Argument: "Belief" is Satanic

[9-18-1]

As before I come from the position: the religions of Christianity and Islam are fundamentally idol worship, having been derived from a similar form of idol worship perpetuated in/as Judaism which utilizes male central figures as focal idols / models. The general notion of "belief" therefor being treated as not a virtue, but a vice which effectively "binds" an adherent into pursuing a way of living that is rooted in ignorance: perpetually invoking a cycle of self-imposed suffering seeking to find expression, giving rise to things like hatred, divisiveness, resentment, envy, "us" vs. "them", supremacy and superiority etc. All of this can be tied to the mistaken notion that "belief" is anything but destructive, and herein I outline how "belief" is actually satanic from even a practical (real-world) view.

First and foremost, I ask to freely absolve of what ones may "believe" satan is, or is not. We are going to start with a completely clean slate. Please rest assured that such a suspension of what one "believes" and or thinks/feels to understand about satan will do no harm to anyone (except those who exploit others by installing fear of "Satan" thereby granting the fear-mongers control over such people), especially given people are free to re-adopt their prior understanding of satan should they not find what follows more readily suitable.

This understanding of Satan does *not* belong to a belief system: it is a practical understanding that can actually be *applied* real-time by anyone in order to understand the nature (suffering) of others. However, I will initially be borrowing from the Abrahamic Hebrew mythology as it serves as a widely known context for those who otherwise do not have one.

To begin, satan (שטן) is just a word. Let us not imagine idols. It is a Hebrew word, and Hebrew words are important because they are constructed based on the characteristics of each letter being arranged in a certain configuration to describe "itself". For example, the Hebrew word for the creator god allegedly responsible for creating the heavens and the earth (ie. everything material and immaterial) is Elohim: the unique arrangement of its letters indicating a composite singular unity of the "towardness" principle 'el' and a space/place 'im' within which "towardness" 'el' can operate. These being joined through the Hebrew letter hei, denoting a womb/window. This is precisely why we derive an androgynous Adam who is later divided into masculine Adam and feminine Eve, which is in the image and likeness of Elohim: seed 'el' and womb 'im' conjunct. The most "material" and obvious example of this manifestation in human beings is the sexual act: if procreating the two parents make one child. These two polarities are present in *every* being regardless of gender, just as they were present in the androgynous Adam prior to the separation of sexes.

Now, like in the case above with understanding the configuration of the letters themselves to indicate what the word/thing itself *is*, the word Satan has this same quality as do all Hebrew words.

It is written with only three letters: shin, tes, nun (final). Unfortunately our help from the Abrahamic context ends here because essentially all non-Hebrew speakers do not *know* what each letter means. There are even Jews (I argue) who do not fully know/appreciate what they mean. I do not know or fully appreciate what they mean either: but I do to a certain extent to which I speak freely and offer to those who otherwise do not know.

Shin (ש) is comprised of three letter vavs upright connected by a base at the bottom. In synthesis they denote the three major faculties of the body: the head, the heart, the reproductive organ. These correlate to thoughts/feelings/actions and generally is best described by the English word "expression". When someone expresses anything at all, it is done through a combination of what/how they: think, feel, act. Therefor ש most simply denotes "the expression" taken as anything a being "does" based on thought/feeling/action. In Jewish mysticism this is Abraham/Isaac/Jacob.

Tes (ט) is a serpent: it is that which coils around and binds. The letter is essentially an archetypal form that depicts the general notion of binding. Two bodies orbiting one another would be an example of such a bind: the gravitational force of each affecting the other due to proximity. If sufficiently apart, the bodies would not be bound.

Nun (final) (ן) is describing the phenomena of something being in a state of ongoingness and/or acceleration which may or may not lead to perpetuity: for example when light approaches the event horizon of a sufficiently heavy object (such as a black hole), it becomes more and more drawn to it, eventually reaching the point (event horizon) wherein it can no longer escape the pull of gravity. Final nun captures the behavior within the spectrum of light from first being "influenced" by a gravitational force, to reaching a dense objects' event horizon wherefrom it can not escape anymore.

