http___yvesmarineau.com_blog_ga_2011_02_12_tionscnamh-na-reiligi_C3_BAin-Arabach-...__1.xml
1.1 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.1 6.2 7.1 8.1 8.2 9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.1 11.2 12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 15.2 16.1 17.1 18.1 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 20.1 20.2 21.1 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 24.1 25.1 26.1 27.1 27.2 28.1 28.2 28.3 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 30.1 31.1 31.2 31.3 32.1 33.1 33.2 33.3 34.1 35.1 36.1 36.2 37.1 38.1 39.1 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.4 40.5 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 42.1 42.2 42.3 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 43.7 44.1 44.2 44.3 44.4 44.5 44.6 44.7 45.1 45.2 46.1 47.1 47.2 48.1 48.2 48.3 49.1 50.1 51.1 52.1 53.1 54.1 55.1 55.2 56.1 56.2 57.1 57.2 57.3 57.4 58.1 58.2 59.1 60.1 60.2 60.3 61.1 62.1 63.1 64.1 64.2 64.3 65.1 65.2 66.1 67.1 67.2 68.1 68.2 68.3 69.1 69.2 69.3 70.1 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 72.1 72.2 72.3 72.4 72.5 73.1 73.2 73.3 73.4 73.5 74.1 75.1 75.2 76.1 76.2 77.1 77.2 78.1 79.1 79.2 80.1 81.1 82.1 82.2 82.3 83.1 83.2 83.3 83.4 83.5 84.1 84.2 84.3 84.4 85.1 86.1 87.1 87.2 87.3 88.1 89.1 89.2 90.1 90.2 91.1 92.1 92.2 92.3 92.4 92.5 92.6 93.1 94.1 95.1 95.2 95.3 96.1 96.2 97.1 98.1 98.2 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 100.1 101.1 101.2 102.1 103.1 103.2 104.1 104.2 104.3 104.4 104.5 104.6 104.7 104.8 104.9 105.1 105.2 106.1 106.2 107.1 107.2 108.1 108.2 109.1 110.1 111.1 111.2 111.3 111.4 111.5 111.6 112.1 112.2 112.3 112.4 112.5 112.6 112.7 112.8 112.9 113.1 114.1 115.1 115.2 115.3 115.4 115.5 115.6 116.1 116.2 117.1 118.1 119.1 119.2 120.1 121.1 122.1 122.2 122.3 122.4 123.1 123.2 123.3 124.1 125.1 126.1 127.1 127.2 127.3 127.4 128.1 128.2 128.3 128.4 129.1 130.1 130.2 131.1 132.1 133.1 133.2 134.1 135.1 136.1 136.2 136.3 136.4 137.1 138.1 138.2 138.3 138.4 139.1 139.2 139.3 139.4 140.1 140.2 140.3 140.4 140.5 140.6 141.1 142.1 142.2 142.3 142.4
Or ORIGIN OF RELIGIONS ... or WHY ARABS ARE VERY CONSERVATIVE? …DUE TO THE INVENTION OF WRITING ...! Because writing only been 5 000 years old. There is no written source on the thinking of legendary societies. We must therefore infer, from historical and anthropological studies, of the "primitive" “primitive”, the first assumption. THE SEPARATION OF BODY AND MIND.[1] For the primitive, as for us, the dream is so realistic that we feel that our mind leaves our body when we dream. Hence the origin of the myth of the separation of body and mind. Contact Us, it is now clear that both are completely unified, but it was not obvious to the primate, who thinks so unrealistic, and believes his own impression as if it were science. There are still, today, people who believe that the spirit leaves the body; that speak of astral – or, who think flying in their sleep. I confess to have personally flown into the house several times when I was young. Yet no one ever claimed to have seen; in this state, something that is outside the statistical coincidence – party of reality. If so, there are people who have seen things! Combination of numbers safe unfold before them. See his neighbor or his neighbor take a shower (I would have liked it, I have a beautiful neighbor!), etc.. D’ailleurs, notice to interested, I wrote a large number, with a large felt, on a sheet of paper that I put on my fridge. I challenge, whoever, to tell me that number is written, and on what it is and what is the sheet color? The original myth of the separation of body and mind, would be at the origin myths of the life of the spirit after death, of reincarnation and beyond, of heaven and of hell ..., etc.. ANIMIST SOCIETIES Once the myth of the separation of body and mind firmly rooted in the mentality, it was enough for the primate combines any "manifestation" natural or "supernatural" to the spirit of the missing ancestors. So, all events, object or living being can be invested with the spirit of the ancestors. Since the body and mind can be separated, in the primitive way of thinking, mind can, "Logically" survive the death of the body. The mind can, still, manifest himself to the living! So, belief in reincarnation, the spirits, etc.. POLYTHEISM Inside, the primitive societies, children are not raised by parents, but by the clan or extended family (grandparents, uncles, haunts, neighbors, etc.) So, not surprising that the dead spirits come in various forms. Over time, and generations from, minds of and their ancestors has reified in the concept of godx. Hence the appearance of the gods which will be linked to the sun, ocean, Earth, Fertility, etc.. Of course, after millions of years, the origin of the gods and the reification lost their origins with time. As no written tradition was existing, there is only oral tradition, through his