You know, the more I've learned out the world, what has gone on and what is going on now, and about the nature of human beings, the less I can identify that which is "religious" from that which is not.
For example, if there are moral truths to be found in the Bible (or any other "religious" work) then are they not true regardless of who wrote them down and when and where? Or at all? Do certain people accept them as moral precepts and adhere to them only because of the medium in which they come?
Well, there are many such issues and many of them have, according to my research, quite specific answers. When you sort through it all, taking things back their foundations and fundamental natures, almost nothing is left of what we now call religion.
All that being said, another conclusion I've reached is that (for the foreseeable future) I would recommend and support anyone choosing to practice any sort of conventional religion. Which seems a funny place to end up, but there is specific reasoning behind it.
identify that which is "religious" from that which is not.
a) Identical implies "same"...being implies different. Same motion (inception towards death) differentiates matter (life).
b) Different matter tempts each other with religion (Latin religio; to bind anew) to behave alike, hence mimicking sameness, while ignoring to be different from one another.
c) Nothing (Latin nihilo) implies ones de-nial of everything perceivable, when consenting to suggested nihil-ism.
are they not true regardless of who wrote them
Those reading are consenting to suggested truism. Those writing are advertising ones consenting mind AD (towards) VERT (turn), hence turning minds against each other within conflicts of reason (true vs false).
are they not true...or at all
If all changes; then whatever truth ones holds onto also changes into a lie.
Do certain people accept them as moral precepts and adhere to them only because of the medium in which they come?
Acceptance implies by free will of choice; which is the medium/middle of balance....accepting suggestions by another one tempts one to ignore being medium within all perceivable balance.
If one ignores balance (need/want); then one establishes imbalance (want vs not want) for ones free will of choice; which tries to bind itself to a suggested side, instead of balancing as matter (life) during motion (inception towards death).
there are many
What if there can be only one? How many "energy" exists?
When you sort through it all...
...you ignore being one (partials) sorted within all (whole). SORT, verb - "to separate".
taking things back their foundations
Ation/action (inception towards death) founds reactions (life)...trying to take tempts one to ignore being taken back to origin.
what we now call religion
CALL, verb (Heb. to hold or restrain)...consenting to religion (Latin religio; to bind anew) restrains self, while permitting others to call the shots.
conclusion I've reached
a) ION (action) sets apart...others suggest CON (together; with) as the inversion thereof, while ones consent to suggested cludere/closes/shuts one off from perceivable.
b) Rising implies within origin; reaching implies towards outcome. The only outcome of life implies death.
Sleight of hand: Jack Reacher aka jack/jacob/ya'aqobh - "a supplanter". Few supplant suggestions for many to reach by consent.
conventional religion
a) CON (together; with) + VENIRE (to come) + TION (action)...an inversion of coming to be (life) apart within action (inception towards death).
b) RE (response) + LIGARE (to bind) + ION (action)...once again inverting actions (balance) setting reactions (choice) free from one another.
specific reasoning
Specific implies particulars apart from one another...reasoning tempts together aka against one another. Reason destroys specification....if one ignore implication of whole.
You know, the more I've learned out the world, what has gone on and what is going on now, and about the nature of human beings, the less I can identify that which is "religious" from that which is not.
For example, if there are moral truths to be found in the Bible (or any other "religious" work) then are they not true regardless of who wrote them down and when and where? Or at all? Do certain people accept them as moral precepts and adhere to them only because of the medium in which they come?
Well, there are many such issues and many of them have, according to my research, quite specific answers. When you sort through it all, taking things back their foundations and fundamental natures, almost nothing is left of what we now call religion.
All that being said, another conclusion I've reached is that (for the foreseeable future) I would recommend and support anyone choosing to practice any sort of conventional religion. Which seems a funny place to end up, but there is specific reasoning behind it.
a) Identical implies "same"...being implies different. Same motion (inception towards death) differentiates matter (life).
b) Different matter tempts each other with religion (Latin religio; to bind anew) to behave alike, hence mimicking sameness, while ignoring to be different from one another.
c) Nothing (Latin nihilo) implies ones de-nial of everything perceivable, when consenting to suggested nihil-ism.
Those reading are consenting to suggested truism. Those writing are advertising ones consenting mind AD (towards) VERT (turn), hence turning minds against each other within conflicts of reason (true vs false).
If all changes; then whatever truth ones holds onto also changes into a lie.
Acceptance implies by free will of choice; which is the medium/middle of balance....accepting suggestions by another one tempts one to ignore being medium within all perceivable balance.
If one ignores balance (need/want); then one establishes imbalance (want vs not want) for ones free will of choice; which tries to bind itself to a suggested side, instead of balancing as matter (life) during motion (inception towards death).
What if there can be only one? How many "energy" exists?
...you ignore being one (partials) sorted within all (whole). SORT, verb - "to separate".
Ation/action (inception towards death) founds reactions (life)...trying to take tempts one to ignore being taken back to origin.
CALL, verb (Heb. to hold or restrain)...consenting to religion (Latin religio; to bind anew) restrains self, while permitting others to call the shots.
a) ION (action) sets apart...others suggest CON (together; with) as the inversion thereof, while ones consent to suggested cludere/closes/shuts one off from perceivable.
b) Rising implies within origin; reaching implies towards outcome. The only outcome of life implies death.
Sleight of hand: Jack Reacher aka jack/jacob/ya'aqobh - "a supplanter". Few supplant suggestions for many to reach by consent.
a) CON (together; with) + VENIRE (to come) + TION (action)...an inversion of coming to be (life) apart within action (inception towards death).
b) RE (response) + LIGARE (to bind) + ION (action)...once again inverting actions (balance) setting reactions (choice) free from one another.
Specific implies particulars apart from one another...reasoning tempts together aka against one another. Reason destroys specification....if one ignore implication of whole.
b)