What good is religion?

Hypocrite-- look at your own statements. You may find my opinions, "useless," but I do not. For that matter, it is only a given, in your own mind, that these nonspecified opinions must, necessarily, be found to be useless, by any who reads them. You are exhibiting the mortal sin of (false) PRIDE, i.e., Vanity; Conceit. And by not demonstrating the supposed uselessness of any particular of my opinions, you are engaging in a gratuitous, ad hominem attack, that is, inserting a personal insult, with no (shown) cause. Whether referring to my opinions-- apparently en masse-- as, "useless," would be a polite way of speaking (or in accordance w/ Forum rules) even had you offered, "proof" of your insult, is another matter.

Far worse than any other offense, is the blatant hypocrisy of your doing this, immediately after telling me to refrain from making personal comments (about you)--
"Do as I say, not as I do"--
the Pharisees, of old, would recognize you as one of their own.

From Luke, chapter 17:
The Coming of the Kingdom

20Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, 21nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”h

Will you note that it is based, actually, on a good bit of plagiarism?

That is not irrefutable in the least, and I will happily do so; but first I must ask why you, who is counselling me, about including extraneous, inapplicable opinions, would include a quote from a work published about 1500 years after Gnostics disappeared? Are you now claiming that Voltaire was a Gnostic? And you know this, how?
Answer those questions, & I will take-on the quote.

 

Nobody needs a good reason to quote Voltaire in my book. Any excuse will do, but I will say his tongue was cemented to his cheek and sown in, when he wrote Candide. He was a deist as I recall, an advocate for religious governmental tolerance as a rule, but he certainly was critical of all three major western faiths from time to time. As he grew older his attacks on Catholicism and Judaism became brutal. He sure did not become more tolerant personally as time went by. He had to unpleasant financial experiences with Jews and flirted with the most brazen anti-Semitism. He was genuinely fond of Hinduism.

 

No slight of Voltaire, intended. It was the circumstances surrounding the quote, purportedly in defense of Gnosticism; and right after calling my own, posted opinions, "useless," (but supposedly not as a gratuitous insult, judging from his admonition to me about not making, "personal comments;" so I guess that was his way of saying, inapplicable or irrelevant). But we can discuss this more, if you like, after Greatest i am explains why he thought the Candide quote was applicable & relevant.

As to your incidental addition about Hinduism, I also enjoy the Hindu rituals, though I haven't been to many, and not for some years. The chanting though, which is the base of the ceremony, is very cool: rhythmic, like 5,000 year old Hip-Hop, and powerful. When I had started going, in the past, I had intended to start attending the after-ritual, Sanskrit classes, so I would have some idea of the meaning of the words I chanted, off of the "lyrics," sheet, provided by the temple. I don't know that I'm a great fan of other aspects of the religion, though.

 

..and you yourself have deemed my OP as useless...
and yet nine out of ten pages of this thread are mostly made up of your verbosity.
If this OP is "worthless"...then why are you still here wasting your time.
Too bad you are unable to focus on the topic instead of calling someone else "hypocrite"...

 

Those ideas sound like quotes from a book.

Can you point to a religion that in your opinion is..."done correctly"?

 

Where is there evidence that Christianity has prevented murder in Europe....
where is their evidence that this world is any better off with Christianity...than without it.
Christianity been around a long time...and has made no significant change to human behavior.
It has failed it's founder's intent.

 

But I am not bitter....
frustrated is a closer description.
Why do people keep holding on to religion while missing the the reason for it?

 

See...you've learned to ask for help when you don't understand the topic.
Now isn't that better than just blaming the OP for your own misunderstanding.

 

Then learn to ask for context....don't just assume.
Yes you can call it minimalist..or just not using an over abundance of words.
You're own quotes are on the other end of the spectrum.
If your point is so weak that you have to prop it up with 50,000 extra words...
than why should I waste time trying to sift through the pile.

 

Maybe you are frustrated because you are missing the reason for it. They have a reason for belonging to a religion.... they need it. Many are well aware of the magical thinking, the illogic, but all that is required a priest told me is a leap of faith. If you can do that many questions are answered, existential angst soothed, you have life guidance and a source of dedicated fellowship. 5 billion people think that is a good deal.

