Are All Religious Labels Detrimental to Progress?

wizanda · Jan 9, 2020

PruePhillip said:
Define "progress"
In my profile below is the "progress" our progressive" society is making.
Speaks for itself.

The progress is being fixed independently of archaic religious structures, that are stuck on labelling things in the past.

We need a new system of spiritual understanding independently of any legal systems, and the the idea of imposing we're breaking free of things not rectified, I see as a limited broken system of the Roman Empire.

Slavery was scriptural, which is why we then need to recognize our labels are archaic, and no longer fit properly with our modern society; to then be sensible with the situation, where we look for a solution to fixing the religious crisis.

Progressive thinking is the same as any environment: here is something from the past that is in a state of decay, lets use what is beneficial, and then grow from that into a more developed prosperous idea for the future.

In my opinion.

PruePhillip · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
The progress is being fixed independently of archaic religious structures, that are stuck on labelling things in the past.

We need a new system of spiritual understanding independently of any legal systems, and the the idea of imposing we're breaking free of things not rectified, I see as a limited broken system of the Roman Empire.

Slavery was scriptural, which is why we then need to recognize our labels are archaic, and no longer fit properly with our modern society; to then be sensible with the situation, where we look for a solution to fixing the religious crisis.

Progressive thinking is the same as any environment: here is something from the past that is in a state of decay, lets use what is beneficial, and then grow from that into a more developed prosperous idea for the future.

In my opinion.

So, you okay with the social trends indicated by the Gallop Poll results below?

wizanda · Jan 9, 2020

Mestemia said:
Your use of the word "oneness" has rendered the term all but useless.

Google said:
the fact or state of being unified or whole, though comprised of two or more parts.

the state of being in harmony with someone or something.

the fact or state of being one in number.

Mestemia said:
You are all over the map with it.

wizanda said:
There isn't a 'you' in Oneness, it is a dictionary reference... Oneness means people are a collective; religion is about a collective idea, we can not have a religion unless it is a form of Oneness.

Mestemia said:
Yet your only connection with all of it it to call it "oneness".

Have been pulled from the pits of Hell, because of knowing Oneness as Heaven in my NDE, and since then have studied many of the world's religions, which contain the word Oneness in different specifications; thus my understanding of Oneness encompasses everything in reality at a quantum level - which I've seen first hand.

In my opinion.

wizanda · Jan 9, 2020

PruePhillip said:
So, you okay with the social trends indicated by the Gallop Poll results below?

Nope, our reality is down near Hell, which when we define it is the materialistic nature of an artificial reality inside a computer; the idea people are becoming materially attached to things that cause them trauma, such as gambling, should be questioned in a caring society.

The idea many people are depressed in such numbers, and are committing suicide because we have such an uncaring capitalist system; where people do not recognize the Oneness of humanity, is evil to put it bluntly.

The idea divorce is based on archaic religions, where as tribal based society has been removed by religion, is morally and socially crippling as the numbers show; where we have children being raised without good parenting, which would be solved in a larger community.

In my opinion.

PruePhillip · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
Nope, our reality is down near Hell, which when we define it is the materialistic nature of an artificial reality inside a computer; the idea people are becoming materially attached to things that cause them trauma, such as gambling, should be questioned in a caring society.

The idea many people are depressed in such numbers, and are committing suicide because we have such an uncaring capitalist system; where people do not recognize the Oneness of humanity, is evil to put it bluntly.

The idea divorce is based on archaic religions, where as tribal based society has been removed by religion, is morally and socially crippling as the numbers show; where we have children being raised without good parenting, which would be solved in a larger community.

In my opinion.

It's an interesting thing to blame "capitalism" for modern societies problem - given that
"capitalism" has lifted billions out of poverty. Capitalism is premised on rule-of-law and
private property. Socialism is the alternative, a system that ought to have been discarded
on the trash heap of history.

