The nature of women and spirituality

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, OBEler said:

@Leo Gura

Should I then show my girlfriend your material?

I mean, I don't know what your girlfriend wants. She probably doesn't care nor want God.

Quote

I thought god realization comes with time if you just take 5 Meo enough.

It might, but hard to predict such things.

Even if she encounters God she will be confused as fuck about it.

It takes years of integration work to understand God, even if you encounter it face to face.

Quote

I thought she can do it without reading any spiritual knowledge. I thought it's all about experience

Nah. That would be too easy. Why the fuck did I spend years doing all this work and making all these videos and reading 100s of books if I could just hit some 5-MeO and be done?

Awakening experiences are important but not enough by themselves. There is a deep sense-making process that needs to occur.

Actualized.org is the thinking required to properly and deeply make sense of God/Ultimate Reality. It takes years. Even a decade would be considered quick.

You can't just puff some 5-MeO and get the kind of understanding of reality that I have.

Edited June 21 by Leo Gura

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura oh thank you so much for clarification. You even shooted a video about exactly what you mean by God realization/understanding reality and how important it is to connect the dots and that this is not just an ego thing :

https://youtu.be/PgmJj0Gn1WM?si=j-GL99IUbVS0c64X

 

[Javfly33]

There are a lot of women in spiritual communities, I think your post is sexist

[Keryo Koffa]

16 hours ago, zurew said:

You can fuck with conservative Christians with bringing up the argument that since Jesus only had a mother (and no biological father), he probably only had xx chromosomes, so he must have been a trans man.

And if Jesus taken to be God, then God is a trans man.

Let me checkmate Christian conservatives real quick.

From a kid's POV, you're brought onto this world and are indoctrinated into a "leave this world for heaven" cult.

Adam and Eve got banned from Heaven and children will inherit past generation sins,
that Jesus will die for, and whoever rescues Kain will become an exponential stand in.

So basically, having children is being complicit with devilry, forcing further generations
to suffer out of impatience to live out the life sentence of having to suffer on this plane.
But then the testaments are willy nilly, and it feels like god changes mood every week, so...

 

ah, uh, gotta stay on topic, ehhh "women are dumb" should fill the quota

Edited June 21 by Keryo Koffa

[OBEler]

1 hour ago, Javfly33 said:

There are a lot of women in spiritual communities, I think your post is sexist

please be more careful to what I write before posting. I never claimed that women are less spiritual.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Keryo Koffa said:

So basically, having children is being complicit with devilry, forcing further generations
to suffer out of impatience to live out the life sentence of having to suffer on this plane.
But then the testaments are willy nilly, and it feels like god changes mood every week, so...

Not just that but if they have a non-universalist view (where its not guaranteed for everyone that they will go to heaven), then having children is basically immoral, because you gamble with your kid going to hell.

I have no clue why non-universalist christians are not anti-natalists. 

[theleelajoker]

Disagree with OP. Lots of projection IMO.

My experience is that men don't care more or less a about so called "truth". I believe that's an illusion fed by the "teachings" and opinions especially here in this forum. 

If you take statistics, you have to consider the validity and causality of the tool you're using as a argument.

I once talked to my then-gf about my some of my realizations and insights. She did not engage in any discussion, just looked at me and said "see how far you can go". That was the end of our talk and I love how she challenged me to do stuff instead of talking and analyzing. 

So what's my point? You can take a lot at statistics you mention and say that men talk about things while women embody their truths with actions. In my personal life, I have seen it many times.

Re your other arguments I have similar examples. In short, women are equally interested and open to "truth" or whatever you want to call it. They just do it differently. My hypothesis is that you'll see that when you move further on the path 

[Carl-Richard]

This is a caveman post.

Tall people are less interested in truth because they are more attractive and get more sex and get more complacent in the social matrix. That's a true statement. But who gives a fuck? Why does that need to be said? How much does it really matter?

 

On 20.6.2025 at 6:52 PM, OBEler said:

Ask Chatgpt4 about top 100 spiritual gurus. 13 of them are women.

Men are generally in positions of power, what's your point?

Edited June 22 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

Let's also do some ChatGPT-4o dialectics since you brought it up as a point (only showing summary):

Quote

Why are only 13 out of 100 famous spiritual gurus women?

https://chatgpt.com/share/68588784-cf34-8004-901d-31b663abaec0

In Summary:

Women are not less interested in spirituality — quite the opposite. But traditional structures of guru-hood, which often require visibility, hierarchy, and institutional validation, haven’t always aligned with women’s paths or societal opportunities.

And if you have problem with logic (which you shouldn't if you're a "man"), women are of course generally still more "social" than men (I already addressed that point). I'm just countering the point about 13 out of 100 spiritual gurus.

Edited Sunday at 10:45 PM by Carl-Richard

[Jannes]

On 21.6.2025 at 2:06 PM, Javfly33 said:

There are a lot of women in spiritual communities, I think your post is sexist

Seeking community is more of a feminine thing to do. 

[Carl-Richard]

Here is a prompt for checking whether your post isn't shit enough to post 😂: 

If you were to interpret this post from a Tier 2 perspective in Spiral Dynamics, what is wrong with this post?

And here is your answer (only showing the summary):

Quote

https://chatgpt.com/share/68588671-b9ec-8004-b4d0-b0a2c9f64d22

In short

A Tier-2 critique would say the post is:

1. Stage-siloed (Blue/Orange absolutism)
2. Shadow-ridden (projecting personal insecurities onto “women”)
3. Systemically blind (ignores cultural algorithms & access issues)
4. Polarity-illiterate (confuses yin/yang energy with biological sexes)
5. Statistically naïve (cherry-picks data to fit a pre-set narrative)

A genuinely Yellow/Turquoise response would integrate both “truth” and “emotion,” investigate the social ecology that skews representation, and invite all genders into deeper inquiry—because reality cares about wholeness, not tribal score-keeping.

By the way it hurts to post ChatGPT nonsense, but to balance out other ChatGPT nonsense, it will do.

Edited Sunday at 10:50 PM by Carl-Richard

[Lise]

On 6/20/2025 at 8:44 PM, zurew said:

Im also sure that since you have done the research and thinking on this you have a good response to this: You can rule out the possibility that a bunch of women were and are spiritually advanced its just that they dont want to be gurus and they dont and didnt want social recognition.

This^

Who hurt you brother. Or rather: which woman hurt you haha.

[SOUL]

On 6/20/2025 at 9:52 AM, OBEler said:

Ask Chatgpt4 about top 100 spiritual gurus. 13 of them are women. That's pretty low.

The original post and this quote have something in common.

Edited Wednesday at 04:23 AM by SOUL