 

And too bad you never noticed that, in all my verbosity, I was giving concrete examples of any of my assertions. Note, once more, you lodge a criticism of me without a single quote or example, to back it up. The quote you did use, was my calling someone a hypocrite, who had just accused me of, "personal," comments and, in the same breath, called (unspecified) opinions of mine, "useless." On top of that, Mr. Useful-information-only, included in his own reply, an extended amount of a quote (with his commentary), from a millennium and a half after the end of historical Gnosticism, as supposedly supporting the "Gnostic," view. I'll note that he, in the dubious tradition you have likewise been following, gave no quotes of mine or explained no basis, with any examples, of either my, "personal," comments or my, "useless," opinions (which I quoted, that section of his reply, in full). If you do not realize that this is hypocritical behavior, I suggest that the purchase, by you, of a dictionary, may be a good investment.

I'll summarize what I just said, in case it was too verbose to hold your attention: I back up what I say with examples (including quotes) and explanations. Your lack of them, accounts in large part for the slimness of your arguments, in relation to my own. And by any measure of a point of view, with which I am familiar, examples add credibility & strength. Any of your charges against me, attached to no factual evidence, are, by definition, uncorroborated. This, by definition, hugely detracts from their worth. Without anything to back them up, they are just words; much more a waste, I would contend, than my, "verbos(e)," arguments.

I can turn around your question to me, about my participation in your thread: if you did not wish for opinions, varying from your own, why would you begin a thread, in a debate forum?

 

And see...it's still gotten me no answer from you.

 

Maybe they just "think" they need it.
People hang to many things they "think" they need...but it is never enough.
They soon "think" they more. Never satisfied.
"Religion" alone doesn't give them what they seek.

 

You're not debating the topic...you're debating the sentence structure of it.
I've already told you if you don't like the way the OP is written...
then re-write it correctly.

 

Because you haven't asked anything about the topic...
you merely criticize it's construction, and then go on to debate your own interpretations.

You seem to support "religion" simply because it is still around...do you find any value in it personally?
Or do you just jump on safest looking bandwagon?

 

This post of yours, is the pile...
My criticism or, rather, accurate description, is of your excerpting just a single sentence from my reply, which does not show its context. It is not a matter of opinion, between us, that this forum's protocol is to include all of the quote, of the person, to whom one is responding (but I have no problem with a partial quote, provided it is enough to make clear its context). How can I possibly, "learn to ask for context," of a quote of myself, BEFORE you have posted the quote? Your post is therefore, total nonsense (again, by definition).

 

So you say. Once more, without something to back up your charge, what is its value?

 

Yes and I pointed out that you called this thread "worthless"...
so how are you any different than @Greatest I am.....the one you are accusing?

 

I did reply to you questions at first even though they were off topic...
because you (said) you had difficulty understanding it.
After a while I seen you were just looking for attention.
Twice I've given you direct questions concerning this topic.
And both times you've ignored them.

 

Ok I got that. Sounds like you are a bit angry and sad. I say that in a good way not a condescending way. I know a lot of people are fed up with religions as they seem them so often used to rationalize insanity, hatred and war. Got that.

Of couse you can get people who will respond agreeing with you for the same or other reasons and others telling you it has meaning for them for many reasons. Not sure whether you will get them or not, Depends on how convinced you are of your own opinion-the more convinced you are probably the less you will get from others.

I am sure you know the answer comes down to individual opinions otherwise you would not ask. I think its good you ask. It shows you at least understand the difference between you and them. So many come on this board and can not do that-they can not imagine any answer to a question but their own.

That said you probably know thge psychological clinical answer for why people use religion and that is for certain persons, religion is a system of beliefs or rules or laws or behaviour codes they create, most often subjective, that are designed to give them comfort and reduce their anxiety from feeling they can not control and understand things external to them and their own negative feelings.

So those who use it to encourage free thought and a code to let go of things and not focus on what they can not understand and simply trust the answers to come when they are ready, use it to become calm and shed their ego, rather like using it to help to learn to float on water.