When we take the most basic synthesis of Satan:

ש - the expression
ט - of being bound
ן - in an ongoing state

we derive what "Satan" actually *is*: the expression of being bound in an ongoing state.

When you observe another being, whatever or however they are expressing themselves and/or something (shin) is a result of being (unaware / unconsciously) bound to/by something (tes) in an ongoing state if/when under the influence of what we now understand as "satan". The state is ongoing because it is a product of the bind itself: a false belief perhaps. Therefor, satan does not have a form: is not an entity, a being, or anything to "fear". It is a word that describes the phenomena of someone's life becoming an expression of their bind (suffering) in an ongoing state. This is the only real satan that "exists" and is not even a thing.

This is your suicide bombers, your war mongers, your racists, your supremacists, your socialists, your corrupt political leaders who impose suffering on all others to match their own suffering, your Jews/Christians/Muslims bound to books and idols, listening to why they should "fight" the other. These are all the binds of humanity and why human beings suffer: satan.

I said earlier "belief" is not a virtue. I say here "belief" is satanic.

When you "believe" something, you are only projecting what you wish/want to be true as being "the reality" instead of the reality itself informing directly what one *understands* to be (at least most likely) "true".

This is the same dichotomy of "authority as truth" and "truth as authority" and how/why Islam (the former) is hostile to everything that is not itself: the self-proclaimed "authority" on all matters, which traces us back to Muhammad and how central figure dictator warlords are inherently satanic for forcing everyone else to suffer as much as they suffer themselves. This was the principle illness of Muhammad and is the principle illness of Islam: forcing others to suffer like they suffer. They don't *realize* they are suffering themselves, because they "believe" the lies their own oppressors are telling them which fuels hatred, such as the Qur'an came from god and all other laws are man-made. It did not - the Qur'an is man-made, which means Muslims *are* suffering man-made laws, but while not realizing it is their own, they are actively working to destroy everyone else's "man-made" laws because they "believe" their laws are from god.

^^^ this one point alone is enough to declare Islam a humanitarian crisis.

For example, a Muslim "believes" the Qur'an is perfect and delivered from (the same) god (as delivered the Hebrew Torah). This is realistically either "true" or "false". "Belief" that it is true, especially if in fact false (which is actually the reality), it is enough to make the case that all "belief" is satanic given "belief"-based institutions such as Islam (and Christianity before it) are condemning/persecuting all "unbelievers" for *NOT* "believing" what they "believe" - this "belief" being something that happens to be completely untrue and exceedingly so void of any *sane* basis. This gives rise to the principle division of "believer" vs. "unbeliever" which is (as has been) prevalent in both - another division I denote as completely satanic as this "believer" vs. "unbeliever" has been on this planet for literally thousands of years.

I therefor hold Christianity and Islam are both satanic: and not in any unreserved nor rhetorical way, for it can be argued (to a much greater extent than the little effort put forth here) that these two institutions (if amalgamating Judaism and Islam together as they too can be argued to be effectually the same "problem" regarding "belief" in certain Jewish prophets) and the idols that serve the masses (particularly Jesus and Muhammad) are nothing more but idolatrous and effectually satanic (given above) wherein adherents are bound in an ongoing state of "belief" in things that are not true. I can not really narrow down the global conflict further than this outside of adding the problem/solution object: women, to echo the late Christipher Hitchens.

Of course the barrier here is "belief" against the quality of human consciousness itself to *know*. It is true the former degrades the latter: "belief" takes the place where consciousness could otherwise flourish and elevate being to beyond what it presently is: evolution. Therefor "belief" is a component of devolution and is in agreement to the sentiment that Islam is "still in the 7th Century" - indeed it is devolved.

Of course I argue too, again along with the late Christopher Hitchens that the greatest "problem" humanity can tackle is working to freeing the shackles from the ankles of women who are bound to misogynist and patriarchal (male) adherents of institutions (of the same nature): Islam presently being the most destructive having not followed the same trajectory of reformist Christianity. If Hitchens were still alive, if someone had told me he said the preceding, I'd have "believed" them because I know Hitchens' inner suffering: it is the same as mine, which is watching what men to do women and getting away with it for their "belief".

If "belief" is not a virtue, neither are "believing" men virtuous.

