A Life Without Religion

[jmccr8]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I also believe that if you  follow a religion you should follow it's basic positive tenets 

 

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I 'm not really a christian other than for personal and social reasons. 

So am interested in how this system of beliefs works.

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, closed for business said:

 

So am interested in how this system of beliefs works.

Not sure what you are asking 

I live with a real and powerful "god" 

Thus  i dont need a religion or a theology 

I chose Christianity as a social form of expression  because my wife is a christian and our community is  about 60% christian with the rest being non religious  My family is either Christian or atheist

In choosing a religion, a person should choose one which suits their needs, and  then should live by it as much as they  can, in order   to best serve those needs 

 

if my wife died and  I  re- married a woman from another belief or culture, I would alter myself to adapt to her, and to reinforce the relationship  between us ie socially i might become a jew or a muslm or a pagan    I/d be happy as Buddhist, Hindu etc

The only problem  i would have would be marrying a person who insisted there was no such thing as "god", or wanted to practice harmful behaviours based on her belief 

"God" is within us, and all around us .  We don't need religion to "be with god"

Religion is   a social form which allows us to get on with like minded people( and sadly sometimes divides us from different minded people ) 

Personally i was happy to adopt my wife's region as a cultural  practice, because it is very positive and reflects many of my original humanist principles 

eg it doeent believe in hell or eternal damnation

It believes all humans are saved by the grace of Christ's sacrifice, and have to choose to sin and not repent  to lose that t salvation/

It believes in a healthy body in a healthy mind and  is heavily involved in educational and health facilities 

It promotes a social gospel of helping others and improving the environment 

True it can be a bit hard if you   want to drink smoke or misbehave but i try to avoid those things for humanist reasons True it believes in creationism But everyone's entitled to their beliefs   I accept my wife's belief in creationism . She understands my attachment to evolution

 

 

 

[jmccr8]

10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Not sure what you are asking 

I live with a real and powerful "god" 

Thus  i dont need a religion or a theology 

I chose Christianity as a social form of expression  because my wife is a christian and our community is  about 60% christian with the rest being non religious  My family is either Christian or atheist

In choosing a religion, a person should choose one which suits their needs, and  then should live by it as much as they  can, in order   to best serve those needs 

 

if my wife died and  I  re- married a woman from another belief or culture, I would alter myself to adapt to her, and to reinforce the relationship  between us ie socially i might become a jew or a muslm or a pagan    I/d be happy as Buddhist, Hindu etc

The only problem  i would have would be marrying a person who insisted there was no such thing as "god", or wanted to practice harmful behaviours based on her belief 

"God" is within us, and all around us .  We don't need religion to "be with god"

Religion is   a social form which allows us to get on with like minded people( and sadly sometimes divides us from different minded people ) 

Personally i was happy to adopt my wife's region as a cultural  practice, because it is very positive and reflects many of my original humanist principles 

eg it doeent believe in hell or eternal damnation

It believes all humans are saved by the grace of Christ's sacrifice, and have to choose to sin and not repent  to lose that t salvation/

It believes in a healthy body in a healthy mind and  is heavily involved in educational and health facilities 

It promotes a social gospel of helping others and improving the environment 

True it can be a bit hard if you   want to drink smoke or misbehave but i try to avoid those things for humanist reasons True it believes in creationism But everyone's entitled to their beliefs   I accept my wife's belief in creationism . She understands my attachment to evolution

 

 

 

It would be nice if you told me something I don't know about you given certain redundancies.

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, closed for business said:

It would be nice if you told me something I don't know about you given certain redundancies.

LOL i didnt know what you were asking, so my reply was broad 

What, specifically. are you asking about?  

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, Guyver said:

Reading a couple links about it is not going to give you the fullness on what is being proposed by adherents.  They are blaming white people for race problems in America, and literally blaming white people now for what they consider institutionalized racism going back to the start of our country.  One mayor of a large city said that she would no longer grant interviews to any journalist who is not “colored.”  So, caucasians need not apply. That is racist because it singles out a group (white people) and discriminates against them because of their skin color.  And this is only the tip of the iceberg.  But since this thread is not about racism or politics, I guess I should drop this tangent. So, nevermind.

