Spiritual Warfare

Are you sure?

Glad to hear that, Leo is just jealous he's not as awesome as me, oh he'll probably read this….

😁

There are none, have a fantastic day. “I decided as long as I’m going to hell, I might as well do it thoroughly.” “When life offers you a dream so far beyond any of your expectations, it’s not reasonable to grieve when it comes to an end.” “I know love and lust don’t always keep the same company.” “I like the night. Without the dark, we’d never see the stars.” “I said it would be better if we weren’t friends, not that I didn’t want to be.” “Do I dazzle you?”

@Salvijus OMAD is very effective, but if you want a deep cleaning you have to cut out calories.

Thanks, I feel like humans were meant to fast regularly.

Sounds lovely.

While fasting, your body is given a break. You wake up earlier, you feel lighter, and you become more aware of each passing moment. Everything becomes heightened. When you get past the hunger pangs of the first few days, you begin to settle in to a more peaceful state. Food begins to look both attractive and a bit gross. You may lose your sexual desire for a time. You begin to notice a general rawness around you- in people, in material things, in attitudes, in materialism. Fasting really does help relinquish the morbid attachment to materialism, at least for a time. This, I would say, is quite a spiritual experience. When I was fasting I found myself in a meditative state nearly all the time. Working was not as easy to do given that I felt I was half in one world and half in another. I felt more alive, lighter, less attached to anything. It is a beautiful practice to fast for some time, to let go of the world in a particular way. When you come out of the fast, you will appreciate the delicious food in your mouth instead of gobbling it down. You will feel a sense of respect that normally gets glossed over- this is a spiritual practice too, I believe.

The point of life is to make the ego happy.

Do you believe there is such a thing as the "present" or the "now"? It appears to me like we certainly are living in the past. And I do not mean this vindictively or negatively. Even in our traditional terms used to describe the nature/reality of us we understand that we are made up of all the things that have happened before us, all the things our ancestors have done as well as the history of the environment we share, such as the planet's conditions throughout time. We are the present tense of the past. We are the most current past. Is there a temporal nature for the real "present state"? This kind of present state would be describing the actual interaction, the actual occurrence, etc. Well we believe that the physical property of it does have duration, and yet we define that matter can not be created or destroyed, which supports that the "duration" of it is about the particular state of it, but not necessarily the true actuality of it. "True actuality" meaning: even though matter may change states, we understand that it is not eliminated from existence. So in this sense, a temporal nature does not seem to be present. If something can not be created or destroyed, it is beyond our conventional terms for time. Some people think of these ideas as a limitation of the human system but what if it is the opposite? What if the way the physical human body works is extremely effective, even state-of-the-art, one of the most complex existence has to offer? In other words, what if the only way to experience an absolute is through the delay/lag? The brain must support some kind of process and identity that defines things in terms of separation or generally as distinctions. If the brain did not do this and if matter did not do this there would be no recognition. There would be no distinction of anything, no distinction between things. We wouldn't be able to say "this is made up of this and that is made up of that" etc. If we use the speed of light as a measuring reference, then anything less than the speed of light is the past, a history, and anything less than the speed of light is all the physical existence we know of.

Great reply, but the concept of nothing is just a comparative value of things that do exist, where basically we need a term that represents some kind of opposite value of “to exist”. In the most simple and straight forward sense: there must be something in order to consider that there is nothing. Remember “nothing” is not an actual thing, nobody will ever investigate “a nothing” because “a nothing” is not anything to investigate.

Is there such a thing as a soul mate, and if so, how do we recognize them? The question of whether soul mates exist is a complex and highly debated topic. Some may argue that soul mates are just a romanticized concept perpetuated by popular culture and unrealistic expectations. However, others believe that there may be certain individuals in our lives who are meant to form deep and meaningful connections with us. The challenge lies in recognizing who these people are and understanding the qualities that make them our soul mates. It may not be a matter of finding a perfect match, but rather being open to the possibility of forging a unique and profound bond with someone who truly understands and complements us on a deeper level. Ultimately, whether or not soul mates truly exist is a matter of personal belief and interpretation.

