The Problem with ALL Religions

a reply to: RAY1990

Very good points.

Talking to people is an art worth working on. Experience is a good teacher, and perseverance pays off.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
The metaphor that Zeee used came into the discussion at about 23:35. Dr. Ana was talking about quantum potential. She explained that it is part of the quantum field.

She said that ideas exist in quantum potential before they manifest into physical reality.

Zeee responded that as a Christian she understands that principle as tantamount (my paraphrase) to when God "spoke" the world into existence.

The discussion Maria Zeee and Dr. Ana Mihalcea were having is VERY IMPORTANT because bottom line it explains the science behind we the people being "hackable animals" according to the World Economic Forum.

We the people are in danger of losing our free will.

originally posted by: nugget1
As long as one isn't 'Bible Thumping' I don't think the reference is anymore off-putting than a reference to Orwell's 1984 are.

She definitely was not. And the comparison she made was perfect for the discussion.

I don't want a ONE WORLD RELIGION because that is the ultimate danger of ORGANIZED religion—and that's why I'm so sensitive about religion in public discourse.

originally posted by: olaru12
Politics is the New religion.

The thing about politics is that the left-right paradigm, according to what I've gleaned over the years about the tactics used to work toward a "New World Order," is part of their game plan. They know they basically own both major parties in the U.S., for example, and to keep the electorate distracted from the long-term implementation of NWO changes, they manipulate us into BEING AT EACH OTHER'S THROATS, mainly through the media, which they OWN.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
An example is the superb work of Australia's Maria Zeee. She is a Christian.

This is a screenshot from Maria's Telegram channel:



Maria's Christian faith, which she has talked about as what drove her conscience to get involved in alternative media because of the CRIME of the scamdemic, is serving her, and us well.

originally posted by: olaru12
Zealots aren't doing organized religion any favors, eh?

That has gone right over my head.

What do you mean?

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: M5xaz

Plenty of other groups did the things you claim they didn't. You're looking at history with a Christian lense.

Did you ever consider that such needs as health, wealth and education didn't need such well defined institutions in the past? The Romans had schools, places of healing, philosophy, it had temples that practiced charity too.

So did the Ottomans, look up their charity stones/pillars which is a marvelous bit of culture they embodied.

You're looking at history as if everyone was primitive beasts before Christianity came around. The reality is Christianity had 1700 years to work it's magic and the things you mention have been accessable for much longer, just not to the masses.

The faith and ideals of mankind towards each other spawns these works you claim are christian and your ideas are borrowed anyways.

Keep right on denying history as you type on the products of European/Western Christian civilization

a reply to: M5xaz

"Christian" civilization is one of many civilizations in world history.

World history has been written over a very long period of time, but the VERSION of it that we the people have in our minds has been largely determined by entities that are NOT ON OUR SIDE, in my opinion.

Since the beginning of TIME, much carnage has taken place in the name of RELIGION.

I believe that the organization of people into separate religions has been by DESIGN by entities that ARE NOT ON THE SIDE OF WE THE PEOPLE.

I think we'd best keep our religion to ourself so that we don't fall into the TRAP of doing exactly what the controllers on this planet want us to do: FIGHT AMONGST OURSELVES.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: M5xaz



I believe that the organization of people into separate religions has been by DESIGN by entities that ARE NOT ON THE SIDE OF WE THE PEOPLE.

I think we'd best keep our religion to ourself so that we don't fall into the TRAP of doing exactly what the controllers on this planet want us to do: FIGHT AMONGST OURSELVES.

We don't need any outside influences to fight amongst ourselves. Our species isn't nearly as civilized as you think; we, despite our technology are warlike, tribal, cultish, selfish, primordial hominids. Civilization is a thin veneer hell bent on a self actualized extinction.

Given the opportunity we will revert back to savagery all on our own, with no thought of religion, supreme being or anything spiritual. It's happened before and will happen again.

a reply to: olaru12

Don't forget that our perceptions about humanity, in general, are influenced, without our even REALIZING it, by what we've seen on TELEVSION all our lives, and what we've been taught from TEXTBOOKS.

Focus on THAT.

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: olaru12

Don't forget that our perceptions about humanity, in general, are influenced, without our even REALIZING it, by what we've seen on TELEVSION all our lives, and what we've been taught from TEXTBOOKS.

Focus on THAT.

I'm all for freedom! Freedom of speech, freedom of religion. Like in the Constitution or the United States.

FOCUS ON THAT!

a reply to: olaru12

Me too!

a reply to: DevotedResearcher

I see this sort of thing play out in Christian fiction all the time. Generally speaking, Christian fiction can be split into two types: historical and evangelical. Historical Christian fiction presumes the events of the Bible are historical, and attempts to portray a fictionalized account of those events. The Chosen TV show is an example of historical Christian fiction. It differs from evangelistic Christian fiction in its absence of a "come to Jesus moment." God's Not Dead is an example of evangelistic Christian fiction.

Mind you, the creators of The Chosen would very much like it if you became a Christian in part because you watched their show. However, their main intent is to produce a good story, not to evangelize their audience. Meanwhile, the whole point of movies like God's Not Dead is to evangelize the audience. Evangelistic is far more common than historical in Christian fiction, and that is part of the reason Christian fiction tends to fail in a peculiar fashion.

One, the creators are focused on evangelism rather than a story. They're creating a sermon first and foremost, and trying to wrap it in a story. Consequently, the creation has something of an identity crisis; it can't decide whether it wants to be a story or a sermon, and it fails at both. It fails to be a good story because it lacks anything resembling the elements of high-quality storytelling. Character development, dialog, even visual editing tends to be at a rudimentary level. They give us just enough story to carry the sermon.