As  i read it the y are blaming the institutions  for racism Given that the institutions, and the power, have been in the hands of white  people  (generally   prosperous older  men)  i guess you  could say that white people are to blame.

However the y are actually directing blame away from individual prejudice and bias  

Feminists argue the same thing about institutionalised sexism, in places like the church or parliament

They argue that,  only by providing equality of access and power in those institutions, can reform be successful,  and misogyny, abuse and inequality  be removed .

[Crazy Horse]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

As  i read it the y are blaming the institutions  for racism Given that the institutions, and the power, have been in the hands of white  people  (generally   prosperous older  men)  i guess you  could say that white people are to blame.

However the y are actually directing blame away from individual prejudice and bias  

Feminists argue the same thing about institutionalised sexism, in places like the church or parliament

They argue that,  only by providing equality of access and power in those institutions, can reform be successful,  and misogyny, abuse and inequality  be removed .

Well guess again..

Its not white folk, or any other race who are to blame for the mess we are in, but the greedy, hateful, ignorant ones who have polluted, and corrupted our planet. 

Divide and conquer is their favourite tactic. Black vs White, rich vs poor, man v woman, Jew v Arab, Christians v Muslims, and on, and on, and on..

But this is a battle between good and evil, and there are good folks in every place/race. And so all the good blacks, whites, Asians, men, women etc, etc, etc, must at some point stand together and say enoughs, enough.

To blame whole sections of society for the crimes and misdemeanours of a few, is the road to genocide. Its ignorant, and its a deflection from who's really to blame.

[Mr Walker]

18 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Well guess again..

Its not white folk, or any other race who are to blame for the mess we are in, but the greedy, hateful, ignorant ones who have polluted, and corrupted our planet. 

Divide and conquer is their favourite tactic. Black vs White, rich vs poor, man v woman, Jew v Arab, Christians v Muslims, and on, and on, and on..

But this is a battle between good and evil, and there are good folks in every place/race. And so all the good blacks, whites, Asians, men, women etc, etc, etc, must at some point stand together and say enoughs, enough.

To blame whole sections of society for the crimes and misdemeanours of a few, is the road to genocide. Its ignorant, and its a deflection from who's really to blame.

White men ,especially those with money, have held power and made the rules (both social and economic)  to benefit themselves for centuries in western society 

However in non white societies again its normally men of wealth or power who make the rules to benefit themselves 

My point was the composition of our democratic chambers,  judges, and even law enforcement 

Up until the 1950 s, how many women, minority members,  or poor people, gained a position  of power ? 

Until 1971 it was legal in America to ban  women from  practicing law

Barring women from practicing law was prohibited in the U.S. in 1971.[9] In 1975, Julia Cooper Mack was appointed to the D.C. Court of Appeals, making her the first woman of color, and only the eighth woman total, to be appointed to a court of last resort. By 1993, 60 women had served on the highest court in forty states, the District, and the federal courts. As of 2001,[10] women filled 26.3% of the judgeships on state courts of last resort, 19.2% of federal district court judgeships, 20.1% of federal appellate judgeships, and as of 2018, 33.3% of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. She received unanimous Senate approval.[11] Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, commenting on women pursuing careers, observed that "women professionals still have primary responsibility for the children and the housekeeping, spending roughly twice as much time on these cares as do their professional husbands."[12]

In 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit convened the first federal all-female three-judge panel, composed of Sixth Circuit judges Alice M. Batchelder and Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy, alongside the Eastern District of Michigan's Anna Diggs Taylor, sitting by designation.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_judiciary

For racial minorities the situation is similar 

https://www.investopedia.com/racial-diversity-in-the-judiciary-5114231

The U.S. judicial system has historically been dominated by a virtually all-White judiciary. Having judges who represent the diversity of the nation is important for justice—but has still largely not been achieved.

The first person of color to serve as a federal judge was Black attorney and former Virgin Islands Gov. William H. Hastie, who was appointed to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by then-President Harry Truman in 1949. He served until 1971 and was named chief justice of the court of appeals in 1968.1

Today, more members of minority groups serve as judges but are still vastly outnumbered. Minority group members make up just 20% of federal judges, the jurists who comprise the district courts, circuit courts, and Supreme Court of the U.S. There is even less diversity in the state judiciary system.

 

How can the needs of any group of people be fully met when the y are not equally represented in all positions of power and authority,  where the y can speak for themselves and say what THEY need ?