So you okay with divorce. How about temporary marriages, say, eighteen months? This
way we can dispense with fidelity, commitment, trust and loyalty.

wizanda · Jan 9, 2020

PruePhillip said:
It's an interesting thing to blame "capitalism" for modern societies problem - given that
"capitalism" has lifted billions out of poverty.

Feudalism put people into poverty, and then the Elites created a capitalist system, debunking any other system; where the middle working class give a majority to the poor.

PruePhillip said:
Socialism is the alternative, a system that ought to have been discarded
on the trash heap of history.

Considering things like our fire service, police, school, etc, are all socialist type systems, the lack of education shows.

If we watch the documentary 'The Secrets of the CIA', it explains how they've literally destabilized any other form of socialist governments; to make sure they prop up capitalism being the only solution, when it is blatantly murdering the planet at the same time.

The idea some could say they don't want to live in a society where we all work together for a social good, makes me wonder what type of people could be so uncaring.

PruePhillip said:
So you okay with divorce. How about temporary marriages, say, eighteen months? This
way we can dispense with fidelity, commitment, trust and loyalty.

Why do people try to argue so much, they turn their debate into something weird...

Marriage does not provide commitment or trust, that comes from within the people, and the idea of placing it on some religious institution, is clearly not logical.

In my understanding if someone mates, procreates, they need to raise them children, and a marriage is made in that process.

All this handcuffing each other together, as some attachment that must stay together, hurts each other as people.

In my opinion.

PruePhillip · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
Feudalism put people into poverty, and then the Elites created a capitalist system, debunking any other system; where the middle working class give a majority to the poor.

Considering things like our fire service, police, school, etc, are all socialist type systems, the lack of education shows.

If we watch the documentary 'The Secrets of the CIA', it explains how they've literally destabilized any other form of socialist governments; to make sure they prop up capitalism being the only solution, when it is blatantly murdering the planet at the same time.

The idea some could say they don't want to live in a society where we all work together for a social good, makes me wonder what type of people could be so uncaring.

Why do people try to argue so much, they turn their debate into something weird...

Marriage does not provide commitment or trust, that comes from within the people, and the idea of placing it on some religious institution, is clearly not logical.

In my understanding if someone mates, procreates, they need to raise them children, and a marriage is made in that process.

All this handcuffing each other together, as some attachment that must stay together, hurts each other as people.

In my opinion.

Poverty was long before Feudalism. In a sense, even the Pharaohs of Egypt
and Emperors of Rome were poor. Today "poor" people have a level of luxury
not seen before for any class in terms of clean, abundant and varied food; a
level of medical support unprecedented; entertainment like never seen before;
travel to places not even known about; soft, bright, durable and colorful clothes;
universal education; the ability to fly; birth control; the end of famines and
plagues; sanitation; air conditioning; paved roads and streets and so on, so on.
All delivered through Capitalism.

I wouldn't give "The Secrets of the CIA" one second of my time. Sounds like
anti-American Marxist claptrap. No-one is stopping other societies being what
they want to be. But certainly America understands the road to prosperity is one
involving education, training, private property, the rule of law and a work ethic.

wizanda · Jan 9, 2020

PruePhillip said:
I wouldn't give "The Secrets of the CIA" one second of my time. Sounds like
anti-American Marxist claptrap.

It was on Sky TV as a mainstream documentary, about things the CIA has done throughout its history; it doesn't express anything about communism directly, it is just obvious that is what each case is about within it.

In my opinion.

IndigoChild5559 · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
Religious labelling doesn't always supply the right contents, I keep looking for Figs or Grapes, and yet we keep biting into Nuts, and Blackberries with plenty of thorns still.

In my opinion.

That's not the fault of labeling per se. That just means a person has taken on the wrong label.

wizanda · Jan 9, 2020

IndigoChild5559 said:
That's not the fault of labeling per se. That just means a person has taken on the wrong label.

That statement was a test for if someone is a real Jew by their knowledge... Therefore you're right, Zionist would make a better label.

In my opinion.

crossfire · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
A Buddhist has no ID, as it is identification with self.

Zen has no labels, as none can point at it.

In my opinion.

