What defines religion (split from correlation w/poverty)

[Moontanman]

Immortal, i don't know your life experiences but I have not just read about religion I've experienced it, from the most fundamentalist Christians, pass me the rattle snake but hold the strychnine, to speaking in tongues and traditional Catholics (who the pagans say are really just male dominated pagans) and attended calling the circle and calling down the moon with witches, yes they do it nekked and sweaty, and they take their rituals very seriously, I felt honored to have been allowed to attend. I've talked extensively with the adherents to many religions, most of them did little but try to convert me, a hopeless cause.

 

The Pagans seemed to have the healthiest attitude toward their religion, they admit up front that most of it is made up or gleaned from legends and old writings but they do have a idea of "what feels right" their rituals are based on what feels right to them and they do not proselytize. You have to seek them out, they are not exactly hiding but they know history and mostly prefer to do their rituals in private outdoor settings. Witches like poets...

 

the main thing is that all of them have no real basis in empirical reality. neither does yours, i do understand how important ritual is to the adherents of any religion, it's something they all do and it keeps the group together but ritual has no bearing on the veracity of the religion and neither does ancient writings, you have to believe via faith.

 

your assertion that none of these people are religious is insulting. you do not get to define religion anymore than the snake handlers do. It's your belief and you have a right to them but you do not have a right to your own reality...

[iNow]

He defines religion in his own special way. It's not as uncommon as you might think when you interact with folks from Bangalore. I just don't usually need to put up with it because my Bangalore colleagues are intelligent and write code.

[immortal]

Immortal, i don't know your life experiences but I have not just read about religion I've experienced it, from the most fundamentalist Christians, pass me the rattle snake but hold the strychnine, to speaking in tongues and traditional Catholics (who the pagans say are really just male dominated pagans) and attended calling the circle and calling down the moon with witches, yes they do it nekked and sweaty, and they take their rituals very seriously, I felt honored to have been allowed to attend. I've talked extensively with the adherents to many religions, most of them did little but try to convert me, a hopeless cause.

 

The Pagans seemed to have the healthiest attitude toward their religion, they admit up front that most of it is made up or gleaned from legends and old writings but they do have a idea of "what feels right" their rituals are based on what feels right to them and they do not proselytize. You have to seek them out, they are not exactly hiding but they know history and mostly prefer to do their rituals in private outdoor settings. Witches like poets...

 

the main thing is that all of them have no real basis in empirical reality. neither does yours, i do understand how important ritual is to the adherents of any religion, it's something they all do and it keeps the group together but ritual has no bearing on the veracity of the religion and neither does ancient writings, you have to believe via faith.

 

your assertion that none of these people are religious is insulting. you do not get to define religion anymore than the snake handlers do. It's your belief and you have a right to them but you do not have a right to your own reality...

 

I have not excluded the pagan religions, its there in all the religions of the world, my definition is the unanimous message of all the religions of the world.

http://gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm

 

This definition will not change just because there are frauds and there are ignorant people who don't know the central message of their own religion.

 

What makes your position fundamentalist is obvious: you are asserting that there is One Right Definition, and (implicitly) also asserting that you, specifically, have it.

 

It doesn't matter which religious affiliation you claim -- or even IF you claim religious affiliation at all -- for purposes of identifying fundamentalism. What marks your position as fundamentalist is the notion that you (and implicitly, you alone) Have The Right Answer.

 

Yes I have studied those religions and I know the central tenet of religion and that's the right definition of religion.

 

Oh C'mon, what will you call someone who deliberately manipulates results of an experiment and publish it as facts motivated by a hidden political or a personal agenda? We call him a fraud. This is sheer double standards on you guys for you make one rule for science and an another rule for religion, your assertion that we should call them as holy, sacred and religious even if their beliefs are wrong is bs. I call them what they deserve i.e. frauds and those who are not aware of the true message of their own religion as ignorant. Sounds fair to me.

 

Multiple attempts have been made to get you to accurately acknowledge other posters' bases for identifying a practice or set of beliefs as religious vs. nonreligious, all to no avail. There is no engagement on your part, only out of hand dismissal and No True Scotsman (with an occasional ad hominem for good measure).

