History suggests that’s just an illusion.

My dear friend, don't just believe and hope—actually take that belief and hope and leaping into action with the spirit of a superhero, which is precisely what it means to untie that knot.

As it is in heaven, so it is on earth.
Think of all the spiritual leaders and saints who paved the way by letting go of physical desires, essentially dying to their old selves to be reborn into a higher plane.

As for life after death, I can't wrap my head around it; for me, living here and now, it's just a concept I can't personally verify.

If you live free from the pressures of the physical world and exist within timelessness... if you exist beyond time itself... then we realize there isn't actually a boundary between "now" and "then." It's just a simple transition through a doorway.

Find joy right where you are, in your own space, right this second, 🙂 because everything is already yours🙂—it has been yours since the beginning and will be forever.🙂
Is this how you personally define faith and hope?
In practical terms, faith proves quite useful because, in our daily lives, we place our trust in far more things than we might readily admit. People rely on messages, abstract ideas, efficiency, love, the intentions of others, and even various occurrences that range from the plausible to the purely superstitious, such as astrology or tarot readings.

Mine is this:
Faith is typically defined as accepting a claim as true without verifying its validity. Consequently, it serves as a subjective, spiritual interpretation of one's perceptions, thoughts, or communications.
Since I find nothing to be beyond question, I tend to categorize belief within the realm of delusion.
As for the former type, I prefer to leave it open to scrutiny for the time being. 🙂

as it is in heaven, so it is on earth
Think of how many spiritual leaders and saints have demonstrated the path toward this state, by denying their physical selves, dying to their ego, and ultimately being reborn into the "heavens."

As above, so below
For my part, I am actively seeking that internal "death" of the worldly self to allow the spiritual to emerge.
That is the essence of negation.

if one lives liberated from earthly pressures within timelessness, they live in an all-encompassing presence... which means knowing there is no boundary between then and now, but merely a simple transition through a threshold cottage.

Find joy in your own space, here and now🙂 for everything already belongs to you, 🙂forever and always.🙂

👍
Is this how you personally define faith and hope?
In practical terms, faith proves quite useful because, in our daily lives, we place our trust in far more things than we might readily admit. People rely on messages, abstract ideas, efficiency, love, the intentions of others, and even various occurrences that range from the plausible to the purely superstitious, such as astrology or tarot readings.

Mine is this:
Faith is typically defined as accepting a claim as true without verifying its validity. Consequently, it serves as a subjective, spiritual interpretation of one's perceptions, thoughts, or communications.
Since I find nothing to be beyond question, I tend to categorize belief within the realm of delusion.
As for the former type, I prefer to leave it open to scrutiny for the time being. 🙂

as it is in heaven, so it is on earth
Think of how many spiritual leaders and saints have demonstrated the path toward this state, by denying their physical selves, dying to their ego, and ultimately being reborn into the "heavens."

As above, so below
For my part, I am actively seeking that internal "death" of the worldly self to allow the spiritual to emerge.
That is the essence of negation.

if one lives liberated from earthly pressures within timelessness, they live in an all-encompassing presence... which means knowing there is no boundary between then and now, but merely a simple transition through a threshold cottage.

Find joy in your own space, here and now🙂 for everything already belongs to you, 🙂forever and always.🙂

👍
Yeah, all those little nuances, the subtleties, the fine print... if that’s my style of V&N, then you can bet I'm signing off on it. 😍

Faith actually serves a really practical purpose in our lives because, deep down, we tend to believe in way more things than we usually admit. It isn't just about religion; people put their trust in messages, big ideas, the concept of hard work, love, and the intentions of those around them. We also lean into all sorts of things that might seem improbable—whether it’s following a horoscope or believing in the supernatural. At its core, faith is just how we navigate the world.

As long as we take the time to reflect.

Some people find guidance through various religious institutions, which helps keep them from feeling completely lost amidst such an overwhelming variety of "belief systems" on the market today.
Some people just drift aimlessly through those waters of belief, while others seem stuck in them forever. Drifting away. It’s all about that flow... energy is consumed—burned, refined—and that's the entire point. We're just spinning in cycles. 🙂

Here’s mine:
Faith is usually defined as... Believing something is true just because you feel it is, without actually doing the legwork to verify it..