 

[PureX]

Idol worship occurs when one can't recognize the difference between the idol (symbol) and the ideal the idol symbolizes. And although I agree with you that many abrahamic religionists have been taught to confuse and conflate these, there are still a great many who do recognize the ideals embodied by the symbols. They are not as easy to identify, though, because the limitations of human communication often force them to use the symbols as verbal representations of the ideal. After all, we can't transmit the ideal from one mind to another without the use of these word-symbols.

My suggestion to you would be to watch out for your own bias, and take the time to consider the mechanisms of religion and how they 'work' for the human beings they are intended to serve. Rather than focusing so much on your own assessment of the logic of the ideals that the various religions engender.

Just my two cents.

 

[9-18-1]

Idol worship occurs when one can't recognize the difference between the idol (symbol) and the ideal the idol symbolizes. And although I agree with you that many abrahamic religionists have been taught to confuse and conflate these, there are still a great many who do recognize the ideals embodied by the symbols. They are not as easy to identify, though, because the limitations of human communication often force them to use the symbols as verbal representations of the ideal. After all, we can't transmit the ideal from one mind to another without the use of these word-symbols.

It is a good and valid point: indeed I also arrived at the problem being a conflation of the symbol itself and the real "object" the symbol points to, which is often immaterial. I am reminded of Bruce Lee making famous the expression "it is like a finger pointing to the moon: don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." With respect to the OP Christianity and Islam would be examples of taking the idol (Jesus/Muhammad) and making that the object of pursuit - idolatry. It is unfortunate because indeed these religions contain buried in their depths some grains of truth invariably carried through from purer times, but the erosion into idol worship is beyond anything that can considered to be "healthy".

My suggestion to you would be to watch out for your own bias, and take the time to consider the mechanisms of religion and how they 'work' for the human beings they are intended to serve. Rather than focusing so much on your own assessment of the logic of the ideals that the various religions engender.

Just my two cents.

Thank you, though I must respond and inject a bit of additional perspective.

It works both ways - I can take the same sentiment you proposed and derive the same fundamental problem: "belief" as follows:

I would suggest this the same to all others: take the time to consider the mechanisms of religion (such as "belief"-based thinking) and how they 'work' (ie. bind) the human beings they are intended to "serve" (ie. bind to the 'state').

In effect what you just described actually has an application to how "belief"-based institutions work (to enslave). They bind adherents to books/idols - this is the "mechanisms" or equally appropriate "vehicles" which create the bind(s).

"Believing" that *any* book is the perfect unaltered word of god is a bind - it binds the adherent to that book.
"Believing" that *any* man/idol is the perfect model delivered/chosen by god to man (to emulate) is a bind - it binds adherents to an idol.

When thoughts/feelings/emotions are governed by such things, the adherent is bound to whatever they "believe" and to whatever extent. This is the same as "satan" - when ones life becomes the expression(s) of their bind(s) in an ongoing state. This is precisely what "belief" always reduces into: suffering/death based on binds. This is why, in India, "heaven" is not an object ever to be sought, rather "liberation": freedom from ones own binds. This is a better approach and is superior to the Abrahamic worldview and/or any world view that involves a celestial retirement home called "heaven".

If one had a choice to "believe" something that may be true, or *know* something to definitely be true, which would they choose? I would choose the latter.

This is how/why understanding cycle(s) of creation occur, because "time" is fundamentally a circle: recurring 24-hour cycles within greater 365.25-day cycles within greater 25 920-year cycles (the Great Year). Dividing the solar cycles and Great Year into slices of twelve produce "the twelve" - denoted by many symbols in many different religions. One of these slices is commonly known as Pisces, which is comprised of two fish and denote the two feet of the body - the last sign before returning to the "head" which is Aries. We just transitioned from Pisces into Aries on March 21 (as it is with every year).

Pisces contains two fish:

one ascending fish denotes "I know"
one descending fish denotes "I believe"

This symbol is profound: it highlights how/why one ascends/descends in creation, which is "decided" once every year based on ones "standing" with respect to *knowing* and/or *believing*. In other words, if one moves closer toward "knowing" from "believing", one effectively moves upward come the new year. Inversely if one remains in a state of "belief", they remain where they are. This wheel/system is actually the basis of essentially all practical gnosis which is (hidden within, yet) suppressed by religious institutions because, well, with such knowledge the religious institutions would cease to exist - nothing to bind an adherent to book/idol-wise.