 

It is not an ad hominem when its well evident in your posts that you guys are ignorant of religion.

 

 

You JUST said:

 

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

You can't go on your own way, rejecting Buddhist cosmology is same as rejecting Adi Buddha and if you reject Adi Buddha then how can you become one with Adi Buddha in the first place which is what is required for you to be a Buddhist. Whether earth is flat or not, this has nothing to do with it.

 

OK, this is a banana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_Apple.jpg

 

You guys seem to assume I have made my own personal definition of religion banana and since this definition is not agreed by everyone instead of accepting my definition you guys want to make me as a separate sect and want to call me a fundamentalist.

 

That clearly shows that majority of the atheists are liars when they say that it is their very investigation of all of religion is what has made them to hold an atheistic position, that's a lie, they have not studied all of religion. No, its you guys who have the wrong notion of what being religious means and its you guys who have named an apple as a banana without seeing the obvious.

[ydoaPs]

You can't go on your own way, rejecting Buddhist cosmology is same as rejecting Adi Buddha and if you reject Adi Buddha then how can you become one with Adi Buddha in the first place which is what is required for you to be a Buddhist. Whether earth is flat or not, this has nothing to do with it.

You can't go on your own way, rejecting YEC. Rejecting YEC is the same as rejecting the fall of man and if you reject the fall of man, then how can you be saved in the first place which is what is required for you to be a Christian?

 

 

 

You're trying to play it both ways. If Buddhists have to be fundys, then so do Christians.

 

edit: And if you don't agree with me, you are "ignorant and confused" and you "have got no idea as to what you are doing".

Edited January 15, 2013 by ydoaPs

[Moontanman]

 

I have not excluded the pagan religions, its there in all the religions of the world, my definition is the unanimous message of all the religions of the world.

http://gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm

 

 

Did you seriously say that pagans are included in your religious assessment?

which pagans? None of the pagans I know would agree with you does that mean they are not religious?

 

 

 

It is not an ad hominem when its well evident in your posts that you guys are ignorant of religion.

 

You, immortal, are totally ignorant to your own hubris...

 

 

 

 

 

 

That clearly shows that majority of the atheists are liars when they say that it is their very investigation of all of religion is what has made them to hold an atheistic position, that's a lie, they have not studied all of religion. No, its you guys who have the wrong notion of what being religious means and its you guys who have named an apple as a banana without seeing the obvious.

 

Ok, so we have established that most atheists are liars, and that their investigation of religion is also a lie? And it is we who are wrong and you are right and only you have the special knowledge that allows you to be correct? And yet you cannot show this to us or show evidence of it in any empirical testable way? You say this is obvious yet you show no support for this claim other than what you believe on faith.... that is the height of ignorance...

[ydoaPs]

Oh, immortal, I should add to my above post that, if you don't agree with me, you are "ignorant and confused" and you "have got no idea as to what you are doing".

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Immortal,

 

We've received several complaints over the past few weeks on various posts of yours. Your debating style needs some serious work. Particularly in this thread, where it seems that anyone who does not agree with your ideas about religion is ignorant and confused. There are in fact 2 logical fallacies in there; 10 points if you can name them.

 

Simply, you are not the be all and end all authority on religion and you do not get to claim yourself as such and that others are wrong simply because they disagree with you. That's not how this forum works and we would very much appreciate it if you could take this into consideration when posting here in future.

[immortal]

!

Moderator Note

Immortal,

 

We've received several complaints over the past few weeks on various posts of yours. Your debating style needs some serious work. Particularly in this thread, where it seems that anyone who does not agree with your ideas about religion is ignorant and confused. There are in fact 2 logical fallacies in there; 10 points if you can name them.

 

Simply, you are not the be all and end all authority on religion and you do not get to claim yourself as such and that others are wrong simply because they disagree with you. That's not how this forum works and we would very much appreciate it if you could take this into consideration when posting here in future.

 

 

I don't go by the principle of live and let live. Don't behead innocent people, stone women and homosexuals to death, use women and children as your slaves and call yourself religious.

I can ask back the same thing to the moderators, who the hell are you people to decide what is religious and what is not?