Yeah, once you finally surrender to that faith, everything just starts falling into place right at your doorstep. Confirmations. I don't need some lab test to provide me with proof of life; I’ll just let time do the talking. Eventually, time will define everything and prove it better than any experiment ever could. 🙂

In my view, it really just comes down to a subjective, spiritual interpretation of how we perceive an outcome, our own internal dialogue, or the way we communicate.
Since I don't take anything at face value, I’ve ended up categorizing belief itself as nothing more than a well-packaged delusion.
As for that first option, I'm going to leave it on the table for now and keep it open for discussion. 🙂

Everyone has their own purpose in this life. As for me, I’m just busy living out my faith through practice. A Power Ranger diving straight into the fray. You're already too busy questioning that.

It looks like we’re both on the same page here. Things are moving pretty fast right now. Just keeping my head down and working through the pile.
And honestly, I think you could use a little bit of my faith right now, just to make sure things don't spiral out of control on you. It’s all getting a bit too tangled up. I’m going to need your context; without it, I’d probably spin right out of orbit on my Harley or my mountain bike.

That’s just how it works: while I’m sitting back and catching my breath after flying high with RL, you’re already halfway there. Roaming can be such a headache when you're traveling. It’s one of those things you don't think about until you land, realize you have no data, and suddenly you're wandering around a new city without a map or a way to call an Uber. Honestly, it’s worth looking into local SIM cards or travel eSIMs before you even leave the house just to save yourself the stress. The streets. VL Quote

It’s the same story whether you're looking inside or out.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm constantly searching within myself for that "death" of the material self, just so my spirit can finally break free.
That’s essentially just a matter of negation.

👍

There it is... once we balance the highs and lows, the external and the internal—once we reconcile all those contradictions and move past this constant state of duality—only then can we truly realize that past and present, here and there, you and I, are all part of one magnificent, powerful, and free unity that has no beginning and no end.

In the meantime, keep orbiting.🙂

dustyraven26 said:There is no reason to close oneself off to the possibility of love, of God, or of any force that inspires a person toward nobility.
However, maintaining the belief that such things can be attained within this world without first detaching oneself from secular distractions is highly questionable; history suggests that such an expectation is merely a delusion.
As for life after death, I decline to speculate, as for someone living here and now, it remains nothing more than a concept that lacks any empirical verification.

Why not stay open to the possibility of love, of God, or anything else that inspires us to be better versions of ourselves?
Exactly, untying that knot.
Climbing through those layers of realization is really just the process of loosening that knot—allowing the reach of our perspective to extend further.🙂

But holding onto hope that we can achieve that state while still clinging to worldly attachments seems pretty unrealistic. History suggests that’s just an illusion.

My dear friend, don't just believe and hope—actually take that belief and hope and leaping into action with the spirit of a superhero, which is precisely what it means to untie that knot.

As it is in heaven, so it is on earth.
Think of all the spiritual leaders and saints who paved the way by letting go of physical desires, essentially dying to their old selves to be reborn into a higher plane.

As for life after death, I can't wrap my head around it; for me, living here and now, it's just a concept I can't personally verify.

If you live free from the pressures of the physical world and exist within timelessness... if you exist beyond time itself... then we realize there isn't actually a boundary between "now" and "then." It's just a simple transition through a doorway.

Find joy right where you are, in your own space, right this second, 🙂 because everything is already yours🙂—it has been yours since the beginning and will be forever.🙂

It sounds like you’re just picking up some scraps and closing down shop...

Hold on, I haven't even properly settled in for this discussion yet (aside from a few quick check-ins at the start)🙄
You guys aren't going to lock this thread already, are you?

I’ve been looking over the thread, and it seems like you're basing everything solely on what an experienced person might think... hmm... but what about those who spend their entire lives trying to cleanse their minds of all things "earthly"? Those who do it through faith in eternal nothingness?

Exactly, Harmony. 🙂
Angels help guide us through the evolution from our unconscious nature toward a higher state of consciousness—reaching the true essence of who we are. Of course, this only happens if we step up and become active participants in our own lives.

Our earthly struggles are actually what drive us toward enlightenment.
The angels assist us in embracing our pain, transforming it from something that hurts into a source of momentum and pure energetic nourishment.

Whatever, just keep your angel to yourself 🙂

I figured you might actually enjoy these 8 photos

Freebie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45-6duFvfuI