Religion and Morality, Happiness, Hope and Love

[Gargovic Malkav]

We know that's true because essentially all religions proselytize reaching out to unbelievers by word of mouth, books, tracts, TV, radio, and now the internet. Much of that exposure to the public involves explaining the tenets of the religion to both believers and unbelievers.

I know some religious groups (or people within those groups) have a reputation for doing so, but "essentially all religions"?
Are you sure you're not too focused on the things that confirm your prejudices?

Personally, I care if people understand my opinions on religion because I think it's important to educate and inform people.

I doubt the religious people who proselytize do it for other reasons than the ones you have for trying to convince people that religion is obsolete.
That their reasoning makes no sense to you does not mean they don't care about people.
Not necessarily at least.

 

[rational experiences]

I own express love as a biological human without displacing love as a science thesis.

I look at animals sharing the expression love.

So I claim I'm aware a place spirit love caused me to own life. Theme first humans only.

Okay a loving human dies. Where is love?

Only if the living human expressed love. Afterwards as still living as the human.

Okay do you have to bring science based teaching to position human love?

Yes as human only sex reproduces a baby by humans living human life wanting life to continue. As their claim a loving act.

But science statements aren't love?

No. I'd be lying if I said it was scientific.

If you say God is love I'm loved is a human taught concept and not science?

Yes.

Why science asked how could God love you if earth reactions God in science destroys you or heavens reactions destroy you?

Pretty basic just a human question.

Said to religious science theists looking for gods love in science.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What I don't understand is what you're doing on a discussion board about religion if you think it doesn't matter what people who don't share your beliefs understand about those beliefs. You may be an exceptional case, but for the large majority of religious people it does indeed matter if others understand their beliefs. We know that's true because essentially all religions proselytize reaching out to unbelievers by word of mouth, books, tracts, TV, radio, and now the internet. Much of that exposure to the public involves explaining the tenets of the religion to both believers and unbelievers. Personally, I care if people understand my opinions on religion because I think it's important to educate and inform people.



I'm not so sure if I'd call it an obligation, but I think it's generally polite to answer sensible questions about one's position on religion and other issues. I answer such questions without reservation. I can and will justify my conclusions to any interested party. I have nothing to hide, and that's why I participate in discussions on this board.

I used to discuss and debste for hours. But one day i realized that it did not matter, because the non believers will stay a non believer no matter what I said. So now I dont discuss much religious or spiritual topics at all.

What matter to me, may not matter at all to you. So to stay silent/relaxed in my mind, I found that speaking less and listen more was the key.
My personal views or belief does not have to mean anything to others.

 

[rational experiences]

Yet if science is human's owned evil practice and it continues as a practice with human life sacrificed praying to be saved.

Family human taught by mother father is our only saving. Human advice advised.

As gods saviour ice is melting because of human science practice.

If you say natural heavens position is reactive. The human teaching it performs evil is correct.

If you say natural O earth planet is reactive and dangerous evil. First. An non reactive earth isn't evil.means disasters only.

Having no disaster is holy otherwise both bodies are evil.

Was the humans natural non scientific correct teaching.

Why preaching science as spiritual is fake. Natural humans only own spiritual.

Ignored true correct human teaching.

 

[Jagella]

I know some religious groups (or people within those groups) have a reputation for doing so, but "essentially all religions"?
Are you sure you're not too focused on the things that confirm your prejudices?

Why are you feigning ignorance of an obvious fact? It appears that you are denying an inconvenient truth.

I doubt the religious people who proselytize do it for other reasons than the ones you have for trying to convince people that religion is obsolete.

People are free to make their case for or against religion as far as I'm concerned. You appear to fear my reasons for openly expressing skepticism of religious claims, and that's why you're saying that my motives are no better than what motivates religious evangelists. The difference between my motives and theirs is that I seek to use the best reasoning and facts available to me to discover the truth no matter what it is while they have the "truth" in mind from the very start and look for reasons to believe it. In other words, if my ideas doesn't fit the evidence, then I discard those ideas; if their ideas don't fit the evidence, then they discard the evidence.