stories and psalms, that come to our recent society. MONOTHEISM In Jewish society, clan disappears in favor of single-family nucleic. Children are not raised by the clan, but by the family. Whose father, serves as principal of Patriarch, if not authoritarian. It is family authority, hence the importance of the male line in the Old Testament, characteristic of patriarchal societies. The ancestors are now the fathers. The society will henceforth polytheistic, but monotheistic, the image of family structure. The gods become, the god. The one we now call God, father ...! RELIGIONS ARAB If the Arab religions differ from animistic and polytheistic societies on the basis of monotheism, this is where, the only major distinction. Apart from this difference, the Arab way of thinking, is the same as all traditionalists societies, so primitive. Arab thought seems to be a : "You think as I say, sinon…! "While, actually, this is a big "we all think the same thing" in the collective unconscious. Deviance is not allowed in primitive society. Everyone must think the same way. What Durkheim calls "thinking in unison". Deviants are disposal, released outside the clan, or just stoned to death. Jews where stoning Christians. Because Jesus was thinking a little differently from the orthodox Jewish. But beware, Stoning is not religious, nor Arabic. Stoning is characteristic of primitive societies of the Mediterranean. We find stoning in a wide variety of cultures, and religions existed. JUDAISM Arabic Religionsincluding, Judaic, Christian and Muslim, are a crystallization of Arab customs, d'il y a 3 000 years in Egypt for Judaism. There are also several passages in the Old Testament that come from the first known monotheistic religion, Egyptian-born (is, coincidence that as the Jews), ... ... The solar cult of Aten! CHRISTIANITY Jesus was a Jew, So parents where with Middle Eastern culture (Arabic). He studied Judaism, and made some minor changes. Hence the condemnation of the monks of Judaism, who demanded to Roman that Jesus ... finally should be killed by crucifixion for religious "blasphemy"! But in general, he only retransmit the primitive traditions that still existed there 2 000 years that have been written in by so-called "sacred" texts. L’ISLAM Muhammad was an Arab (from Saudi Arabia). And has, also, that retransmit the values of his time to it over 1 000 years in Saudi. RELIGIOUS WRITING OR RELIGION OF THE WRITING Religions are a written crystallization of customs that existed in the primitive Arabic societies before the existence of writting. Writing appeared only 5 000 years old, but has beginning his "devastation" only 2 000 years old. Previously we spoke only of religious sects. There could be as many sects as that there is communities. The Roman Empire was a mosaic of diverse religious cultures. In the early Christianism themselves were talking about sects, speaking about Jewish . But, writing would change the game. The Jews did not even know writing at the beginning of Judaism. The table of laws had been written in... Aramaic! Since few cultures had writing, its mass effect took a long time to spread because only few people could read. Imagine the impact of a table of laws written for a nation of illiterates. The impact was as big if not more so today with the release of a new "sacred" gadget . The arrival of writing could only give a sanctity to the plebs from any text from the ancestors. Jesus, like Muhammad also, could neither read nor write! Surprising for “son of god”! (In fact they never claimed to be the son of god. It is their successors who have claimed. Reification posthumously. It reminds you of something? (see before.)) But their words, or what one has reported in writing[2], have survived to them. And texts, and their reproductions have reach huge amounts of people. Allowing, what would normally be a local oral Arab sect, become religions with hundreds of millions of members. So it is the appearance of writing that is at the origin of religions .... Otherwise Judaism, Christianity and Islam would never have been more than only minor regional Arab sects as there were both at the time. But, they themselves be "lucky" to be right in the place of the appearance of writing ...! The Sumerian Arab empire! Arab sects have been the first in the world to take advantage of writing to be transmitted around the world. Hence the predominance of Judeo-Christian and Islamic, so Arabic, around the world. So, we should said that the "large", on behalf, monotheistic religions were born from writing rather than the invention of god! So it is the Arab sects that have spread, like wildfire, around the world in the form of religion through writing. Because the distinction between sect and religion is based only on the number of members of the sect. Not to mention the later invention of printing by Gutenberg, which has enabled an explosion of the expansion of Arab religions, that