1. Elaine Pagels, scholar of Gnosticism.

2. Alan Wallace, scholar of Buddhism.

3. Devudu Narasimha Shastry, scholar of Sanskrit.

4. Jungian scholars.

5. Scholars of Neoplatonism.

Do you moderators have a higher authority than all these scholars put together? If not then please stay away from this. This is an anonymous forum and anyone can question the belief systems held by other members. All evidence is pointing to an idealistic philosophy of science,

"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs."

(An experimental test of non-local realism)

but many people have not realized its implications and when they do I bet the atheistic scientific community will be doomed, it is not reasonable for anyone to live your life based on the philosophy of atheism.

And your prejudices and personal biases will be exposed to everyone.

“The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the West.”

(Source: WHAT IS LIFE? By Erwin Schrödinger Pg. Cambridge University Press)

 

You can't go on your own way, rejecting YEC. Rejecting YEC is the same as rejecting the fall of man and if you reject the fall of man, then how can you be saved in the first place which is what is required for you to be a Christian?

 

You're trying to play it both ways. If Buddhists have to be fundys, then so do Christians.

 

edit: And if you don't agree with me, you are "ignorant and confused" and you "have got no idea as to what you are doing".

 

Anyone who takes such a literal interpretation of the Bible as those YEC are certainly ignorant of their own religion.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Scriptural.htm

[ydoaPs]

Anyone who takes such a literal interpretation of the Bible as those YEC are certainly ignorant of their own religion.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Scriptural.htm

Anyone with your position is ignorant of their own religion.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions

Edited January 16, 2013 by ydoaPs

[immortal]

You, immortal, are totally ignorant to your own hubris...

Some of the members need to implant this url in their minds while arguing with me. Please.

 

Why God Hates Pride?

[swansont]

Anyone who takes such a literal interpretation of the Bible as those YEC are certainly ignorant of their own religion.

 

But you acknowledge that it's still religion. Why is that? It seems inconsistent with your position.

 

 

Some of the members need to implant this url in their minds while arguing with me. Please.

 

Why God Hates Pride?

 

You just broke my irony meter.

[Moontanman]

 

Some of the members need to implant this url in their minds while arguing with me. Please.

 

Why God Hates Pride?

 

 

Do you a mirror in your house? if you do i suggest you look in the mirror and see that the pot calling the kettle black is not acceptable...

[immortal]

Anyone with your position is ignorant of their own religion.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions

 

No, you have not done your home work. We are not really concerned about the age of this universe, our concerns are different.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0w0eshXr2U

[ydoaPs]

 

No, you have not done your home work. We are not really concerned about the age of this universe, our concerns are different.

And Buddhists aren't concerned with Buddhist cosmology, their concerns are different. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[John Cuthber]

 

That clearly shows that majority of the atheists are liars when they say that it is their very investigation of all of religion is what has made them to hold an atheistic position, that's a lie, they have not studied all of religion. No, its you guys who have the wrong notion of what being religious means and its you guys who have named an apple as a banana without seeing the obvious.

 

That clearly shows that majority of the atheists bayabists* are liars when they say that it is their very investigation of all of religion fruit is what has made them to hold an atheistic bayabist position, that's a lie, they have not studied all of religion fruit. No, its you guys who have the wrong notion of what being religious aware of the nature of fruit means and its you guys who have named an apple as a banana banana as an apple without seeing the obvious.

 

* (bananas are yellow and bent ists- those who refuse to accept that the true banana is red round and a member of the rose group)

[Chad Makaio Zichterman]

 

 

I don't go by the principle of live and let live. Don't behead innocent people, stone women and homosexuals to death, use women and children as your slaves and call yourself religious.

I can ask back the same thing to the moderators, who the hell are you people to decide what is religious and what is not?

This has nothing to do with "live and let live." It's a matter of basic intellectual honesty. Whether you -- or I -- or anyone endorses or opposes a specific act or practice is NOT the basis of whether that act or practice is identified as religious.

 

You keep ignoring this point as if pretending it's not there will magically make it go away. It won't.

 

Appealing to authority is also fallacious; an inaccurate claim made by well-known figures in a given field...is still inaccurate.