Sure we have to change individuals, beginning with ourselves, but while institutions are biased in composition, laws will reflect the world views,  bias  and needs of those in power. 

Edited June 13, 2021 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

26 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

White men ,especially those with money, have held power and made the rules (both social and economic)  to benefit themselves for centuries in western society 

However in non white societies again its normally men of wealth or power who make the rules to benefit themselves 

Why make the distinction if they all do the same thing?

[Crazy Horse]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

White men ,especially those with money, have held power and made the rules (both social and economic)  to benefit themselves for centuries in western society 

However in non white societies again its normally men of wealth or power who make the rules to benefit themselves 

My point was the composition of our democratic chambers,  judges, and even law enforcement 

Up until the 1950 s, how many women, minority members,  or poor people, gained a position  of power ? 

Until 1971 it was legal in America to ban  women from  practicing law

Barring women from practicing law was prohibited in the U.S. in 1971.[9] In 1975, Julia Cooper Mack was appointed to the D.C. Court of Appeals, making her the first woman of color, and only the eighth woman total, to be appointed to a court of last resort. By 1993, 60 women had served on the highest court in forty states, the District, and the federal courts. As of 2001,[10] women filled 26.3% of the judgeships on state courts of last resort, 19.2% of federal district court judgeships, 20.1% of federal appellate judgeships, and as of 2018, 33.3% of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. She received unanimous Senate approval.[11] Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, commenting on women pursuing careers, observed that "women professionals still have primary responsibility for the children and the housekeeping, spending roughly twice as much time on these cares as do their professional husbands."[12]

In 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit convened the first federal all-female three-judge panel, composed of Sixth Circuit judges Alice M. Batchelder and Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy, alongside the Eastern District of Michigan's Anna Diggs Taylor, sitting by designation.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_judiciary

For racial minorities the situation is similar 

https://www.investopedia.com/racial-diversity-in-the-judiciary-5114231

The U.S. judicial system has historically been dominated by a virtually all-White judiciary. Having judges who represent the diversity of the nation is important for justice—but has still largely not been achieved.

The first person of color to serve as a federal judge was Black attorney and former Virgin Islands Gov. William H. Hastie, who was appointed to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by then-President Harry Truman in 1949. He served until 1971 and was named chief justice of the court of appeals in 1968.1

Today, more members of minority groups serve as judges but are still vastly outnumbered. Minority group members make up just 20% of federal judges, the jurists who comprise the district courts, circuit courts, and Supreme Court of the U.S. There is even less diversity in the state judiciary system.

 

How can the needs of any group of people be fully met when the y are not equally represented in all positions of power and authority,  where the y can speak for themselves and say what THEY need ?

Sure we have to change individuals, beginning with ourselves, but while institutions are biased in composition, laws will reflect the world views,  bias  and needs of those in power. 

Them being white is NOT the defining factor as to why the world is in such a sad state of affairs.

No, that would be because of greed, and arrogance, ignorance and hate, which can be found within anybody no matter their skin colure.

Do you actually think that the white folks in power, actually give a dam about other white folk in their constituencies? 

Or do you think they are just out for themselves, and perhaps that's the reason why our countries and societies are falling apart?

Greed within the individual, arrogance, selfishness, hatefulness and spite... That's your problem right there.

Not skin colure.

 

[Mr Walker]

22 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Them being white is NOT the defining factor as to why the world is in such a sad state of affairs.

No, that would be because of greed, and arrogance, ignorance and hate, which can be found within anybody no matter their skin colure.

Do you actually think that the white folks in power, actually give a dam about other white folk in their constituencies? 

Or do you think they are just out for themselves, and perhaps that's the reason why our countries and societies are falling apart?

Greed within the individual, arrogance, selfishness, hatefulness and spite... That's your problem right there.

Not skin colure.

 

It is more complex and insidious.

Every person has a set of values and beliefs based on their own  identity.

identity is formed from  race, ethnicity, gender,  and sexual identify, among other things such as psychological desires 

Where  the  parliament, judiciary, and  police force is made up of older white males,  then it will have, and seek to, protect, conservative values, and a male perspective on life.  

