|
Religion versus
Religion (1)
When two religions or two denominations of a
religion are at conflict, which side should the world take?
By world I mean the nations and groups of people
who do not the ones which are at conflict,
And of course, the word “world” conjures up the
UN in our minds and the Security Council,
And last but not least: the “super powers” which
have given themselves rights to take “unilateral
action”, because it is in their interest, and because they have declared themselves
as a “force of good”,
And of course because no one can stop them,
Hence all the international bodies and institutes
which have been set up in the last century, such as the UN and the Security
Council, and of course the international court of justice ... seem to be just a
façade, and justice in the world is still out of reach,
Hence “the world” should not be surprised if groups
of people who feel they have been hard done by, and let down by “the world”:
take “the law” in their own hands, after all, this is exactly what the “super
powers” have done, and all the nations which submit to them or are supported by
them ... just to protect their own interests,
This anarchy, which is being packaged to the world
as the “new world order”, is farcical ... whichever way you look at it, and if
today’s rulers think for a second that they can run the world by such a lack of
system: they are only fooling themselves,
Their nearsightedness is so near, they can’t even
notice that their actions and decisions backfire at them almost immediately,
And when things backfire at them, they say: O
because we weren’t tough enough last time and we listened to the moderate side
of opinions ...
The world can’t take sides in religious disputes,
Religious disputes are matters that the
self-proclaimed clergy have got to sort out, by dialogue,
And above all, by good faith and a desire to end
the dispute,
And if they feel that they have to perpetuate the
conflict, because god commanded them to live in a constant state of peril, so
they can “strive in his way” ... what do you do then??
Do you say: that’s fine, continue on fighting, and
“the world” has to take one side,
Or do you reject such interpretations of religion
outright, and start a dialogue and introduce logical reasoning ... ?
Using, indeed, the Books themselves,
Which, upon studying them, do not reflect the
mentality and the ideology that the clergy have afforded,
The dialogue, hence, between religions, should
include academics and whomever can demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the
Books: without being clergy or supporting or belonging to one religion or
another ...
The clergy should not be considered anymore as “the
authority” which has exclusive rights to understanding and interpreting the
Books,
The Books belong to humanity, they were not given
to any religious institute, present or past ...
Religion versus Religion (2)
Abrahamic religions call themselves monotheist, that is they
believe in one god,
So it can’t be that there is a god for each of those religions,
Unless each group want to say: our god is the real one,
In which case all those gods must be dismissed,
Because “the world” has no means of comparing gods with one
another,
Especially if they all have, supposedly, delivered stuff to
humanity which sounds ... dodgy ...
Such as, a licence to kill and to be cruel ... to make god
happy ...
Such as, yes god commanded us to be compassionate and
forgiving, but he tests us, and if we believe certain beliefs or practise some
rituals ... he’ll forgive us if we disobeyed him ... because we have to do
everything to survive and support the believers like us ...
Such as, we are the good people, god told us ...
Such statements express beliefs which aren’t different from one religion to another,
And the astute reader would’ve noticed that such statements
have come from all religions in all their denominations ... old and new,
without an exception:
Hence religious wars have never ceased, since pagan times!
But humans are endowed with the faculty of reasoning and
comparison, in order to make a fair judgement, based on a rational basis and a compassionate approach to dealing with all kinds of situations ...
Not surprisingly, the Books are an abundance of examples, if
taken from a universal perspective,
A universal perspective which religious authorities are
unable to take, because they are now institutes which look after their subjects
exclusively,
A universal perspective which can be viewed by someone who
is able to see that God is not in any such religions,
A universal perspective which puts the reasoning mind and
the equality of all mankind above all other considerations ...
Religion versus
Religion (3)
Moral code is accepted as moral code because it
makes sense in its place and time,
If moral code is accepted because the issuer of
it is a member of an institute that is accepted as an authority, without
questioning its validity and essence, then moral code is not moral code
anymore, rather a strategy,
Such moral code is at odds with reality and is
constantly at conflict with similar moral codes,
which are accepted by different groups of people ...
Thus, it seems, there is a cacophony of moral codes
in the world ... so much so, the echo of the same code is sometimes claimed by
two opposing groups, in constant conflict with one another, trying to outnoise
one another ...
As a matter of fact, the status quo is a tragedy
that has now gone to an extreme ... that is not tragic anymore, but indeed
farcical ...
Because those authorities who have created this
state of utter anarchy can’t be in charge of ending it, because it is their belief that reality is anarchy, and hence their beliefs and convictions can only be
demonstrated in it,
Hence, when we say that something is “moral” or
“immoral”, it should rather be synonymous with “logical” or “illogical”, in its considered circumstances,
Because logic is the only railway network that is
shared by all humanity, the rest is bush. People like places or dislike them
according to their need and taste, but the railway is set for all kinds of
minds,
Religion
versus Religion (4)
I can hear the nagging question: who is to judge
what is logical and what is not, when it comes to morality?
This is not an easy question. Empirical science
and mathematics have answers which are applicable only within their scope of
application,
But when it comes to human behaviour and
morality: this is open ended,
So religions are aware of this hurdle, they’ve
decided not to jump over it by claiming that they
know the moral code:
Which happens to be their interpretation of their
Books,
But the hurdle remains, and goes not away by
deception,
Now they are confronted by a barrage of moral
codes: all supposedly god’s,
And the international bodies are counted as
mundane, not belonging to the institutes representing those codes,
So those bodies cannot agree or disagree with them,
but they do take sides, in every way they can: politically, strategically and
morally, as it suits their interests,
And the news broadcasting media are a major player:
they pick favourable events or perspectives of them which promote their
political causes and business interests,
On one article on this page, we have suggested that
news be reported from two opposing sources, for the reader or the watcher not
to be under one influence.