That their reasoning makes no sense to you does not mean they don't care about people.
Not necessarily at least.

I care enough about people to make sure I talk sensibly to them.

Also, please make sense out of this:

I see that Love is the foundation of all virtue and that all virtues emanate from Love. I see no virtues can exist without Love, love being the pure white light and the virtues the refracted light seen in all the colours of the rainbow.

What does this mean?

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Why are you feigning ignorance of an obvious fact? It appears that you are denying an inconvenient truth.

It seems you and I live in very different places then.

You appear to fear my reasons for openly expressing skepticism of religious claims, and that's why you're saying that motives are no better than what motivates religious evangelists.

Because I express skepticism of your claims?
I'm sure there's more than one possible rational explanation for this, don't you think?

The difference between my motives and theirs is that I seek to use the best reasoning and facts available to me to discover the truth no matter what it is while they have the "truth" in mind from the very start and look for reasons to believe it. In other words, if my ideas doesn't fit the evidence, then I discard those ideas; if their ideas don't fit the evidence, then they discard the evidence.

I believe there is some truth to this.
I can't deny that I had to open up my mind to the claims made in religious scriptures and experiment a bit to see how it could make sense.
If I didn't do this, I probably would've remained an atheist.

Also, please make sense out of this:

"I see that Love is the foundation of all virtue and that all virtues emanate from Love. I see no virtues can exist without Love, love being the pure white light and the virtues the refracted light seen in all the colours of the rainbow."

What does this mean?

I woulds say it's some symbolic language where he expresses how love makes someone a good person I guess.
And how love and virtues are interconnected.
I can imagine it sounds like mumbo jumbo for a secular thinker such as you.
I myself also tend to refrain from such language as I feel the word love tends to gets thrown around so much that it often sounds shallow.
But that doesn't mean I forget about the importance of love.

But maybe you should ask the poster in question to clarify himself if he doesn't make sense to you.

 

[Jagella]

It seems you and I live in very different places then.

I suppose we do live in different worlds. In your world it looks like there is no Google to check to see what religions have websites.

Because I express skepticism of your claims?

I don't know which of my claims you doubt. You are welcome to factcheck everything I say and correct me.

I'm sure there's more than one possible rational explanation for this, don't you think?

This what?

I can't deny that I had to open up my mind to the claims made in religious scriptures and experiment a bit to see how it could make sense.
If I didn't do this, I probably would've remained an atheist.

I hear these kinds of religious conversion testimonies all the time. They go like this: At one time I was very closeminded about religion A, but when I opened my mind to the truths of religion A, I saw the light. Today my unbelief regarding religion A is gone, and now I see the truths of religion A very clearly.

I woulds say it's some symbolic language where he expresses how love makes someone a good person I guess.
And how love and virtues are interconnected. I can imagine it sounds like mumbo jumbo for a secular thinker such as you.

That's basically how I would interpret the religious view in question. Since we both see that rhetoric as having the same meaning, then I fail to see how your understanding it is any better than my ability to understand it.

I myself also tend to refrain from such language as I feel the word love tends to gets thrown around so much that it often sounds shallow.
But that doesn't mean I forget about the importance of love.

I've noticed that religious people love to talk about love. Doing so is probably intended to make unbelievers more likely to convert.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human says in my proof of love it is proffered to anyone by my behaviour and choice. As sacrificed I endured evil but overcame it. Hence mind body consciousness proves changed.

Of course earths condition saviour ice newly returned reborn ice saviour has a role. Gods purpose balances a teaching about cooling.

Ice melted so our returned saviour body lost. Christ body lost from immaculate status as ice cooling cools hot gas so the burning gases lost its body. Two bodies get changed by science of earth causes.

Body of balances change.

They proved God earth wrong evil. They proved God heavens wrong evil. Proved natural self came from somewhere else.

As evil terms attacked changed life.

