Religions are so many and so diverse that a single word like 'religion' does not mean anything. Freemason is 'religion', Christianity is a 'religion', devil worshiping is 'religion' etc. What do these groups have in common so that we put the same label on them? Nothing! So we should stop talking of 'religion' and rather say the exact group you are attacking.
People who use the word 'religion' are the lazy guys who want to read labels on containers saying 'this is salt', 'this is sugar', 'this is oil' etc, but never want to open the can to check the exact contents. They want an easy, 'one-size-fit-all' diagnosis of human problems. So they have identified one umbrella termed 'religion'. But they are deceiving themselves. Saying 'religion' is like saying 'an animal'. You haven't sayed anything. There is no such a single entity an 'an animal'. It is more meaningfull to say 'cobra', 'tortoise', 'domestic cat', 'leopard', 'giraffe' etc. So when you telk someone, beware, there is a cobra on the way, he understands what you are talking of. Then we generalize afterwards, if we even need such a generalization.
Remember that generalization is a human, lazy shortcut. He can't list all the dangerous groups, so he shoehorn a bulk of them into a single basket and give it a single name. That was the use of generalization. But its abuse is never ending! It is abused to bring about confusion and smear. Rather than examining individual concepts, claims, ideas or people, we just concentrate on seeing their 'earmarks' and then conclud that we have known everything there is to know about them. Guess what? It is 'religion', it is 'politics', it is 'fear'. It is 'ego', he is a 'starseed' etc!
Roaring Lovely > Roaring LovelyFebruary 26, 2021 at 5:15am
I for one never need to figure out a group where an idea, belief etc belong to as a guide to judgement. I don't first categorize, then judge. This is dangerous and misleading. When we think this way, we can easily be manipulated by a few people. Rather that making a judgment, we are shoehorning it to fit what we read in a book, an article, a channelled message etc. Since no channeler writter etc can make a whole list, he sells ideas in bulk. But We can debunk groups, behaviours etc without even saying, for instance, 'this is a religion'. If a group is murderous, it is murderous. Whatever 'group' they belong is irrelevant.
Beware of religious extremists..who force their religions on to others ...they actually do more evil and hide as religious extremists..they pretend to be good outer appearance but inside they are evil ..crooks .. liars..and corrupt
"I'm guessing Enki and Enlil may have had quite a few conflicts back then? Atleast Enki had some compassion. Enlil on the other hand was someone you wouldn't want to be around back then."
"The Anunnaki engineer known as Enki, was very keen on enhancing the genetic potentials of the human race and in ancient times, very much working with the Apkallu of inner Earth...The ascended masters of the spiritual hierarchy, led at that time by…"
"It feels like we have learned much about the Anunnaki in these last few days. If any more questions come to mind I'll let you know bro. The more knowledge the better."
"The Council of Nine would be cool to be a part of, but the S&E teams I believe do the most travelling so the Council of Nine thing would come later on for me unless of course I could do both. I really want to travel and see whats out there. So many…"
"Oh and another point I would like to make, about the importance of sticking to the agreed societal lifespan, is that it's a contract, of sorts, with not only your star nation and clan, but also the solar logos and if, for example, you wanted to…"
"Well, the Federation have always encouraged that member star nations agreed their prime collective life durations and stick to them....Of course, there will always be individual renegades, who will want to live longer, but truly, some may and will…"
Replies
People who use the word 'religion' are the lazy guys who want to read labels on containers saying 'this is salt', 'this is sugar', 'this is oil' etc, but never want to open the can to check the exact contents. They want an easy, 'one-size-fit-all' diagnosis of human problems. So they have identified one umbrella termed 'religion'. But they are deceiving themselves. Saying 'religion' is like saying 'an animal'. You haven't sayed anything. There is no such a single entity an 'an animal'. It is more meaningfull to say 'cobra', 'tortoise', 'domestic cat', 'leopard', 'giraffe' etc. So when you telk someone, beware, there is a cobra on the way, he understands what you are talking of. Then we generalize afterwards, if we even need such a generalization.
Remember that generalization is a human, lazy shortcut. He can't list all the dangerous groups, so he shoehorn a bulk of them into a single basket and give it a single name. That was the use of generalization. But its abuse is never ending! It is abused to bring about confusion and smear. Rather than examining individual concepts, claims, ideas or people, we just concentrate on seeing their 'earmarks' and then conclud that we have known everything there is to know about them. Guess what? It is 'religion', it is 'politics', it is 'fear'. It is 'ego', he is a 'starseed' etc!