Evangelistic Christian fiction fails as a sermon, however, because most of the audience for evangelistic Christian fiction are already Christians. The non-Christians who consume evangelistic Christian media tend to do so to mock it, and while some of the mockery is more severe than is really called for, it's not without merit. If you create a truly lousy story as a vehicle for your hackneyed presentation of "the sinner's prayer," you've invited mockery on yourself.

Historical Christian fiction tends to be of a higher quality in many cases. Passion of the Christ falls into this category, and was exceptionally well done with regard to its performances, costuming, special effects, and so on. It was a movie arguably made for Christians to appreciate the horrors of the crucifixion, and therefore the triumph of Christ's resurrection. The Chosen is meant for both Christians and non-Christians; the former to see familiar stories in a new way, and the latter to appreciate a good drama featuring characters from the Bible.

It seems a lot of Christian creators are blind to the fact non-Christians tend not to appreciate their evangelistic approach. Non-evangelistic Christianity does seem to be a growing trend within the Church, at least locally here, which in some ways is a good thing. It seems many Christians would rather go about their lives without preaching at every opportunity or focusing whole hog on behavioral modification. As a Christian friend of mine puts it, "Jesus didn't die on the cross so I'd say '[a 4-letter word]' less often."

Not too long ago I read an article in a Christian publication--from the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)--lamenting the decrease in church attendance. This, in the midst of the scandals plaguing the SBC. In my view, it's good to see organizations that have fostered corruption for far too long fall apart, and while I don't celebrate their downfall, I can say the net result is a positive one. People seem less inclined to proclaim their own righteousness, which I believe alienates fewer people in the long run.

There are those who still proclaim the influence of God in every aspect of their lives, and in so doing they alienate the people they claim to love and want to reach. Growing up in an evangelistic church, I was a willing participant for some time in the oxymoronic dichotomy of, "Love the sinner, but treat them as beneath you until they convert." It's entirely unintentional and I've never once heard it preached that way from the pulpit, but that is the end result of some religious ideologies. "Love them, but hate them until they convert."

It's little wonder people are falling away from such impossible standards and inauthenticity, whether it's intended or not. All the good intentions in the world don't make sense of what's illogical in the first place. Speaking for myself, I am no longer evangelical in my faith. Rather, I take the approach of trying to love others and take C.S. Lewis' definition of love:

Love is...a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained.

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

If fewer people made a point of trying to evangelize at every opportunity and instead sought to love their neighbors as themselves, I believe people would respond more positively to the idea of religion. As it is, the whole concept has been tainted by those who--regardless of their intentions--have tried to appeal to an audience by creating something that very audience finds laughable or appalling.

a reply to: Factis

Very well said; thanks for your post.

Do we need religion in order to focus on love instead of fear? I don't think so.

We the people worldwide have a huge task ahead of us pushing back tyranny. The less divisiveness we have among ourselves, the better.

a reply to: DevotedResearcher

I think religion becomes a problem when it takes on aspects of tyranny. It's one thing to believe your religion is "the one true faith" or "the exclusive path to God" or what have you, but when you begin to justify tyrannical behavior toward others in the name of your religion, it's a problem. When someone without the power to assert their self-proclaimed authority attempts to assert that authority, it causes divisiveness and drives people away. When someone with the power to assert their self-proclaimed authority does so, you get people like Hitler. Neither is good.

There is a way to set aside our differences without having to sacrifice adherence to our beliefs, for the most part. I can believe my religion is "the one true faith" and "the exclusive path to God" or what have you, and I can believe this or that is a sin against God, and yet I can maintain love for my fellow human beings. I don't have to agree with you to wish what is best for you, so long as I recognize my own humanity. Where too many err is in thinking they know what is best, and they attempt to stand in for God.

Religion should be personal, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are points where one's religious views will inherently influence their behavior toward others, and it's in those interactions we would do well to remember love, justice, mercy, and humility. I frequently fail to remember these virtues, and that's part of the reason I'm such a big fan of second (and eleven millionth) chances; if I am unwilling to offer them to others, I cannot reasonably expect them for myself.

We are all works in progress, and would do well to remember none of us has ever (nor will ever) arrive at perfection, in a position to sit in judgment above others.

Is there a solution that wouldn’t require a theistic answer? Why single non Christian’s, which is every other religion beside Christianity? Even the Jews are non Christians.

a reply to: Proto88

I put emphasis on Christianity and non-Christians in my posts because that's the limit of my experience. I think what I've said might also apply to Muslims, Jews, etc., though frankly I've only ever met Christian evangelists. I have no idea what Muslims, Jews, etc. say about evangelism, and I've never met missionaries for those religions.

originally posted by: Factis
I have no idea what Muslims, Jews, etc. say about evangelism, and I've never met missionaries for those religions.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are considered the "Abrahamic religions," correct?

My concern that drove me to start this thread is that we the people worldwide are under threat by "the Great Reset."

So, what about Hindus and Buddhists?

And atheists?

We're all humanity and we're all under THREAT. That's a fact.

The Creative Society is very welcoming for different religions. They've got lots of conferences that talks about lots of things.

Still, it is quite confusing now. Where is the Truth? I no longer know if there really is reptilian people, aliens, angels, mermaids, etc. Could it be that they exist but not in the same dimension as us? Could it be that religions are just like dreams? Dreams differ in symbolism according to the dreamer. Therefore, in order for the dreamer to understand, the symbolism must be personalized. Could it be? or Could it be?


Still, what really should be the Focus of these religions? We truly should set aside the differences and find a common ground where things should be able to co-exist. Though it will challenging, it is possible.