Posts by Susan Price30

hiddenpuma75 said:3) the druid moderator wiped this thread without any explanation or reasoning today.😲
even though the discussion was going great and had already hit three pages.

There must have been a reason.
Without even seeing the thread, I can guess you were probably just trolling people mid-week—maybe even picking on mistyscout2 specifically.

Get a life! What you're doing is just pathetic and gross...

hiddenpuma75 is just your average troll and a total waste of everyone's time, yet the spirituality mods are far too lenient and fair... if he actually managed to rattle a spirituality moderator, then that 10,000 point penalty and the permanent ban (which later got downgraded to a partial one) were probably overkill.

* It’s a shame I didn't spot this thread earlier, but I really hope the spirituality crowd shuts down the next similar one the moment it opens.

Lisa Morales4 said: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.

Truth be told, it’s hard to wrap standard garbage in pretty pink cellophane... because more often than not, that cellophane is transparent enough that you can smell the stench from an airplane away. sister.

No matter how many layers of camouflage you apply... because, as some people so vividly put it: it's full of shit.

Lisa Morales4 said:So, you mean people don't take you seriously because you're just too sexy? 😍

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.🙂

lonegardener said:🤷 Is sexuality strictly a physical matter? 🤔

If it's limited to that one special person we've pledged ourselves to before the altar till death do us part then no.😁

(for certain types of spirituality, obviously)

lonegardener said:But does spirituality have any connection to sexuality at all? 😍

The physical realm and the spiritual realm are mutually exclusive by definition—at least, that's my take on it!

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. 😍

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.

jademarlin26 said:How can non-belief be considered faith? Let's try using some Aristotle.

It’s simply the absence of faith, just like I mentioned 🙂 earlier—feel free to explain the rest yourself.

...anyway, greetings to you all. Remember when this place was just three people on a chatroom posting once every leap year? Sooo cool 😁 and sooo... dead.

Anthony Perez9 Asks:
Of course it isn't. 🙂
A man is truly dead when he allows ancient scriptures or a catechism to dictate his hopes for salvation in the afterlife. He may be physically present, but he isn't truly living this life; his mind is perpetually lost in expectations that exist entirely outside of reality.
There is nothing more significant than what we face right here and now. The only real question is how much of our lives we actually spend in this moment, rather than being somewhere else entirely. 😉

By the way, Anthony Perez9, if I haven't mentioned this yet—there isn't any star wars going on in this meadow. We all just live in peace, looking out for one another like we're in some actual hippie commune.😉😁

dustyraven26 said:But what about self-confidence?
Isn't it true that belief and hope actually become more vital when one's self-confidence is lacking?
Is a person brimming with confidence, who feels they have no need for belief or hope, truly dead?
Naturally, genuine confidence is forged through action, not through mere fantasy.

________________________________
Identify the issue, resolve the issue, move on.

Self-confidence—is it just believing in oneself, or does it necessarily preclude believing in something greater? 😁
A self-centered ego trip? That’s really not the same thing as having actual self-confidence.

External factors play the largest role in shaping one's self-confidence. If an individual feels truly competent—meaning they possess sufficient knowledge or have enough experience in similar situations—one could say they are confident within that specific field or area of life.
You could essentially be a highly confident gardener and a world-class expert on flowers and evergreens.🍿 Don't be the last one to step up when it comes to flirting and small talk with a girl you actually like.

Self-esteem matters more than mere self-confidence. In terms of true well-being, isn't a sense of self-worth far more vital? Values.It is much harder to cultivate genuine self-confidence than it is to simply project an illusion of it.

And likewise, where does this idea come from—whether it’s yours, Anthony Perez9’s, or anyone else’s—that belief in God is merely a byproduct of lacking faith in science? I am still here.Is it a matter of free will, or are we just puppets dancing for some Big Bad Wolf—a version of God that seems to be just waiting for an excuse to punish us?

I would argue the exact opposite. Someone who possesses genuine self-trust will find it much easier to extend that same trust toward God or toward their fellow man. It is important to remember that God works through our connection with others—which, fundamentally, relies on that mutual foundation of love and trust between humanity and the Divine.

On a related note, isn't it true that certain studies suggest people who struggle with authority figures—or perhaps those with complicated relationships with their earthly fathers—tend to have difficulty perceiving God the Father accurately? They often develop a distorted view of Him, which inevitably fails to align with the truth revealed in the Bible regarding His actual nature and His will for us.

Roger Fox56 said:Besides, everyone remembers that famous octopus, Paul, who was basically the greatest soccer expert on the planet because he PREDICTED every single match result during the World Cup whenever he was asked.🙂

All those endless, annoying "expert" analyses on ESPN pale in comparison to the absolute, unstoppable predictive accuracy of Paul the octopus.🙂

If a perfectly ordinary little octopus can predict the future of sports with 100% accuracy, then it’s honestly pathetic for some people to claim that the existence of angels is just some fantasy.🙄

because

anything is possible 🙂

and

nothing happens by accident.🙂

An octopus brought a hundred? What kind of octopus are we talking about? I've never heard of such a thing...