Within the context of the 25 920-year cycle, the people who trend toward "belief" are re-born in darker ages of man in order to "learn" how to move from "belief" to "knowing". This invariably involves suffering ones own belief/ignorance, which is what religious institutions are the tumors of. The last lowest point of human consciousness was 500 CE: with Christianity and Islam arriving within a few hundred years on either side of it. The last highest point of human consciousness was ~11 500 BCE. Whatever the trend of a being in terms of "belief" and "knowing" (the two fish in the wheel that recurs) determines where he/she will go: both on a year-by-year basis and life-by-life basis. In other words: everything *is* governed by a system which has been, is, and always will be the basis of creation. The problem is human ignorance of it. If known, there would be no ignorance/belief.

The eradication of "belief" would solve humanity's greatest problem(s) - this involves all "belief"-based institutions (including Islam, much to the detriment of the Islamophobic Muslims that can't stand criticisms of it) to be subject to profuse and endless scrutiny in order to uncover the lies which sustain it - one and the same as the binds which cause the Muslims themselves endless pain and suffering. Presently, they are actively defending and protecting the very thing enslaving them: "belief".

 

[EtuMalku]

"To begin, satan (שטן) is just a word."

I had to stop there before continuing. The 'word' satan is just a word. Satan is the label given to the Platonic First Form of the Idea of a Prince of Darkness. This archetypal structure already existed, it just needed to be given a label and brought into conscious awareness.

My thoughts after reading the entire post is that although the OP does a good job of associating the word 'satan' by way of the Hebrew language to 'belief' and thus Abrahamic religion(s). What I came away with is that the word we are looking for here is not 'satan' or 'satanic' but rather 'Evil'. Imposing a set of subjective ideas on another is to impede that person's freedom of Will and/or to enforce a set of subjective ideas on another is an Evil act.

In Islam there is no 'satan', there is however Iblis (Imagination).
God delegated his vicegerent to represent him in this microcosm, this divine vicegerent being the “intellect”. When the “intellect” had taken up the vicegerency in this microcosm, all the angels of the microcosm prostrated before it, except “imagination”, which did not, refusing to bow, just as when Adam assumed the vicegerency in the macrocosm, all the angels prostrated to him, except Eblis, who did not. . . . Six persons emerged from the third heaven: Adam, Eve, Satan, Eblis, the Peacock, and the Snake.

Adam is the spirit, Eve the body, Satan nature, Eblis imagination, the Peacock lust, and the Snake wrath. When Adam approached the tree of intellect, he left the third heaven and entered the fourth. All the angels prostrated before Adam, except Eblis, who refused. That is to say, all the powers, spiritual and physical, became obeisant and obedient to the spirit, except imagination, which refrained from doing so.

 

[PureX]

It is a good and valid point: indeed I also arrived at the problem being a conflation of the symbol itself and the real "object" the symbol points to, which is often immaterial. I am reminded of Bruce Lee making famous the expression "it is like a finger pointing to the moon: don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." With respect to the OP Christianity and Islam would be examples of taking the idol (Jesus/Muhammad) and making that the object of pursuit - idolatry. It is unfortunate because indeed these religions contain buried in their depths some grains of truth invariably carried through from purer times, but the erosion into idol worship is beyond anything that can considered to be "healthy".



Thank you, though I must respond and inject a bit of additional perspective.

It works both ways - I can take the same sentiment you proposed and derive the same fundamental problem: "belief" as follows:

I would suggest this the same to all others: take the time to consider the mechanisms of religion (such as "belief"-based thinking) and how they 'work' (ie. bind) the human beings they are intended to "serve" (ie. bind to the 'state').

In effect what you just described actually has an application to how "belief"-based institutions work (to enslave). They bind adherents to books/idols - this is the "mechanisms" or equally appropriate "vehicles" which create the bind(s).

