Biggest benefits of leaving a religion

[Aupmanyav]

Actually the napkin does not have any revealing or persuasive words. So be it falls short of the true religion.

Should we, then, reject this napkins or all such napkins?

 

[rational experiences]

If a human posed a question today to self and ask that self why has religious ideal developed and new religious ideals allowed for new religions itself, if religion did not pave the way for new religions, to leave old ways and develop what is idealised as, information in the times of conscious change?

Being the reason.

And then you would also see occurring CULT behaviour of self destructive individuals who express their belief of everyone else being destroyed enacted in the same process.

So then you would conclude that human mentality is affected in 2 expressed conditions.

Natural self development and then ancient machination AI SUBLIMINAL coercion.

Some tried to claim good and evil...so then you would ask what is evil by definition of evil in a life, when life was created equally?

Science/invention radiation fall out history that not balanced realization.

The reason that religious ideal is all science based, and then notification of lawful human healing imposed.

Due to science knowing that the radiation effect on the mind owns loss of memory in heavy metal fall out attacks, inability to express chemical behaviours as before, a loss of the ability to speak the preceding spoken language, and hearing changes.

All notified and identified as spiritual human losses on their owned lived planetary experience....that is also notified to only own human existence by sex.

The first 2 parents that any scientist discusses today is a long time deceased...and only due to sperm and an ovary did a human own existence beyond their bodies. So science owns no claim in evolution or presence of the species in scientific terminology...the reason for difference of opinion in creation science religious idealism and the preaching of who is right and who is wrong.

Actually in civilization behaviours and lawful supportive community survival.

Why religious ideal always developed a new loving kind and caring expressive ideal, similar to the preceding statements, due to it being involved in science and technology theories and causes....to a new idealized order.

How today the New World Order was idealized....yet it is going factually the wrong way...for we are losing our spirituality via science of the nuclear...so their ideals prove not to be spiritual or evolved beyond the last lesser religious pursuits for world leadership.

The true spiritual realization is now with scattered individuals in spiritually owned teaching reviews of multi and varied religious orders without belonging to any of them....why the biologist then said...it is time for natural order to make its stand before it is too late.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Is there anything that doesn't start with I ?

Hence why I said:

"But this is from my experience. I wonder if anybody else has had similar experiences."

Before that I also wrote:

"So, this doesn't only apply to religion, but can also apply to any other group if they don't promote freedom of thought, even an atheist group, and also might not apply to all religions. And it might not even apply to all people who are religious as I know there are religious people on this forum who it does not apply to."

So from the outset I implied that this was a subjective opinion on my part and doesn't apply to every body or every religion.

Therefore I do not understand your motivation behind asking the question as to why the sentences (not anything) starts with "I".

 

[Samael_Khan]

I have found that is more than half the battle. I spent decades trying to figure myself out before I ever had anything to do with my religion.

Yeah and it isn't a battle that we can necessarily fight head on because we might not even be aware of the enemy in our minds. It has to be a gradual self exploration type of battle.

 

[Samael_Khan]

John 14:20 "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you."

Would one like to explain that without Metephor.

@Israel Khan
@loverofhumanity

Regards Tony

I don't disagree that there aren't metaphors but there are certainly parts which are not metaphor. So you would have to choose a part which we agree are not metaphor and you don't to sort out the contention.

John 14:20 makes sense literally if one believes in the Trinity. To me it doesn't seem like a metaphor but another figure of speech which I cannot remember at the moment.

 

[Samael_Khan]

To me it depends on ones definition of religion.

I believe true religion is what the Messengers, Prophets and Manifestations of God actually teach not the man made dogmas and traditions taught by clergy.

The Prophets of God all taught love, unity, harmony, tolerance, kindness, mercy, forgiveness, honesty, truthfulness, Justice, to share and care for others, to be unselfish, to put others before ourselves, to be generous, hospitable, to be meek and humble, to be fair, to have a virtuous and upright character, to be charitable, to help the poor, needy and sick, to be thankful, gratitude, to be friendly and welcoming to all, to love all humanity as our family, to be wise, to comfort the sorrowful and distressed, to meditate, to pray, to perform good deeds, to be courteous.To be trustworthy. To keep ones promises. To be truthful.

To me civilisation depends on these very things. Without these qualities which have been the essence of what the Prophets and Messengers have taught I believe we struggle and cannot find peace or happiness as the Prophets have impressed on us continually that we are essentially spiritual beings and not until we live spiritual lives can we be truly happy, content and have both inner and world peace.

Just my humble view.

This is why I like the Baha'i.

To me, and possibly the dictionary, if one worships something or somebody else and/or engage in mystical or cultic rituals then that is religion.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Do you mean Calvinists? Calvinism doctrine says God predetermined who is and who isn’t saved. I’m not Baptist, yet I know there are some Baptists who are Calvinists, many and probably most are not and would strongly consider such a view as unbiblical.

YES! I mean Calvinists. My bad. I got mixed up because there are Calvinists who mention the Southern Baptist convention.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes and no. I speak for Judaeo Christianity. It is a religious book and makes no claim about the
physical world. Where it does do this I think it's speaking metaphorically. The Catholic Church
defending the Ptolomy view of the world by quoting Solomon - the sun rises in the east, sets in
the west and hastens back to where it began.
There's two creation accounts in Genesis. I hold one to be figurative and the other to be a symbolic
account (ie the "days") of what actually happened, ie first the universe, then the earth. The earth is
dark and oceanic. The skies open, the continents rise, life emerges from the land (fresh water) and
then from the sea. Finally man. That's super interesting.

Oh! OK. I misunderstood you then.

I actually agree with you to an extent.