Named the eternal form. As healthy human is with natural balances always highest status.

If you don't want to believe the eternal still exists due to created creation as a scientists pursuit... some basic advise proves it first. It's your choice not to believe.

It's your choice to claim you invented my life by human stated maths invented conversions of dusts. Yet no dust converts until you apply it then you get nuclear...not a stable state.

As if you believe if you do it yourself you just created us is pretty sick thin king.

Only said by a human who changes natural balances first as a calculus by choice paths to think about. To destroy what Gods highest ownership held. Cooled and cooling. The motions of balances.

Cold masses cold dusts.

It's holy eternal unconditional purpose true and isn't in creation. The eternal is unknown is separated from the body created creation and it changed what it once owned totally.

Meaning once no space existed and once no burnt cooled returned eternal existed. As eternal hell is created creation.

It was once all just the eternal.

One man owned the lived proof of man versus science and his invention caused attack. That man's maths invention had not created life it created creations conversion.

Conversion blasting. In his mind he began created creation by an act of taking highest presence into changed presence. As themes are first invoked in thoughts of human sciences.

So if a man pretends he's somewhere higher to have said I'm safe from created creation creating as he suggests as first ever..... then he consciously says I know. I was still in the eternal form myself safe.

The subject a human baby. The human baby's DNA returned healed in mother humans womb was the ova. Heavens remassed cooled returned mass held waters oxygenation of biology real.

To his grown man's life sacrificed by science of man causes once again.

A baby or animal life not nuclear the teaching said that life biology lives only by returned stable state ice newly born.

Born as a baby in the manger of gods holy protection cooling. Man named in man...ger.

Teachings of human's for human's as human man's about human man's causes a changed life.

Ice returned allows nature's garden oxygenation to generate supply life cell health to human babies human cell blood living conditions.

Man humans life problem today is still national supremacy by inference country human DNA religious science practice. Place of documented teaching.

Self identified in literature.

Is bandied as part of science of man's subjective reasoning is not about the subject a man human. As DNA is inconsequential.

The experience involves human scientific chosen reasoning only.

So I teach as woman non denominational multi cultural DNA so you cannot lie.

Survived also.

Removal of lifes natural support yet kept alive by gods heavenly mass to endure attack...by a man humans thesis right to the ground beneath his feet as nothing.

It proved as he lived nothing space never created him from hell's God. Rock earth. Rock earth owned historic earths hot burning gases itself. Even if the sun had reignited them.

Earth as God first owned burning gases. Rock.

Hence you don't change burning gas above balances by forcing burning below as earths origin one position historic was burning also.

If a rock body evolved from burning if anyone wants to quote it's where love came from. I think you need to reassess your human beliefs.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I suppose we do live in different worlds. In your world it looks like there is no Google to check to see what religions have websites.

And when they explain what their religion is about, you see it as an attempt to convert?
I think Christianity and Islam mostly have a reputation for that, but I don't think I've ever heard such thing coming from a Jew.
That would be odd too, because their religion doesn't work that way.
And now I'm only speaking of Abrahamic religions, in a very broad sense.
There's also people who identify as religious but don't feel called to belong to an organized religion, nor have they a reason to convert others.
Though I can imagine some may dream about founding their own cult or religion.

I don't know which of my claims you doubt. You are welcome to factcheck everything I say and correct me.

Your claim that essentially all religions proselytize, as if you perceive any attempt to explain themselves as an attempt to convert you.
With that attitude you seem to suggest to be above that.
But to me you appear to exhibit the same behaviour as the people you judge.

That's basically how I would interpret the religious view in question. Since we both see that rhetoric as having the same meaning, then I fail to see how your understanding it is any better than my ability to understand it.

I thought you asked me because you couldn't make sense of it.

This what?

That my responses are out of fear for your skepticism.

I've noticed that religious people love to talk about love. Doing so is probably intended to make unbelievers more likely to convert.

I'm curious, do you think people who do that are aware that they are attempting to convert someone?

