Posts by Sophia Parker8

Richard Torres2 said:Mastering the physical realm is actually much less significant than mastering the psyche... at the end of the day, physical tools become irrelevant when the mind is truly in control.

Control over what, exactly? How does the mind exert any authority when it is constantly being throttled by mere matter? Does the mind rule through empty platitudes about its own omnipotence?
I find the notion that overcoming matter is easier than conquering the psyche to be quite flawed. The psyche is only problematic because of our inherent human indulgence, whereas matter itself is stubbornly rigid. It doesn't resist out of spite, but out of pure inertia. And ignorance is arguably the hardest thing to overcome—as we see evidenced by countless examples right here on this forum.

driftingraven122 said:True, I suppose. Though—and this is just my take—calling sitting in a cave a waste of time seems a bit much; it’s really just one way of doing things.

I wouldn't go that far. In fact, we haven't even touched upon the cave aspect yet. We started with the post by Elesarov:

an entire being orienting itself toward physics... I don't see that as the future. It makes more sense to me what the gurus do in India; they head off to some remote wilderness with nothing but their thoughts to try and grasp the essence of life. That is pure spirituality—nothing material binds you to this world. I believe that's the way; there has to be some form of suffering involved, because if everything is easy and you have the whole world at your fingertips, who in their right mind would choose to walk away from all that?

The point here wasn't actually about conquering matter via particle accelerators and colliders, but rather about the SPIRIT that will ultimately master matter. Science serves merely as the systematic pathway toward that end, given that one cannot simply conjure mental mastery out of thin air. Science should act as the foundation, while the skill itself remains the ultimate goal.

driftingraven122 said:So, I guess you’ve actually solved the mystery then—since you clearly know exactly what it takes to understand it, right? 🤔

Understanding isn't a prerequisite. Desire is enough.
The mere will to grasp a mystery puts you miles ahead of those who have no intention of trying.

driftingraven122 said:And how exactly would you know that? 🤔

Precisely. How am I supposed to know when they’ve left nothing behind?
Jokes aside, the people I know who actually accomplished something weren't hermits living in caves.
Nikola Tesla, despite his reputation for being a loner, actually maintained a vibrant social life while performing monumental work.
Albert Einstein, though perhaps not the most studious or socially conventional individual, also achieved greatness.

Of course, I’m exaggerating here.
There is a certain merit to solitude. But not in the sense of "I exist and that is sufficient"; rather, it should be used for mental discipline to gain profound insights. However, those insights shouldn't serve someone's selfish desire to wallow in their own perceived wisdom—they should be used to impact the world.
Ultimately, it comes down to overcoming one aspect of matter. Matter has a way of binding us. You can't escape that grip simply by denying matter's existence or labeling it as an illusion. In ancient India, just as it is today, they understood that "illusion" was merely our perception of reality—the perception of matter. Matter itself is real; it isn't some fabricated dream. It exists independently and exerts a very clear influence on us. Whether we are constrained by it or we master it depends entirely on our level of awareness and interest.

To simply accept our current state and play a passive role is to allow matter to bind us. That isn't consciousness; it's foolishness, which inevitably leads to forgetting, degradation, decadence, and eventually... unconsciousness.

Richard Torres2 said:Of course you have to believe—but not through the lens of physics. It has to be spiritual. I mean, if we're talking about mastering time, space, and matter, where does the human element fit in? Where is the soul that connects us to whatever comes next? If you orient your entire being toward pure physics, you lose the essence of who you are. To me, that doesn't feel like the future. It feels much more meaningful when you look at what gurus do out in the mountains of India—they head into a cave with absolutely nothing just to try and wrap their heads around existence. That is pure spirituality; nothing material is tethering you to this world. In my view, that's the way—there has to be some form of sacrifice or struggle involved. Because let's be real: if life is comfortable and you have everything you want, who in their right mind would ever choose to walk away from all that?

