what is the point of religion?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulclem

Why do you think that might be? When we've discussed higher teachings before we've talked about how the practices need skill and guidance. As I said, to have such teachings requires a teacher. This is standard practice because it is important to have guidance when confronting the psychological/ karmic issues that these practices assist with. I'm also interested, but I now appreciate that I need to practice the path first.

From your former posts I detect that you are interested in the mind and its workings, which is exactly what Buddhism is about. You clearly have some connection through your family too, but you can't expect to run before you can walk. As I said earlier, the texts are all probably available, but the secret will be embodied in the relationship with the Teacher. (They may also have a part of the text as an oral transmission, or key practice which renders the texts unworkable).

You don't have to talk to me of course. It's up to you.

---

Oh, I just don’t want to talk about Buddhism any more. What I am interested in is deeply guarded by a few. They only give us crumbs and I want a three dish meal. :lol: Nothing has changed since Mesopotamia or ancient Egypt and if people believe otherwise, well, I am not going to disturb their sleep.

I am interested in working of the mind but it was not what people I have mentioned talked about.
It was much more interesting than the workings of our minds. :biggrinjester:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Oh, I just don’t want to talk about Buddhism any more. What I am interested in is deeply guarded by a few. They only give us crumbs and I want a three dish meal. :lol: Nothing has changed since Mesopotamia or ancient Egypt and if people believe otherwise, well, I am not going to disturb their sleep.

I am interested in working of the mind but it was not what people I have mentioned talked about.
It was much more interesting than the workings of our minds. :biggrinjester:

---

It is all about the mind. Perhaps that's what they're not telling you. Without a practice though, whatever it is that hasn't been passed to you is useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

It is all about the mind. Perhaps that's what they're not telling you. Without a practice though, whatever it is that hasn't been passed to you is useless.

---

It is not about mind at all! In my post there was nothing that indicted that people I mentioned talked about mind. You have made assumptions and you are wrong. It is much deeper than that. I guess, we are attracted to the different writings and no wonder we can’t understand each other. :wink5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

It is not about mind at all! In my post there was nothing that indicted that people I mentioned talked about mind. You have made assumptions and you are wrong. It is much deeper than that. I guess, we are attracted to the different writings and no wonder we can’t understand each other. :wink5:

---

If you are talking about a form of Buddhism then it is about the mind essentially. That's what the practices are aimed at changing. I know you didn't indicate that, but what else is Buddhism concerned with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

If you are talking about a form of Buddhism then it is about the mind essentially. That's what the practices are aimed at changing. I know you didn't indicate that, but what else is Buddhism concerned with?

---

It is not but if you want to want to simplify it and believe it…so be it. I don’t have any business to convince otherwise. :ihih:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

It is not but if you want to want to simplify it and believe it…so be it. I don’t have any business to convince otherwise. :ihih:

---

I'm interested to know what you think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I'm interested to know what you think it is.

---

Don’t you think that it is too late to show your interest after a few posts where you made assumptions without asking what was so profound they said? It is a pattern in our conversations, isn’t it?

I hope that you understand now why I lost my interest to continue our discussion.

Well, I'm interested in knowing what you think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Don’t you think that it is too late to show your interest after a few posts where you made assumptions without asking what was so profound they said? It is a pattern in our conversations, isn’t it?

I hope that you understand now why I lost my interest to continue our discussion.

---

Not really. It only came up over that last couple of posts. I'd still like to know. You're a person who likes others to question things, so here's one for you.

Addressing the OP's question, "What is the point of religion?":

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." ~ Thomas Paine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

Addressing the OP's question, "What is the point of religion?":

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." ~ Thomas Paine

---

You could say that religion is not really embodied in these institutions, but is more of a private practice sometimes expressed in communities. .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

You could say that religion is not really embodied in these institutions, but is more of a private practice sometimes expressed in communities. .

---

The problem with DEFINING religion as "a private practice" is that private practices may or may not be identifiable. When social scientists talk about religion, they must talk about something they can identify. Of course religious practitioners make statements ABOUT their private practice, and, when those statements involve supernatural claims, they can be called "religious".

