Official delusional religionist thread

Post Reply New Topic

mormonism, one of the great spiritual scourges; one of the great cancers of religion; one of the most horrendous of spiritual pollutions, to infect, and affect causality, in the 20th century.

mormonism, such an obvious example, of human error, in relation to what religion, truely worthy of the gift of Existence, should be.

How such a thing came into being, is unfortunately, understandable, in relation to scientific and academic enquiry.

Such a misfortune, to befall, the human species.

aum shunriko, mormonism, jahwahism, scientology, raelism, christianity, jewdaism, islam, all the primal religions, from the last few thousand years: from all the most backward, and most distant of rainforest shamanistic religions, to the most modern of new religious movements, such as the solar temple, I mean the list goes on and on. How many failed experiments in religion must humanity need, before they can recognize the real thing, when it is presented right in front of them...

My amusement, is infinite.

How many are on the Delusion List now?

I'd like to see a list of names.

Yeh, granted, dude, but is religion, delusional, when it is an almost perfect fusion, between the objective, and the religious?

At what point; to what extent; must a human being exercise, precision, objectivity, exactitude, and scientific, principles, in relation to the religion they write, does religion go from being delusional, and turn into something that actually reflects the realities of Existence?

At what point does the religion one write, become such a perfect fusion of science and religion, that both things become one in the same.

At what point, does science and religion, in relation to it's, absolutely, almost perfectly true fusion, in the writers, and authors intent, in relation to aforementioned authetic fusion writing of religion, between the two, goes beyond delusion, and actually creates religion worthy of the gift of Existence?

Seriously, as an interesting point, at what point, does religion, actually become worthy of the gift of Existence. Exactly, at what point, does religion that is written, by a human being, actually become worthy of the most profound of things, as the gift of Existence, that human beings have been given.

That is a most difficult point, to determine...

That's true... he's still riding an animal though and presumably riding the animal still has the same purpose... so that's not really an argument against excommunication being a vestigial practice left over from much earlier traditions or having its origins in just plain banishment from tribal cultures. I admit there's a possibility I could be wrong. It's not out of the question though.

Assuming that it doesn't require that I subscribe to a specific organized religion, I'll self-identify. If it requires subscribing to one of the organized clubs though, I can't say that I really do... unless you count Unitarianism, but that seems like an odd one to include because there are a number of atheist Unitarians as well.

One of the central principles of Universalism, as a religion, as I have purposely written and designed it, is that one cannot force another person, to be a Universalist. One must learn, the Universalist ways, and can only choose for themselves, whether that way of Life, and Existence, is for them.

Granted I wrote that rule, so I am a little biased.

In the continuum of Universal religion on Earth, I think, that while that might not be entirely, an original concept, it is certainly, something absolutly critical to Universalist religion, that is worth mentioning...

I'v been banished, and excommunicated from human religions; bahai and christian, for example, that thought my views heretical. Techniqually, one would, have to go much more extreme than I was, to be given such unethical treatment in Universalism.

One could hang out with Universalist's for quite an extreme amount of time, and with quite heretical views, so long as one's views were constructive to the evolution of Universalism as a religion, for as long as they liked, and would be welcome, at least, to the point where their views, were, actually detrimental, and harmful to people.

Don't get me wrong, I write religion with my own hands. I actually know what it feels like to do so. God forbid, I suggest, that all people, who write religion, are only human, and are limited by the laws of science, that all human beings, are bound by.

One gets excommunicated for such things, from almost all religions of the Earth, except for one, Universalism, the religion I write.

Thankfully, I do not excommunicate myself, from sanity.

Last edited by Transcention on 26 Dec 2008, 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Transcendentalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism

Thank you, remember though, I write religion, I do it every week. No matter what references you give me.

I write religion, it is what I do.

I write religion, as a matter of fact, if you ask me respectfully and nicely, I will give you the information you need, for free, in relation to how to attain enlightenment; the true nature of God as it exists to human beings; I'll tell you everything there is to know about the afterlife, that is accessable to human beings; I'll tell you everything there is to know, in the human sphere of Existence, that relates to the true nature of religion, how it comes into Existence, and how to do it properly.

There is a modest price, for such priceless information. You have to do it, in a way, that I find respectful. And I have to believe, that you are being respectful.

But I like it when someone, gives me references...

I am at the point though, where I write, without reference, nor, source.

