Make your own free website on Tripod.com
 
23 October 1998      About Religion

Moral ... the mirror effect 'don't wish another what you don't wish to ownself'  .... According this all are equal ... egalitarism. But this is valid only partially ... in some things all people are equal .... that they are human beings ... on this level of generalization or abstraction .... but on lower level of consideration the rule is difference. So, moral is a set of rules on higher level of generalization. In practice there are neccessary rules for dealing with different people.
./.
The statement of the Catholics that the God is God how for Theists so for Pagans is an authoritarian statement with intention to devaluate those who has critical standpoints about the God, present onterpretation of religion .... A common arrogancy ... Already the term 'Pagan' is an affront  ... Pagan was not a Church member ... alien ... Similar terms are Green, Jew, Pifke, Toth, Rac, .... Paganism as institution never existed .... If they have no better term to name the opinion of others then better ignore them. Among those who do not accept God are more streems: Atheist, Liberals, Mithologists, Agnostics, .... equally organized or no. The statement about 'pagans' is dominative and undemocratic.
./.
West Europe is democracy only in comparison to dictatorships, communism, fascism. In comparison to Liberalism the term 'democratic' is already not so uniquely valid even for West Europe. Liberalism today does not exist. It is only an imagine or theory or ideology.
./.
All theisms are authoritarian doctrines. ... rooting in ancient societies of Mid East, India, ... Christendoom was not democratically elected by peoples ... it was enforced by different rulers, religious and secular, .... The story sound plausible for the state of mind of average human of that time ... Christendom is a bit misinterpreted Judaism, a pure authoritarian doctrine, .... Christendoom was intended to to make people more free .... free of fear from unknown ..... offering belief in human being derived from transcedental idea as liberation from fear ....but put them under the rule of dictators, deceivers, manipulators, ..... I do not know what was the original doctrine of Europe before it took over Christendoom from Romans and Greeks ... ....In Europe there were rebels against the church ... but these rebels also called themselves on God .... so lot of unclear ....
./.
Catholic church cannot be considered as democratic organization. They do not tolerate other views. They cannot suppose that the source of idea and value is human individual .... according them all is coming from some outside power ... so, all reality is only God's 'shadow'. Human should not have own standpoint, one must consider oneself only through the eyes of the God .... for them the only reality is God ... human is a poor machine driven by God ...or used ... without own identity ... On the other hand, human can not know anything about God, becuse this human is of infrior value in comparison to God  ...Human existence is God's will ... human need not to bother about own existence because cannot understand it. What human is doing is only what God is doing. Here is not the problem that somebody has not right to communicate his/her imagines about the other system or higher system but the way how they are doing this. With this way of communication they are posing themselves in a position of manipulator, hiding cause, exposing only effects. And they are still arguing that what they say are words of God. With this they are putting themselves above the human. They suceeded to integrate a relative large group of people with this story but disintegrated many individual lives. For this their success somebody else payed a very high price.
./.
God is human's picture about another system. But it is almost impossible to prove its correctness. It is a possibility, it can be and need not be. Both possibilities are equal. And one has right to believe in this picture with some probability higher than average, but it is good if one is letting several percents of critical standpoint to it. But they require 100% belief.
./.
Ideas are human creations. So, there can be so many of them how many humans are on the Earth. When it is not possible to bring evidence about the correctnes then the decision must be based either on democratic consensus or every to stay with own, this is tolerance. This is reality. Somebody who believes in some idea, as different from things and from nature just present around us, then one could expect that somebody else can have a different idea, and if the encounter happens in some competive field, then rules are neccessary to solve the disputs. These rules are democracy.
./.
These ideas about God are about the greatest whole one can imagine. This is thinking in globals. It requires whole information which is not present. So, the reality is partiality, not whole. And there is also no proof that thinking in globals is advantageous over thinking in partialities. One can arrieve to same point in space following only partial information in right succession with much less the same effort and same time as with a good overlook and map .... other things being equal.
./.
Global ideas are heuristics for new situations. Human's grasping of his/her existence was a new event in past times. Human needed some guide and created it in form of religion, belief in God. Today human is equipped with much sophisticated knowledge about environment in which is living .... so the religion should also be new.
./.
Liberty is also global idea but its content is different.
./.
Is internet replacement for God?
./.
Religion is a trial to definy the individual and collective(social) equilibrium and stability .... Equilibrium and stability of individual is given mainly by his/her (-1) level .... PSY, MET, GEN, .... The first religions tried to inerprete this (-1) level by the influence of higher system ..... the creator .... But the rules they prescribed were right for that times ... but I am not sure wether they are the best ones for nowday .... I think there are better interpretations ....The present human is on a half way between the start and some ideal ....
./.
Religions argu that individuals do not need to make decisions at all only to follow the orders of authorities ... because all is decided ahead by some higher power ... and authorities are denominated by this higher power ... so if one is trying to decide something on his/her own, one will come in conflict with this higher power and authority  .... Is this truth?
./.
All present religions and moral system prescribe loyalty to authority ... not loyalty to oneself ... the latter is disvalue ... So, the identity of individual is recognized only when is attached from outside .... from inside individual is zero ....
./.
According God .... God gave human group environment .... in which it can live ... to have equlibrium and stability ... by the act of creation ... God decided all ... gave rules... [[[[[[If so then one can argue that God prescribed wars also ... Or is possible God a human invention with the aim to ....Or the problem is that God gave rules under the assumption that all individuals are same ... copy of one original ... Is this assumption correct ...Rules are interpreted by different paeople ...]]]]]]
./.
God's religion teaches that God as main authority, creator, ... created human being and its surronding as an automatic machine which will follow God's instructions unconsciously, that all what human percepts and thinks are only manifestations of God's will. But the same imagin can also be described in another way: as conscious acts of every individual as supreme decision maker about ones own life. The only thing what individual cannot attach to ones own will (or to mankind) is the creation of the humans surronding. Human heredeted this, found it as given when one became conscious. So, we have primary nature as given by higher system (as matter and idea) and the man-made nature (matter and human's idea) as reshaped primary nature. In this latter human has full decision freedom and responsibility. This is the view of open systems as compared to the first view, which is of the closed system.
./.
Your comment:
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar



9 February 1997
./.
Religion ...... Human individual in his/her environment .... Human individual is a thiny slice between two environments ....one inside him .... he/she cannot command his/her cells ..... another is outside, one cannot command other people, groups, nature ......So, the choices for individual are not great ..... one can influence the outer environment easier than the internal one ..... The outer environment can be more authoritarian or more liberal .... letting more or less choices to individual ..........But what kind of invoronment is the internal .... authoritarian or liberal?
./.
Your comment:
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar


17 March 1996
./.
Communist principle of weighing good ... bad personality ..... One can be good in many fields but if one fails on ideology one is out ..... all good is annulated overnight .... remains only bad. With this they succeded to overturn the social values in the system and to bring the system in bancruptcy. They made ideology is absolute, all other was relative. What should be the democratic principle? Humans are specialized, one is good in ideology another in science. With earned money in one field one can compensate weak fields in another. Ideology is also relative.
./.
Your comment:
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar


21 May 1995
./.
System thinkimg and religious thinking .....
- system thinking ......
      a. structures, system(0) and its available environment(0) (both real) are a slice between two environments, (+ 1) and (-1)
      (both transcedental)
      b. fuctiion ..... system(0) is in interaction with its available environment(0) but both, the system(0) and its available
      environment(0) are in interaction with environments (-1) and (+1) but considering the standpoint is from the sustem(0) the
      interaction of available environment(0) with the environments (-1) and (+1) is neglected
- religious thinking .... God is the highest level(0), above it does not exist anything .... a closed system ......only below it ... human is part of God and a sub-system commanded by God .....
./.
The features of structure are complexity (number of parts and subparts in the whole) and integrity (type of relations between parts and subparts).
The features of function are the interaction between system and its environments and the effects from this interaction how on system so on environment.
./.
In this context questions: what is authority, what liberty, what transcedental, what real.
./.
According authoritarian doctrine individual cannot estimate his/her environment correctly, so this environment and the interaction with it must be prescribed by some authoritarian institution which control the behaviour of every individual. This is Theory X. Human functions good only if under supervision, othervise is bad.
./.
Libertarians argue that individual can estimate his/her environment correctly and can interact with it without the prescriptions of authoritarian institutions. This isTheory Y. Human can function good also without the supervisor because it is motivated to function so by his/her needs and abilities.
./.
And here are the traditional descriptions of notions good and bad:
-good .....kindness, indulgence, humanity, sensibility, chariatbility, sillfulness, cleverness, expertism, quality (required), pleasentness (agrreable, nice), tasteful, ability to acquire pleasure, advantage, benefit, worthwile, profit, attractive, workable, intensive, serious, in conformity with ideal, moral, useful, helpful, owner, rich, creative, in accord with needs, happy, fortune, lucky, sane, perfect, preferable, ....
- bad ..... fault, imperfect, without value, without interest, dangerous, harmful, injurious, without quality, nasty, wicked, naughty, not serious, miserable, fantasy, ill, aggressive, cause boredom, tedious, monotone, trouble, annoy, problem, hurt, tired, bad character, restless, troubled, ....
Naturally these are aproximations, ....... But the peoblem is that these features are usually understood absolutely. In reality one can be good in relation to one person and bad in relation of some another. Then what is he: good or bad?
./.
Your comment:
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar


20 November 1994
./.
It seems in authoritarian system there are two interpretation of wahat is justice: one is on line with existing legality, the another is illegal from the first standpoint but ... is possible justice ....for individual. In freedom there can be only one, becasue there is only one standpoint ... individual ....
./.
Your comment:
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar


27 October 1994
./.
The question of God or Freedom is of the type 'What was first: the chicken or the egg'. That means unsolvable. But Theists persecuted, killed, terrorized millions in the name of their truth ..... they made themselves absolute authority .... enforced a way of thinking for which there is no any proof that it is right ..... that is in the base of human being .....
./.
Your comment:
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar


26 October 1994
./.
God or Ideal? Christian Church argues that in Freedom can believe only those who believe in God. The same church argues that God created the world. But creation means decision making .... alternatives ..... and choice ...... To decide, one needs freedom of choice. So, Freedom existed before God.
./.
Your comment:
©Copyright 2001 Pavel Kollar