(I'm not saying that a social scientific definition of religion is the only reasonable definition, just pointing out some of the difficulties involved in it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

The problem with DEFINING religion as "a private practice" is that private practices may or may not be identifiable. When social scientists talk about religion, they must talk about something they can identify. Of course religious practitioners make statements ABOUT their private practice, and, when those statements involve supernatural claims, they can be called "religious".

(I'm not saying that a social scientific definition of religion is the only reasonable definition, just pointing out some of the difficulties involved in it.)

---

I agree. I was just pointing up that Mutatis' quote refers only to one facet of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Not really. It only came up over that last couple of posts. I'd still like to know. You're a person who likes others to question things, so here's one for you.

---

Well, you still can’t see what is wrong with our conversation. I would hardly call it conversation as you didn’t show any interest to know what they said but you made assumptions. You were not only not interested what they said but also what I thought. The bottom line is that fact that we had the same pattern in every conversation. If you are interested to hear yourself, be my guest……but I have more interesting things to do. :biggrinjester:

BTW, it is not a subject of this tread. Let's others continue their discussion about the point of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Well, you still can’t see what is wrong with our conversation. I would hardly call it conversation as you didn’t show any interest to know what they said but you made assumptions. You were not only not interested what they said but also what I thought. The bottom line is that fact that we had the same pattern in every conversation. If you are interested to hear yourself, be my guest……but I have more interesting things to do. :biggrinjester:

BTW, it is not a subject of this tread. Let's others continue their discussion about the point of religion.

---

I'm getting deja vue, or perhaps I'm making assumptions again? But looking back over the posts it was you who posted something about Buddhism after I had responded to Kensington.

I seem to remember you posting to me when I was addressing Mazhur in the last thread too. I didn't seek you out. I assume, though that if you respond to my posts that you want to engage in conversation.

I think you're right. there is a pattern in the conversations. I answer your posts. You say I don't know you - (true) - and that I am making assumption about you - (not true). You post something, and I respond. You say I make assumptions about your knowledge, reading, study etc, but everything I say can be checked very easily on the internet. No problem. Where do you back up what you say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I'm getting deja vue, or perhaps I'm making assumptions again? But looking back over the posts it was you who posted something about Buddhism after I had responded to Kensington.

I seem to remember you posting to me when I was addressing Mazhur in the last thread too. I didn't seek you out. I assume, though that if you respond to my posts that you want to engage in conversation.

I think you're right. there is a pattern in the conversations. I answer your posts. You say I don't know you - (true) - and that I am making assumption about you - (not true). You post something, and I respond. You say I make assumptions about your knowledge, reading, study etc, but everything I say can be checked very easily on the internet. No problem. Where do you back up what you say?

---

Well, you have answered my post …to hear yourself. I didn’t say that you made assumptions about my knowledge. You are making assumptions again and you are wrong. I think that I have already clarified for you what making assumptions means. I can do it again, hoping that you will understand. We make assumptions when we believe that we can read others minds. In other words, we try to sit in others heads. You don’t have any clue what I said and you weren’t even interested to ask. This is what making assumptions means.

Second, you may not agree with scholars I choose to read. But why don’t you argue with them. :lol: I don’t pretend that I am a Buddhist scholar. In fact, I have more questions than answers. Finally, I think that we may end our discussion. I respect what you believe but your truth doesn’t match mine. It is as simple as that. Nothing personal but we like to be around people who are like minded, don’t we? :wink5:

I hope that I expressed myself as clear as possible so that we will not have that kind of discussion again.

Let's others talk about religion. :wink5:

“To know is not to know, not to know is to know”
Indian Kena Upnishad

To be honest I've no idea who you read. You've never said. You've never quoted or paraphrased anyone to me in this discussion.

Now I know what assumptions are I'll try to stay away from them.

I don’t pretend that I am a Buddhist scholar.

You didn't, but since you posted to me I thought you might share what you know. I have shared what little I know. I thought that's what forums were about- sharing ideas and discussing and elucidating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

To be honest I've no idea who you read. You've never said. You've never quoted or paraphrased anyone to me in this discussion.

---

Because you didn’t ask. :lol: Maybe I will post it on my tread in the future. Now, I have other subjects that keep my mind occupied.