To me Genesis 1 at least is an overview of what happened. I do not know if Genesis 2 was meant to be taken literally or not but it does make me reflect on things.

 

[Samael_Khan]

On this topic there is lots of great discussion, and insight on ex-________ forums. (Most religions have one or two where former adhernts discuss what happened to them, how they're coping, etc.) Some of the stories are really wonderfully uplifting to read.

I know about a few of those support groups.

What I find interesting is that many of those who have left various religions throughout the world and are unrelated have similar experiences to what I mentioned in the OP. To me that says something about the psychological effect of certain types of religions that shows a predictable pattern.

 

[osgart]

View attachment 40272 Should we, then, reject this napkins or all such napkins?

Well its hardly worth going to war over it. And how do you know if it's an accurate translation? They didn't have napkins in ancient times.

It requires nothing, and condemns nothing. What reward or salvation do we have in such a napkin?

For all I know it's a deception. A mere political tool of the times. A method to control people. It doesn't even forecast anything to come. Does the napkin warn of anything? It makes no commands, no laws, no rituals, and it demands no major leaps of belief or faith in it. And obviously it can be easily taken out of context.

In short it doesn't teach anything, nor convict anyone!

You sir have a long way to go to make a religion. The parchment, or napkin is too plain vanilla. Or do I not have eyes to see. I was hoping for something with bold, red letters, perhaps from an Italian restaurant. You have an infidel on your hands, and it doesn't quite strike fear into the hearts of many does it. . I don't fear it's judgment. .

 

[Spirit of Light]

So, this doesn't only apply to religion, but can also apply to any other group if they don't promote freedom of thought, even an atheist group, and also might not apply to all religions. And it might not even apply to all people who are religious as I know there are religious people on this forum who it does not apply to.

But this is from my experience. I wonder if anybody else has had similar experiences.

For me the biggest and most cathartic benefit of leaving religion is freedom of thought and self expression.

I am free to change my mind at will, based on evidence provided.
I can be honest with how I think and feel without being told that my way of thinking and feeling is wrong.
I can be honest with myself and what I actually belief and do not feel pressured to belief certain specific things.
I can honestly explore other viewpoints honestly, thoroughly and openly without feeling like I am being a traitor.
I can honestly listen to critique about my viewpoints without feeling uncomfortable or attacked.
I don't assume that others who don't believe as I do are inherently wrong or misguided.
I don't have to feel I need to villainize those who are opposed to my beliefs.
I don't have to feel I need to refute scientific theories.
I can genuinely be interested in all religions and explore them without feeling like God will condemn me for being a traitor.
I don't have to engage in logical fallacies and mental gymnastic to defend views that I honestly do not believe in.
I am free to recognise and admit to when I am wrong and am totally comfortable with it.
I can "travel along the route" based on where the evidence leads me.

Any thought?
Any religions that you would apply what I experienced to?
Any disagreements?

Personally, i do not see any benefit of leaving a spiritual life behind, it would only create confusion and lose of ability for Inner wisdom.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah and it isn't a battle that we can necessarily fight head on because we might not even be aware of the enemy in our minds. It has to be a gradual self exploration type of battle.

I am still fighting the enemy but I won one battle today.

 

[Samael_Khan]

But who said that it is necessary to leave the religion for freedom of thought and self-expression?

I know of religions which say that members must act a certain way, do certain things, treat people a certain way, shun family members, not read books critical to the religion, marry those who they choose, pay 10% of your income, not express themselves in ways that the religion disagrees with and not think of things that the religion disagrees. And if one refuses to do these things then they are condemned and not a true believer.

If those rules or "guidelines" are in the policies of the religion then one would have to leave the group to be free.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Personally, i do not see any benefit of leaving a spiritual life behind, it would only create confusion and lose of ability for Inner wisdom.

I understand why you wouldn't as you were one of the people I was thinking of when I wrote that this might not apply to certain people.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I am still fighting the enemy but I won one battle today.

Persistence my friend! Never give up!

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think that there'd only be a benefit leaving a religion that I no longer believed in. There'd be many benefits then.

Yes, exactly. If one honestly fully believes it without cognitive dissonance then that is great. They would then be fully thinking and expressing themselves freely within the confines of the religion.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Actually, it was not Jesus who said that, it was the Gospel writers who wrote that Jesus said that, writers who wrote about Jesus but never even knew Jesus.

This has actually become my argument these days.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I know of religions which say that members must act a certain way, do certain things, treat people a certain way, shun family members, not read books critical to the religion, marry those who they choose, pay 10% of your income, not express themselves in ways that the religion disagrees with and not think of things that the religion disagrees. And if one refuses to do these things then they are condemned and not a true believer.

If those rules or "guidelines" are in the policies of the religion then one would have to leave the group to be free.

Many of the guidelines are there to make it more easy to become a more morality good person, to see the benefit of good instead of benefit of the ego.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Many of the guidelines are there to make it more easy to become a more morality good person, to see the benefit of good instead of benefit of the ego.

Morality is subjective though. One would first have to fully agree with the morality of the group and thoroughly think it through. One problem is maturity. One might join a group thinking that its morality is true and then after years of being in the group realise that the group is wrong.

Also, what if the morality of the group actually serves to benefit the ego? Such as when saying that "we are the only ones who God approves of"?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Morality is subjective though. One would first have to fully agree with the morality of the group and thoroughly think it through. One problem is maturity. One might join a group thinking that its morality is true and then after years of being in the group realise that the group is wrong.

Also, what if the morality of the group actually serves to benefit the ego? Such as when saying that "we are the only ones who God approves of"?

If the morality in a group serve the ego it is not a spiritual teaching
There are many spiritual teachings and the right answer would be, this teaching or path is the right one for me, but other teachings may hold the truth too.