What are your thoughts on this saying about religion by Seneca in this election year ?

Bummer... meant to press Other.

My thoughts? BINGO! so right.

It should not matter what "faith" someone is that is elected or running for election to any public office. What should matter is that they have their community, county, state, and/or countries best interest in everything they do. A true leader should lead by example, protect their electors with the rule of law, eliminate laws that oppress the people and move the quality of life upwards for their electors.

Religion has been the basis for most wars in history and we as they human race should have moved beyond that by now.

That being said when a group of people or a nation is hell bent on the destruction of our communities and/or country our elected leaders should have the guts to stand up to them and take them out if/when necessary.

Very well articulated and thoughtful points to ponder.

This is my thought on religion and the wise:

The truly wise will seek God, the fount of all Wisdom.
Those who scoff at God are fools, not wise men.
They only have the honor of men, who they themselves look down upon.
Where is the wisdom in that?

The "wisdom" might be that these are wise thoughts to ponder in church and have a sermon on. On the campaign trail not so much. Some might think the "sayer" is judgmental and in the end hypocritical in their own right.

All we speak of and ponder in my church is the words of God and His teachings.
I know that there are churches where they are happy to discuss the philosophies of men, but that is not why there are churches.

Same here Dave. To be truthful, I don't even know who my pastor votes for. I've never asked him and I don't care. I would care if he had pamphlets in the Narthex or made innuendos from the pulpit.

On top of that, in my church, our bishop (pastor), seldom speaks from the pulpit. It is usually about 3 members each Sunday who are called by the bishop, who give talks on (usually) assigned gospel topics. The first Sunday of the month, is given to the testimonies of whomever the Spirit calls to come up and bear them, Usually, twenty or so members will do so.

Sums it up nicely.

I agree with Seneca.

Actually, Seneca was right.
I would only change religion into religions, as there were several.
Furthermore, not all the common people were "blinded" by religions.

Seneca was referring to the worshipers of Roman deities when he made that statement.

and your point is...?

You're missing it. LOL

But what point about religion in this election year do the words of a great ancient Roman intellectual have to make anyway? I'm merely placing him in his proper ancient context. So why don't you share with us what point this particular question is driving at?

I'm not sure I understand the point it is trying to make.

So you're saying you don't understand what point Seneca was trying to make? Why are you bothering to chime in on this subject then?

missing your point

I'm asking YOU what point you think this post might be making about this election year by citing Seneca's quote about religion. THAT'S my point.

agree

Religion in many areas of the world, have been a seat of power and humans have abused it and their subjects.

a very effective political instrument.

Agreed Truer words have never been spoken. and at the same time we can truly say from the POV of politicians that "religion is the opiate of the people"

The average religious person needs religion for their morals where as those who have given up fairy tales, follow their conscience.

Their conscious ... what?

I believe that was supposed to say conscience.

Probably so, but if conscience is not a gift from God, then it is based on the environment and is not reliable.

I think I would disagree with that. First, I don't think that anything that is not a gift from God automatically comes from the environment. Secondly, I don't believe that anything that comes from the environment is automatically unreliable.

You will have to explain that for me to follow.

I believe that gravity comes from the environment, and that you can rely on it to behave the exact same way every time. To me, that is the definition of reliable.

Did you follow, even if you disagree?

Well Gravity followed some of our rules well enough, but then we had to come up with new rules for other circumstances, and we still haven't figured out how it ties in with the other forces. - and I think you know that that is not what I was talking about when I said environment.

I guess what I am hearing is that you believe if we don't know the rules for X (gravity or morality) without God, then the rules of X are unreliable. Is that what you are trying to say? Or am I not getting it?

You brought up Gravity - I am saying that man's definitions only approximate the Truth (when they are not outright lies).

I agree; and I would include in this definitions that people have of gods. I believe that where my definition of morality approximates the truth, your definition of a morality that comes from your understanding of God is also an approximation.

All our understandings are imperfect, including our understandings of god and morality. The way I see it, we all just have to do the best we can with our imperfect approximations, because as we are imperfect beings, there will never be perfect understanding.

When you know the real thing, you are not fooled by substitutes.

And I am saying that I cannot know the real thing because my knowledge is imperfect, so I am forced to select a substitute. From there I select that which I think is best. I know its not perfect, but its what I've got.

my bad, so what i am bad speller.

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

Right:

"Those who do not believe in this stuff are idiots."

We get the schtick, friend. It's just not fooling some of us anymore. Sorry.