"Believing" that *any* book is the perfect unaltered word of god is a bind - it binds the adherent to that book.
"Believing" that *any* man/idol is the perfect model delivered/chosen by god to man (to emulate) is a bind - it binds adherents to an idol.

When thoughts/feelings/emotions are governed by such things, the adherent is bound to whatever they "believe" and to whatever extent. This is the same as "satan" - when ones life becomes the expression(s) of their bind(s) in an ongoing state. This is precisely what "belief" always reduces into: suffering/death based on binds. This is why, in India, "heaven" is not an object ever to be sought, rather "liberation": freedom from ones own binds. This is a better approach and is superior to the Abrahamic worldview and/or any world view that involves a celestial retirement home called "heaven".

If one had a choice to "believe" something that may be true, or *know* something to definitely be true, which would they choose? I would choose the latter.

This is how/why understanding cycle(s) of creation occur, because "time" is fundamentally a circle: recurring 24-hour cycles within greater 365.25-day cycles within greater 25 920-year cycles (the Great Year). Dividing the solar cycles and Great Year into slices of twelve produce "the twelve" - denoted by many symbols in many different religions. One of these slices is commonly known as Pisces, which is comprised of two fish and denote the two feet of the body - the last sign before returning to the "head" which is Aries. We just transitioned from Pisces into Aries on March 21 (as it is with every year).

Pisces contains two fish:

one ascending fish denotes "I know"
one descending fish denotes "I believe"

This symbol is profound: it highlights how/why one ascends/descends in creation, which is "decided" once every year based on ones "standing" with respect to *knowing* and/or *believing*. In other words, if one moves closer toward "knowing" from "believing", one effectively moves upward come the new year. Inversely if one remains in a state of "belief", they remain where they are. This wheel/system is actually the basis of essentially all practical gnosis which is (hidden within, yet) suppressed by religious institutions because, well, with such knowledge the religious institutions would cease to exist - nothing to bind an adherent to book/idol-wise.

Within the context of the 25 920-year cycle, the people who trend toward "belief" are re-born in darker ages of man in order to "learn" how to move from "belief" to "knowing". This invariably involves suffering ones own belief/ignorance, which is what religious institutions are the tumors of. The last lowest point of human consciousness was 500 CE: with Christianity and Islam arriving within a few hundred years on either side of it. The last highest point of human consciousness was ~11 500 BCE. Whatever the trend of a being in terms of "belief" and "knowing" (the two fish in the wheel that recurs) determines where he/she will go: both on a year-by-year basis and life-by-life basis. In other words: everything *is* governed by a system which has been, is, and always will be the basis of creation. The problem is human ignorance of it. If known, there would be no ignorance/belief.

The eradication of "belief" would solve humanity's greatest problem(s) - this involves all "belief"-based institutions (including Islam, much to the detriment of the Islamophobic Muslims that can't stand criticisms of it) to be subject to profuse and endless scrutiny in order to uncover the lies which sustain it - one and the same as the binds which cause the Muslims themselves endless pain and suffering. Presently, they are actively defending and protecting the very thing enslaving them: "belief".

There is no way of "eradicating belief" from the human experience because the human experience is one of belief. We simply do not possess the capacity for perception and knowledge required for it to be otherwise. So the question is not to believe or not to believe, but what to believe and what not to believe. And since we do not possess the ability to determine this based on knowledge, our only reasonable alternative is to decide it based on functionality. And so that is what we humans do.

Which is why I suggest that when contemplating the validity of religion, we focus on how it functions for the practitioner, and not on some unsubstantiated philosophical proposition of it's probable 'truthfulness'. I am not particularly concerned that humans confuse their idols with the ideals those idols are meant to represent if their doing so serves them, and thereby all of us, in a healthy and positive way. I personally find Mormanism to be posing an absurd theological proposition. And yet most of the Mormons that I've met in life have been intelligent, reasonable, kind, generous, fellow citizens. So from my perspective, their religion seems to be working for them, and therefor, for me. And since none of us is capable of determining the ideological truthfulness of their beliefs, the functionality of their beliefs becomes the most reasonable criteria upon which to base our assessment.

And the same goes, I think, for all religions. It's not a question of their truthfulness. It's question of their functional results. Because they all exist to serve a function, not to be 'right'.