I will read about it deeply thanks.

Yellow/Gold 😌

I see Gold

@ICURBlessings @Hojo @Keryo Koffa Thanks for sharing, it was good

I enjoyed reading this, you made good points

I am convinced that there is no limitation at all. What's the problem here? We say: there are things we can't even imagine, therefore we are limited. We say: there are so many possibilities for things, including possibilities we can't even imagine, therefore we are limited. Hogwash. Although we certainly can look at things in terms of possibilities, it seems to me like the only things we "can't even imagine" are more than just possibilities, they are fantastical or fantasy-like. Why would I judge my knowledge and understanding based on fantastical things that are not supported or implied by any real thing or experience I am aware of? Remember, we're talking about things "I can't even imagine". So let me get this right, I am limited because there could be realities and worlds that exist so different from what I know that it would destroy my brain etc etc. I am limited because there could an infinite amount of versions of myself, some doing things I can't even imagine, lol? Come on. How about: we can do the exact same things as everything else, since we are all interacting in a shared time and space through the interaction. We can do exactly what stars are doing and we can do exactly what any molecular cell does. We all express each other's behaviors, even if we do it by building machines and writing programs. One way or another I do not see a sever limitation at all. After all, we can talk to ourselves; we can view our selves in a 3rd-person perspective. That is a big deal! We're state-of-the-art baby. It is impossible for there to be a reality that I can't even imagine in at least a fundamental sense. Meaning: if it exists, even if I have no idea what it actually is, I still know it must have certain qualities or natures that equal whatever it means for it to exist. Nothing defies the definition of its own existence because if it did then it would equal having no existence; it would not exist. If something is said to exist then it will equal whatever it means for it to exist, which includes any fantastical nature or nature we can't even imagine. The idea that we are limited is very popular. You'll find it used all the time as an escape or clause that allows us to stop thinking about things we can't easily answer. Once anyone accepts that there are things we will never understand and things we can't even imagine, exactly who is the judge that determines which one is the case for any particular situation? When is it a case of something you do know or can know and when is it the case where it's something you can't even imagine? If there are things I can't even imagine, then maybe one of the things I can't even imagine is that nothing is as it seems.

Yes

Hmmmm..

Great quote! Thanks for sharing it with me🌟

Is it ethical to manipulate others for the sake of protecting them? Wether it is justifiable to compromise someone's autonomy in the name of protecting them. While it may seem noble to act in the best interests of others, manipulating them can undermine their agency and lead to ethical concerns. It forces us to consider the importance of consent and respect for others' choices, even in situations where we believe we know what is best for them. I would really appreciate it if you members could answer what you think about this

The misconception and mistreatment of the idea “nothing” Here is nothing👉( WRONG) The term here implies a place, a location, some kind of coordinate etc. The term “be”, “to be”, implies an act or condition for something. NOTHING IS NOT SOMETHING. Nothing will not be here later because nothing is not a thing that can do things, like “to be” somewhere. One classic theory about existence is that there is some kind of origin, some kind of beginning. And before there was an existence there was a nothingness, a state or condition of no existence. Then you are going to hear that out of this non existence, springing forth from the nothingness, an existence emerged. Let us accurately clarify this theory. To have a beginning there must be some point that distinguishes or acts like a border or dividing line between that which has begun and whatever there is before it has begun. Something can’t come from nothing. Nothing or nothingness is not an actual thing to call “nothing” something cannot share a border with nothing. Nothing is not an actual thing that is distinguishable, we can not say that something begins from nothing or begins after or separate from nothing. Nothing and nothingness are not states or conditions or anything. The literal definition of nothing is that it does not exist, it is not a thing, it is not something that was or is or will be etc. Nothing is not something that things can emerge from.