You say "... the essence of religion was...". Is it no longer the essence, or was realizing the whole not religion before? In any case, religion isn't needed to realize the whole, and it's not essential for religion to facilitate realizing the whole. I would argue that religion is anti-enlightenment in nature because enlightenment leads to independence. Moral development leads to independence so that is also opposed to the essence of religion.

What is religion beneath all of that all of that historical contrivance and bad metaphysics? Something truly primordial, like logic is primordial to thought. — Constance

If religion is “bad metaphysics” and such, then isn’t it a step away from what you claim is the primordial beneath it?

Is the essence of a car the materials it’s composed of or the function is serves, namely locomotion.

For religion it is existential, and this requires inquiry to move into an existential analysis, not merely a practical one. — Constance

I’m sure you’ve noticed that religions tend to be dogmatic and not very open to analysis. It’s dogmatic for essentially the same reason that GM is dogmatic in its branding.

Do people think they need to be "saved" from something? — Constance

We want to be saved from our suffering, don't we?

Yes, religion is an institution like anything else, and it has it's utility. But one can say this of ANY institution. GM makes automobiles and UPS delivers packages. These bind, have narratives, rules, as well. The question is, what is this institution religion all about? — Constance

GM and UPS can brand themselves in various ways, whatever it takes to capture a segment of the market. Religion is all about branding too, just at a grand scale and backed with ultimate authority. It promises salvation but it only needs to deliver meaning.

We don't seem to be going anywhere.

If the whole affair were not entirely set against radical indeterminacy, then I would agree. Caring in a truly finite setting only has a finitude of redress, a foundation that could be spoken and laid out clearly as one would talk about the nature of a bank teller or fence post: just look in the dictionary and there it is. — Constance

A fence post has identifiable qualities that define it as a fence post. Some qualities are essential for something to function as a fence post. A post must be rigid enough to support a fence, for example. Other qualities are not essential.

For a religion to function it must provide meaning, which it supplies with grand narratives, shared values, moral codes, etc etc. The ‘binding’ is desirable and meaningful. Transcendence, on the other hand, is not essential, and transcendence does not require religion.

My thinking is this: Religion rises out of the radical ethical indeterminacy of our existence. This simply means that we are thrown into a world of ethical issues that, in the most basic analysis, are not resolvable. Yet they insist on resolution with the same apodicticity as logical coercivity. Meaning, just as one cannot but agree with something like modus ponens or the principle of identity in terms of the pure logicality of their intuitive insistence, so one cannot resist the moral insistence of moral redemption. This latter is the essence of religion, and I further claim that in proving such a thing, I am giving the world and our existence in it exactly the metaphysical satisfaction is seeks. — Constance

Moral redemption doesn't require religion, and religion may or may not provide it. The essense of religion is simply binding a community in shared values, narratives, etc.

Maybe Trump and Hunter can be cellmates. :flower:

Look on the bright side, NOS, Trump will be perfectly color-coordinated in an orange jumpsuit.

Yes, currently one of his short story collections also, South of the Border, West of the Sun. I like his novels much better so far. Just checked and his new book will be available on November 19th.

Paul Auster.

Have a cold and binge-watched almost two seasons of Tokyo Vice. Didn't skip through any of it, and I normally skip through series like that.

Also, the new Dune II didn't disappoint.

I made an omelet with three pasture raised eggs, organic spinach, and cheddar cheese. Turned out great except for the pepper. My electric grinder ran out of peppercorns. :brow:

What evidence or experience would convince you that (e.g.) "the God of Abraham" at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists? — 180 Proof

For me, the question is what evidence or experience would convince me of the nature of the universe. Ultimately I don't know if I have the capacity to comprehend that, like an ant can't comprehend the larger world beyond its capacity.

It appears to me that everything is interconnected and in a constant state of change. That indicates to me that emptiness is the nature of the universe. But I can't be certain, maybe somehow souls and such can exist.

When Moses asked for God's name, God just said "I am". Sounds very Eastern. — Fire Ologist

Not in my experience. "I am" and "I am not" both express a duality that many Eastern traditions seek to transcend. I once joined such a tradition for a short while, seeking a transcendent experience or 'revelation'. I've had what I might describe as intellectual revelations with the help of Eastern and Western philosophy and perhaps science, and shallow experiential revelations. I hope to someday have a deep experiential revelation, but it's not imperative because though I think it would be beneficial, at the end of the day it's just a transient experience.

Short answer, yes. — Fire Ologist

That very interesting because it seems to imply that your revelation was of a nature consistent with the Catholic faith, as opposed to, say, an Eastern faith which is quite different.

The OP asks what religion and why.

Long story short, if I’m reading it right you seem to be saying that you’re a Catholic because of a revelation. If that’s the case, did this revelation occur prior to becoming a Catholic?

Irreligious because spirituality and moral development are too important to be degraded by religion.

