Psychological paradoxes

In a recent interview with me through a podcast audio and video application via YouTube, I talked about the need for new religious readings, especially with regard to the social life issues of women. However, they are human beings without discrimination on the basis of sex. Certainly, this view - as it did many times when it was put forward - provoked strong reactions and anger, which are well understood, predictable and appreciated. Fashionable. The reasons for this methodology are unknown, and most of them are sympathetic in reality, not anger.Violent and verbal violence is only called by a fear that I almost feel in the hearts of religious people opposed to this approach.It is opposed to their fear of their faith and a form of protection for them.The fear is the biggest motive for violence. All this I know and understand, but the strange and contradictory - again, despite my understanding of the motives - is to take a "immoral" approach to defend his "moral system", is not the contradiction is clear? Doesn't the paradox break the eye of the sun?
One of the repeated comments received is also the comment that I am not of a "scientific religious" nature to talk about the religious content, a comment that deserves to ponder. The logic of reading the religious text and interpreting it on the "specialists" who are usually "priesthood" is male (although sometimes biological females). One of the oldest totalitarian dictatorships in which “priests” grab the necks of human beings to follow them in the path of their choice. Who “chose” to live Of interest and jurisprudence. One of the commentators wanted me to remain "courageous and bold," either "accept the words and judgment of God." . . Or we do not accept, and we seek civil legislation that we accept and do not commit ourselves to the Koran or the Gospel or others ». Here two problems appear: The first manifests itself in a question about the source of knowledge of this holy person by the rule of God? How did he decide that a particular explanation in and of itself was God's judgment? The second problem is the naive flattening of the idea. Here I do not say to seek renewed readings of the religious text until the legislation according to it, legislation according to any interpretation of a religious text, whatever the degree of development of this interpretation and fairness carries the same problem in terms of upholding the word of a religion over other religions and doctrines among the same people, and therefore Practicing serious religious discrimination has consequences. But it is intended that the purely secular civil legislation, which is the only solution reached by humans to address the dilemma of religious and sectarian conflict, accompanied by an intellectual revolution supporting him and prove the rules of his rule, by re-reading religious texts to renew their understanding and interpretation more compatible with the democratic political perspective Present civilization.

Tarif's comment came from one of the tweets, to me in my comment on the insults saying: «Meno said that the religious does not skip and insult, so why he found forgiveness and repentance, we are not prophets and messengers of humans only step and share…», a comment despite the wit of justifying insults in it However, there is a very important ethical problematic aspect, which is the side of the religious director of the influential mistakes, where the believer has a constant feeling of security; that no matter what is wrong, there is forgiveness wiping his sins, or a certain system «yellows counting». This feeling of safety in making mistakes always comes from a feeling of superiority.
One of the most naive comments came, after reaffirming my courage, for which I do not know the usefulness of the repetitive mention of the tweets, about my love for certain companions. I looked a lot at the question that posed a real question to myself: If I am actually in the place of the questioner, I think from the point of view and feel his self, you see .. What was interested in answering this question? Why is it important to like or dislike certain individuals? How will that make me more or less faith? What is the importance of my faith or not at all for the liquid who does not know me, and perhaps will not see me in a day? However, the most important aspect of the question is that the owner knows that the public response to him is only possible one answer, others may tell me the perils, what is the benefit of asking a question that the other party does not have the freedom to respond real and comfortable it? How will the answer have an impact if there is no environment that allows it to appear honestly and comfortably? How will the questioner judge the sincerity or lies of the answer at all, which can only bear one face?
I understand the starting points of all these continuous people, but I am still, indeed, fascinated by their attitudes, which are good material for psycho-scientific research: Why are we fighting moral wars immorally? How dare we justify our ethics not motivated by our belief in the morality of the subject being defended? How do we accept victories by silencing, embarrassing and putting others at risk? A peculiar Arab religious mentality, it is one of the last mindsets that still bear the sword to spread the faith in the twenty-first century.

#writing #life #blog #story #history #introduceyourself #steemit #book #religieux #intro #show

https://steemit.com/@casey-steemit