Where there is a strong religious base, it will seek to protect the values of that religion 

People seek to maintain and preserve their own power and privileges , which means limiting access to them, by others 

Only in a truly diverse representation of all branches of govt (and society ) can actual equality of opportunity be achieved, allowing individuals to rise and fall on their own merits and efforts.  

In the1800s only males over the age of 25  with property could vote in  most Australian elections. Australian parliaments.

Naturally, our laws favoured property rights  and adult males   

Good people in power cant do anything until they change the institutions, laws, an unfairness built into our systems. 

eg 50 years after the women's rights movement, and cultural change began, women still earn much less than men, and have less superannuation They are less represented in govt and commerce /industry as leaders .

[Mr Walker]

On 6/13/2021 at 10:56 AM, closed for business said:

Why make the distinction if they all do the same thing?

My point is/was that, with out equality of representation and authority, laws and customs will be biased towards those in power  who will be a limited representation of the whole community 

IMO its not the greed of individuals, but the archaic construction of our institutions, which limits equality 

eg when we introduced a goods and services tax on products and services, essential ones were exempted, so medicines etc were tax free.

BUT sanitary pads and tampons were taxed (cost 10% more)

If we had had a greater  female perspective in our law makers, this would not have happened. 

It is why jobs traditionally  done by females are,  historically and currently,  undervalued and underpaid 

[Crazy Horse]

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It is more complex and insidious.

Every person has a set of values and beliefs based on their own  identity.

identity is formed from  race, ethnicity, gender,  and sexual identify, among other things such as psychological desires 

Where  the  parliament, judiciary, and  police force is made up of older white males,  then it will have, and seek to, protect, conservative values, and a male perspective on life.  

Where there is a strong religious base, it will seek to protect the values of that religion 

People seek to maintain and preserve their own power and privileges , which means limiting access to them, by others 

Only in a truly diverse representation of all branches of govt (and society ) can actual equality of opportunity be achieved, allowing individuals to rise and fall on their own merits and efforts.  

In the1800s only males over the age of 25  with property could vote in  most Australian elections. Australian parliaments.

Naturally, our laws favoured property rights  and adult males   

Good people in power cant do anything until they change the institutions, laws, an unfairness built into our systems. 

eg 50 years after the women's rights movement, and cultural change began, women still earn much less than men, and have less superannuation They are less represented in govt and commerce /industry as leaders .

It is a lot more insidious, that's true.

But beliefs aren't based upon identity, its more, identity is based upon beliefs.

Otherwise all white males, or all black females, etc, would all have the same beliefs, which is patently untrue.

In England a couple of months back, the media and political talking heads were actually discussing the idea of banning all men from going outside after dark, to protect women.

Treating a whole group of people as criminals, belittling and dehumanising them has, and always will, lead to genocide.

And now they want to ban bitcoin, because some criminals use it, and don't forget the jab, to protect the whole.  

Its the same lie everywhere.

All our rights and freedoms are being taken away from the individual for the (supposed) benefit of the whole. When in reality, without individual rights and freedoms, we are at the mercy of those tyrants, who in fact, have no mercy. But you can play along with this nonsense for another couple of years for that is about all the time you have left. 

And lets not forget all right-wing patriates are now labelled domestic terrorists in the US, and its only a matter of time before they find a way to ban religion too.

 

 

[lightly]

I don't seem to believe in anything SUPERnatural. .  I suspect there are perfectly natural aspects/elements of reality which are ,at this point,  essentially unseen and unKnown.    I think others have had similar suspicions and that is how the idea of god came to be ?   And the idea of, and belief in, God ..is what led to ,most, religions. 

   Hmm, now somehow these words ^ don't sound as deep and significant as I imagined ...   Ohwell,  I'm really enjoying everyone else's thoughts.   

Edited June 14, 2021 by lightly

[jmccr8]

On 6/12/2021 at 6:59 PM, Mr Walker said:

White men ,especially those with money, have held power and made the rules (both social and economic)  to benefit themselves for centuries in western society 

However in non white societies again its normally men of wealth or power who make the rules to benefit themselves 

What I asked was why make a racial distinction if they are all doing the same thing so not sure what the price of tampons has to do with what I asked you

 

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, lightly said:

I don't seem to believe in anything SUPERnatural. .  I suspect there are perfectly natural aspects/elements of reality which are ,at this point,  essentially unseen and unKnown.    I think others have had similar suspicions and that is how the idea of god came to be ?   And the idea of, and belief in, God ..is what led to ,most, religions. 