 

I repeat my previous question:

 

Do you acknowledge the fact that differently religious is still religious? (if no, then your position is a fundamentalist one)

 

Prediction: non-responsive / dismissive reply which won't include a yes or no (though I'd be pleasantly surprised to be wrong)

[hypervalent_iodine]

I can ask back the same thing to the moderators, who the hell are you people to decide what is religious and what is not?

1. Elaine Pagels, scholar of Gnosticism.

2. Alan Wallace, scholar of Buddhism.

3. Devudu Narasimha Shastry, scholar of Sanskrit.

4. Jungian scholars.

5. Scholars of Neoplatonism.

Do you moderators have a higher authority than all these scholars put together?

You've hit on my point while missing it entirely. No one in here is a definitive authority on what religion is and is not. What makes you think that you are any more of one than the others who have posted here?

If not then please stay away from this. This is an anonymous forum and anyone can question the belief systems held by other members. All evidence is pointing to an idealistic philosophy of science,

We will do no such thing. This is not your forum and you don't get to dictate how and when the rules apply to you. You can either follow them or risk suspension. Up to you.

[immortal]

And Buddhists aren't concerned with Buddhist cosmology, their concerns are different. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

 

Don't make a strawman of my position.

Christian Cosmology=>Pleroma

Hindu Cosmology=>Agnisoma Mandala

Jewish Cosmology=>Sephirot

Buddhist Cosmology=>Adi Buddha(Samanthabadra and Samanthabadri)

My position is consistent and these cosmologies stand at the heart of these religions and anyone who rejects these respective cosmologies are killing the very heart of these religions and we all know what such people should be called i.e. Slayers. Anyone who don't accept these cosmologies is not a Christian, Hindu, Jew and a Buddhist respectively.

 

This has nothing to do with "live and let live." It's a matter of basic intellectual honesty. Whether you -- or I -- or anyone endorses or opposes a specific act or practice is NOT the basis of whether that act or practice is identified as religious.

 

You keep ignoring this point as if pretending it's not there will magically make it go away. It won't.

 

We are arguing here as to what is the true word of Divine, whether the true word is to stone women and show inequality of gender or injustice to women or whether the true word is to strive for the equality of all humanity irrespective of caste, creed, gender or race. Simply put only those things which are from the divine are religious and which is not from the divine it is not religious. If you guys can't identify which is from the divine and which is influenced by other social, political and cultural factors then why are you guys arguing in this religious forum in the first place. Yes, its a matter of intellectual honesty, that's why I am going by evidence. I am separating cultural from Religion because the examples which swansont gave is culture and its not religion because it is not from the divine. Its wrong to blame religion or God for this.

 

Appealing to authority is also fallacious; an inaccurate claim made by well-known figures in a given field...is still inaccurate.

 

No, they are experts in the field and there is good agreed upon consensus in this matter and much of what they say is correct and accurate.

 

I repeat my previous question:

 

Do you acknowledge the fact that differently religious is still religious? (if no, then your position is a fundamentalist one)

 

Prediction: non-responsive / dismissive reply which won't include a yes or no (though I'd be pleasantly surprised to be wrong)

 

 

Only those who are divinized(have become one with God) and who are on the right path of divinization are religious and anything different is culture not religion. I know that would exclude almost everyone perhaps including myself but that's the true word of Divine and its no way a fundamentalist position, actually its the opposite, the most liberal position since anyone irrespective of gender, caste, creed, culture, country etc can become religious any time since there is nothing like you need to accept anyone or blindly believe in anything as your saviour or else you'll be judged for eternal damnation.

 

You've hit on my point while missing it entirely. No one in here is a definitive authority on what religion is and is not. What makes you think that you are any more of one than the others who have posted here?

 

I have studied it day and night. I have even tested these religions.

 

We will do no such thing. This is not your forum and you don't get to dictate how and when the rules apply to you. You can either follow them or risk suspension. Up to you.

 

Do you know what? To philosophize is to learn to die. When all evidence is in favour of my position there is no turning back.

[Moontanman]

 

 

 

I have studied it day and night. I have even tested these religions.

 

Not in any empirical way, all you have is belief and faith... nothing more...

 

 

 

Do you know what? To philosophize is to learn to die. When all evidence is in favour of my position there is no turning back.

 

 

The evidence? you have none so your assertion is false...