were already in place, throughout Europe. Printing at 15th century allowed to serve the colonizers, who used the printed Bible to indoctrinate the peoples of all the planet. Colonization and printing have therefore allowed to cover the planet's primitive thinking from traditionalist Arabic cultures to the detriment of local ones. The Bible does say : "Slave you should submit yourself to your master"? What better way for slave societies? And, to parody Bourdieu[3], it's written, So it's true! But, there are some who still believe that a god may be for slavery! When in fact, Those writings are the crystallization of primitive traditional Arabic customs, of a few thousand years. PHILOSOPHY Philosophy will differ dramatically from religion. When Buddha says : "Do not believe everything I say," he opened the door to a way of thinking radically opposed to that of the primitive religions which take traditionalist thinking that says, and orders: "Believe everything I tell you". But, philosophy will not benefit, from the beginning, de l'écriture. It will therefore take a few centuries behind the development of religions. Asian philosophy probably precedes all the philosophies known. But, as philosophy was not born in the seat of writing, Middle East, it will grow, really, only later. The writing does develop in Asia, in Greece and Europe only after the Middle East. Arab religion will therefore, a step ahead of the philosophy, through transmission mode of writing. That's why philosophy was relegates to second place during the Middle Ages. Religion is in fact the vast blackness of philosophical thought throughout this period. For this reason, still, that our thinking is, again and again, much closer to that of primitive societies, as rational and logical thinking that will exist in 1 000, 10 000 or 1 million years. Philosophy is perhaps no more than 3 000 years old. But primitive traditional thinking has been around for millions of years! So what thinking mode still dominates us do you think? Our culture is still totally imbued with the primitive way of thinking. You can not pass a primitive thought, a rational thought, in a few thousand years. Our thinking is still largely based on that of our most primitive ancestors. If philosophy had appeared where the writing is born! We would not have had a long detour through the dogma of religion and eventually lead back to rationality a few centuries later. We can say that religion has been a long error because the un-reason. ARE WE MODERN? OR STILL IN THE SACRED? Most people are not yet able to think for themselves, and need to be dictating, and to comply, the common thought primitive. As described by anthropologists[4], in primitive society, only "the one with the word" speaks. And he speaks only to repeat continuously the values, customs and habits, of his traditional primitive society. We made the mistake of translating the Hebrew title of Jesus by "prophet" in English. But, actually the translation just does not exist in English. If we wanted to translate his profession successfully, we should say ... "The one who possesses the word"! Exactly the same way as we give, in primitive societies, to the one with the "word" of ancestors. The one who repeats the ancestral teachings of the fathers. Teachings which survived, only those who conformed. Because for survival, in traditional societies, had to comply with the cycles of the seasons, in order to gather and hunt, then raise and cultivate, for its own survival and that of the community. Those who wanted to defy the rules do not necessarily have survived. Those who sow the fields before winter starved. Only conformists, who planted the fields in spring, survived. Those who have listened to their fathersincluding clan and their biological father (or adoptive) survived. Those words have thus enabled the survival of the species, as well as social life. These words, thus became "sacred". Because the tradition was, in cyclical companies, a guarantee of survival. Imagine Tomorrow, the first standard of any society : "Thou shalt not kill" does not exist. The company would have not survive even a generation. If everyone lived alone in his cave, and that even the men and women killing each other, the human race would have disappeared long ago, because they can not even reproduce. This "law", "Thou shalt not kill", transmitted by the ancestors, and allowing the survival of the species, has become inevitable sacred, therefore "divine" as anything that ensures the survival of the species. The ancestral laws have slowly transformed into "divine law". The sacred is thus inevitable. In primitive societies it has lost its primary reason, sometimes rational, based on an explanatory reason, as is : respect for life. But, there is sometimes irrational or obsolete bases. This is what distinguishes religion, religious dogma, coming from the original dogmatism, of philosophy. Religion has lost its