Quote:

---

Now I know what assumptions are I'll try to stay away from them.

---

Oh, assumptions can drive people crazy. I avoid making assumptions because when we make assumptions what others think or feel we are most of the time wrong. I have learned to ask for clarification because the end of the day I want to understand others. :wink5:

^Has anyone else noticed that the more cornered ftil feels, the more emoticons he uses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

^Has anyone else noticed that the more cornered ftil feels, the more emoticons he uses?

---

LOL! I love using emoticons and it is you who have aversion to it. :lol: I don’t know what you mean that I feel cornered. Are you unable to escape your projections? BTW, how does your response relate to religion? :biggrinjester:

It is part of the human condition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

It is not about mind at all! In my post there was nothing that indicted that people I mentioned talked about mind. You have made assumptions and you are wrong. It is much deeper than that. I guess, we are attracted to the different writings and no wonder we can’t understand each other. :wink5:

---

I'd like to go back to this point about the mind.

When you're talking about Buddhism, it's about practices which are designed to positively help the practitioner; to demonstrate why some actions are negative and have a negative effect, why some actions are positive and have a positive effect, and how to assist this change through purification. As all actions come from the mind, then it is the mind that has to be positively changed by the practitioner themselves.

They may very well then begin a practice to develop single pointed concentration. This is a mind which is trained to focus very powerfully upon an object of meditation. It is useful in that it is used with meditations on reality.

Once the practitioner has become better at controlling their own mind's negative impulses, and developing positive ones, then they might begin to develop compassion, or Bodhicitta - literally called the mind of Enlightenment. This mind develops the spontaneous and boundless wish to help all sentient beings to liberation from suffering.

In addition to this the practitioner will develop the wisdom realising Emptiness. Emptiness can be developed alone, but Bodhicitta is developed alongside it, as without that, full Enlightenment will not be attained.

The Tantra practitioner, at some point will identify a teacher, and become their student. Tantra is also called the short path, and is very powerful, as it is supposed to provide a method for achieving Enlightenment in one life.

Tantra involves complex visualisations - which also train the mind, and the use of inner energies or winds in order to visualise becoming whatever Buddha their practice involves. The practice is maintained in and out of meditation - as any level should be through application of the practice.

These practices may involve images and ritual instruments, but none of those worldly things embody the practice. hat lies within the Teacher and Student. As such, you don't need any objects at all.

Can you then tell me what is deeper than these aspects of the mind?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulclem
Can you then tell me what is deeper than these aspects of the mind?

---

I have told you a few times that it was not about mind……..and you are doing the same. :yikes: One of the person I have mentioned was a member of an ancient Tibetan religious order, The Gelugpa (“The Virtuous”), and that he himself, as his father before him, was one of the sprulsku or reincarnating lamas. He didn’t talk about mind. Zen master didn’t talk about mind either. I told you that maybe I will write about it on my tread in the future. I have wasted my time to explain why I don’t like to talk about Buddhism but esoteric knowledge. :banghead: You have to respect that.

A celestial security blanket in the form of subset-communities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralfyman

It is part of the human condition.

---

what does the human conditions entails?
Doesn't condition means that humans rely on religion to exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

^Has anyone else noticed that the more cornered ftil feels, the more emoticons he uses?

---

Haha..emoticons are the beesknees:cornut:

The question I have here is

what is the difference between someone who is a christian and someone who believes in God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

The question I have here is

what is the difference between someone who is a christian and someone who believes in God?

---

A strange question. Every religion has own gods and demons. I don’t have any clue where are you going. :biggrinjester:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

I have told you a few times that it was not about mind……..and you are doing the same. :yikes: One of the person I have mentioned was a member of an ancient Tibetan religious order, The Gelugpa (“The Virtuous”), and that he himself, as his father before him, was one of the sprulsku or reincarnating lamas. He didn’t talk about mind. Zen master didn’t talk about mind either. I told you that maybe I will write about it on my tread in the future. I have wasted my time to explain why I don’t like to talk about Buddhism but esoteric knowledge. :banghead: You have to respect that.

