 |
|
|
|
|
 |
(221 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(183 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(180 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
(744 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(123 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
(732 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
(782 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1154 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1323 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(175 words)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| <<<>>> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religion |
|
| Created by Decius at
| [+ favourites]
|
|
|
|
|
Religion is just like any infrastructure on the planet.
Cigarettes aren't illegal, alcohol isn't illegal, yet they are both drugs, just like marijuanna, just like coccaine, just like heroin. The degree of addictivity that exists varies, but they all share common values: They are all bad for you and they are all addictive in a physical or mental sense.
So then, why aren't cigarettes illegal? Is there any rational reason why tobacco is legal but marijuanna is not? Marijuanna is known to be less addictive than tobacco is, yet more illegal.
The reason is quite similar to the reason why there may exist contradictions and un-truths in christianity, hinduism, or any religion.
The fact is, at some point in the past, a group or people came together and decided that their society needed order. The key decision makers created a "charter", or bible which would state whatever rules they thought were accurate at the time.
They create the religion, and people like it (or perhaps the nature of the religion is to get people to like it) and begin to build their lives around it. Their weekly activities, their work, their kids, everything revolves around these rules.
Multiply that by a million, and you have a million people following the same rules, guiding their lives by these rules, and planning the future based on these rules.
Suppose at some point after the religion has become widespread, the people at the top realize they made a grave error in the original "charter". It would make no sense for them to declare these findings. As long as they know the truth, there's no real reason to not only claim that they were wrong, but also thwart the trust that millions of people have placed in them.
The nature of widespread religion is that it does not allow for the possibility of change because people have already accepted it. The laws in North America do not change dramatically because billions of dollars rely on the stability of the current infrastructure, regardless of whether it is correct or not.
Therefore, by definition, widespread religion cannot be trusted, specifically because millions of people already do trust it.
If everyone was somewhat cynical about the "truth" and was willing to take the trouble to discover the truth on their own while using religion as a possible guide, religion would be dynamic rather than stagnant, by definition. Social awareness must change as technology does for at this moment in time we know nothing of technology; how could we possibly know the truth to the social way of life?
Religion provides us with truths, and based on these truths imposes rules on us. This isn't a bad thing, as long as those truths change as more truths are discovered in the world.
The problem with most religions is the more widespread they are, the older their base truths are, which forces people to believe in them less as the times change. That is why nowadays people don't run their lives by the church. It just isn't convenient or realistic enough for the times.
The only conclusion, therefore, is that individual religion is the only true religion for each individual. The moment another person is added to that belief system, the more stagnant it becomes, and the less likely it is to evolve correctly as the human race evolves, adopting new beliefs and dispelling old ones.
In essence, rejecting new philosophical and psychological theories due to old testaments of the truth is similar to disregarding new technological inventions due to loyalty to older, inferior ones. Unfortunately, many religions demand this loyalty of their followers and it therefore becomes far more difficult to attempt to accept social technological advances to better one's life.
The result therefore is an aging group of concepts that were conceived hundreds of years ago, ignorant of the knowledge that has been attained from then till now. By definition, then, a human believing in a tradtional religion with complete devotion admits that nothing new has been learned in the areas of morality, psychology and philosophy since the conceivement of their "charter".
That is to say, humans have ceased evolving spiritually, and remain only technologically behind. To embrace innovative thinking openly is to celebrate the everchanging level of human morality, with optimism for a more advanced dynamic "charter". |
|
|
|
|
| Created by Decius at
|
|
|