That being stated I would add this: just as a non- or anti-religionists can overlook this and become lost in the idea of the unrighteousness of religion, so, too, the religious practitioners can becomes lost in the idea of the righteousness of their religion. Such that their religious belief/practice becomes their idol, and they fall into a kind of tautological, self-righteous, 'circle-jerk'.

 

[9-18-1]

"To begin, satan (שטן) is just a word."

I had to stop there before continuing. The 'word' satan is just a word. Satan is the label given to the Platonic First Form of the Idea of a Prince of Darkness. This archetypal structure already existed, it just needed to be given a label and brought into conscious awareness.

Yes - the word satan is just a word. The point was to temporarily whitewash the reader such that they could temporarily consider a new understanding.

My thoughts after reading the entire post is that although the OP does a good job of associating the word 'satan' by way of the Hebrew language to 'belief' and thus Abrahamic religion(s). What I came away with is that the word we are looking for here is not 'satan' or 'satanic' but rather 'Evil'. Imposing a set of subjective ideas on another is to impede that person's freedom of Will and/or to enforce a set of subjective ideas on another is an Evil act.

I do not acknowledge the word 'evil' as explicitly describing anything real. Evil is a subjective term that almost invariably demands some emotional attachment (often in the form of repulsion) which adds to the problem of understanding what the real problem(s) are. In this way I define 'extremism' as a collapsed worldview wherein one "believes" themselves to be on the side of "good" and must actively eliminate what they consider "evil". This is dualism and illusory: the illusion contained within the being according to how they are uniquely polarized.

In Islam there is no 'satan', there is however Iblis (Imagination).
God delegated his vicegerent to represent him in this microcosm, this divine vicegerent being the “intellect”. When the “intellect” had taken up the vicegerency in this microcosm, all the angels of the microcosm prostrated before it, except “imagination”, which did not, refusing to bow, just as when Adam assumed the vicegerency in the macrocosm, all the angels prostrated to him, except Eblis, who did not. . . . Six persons emerged from the third heaven: Adam, Eve, Satan, Eblis, the Peacock, and the Snake.

Adam is the spirit, Eve the body, Satan nature, Eblis imagination, the Peacock lust, and the Snake wrath. When Adam approached the tree of intellect, he left the third heaven and entered the fourth. All the angels prostrated before Adam, except Eblis, who refused. That is to say, all the powers, spiritual and physical, became obeisant and obedient to the spirit, except imagination, which refrained from doing so.

Satan does exist in Islam - it is Shaytan. But the rest is interesting - it does become clear over time that the intellect is equally capable of destroying/limiting as it is creative/empowering.

There is no way of "eradicating belief" from the human experience because the human experience is one of belief. We simply do not possess the capacity for perception and knowledge required for it to be otherwise. So the question is not to believe or not to believe, but what to believe and what not to believe. And since we do not possess the ability to determine this based on knowledge, our only reasonable alternative is to decide it based on functionality. And so that is what we humans do

I do not agree with "the human experience is one of belief". This may be the case with you, and/or others, but is certainly not universal. I would also argue we *do* possess the capability of perceiving beyond the physical / dualism requiring projections of "belief"-based living, but this is something that needs to be consciously developed.

Which is why I suggest that when contemplating the validity of religion, we focus on how it functions for the practitioner, and not on some unsubstantiated philosophical proposition of it's probable 'truthfulness'. I am not particularly concerned that humans confuse their idols with the ideals those idols are meant to represent if their doing so serves them, and thereby all of us, in a healthy and positive way. I personally find Mormanism to be posing an absurd theological proposition. And yet most of the Mormons that I've met in life have been intelligent, reasonable, kind, generous, fellow citizens. So from my perspective, their religion seems to be working for them, and therefor, for me. And since none of us is capable of determining the ideological truthfulness of their beliefs, the functionality of their beliefs becomes the most reasonable criteria upon which to base our assessment

If a computer virus infects a computer, but the user is unaware, he/she may never realize it is there especially if there is no noticeable change. The computer may function normally as intended, meanwhile it is draining resources and sending information to hackers who wish to do harm to others.