---

Funnily enough, the tradition I am associated with is Gelugpa - The Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, established in the US and UK by Lama Yeshe and his Heart Disciple Lama Zopa - who is the current head below HH The Dalai Lama.

I am familiar with the teachings as presented in the Gelug tradition, and the above very brief description of the practices is based on Gelug/ Mahayana practice. (I was going to add that different Buddhist traditions have different emphases, and that it isn't extensive.)

I have wasted my time to explain why I don’t like to talk about Buddhism but esoteric knowledge.

If you are talking about reincarnated Lamas and Zen masters, you are talking about Buddhism - esoteric or not. I think you are under a misapprehension about what that esoteric knowledge is, and how it is embodied. As I've said before, the Buddhist path is an integral part of Tantra. It is a prerquisite. You don't get practitioners ignoring the Buddha's teachings or leapfrogging them. They are bound up, Mahayana and Tantra being an extension to, not different from the Buddha's path.

I respect you or I wouldn't waste my time talking to you.

So what was the name of the Lama?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

A strange question. Every religion has own gods and demons. I don’t have any clue where are you going. :biggrinjester:

---

Here is where I am going.
How many Gods are there?
If there are many gods then which one is legitimate?
and if there is only one then what it the point of so many different religion?
In other words
what is the difference between a christian and someone who believes in God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Funnily enough, the tradition I am associated with is Gelugpa - The Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, established in the US and UK by Lama Yeshe and his Heart Disciple Lama Zopa - who is the current head below HH The Dalai Lama.

I am familiar with the teachings as presented in the Gelug tradition, and the above very brief description of the practices is based on Gelug/ Mahayana practice. (I was going to add that different Buddhist traditions have different emphases, and that it isn't extensive.)

I have wasted my time to explain why I don’t like to talk about Buddhism but esoteric knowledge.

If you are talking about reincarnated Lamas and Zen masters, you are talking about Buddhism - esoteric or not. I think you are under a misapprehension about what that esoteric knowledge is, and how it is embodied. As I've said before, the Buddhist path is an integral part of Tantra. It is a prerquisite. You don't get practitioners ignoring the Buddha's teachings or leapfrogging them. They are bound up, Mahayana and Tantra being an extension to, not different from the Buddha's path.

I respect you or I wouldn't waste my time talking to you.

So what was the name of the Lama?

---

It is nice that you are associated with is Gelugpa. He revealed the Vajnayana, “the thunderbolt,” and “higher prayer” but he didn’t want to reveal Mantrayana, the vehicle of mystic spells. He said to a person whom he taught that “What I have done is dangerous enough.” ???? I wish I could talk to him as I have many questions but I don’t expect that he would answer it as he didn’t answer to his student. Zen Master talked about psychic abilities and a spirit world. I have also have many question about it. But the truth is that as Tao Te Ching said, “Those who know are still”

I have a different understanding of esoteric knowledge as you do. If you look at many religions for example Mystery of Mithra, Dionysus Mysteries, Orphic Mysteries to name a few, you see that only a few had the access to secret knowledge. Masses got religions as a means of controlling and manipulating them. :D

I hope that you understand why I don’t want to discuss it but I may post excerpt on my tread in the future. Those I would love to talk are still. :banghead:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Here is where I am going.
How many Gods are there?
If there are many gods then which one is legitimate?
and if there is only one then what it the point of so many different religion?
In other words
what is the difference between a christian and someone who believes in God?

---

I wouldn’t even try to count gods as there are so many. :lol: Of course, I take into consideration all religions, ancient and present. I ask different questions. Who wrote those religions? I am more interested in finding similarities than differences which brings more questions.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Greed is generated from selfishness. If you want to look at the origin of most religions, there is a morality usually taught. I can speak for the Christian religion, that its followers are taught NOT to be greedy.

