Posts by Maria Robinson2

Elvis Presley is just starting to dive into the Bible.

He doesn't act like he knows much—mostly because, on certain topics, I suppose it’s safer to stay shallow so he can pretend his limited knowledge is actually quite substantial.

(just my take on his intellect)

Bryan King3 said:We are a truly dysfunctional society.
Giving this much oxygen to some religious fanatic—it’s something that could only happen right here in America.
Whether it's blowing up on social media (where they keep banning him, by the way) or right here on this forum, which—despite how big it gets—is really just a tiny drop in the ocean of public awareness.

I mean, look at it: you've got people entertaining themselves with low-brow jokes, others trying to prove a fool is actually a fool, and then there are those who—quite seriously, mind you!!—actually try to debate his "ideas."

But hey, the guy has figured out the ultimate hustle: how to make a comfortable living off of people who blindly swallow his "ideas."
It's just like those folks on every major news network after midnight, constantly predicting, rushing things along, nudging the narrative... or whatever else they think they're doing with our "destiny."

I wouldn't call us dysfunctional—just incredibly naive.

Thinking back to how gullible we used to be whenever someone pulled a fast one on us...

bluemason3 said:Zver in the wild kills for food, instinct, or even just sport (look at how cats—from house pets to big cats—or even penguins play with their prey, sometimes killing it without even eating it). Nature balances itself out naturally, not through some conscious intention (except in humans). Things actually fall out of whack quite often; a new species enters an ecosystem and wrecks the existing balance by overhunting or overpopulating.

There’s no romance or pseudo-religious mysticism in it.

Since humans are the only ones who actually know what they're doing and can make conscious choices, they are obviously more valuable.🙂
Besides, value is subjective. In-group preference is a natural, necessary mechanism, both among human communities and toward other creatures. It's only natural that your own child matters more to you than a stranger, or that your own species comes first.

It seems pointless to compare domestic pets to wild animals—or rather, those that have been domesticated—because people work so hard to tame them. I suppose if you had a neighbor keeping a tiger on a leash in their living room while guests sat frozen on the couch during coffee, they’d act like nothing is wrong—just trying to signal that they're difficult to approach by showing off their former life as a predator, I guess.

I don't think penguins just mess around with prey; it's actually the opposite. They might be checking to see if the target is truly harmless, or maybe—though "thinking" isn't really a thing for animals—if it was an enemy to their group. They test it three times over before leaving it alone so others won't bother it... our own business.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:I think you missed my point entirely.
Sure, "good" and "evil" exist, but only within the mind—specifically how our limited, individual consciousness perceives things. Every single experience we have is filtered through that mental lens of duality.
The same goes for labeling people as "good" or "bad." That’s just the soul’s consciousness identifying itself with the illusion of opposites. If we didn't have this narrow perception and this tendency to identify with it, there wouldn't be a sense of "Life" as we know it—there would be no feeling of separation or individuality. But while this sense of life feels incredibly real, it’s just as much an illusion as the divide between "good and bad," "up and down," "left and right," "heaven and hell," or "you and me."

I mean, does anyone actually know where "up" or "down" is in the vastness of the cosmos?

Now, look—certain things can disrupt other processes, and we call those "harmful events." But when you're talking about human beings and their psychological lives, what’s "good" for one person might be "harmful" for another depending on their specific situation. It's complicated. Talking about morality gets messy because, at its core, Life is one undivided, whole process of unfolding and receding. You could call it the "dance of time and energy." Form is temporary and constantly shifting—not to mention the psychological layer where people dream they are living and "awake" in some objective "reality."

Of course, if you're operating on the level of everyday human consciousness—dealing with social norms, cultural conventions, survival instincts, and the way we perceive the world through our senses—then yes, you have to talk about "morality," "harm," "danger," "good and bad people," and "right versus wrong." I'm simply not talking about that level.

