Interesting and Humour - page 4224
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The essence of religions is to enslave people's minds, and fairy tales about conscience and justice always remain fairy tales....
Religious fanatics of monotheism destroyed dissenters and even entire cultures, what an interesting conscience they have, selective, isn't it?
The Bolsheviks (Orthodox Christians by the way, and there were no others at the time) turned out to be fanatical destroyers...
similar processes took place in china...
communism is also a mono-religion...
checkmate...
This is where I disagree with you. If someone is enslaving, robbing, destroying, killing, etc. under the guise of religion, it is not religion's fault. I am far from familiar with the texts of the holy scriptures, but is there a call for all of the above? Something tells me it's the interpreters calling for it. What's religion got to do with it?
To all atheists
And it is strange to the thinking atheist that someone has to believe in a man in heaven, and a monster under the ground, in order not to do harm to themselves and people. Although it would seem...
This is where I disagree with you. If someone, under the guise of religion, enslaves, robs, destroys, kills, etc., it is not religion's fault. I am far from familiar with the texts of the holy scriptures, but is there a call for all of the above? Something tells me it's the interpreters calling for it. What's religion got to do with it?
It's not that simple, and of course if the sacred texts explicitly say "robbery-kill" then such a religion will not find support among the civilian population,
that's why in any religion the texts are multi-layered and allow the reader to see confirmation of whatever - it's the interpretation that counts,
and the role of the interpreter is monopolized by church hierarchs or muftis in islam or kohen/levites...
so it is possible to find a justification for war in peaceful texts if you want (radical Islam does that)
Religion is not directly to blame - that's right - it does not call for mayhem,
but the fault of religion is that it dulls the mind and deprives the critical ability to think for oneself,
remember, religion calls its followers nothing less than "flock", "servants of God", etc. - that's kind of a hint...
and in general it should be offensive probably? - but they are not, they are used to being passive,
that's the 'fault' of monotheistic religions - they're a tool to turn people into obedient 'god-fearing' slaves,
instill in them fear, a sense of sinfulness and so on. - so they make them a conformist mass,
and if a persuasive interpreter comes along and says do this, they'll do that -
that's what's dangerous.
The essence of religions is to enslave people's minds, and fairy tales about conscience and justice always remain fairy tales....
Religious fanatics of monotheism destroyed dissenters and even entire cultures, what an interesting conscience they have, selective, isn't it?
The Bolsheviks (Orthodox Christians by the way, and there were no others at the time) turned out to be fanatical destroyers...
similar processes took place in china...
communism is also a mono-religion...
checkmate...
Another very profitable business, without VAT, personal income tax and other government "extortions" - taxes.
A candle factory is a dream for priests!
Usually the adherents of religions emphasise conscience, justice, kindness...
but conscience and religion are very different things,
and that's where you get confused,
you don't have to be religious to have a conscience,
the opposite is also true ))))
Thus simple logic shows that religion is not necessary here as well...
Substitution of notions is the main trick which religious adherents do,
For example, in the video about futurism and transhumanism (which is where it all began) the speaker makes a classic substitution of notions:
she (Chetverikova) says, brokenly, that the church is separated from the state (secular power),
followed by this phrase: - and it turns out that believers are separated from the state,
from which she concludes that believers are being discriminated against,
That's great, isn't it?
But, wait a second, first, church and believers are not the same thing,
nor are faith and religion the same thing,
and also, believers are in no way disenfranchised on a par with non-believers,
and no one has separated them from the state and they can participate fully on an equal basis with everyone else,
but of course we understand why Chetverikova says that:
this sophism is a veiled attempt to "sway rights" and privileges for a certain group of people,
there's nothing else behind it...
This example of sophism, like the one above with conscience, is typical of the rhetoric of the adherents of monotheism,
so they're trying to justify the role and necessity of religion as the primary element of life,
However, as it has been already shown earlier, religion does not improve morality and conscience of the masses,
and the 1000-year history of Christianity in Russia and the revolution of 1917 clearly confirm it...
Besides - life is too complicated to try to explain it with the texts of two-thousand years ago,
I repeat - the Bible (as well as the Vedas, the Torah, the Koran...) is an outstanding monument of literature,
I repeat - the Bible (the Vedas, the Torah, the Koran...) is an outstanding monument of literature - but trying to use legends and parables by transposing them directly into life - no good can come of it,
It would also be very foolish to put one book above/before the others...
Besides - life is too complicated to try to explain it with texts from two-thousand years ago,
I repeat - the Bible (like the Vedas, the Torah, the Koran ...) is an outstanding monument of literature,
but trying to use legends and parables by transposing it directly into life - no good will come of it,
It would also be very foolish to put one book above/before the others...
