Should religion be eliminated

[well named]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

 

[Likkmee]

Eliminated ? For what ? Taxed ? FukkinA. it's BIG bidness

 

[ding]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

 

[ding]

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.

Good thing I am neither.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Because you’re a weak individual.

Apparently. But now I am strong.

No, you’re still a weenie who need a religion crutch.

What you intend for evil, God uses for good for those who love him.

 

[sealybobo]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

 

[ding]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

 

[ding]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

William James said, "We can act as if there were a God; feel as if we were free; consider Nature as if she were full of special designs; lay plans as if we were to be immortal; and we find then that these words do make a genuine difference in our moral life."

Maybe that is what you are trying to say.

 

[Karl Rand]

Religion does what governments can’t, they teach civility.

So, the only two sources of civility are religion or the state?
A chilling set of alternatives.

No. There is only one organization that does that; organized religion.

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

True believers, such as your good self, never cease to amaze me with how their faith can blind them to the entire body of Western & Eastern philosophy.

 

[ding]

Religion does what governments can’t, they teach civility.

So, the only two sources of civility are religion or the state?
A chilling set of alternatives.

No. There is only one organization that does that; organized religion.

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

True believers, such as your good self, never cease to amaze me with how their faith can blind them to the entire body of Western & Eastern philosophy.

We are spiritual beings who sense and perceive the world around us using all of our senses. Through our intuition we perceive a uniform deliverance in which religions all appear to meet which has two parts; an uneasiness and it's solution. The uneasiness, reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand. The solution is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers.

paraphrased from William James, Lecture XX, "Conclusions"

 

[ding]

Religion does what governments can’t, they teach civility.

So, the only two sources of civility are religion or the state?
A chilling set of alternatives.

No. There is only one organization that does that; organized religion.

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

True believers, such as your good self, never cease to amaze me with how their faith can blind them to the entire body of Western & Eastern philosophy.

You might be surprised that I see parallels in all religions.

I am surprised that you don't.

 

[BreezeWood]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

whether acknowledged or not history speaks for itself, the two sides of religion and those in denial of responsibility ...

 

[Karl Rand]

Religion does what governments can’t, they teach civility.

So, the only two sources of civility are religion or the state?
A chilling set of alternatives.

No. There is only one organization that does that; organized religion.

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

True believers, such as your good self, never cease to amaze me with how their faith can blind them to the entire body of Western & Eastern philosophy.

We are spiritual beings who sense and perceive the world around us using all of our senses. Through our intuition we perceive a uniform deliverance in which religions all appear to meet which has two parts; an uneasiness and it's solution. The uneasiness, reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand. The solution is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers.

paraphrased from William James, Lecture XX, "Conclusions"

William James is talking gibberish with all the logic of an over-tossed word salad.

 

[Karl Rand]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

View attachment 232365

whether acknowledged or not history speaks for itself, the two sides of religion and those in denial of responsibility ...

Some of those who are/were responsible are the very authors of so called holy books.

 

[ding]

Religion does what governments can’t, they teach civility.

So, the only two sources of civility are religion or the state?
A chilling set of alternatives.

No. There is only one organization that does that; organized religion.

Yes, we can learn civility from our family, friends and our experiences.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

True believers, such as your good self, never cease to amaze me with how their faith can blind them to the entire body of Western & Eastern philosophy.

We are spiritual beings who sense and perceive the world around us using all of our senses. Through our intuition we perceive a uniform deliverance in which religions all appear to meet which has two parts; an uneasiness and it's solution. The uneasiness, reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that there is something wrong about us as we naturally stand. The solution is a sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making proper connection with the higher powers.

paraphrased from William James, Lecture XX, "Conclusions"

William James is talking gibberish with all the logic of an over-tossed word salad.

And yet, it is a foundational belief in all religions, so how exactly is it gibberish?

You dismissed it using using rhetoric. There was no substance to your rebuttal.

 

[ding]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

View attachment 232365

whether acknowledged or not history speaks for itself, the two sides of religion and those in denial of responsibility ...

Some of those who are/were responsible are the very authors of so called holy books.

Like who?

 

[sparky]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

View attachment 232365

whether acknowledged or not history speaks for itself, the two sides of religion and those in denial of responsibility ...

Some of those who are/were responsible are the very authors of so called holy books.

or revisionists....aka council of nicea .....~S~

 

[sparky]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

View attachment 232365

whether acknowledged or not history speaks for itself, the two sides of religion and those in denial of responsibility ...

Some of those who are/were responsible are the very authors of so called holy books.

Like who?

What occurred at the Council of Nicea?

 

[Taz]

It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.

Good thing I am neither.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Because you’re a weak individual.

Apparently. But now I am strong.

No, you’re still a weenie who need a religion crutch.

What you intend for evil, God uses for good for those who love him.

What evil am I intending?

 

[BreezeWood]

Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?

I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.

Fair enough.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

.

But there is only one organization whose mission it is to teach it.

But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.

View attachment 232365

whether acknowledged or not history speaks for itself, the two sides of religion and those in denial of responsibility ...

Some of those who are/were responsible are the very authors of so called holy books.

Like who?

.

Like who?

another example, one more to your liking - to work with ...

 

[ding]

T.S. Elliot pretty much describes what we all know in his book, Cocktail Party, which there is something wrong in this world.

Celia is having an affair with a married man and when she realizes the emptiness of this relationship, her life is shaken profoundly, she turns to her physician for advice. There’s something not quite right, she tells him:

Celia:“I should really like to think there’s something wrong with me –
Because, if there isn’t, there’s something wrong
Or at least, very different from what it seemed to be,
With the world itself – and that’s so much more frightening!
That would be terrible. So I’d rather believe
There is something wrong with me, that could be put right.”

Celia: “It sounds ridiculous—but the only word for it
That I can find, is a sense of sin.”

Doctor: “You suffer from a sense of sin, Miss Copleston? That is most unusual.”

Celia: “It seemed to me abnormal…
My bringing up was pretty conventional –
I had always been taught to disbelieve in sin.
Oh, I don’t mean that it was never mentioned!
But anything wrong from our point of view,
Was either bad form, or was psychological.
… And yet I can’t find any other word for it.
It must be some kind of hallucination;
Yet, at the same time, I’m frightened by the fear
That it might be more real than anything I believed in.”

Doctor: “What is more real than anything you believed in?”

Celia: “It’s not the feeling of anything I’ve ever done,
Which I might get away from, or of anything in me I could get rid of –
but of emptiness, of failure
Towards someone, or something, outside of myself;
And I feel I must… atone – is that the word?
Can you treat a patient for such a state of mind?”

The answer of course is no. Freud himself recognized these limits, when he said, “It would be absurd for me to say to a patient, ‘I forgive you your sins’.” The psychotherapist has no power to do this.

According to its Greek root, the word “psychiatrist” literally means, “doctor of the soul”. And yet, the psychiatrist has no cure for this greatest of all psychological maladies – the problem of sin. If he is astute, he can perhaps define and describe guilt; but he can in no way cure the guilty conscience. All of our human attempts to do so, whether by psychological defense strategies, medical ministrations, or therapeutic techniques, ultimately prove insufficient. But we need not despair. For our own failures suggest to us what faith has already revealed: that, in the last analysis, there is only one true and effective Doctor of the soul.

Dr Aaron Kheriaty is assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Irvine, and director of the university's Psychiatry and Spirituality Forum. He can be contacted at akheriat@uci.edu

Despite efforts to reduce conscience to conditioning, guilt persists, and science is powerless before it.