 

[Jagella]

I used to discuss and debste for hours.

Yes, and you're still on a religion discussion board.

But one day i realized that it did not matter, because the non believers will stay a non believer no matter what I said.

Unbelievers sometimes convert to religion, of course. Did you ever go beyond words to convince skeptics that your religious beliefs are true? If not, then I think that lack of substance may be the reason skeptics don't believe you.

So now I dont discuss much religious or spiritual topics at all.

But you're on a religion discussion board.

What matter to me, may not matter at all to you. So to stay silent/relaxed in my mind, I found that speaking less and listen more was the key.

Have you been upset by the reactions you received from skeptics? Again, the trouble may lie in your words lacking substance. If people hear wild claims, then they are often incredulous and for good reason. No sensible person wants to be misinformed. Do you believe outlandish claims without good evidence for those claims? If you're prudent, then you don't believe those kinds of claims. So put yourself in the place of the person you try to convert. Would you believe what you're saying on words alone?

My personal views or belief does not have to mean anything to others.

I'm not like that. I want to clearly inform people about what I think is true and why I have arrived at those conclusions. If somebody sees something nonsensical about my conclusions, then they might be right, and I want to be corrected by them.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes, and you're still on a religion discussion board.



Unbelievers sometimes convert to religion, of course. Did you ever go beyond words to convince skeptics that your religious beliefs are true? If not, then I think that lack of substance may be the reason skeptics don't believe you.



But you're on a religion discussion board.



Have you been upset by the reactions you received from skeptics? Again, the trouble may lie in your words lacking substance. If people hear wild claims, then they are often incredulous and for good reason. No sensible person wants to be misinformed. Do you believe outlandish claims without good evidence for those claims? If you're prudent, then you don't believe those kinds of claims. So put yourself in the place of the person you try to convert. Would you believe what you're saying on words alone?



I'm not like that. I want to clearly inform people about what I think is true and why I have arrived at those conclusions. If somebody sees something nonsensical about my conclusions, then they might be right, and I want to be corrected by them.

I have become more and more aware that religious beliefs are a personal aspect of life. So even i sometimes answer in religious discussion, does not mean I have to push my personal belief onto others anymore.

People does not have to ve like me, or believe what I do.

 

[Jagella]

And when they explain what their religion is about, you see it as an attempt to convert?

Yes. I've known religions to evangelize by offering "information."

I think Christianity and Islam mostly have a reputation for that, but I don't think I've ever heard such thing coming from a Jew. That would be odd too, because their religion doesn't work that way.

If you had Google or YouTube in your world, then you could look up Jews for Judaism. It's a Jewish group that seeks to reconvert Jews that have converted to Christianity.

There's also people who identify as religious but don't feel called to belong to an organized religion, nor have they a reason to convert others.
Though I can imagine some may dream about founding their own cult or religion.

I'm referring primarily to religions converting people rather than religious individuals proselytizing.

Your claim that essentially all religions proselytize, as if you perceive any attempt to explain themselves as an attempt to convert you.
With that attitude you seem to suggest to be above that.

Your position is very naive. Why would a religion go to all the trouble of spending thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars posting websites and printing books and tracts not to mention buying expensive radio and TV time merely to "explain themselves"? No religion can survive without a constant inflow of new converts as the current followers leave or die off. They need the money to survive as organizations (all the while hoping that nobody realizes that their respective Gods are insufficient to allow them to survive).

But to me you appear to exhibit the same behaviour as the people you judge.

I am not the topic of this discussion. Let's keep it civil and on-topic please.

I thought you asked me because you couldn't make sense of it.

No, I asked for your interpretation to test if a "spiritual" person can truly see truth in religious rhetoric that I cannot discern. The answer appears to be no, religious rhetoric makes little sense to people regardless of what they say they believe.

I'm curious, do you think people who do that are aware that they are attempting to convert someone?

