Converting a Statist.

[eye2i2hear]

(06-23-2011 07:50 PM)Kel Wrote:  

NonEntity Wrote:My head is wanting to say that you can't have religion without a god... Next question: can there be religion without an authority?

- NonE

It's an interesting topic isn't it? You may or may not be able to have religion without a God, but you can have a God without a religion. Hence why hinted that they should not be mistaken as being one in the same, or so casually swapped and misplaced as they often are. Tautology it is not.

I happened across this oldie while doing a topic search. I wanted to bring up what I see as the crucial factor.

First, NonE's observation; one might ask why he has that sensation? To which I'd offer, well, it's just typical of indoctrination. And indoctrination is just the stuff of Authoritarian-wanna-bes/claimants. Including those who write dictionaries (and too typically as well, history books).

Onto the dialog exchange here, consider that the essence of labeling is to communicate general, in common identifiable fact(s), or to identify concepts, ideas, notions, fantasies, and superstition(s).

Now consider that the essence of the word religion is the faith factor. The xtian version captures this very clearly, via (in it's more popular format, English) it's: "Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. For by faith we understand that the worlds were fashioned by the word of God, and these things that are seen came into being out of those things which are unseen." [bold text, here and in all such quotes, mine -eye2i]

Notice the word play here. Terms relevant to evidence are toyed with.

Continuing, that faith 'definition' connects easily enough with another of it's lines that goes (again in it's popular form): "Let him who has ears to hear, hear, and he who has eyes to see, see.", and "Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people."

Aren't the readers being asked to redefine the word "evidence"? [in essence, based on context, the reader is being told to redefine their terms, or else; period. For yet another line therein is: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God." etc]

The State version captures it as well. You have to have "eyes to see" in order to see The State aka "The Body Politic". And to see "borders" that are unseen; and hear, hear, see "Citizens" here (and not "there" --in two senses!) etc.

These parallel with the likes of "The Assembly" --interestingly enough, the AEnglish word used for translating the Xtian Bible from Greek, which is also therein rendered as "The Church". Where said Church/Assembly is: "The Body Of Christ". As it is written in said Book: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
[see e.g. In Congress Assembled (de`Nation), and The Assembly Of God versus The Church Of God (de'nominations)]

All is takes is: faith. aka The Faith --but ultimately, The Faith factually is but faith in the words of other mere men. Or as Larken Rose is hammering on it: all it takes is the superstitious belief in Authority. Authors of The Author (of Life).

I use the Xtain form of Godism/Faithism here, simply because a.) it's the most popular currently in "The U.S." and b.) thus, it is the one i was indoctrinated in because of where I was born, thus the more familiar with.
I'm confident, by both others assurances, but also by a commitment to only facts in evidence, and facts as evidence, that this is the case, in fact, with all Religions --or we're simply not talking about religion! (and have yet another matter to settle based upon fact, or upon concept, notion, idea, etc, and subsequently label)

The essence of belief in "God" is thus solely the faith put in the men who say what God said. God is a religion, period --if either of the words are to have any historical much less practical meaning.
Because apart from the claims of men, there is zero (f)actual evidence. Claiming The Bible is evidence, because it indeed exists as a fact, is appealing to at best hearsay.

Apart from the indoctrinations, based upon the doctrines that are factually but the mere claims of certain individuals, there simply is no "- - -" (hint: "God"). At least to the extent that by the word "God" one could just as easily say "Guf" (or Thor or Zeus or Allah etal) instead. Ask any child of reasoning age-- as any individual that hasn't heard from adults otherwise (as nigh improbable to find as that is) -what "Guf" means? And there you have it --if you can indeed see. And this is precisely why some very highly intelligent individuals have used instead, terms like "First Cause" and "Creator"* for what others wish to take further and use "God" for. Factually, those terms are close as we can get. "We" being those who hold facts to be evidence, at least; "we" being then, those who aren't religious, as not being superstitious. *[where yet again, apart from accepting an other's notion, even "Cause" and "Creator" are assumptions not in evidence; we can't know whether what is, is a creation, much less if so, how it came to be; it after all, may simply be "without beginning or end" itself]

Let me offer again a definition and a meaning:

• Religion is a mental state wherein a concept presented by men is taken by others by faith, and believed in to the extent that they are willing to live and give their lives for the belief.