You've got it backward. A being doesn't orient itself toward physics; it transcends it. Once you've done that, physics ceases to be an obstacle.
As for those ascetics living in caves... well, they exist. But bears live in caves too. Neither group is actually accomplishing anything.

Brenda Smith9 said:Look, at the core, every religion is just about love and actually showing it through your actions toward others. Every single one aims for that inner peace and trying to rise above all this worldly nonsense. Spirituality develops within every faith, even in smaller sects. It grows...

I find myself in agreement. As long as we exist within the flow of time, change is inevitable, whether for better or worse. Ultimately, it’s up to us to choose our direction in the face of, well, entropy.

Hannah Thompson2 said:Which spiritualists are we even talking about here? Even on this forum, you've got people acting like they're experts when they really aren't—and besides, the mind isn't some window into spirituality.

Just because you haven't personally encountered God doesn't mean others haven't. Remember, God doesn't exactly want to be on display for everyone; He reveals Himself to the few.

And this world? It isn't his kingdom.

The mind might not be the gateway to discovery, but it certainly handles description and classification; without it, you’re just drifting aimlessly like a ship lost at sea.
Granted, the mind isn't the vessel itself—it isn't the captain, the sail, or the hull. But it serves as the compass, the rudder, and the map.

Just because you haven't encountered God doesn't mean others haven't; remember, God doesn't intend for Himself to be visible to everyone, revealing His presence only to the few.
And this world isn't his kingdom.

It isn't. Precisely.

Sean Martinez4 said:Just another satanist, I guess! 🙂
I mean, where else would you go? Your own inner world? Is that not a thing? 🙂

Satan is nothing more than a fabrication, a concept that has been recycled since the days of ancient dualism—from Mazdaism to Judaism to Christianity.

And where is the third option? Your own inner world? Is that missing too? 🙂

That’s beside the point. We were discussing the Resurrection, but then Hannah Thompson2 went and asked:

So, where exactly is the argument for this?

"God is one of those rare entities that doesn't actually exist on its own merits, but is instead merely a byproduct of a wandering mind."

Are you actually suggesting that I made this up?

Sean Martinez4 said:I guess it depends on how you look at it. For some people, their own inner world is a thing, assuming they actually have one, of course. 😬 🤣 🤣 👍
Wait, so "God" is just an internal construct?? 😍🤣🤣🤣

Since you tend to be perpetually vague, and I see no point in playing rhetorical games with you, I’ll just be blunt:
it’s become quite trendy lately to claim the external world is merely a projection of the mind, the spirit, or whatever other concept one prefers to use...
while treating God as this ultimate, objective reality.
In truth, it's the exact opposite. The world is what it is, whereas we're the ones who invented God.

Sean Martinez4 said:I guess inner vision isn't really the mind. 🙂
The external world of phenomena is actually the elemental realm. 😍

One's internal perception of the world isn't the world, either.
The only thing that truly exists as an internal construct is Bog.

Hannah Thompson2 said:But where's the actual reasoning behind this:

"God is one of those rare entities that doesn't exist objectively on its own, but is instead just a product of the mind's imagination."?

Are you seriously claiming I'm the one who made it all up?

The Madman gave you a pretty solid response. Spiritualists love to insist that everything we perceive is just a byproduct of internal vision—of the mind. Yet, there is no mental construct more plausible than God himself, considering He doesn't actually exist within the physical world.

William Reed said:So, if God is available to absolutely everyone—which, yeah, He is—and if you have to seek Him out in the right place, which can't be anywhere outside of yourself, then where exactly do you get off deciding what someone else is allowed to say or not say while they're searching?
Of course you can't hide Him from anyone. You can only hide Him from yourself.