   Hmm, now somehow these words ^ don't sound as deep and significant as I imagined ...   Ohwell,  I'm really enjoying everyone else's thoughts.   

I don’t know how the idea of God came to be, but I do agree with you that there are many things we don’t know or understand at this point.  I get news pushes on science frequently, and new discoveries are constantly being made that change our understanding of the universe.  https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a36329671/is-the-universe-conscious/

I posted that link to an article which claims that some scientists consider the universe to be conscious, and they have some math to back it up.  If it turns out to be true, then it will definitely alter the way we view the universe completely.  
 

[Guyver]

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

My point is/was that, with out equality of representation and authority, laws and customs will be biased towards those in power  who will be a limited representation of the whole community 

This side tangent that I myself was guilty of starting is an important conversation/ debate that should be had - just not in this thread.  I would really appreciate it if someone interested made their own thread about it in another section of the forum.  I admit I was greatly up in arms over what proponents of CRT are espousing.  After calming down for a few days, I have reconsidered my response.  I believe America and the world has more good people in it than bad, therefore this CRT is going to flop.  We’ve come to far now as a race of HUMAN BEINGS to continue in the antiquated notions of skin color to define us as people.  
 

Please keep this thread on topic and discuss CRT in another thread.  Thank you.  This thread is about religion, or no religion, God, spirituality, and beliefs.  

[Guyver]

PS.  Here is a link to our own forum where CRT is being discussed.

 

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Guyver said:

This side tangent that I myself was guilty of starting is an important conversation/ debate that should be had - just not in this thread.  I would really appreciate it if someone interested made their own thread about it in another section of the forum.  I admit I was greatly up in arms over what proponents of CRT are espousing.  After calming down for a few days, I have reconsidered my response.  I believe America and the world has more good people in it than bad, therefore this CRT is going to flop.  We’ve come to far now as a race of HUMAN BEINGS to continue in the antiquated notions of skin color to define us as people.  
 

Please keep this thread on topic and discuss CRT in another thread.  Thank you.  This thread is about religion, or no religion, God, spirituality, and beliefs.  

Well said, I experience more of a coming together, but I live in major diversity as a Californian. 
 

Back on topic.

 

 

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

It is a lot more insidious, that's true.

But beliefs aren't based upon identity, its more, identity is based upon beliefs.

Otherwise all white males, or all black females, etc, would all have the same beliefs, which is patently untrue.

In England a couple of months back, the media and political talking heads were actually discussing the idea of banning all men from going outside after dark, to protect women.

Treating a whole group of people as criminals, belittling and dehumanising them has, and always will, lead to genocide.

And now they want to ban bitcoin, because some criminals use it, and don't forget the jab, to protect the whole.  

Its the same lie everywhere.

All our rights and freedoms are being taken away from the individual for the (supposed) benefit of the whole. When in reality, without individual rights and freedoms, we are at the mercy of those tyrants, who in fact, have no mercy. But you can play along with this nonsense for another couple of years for that is about all the time you have left. 

And lets not forget all right-wing patriates are now labelled domestic terrorists in the US, and its only a matter of time before they find a way to ban religion too.

 

 

To me identity is who you are inside not your body, colour gender etc 

So when i say identity  I mean the holistic world view you have constructed about your self ie who you BELIEVE you are.

what your attitudes, values, biases, prejudices are..

We construct these things from  external and internal influences.

Being black  is not your identify so two black people can have entirely different values and moralities. Being female doesn't define your identity so two females can have entirely divert values and  moralities  Non the less if Australia or Americas parliaments and legal systems had been dominated by black women for the last 200 years, we would have  very different countries because , overall the laws would be constructed to favour their needs and beliefs.

CRT doesn't demonise groups. It simply shows how institutions reflect the make up of the people in them, and often hold back or harm those who are not a part of those institutions or their constituents 

Within a democracy a terrorist is a terrorist because we have legal ways to change the laws and to protect ourselves  

In any autocratic system it becomes more complicated,   because sometimes people have to fight for their survival or rights 

I can see the point in regulating bit coin. It is not just that criminals use it, it can be used to avoid paying  tax and its lack of regulation could pose a danger  to the wider economy 

IMO covid vaccinations should be made compulsory for all peole who do not have a medical condition making it dangerous. At the very least those not vaccinated should have restrictions placed on their travel work and other rights.