Anthony Perez9 said:Looks like they dropped the ball on that one.

Quincy:

Some 4-year-old kid took an 18-meter plunge off a building on Copernicus Street this past Saturday. He was fighting for his life at the Mayo Clinic yesterday. Aside from a broken leg, he’s got serious damage to his chest, abdomen, and internal organs. Rough stuff.

Believing in guardian angels is just pure, naive wishful thinking. Where are those little angels when you’re staring at a pediatric oncology ward at Mayo Clinic? Nowhere to be found. Where were they when kids were being suffocated in gas chambers? Taking a long weekend? Even the Pope stayed silent on that. I'm not saying life doesn't have its beautiful moments, but there's plenty of horror out there too. Don't try to view everything through rose-colored glasses. One moment of distraction and a subway train crushes you. No angel is jumping in to save you then. 😁

Of course they will. That is their entire job description—to help those they were sent to protect. Trying to argue about how, where, or why that happens is ultimately pointless.

jademarlin26 said:Is that so? Perhaps you can attempt to shoehorn that fantasy into the period when a child is too young to articulate anything, leaving you free to believe whatever conveniently fits your personal "philosophy."

Once you impose an identity and language upon them—essentially conditioning them for life—they lose touch with objective reality. I am not suggesting this conditioning isn't necessary. It is simply a fact that children, much like adults, invent stories.

Fantasy is simply what you imagine to be true—thinking that something others consider to be outside of a person and a completely separate entity is actually inside of you (though I am not ruling out the possibility that it isn't).

Spiritual beings are everywhere around us; perhaps you just haven't been paying enough attention because you've been too preoccupied with sorting through your own "dark corners of consciousness."
That is a mistake right from the start... (that whole self-glorification thing and focusing solely inwards), though I am not saying there aren't certain mental compartments that need organizing. There is still something outside of oneself that requires attention.

Angels, for example.🙂

dustyraven26 said:👍

Faith and hope are so deeply woven into the fabric of the human psyche that most people aren't even aware they are relying on them.
If drivers speeding down a highway or driving under the influence didn't possess that subconscious belief that nothing bad would happen, how many fatal accidents would simply never occur?
How many psychological traumas, homicides, or suicides could be prevented if lovers didn't cling to the belief that they had found their soulmate, only to suffer when those illusions inevitably shatter?
Would criminals even bother to operate if they didn't harbor the hope that they would somehow evade capture?

From a philosophical standpoint, I believe there is significant value in bringing these feelings into conscious awareness and examining them. Perhaps doing so might allow a person to recognize when they are reaching for these crutches, enabling them to let go and potentially avoid unnecessary trauma.

Of course, because it’s just human nature to need belief and hope... someone who doesn't dream is dead inside, and someone who lacks both hope and faith is just as much of a
lost cause.
What you're describing sounds more like expectations (which is just part of our psychological makeup), rather than true hope and faith, which are much more spiritual components...

Paul Jones7 said:Well then, what do you call the actual belief that there is no God?

I mean, I guess you could just say that concept doesn't even exist... 😉

What you're describing sounds more like agnosticism—it sort of sits in this weird middle ground where it doesn't quite fit into the category of faith or the lack thereof.

Atheism essentially means a lack of belief in an omnipotent, omnipresent God—derived from the Latin deus, coming from *divus*, and the Indo-European deiw, meaning light or to shine. So, atheism is effectively the belief in the nonexistence of God. As far as I know, there's no hard evidence, just faith...

Anthony Perez9 said:Believing in hope is basically just bowing down to a "divine future."

"Tomorrow, all our dreams come true. Enlightenment is coming, Jesus will return on the clouds, I'll get a raise, and the girl I love will finally fall for me—we'll be in bed together by the day after tomorrow.
On Wednesday, I’ll get my promotion; in two years, a massive inheritance. Abundance and happiness await me—tomorrow, in the future, at the end of the road, somewhere in that hazy blur called tomorrow."

That’s "God time"—an idol, a crush, a hollow pile of clichés designed to drift us away from the NOW. While we're busy waiting for some future win, our limited time on this earth just evaporates, and tomorrow keeps receding like a mirage. We’re left with hands clenched and empty, begging for mercy from a God who isn't there.

God time is a scam; it drains your life force and leaves you feeling cheated.

The "road to happiness" is just a dead end that drops you straight into a canyon.

Truth is right here, right now. 🙂

A secular misunderstanding of the doctrine... Truth is here and now —well obviously, that's the whole point 😁, and faith in eternity with God is just one part of the doctrine, isn't it? Honestly, I'm surprised you don't accept that, Anthony Perez9, considering what you know about the catechism and such...😉

Linda Walker37 said:I have true faith in ANGELS,
My sweet guardian angel,
protect me with your strength
according to God's promise
watch over me, day and night...
.....
Angels are primarily responsible for keeping the soul pure, and the body comes second.
Even when a young person passes away, it doesn't mean their Angel wasn't there; rather, they were rescued and guided into paradise for eternal life before their soul could be stained by sin.