It feels to me like maybe you've just memorized these whole bunch of clichés—you know, God is the source of life, justice, love, blah blah blah—but it doesn't seem like you actually grasp what any of that means. And I think Sean Martinez4 was onto something; you've basically grabbed authority for the truth instead of letting the truth be your authority, and now you're trying to push that on everyone else. You don't really get it, and I guess that's why you feel insulted.
It insults you because the idea that "your" God is accessible to everyone is offensive, right? It hurts to think you aren't part of some special chosen group, or more valuable than others, or closer to Him than the next guy—that you aren't all that different from everyone else. The truth that God in you is the same God in someone else bothers you. Why is that? God is love, selfless love.

The doors to God's kingdom swing open the second you accept that you are in God and God is in you. There isn't some massive, complex wisdom to it. That's just what resurrection is.

I honestly think you're just a clone of Q. The similarities are striking, and you're both equally stubborn.

Hannah Thompson2 said:Am I imagining things, or am I actually being insulted here?

So, what exactly does this mean to you?

I’m bowing out of this argument with Sean Martinez4—honestly, he’s one of the most reckless people on this entire forum. It’s just impossible to have a real conversation when someone refuses to use actual arguments or show even a shred of respect for anyone else.

I’ve also noticed that certain people on this forum seem to have a free pass to be insulting while everyone else is held to a different standard. Some get their posts scrubbed for sharing an opinion, yet others are practically cheered on for being toxic.

I'm opting out of this debate with Q?#; they are easily one of the most reckless users here, resorting to insults rather than actual arguments or basic decency.

Quite right. It's nothing more than a relentless smear campaign against Catholics. Using terms like worms, fungi, and assholes... truly a sophisticated level of discourse. One might call them a common thug.

Hannah Thompson2 said:Not quite.

Well argued, I must say.

steeleagle13 said:That's exactly what extremists do—it's just that theirs is called Allah

What kind of God needs people acting like hired muscle to defend His honor? 😁

To me, this looks way more like some medieval reign of terror😁

God always has people on hand to defend His reputation. The truth is, God is one of those rare entities that doesn't exist objectively, but rather serves as a product of the human imagination.

Sean Martinez4 said:Well, it’s more than that. Beyond everything, the divine essence is just what exists. Maybe the idea of a "god" is just schizophrenia from some sick, external ego. ☕

"I am" has to be equated with "I am not." Two parts that are (not) one. 2=0
Just so an ego of massive proportions doesn't develop...
I guess we could say "I am" is the beginning... but maybe not the end. ☕

What exactly defines schizophrenia, and why on earth would that term be used to define God? Does this imply that God is a schizophrenic? I'm completely lost on the whole "I am versus I am not" logic, but honestly, I don't even care.

The way I interpreted it was this:

God is the one who truly IS.
I am (am) God.
I am God, the God who carries the name I AM.

Richard Murphy6 said:Hehe, this post of yours is pretty enlightening (who would've thought 😍)! First off, we need to make some brand new cards. It’s just like Nietzsche said in *Zarathustra*: "Discard the old decks, bring out the new ones, and deal again!!" On this specific card, it would be God, but not Yahweh—not the Father or the Son, but the real, true God 😍, right, buddy 👍?
Second, I actually started this thread asking about the Resurrection in the flesh, not "in the Spirit." Though, let's be honest, whenever we talk about spirituality, it's basically dualism, which is why we all end up putting "spirituality" in quotation marks 😍.
Third, I'm totally lost on that part about the flora and fauna, man
. >Fourth, do you seriously believe that "Catholic jerks" don't have the resurrection within them? I mean, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Buddhists, Hindus, and Animist jerks alike... they're all the same 😲. 😛
Fifth, I have no idea why the multi-quote option isn't working for me 😕. My post would look way cleaner if it did
.

I’m not sure how anything regarding Catholic nonsense could possibly be instructive for you. Is hating Catholics your chosen spiritual path?

In Christianity, sure.
The question was whether spirituality evolves in general; there wasn't any mention of Christian dogma specifically.

Is it actually evolving, or just shifting shapes? Perhaps we’re all just caught in a cycle.