For apart from the conceptual claims of other "mortals", what does one offer in factual evidence? To say more than what "is" (aka "the universe" or "the cosmos") takes, well, religious talk. The unseen that is only "seeable" by the eye of imagination. Anecdotal, personal sensation, and hearsay evidence, well, that's just what such is.

I'll offer for you consideration: the reason the word religion is desired to be set apart as applicable to only "God" is simply because it aides in keeping such superstition unquestioned as to factual origin. "Unseen". Thus religion, blind faith binding, is "special", "set aside". Toto, don't go pulling that curtain back to reveal the old men behind the Sacred/Holy = "Set Apart" Book(s) Cuertain as factually, all there is to know (and kindly, "no!").

--asuperstitionist (the artist formerly known as atheist

[NonEntity]

(03-14-2012 12:41 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  I'll offer for you consideration: the reason the word religion is desired to be set apart as applicable to only "God" is simply because it aides in keeping such superstition unquestioned as to factual origin. "Unseen". Thus religion, blind faith binding, is "special", "set aside". Toto, don't go pulling that curtain back to reveal the old men behind the Sacred/Holy = "Set Apart" Book(s) Cuertain as factually, all there is to know (and kindly, "no!").

--asuperstitionist (the artist formerly known as atheist

Reading your meanderings reminded me of the conclusion I came to by writing/examining the meaning of the events of 9/11 HERE.

NonEntity Wrote:So here we have our radio show host, facing this condemnation of humanity at a level so high that it is causing him to totally lose control; it so counters his core beliefs in what he holds to be surely a sacred belief in the honorability of his fellow humans. And his guest said this (I paraphrase), "What if these people are so afraid of the collapse of the system that this fear has paralyzed them? They will accept anything rather than their fears of what may happen should the system fail?"

I was stunned by this vision.

What if it is true? What if human beings will do anything, stoop to any level, become worse than their greatest fantasies of the potential horrors they believe others capable of - solely to avoid the possibility of facing the unknown?

This would explain religion of course. All religions, including that of government.

"They will accept anything rather than their fears of what may happen should the system fail?"

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

[sidebar: in my last post, I may have been a little harsh on dictionarians (authors of the historical usage of words); apologies to those who indeed, strive to stick to it as a historical record and not so much a fashion show or popularity contest of their own judging (like any of such is actually reading here?! thus the apology is simply in the seeking of fair play consistency on my part)]

Nice expression of your observation there, NonEntity.
It rings nicely with my afore-noted (but elsewhere) remark by Worblux, to my ear; (paraphrasing) so many have their very 'self' identified so deeply within their religious beliefs, that to speak against the origin of the religions, factually or otherwise, is to nigh assault them personally.
Which can mean, these simply find it terrifying to become aware of not knowing who they are apart from their affinity to their religion(s). (not to overlook how difficult it is to admit one has been 'wrong')
No?

[NonEntity]

(03-14-2012 04:50 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  (not to overlook how difficult it is to admit one has been 'wrong')
No?

Shirley,

You couldn't mean ME? I obviously couldn't speak to that issue!

- NonE (cough, cough, hack, cough, GAG...)

[eye2i2hear]

(03-14-2012 05:44 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Shirley,

You couldn't mean ME? I obviously couldn't speak to that issue!

- NonE (cough, cough, hack, cough, GAG...)

You can rest asShirleyed I didn't have you in mind here (though in hineysite, I probably shoulda coulda wooda).

No I was talkin' mostly to the guy in my mirror (where the latest, greatest reminder, still too ulcerated, was per my second religion give up; it's tough givin' up The God Stamp! 'specially after 16 years of havin' it).