Edited January 17, 2013 by Moontanman

[Chad Makaio Zichterman]

We are arguing here as to what is the true word of Divine, whether the true word is to stone women and show inequality of gender or injustice to women or whether the true word is to strive for the equality of all humanity irrespective of caste, creed, gender or race. Simply put only those things which are from the divine are religious and which is not from the divine it is not religious.

 

No.

 

**YOU** are arguing here as to what the "true word of [the] Divine" may be. **You** are continually raising specific doctrines of specific religions which are entirely irrelevant to the general question of whether or not something is religious.

 

The point you are missing is that this kind of moralism is NOT what defines religion. It *may* (and likely does) define whether you or many other individuals might endorse a specific belief or practice, but it does not define what makes something religious. It is a textbook case of No True Scotsman.

 

Once again: DIFFERENTLY religious (including differences YOU don't endorse) is STILL religious.

 

And thanks, by the way, for confirming my prediction that you won't answer a direct Yes / No question.

 

 

[john5746]

I found this Sam Harris vid relative to the topic:

[immortal]

But you acknowledge that it's still religion. Why is that? It seems inconsistent with your position.

 

So science should be based on meritocracy for you but when it comes to religion anything goes, that shows your own double standards for you make one rule for science and an another rule for religion. Only those who are in the right process of Henosis are religious and your examples doesn't qualify itself as religion, your examples fall into the domain of groups who are more influenced by social and political factors rather than by divine or by any God. Those groups will claim anything and even say that they are executing the divine word of their God but anyone can easily see that they are not even loyal to what their own religious scriptures are saying.

 

 

"Within the works of Iamblichus, The One and reconciliation of division can be obtained through the process of theurgy. By mimicking the demiurge, the individual is returned to the cosmos to implement the will of the divine mind. Iamblichus used the rituals of the mystery religions to perform rituals on the individual to unite their outer and inner person. Thus one without conflict internal or external is united (henosis) and is The One (hen)."

Only those who are divinized means only those who are united with the One can know or knows what the will of the divine is, not some Islamic fundamentalists or Heinrich Himmler or not even those who blindly believe in their scriptures, religion has got nothing to do with belief, religion is about doing not believing, even they are not religious, this concept of henosis exists in all the religions of the world and hence my definition is universal whether you or any mods accept or reject it will not change the facts.

"Fanaa (Arabic: فناء‎ fanāʾ ) is the Sufi term for "dissolution" or "annihilation" (of the self) or Muraqaba.[3] It means to dissolve the ego self, while remaining physically alive. Persons having entered this enlightenment state obtain awareness of the intrinsic unity (Tawhid) between Allah and all that exists, including the individual's mind. It is coupled conceptually with baqaa, subsistence, which is the state of pure consciousness of and abidance in God."

It is these people who know the will of Allah not your fraud fundamentalists who behead infidels in the name of Allah falsely thinking that they are doing the will of God. We are no longer living in the age of ignorance to let people define what religion is for themselves, one is free to do whatever he wants but don't use the name of religion for justifying your unjustifiable acts and don't blame religion or God for acts done by people who don't even qualify as religious in the first place.

The authors of religious scriptures were divinely inspired and it was the Gods who themselves guided these authors and made them to write the scriptures but over time these scriptures have been corrupted and they are not reliable especially the set of Laws which decides how you need to go about your life, there is no indisputable evidence to suggest that a God or divine indeed gave such laws to humanity and we actually don't know what is the will of God or as to what he wants from us and it is not wise to take any laws in any of the religious scriptures as the true word of God or as the true word of divine, only by returning to the cosmos one really knows what is the will of the God and only he acts according to the will of the divine not everyone.

There is nothing in religion which says that one should discriminate women, exempt them from higher education and enforce unequal laws of gender on them. Anyone can take the path of henosis and become divine and only those can be considered as religious for they are the men who testify us about the presence of numinous or the supernatural on earth and not people who just have blind faith in a book which they blindly consider it to be Holy. You won't become pious and holy by believing, you become it by knowing i.e. by knowledge of the One.

This is consistent with any denomination of religion you take from the universe.

[swansont]

So science should be based on meritocracy for you but when it comes to religion anything goes, that shows your own double standards for you make one rule for science and an another rule for religion.

