• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A philosophical thought relevant to religion.

SESMeT

Member
Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer. I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious. I mean that religion is extremely impactful for *everybody* INCLUDING the anti-religious. [i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter? Suffering may be bad but the badness of suffering surely matters].

This is 'just' my opinion. i.e.: this is my opinion.

But what is your opinion? What do you think?

P.S. I accept that pro-religion versus anti-religion is not a true dichotomy. But I maintain that even those who don't care about religion positively *or* negatively ... are still impacted by it.

So, what do you reckon? Others could be right and I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Religion originally was just an organization that owned humans best living interests at its heart...to allow spiritual humanity and family unity to be reformed why it was so powerful in its edicts owning lawful practices.

We re developed social laws for one condition, originally they were imposed due to human anger and hatred at being occult science abused, and they had enough of that abuse to edict such lawful actions.
 

SESMeT

Member
Religion originally was just an organization that owned humans best living interests at its heart...to allow spiritual humanity and family unity to be reformed why it was so powerful in its edicts owning lawful practices.

We re developed social laws for one condition, originally they were imposed due to human anger and hatred at being occult science abused, and they had enough of that abuse to edict such lawful actions.

I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that religion was originally intended to be good but it was corrupted ... or are you saying that religion was originally corrupt but it has, since then, become more good? Or are you not saying either of those things and I am just doing a bad job of understanding you? :)
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that religion was originally intended to be good but it was corrupted ... or are you saying that religion was originally corrupt but it has, since then, become more good? Or are you not saying either of those things and I am just doing a bad job of understanding you? :)
Humans first in self appraisal are a self and just one life.

Humans in groups own the power of choice.

First organization was not religion it was science and its terms occult. Occult UFO radiation x mass O converting attack on our life, seeing light is a gas not a metal UFO mass, harmed us. The organization of the group changed and made religious idealism from occult laws, and occult known status.

Which were quite cruel....for example. Radiation metal when it becomes cold in our natural environment in a mass becomes an unnatural weapon that attacks the bio cellular life. So religious law then imposed anyone who broke any human law to cause physical harm to a life would be attacked in the same ways using weapons to impose the law of justice.

And yet when it was first thought, high atmospheric irradiation chemical changes, which is behavioural effective allowed us to make bad judgements, as it was feared based, and anger based originally as a religious ideal. Yet it was also very spiritual for the basis of the religious idealism was lawful, for life continuance.
 

SESMeT

Member
Humans first in self appraisal are a self and just one life.

Could you unpack this? I do think that we are all one. But I think that we, *at least in ONE sense*, have separate consciousnesses ... and thereby separate selves. Why do you think self appraisal is imporant? And, I think, that is the part that I most want you to unpack. The appraisal part.

Humans in groups own the power of choice.

I would disagree because I don't think choice is real.

First organization was not religion it was science and its terms occult.

Wait, are you saying that you think that science was prior to religion *and* that science was originally occult-like?

Occult UFO radiation

What? Now you've completely lost me altogether. I apologize if I am doing a bad job of understanding you.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer. I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious. I mean that religion is extremely impactful for *everybody* INCLUDING the anti-religious. [i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter? Suffering may be bad but the badness of suffering surely matters].

This is 'just' my opinion. i.e.: this is my opinion.

But what is your opinion? What do you think?

P.S. I accept that pro-religion versus anti-religion is not a true dichotomy. But I maintain that even those who don't care about religion positively *or* negatively ... are still impacted by it.

So, what do you reckon? Others could be right and I could be wrong.
I don't have a religion
regardless of what other members will post about me

and no....religion is not the answer
it's a collection of rituals, litanies, practices that are thought
to bring the practitioner closer to God

I don't believe heaven listens when you recite your prayers in repitition
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer. I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious. I mean that religion is extremely impactful for *everybody* INCLUDING the anti-religious. [i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter? Suffering may be bad but the badness of suffering surely matters].

This is 'just' my opinion. i.e.: this is my opinion.

But what is your opinion? What do you think?

P.S. I accept that pro-religion versus anti-religion is not a true dichotomy. But I maintain that even those who don't care about religion positively *or* negatively ... are still impacted by it.

So, what do you reckon? Others could be right and I could be wrong.

Sometimes I think the anti-religious feel the need to take the religion out of others because they have had the religion taken out of them for a variety of reasons. Since they have abandoned it, they cannot understand how others still cling to it.

