Religion, when properly exercised at a personal level, has very little to do with truth or God or metaphysics or psychology. It is a psychology, it is a truth, it is a “God”, but embodied, lived out as code, as organic discipline, a discipline of the organism, a heart, an engine, a comportment, a set of manners.
He who turns his back on religion completely plays a dangerous game. Hell is real, it does exist … It’s the fire that consumes he who rejects religion, the fire that awaits the man who rejects religion.
Most of us live a religion, in some form or another. We abide by a code, we worship particular gods, our organism is regulated, disciplined, mannered by some set of law. Madmen and clerks alike, we are regulated creatures of habit. We are all born into religion, and most of us retain that.
We’ve discussed love’s relationship to philosophy and to religion, with the voice of a philosopher, from a psychoanalytic historical perspective.
But that discourse itself was at the expense of religious love. From a religious perspective, the discourse was one of hellfire, because it turned its back on legal embodiment in favour of metaphysical biosemiotics. It tranagressed, and, as a discourse, was deeply unfaithful. And so destined for the punishment of apostasy, which is nothing more nor less than the fire of hell.
Religious love is intimate with discipline of the heart: its anathema is the intellectual side show of historical deconstruction, its anathema is philosophy in and of itself, even if that philosophy is one of love,
Beg your gods forgiveness: the tree of knowledge is real, hellfire is real, and apostasy deserves what it gets. This is core to our embodiment, that rhe punishment of the philosopher is inevitable if the philosopher is flesh and blood.