Exactly.
They act as our 🙂shield against everything ugly we need to be kept away from... though angels won't stay by someone's side if they don't want them near (except maybe in extreme life-or-death situations, if even then).
They save people (from dangerous or potentially fatal situations)
not by their own will,but according to God's.

darkfalcon21 said:Do you believe in angels? If you look at the original Greek and Hebrew, the word actually translates to a messenger or someone sent on a mission. Supposedly, they serve God (or various gods).
The Bible and the Quran mention them, along with other sacred texts that describe these winged, divine beings.
People say the wings represent freedom and protection. But do you really think they have physical wings?
They’re considered androgenous—essentially genderless, neither male nor female.
And while they are supposedly overflowing with unconditional love, they don't carry human emotions. It's just pure love.
They're also described as being absolutely beautiful and gentle.
Do you think there are different tiers of angels? Like archangels, for instance?
Or do you believe in fallen or evil angels?

Personally, I believe we each have an Angel Guardian watching over us. In fact, I think everyone does.
They act as our guides through this life. And I'd like to think they actually do have feelings—though, naturally, nothing malicious. Just love, kindness, and plenty of understanding.
Since I don't believe in Satan, I don't buy into the idea of evil angels either.

So, I'm curious to hear what you all think... 🙂

There is no such thing as an "evil angel" because, by definition—and just as you pointed out—Angels exist to serve God and carry out His will.

The correct term for those other entities is demons... who have absolutely nothing to do with God, nor do they "serve" Him.

wearyowl29 said:Well... I mean, there’s plenty of stuff we don't understand, but still...🤷

Besides the whole miracle thing, I feel like we've all just lost our sense of wonder. We don't really make room for awe anymore—not for the great outdoors, not for nature, not even for incredible things people actually achieve...
Our modern culture has basically killed off the ability to be amazed...

When was the last time you saw something that truly moved you? Something that left you standing there, totally speechless, just whispering, "Wow!"?

Yesterday afternoon.🍿 👍

In just one single moment—through both words and actions that were completely unexpected and unforeseen... Just some random thoughts. All those dilemmas, questions, and months of anxiety just vanished instantly—everything finally clicked into place.

Nothing beautiful or wonderful just falls from the sky, nor does anything of that nature occur spontaneously without cause. 🤷

Some people just seem to attract that kind of energy, while others couldn't attract it if they tried. If you find yourself rarely or never experiencing those moments, don't go blaming the world or the people around you. Instead, why not take a look inward? What exactly are you attracting, and what is the reason behind it?

And that part highlighted in bold? Absolutely nothing. Culture. It simply wasn't abolished, nor can it be. 🤣 It is yours to revoke. Innocence. Maybe (i... Is there anything more profound than a genuine sense of wonder? Which one comes in the same package, if it's the same...

Hey there.

jademarlin26 said:There is a dedicated subforum for religious discussions.

Sure, but this isn't really the place to go looking for answers. 🙂 There are way too many trolls coming out of nowhere. It's basically a freak show.

Look, you're the one who started pulling the 'religious question' card, not me—so feel free to explain yourself if you want to.
If not, no big deal...

wearyowl29 said:It really is the same package, even if it feels different.
Spiritual teachings—not religious ones, mind you—all point out that you can't have white without black, or black without white. That realization comes from actually living life, not from some dusty theory about how life *should* work.

Interesting, I didn't know that...

jademarlin26 said:The moral dualism you're unfairly forcing into "all spiritual teachings" is typical of certain religions, much like that statistical argumentum ad populum.

Which specific religions—meaning those centered around moral dualism—don't fit that description?
I can't recall a single one.😉

Believe me, the statistics aren't even up for debate here. I was just reading that in the USA—with a population of around 330 million—there are only about 100,000 to 200,000 followers of paganism or witchcraft.🤷

And what about the Celts? Famous? Regarding that matter...

wearyowl29 said:We’re basically blind as moles, just stumbling around with zero foresight. Experience helps us learn, sure, but even with the best intentions—you know that old saying about how the road to hell is paved with good intentions?😉 We still mess up.

Good and evil are playing the exact same game, just following rules we don't understand. Even though it looks like they're on opposite sides of the field, that shared game is actually what ties them together into one big package.

They aren't part of the same package,
nor do they follow the same set of rules.🙏

To be honest—they represent diametrically opposed consciousnesses (and worlds).

More accurately: all spiritual teachings provide a crystal clear definition of Evil as the direct antithesis to Good—every single teaching except for witchcraft.

But those groups are statistically so small that their take on spirituality is considered marginal and
extreme...