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 saw that address -my AI says he lived or lives near there -he most important part (this is where people get misled)
Authorities have NOT officially confirmed the identity of the deceased
Wilcock’s family has NOT publicly confirmed his death
The…"
"As for ascension, it's totally possible to ASCEND on a meat based diet...and several masters did, notably, Saint Germain, aka Count Rakoczi.., ascended in 1699....in his era, meat (particularly beef, pork, and game,) was a staple of aristocratic…"
"See this......David Wilcock, 53, YouTuber and paranormal author, reportedly died by suicide in Nederland, Colorado, confirmed by Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna.
"Some of David's researches were spot on, others less so.....One salient factor about him, was his obsessions and flirtations with vegetarianism.....and among many poor health effects from his diet, especially, AI states this:
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!