---

This is true also of the other two monotheistic religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

It is nice that you are associated with is Gelugpa. He revealed the Vajnayana, “the thunderbolt,” and “higher prayer” but he didn’t want to reveal Mantrayana, the vehicle of mystic spells. He said to a person whom he taught that “What I have done is dangerous enough.” ???? I wish I could talk to him as I have many questions but I don’t expect that he would answer it as he didn’t answer to his student. Zen Master talked about psychic abilities and a spirit world. I have also have many question about it. But the truth is that as Tao Te Ching said, “Those who know are still”

I have a different understanding of esoteric knowledge as you do. If you look at many religions for example Mystery of Mithra, Dionysus Mysteries, Orphic Mysteries to name a few, you see that only a few had the access to secret knowledge. Masses got religions as a means of controlling and manipulating them. :D

I hope that you understand why I don’t want to discuss it but I may post excerpt on my tread in the future. Those I would love to talk are still. :banghead:

---

He said to a person whom he taught that “What I have done is dangerous enough.”

This could have a couple of meanings. Teaching Tantra has Karmic repercussion and involves vows. If a vow is broken, then there is a karmic repercussion for the student and the Teacher.

The student Teacher relationship is very important, and involves a lot of training. Teachers - it says in the texts, should be very very carefully chosen. The same goes for the student. It's not really about control of individuals as such, for few people will reach this level of meditation. The hold on teachings is because they are potent. Without higher training a person can damage themselves.

Remember these are practices for monastics rather than lay people. It is a full time practice. There's no room for anything else. You're right as well. He won't - can't - tell you about the practices. You'd have to be his student.

Psychic abilities are - it is said - a by product of practice. Things like knowing others' minds etc. They are not the point of the practice. If it becomes the motivation for meditation, then the practice ceases to be Buddhist.

The spirit world is one of the realms in the Wheel of Life. This is the realm of the Hungry Ghosts - a very unfortunate realm where the beings are forever in need and full of unfullfillable desire. Through meditation, it is said these realms can be perceived.

Control comes with institutions and Governements. I can only speak of Buddhism, but I don't think the practice has that element of control in it. Some of the institutions yes - but I think that's politics. Buddhism began as a - not revolutionary but perhaps subversive religion in that it was not the Hindu norm of the time. It can be and is practiced by individuals anywhere. No temples are needed really. It can be a purely solitary practice, or one that involves a community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

He said to a person whom he taught that “What I have done is dangerous enough.”

This could have a couple of meanings. Teaching Tantra has Karmic repercussion and involves vows. If a vow is broken, then there is a karmic repercussion for the student and the Teacher.

The student Teacher relationship is very important, and involves a lot of training. Teachers - it says in the texts, should be very very carefully chosen. The same goes for the student. It's not really about control of individuals as such, for few people will reach this level of meditation. The hold on teachings is because they are potent. Without higher training a person can damage themselves.

Remember these are practices for monastics rather than lay people. It is a full time practice. There's no room for anything else. You're right as well. He won't - can't - tell you about the practices. You'd have to be his student.

Psychic abilities are - it is said - a by product of practice. Things like knowing others' minds etc. They are not the point of the practice. If it becomes the motivation for meditation, then the practice ceases to be Buddhist.

The spirit world is one of the realms in the Wheel of Life. This is the realm of the Hungry Ghosts - a very unfortunate realm where the beings are forever in need and full of unfullfillable desire. Through meditation, it is said these realms can be perceived.

Control comes with institutions and Governements. I can only speak of Buddhism, but I don't think the practice has that element of control in it. Some of the institutions yes - but I think that's politics. Buddhism began as a - not revolutionary but perhaps subversive religion in that it was not the Hindu norm of the time. It can be and is practiced by individuals anywhere. No temples are needed really. It can be a purely solitary practice, or one that involves a community.

---

Hm…....I don’t want to sound sarcastic but don’t you think that it is funny that those who knew didn’t want to talk……. but you are so eager to explain everything. You have tried to simplify it without knowing a whole story and you are still making assumptions rather than asking questions. Sorry, but I don’t have time for that kind of discussion any more. :rolleyes5: I have been studied for years and I have more questions than answers. In fact, I don’t look for the answers but ask questions since if we accept a belief we close our minds for alternative explanations.

I have a list of books to read from Kalachakra Tantra: A shadow of Dalai Lama. But I don’t think so that I would ever want to discuss it. I know that many questions I have will never be answered.