The older members of my family used to say something similar—that if you possess a strong character, you must have been someone in power in a past life. I’d ask who, and they’d just say it’s impossible to know, but that strength somehow "radiates" from you. Whether you're male or female today doesn't seem to matter much; apparently, your soul found you after centuries, and now you belong to yourself. When I asked what happens after death, they said we can't know, though that strength carries through until the very end of existence. Well, listening to them, I must have been a lord or—definitely!—a knight in a previous life, someone few could match. Though, I suppose there was one fellow who defeated me in a duel; I fell dead, and yet here I am again, fighting battles—mental ones this time, supposedly "intelligent" ones. I guess my sense of humor is all that's left of that knighthood—the reason I fell to an opponent's lance back then—because even now, I fall and get right back up, with the same character, thoughts, and intentions... so, I suppose my past life didn't change much. Except, of course, nobody calls me a lord or a knight anymore; in fact, they’ve started calling me Maria Robinson2 (even though I’ve told them repeatedly that isn't me).

I imagine you all probably have a few stories to tell about your own "past" lives, too.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:Personally, I think they just get tired of hearing the same old recycled nonsense about an eternal hell waiting for them if they don't "accept Christ as their Savior."

That’s basically why people find it so incredibly tedious.

When you bring up the idea of eternal life to skeptics, it just seems to grate on them—they bristle at the very notion, and I suppose there isn't much one can do about it, given how much they truly loathe the thought.

silvergardener152 said:Oh, it’s definitely not 821—that’s practically just the beginning! 🙂 The eternal cycle lasts as long as the sun continues to shine.

👍 finally, one specific word.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:Think of religion as one kind of cage, while the scientific, materialistic view of the universe is another. Neither has to be limiting if you have enough perspective—if you don't let yourself be defined by them, but instead observe them for what they truly are. Technology isn't inherently evil, either. It only becomes a barrier when used by a low level of consciousness to chase selfish goals that exclude or oppress others. In its essence, technology is neutral; it’s actually a tool designed to overcome obstacles. It’s a beautiful manifestation of human intellect and imagination within our physical reality. Of course, tech alone isn't the answer, just as religion isn't the opposite of spirituality. True spiritual understanding doesn't come from organized religion; it comes from personal realization through active, solitary experimentation.

Religion isn't spirituality. Belief isn't spirituality. Historically, religious institutions grew out of the genuine spiritual evolution of individuals, but over time, they became rigid, fossilized structures that resist any real reform. Take "Christianity," for example—it, along with many other faiths, often serves nothing more than hollow rituals and, frankly, dangerous indoctrination that leads to internal and external conflict. There’s no room for actual human experience in those systems. At the end of the day, that’s just the mathematical certainty of how these institutions evolve over time.

?

If someone follows a religion... they've basically veered off the spiritual track, I suppose.

But then again,

it’s pretty hard to find any supposedly "spiritual" people who aren't rooted in some religious foundation or another.

So, everyone ends up just reading those religious books and trying to pass their philosophy onto others—which really just passes down a cycle where each generation is left wondering what the point actually is. Maybe if we had another 500 years to live, we could finally figure out how to philosophize properly...

Forgive me, but I don't see the purpose here—though, I guess most people probably find their meaning somewhere else entirely.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:Real growth is impossible without mastering the technology of spiritual development—which means working on a person's energy and aligning their physical, mental, and emotional states to achieve true well-being.
An amateur stays an amateur no matter how hard they try blindly. Spirituality isn't about luck or guesswork; it’s about understanding and practicing the fundamental principles of existence to fuel total growth.

We shouldn't mistake "technology" for just a buzzword from modern science. It actually stems from a basic human hunger for knowledge and our ability to recognize the underlying mechanics of how things grow. Unfortunately, today we mostly see the exploitative, material side of tech, but that's a narrow view. Technology isn't inherently "anti-human"; it's a broad concept that goes far beyond the materialist science of our current era.

There is such a thing as subjective technology—a deep, ancient wisdom passed down by highly evolved individuals who shine a light on it through the ages. Depending on the culture, people call it many things, but the most widely recognized term is yoga. And I don't mean yoga as mere physical exercise; I mean it as a developmental technology aimed at well-being, centered primarily on the energetic level—the kriya.

I suppose you could say these things pull people away from true spirituality... which is why fewer and fewer people seem to reach it, despite the endless number of religions and spiritual gurus out there.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:Technology isn't just about hardware and gadgets. To grow spiritually, you also need to master "internal technology"—the subjective ability to harness your own mechanics to fuel overall growth, including the physical side. It's about understanding how things work and using that knowledge to level up.

