Philosophy, spirituality or religion

I do believe one is on such a "right path". The greater the difficulties, the more God helps out, as it were. But if you consider only one path, it will seem the right one. There is always room for improvement, we should question all our assumptions and keep a perspective.

Perspective is key to go down the path that is right and keeps on going.

It's like art: it takes years to distinguish between lasting and non-lasting beauty. I believe God tells us what is true and what is beautiful, what is worthy or valuable, but we should not let ourselves be tempted to run down every path that seems right.

That way, God may be divisible in a truest God and the Devil.

Religion should just be about distinguishing between the two.

So, yes, I agree it could be bad, but only with a bad religion, one that doesn't teach some emotional distancing, dissociation, partial detachment, to keep perspective and be humble.

Like in a "God manual", maybe (partially) by example, through storytelling.

Edit:
I think all opinions can be proven right, more or less.

If God is love, maybe religion is hope.

A religious vacuum nihilism, religion relativism.

All opinions being equal or all opinions being—more or less—right or wrong.

Beyond right and wrong, there is hope. Seeing and knowing no right or wrong causes depression, anxiety, mental starvation.

Just my opinion.

It's just practical philosophy. Ethics and epistemology. But I think that's what religion (should) stand(s) for and does generally stand for. Beyond our current, rather nihilistic times.

Maybe it could be enough to successfully treat/use BP.

Religion and "right vs wrong" are two entirely different entities. It's actually insulting to a small (but still relevant) portion of society to speak of them as though they are synonymous. They are not. I get why people think they are, but it's misinformation.

Right and wrong is usually decided by those in power and that changes from time to time.

I don't think they are synonymous. I do think they are a practical philosophy, but (even) just ethics. It's much about "receiving" that philosophy by very practical means and practicing it. Something like that.

Improvement (very much of the self, but more or less directly, also others) by not just by improving rational consistency or reliability, but also, maybe primarily, validity.

Something that goes beyond right versus wrong. That's what I said, or meant to say.

I don't find religion ethical. But that's just me. I also don't derive my ethics from popular opinion or politics. Guess I'm wierd like that.

Do you strongly believe that and/or have you read Foucault, for example?

I am just interested. If you haven't read it somewhere, it might be more valid, I guess.

I do believe it's right, but I also believe only God has real power over life.

But nevertheless, it is very interesting.

It's ethical in the strict sense, not the best or good in any one situation necessarily, but it does tell you (how to know) what is right or wrong, how right or how wrong, how good and how to become better.

Popular opinion is maybe not ethical. In the sense that opinions are rather nihilistic concepts in some sense. But maybe somewhat still.

In my opinion, aesthetics is also quite relevant to religion. Art is more or less beautiful. It can be proven, but that would require some other religious practice.

Are you trying to prove everyone wrong?

I think ICARE is sharing what is strong in his/her mind right now. Nothing wrong with discussing something. Especially if it happens to feel overwhelming right now which is what I suspect ICARE, "might" be going through? I don't take offense, even if I disagree entirely. It's okay to discuss a different side of things. It's interesting to hear others point of view.

World wide there seems to be one agreed on wrong...that it's wrong to kill a fellow human. But that is suspended during war which is born out of survival, greed, religious differences in which case the fellow humans are demonized to justify killing them. Even in civil wars " the others" are demonized to rationalize killing them.

I do think there is some merit in intersubjectivity and poststructuralism, but I don't think it's very useful: mostly confusing, somehow obfuscating. I do think relativism is useful.

Many reject the latter outright because of the former.

I don't see it as an argreement. I believe in structuralism underlying such poststructuralism, if you like. It's pretty much like what you're saying, probably.

But I don't see it as a suspension of anything, but more as a result of a view where one thing can be right at one point and wrong at another—in all cases. Ironically, it's an absolutist relativistic view.

No, I see it as some dialectical process (but not where there is a—reachable—end-point). In other words, no-one is completely wrong and we're getting somewhere.

I believe in better opinions.

Even when I disagree, I learn something. I appreciate the dialog and how respectful everyone is being.

I also believe that getting somewhere is very important for dealing with BP. Simply because depression can feel unethical, strictly speaking, and mania very ethical, strictly speaking. Religious practice (maybe some of it) can help with that, probably.

Dealing with that is important.

Then there is our belief systems that can be in flux. Some epistemology and some more basic assumptions may help with that. Philosophy can help with that, probably.

My illness doesn't feel ethical or unethical. I can't view it like that. I don't think church cures BP, but if it helps some, great. Beer helps me sometimes, but I won't be attending every Sunday or regularly because long term, I need doctors and medication. It's a band-aid and like all things, what works for some, might be toxic to others. Church kills some people. Gay kids who's parents try to pray the gay away for instance.

This whole conversation is opinion based. Seriously.

Many churches are corrupted or corruptive, yes (if that's what you're saying). Many might do more good than bad, but maybe not. The Vatican with the current Pope might be a good thing. It somehow seems maybe less corrupted than many political systems. But it has done a lot of bad.

But that something has the risk of being very bad may mean it can and should be very good (and so it's a thing worth pursuing). It (at least) doesn't mean it is bad in itself.

Organisations, (power) structures, are rather inevitable. Better do it right and always believe it can be better, I'd say.

Like organisations, I think religion is something that can be done right for everyone. If something that is right for everyone is truly an illusion, religion would be inherently bad, probably. But that thing is always a process, never something stagnant. Conservatism is very bad if it's not about essentials.

That might just be the thing: everything that matters (most) is opinion-based. That doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing. It makes it very much worth discussing, I'd say. Maybe it becomes a little less opinion-based.

It's like a recursive process. Opinions of opinions. Also dialectical.

If you don't believe opinions have any value for others, you may need to change your opinion about opinions. So it would be a very useful discussion.

Edit:
It's also very much a hermeneutical process.

Point proven.

Which point?

Exactly.

What exactly?

That's what I said