But that does not mean I do not take, what references, or sources, people give me into account, when I write what I write.

Please, give me the indulgence to entertain you....

This is one of my personal heroes, of intellect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

I have many heroes of intellect though, the entire history of science is resplendent, with all the heroes, I hold dear to my heart, such as: Madame Curie, Galileo, Issac Newton, Copernicus, Carlos Bruni, Aldous Huxley, Timothy Leary, Einstein, Kepler, Charles Darwin; and all the inumerable, woman and men, who have sculpted, human science, into what it is today, in the 21st century...

Science and religion, of course, are completely one, with each other, in the religion of Universalism, that I myself write.

That's nice Ike, I have read through, your link, very quickly, but Universalism, is more of a COMPLETE, fusion of science and religion, than transcendentalism, than I can see.

I use the name Transcention Universia, due to one of the very particular and distinct philosophies in Universalism, in relation, to the idea, that to be enlightened, one must be able to see oneself in relation to all known space and time. One needs to be able to appreciate one's Existence, in relation to the billions of years of Exsitence humans believe the Universe has been in Existence for, in relation to the bazillaions of square light years of space that human beings can see exists around them.

In Universalism, the only way to acheive any real enlightenment, is to learn to how see oneself, in relation to all known spacetime.

you want people to pay you money so you can recycle other ideas and pass them off as your own.


... sounds like a cult.

Well, understanding the broader norms and sources of the spiritual plane back-lighting the physical helps too I'd imagine. Sure, its partly self-discovery but its not *all* self-discovery.

The Universal House of Justice declared you to be a covenant breaker? What did you do to earn their wrath?

Peace.

If I were to give 'Christianity' a root, it would would be after the resurrection 'supposedly' happened at the very least and when Simon Peter (Peter the apostle) became the first leader of the church. That's still talking within a few years of the crucifixion.

Ike, my point still stands even though Calvinism is considered Christianity by most practicing Christians. Even though there are similarities, there are differences, and these differences are going to be somewhat pervasive. Calvinists will read everything with their special interpretations of total depravity, their monergism, their very strong view of God's sovereignty, and often their very strong view of God's law(as seen by their almost universal acceptance of Penal Substitutionary theory of atonement), all of these tendencies will infect everything else, despite whatever similarities they may have to other groups, and such to best understand Calvinist views, looking to general Christian views may be helpful, but you don't really understand them unless you look to the specific Calvinist interpretations. In any case, I would not say that I am ignorant on Calvinism either, and referenced it so I could have an offshoot even closer to orthodoxy than Mormonism, and that I knew a significant amount about.

In any case, I think the conversation on this matter died awhile back, but I just wanted to defend that argument.

Well, going back to the reason why some people consider religious people to be under delusion.

Let's see the definition.

Resistant to reasoning is the part that mainly sticks out, although the latter part of the definition can apply to people who do not believe in evolution for example. Moving onto simple reasoning, take the story the Mormons believe for example. After simple reasoning and review you would have to either be stupid or delusional to still believe that story being brutally honest. It can be argued further that the miraculous events told to have been done by Jesus or other prophets/saints/gods put into context with what we see in our world are insane or incredibly unlikely to have actually happened. Therefore many consider these events as well through simple reasoning again to be false and may point to others as delusional for actually believing it.

Now that that's cleared up, why is this an issue? Well most of the time people believing in crazy crap isn't really an issue, take Astrologists for example. Astrology is again, something that after simple review and reasoning, is BS. But why is it that you don't see people refuting or debating this belief? Because it doesn't effect them really. But when you see our government using Astrology as an excuse or reason for wars and taking away people's rights or putting Pisces on our money, that's when it starts to become an issue. Religion has far too much influence over everything. Especially in America, which is why many people would prefer a world without it.

I would place it around the time Jesus began his teachings. But as you can see there is the problem. Everyone you talk to will set a different date for the beginning of "Christianity".

Evolution is not fact, despite how many scientists think it is. And the belief that a theory of the origin of the universe and life could be anything more than a possible suggestion (or even probable if the evidence is strongly in favor) IS a delusion.

So... humans are delusional.

You can believe in anything you want as long as you acknowledge that almost nothing in life can be considered fact, and absolutely nothing in life can be guaranteed 100% as absolute truth (as far as you know). Humans are too limited in their knowledge to claim what they know as being fact, despite the fact that historically they do so regardless of whether they are religious or not.