I definitely wasn't talking about "500 years on life support." You're jumping to that conclusion because you equate a 500-year lifespan with medical machines, while viewing 70 years as a "healthy life." In reality, I don't know many people who actually live healthily. Sadly, most people die from disease—they die *of* illness, whether they're 30 or 90.

People lived for over 500 years a long time ago. Of course, nobody believes that anymore, especially when they're busy believing life started from a random pile of amino acids in some primordial soup—it's basically the "because that's just how it is" argument.

... is just a device that praises itself

spirituality is something far beyond that, I guess...

Michael Gonzalez77 said:That misses the point entirely. 🤣

What situation are we even talking about?

Living to 500 isn't some ultimate tragedy—honestly, if that were the case, I’d rather stick to 70 or maybe 80, provided we actually feel healthy.
Because, well...
either someone is chasing eternity—which seems unlikely—or they simply don't care how long they last.
Even with all the medical tech involved, it's not exactly natural; I suppose measuring a human lifespan by how long machines can keep you going is a bit pointless.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:I couldn't disagree more.

Not even slightly. I suppose engineers need their hardware—their "iron wings"—but a spiritual person possesses invisible ones that are, maybe, a million times more powerful.

crimsonwolf21 said:Look, if we actually had the tech right now to live for 500 years, you can bet your ass we’d figure out how to hack immortality within that timeframe—technology doesn't just sit still. Sure, 500 years isn't mathematically infinite, but for all intents and purposes, it damn well is.

Technology and spirituality... they just don't seem to play well together.

Perhaps human history is most effectively reshaped through the lens of fantasy.

Morgan Walker3 said:The question isn't whether we actually like the idea, but rather, is it even useful?

Cutting life short serves as a way to reset the database, sure, but it doesn't touch consciousness or karma. If you believe in reincarnation, an individual enters their next life somewhat refreshed. A single 500-year lifespan where you're stuck in the same rut—unable to improve due to your circumstances, your psyche, or whatever else—isn't nearly as productive as living five separate lives where you can actually achieve a new level of consciousness freed from the baggage of the past.

Another potential, legitimate path out is transhumanism, which could theoretically bypass all of this within 500 years. My only fear is how much that supposed utopia would look like a total dystopia, and what would actually happen to our consciousness in the process. 🤔

Probably not. Not since five hundred years ago—or maybe even further back... all the way down to infancy. We just end up restarting from zero, over and over again, until we finally admit that this whole thing is just completely pointless...

David Vaughn75 said:Look, we finally got a body—or at least a brain—that actually works with the consciousness we've built up. Let’s be real: spending 420 years trapped in some decaying, rotting gray matter wouldn't exactly be the high-quality life anyone's dreaming of, right?

Spot on.

So, I guess let's aim for over 500—as long as the brain stays functional!

100 isn't nearly enough—maybe 500 at most, assuming you're a healthy 20-year-old somewhere in the States

because I mean, what's the point of living to five hundred if you've got rheumatism? It seems a bit silly, I guess

He’s just claiming we won't—or rather, can't—reach any kind of peace settlement.

But look, there is a slim, tiny chance that we might actually reconcile. One day, eventually, I suppose.

Please, everyone understands that banalization isn't just about making everyday comparisons.

What do you think people actually enjoy discussing—philosophical texts or reality?
You see,
spirituality isn't philosophy
or rather
philosophy doesn't offer a spiritual journey
in other words
one can only travel quite short distances through spirituality.

Need more explanation? I hope not.

Michael Gonzalez77,

For most people, the banalization of these ideas is just quoting snippets from philosophy books—books written by authors who probably couldn't even
address anything concrete if their lives depended on it.

And we aren't really talking about the physical body here—it's more about the spirit (or what some might call the "psyche").

Ever heard of an aura?
It’s that sensation where your body stays in one room while your mind drifts through the wall into the next,
so you already know exactly what you're looking for in the fridge before you've even stepped foot in the kitchen.

If an aura doesn't manifest as a mental craving for a meal, and then a war breaks out in the kitchen, I guess there's no hope for inner peace.