The safety and health of a society overrides the rights of any individual

In Australia, while its possible to send an unvaccinated child to school, they can be refused enrolment and the y will be sent home during any outbreak of a disease If you  get any Federal govt benefits for the child (which almost every family does)  then they MUST be fully vaccinated 

https://www.ncirs.org.au/public/no-jab-no-play-no-jab-no-pay

No one here can enter an aged care facility without a current flu vaccination 

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, closed for business said:

What I asked was why make a racial distinction if they are all doing the same thing so not sure what the price of tampons has to do with what I asked you

 

I answered that.  In countries with black people in charge, non blacks will not be fully catered for.

In Islamic countries, Christians may be discriminated against.

In many Christian countries, other religious groups lack power or authority, and thus rights 

In japan, non Japanese people have severe restrictions placed on their rights 

My point was that, when people like women are not represented in the institutions of power, then laws do not reflect their needs or priorities 

The tampon issue was a big one in Australia because it was a classic blunder by a male dominated parliament 

As democracies and countries have become increasingly diverse, with many more points of view, and a wider cross section of wealth and education,  sections of the population find their needs and rights not being considered.  The internet compounds this, giving a platform for organisation and protest  

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

This side tangent that I myself was guilty of starting is an important conversation/ debate that should be had - just not in this thread.  I would really appreciate it if someone interested made their own thread about it in another section of the forum.  I admit I was greatly up in arms over what proponents of CRT are espousing.  After calming down for a few days, I have reconsidered my response.  I believe America and the world has more good people in it than bad, therefore this CRT is going to flop.  We’ve come to far now as a race of HUMAN BEINGS to continue in the antiquated notions of skin color to define us as people.  
 

Please keep this thread on topic and discuss CRT in another thread.  Thank you.  This thread is about religion, or no religion, God, spirituality, and beliefs.  

Sorry i just got down to this post 

I will try to refrain from  further comment except to say that it applies also to your topic 

Where the institutions of government law and police do not reflect the populations religious beliefs, the same issues arise as when the y don't reflect other values or beliefs 

It is institutional  diversity and tolerance which allows /enables a modern person to live without religion

A century or so ago it would have been almost impossible to do so..

 

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Sorry i just got down to this post 

I will try to refrain from  further comment except to say that it applies also to your topic 

Where the institutions of government law and police do not reflect the populations religious beliefs, the same issues arise as when the y don't reflect other values or beliefs 

It is institutional  diversity and tolerance which allows /enables a modern person to live without religion

A century or so ago it would have been almost impossible to do so..

 

You didn’t have to refrain from further comment - your comments would have been perfect for the thread I linked discussing the issue.  I would have been happy to read your comments in that thread, and I would have debated you regarding those points.  But I don’t wish to do it here so you wasted your words.

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Well said, I experience more of a coming together, but I live in major diversity as a Californian. 
 

Back on topic.

 

 

Yes, like I said….nothing wrong with the topic.  I just realized it wouldn’t for this thread.  I actually am interested in religious beliefs and why people have them. Maybe it’s because I had them for so long, I’m still in shock that I used to believe that way.  But, I do believe in living by principles….so that does fit the discussion.  It’s part of my life philosophy that I’m not prejudiced against people for their skin color, and I thought that’s the place that most everyone else was as well.  So, it was quite a shock for me to hear this terrible news about promoting racism in our own schools was so disturbing to me.  Maybe a new thread somewhere else should be devoted to the specifics of that topic?  It’s a fast happening thing that I’m hoping will peter out quickly.

[Will Due]

 

For the time being, some may decide to live without religion, but no matter what you choose to do ......

"Religion is destined to become the reality of the spiritual unification of all that is good, beautiful, and true."

Which, I suppose, is something to look forward to. 

 

 

 

[Will Due]

33 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Naw Will, we would be so much better off without the scam of the century(s) hanging over our heads, day in, day out.

 

I agree.

We will be so much better off when religion progresses and becomes something that is only made up of things that are "good, beautiful and true". 

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Will Due