34
Mindaugas 2y ago

CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM / KRIKŠČIONYBĖ, ISLAMAS

OK, so now I am going to do a big no no – criticize religions. Definitely not a straight path to glory, but glory is not my objective. I am just sharing my knowledge hoping it will help somebody, hopefully many, to attain enlightenment. Also, I strongly believe that nothing good can be built on saying untruth or not saying the truth or not saying it clearly enough. Beware that sometimes using {lies} is the only weapon available to protect someone from other lies, but weapons can only be used for goodness in defense. If weapons were not used for assault, they would not have to be used in defense and therefore – at all.

So I will share the difficult truth, too. If this is unacceptable to you now, come back to it later.

Here goes:

I cover these both religions in a single chapter because there is little difference between them.

There are many good things in Christianity and Islam, but they have several major disadvantages:

1. They are made of rules that are presented as universal, suitable for all cases. But they are not. There are circumstances in which each of those rules is incorrect. We need principles, not rules.

2. Directly promote obedience as a virtue (note that obedience is a reaction to an action that is called fascism).

3. They are oriented to the future, not the present. It's all about the soul, which will only be relevant after death, and for now even its very existence is questionable.

Thus, time is wasted on low-priority things that hardly even exist, and the brain is filled with rules that are not quite right, leaving no room and no time for correct principles in the mind, and ultimately blocking further development of the personality.

It is best to choose a different religion. Are these two better than no religion? Maybe better, maybe not. Hard question. Perhaps the most important thing for a person to have is a strong value system. That is, if the absence of religion means the absence of values, then surely one of the two is better than none. But, if it is possible to form solid values without religion, then there is a greater chance of forming more correct values from scratch than submitting to those found in these two religions.

This is an opinion of the author.

Kritikuosiu religijas. Turbūt ne tiesiausias kelias į šlovę :-D, bet šlovė nėra mano tikslas. Aš viso labo dalinuosi savo žiniomis, tikėdamasi, kad jos padės kažkam, tikiuosi daugeliui, pasiekti nušvitimą. Be to, aš tvirtai tikiu, kad nieko gero negalima pastatyti tarp statybinių medžiagų naudojant netiesios sakymą arba tiesos nesakymą. Verta pažymėti, kad kartais {melas} yra vienintelis ginklas, galintis apsaugoti nuo kito melo, tačiau vienintelis būdas panaudoti ginklą geriems tikslams yra ginantis. Jei ginklai nebūtų naudojami puolimui, jų nereikėtų naudoti ir gynyboje.

Taigi, pasidalinsiu sunkia tiesa. Jei skamba nepriimtinai dabar, sugrįžkite prie šito vėliau.

Štai:

Rašau apie šias religijas kartu, nes jos mažai kuo skiriasi.

Turi daug gerų dalykų, bet turi keletą esminių trūkumų:

1. Sudarytos iš taisyklių, kurios pateiktos kaip universalios, tinkamos visiems atvejams. Bet taip nėra. Yra aplinkybių, kuriose kiekviena iš tų taisyklių yra neteisingos. Reikia principų, ne taisyklių.

2. Tiesiogiai aukština paklusnumą kaip vertybę (atkreiptinas dėmesys, kad paklusnumas yra atoveiksmis į veiksmą, kuris vadinasi fašizmas).

3. Orientuotos į ateitį, o ne į dabartį. Viskas yra dėl sielos, kuri bus aktuali tik po mirties, o kol kas, net pats jos egzistavimas abejotinas.

Taigi, švaistomas laikas žemo prioriteto dalykams, kurie neaišku net ar egzistuoja, arba užpildoma galva taisyklėmis, kurios ne visai teisingos, nepaliekant galvoje vietos ir laiko teisingiems principams, ir galų gale blokuojant asmenybės tobulėjimą.

Geriausia rinktis kitokią religiją. Ar geriau šios dvi nei jokios religijos? Gal geriau, o gal ir ne. Sunkus klausimas. Turbūt svarbiausias dalykas žmogui yra turėti tvirtą vertybių sistemą. Tai, jeigu religijos nebuvimas reiškia vertybių nebuvimą, tuomet tikrai geriau viena iš šių dviejų nei nieko. Bet, jeigu galima tvirtas vertybes susiformuoti ir be religijos, tuomet kaži ar ne didesnė tikimybė susiformuoti teisingesnes vertybes pačiam nuo nulio, negu pasiimti tas randamas šiose dviejose religijose.

Čia yra autoriaus nuomonė.

******

- This is one page of a book called Universal Truth. The book will grow for as long as I have thoughts to share

- {} - I have written another post dedicated to this word or phrase

- I define words / phrases in the way I prefer them to be used. It does not necessarily match the definition of lingvists or society

- I am better in Lithuanian than I am in English

- I write this for your enjoyment / benefit, so please ZAP if you like it

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

34
Mindaugas 2y ago

@Cyborg, any thoughts or jokes about this post?

34
Mindaugas 2y ago

nostr:npub13wfgha67mdxall3gqp2hlln7tc4s03w4zqhe05v4t7fptpvnsgqs0z4fun , any thoughts about this post?:

CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM / KRIKŠČIONYBĖ, ISLAMAS

OK, so now I am going to do a big no no – criticize religions. Definitely not a straight path to glory, but glory is not my objective. I am just sharing my knowledge hoping it will help somebody, hopefully many, to attain enlightenment. Also, I strongly believe that nothing good can be built on saying untruth or not saying the truth or not saying it clearly enough. Beware that sometimes using {lies} is the only weapon available to protect someone from other lies, but weapons can only be used for goodness in defense. If weapons were not used for assault, they would not have to be used in defense and therefore – at all.

So I will share the difficult truth, too. If this is unacceptable to you now, come back to it later.

Here goes:

I cover these both religions in a single chapter because there is little difference between them.

There are many good things in Christianity and Islam, but they have several major disadvantages:

1. They are made of rules that are presented as universal, suitable for all cases. But they are not. There are circumstances in which each of those rules is incorrect. We need principles, not rules.

2. Directly promote obedience as a virtue (note that obedience is a reaction to an action that is called fascism).

3. They are oriented to the future, not the present. It's all about the soul, which will only be relevant after death, and for now even its very existence is questionable.

Thus, time is wasted on low-priority things that hardly even exist, and the brain is filled with rules that are not quite right, leaving no room and no time for correct principles in the mind, and ultimately blocking further development of the personality.

It is best to choose a different religion. Are these two better than no religion? Maybe better, maybe not. Hard question. Perhaps the most important thing for a person to have is a strong value system. That is, if the absence of religion means the absence of values, then surely one of the two is better than none. But, if it is possible to form solid values without religion, then there is a greater chance of forming more correct values from scratch than submitting to those found in these two religions.

This is an opinion of the author.