A fairy tale.
Ilya Muromets is driving along the road. Look, there's a rogue Nightingale sitting in a tree, and he tells him:
С. Give me your purse, Ilya, or I will whistle!
И. (being surprised): Yes, well.
S. howls.
He listened and listened, and then he put Nightingale in a sack.
Elijah comes to the court and says:
Here, Prince, here is a present for you, Nightingale, he whistles well, let him entertain your people.
Just a fairy tale, like an old one, but not stale at all.
Some are slaves of God, some are slaves of progress, some are slaves of the Beatles, all are slaves of the electricity that is in our computers - there are no absolutely free people: we are all slaves of something, slaves of what we like, slaves of what we think is right.
There are "slaves of television", there are "slaves of social networks", there are "slaves of smartphones",
but in any case, voluntary enslavement is very stupid.
But there is a very significant difference between the "slaves of God" and all other varieties of slaves: the slaves of God prepare to present their souls to God - a hopeless audience for enrichment at their expense.
This rhetoric makes no sense as we are not doing theology now, and the concept of god - outside the context of religion - is nothing more than Russell's kettle.
Other case with fighters against opium for people: profitable business, especially last 100 years, atheism was very profitable goods, now "parent №1 and parent №2" simply a trend, and who will move against trend? And so hate the servants of God who do not care about trends, who do not care about the benefits of manufacturers of progress - they do not care about that, they prepare their souls for a future immortal life. and it is not about what they believe in, but the process by which they go to this their ideal.
No one hates the "slaves of God", on the contrary, they are sympathetic,
and by the way, no one's stopping them from doing what they normally do,
But for some reason the "slaves of God" find it necessary to speak about themselves and their religion, often intrusively, and even to tell other people how to live correctly.
PS.
In Christianity, among the freest people are monks. In former times there were believers who considered monks not free enough - they went away into forests, caves, lived on handouts - didn't depend on anything and no one: they were occupied only with themselves - this is freedom.
Hermitism has existed at all times and in all nations,
most accentuated in India, where this tradition has reached a special level,
The practice of Buddhist retreats has developed to such an extent that it has now become even popular with Europeans )))))
they take away their tablets and phones, they live the simplest life, meditate, work in the field, generally pleasant exoticism, minimum communication, maximum meditation.
Fairy tale.
Ilya Muromets is driving along the road. Look, in a tree sits a robber- Nightingale, who tells him:
С. Give me your purse, Ilya, but I will whistle!
И. (being surprised): Yes, well.
S. howls.
He listened and listened, and then he put the Nightingale in a sack.
Elijah comes to the court and says:
Here, Prince, here is a present for you, Nightingale, he whistles well, let him entertain your people.
It is just a tale, seemingly ancient, but not stale at all.
Every legend and myth has its allegorical meaning, sometimes it may be applicable to some situations, sometimes it may not...
The image of the Nightingale Robber was originally a monster - a bird or a griffin,
and some researchers have noted its resemblance to the dragon-born primeval chaos I wrote about earlier,
it probably acquired anthropomorphic features and an oriental appearance when it encountered its eastern neighbours,
You can find parallels to the original image in other peoples, though not always the dragon is clearly opposed to the protagonist,
In the Belarusian epos it is a horned falcon, but it is interesting to note similarities with the main Indo-European myth:
The struggle of the thunder god (in the tale it is Ilya, and in mythology it is Perun) with the monster of chaos, the Serpent,
and here again there are parallels with the battles of Marduk versus Tiamat, Thor versus Jormungand, Hercules versus Hydra and many others,
So the plot is retold as a whole the same, the details change, it speaks in favour of the monomyth theory,
Whether casual or not, Elijah's namesake prophet Elijah is responsible for the element of storm and lightning as he replaced Perun,
this is confirmed by Dmitriev V., Dymchenko L. in the book "Fundamentals of Religious Studies" and other authors,
So here, as in many other cases Christianity simply copied and renamed elements of the myth,
all that said, you have to try to analyse the ancient sources to get a fuller picture,
but the story of Elijah's rumbling chariot is taken from the original story of the chariot of fire,
and this attribute brings him closer to some Greek gods, including Apollo,
another prophet, Ezekiel, also rode in a chariot, and this chariot in general is very interesting, but that's for another time,
there's some scary stuff in there that maybe it's better not to dissect...
There's a film on the subject of smelling, by the way.) Not even a film, but a whole series, a South Korean one.
It's calledThe Girl Who Can Smell.