In the same way, we can not use the "overall impression" of a person (or computer) to dictate whether or not something harmful is going on in the background. In the case of Mormonism, and adding the case of Islam, it is likely the case that most Mormans/Muslims are good people - some great. However this is a major trap I see sprung everywhere: the majority are good, therefor the religion is good.

That is simply not how it works - if there is a virus (especially acting in secret) it is invariably producing a state that is less favorable than if it were not there. This is the case of any "belief"-based religion which is rooted in assertions that are not a reflection of the reality. Suffering will always result from this.

And the same goes, I think, for all religions. It's not a question of their truthfulness. It's question of their functional results. Because they all exist to serve a function, not to be 'right'

I would argue if anything is to be elevated (especially above/as authority), it is truthfulness, not whether or something is "functional". Islam does exist to serve a function: but unfortunately that function does not actually have everyone's well-being in mind which is why, again, "belief" is not a virtue.

That being stated I would add this: just as a non- or anti-religionists can overlook this and become lost in the idea of the unrighteousness of religion, so, too, the religious practitioners can becomes lost in the idea of the righteousness of their religion. Such that their religious belief/practice becomes their idol, and they fall into a kind of tautological, self-righteous, 'circle-jerk'.

I don't think it is possible to "become lost" in the idea of the unrighteousness of religion. I would argue however it is the religionists that become lost in the idea of their so-called "righteous" one true supreme religion of (their) GOD, one brings us full circle back to the extremism: "I am on the side of good fighting against evil" wherein it all reduces to "us" vs. "them". Such religious fervor is the very seed of bloodshed - the inevitable deadly end to those who partake in the eating of those fruits.

 

[EtuMalku]

Yes - the word satan is just a word. The point was to temporarily whitewash the reader such that they could temporarily consider a new understanding.



I do not acknowledge the word 'evil' as explicitly describing anything real. Evil is a subjective term that almost invariably demands some emotional attachment (often in the form of repulsion) which adds to the problem of understanding what the real problem(s) are. In this way I define 'extremism' as a collapsed worldview wherein one "believes" themselves to be on the side of "good" and must actively eliminate what they consider "evil". This is dualism and illusory: the illusion contained within the being according to how they are uniquely polarized.



Satan does exist in Islam - it is Shaytan. But the rest is interesting - it does become clear over time that the intellect is equally capable of destroying/limiting as it is creative/empowering.



I do not agree with "the human experience is one of belief". This may be the case with you, and/or others, but is certainly not universal. I would also argue we *do* possess the capability of perceiving beyond the physical / dualism requiring projections of "belief"-based living, but this is something that needs to be consciously developed.



If a computer virus infects a computer, but the user is unaware, he/she may never realize it is there especially if there is no noticeable change. The computer may function normally as intended, meanwhile it is draining resources and sending information to hackers who wish to do harm to others.

In the same way, we can not use the "overall impression" of a person (or computer) to dictate whether or not something harmful is going on in the background. In the case of Mormonism, and adding the case of Islam, it is likely the case that most Mormans/Muslims are good people - some great. However this is a major trap I see sprung everywhere: the majority are good, therefor the religion is good.

That is simply not how it works - if there is a virus (especially acting in secret) it is invariably producing a state that is less favorable than if it were not there. This is the case of any "belief"-based religion which is rooted in assertions that are not a reflection of the reality. Suffering will always result from this.



I would argue if anything is to be elevated (especially above/as authority), it is truthfulness, not whether or something is "functional". Islam does exist to serve a function: but unfortunately that function does not actually have everyone's well-being in mind which is why, again, "belief" is not a virtue.



I don't think it is possible to "become lost" in the idea of the unrighteousness of religion. I would argue however it is the religionists that become lost in the idea of their so-called "righteous" one true supreme religion of (their) GOD, one brings us full circle back to the extremism: "I am on the side of good fighting against evil" wherein it all reduces to "us" vs. "them". Such religious fervor is the very seed of bloodshed - the inevitable deadly end to those who partake in the eating of those fruits.

Please quote people accordingly . . .

 

[9-18-1]

Please quote people accordingly . . .

I had the wrong person tagged in some quotes - apologies and thanks for pointing out.