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
"Cant watch the info wars video as you either have to be a member in the site to do so,.. or its muted for some reason...in fact almost every time I go to watch anything on this infowars website from links in here.. its either no longer available, or…"
"If Starmer thinks that British people want to rejoin Europe, he had better think again....Great Britain does not want to be chained to a European corpse....
🇬🇧
⚠️⛔️🇪🇺⛔️⚠️
"If Starmer thinks that British people want to rejoin Europe, he had better think again....Great Britain does not want to be chained to a European corpse....
🇬🇧
⚠️⛔️🇪🇺⛔️⚠️
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!