This statement disagrees with Dhammapada Chapter XII
Attavagga: The Self

PruePhillip · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
It was on Sky TV as a mainstream documentary, about things the CIA has done throughout its history; it doesn't express anything about communism directly, it is just obvious that is what each case is about within it.

In my opinion.

I would be wary of this "it takes a village to raise a child"
The reality can be seen in African American kids, 70%
about of who come from single parent families. Education
achievement, crime, gang membership, health outcomes
etc are way, way worse for kids of single parents, particularly
those with no father figures.
Yes, a village is good for kids - but whether you believe God
wanted marriage or evolution wanted marriage, the fact is -
marriage is quite traditional around the world. Don't let liberals
tell you otherwise - they have a history of doing this.

IndigoChild5559 · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
That statement was a test for if someone is a real Jew by their knowledge... Therefore you're right, Zionist would make a better label.

In my opinion.

Not taking the bait.

Quintessence · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
There isn't a 'you' in Oneness, it is a dictionary reference... Oneness means people are a collective; religion is about a collective idea, we can not have a religion unless it is a form of Oneness.

Why don't you just use the word "community" then? Calling it "Oneness" in proper case makes it sound like you are talking about something else entirely. A better case can be made for community being one of several essential elements of religion.

wizanda said:
There isn't any doctrine in Oneness, it is not some religious belief; it is a word that exist in many religions, and summarizes what religion is about.

Going off the assumption that by "Oneness" you really mean community, as mentioned above community is one of several essential elements of religion. It's not the only one, nor would it be accurate to say that community is all religion is about. That you place special priority on community speaks to your values and this may or may not be shared by other religious traditions. To be clear, I really don't care if that's your highest value. What bothers me is this seeming insistence that your highest value is everybody else's when that is demonstrably not the case.

wizanda · Jan 9, 2020

Quintessence said:
Why don't you just use the word "community" then?

Because community only implies the aspects of something physical we seek, and not the ultimate understanding that Oneness is also the name for Heaven.

Quintessence said:
What bothers me is this seeming insistence that your highest value is everybody else's when that is demonstrably not the case.

My highest value is I've seen the Core of reality in a NDE, where I've been to dimensions beyond what any other being has ever seen, and as the provable archangel/Messiah in many religions globally here for Judgement Day; the Source of reality is above us in ranking...Which is where I teach 0neness, not Oneness.

Yet since we're down near Hell, people are entitled to believe what they want, and I'm always open to trying to debate logically, where they've not understood the basics of their reality.

Please share where you feel these higher principles are, as I'm always studying to understand more of our reality?

In my opinion.

wizanda · Jan 9, 2020

crossfire said:
This statement disagrees with Dhammapada Chapter XII
Attavagga: The Self

I'd have to learn the Pali to check the original language; as Atman isn't self, it is a placeholder for Santāna.

Buddha corrected the aspect of self being a transient historical ID in the Matrix.

In my opinion.

McBell · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
Have been pulled from the pits of Hell, because of knowing Oneness as Heaven in my NDE, and since then have studied many of the world's religions, which contain the word Oneness in different specifications; thus my understanding of Oneness encompasses everything in reality at a quantum level - which I've seen first hand.

In my opinion.

And yet this thread demonstrates that your current approach is an epic fail.
One would think if you were honestly and seriously trying to spread this message of yours, you would learn from your mistakes, revamp your approach and try again.

Quintessence · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
Because community only implies the aspects of something physical we seek, and not the ultimate understanding that Oneness is also the name for Heaven.

Fair enough. In my understanding of the worlds, I don't limit the term "community" to the apparent world (aka, what you call the physical) but if you do, I could see the need for a different term.

wizanda said:
My highest value is I've seen the Core of reality in a NDE, where I've been to dimensions beyond what any other being has ever seen, and as the provable archangel/Messiah in many religions globally here for Judgement Day; the Source of reality is above us in ranking...Which is where I teach 0neness, not Oneness.