On the other hand those who use it to overly focus on just repressing certain behaviour and as a code to control and conform under the threat of burning in a hell, don't tend to swim. They usual sink in water because they can not deal with the concept of letting go to float. They are so busy trying to control their body they thrash about and sink making it worse and eventually suffocating in their own self doubt.

So I would respond it depends on how the individual defines and uses their religion.

For me I migh use it as allegories to help explain Mandelbrot's set and fractal theory and I use it to help understand how humans will try repress primal instincts to be able to construct a civil society and what good and bad lessons come out of that exercise.

 

Yes agree....all is according to preference of opinion.

The fact that there are so many does not help.
If people could concentrate on the similarities of them all...
instead of each trying to promote their own and diminish the others.
All of the spiritual teachings have somethings in common.
Those are far more important than the differences.

 

That is utter B.S. You have stated that one's thoughts are NOT a part of that person's true self.

I noted to @Greatest I am , that, though I thought he & you had similar views, in some important ways, on an also crucial point, nevertheless, you two seemed to disagree, as he had just said that he believed that any inner essence, or soul, spoken about in Gnosticism, was meant to be taken symbolically, because they do not believe in a spiritual or supernatural essence as anything real, but representing only an IDEA.

This, "essence," that you speak of, on the other hand, is not something acknowledged by conventional science, and certainly would be generally considered to be, "supernatural." I thought this difference between your & G.I.A.'s two views interesting, so asked for your input. Here is your response, in contradiction of all fact, shown above.

Asking for an explanation of this obvious self-contradiction is, in fact, asking something, "about the topic." And it is by no means, a criticism of the thread's, "construction." So is my assessment of your reply as, "B.S.," not accurate?

Do you care, at this point, to clarify how you believe in the same teaching as G.I.A.-- that there is no supernatural, and that the, "divine," within us is nothing more than a title, and not real-- nevertheless, in your own view, this purely symbolic, unreal concept is still the source of artistic creations, and brilliant scientific ideas? Is this an unfair, trivial question, in your mind, one only concerned with some structural issue of your thread? Because if you cannot address your own contradictory statements, with anything other than unbuttressed accusations against my contributions, it will show this thread to be unworthy of my own, or anyone's, giving it thought (IMO).

 

Strongly agree.

 

You know your bible. Your end result is why the church wanted to dumb us down.

Remember that Christianity is a fascist religion, and all fascists, as you might recall with Hitler, burn away the old thinking so that less can conflict with the new.

The dogma centers around Jesus and his immoral and unjust sacrifice. Unjust even for the sheeple to accept if they bother thinking about their abdication of their own responsibilities.

That harm is my focus and not the older myths.

Regards
DL

 

For you yes and I respect that. For others it helps them create positive thoughts, meaning, purpose, hope.

Your thoughts are not worthless. In that sense your thoughts are your religion. I would respect them as long as they are not violent to others or would be violent to you.

Religion is just a muckity muck word for people trying to construct thoughts to help them make sense of it all.

Me I am severe adhd. I learned not to try control the millions of thoughts all coming at once andtrying to focus on them all. I learned from years of being unable to pay attention to just let go of trying to and zippity doo dah day I could focus a little better.

Call that religion then. I only use that as a humble example not an arrogant self righteous one. I just mean to tell you it aint all bad. I know most of what I say is full of sheeyat but if it makes people feel good and gives them hope I am happy. If a depress the sheeyat out of people or depress them then my religion is bad.

Conventional religion yah Gab it scares the snot out of me and I got no time of day for it...but every know and then you meet a "religious" person and they fool you into how nice and calm they can be. No fire and brimstione, no judgements, they just surf that wave man. I met some. Lol they all talk like Keannu Reeves and secretly wanted to sing harmony with the Beach Boys. Me I am into the blues. You want religion in a good sense-listen to the blues man come on. Maybe you need some help. Maybe get someone to make you a real real whisky sour that just tangs your mouth buds as you listen to Clapton or BB or Miles Davis or Santana or someone like that. Lol.