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
"Thank you Virginia Martinez, go ahead, the biggest problem that caused this genocide of native Europeans is in Brussels with the unelected globalist parasite Blondie that should be behind bars for life, for all his crimes against the European…"
"And as Spanish politician, Virginia Martinez suggests, these problems of islamism, forced multiculturalism, mass illegal migration and mass imported criminality, are placing all European nations, especially western Europe, at risk....Especially…"
"Ah yes, Earth politics is very much a current topic, so I'll return to it, with passion....The UK's Labour party has awakened the people (to Labour's evil) in a manner that almost suggests that Starmer has been watching and learning from Hillary…"
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!