> And in this way it wasn't "bad," and in fact they turned out to be some of the best things that happened to me. In what way? And what growth can be claimed f

> And in this way it wasn't "bad," and in fact they turned out to be some of the best things that happened to me. In what way? And what growth can be claimed for the people killed by the Holocaust? Pardon my Godwin's law, but it's a pretty glaring example of the train-sized hole in this "no such thing as bad" idea. And on this: >Maybe "holy" is better.... "Holy, adjective: dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred." Definitionally, if something is dedicated for a religious purpose (or consecrated), then it is separated from everything else. If everything is "holy", then there is no "separated out"; i.e. nothing is "unholy". So then there's no separation, meaning that there's no "holy-ification". It sounds like you're trying to start a conversation about religion based on your assumptions about religion and before you're equipped to actually have that conversation. Speaking as a Christian, I've grown up steeped in the notion of poking and prodding my religious thought to understand it and to find answers wherever there are holes. I can do so confidently because if Christianity is indeed the truth I believe it to be, then it will hold up, and if it's not, it won't. Plain and simple. I'd recommend trying to examine this "new religion" you're trying to start (which is really more of an epistemologically-void philosophical system) with a similar level of scrutiny.