It's my understanding that near death experiences (I presume that's what you mean by NDE?) can be quite powerful and lifeshaping. Not something I've experienced, so you'll have to forgive most of us for not necessarily taking your own experiences and internalizing them as part of our own ways of life.

wizanda said:
Please share where you feel these higher principles are, as I'm always studying to understand more of our reality?

Honestly, I'm really not a fan of terms like "higher principles" and the like. When I mentioned "highest value" what I'm referencing are the things that a people consider sacred/divine or of central importance. In my view, the core of religion is more about finding and articulating those central values than anything else - the things that give life deep meaning or purpose. For some, service to a community is one of those core values. Other paths, most notably left-hand path traditions, put service to the self or ego as a core value. There's merit to both perspectives. Aspiring to excellence as an individual as a worthy goal, as is inspiring excellence in one's fellow community. Anything can be a core value, really. Even things that others find disagreement with.

crossfire · Jan 9, 2020

wizanda said:
I'd have to learn the Pali to check the original language; as Atman isn't self, it is a placeholder for Santāna.

Buddha corrected the aspect of self being a transient historical ID in the Matrix.

In my opinion.

From the Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary
The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary

I'll put the definition entries for Sanantana and Attan behind spoiler tags so as not to stumble any disinterested readers with a wall of text.

1) Sanantana (p. 675) Sanantana Sanantana (adj.) [for sanātana (cp. purātana); Idg. *seno=Gr. e(/nos old; Sk. sanaḥ in old times; Av. hana old, Lat. seneo, senex ("senile"), senatus; Goth. sineigs old; Oir. sen old] primeval, of old; for ever, eternal D ii.240, 244; S i.189 (cp. K.S. i.321: porāṇaka, santānaŋ vā paṇḍitānaŋ dhamma); DhA i.51.

Attan (p. 23) Attan Attan (m.) & atta (the latter is the form used in compn.) [Vedic ātman, not to Gr. a)\nemos = Lat. animus, but to Gr. a)tmo/s steam, Ohg. ātum breath, Ags. aepm]. -- I. Inflection. (1) of attan -- (n. stem); the foll. cases are the most freq.: acc. attānaŋ D i.13, 185; S i.24; Sn 132, 451. -- gen. dat. attano Sn 334, 592 etc., also as abl. A iii.337 (attano ca parato ca as regards himself and others). -- instr. abl. attanā S i.24; Sn 132, 451; DhA ii.75; PvA 15, 214 etc. On use of attanā see below iii.1 C. -- loc. attani S v.177; A i.149 (attanī metri causa); ii.52 (anattani); iii.181; M i.138; Sn 666, 756, 784; Vbh 376 (an˚). -- (2) of atta -- (a -- stem) we find the foll. cases: acc. attaŋ Dh 379. -- instr. attena S iv.54. -- abl. attato S i.188; Ps i.143; ii.48; Vbh 336.
Meanings. 1. The soul as postulated in the animistic theories held in N India in the 6th and 7th cent. B. C. It is described in the Upanishads as a small creature, in shape like a man, dwelling in ordinary times in the heart. It escapes from the body in sleep or trance; when it returns to the body life and motion reappear. It escapes from the body at death, then continues to carry on an everlasting life of its own. For numerous other details see Rh. D. Theory of Soul in the Upanishads J R A S 1899. Bt. India 251 -- 255. Buddhism repudiated all such theories, thus differing from other religions. Sixteen such theories about the soul D i.31. Seven other theories D i.34. Three others D i.186/7. A ʻ soul ʼ according to general belief was some thing permanent, unchangeable, not affected by sorrow S iv.54 = Kvu 67; Vin i.14; M i.138. See also M i.233; iii.265, 271; S ii.17, 109; iii.135; A i.284; ii.164, 171; v.188; S iv.400. Cp. ātuman, tuma, puggala, jīva, satta, pāṇa and nāma -- rūpa.
2. Oneself, himself, yourself. Nom. attā, very rare. S i.71, 169; iii.120; A i.57, 149 (you yourself know whether that is true or false. Cp. Manu viii.84. Here attā comes very near to the European idea of conscience. But conscience as a unity or entity is not accepted by Buddhism) Sn 284; Dh 166, 380; Miln 54 (the image, outward appearance, of oneself). Acc. attānaŋ S i.44 (would not give for himself, as a slave) A i.89; Sn 709. Acc. attaŋ Dh 379. Abl. attato as oneself S i.188; Ps i.143; ii.48; Vbh 336. Loc. attani A i.149; iii.181; Sn 666, 784. Instr. attanā S i.57 = Dh 66; S i.75; ii.68; A i.53; iii.211; iv.405; Dh 165. On one's own account, spontaneously S iv.307; v.354; A i.297; ii.99, 218; iii.81; J i.156; PvA 15, 20. In composition with numerals attadutiya himself and one other D ii.147; ˚catuttha with himself as fourth M i.393; A iii.36; ˚pañcama Dpvs viii.2; ˚sattama J i.233; ˚aṭṭhama VvA 149 (as atta -- naṭṭhama Vv 3413), & ˚aṭṭhamaka Miln 291.
anattā (n. and predicative adj.) not a soul, without a soul. Most freq. in combn. with dukkha & anicca -- (1) as noun: S iii.141 (˚anupassin); iv.49; v.345 (˚saññin); A ii.52 = Ps ii.80 (anattani anattā; opp. to anattani attā, the opinion of the micchādiṭṭhigatā sattā); Dh 279; Ps ii.37, 45 sq. (˚anupassanā), 106 (yaŋ aniccañ ca dukkhañ ca taŋ anattā); DhA iii. 406 (˚lakkhaṇa). -- (2) as adj. (pred.): S iv.152 sq.; S iv.166; S iv.130 sq., 148 sq.; Vin i.13 = S iii.66 = Nd2 680 Q 1; S iii.20 sq.; 178 sq., 196 sq.; sabbe dhammā anattā Vin v.86; S iii.133; iv.28, 401.