 

 

Yeah, pretty much. You are presenting a false equality here if you think religion and science should be held to the same standard. I don't see you presenting any objective, verifiable evidence that e.g. only religious people (by your definition) have ascended to heaven, so you aren't meeting a scientific burden of proof and yet you claim to be right. IOW, you aren't treating them equally, either.

 

 

[immortal]

We will do no such thing. This is not your forum and you don't get to dictate how and when the rules apply to you. You can either follow them or risk suspension. Up to you.

 

This is in response to a PM on suspension. Saying that someone is wrong with valid evidence is not insulting, you said I have distorted opinions, let's see whose visions are distorted and whose aren't, saying that my visions are simply distorted won't do anything, you need to show how.

 

Why do you ban me? For saying that Timothy is definitely out from the biblical Canon? I never said I am an authority on religion, I am a layman who go according to evidence and when anyone offers solid evidence in favour of his position then members and including mods should accept it rather than saying that it is a logical fallacy so that they can continue to be lazy without truly making an effort to investigate religion so that they can continue to hold onto their flawed positions.

 

A member quoted from Timothy as an example for religion suppressing freedom of women and you expect me to blindly accept his example, never. Everyone knows the truth about Timothy that it was deliberately forged in order to purposely suppress freedom of women, which in fact gives more support to my position that it is not religion which is responsible for poverty in some countries rather its social, natural and political factors which are the main factors responsible for low hygienic and low standard of living in many countries and not due to any supernatural/divine factors.

 

 

Authorship of the Pauline epistles

 

The Pastoral Epistles

The Canon Debate summarizes the position of S. E. Porter as follows:

 

...if the church and its scholars are no longer willing to accept the Pastoral Epistles as written by Paul, perhaps it should eliminate them as forgeries that once deceived but will no longer, rather than creating strained theological justifications for their continued canonical presence.^[50]

 

Either accept that this forum like other forums is outdated or accept that you guys don't go by evidence and change this forum name or fix your double standards first before giving silly excuses for banning me.

 

Secondly anyone who has seriously studied religion should arrive at the following conclusion, this is not a matter of opinion and without giving genuine valid reasons one cannot escape or disagree with this conclusion, saying that you're entitled to your opinion won't do. If this sounds like I am insulting to other members then that is not my problem.

 

 

Dr. Wallace further writes on how the primal Buddha, Samantabhadra, who in some scriptures is viewed as one with the tathagatagarbha, forms the very radiating foundation of both samsara and nirvana. Noting a progression within Buddhism from doctrines of a mind-stream (bhavanga) to that of the absolutised tathagatagarbha, Wallace comments that it may be too simple in the light of such doctrinal elements to define Buddhism unconditionally as "non-theistic":

 

"Samantabhadra, the primordial Buddha whose nature is identical with the tathagatagarbha within each sentient being, is the ultimate ground of samsara and nirvana; and the entire universe consists of nothing other than displays of this infinite, radiant, empty awareness. Thus, in light of the theoretical progression from the bhavanga to the tathagatagarbha to the primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply non-theistic as it may appear at first glance."

—Dr. B. Alan Wallace^[37]

The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated (as shown above) that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation."[/size]^[39] In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory."^[40]

[John Cuthber]

"Saying that someone is wrong with valid evidence is not insulting, you said I have distorted opinions, let's see whose visions are distorted and whose aren't, saying that my visions are simply distorted won't do anything, you need to show how."

OK, (I think this link will work,, it's what I got when I typed "define religion" into Google.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+religion&aq=f&oq=define+religion&aqs=chrome.0.57j60l3j0l2.6057&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Whereas what you said was "That's what being religious means to become identical with God. Being religious means not to establish the Gospel all over the earth and not converting as many people into Christianity, the latter are not religious people for they don't know what being religious means."

 

​So, compared to all the accepted definitions of the word, your vision of what "religious" means is distorted.

 

BTW, from my point of view, religion is outdated- we no longer need creation myths for example, nor do we pray that an infection goes away: we take antibiotics.

So this "Either accept that this forum like other forums is outdated or accept that you guys don't go by evidence and change this forum name or fix your double standards first before giving silly excuses for banning me."

is laughable.