Absolutely. I know from my experiences with religious people that they have very little in them that I normally think of as love. In fact, the religious can be monstrously hateful especially when they realize that their beliefs are not shared by others. Their talk of love is just a way of snagging lonely and vulnerable people who want to be loved.

 

[Bird123]

When the religious aren't admonishing unbelievers to believe in the God and miracles of their religion, they might ask unbelievers to consider the importance of the morality, happiness, hope, and love offered by their religion. For Christians, they have the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount to guide morality, the happiness and sense of hope that results from their doctrine of salvation, and the love of both neighbor and enemy taught by Jesus. So aside from God and miracles, they can offer important reasons to believe.

As far as I'm concerned, I can and do have morality without religion. In fact, I can argue that my secular morality is far better than any morality any religion offers. It is no secret that religions have committed atrocities as a result of their beliefs, and any moral person should not adopt that kind of ethics.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that religion can bring happiness to some people some of the time. I've heard the stories of the happy-go-lucky Christian just loving life being a Christian. To me, though, there are more important things in life than happiness. As I have just implied, I value my morality very highly, and I won't throw it away in some effort to be happy. For that reason I cannot envy the happiness of a religious person any more than I can envy the happiness of a rapist as he violates his victim. Besides, I find the claim that religion brings lasting and meaningful happiness to just anybody to be very questionable. I've known plenty of miserable religious people.

But no matter how happy or unhappy religious persons may be, don't they have hope that some day they will be happy as their religion promises? For them they may have that hope, but it often comes at the expense of the hope of others and for others. For every person who thinks she is heaven-bound, she must believe that those do not share her beliefs are hell-bound. She may also find herself believing that her deceased family members and friends are in hell. What kind of hope is that?

Finally, does religion not teach love? Yes, but like the morality, happiness and hope offered by religion, there is a terrible downside to religious-based love. Such love is based in obedience to a God--one is to love not because others have earned one's love but because God says so. Such a love has little to distinguish it from hatred. Love should be free and granted to who deserves it. If God commands us to love him, then he obviously is not confident he can win our love. His love is like the love between despotic rulers and his subjects which is based on fear of punishment.

So much is said about God that simply is not true. Do people accept things they hear about God because they want God to be that way?? Why do some want God not to Love His children Unconditionally???

As for Happiness, it is within reach of everyone religious or not. Happiness is no more than a Choice!! THINK about that. Even in the midst of great turmoil, I will always be Happy!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[rational experiences]

Humans only truth.

A long time ago before civilisation family was very spiritual respectful knew life order and lived. We traded correct trade. By skill.

Then star fall came irradiated some of our brothers. Their mind behaviour changed. Science became their concept. They began hearing Ai old science of old man's science giant pyramids. A long time ago all life destroyed advice.

That had destroyed all life on earth. Was in one place only first as humans on origin earth.

New science after ice age man's life returned as ice saviour was now present....Mayan and Egyptian.

Star advice...not holy.

Spiritual human knows.

Science was the order of all man's brothers who chose agreed and were wrong. Behaviour was supported by first cult group and murder. Humans.

How the rich man evolved civilisation and status self idolisation. Then moved onto scientist self idolator.

God sciences first just science no religion then. Self idolators scientists.

So after men began this behaviour conscious spiritual innocent family would gather. How religious practice versus God sciences began. As no man is God.

Then when science nuclear proved it was destroying life scientists were convinced to swap sides agreeing with religion. No man is God.

As no man is God banned outlawed Alchemy science as no man is God.

Why you scientist have it wrong.

And why religious family spruiking science also has it wrong.

As water mass liftng off earths God ground thins water and puts it back in life.

Oxygen regenerated by Christ mass above causes body replenished and holds water mass to ground. So it stops mass evaporating unnaturally.

Christ symbol holy ox.

Water flooding saved life as water by mass fall cools and stops burning flame above our heads falling as satanic burning us to death.

The teaching. As a teacher a human using points of relative human advised living experiences it was documented. Once religious teachers knew what they were talking about.

Today most of you don't.