original rational basis and it also includes myths and beliefs, and without making any distinction. MODERN RELIGION Modern societies no longer live in a cyclic mode[5] following the seasons. We live in a linear society with an exponentially explosion of technologic and knowledge . Human beings no longer interacts with its environment on a cyclical basis. Repeating the same process each year tailored to the seasons. In economically developed societies work is a-cyclical, it is linear. Repeating every day, but turning in processes that have come to change the seasonal cycle itself! Technological development is not created to fit the natural cycles, but change and alter the natural cycle. But how do we respond to these changes? In primitive and irrational traditional ways, or logical and rational? When this is 50 years is said that pollution kills, and people still burn oil, knowing that murder is a crime, do they act so primitive (irrational) or modern (logic)? In 50, 100 or 1000 years old, when people will learn that we have killed to get around and the huge natural disasters that they live, are caused by our conservatism, Does they will say that we where modern people, or primitive ones? Here is proof, that our thinking is still much closer to that of the caveman, then that the rational being that we believe to be. And we will be more rational, unfortunately too late. Because human beings learn more from mistakes, rather than a rational expectation, effects of his actions. The people of 21th century still believe in a primitive, reassuring ways. Compliance is required. It reassures. Being told what to do, and what to think, what behavior to repeat day after day, is reassuring, and less disruptive, that free thought and behavior change. Because human culture is inherently conservative, of its origins. The high priests, who have speech, were replaced by the high priests of consumerism. Advertising plays exactly the same role, unifying, the priests of primitive societies. Today people are quite critical to say do not do what the advertising tells them, but everyone still has a gasoline car to the door! Everyone likes to do like everybody else, and gather in large gatherings cultural, or sports, as before, in processions, to church to receive communion together .... THE CONFLICT RELIGION VERSUS REALITY But, unfortunately, we no longer live in a cyclical society. We live in a world now linear, with an explosion effect. Primitive behavior, conservative, is the least appropriate face a "truth", the reality, changing. Religious behavior, dogmatic cycle has become outdated and totally inadequate to face a reality not cyclical any more, that repeats, but a changing reality that needs new solutions and to adapt new behaviors. Human society, under the yoke of selfish economic, conservative, is running to ruin. Religion, is always present, but in another form. This is the primitive religious thinking way that persists. And religious, are the biggest modern criminals! The greatest criminals, wear jackets ties, or traditional clothing, and go to the religious temple regularly and do not feel guilty of any crime. Atheists, them, can not commit crimes because they face their consciousness. The believers has gods, who forgive them all their crimes. They do not have to question themselves and to challenge themself. So they do not change their behavior as long as the majority of people will not change their. The religious is conformist, conservative, traditionalist in all aspects of his life and his behavior. Even if the bus passes in front of is door, he will use his gaz car. And believe hard as iron, that the car saves him his time and money.[6] For this reason, there are more atheists Environmentalists, than believers. Conservatism reigns, while they should change their habits. We must be not conservative any more, traditionalist, primitive. We must adopt new behaviors, adapted to the new reality. We must develop renewable green energy, but, instead, were still trying to develop the economy at the lowest cost, short-term, in the early Conservative economic logic: Shale Gas, oil sands, more coal, "Clean", are part of the conservative logic. We therefore, still, more near from the primitive thought that we think. Modern and rational thinking, of the freethinkers, is still in the infancy. RELIGION, AS HEAD OF IRRATIONALITY And we will not talk, on top, about those religious fundamentalists who advocate, for example, endless reproduction of the human species on earth. Out of all logical. Soon 10 billion! Why not 100, or 1 000 billion, if we follow the religious irrational and dogma logic! Land can, perhaps, come to feed so many people. But it will not be desirable at all. Back to the Stone Age, because of the lack of resources. And especially, cut the last tree of the last forest, to get there, cultivating all the land, and eating the last animal alive so that it does not come to graze