I better make a good use of my time and go back to reading. You will find people who are interested in Buddhism ….:wink5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Hm…....I don’t want to sound sarcastic but don’t you think that it is funny that those who knew didn’t want to talk……. but you are so eager to explain everything. You have tried to simplify it without knowing a whole story and you are still making assumptions rather than asking questions. Sorry, but I don’t have time for that kind of discussion any more. :rolleyes5: I have been studied for years and I have more questions than answers. In fact, I don’t look for the answers but ask questions since if we accept a belief we close our minds for alternative explanations.

I have a list of books to read from Kalachakra Tantra: A shadow of Dalai Lama. But I don’t think so that I would ever want to discuss it. I know that many questions I have will never be answered.

I better make a good use of my time and go back to reading. You will find people who are interested in Buddhism ….:wink5:

---

I don't know why you are defensive. I merely expanded on what you put because I'm mindful that other people read these posts.

I don't think I have simplified anything. The explanations are standard fare. These things are explained to practitioners and there's no secret about them. I have already said that I don't practice Tantra, and so I couldn't possibly go into the teachings even if I wanted to. I merely have a basic knowledge of the kinds of practices. What I've put is by no means secret or hidden and if something couldn't be discussed, then I wouldn't discuss it. There's no problem in explaining why either.

Your references to psychic abilities and spirits needed elucidation and so I put in my bit after you had mentioned them. It is easy for people to get the wrong impression. There's lots of potential for confusion about Eastern religions.

I understand that the secret, psychic, spirit parts of Tibetan Buddhism are very interesting. They certainly are, but they remain part of the Buddhist worldview with some typically Tibetan additions such as particular Dharma Protectors.

Next time don't worry about disclaimers like I don't want to sound sarcastc but.. It just means that you are going to be. I don't mind if you are sarcastic. I get the impression that you think I'm trying to get one over on you or something. You could probably guess that I enjoy chatting about Buddhism, and it's purely that, and I'm interested in what you put. I'm also aware of certain teachings, and like to elucidate things when they are mentioned. It might sound a bit pedantic. I don't mean to be, but as I said I'm aware that other people read posts too.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulclem

I don't know why you are defensive. I merely expanded on what you put because I'm mindful that other people read these posts.

---

I am not defensive. I should have used emoticons to express how I felt. :ihih: I just don’t want to talk about it any more. To be honest, I don’t like having that kind of discussion for a long time. It is a distraction and I have too many books I want to read. Therefore, I have a tread about mythology and religion ….free from discussion. :wink5:

BTW, I don't like to be sarcastic either but I am honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

I am not defensive. I should have used emoticons to express how I felt. :ihih: I just don’t want to talk about it any more. To be honest, I don’t like having that kind of discussion for a long time. It is a distraction and I have too many books I want to read. Therefore, I have a tread about mythology and religion ….free from discussion. :wink5:

BTW, I don't like to be sarcastic either but I am honest.

---

Ok. I never said you weren't honest. There's nothing wrong with a bit of sarcasm with people who can take it.

It seems to me you do like discussion. We've had plenty of them. I enjoy them anyway. You can tell that I'm a billy-no-mates from the number of times I'm on. It's nice to meet someone else who is on as much - I'm only joking. :biggrin5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Ok. I never said you weren't honest. There's nothing wrong with a bit of sarcasm with people who can take it.

It seems to me you do like discussion. We've had plenty of them. I enjoy them anyway. You can tell that I'm a billy-no-mates from the number of times I'm on. It's nice to meet someone else who is on as much - I'm only joking. :biggrin5:

---

I don’t enjoy having long discussions where I have more questions than answers as I am aware how much I want to learn and read. I also don’t like writing. When I spent too much time writing, I need my balance back and read.
BTW, I was born to talk and read.:lol:

All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind.
Khalil Gibran

I think religions main benefit is that it gives people hope in difficult situations.
'Hope' is very much real,positive and provable emprically. A being called 'god' with all his attributes is a nonsense frankly. But religion fills the gap left by science and philosophy. I would go further and say that 'hope' is almost intrinsic to the human condition and thus hope invents religion and art. The hope is real,the inventions and art much less so. In summary religion is a tool to give man hope.