 

[wellwisher]

Morality was designed for the needs of the group and not the needs of the individual. The needs of the individual, although secondary, can be met if the group is strong and integrated as a team.

If you look at the morality of the Ten Commandments, they all have the team in mind, since a team can become more than the sum of its parts. Five people working an assembly line, as a team, can do more than five people each doing it all themselves; Henry Ford.

For example, the first commandment, about they're being one God, is critical to the team, since if the team was divided among many different gods, each subgroup will clan up into factions, and the larger team will suffer.

For example, it is hard for team science and team religion to unite to form one large team called, humanity. Violation of the first commandment; one motivation, may help some individuals have more self esteem, as they Lord over others, but the larger team of man, suffers.

Like any team, if they all work together for a common cause, placing restraints on selfish and ego-centric behavior in the players, that departs from the needs of the team, the team can reach the playoffs and the even championship, making all the diverse individuals and egos on the team, champions.

This championship feeling is where the team offers all the rest of the things that are needed for all the individuals on the team to feel whole. With team more than the sum of its parts, all parts in the machine, becomes more than what they were, alone.

We live in a commercial world, where sales benefits by ego's with narrow, refined, or special needs and choices, that can be bought for a price. The concept of morality and team may cut into that bottom line, so it is not accepted by secular thinking. The battle of the egos; immorality, and the lack of team spirit; take sides, is where some egos will try to acquire too much, while others can not even get their fair share. The team works differently, so even the bench warmer is part of the team and he will eat, drink and laugh with the team. He/she may even wear the championship ring, in pride.

 

[Jagella]

So much is said about God that simply is not true.

And what is not true about God is invariably what somebody with an opposing viewpoint about God believes. A notorious example is that of the issue of confession. Roman Catholics say God instituted the practice of confessing sins to priests who are ordained by the Catholic church. Protestants, of course, will insist that God did no such thing!

Do people accept things they hear about God because they want God to be that way??

I suppose many people believe what they want to believe about God accepting whatever they hear that's consistent with that desire and denying anything they hear that cannot be reconciled with that predisposition.

Why do some want God not to Love His children Unconditionally???

I'm not sure about that issue, but I think love should be earned. If a religion claims God will love people no matter what they do, then there's less incentive for people to earn love and respect from others.

As for Happiness, it is within reach of everyone religious or not. Happiness is no more than a Choice!! THINK about that. Even in the midst of great turmoil, I will always be Happy!!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I'll believe you when I see you in the Ukraine overjoyed as the Russian soldiers are coming your way.

 

[rational experiences]

My family are my Jesus. Everyday by choice of their brother. Struck by what he said was science. In his mind consciousness. Yet it was star fall that changed our heavens mass our protection.

GOD the cooling status creating protection taught our spirit body mass motion could not save us. The heavenly body of spirits.

The science.

Every culture is DNA. Every culture brother learnt science. Science is a set status. Family is diverse ever changing.

Every culture wrote their experience about science as their culture. Yet culture is a diverse human in a higher man experience.

Family first human.
Cultural experience second my admiration for my families diversity.

Science the choice of evil versus natural God.

As part of scientific coercions pretend was to place human thin King where no human nor a human thought belonged.

As the star gave the mind a fake message as the human life body spirit a living human is a human needing atmospheric balances to live. Proved our conscious mind body was taken away from natural life.

Sacrificed changed emotionally bodily Conscious ness of humans biology spiritual. So our thoughts changed. They become destructive as sacrificed mind consciousness is the story Jesus.

Human and star fall message notification. Changed human body health changed self destructive thoughts.

Our lesson.

Our lesson the human first was stated a holy human is first a natural human. Family human equal is first then comes choice by belief.

My family... Ive lived with spiritually and visionary seeing them die unnaturally. As as psychic human my brain changed as an innocent baby I nearly died. So I remained psychic innocent since.

I've seen enough family sacrifice to be taught science was a bad human choice.....trade agreements science based for invention....please stop their murder.