wizanda · Jan 10, 2020

Mestemia said:
And yet this thread demonstrates that your current approach is an epic fail.

We're down near Hell awaiting Judgement Day, with me sent to warn mankind the reasons it soon happens; which has been done on Religious Forums, our site, and Paltalk, etc.

Where I've explained the Abrahamic & Dharmic issues to fix all of it; no one is interested in really understanding the errors in religion to fix them.

People generally go to accuse (satan), and slander (devil) a topic, looking for reasons to find fault, instead of comprehend; part of the reason this happens is due to the compartmentalized thinking of many down here near Hell.

Thus me as an archangel/Messiah explaining Oneness before WW3 kicks off, and then the sun Betelegeuse is blowing up in Orion; which will remove the Ungodly in a Day (Isaiah 13:10. Amos 5:8, Zechariah 14:7).

Since explained Oneness for thousands of years, and none are really interested before their deletion from reality; then the plan looks successful according to prophecy (things have been set opposite on purpose):

Christ comes at a time people do not expect (Matthew 24:44), as a Thief before Armageddon (Revelation 16:15-16, Revelation 3:3) at the Midnight hour (Matthew 25:6), and then keeps those who already accepted Oneness, not individual religions (Quran 2:285).

Many of the religions are individually set opposite due to faction mentality corrupting their original messages, and only when we put them together, can we see that the centre of the circle declares that we shouldn't have idolized any one religion more than another.

In my opinion.

Are All Religious Labels Detrimental to Progress?

Do you understand how religious labels detriment progress?

Yes

No

Other...?

One Accepts All Religious Texts

Well-Known Member

One Accepts All Religious Texts

One Accepts All Religious Texts

Well-Known Member

One Accepts All Religious Texts

Well-Known Member

One Accepts All Religious Texts

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

One Accepts All Religious Texts

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

Well-Known Member

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Consults with Trees

One Accepts All Religious Texts

One Accepts All Religious Texts

Resident Sourpuss

Consults with Trees

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

One Accepts All Religious Texts