One simply cannot look at a symbol and find meaning in it, and there lost languages to prove this. The reason someone cannot decipher the meaning of a lost language is precisely because there is no meaning in the words. — NOS4A2

Oddly, this seems to show the opposite of what you intended. The symbols of an ancient language do have meaning even without knowing the language. We have no choice in recognizing the symbols as a language, for one thing, and depending on the context they could have much more meaning. For a symbol to be meaningless it would need to be completely unrecognizable as a symbol or anything else and not attract attention. Only then could it not affect us.

I think the image reveals a desire to fit into a place where there isn’t really a good fit. I do think that I’m a ‘thinker’ though, and that I’m perceived as a thinker.

I’m always pleased to see your posts because I appreciate good writing and rational thought. Kind of a rare commodity in this day and age.

Aha, my plan worked after all. :grin:

:up:

You’re supposed to offer me compliments to bolster my self-esteem.

Apparently I’m not as funny as I think I am. :sad:

Hate to think what people think of me. I have very low self-esteem and tend to think the worst.

Reconsidering, I did mistakenly think of Stormy Daniels as a prostitute.

Just bought an audiobook copy. Always been a sucker for Kafkaesque stories.

I don’t know about drugs, but we know Trump has patronized prostitutes and engaged in high-level corruption. Of course you will disagree because you know his activities were all innocent, just like you somehow know that he didn’t sexually assault E. Jean Carrol.

I think it is relevant that these sorts of accusations magically appear during such a time, even if it's over 30 years after the fact. — NOS4A2

I think a presidents past is relevant and they should be deeply scrutinized. Isn’t Hunter’s laptop relevant?

Funny I hadn't realized till this discussion how close J6 is to a coup. It was sudden, violent, and unlawful. The only question is whether the intent was to seize power. That's hard to answer because the perpetrators were a bunch of knuckle-headed Trump supporters and who knows what they were thinking.

Funnier still is NOS's claim that J6 was a Reichstag moment for the DNC, FBI, CIA, and media Nazis, when Trump's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who he appointed, said it was such a moment for Trump and his Big Lie. Projection?

And yet there's "Be an island unto yourself / Be a lamp unto yourself". — baker

Doesn't jibe well with MAGA which demands fealty to Trump and his narratives.

Come to think of it, the mantra "Everyone is solely responsible for themselves" is what they both have in common (and the implications of this stance). — baker

Doesn't jibe well with the Buddhist concept of interdependence and no-self. The simple answer is that they're conservatives.

no laws were broken by those involved in the coup. So what? — NOS4A2

Soooooooo, a coup is a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.

The years-long investigations that you referred to were neither sudden nor violent, by your own admission they were lawful, and they were not designed to seize power from the government.

Here I thought we were talking about law. Sorry, but the declarations of the UK, France, and Russia do not represent “international law”. I suppose you should google again. — NOS4A2

You're the one who brought up "crimes against humanity," not me. What did you mean if it didn't involve other nations?

They invented the law after the fact in order to prosecute the Nazis for a crime. There were violating no law. Therefor what they did was fine, correct? — NOS4A2

Sorry, google say the Armenian genocide is a precedent to the Nüremberg and Tokyo trials. Try again?

There is nothing to confuse. They broke no law, therefor what they did was fine. Isn’t that so? — NOS4A2

You're asking me if I think slavery is fine. Clearly you are confused.

Clearly I was speaking about his crimes against humanity, which were not crimes. — NOS4A2

It demonstrates more grave stupidity to confuse international criminal laws with domestic laws.

It was also legal to own slaves — NOS4A2

It demonstrates yet more grave stupidity to confuse centuries-old laws with current laws.

It's perfect in my opinion because Hilter did indeed break the law and was convicted, for a failed coup attempt no less, and this demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that enacting Godwin's Law can be a grave stupidity.

I'm unsure this is the time to enact Godwin's Law — AmadeusD

I disagree, it's the perfect time, being that Hitler was incarcerated for a failed coup.

Hitler never broke any laws either, so appealing to law is a grave stupidity. — NOS4A2

No doubt it was more "lawful power to defraud the country" that landed H in the clink.

Ah, it appears as though you're saying that you weren't sure that any laws were broken on J6, stating in the next line that the DNC, etc have "lawful power." If the DNC, FBI, CIA, and the media have lawful power to defraud the country, investigate their political opponents, and submit the entire world to their propaganda and conspiracy theories, then those actions aren't breaking any laws. But your first sentence is "I'm not sure any laws were broken," and the response is in the same order as my response, with J6 first followed by "coup".

Anyway, just to clear up any remaining misreads and for the official record, you hold that:

1) Laws were broken by rioters on J6.

2) No laws were broken in the years-long coup that you mentioned.

3) You realize that coups are unlawful.

I'm not sure any laws were broken. — NOS4A2

You must not believe there was any assault, disruption of Congress, or any of the other charges. Most of the defendants pleaded guilty, btw, even the MAGA shaman (guy with the horns) and spiritual people never lie.

The CIA, the FBI, the media, the DNC, have the lawful power to defraud the country — NOS4A2

Don't forget the GOP, with their fake electors shenanigans and whatnot. Wait, that is illegal.