I find it fascinating that mathematics and geometry
are an ideal model of a logical system that is self-sufficient, but in fact they
are there to shed light on physical phenomena, which are often rough and crude,
seemingly without a system,
Perhaps in them are glimpses of true spirituality:
that resides in the human mind,
So the religious spirituality to which anything can be
attributed: by virtue of it being based on non-existent: as in being unknowable to man:
can be discarded forever as a basis for any human interaction,
So what is the basis of logic when it comes to
morality? In other words: how can morality be modelled by a logical system?
And this is for the purpose of freeing it from
preconceived beliefs, and the spirituality that people have to accept without
questioning: or god will be angry ...
Religion versus
Religion (5)
Have you seen a law expert, who sits in a
luxurious office, with book shelves up to the ceiling all around, all full of
volumes upon volumes of books of law and legislation and history thereof ...
and who has no idea at all what justice is?
Stuck in the mazes of the laws written by lawmakers, he is incapable of making a sensible judgement about any issue, and the
virtue of justice is blacked out in his mind by the information
on paper,
This is the pathetic mental condition of law professionals today, especially the ones who pontificate to the world on international law
and relations, while taking sides in the disputes and conflicts between the
nations of the word,
Because they see that justice can be carried out
only according to their understanding of it, which is dictated mainly by the
interest of their people and their political and strategic alliances ...
Again, which all boil down to religious affiliation
and beliefs,
Although, those are not discussed frankly and
openly, and barely get a mention in their rhetoric ... perhaps in the belief
that the hush-hush policy can be used as a curtain, behind which they hide
their real intent ...
The real intent which is no different by one iota
from the intent of their enemies: that is self-interest and greed, and the
desire to force everyone who disagrees with them to submit to them: or they’ll
turn on their destructive power,
Hence the race today is not about who is right and
who is wrong, rather about who can force his opinion,
Is physical might right?
At the surface it gives the impression that it is,
because it makes things eventuate,
But might is a truth value, and the physical might
is only the eventuation of that value,
Like every physical phenomenon that can be
described as “powerful”, or “mighty” ... it is only so because there are truths
which make it so ...
So the truth of anything is in fact the might of
it, and not vice versa,
Hence, when it comes to human interaction, it is
the truth in their minds that has to prevail, because humans are discerning
beings,
If they let combat be the determinant: the only
truth of combat is the physical laws which govern it, and those are oblivious
of human values and truths,
In fact the animal kingdom and the movements of the
elements "know" those physical laws much better than any human ...
Religion versus
Religion (6)
Truths are simple, illusions are complex,
Hence when John was asked, if all the laws were to be thrown out which law should replace them, and he gave his answer in a few
words only: want for others what you want for yourself,
Because from whichever latitude you take this
statement, it is true,
Even from a low selfish standpoint: if you are
clever you’d want to give everyone around you the
same rights as you have, because if you’re smart you’d know that one day
they’ll revolt to get them if you do not grant them to them.
But laws are written for authorities to enforce and
uphold their authority, not for people to live justly,
If a faint glimpse of justice is deemed to be
necessary for the assertion of authority then authorities will enforce it,
not because they love justice but because they love their authority,
Justice is not their intention, therefore it always
fires back at them,
If a word is to be given to this knowledge I find
“logic” most appropriate. This is the logic of justice,
It has been delivered in every Book, and turned
upside-down by the Tyranny, that is the clergy, the business and the politics,
And if you think that the world cannot progress, or
in the first place cannot stand up on such basis, think again, because the
world is on the threshold of a catastrophic collapse, by the very force of its
laws ...
Religion versus
Religion (7)
How have religious authorities, old and new
without an exception, managed to get it in people’s minds, that they are the
representatives of god, in whichever way they phrase it?
They will all jump up in self-defence, to say
that they’ve never said that they are the representatives of god,
But they do say it all the time, they say god
allows this and god disallows that, to backup their arguments,
They’ve judged that whoever is not a subject of their
authority, in whichever way they phrase it, is not a believer,
They shed their enemies’ blood and proclaim that
their enemies caused it to themselves,
Hence they have gathered and separated humanity
already and have judged who is to suffer and who is to be salvaged,
They will jump up in self-defence, as if the
dictionaries that they have written matter,
So when we say that pagan beliefs have to end, make
sure you understand what pagan beliefs are,
Whether they practise rituals or not, those who
draw their authority from what they have made up are pagan, whatever the titles
they have awarded themselves,
Do they wonder why the earth’s shudder under their
feet, or do they think that it is only threatening their enemies?
Or do they take what we say lightly, because we do their
attires and self-awarded titles,
Let those who are happy with their attires and
titles have a few more years to reflect,
Because what has been said is hefty on the ears
dormant in their hide of muteness,
A word of truth makes no way to them,
They wait for supernatural beings to appear, as if
the world was ever run by magic,
Or they wait for the grand battle of the armies of
technology, as if wars were ever won by magic,
Let it be known,
Their tricks are many, and their lies run never
out,
But the truth is one, in its shadows everything is
allowed or disallowed
| |  | |  |