Is it because they want to free people from what they have come to believe is detrimental to them? Tantamount to believing in fairy stories?....Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

Or is it that they must convey their message to others so strongly in order to deflect some residual feelings of uneasiness about what religion may indicate about their future?

I have yet to work that out....but lets just say that the anti-religious have a truly religious fervor when it comes to their lack of religion. :p

They are as zealous for their anti-religious sentiments as 'believers' are for their beliefs. :confused:
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
Suffering is pointless, but we can still be holy. Religion is a friendship with God.
 
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Could you unpack this? I do think that we are all one. But I think that we, *at least in ONE sense*, have separate consciousnesses ... and thereby separate selves. Why do you think self appraisal is imporant? And, I think, that is the part that I most want you to unpack. The appraisal part.



I would disagree because I don't think choice is real.



Wait, are you saying that you think that science was prior to religion *and* that science was originally occult-like?



What? Now you've completely lost me altogether. I apologize if I am doing a bad job of understanding you.
Science is the OCCULT first, science.

Humans are the spiritual self first, a self, original self one self...owner of all the highest NOBLE GASES. Science brother to science brother said....I will teach you that you are wrong. What separates each brother? The Noble atmospheric gases does, as each self.

So he tried to mind coerce his brother originally....as the concept, believe me, occult liar UFO reviewer.

Single ONE self consciously the HOLY SELF on O one God stone planet Earth and its NOBLE family which includes the human. So the spiritual self says I own it all....you science and machine do not own it...fake/artificial.

Stephen Hawking said brother is trying to remove destroy life by machine replacement. Brother occult psyche agrees, I want to resource your spirit he says...but says it to a human bio life. Then studies the cell, says cell replacement I want to artificially emulate it for a non stop resource.

First identification...….you know that out of space is not a non stop resource...for you study a bio cell inside of the God owned planet heavenly gases.

First realization, occult self, group idealisation a liar. Single one self, correct.

Natural.

Second identification, I studied the cell to replace and own replacement as your cells constantly replace and replicate their own self. No you are wrong, the cell acts according to how a cell exists, which owns no separate thinking, the cell exists until it no longer can...when you die.

Third identification, a science self says reaction is a condition, transform via destruction of the highest state. Space is empty, cold and the highest state in cosmology, which he does not own.

But puts the coldest gases in his machine. In natural one life, what is the healing condition and ability to obtain/maintain self presence? The coldest gases. To be sacrificed, the coldest gases were removed then put back.

Machine owns healing first......machine therefore says by quoted artificial theme I will destroy life Healer and resource it evilly by burning it.

So the machine does own the Healer first, so how can it apply reaction?

When an occult mind says its answer, its answer already existed....then he tries to physically make it recur as a copy. Teaching, no human is a machine or a machine invention or a reaction.

Mind psyche however is the designer of the destruction of God. Brother to brother one self says no man is God prove God...the other brother says, God is the stone. Both own the same teaching of relativity....and ignore each other.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Many have abandoned religion, because religion (for the most part) has been wrong on so many science issues such as geocentrism, and actually teaching crazy ideas, like God burning people.

Not to mention, the hypocrisy....the worst example is seen when religious leaders preach the need to “love each other”, but then during a conflict, they kill each other!

It’s like, a Power other than God is behind the scenes, especially messing with religion.

The Bible in Revelation 17 & Revelation 18 talks about the Harlot Babylon’s destruction, actually the destruction of religion that’s been unfaithful to God.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer. I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious. I mean that religion is extremely impactful for *everybody* INCLUDING the anti-religious. [i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter? Suffering may be bad but the badness of suffering surely matters].

This is 'just' my opinion. i.e.: this is my opinion.

But what is your opinion? What do you think?

P.S. I accept that pro-religion versus anti-religion is not a true dichotomy. But I maintain that even those who don't care about religion positively *or* negatively ... are still impacted by it.

So, what do you reckon? Others could be right and I could be wrong.
“Religion is the answer” only in terms that education is the answer, and often religion gets in the way. :shrug:

Could you unpack this? I do think that we are all one. But I think that we, *at least in ONE sense*, have separate consciousnesses ... and thereby separate selves. Why do you think self appraisal is imporant? And, I think, that is the part that I most want you to unpack. The appraisal part.



I would disagree because I don't think choice is real.



Wait, are you saying that you think that science was prior to religion *and* that science was originally occult-like?



