The Inevitable Dossier
15 October, 2019
Server time: 14:42
 
The Dossier
Download it now!
Download statistics
Page hit statistics
Old statistics
Online reading
Sympathize
Corner Banner
Support / Donate
The Inevitable 'I'
Google Ads


Creeper
MediaCreeper
 
7. The "Light" (7.2.5-7.2.6)
Written by Messiah   
Thursday, 06 July 2006

7.2.5    Basic value: Equal respect

Treat each others with “equal respect” have been mentioned by many profound individuals throughout history, but did they really understand the purpose of the words? In most cases its religious leaders who create the border of faith, which in fact can and probably must be seen as the greatest action of no equal respect. Many holy texts contain stuff that is in direct conflict with the ideals of equal respect which on the other hand in many cases serves as the basic ideal of the text itself. Holy texts are not really my area of knowledge, but if they along with everything else aren’t evolved along with the inevitable constant, they most likely will serve their readers with reversed understanding. Instead of being enlightened, they instead will learn to live in the shadows of understanding, not mentally prepared for life itself. Life will become a constant battle against the evolved humanity and the inevitable constant instead of a life along with all others species in the world. A good example regarding respect is the argumentation against for example homosexuality, which seems to be popular at the moment. Well, if one uses the Bible as argument against homosexuality, I wonder why we haven’t heard similar arguments regarding these parts in the bible:

Bible - Exodus 21:2

-    “If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.”

Comment: It’s OK to buy slaves.

Bible - Exodus 21:7

-    “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do”

Comment: Selling slaves is also OK.

Bible - Corinthians 11:8-9

-    “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

Comment: Men are more valuable than women.

Bible - Numbers 5:27-28

-    "And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that caused the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed."

Comment: Abortion is OK

Bible - Revelation 2:22-23

-    “Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he who searched the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.”

Comment: Kill innocent children are OK

The above lines from the bible are just a few of countless numbers of old ideals. Let’s face it - You can’t use some parts of the bible just because it suit ones agenda. Therefore it’s the agenda itself witch is interesting. Why being hostile against homosexuality for example? Could it be as simple as trying to keep a certain level of moral and ethics in society by using the bible as a tool? Well, if one would try to accept that, one can possibly say that we all, religious or not, are doing the same using different tools with different success. It would be interesting to do a test about which side of the border that produces highest levels of moral and ethics in society. My guess is that religions of today in many cases do not really produce high moral or ethics. They think they do but they may just create contrast shields around their members which limit personal abilities in life and instead forms a frontier in a holy war of moral and ethics. An example of this is the way that women are covering their bodies and face in the Muslim world. The main reason as far as I understand is to make men less tempted to interact with them. Who can possibly related this to an act of equal respect? I say that it’s more likely that such a shield just stops the mental evolution of men’s relation to women. Wouldn’t it be better if men learnt how to handle their own feelings concerning women’s, so that both could live life on equal basis?

7.2.6    Religious and none religious commons

Regarding the above, it must have become obvious that there are a number of commons between religious and none religious views of life. Even if both sides will argue about so many differences, could it be possible that the arguments are just based different interpretations of our common history. If both sides would agree on the fundamental truth that “God” is the “Light”, then religious leaders can begin to re-evaluate their holy texts and the scientists can rethink their own faith as they already have come up to the conclusion that energy (light) is the source of everything. This would make even an atheist a believer. Not likely in a personalized “God” with values written in a holy book, but in the source itself. There shouldn’t be any obvious conflict if religious leaders kept personalizing “God” with values and purposes. However, they must adapt to the understanding that everyone, even the greatest sinner is a creation of God. I’m fully convinced that we, mankind, need moral and ethic guidance, but if religious leaders are interested in shoulder this task, they also must shoulder the burden to unite mankind even under the most difficult circumstances. One of these difficult scenarios is to understand that religious leaders cannot judge mankind based on holy texts written based on values that do not exist anymore. We must understand that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments to make him realize the importance of rights and responsibilities. In the same way Moses needed his ten commandments, ruler Hammurabi of Egypt needed his 282 laws around 1750 BC, which brought order to the people. One can compare this with founding constitutions, laws and regulations. All the profound, educated and understanding individuals involved when creating such, are made up by generations of inherited understanding (Light/God). To use religion against for example homosexuality may have been accepted in history. However, in our modern world were law and order has evolved with mankind’s understanding this can’t be accepted. As one understands that it is an enormous task to over bridge the gaps of mankind’s values, one also would understand that who else but the religious leaders would serve as the perfect part for this task. I can foresee that religions as we see them today will die out. Who can build faith in religious leaders that can’t interact with mankind without creating conflicts? I don’t mean that the old holy books should be burned. I mean that they should be used more wisely and new books need to be written.

 

 


 
Google Translator
Inevitable Ads
Advertisement
 
 
Visitors
Today 's Top 20
 100 % United States
Amazon Ads

 
       
© 2019 The Inevitable Dossier