We each of us, judge people and events every day.
It does not say however we are right.
I note, suppose expected it, we are in to the basic of belief.
My question had many answers I do not feel I got any.
Maybe these are the answers who knows?
Shared workplace, multi religions, workplace owned or staffed by another belief.
Maybe Jewish?
Maybe it is a workplace safety issue, swinging chain near moving parts.
Bigotry?

If one is to hold a belief in god then one must also believe in the anti-god, 'Satin'. all very complicated as god is also the creator of the anti-god, who's only purpose is to cause man to sin against god. Wow, the all loving god created the evil of sin! Are we nothing more than the pawns in god's great chess game, played for the amusement of god.
The truth is the 'believers' have so complicated their fabrication of god and the ensuing story, whether by design or accident, this fabrication is to such a degree that they, the 'believers', can no longer explain their own fabrication. Is it all a big mystery or just the greatest lie in history? Having said that I still say "Let the little old ladies wear their crosses around their necks."

Solidarity is the finding of common bonds, and acting together to support them.

Intelligence is closer to wisdom than to cleverness. Wisdom is of little effect without solidarity.

Religion is a red herring, more often used as an excuse for inaction than as an aid to wisdom. We can do without it, and have to if we are to find deeper common bonds than belief in something beyond proof. Whatever your ideal of religion, in practice it tends to separate us from each other, concerning itself with ideas of rightness rather than the realisation of integration and better social relationships.

Whatever god you believe or don't believe in, you still have to decide how to live and shape society with other humans and the environment we inhabit. If we put spirituality above practicality we can miss opportunities to live together in better ways.
Because there is no one simple answer to everything should we avoid looking for better answers to problems we face, and better definitions of these problems? This would seem more like nihilism than spirituality to me.

I love life and freedom and this beautiful planet, music and mathematics and being in sometimes dissonant harmony with my body, my mind and my friends. I would rather be angry than passive, when faced with the forces of destruction. Even more than this I would rather be creative. My heaven on earth is a marvellous moving geometry. This is about as close to religion as I can get, or want to.

As for satan, I can't concede he/she is anti-god. If god is everything then satan has to be in there somewhere. An asker of difficult questions maybe?

Dear Farfromtheland,

It seems from your description that you are called by God to do all sorts of social good actions. I don't know you personally, but assuming this is true, then it is an integral part of your religion to do so and you should undoubtedly follow your calling.

Not everyone is called for the same - it mainly depends on one's particular stage of spiritual development, so those acts that for you are religious are not necessarily religious for others. Some are called primarily for action and others are primarily called for inaction - none is better than the other.

Some are called for practicality and others are called for impracticality - none is better than the other:

There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build...
[Ecclesiastes chapter 3]

It is a mistake to believe that emotions, such as solidarity and anger, are a pre-requisite for right action: God's calling is much stronger and accurate than to be directed by emotions - if you follow your own calling, then emotions are unnecessary, they are only required if you try to follow someone else's:

It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though they may be faultily, than another's duties. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous.
[Bhagavadgita, 3.35]

The view as if "Religion is a red herring" comes from the ignorant belief that religion requires one to do such-and-such, especially to act unnaturally: Religion is most natural and you embark on it unaware the moment you are born, but it is indeed unnatural and futile to try following someone else's religion.

----
(that silly "satan" thing is not worth a comment - it was Paul who mentioned that red-herring, not me)

(that silly "satan" thing is not worth a comment - it was Paul who mentioned that red-herring, not me)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 19 March 2012 1:13:14 PM

Yuyutau you quote from Ecclesiastes 3. Let me quote:

"He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.
Revelation 20: 2, 3.

Another case of selective bible reading take what suits you, disregard the rest. Clearly according to the book of truth Satan exists. You can't have it both ways.

Dear Paul,

I was quoting Ecclesiastes, not the bible.

In my view, Ecclesiastes was the wisest philosopher ever in the West.
As his views are so closer to Eastern philosophy, as opposed to the willfulness of the rest of the old-testament (perhaps with the exception of Job and Proverbs), researchers wonder how come his book got into the bible in the first place.