Nemra

If you were intelligent enough, you would understand that what I said previously didn't ignore the influence that outside inputs on the body can have. But the body is in the experience. I don't have to know all the mechanisms of this reality to understand that this reality operates in certain ways. It seems you haven't even started to go deep.

Bro, the body is in the experience! The body and anything that is not the body have existed together!

Any finite thing you can point to is a proof of infinity. I'm not saying that if I can see something, it means there are other experiences hidden from me. The experiences that I am having are one and only which is to say that only those experiences exist as of now. For example, you understand that there are infinite numbers by just counting up numbers and at some point realizing that there's no end to it. The same way you see, hear, feel, etc., stuff, and at some point you can understand that there's no end to the kinds of experiences that can exist. There always must be infinite kinds of possible experiences with different limitations; otherwise, your current experience wouldn't be. But only your current experiences exist or are true.

That's an assumption. You are using the specificity of your experience to justify that it can only be possible while having a body. The specificity of experience proves that there are infinite kinds of experiences, but they are not actual as of now.

What movie have you recently watched, or are you now watching? I have yet to finish watching the movie "The Irishmen".

Prophet's Prey Overview: Filmmaker Amy Berg sheds light on the sexual, financial and spiritual abuses heaped upon members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by their former leader, Warren Jeffs.

I have been feeling negative about being alone as God because I have constructed a limited self that wants to feel in control without realizing that the boundary of the self is an illusion. Having a negative reaction against God being solipsistic means that you haven't yet realized that being God is totally positive. It's ontologically impossible for God to be negative. The existence of God is positive to itself because God is one. The simplicity of that logic is beautiful.

I should have said that God's being is totally positive for God if God recognizes itself as God.

There must be infinite ways of being restricted because God must be able to restrict itself to some way; otherwise it can't be truly infinite.

Finity must be the case because of infinity. God must be able to have preferences, which of course can't be set in stone. I'm not talking about liking stuff. For example, it prefers my visual field. The phone that I'm seeing and using exists. The visual field is infinite in certain ways, but it's finite, as in it's one way of experiencing. The auditory field is another way, and so on. All those finite ways of experiencing are one and only ways; they are absolute on their own. Which means that there are infinite ways of experiencing, but they are not actual.

The reason it is alone is because of its unlimitedness. You phrase it as "the unlimited". There can only be one "the unlimited" because "the unlimited" must be the only unlimited. There must be one "the unlimited" that is not limited by anything. You are removing the infinitude of God and ironically telling that God implies an individual. God is not merely God because it should be God; it must have the attribute of being infinite. You are polishing the presentation of your logic without being logical here.

Imagine an infinitely-wide mirror noticing that it's the only thing and it's aware of its reflection.

Back then, I didn't understand that one's own current state can get reinterpreted to that degree. That's the work.

@Leo Gura, do you identify as a human in your current state? I understand that you're very limited in your current state, but I don't think that that should prevent you from identifying as God.

The way that religions operate makes kids epistemically blind because kids are made to believe in things that are outside of belief from people who don't even know what they're talking about. And the problem is that kids take things literally. As a kid, believing that you'll burn your finger when touching the hot stove is an appropriate use of belief because adults know from experience that hot stuff will harm the skin.

Anyone who thinks that church attendance is needed and helpful to kids should reconsider their intelligence. Kids mostly know belief-making, so if you don't want your kids to have fucked-up ideas about God and the world, don't make your kids attend church. Church is not school.

Cults are about exploitative, harmful group organization and structure, and how the members justify those by their beliefs. Cult leaders set their "teachings" in a way that they can abuse their power. Cults have intense fear or hatred of questioning how they're structured, because of how blatantly obvious it can be how the members are abused and harmed.

You misread my post. I see no problem getting in shape to look sexy for others if there is a genuine desire for that. Well, if a person loves to look sexy for others, they're likely to be more blinded by it. Looking sexy sells, and it's obvious that participating in sports shouldn't really be about trying to look sexy.

No problem. 😁

There are many types. I will watch them and post them. I have only been watching cult documentaries. 🫩😁

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple Overview: Featuring never-before-seen footage, this documentary delivers a startling new look at the Peoples Temple, headed by preacher Jim Jones who, in 1978, led more than 900 members to Guyana, where he orchestrated a mass suicide via tainted punch.

@Lila9, I didn't say men didn't objectify. I tried to say that men can take responsibility of why they are only objectifying if they want to. But so too women can take responsibility of why they are making themselves objectified. However, you cannot take away people being attracted to others body. That's a fantasy. It very easy to Google stuff. Sure. But you are looking at it at a surface level. If those women in sports started questioning, they would understand that they were being made objects. They are going on with the conformity, but they think they are expressing themselves. And criticism of that conformity is deemed as controlling women's bodies, even though they are already being controlled and they don't want to take responsibility for putting themselves into that situation. It's very deceptive. Sorry, didn't keep my promise of not derailing the thread. I'll stop now.

@Lila9, watch sports. It's not only about revealing clothes. Notice that the clothes are made to make them more cute and more attractive. Then they should take responsibility for not making themselves viewed as sexual objects all the time if they want to. I would say that a lot of men wouldn't care about women's sports if women didn't wear clothes that make them sexually appealing. Well, men can take responsibility for always objectifying, but then if women are so upset about it, then maybe they should take some responsibility. If women want to play dumb when it suits them, then they shouldn't be so surprised. Again, I'm mainly talking about sports. Sorry, I won't continue, because we are derailing the thread.

Perhaps it can be, but then why aren't they trying not to make it more revealing? Why aren't men's clothes not as revealing as women's? Would you like it if men's clothes were as revealing as women's clothes? Wouldn't you get distracted or maybe disgusted? Do you want to solely watch sports to see who's more attractive?

Sure, but sports are physically demanding, not about trying to look attractive. The sportswear must be pragmatic. Looking attractive is the least they should care about. I was specifically talking about sports. I'm not trying to be being moralistic here.