our fields! If there was a god, does it have given the reason for human beings, to act in a dogmatic way, illogical and irrational, religious or so ..., on the contrary, in a logical and rational ways? Excessive eproduction, is another whiff of values of primitive societies, for which the reproduction was a matter of survival for the warrior community. Today, the human race is not at risk because of its declining birthrate, but its excessive presence on earth. RELIGION AND DEVELOPMENT But, even today, the religioous monolithism is still taught in schools in many parts of the world. Symbol of the failure of the international education system, the West prefers to burn oil in their big cars, rather than pay more taxes so that all children have access to the world security, health care and education. Religion, in school, is leading only to that way of monolithic thinking from primitive traditional thinking. Education system through which we had to go, not so long ago, and that I will always denounce. Hidding me for too long the facts, the religions, atheism and philosophy. Different ways to think. And especially long hidden about the explanation given by the anthropological history about religions to avoid me to do my own opinion. Since dogmatism hates differences in thinking he taught only his way of thinking. That's why today there are still children who study in segregated... religious schools. Where it prevents children to study with people different from themselves. As prevented blacks and whites to attend the same schools in racist past! I always denounce all big cheese, right thinking, we have educated us in the religious monolithic primitive conservative ways. And now that lead us to loss, if a change of course, radical, is not done quickly. It will take how many floods, landslides, destructive fire, d’ouragans, etc.. before we end up with, not the end of the world, but the end of the cyclical conservative world become completely obsolete in our history straight? Today, more than ten million people die each year due to pollution, and over a million because of climate change. It will get to how many millions a year, so that beforeconservatives wake up? We already broke the record, the largest genocide in the history of mankind. It will multiply it by how many before stopping? Or even worse, will we wait until half the agricultural land is submerged by the ocean? WRITING CREATED THE RELIGION The transition from oral to written societies, We may have seemed a necessary, and grandiose way to modernity. But, on the contrary, in oral societies, the one with the word, could adapt his words to new realities. Jesus was a, for example, declare void the stoning, in a more modern society. But writing, changed all that. Writing came to set primitive traditions, dating from a bygone era. Writing fixed what was changing, which adapted the... reason. In other words, primitives were more modern in a way than we are. Writing, across written religions, has come to reduce levels of human race, because human beings, has not yet mastered the consequences of the crystallization of written, traditions now totally obsolete. Unless you still believe, that God is sexist, and believe that "women submit yourself to your husband"[7] is a divine word and still relevant. And believe that if Jesus chose 12 apostles men, is because God was sexist. Rather than because, at the time of Jesus, men, Arab, in a patriarchal society, were sexist, and that the texts were written by men and for men. And that the texts were not written, or inspired, by God as some believe! And texts, are still interpreted today by men that perpetuate gender conservatism of the past. The popes of all acabits are the guardians of tradition .... And therefore can not change religion. As if there really was a god, it would be not sexist, either in favor of slavery! Who would ever think, aujourd’hui, to return to slavery? We must therefore stop seeing the writings as sacred “sacred”. There is no more religion. Religions are not the cause of "sacred" texts. On the contrary, these are the texts, so-called “sacred”, that become, for the primitive Conservatives who believe naively to anything, religions. Writing has created the Arab religions. Writing a sacred writing. Dictionaries has had the same "religious" impact on the development of oral and written vocabulary. Slowing its progress and by ensuring that language, like French, are, aujourd’hui, still elitist, even after the reform. The languages were much more alive before we bury them in dictionaries! It is also because of the dictionaries that the Chinese and Japanese written languages are among the most tedious to learn. Written text preventing “religiously” any reform. The text sacralizes. The U.S. constitution is now obsolete, but can not be reformed by the Conservatives produced from primitive thought. WE MUST DESERATE THE WRITING Therefore, it is time to stop being