What? Now you've completely lost me altogether. I apologize if I am doing a bad job of understanding you.
LeHV.gif
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Welcome to RF, and you made a nice entrance with this thread in your OP (original post)
First time I see this idea posted on RF in this way. Good points !
1) Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer.
2) I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious.
3) I mean that religion is extremely impactful for *everybody* INCLUDING the anti-religious.
4) [i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter?
5) Suffering may be bad but the badness of suffering surely matters].

*) This is 'just' my opinion. i.e.: this is my opinion.
:D
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
IMHO:
1) Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer.
2) I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious.
3) I mean that religion is extremely impactful for *everybody* INCLUDING the anti-religious.
4) [i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter?
5) Suffering may be bad but the badness of suffering surely matters].

*) This is 'just' my opinion. i.e.: this is my opinion.

But what is your opinion? What do you think?
1) At least "religion" is already in their naming "anti-religionists". If it were not for religion there would not be "anti-religionists"
2) Good start when debating with Atheists
3) Religion does get Atheists "started"
4) :D
5) :D
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
IMHO:
1) Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer.
2) I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious.
3) I mean that religion is extremely impactful for *everybody* INCLUDING the anti-religious.
4) [i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter?
5) Suffering may be bad but the badness of suffering surely matters].

*) This is 'just' my opinion. i.e.: this is my opinion.

But what is your opinion? What do you think?
*) First post, and you got this one right already. Quite a few on RF, in their enthusiasm and ignorance forget this important FACT
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
IMHO:
Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer.
I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious.
[i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter?

*) This is 'just' my opinion. i.e.: this is my opinion.

So, what do you reckon? Others could be right and I could be wrong
This is a very healthy point of view and gives room for introspection
With introspection you have a chance to turn "being wrong" into "being right"
Without introspection...not so much
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Religion isn't really needed for any type of answer because we already live the sum of the whole, and are experiencing the complete answer right now.

I think what people question isn't the answer, but how we got here at this point.

The reason why it isn't necessary is because even if we did have the answer to that particular question of how we came about and got here, it won't matter because we will not live long enough to remember any of it.

To me the answer is perpetuity in flux and is not something that is intellectual, but rather experiential whenever the eyes open and the senses go online.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer. I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious. I mean that religion is extremely impactful for *everybody* INCLUDING the anti-religious. [i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter? Suffering may be bad but the badness of suffering surely matters
.
So, religion matters. How does that make it "the answer?" The answer to what question?

I'll quarrel with the judgment that religion has an extreme impact on my life. Right now, my sore knee, itchy scalp and many other things, matter far more than religion to me.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer. I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious. I mean that religion is extremely impactful for *everybody* INCLUDING the anti-religious. [i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter? Suffering may be bad but the badness of suffering surely matters].

This is 'just' my opinion. i.e.: this is my opinion.

But what is your opinion? What do you think?

P.S. I accept that pro-religion versus anti-religion is not a true dichotomy. But I maintain that even those who don't care about religion positively *or* negatively ... are still impacted by it.

So, what do you reckon? Others could be right and I could be wrong.
I think the objection would be that there are plenty of people, perhaps the majority, for whom religion or no religion is simply not something they think about.

By no means everyone has a strong view for or against religion. Especially in Britain, perhaps, where any kind of strongly held ideology is considered a bit suspect.;)

For example, a university friend of mine used to say he didn't even know whether he was agnostic or not, rather implying it was a waste of time even to consider the question!

My maternal grandfather seemed to think that being Church of England was some kind of patriotic duty. He had practically no discernible religious belief but used to go to church on Sundays, apparently because it was just something one did - and possibly because there was the flag of the local regiment in the corner of the church, along with a war memorial plaque. He thought our family was a bit treacherous, being Catholic, in a sort of echo of the days of the Spanish Armada and the Gunpowder Plot.
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Even for anti-religionists .... religion is the answer. I don't mean that the anti-religious should become religious. I mean that religion is extremely impactful for *everybody* INCLUDING the anti-religious. [i.e. why bother being anti-religious if religion doesn't matter? Suffering may be bad but the badness of suffering surely matters].

This is 'just' my opinion. i.e.: this is my opinion.

But what is your opinion? What do you think?

P.S. I accept that pro-religion versus anti-religion is not a true dichotomy. But I maintain that even those who don't care about religion positively *or* negatively ... are still impacted by it.

So, what do you reckon? Others could be right and I could be wrong.

Hey, it's just a phase you humans are going through (said in best Zaphod Beeblebrox manner), and which I heartily hope is true, but who knows. :praying:
 
Top