passive readers of past traditions, and we should be involved in the writing of new rules. Writing must become a tool, not a pilgrim's staff. We need rules, norms[8], which are not permanent, but changing. To no longer be slaves of nostalgic writing, but writers of the future. Standing in a permanent referendum, that allow to change their minds. To adapt to the changing reality. To not have fixed rules, but, editable. The explosion of technological development makes it impossible for any government to legislate quickly to restrict the uncontrolled development of new technologies, but, soon, 10 billion people can do it. THE ARABIC BROTHERS VICTIMS OF THEIR MODERNITY The Arab brothers are kicking ass together for thousands of years solely on the basis of their meager dogmatic religious differences. Yet the cradle of modernity, the civilization was... Arab . The Arabs has been victims of their own development because of the writing .... Writing came sclerosis society the most modern of its time, in religious dogmas that have made Arab societies, now, among the most conservative of the planet. No wonder there is a great schism in all ancient Arab religions every millennia. The gap between religion and new attitudes, so the new reality, are becoming larger, schism is always inevitable. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Protestantism ... I think we're ready for another great schism! Religious fundamentalism, in Arab countries, reached a peak that can only be its own contradictions and more and more Arabs are realizing. If it happens what happened in the very Catholic Quebec, during the Quiet Revolution,... The Arab countries are likely to become, very atheists ...! The Arabs have become conservative because of the writing. We only have one thing to do together, réécrivons l’histoire, create history. Please. Become a volunteer or donor for the www.referenduminternatiomal.org Any reproduction permitted providing the source : http://yvesmarineau.com/blog/?p=135 [1] The following information on the separation of body and mind, animist societies, the polytheism and monotheism are the source for courses in sociology of culture given by Michel Freitag (1935-2009) in years 1980 at UQAM (University of Quebec at Montreal). [2] Half of the New Testament was written by Paul, a tone harsher than the part that tells of the life of Jesus, him, was much more liberal. Jesus was particularly against stoning, and Muhammad did not talk about it more in the Qur'an. But Paul, enact rigid and severe rules that reflect his times. As some communities include stoning to Sharia. [3] Pierre Bourdieu said : "He says it well, So it's true ", speaking about people with good diction arriving at convincing people (I quote from memory). [4] Pierre Clastres, "The Society Against the State" or Malinowski in "Argonauts of the Pacific". I recommend everyone to discover, read, works of anthropology in order to understand the thinking of the naive primitive society who precedes us and from who we are the heirs. Personally, I find anthropologies books more interesting than a novel . Exciting. [5] Apart from farmers. Here! Are they not, in general, more conservative! As in "chance"! [6] Ivan Illich has calculated, in years 70, that the average motorist lost 3 hours a day because of his car. Besides today's gasoline costs more, that traffic jams are longer and suburbs are more distant. And the driver does not realize the true cost of its transportation, on average 800 $/month, and does not calculate the time required for maintenance and, mainly, the time it takes to work to pay all costs. The car cost, on average, 10 times more expensive than public transit. And transit, not more 2 times slower, the car is actually 5 times slower. The average motorist could take a week of vacation per month, or 3 months of the year, while keeping the same purchasing power. [7] New Testament. [8] Michel Freitag recommends using the term "norms" to distinguish the norms that humans are given as opposed to the "divine laws", So of substance allegedly "divine". To demystify the laws and their permanent. Standards which can move the face of changing reality through a dialectic. See also his book "Dialectic and Society", 2 volumes.
1.1 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 4.1 5.1 6.1 6.2 7.1 8.1 8.2 9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.1 11.2 12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 15.2 16.1 17.1 18.1 19.1 19.2 19.3 20.1 20.2 21.1 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 24.1 25.1 26.1 27.1 28.1 28.2 28.3 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 30.1 31.1 31.2 31.3 32.1 33.1 33.2 33.3 34.1 35.1 36.1 36.2 37.1 38.1 39.1 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.4 40.5 41.1 41.2 41.3 42.1 42.2 42.3 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 44.1 44.2 44.3 44.4 44.5 44.6 44.7 45.1 45.2 46.1 47.1 47.2 48.1 48.2 48.3 49.1 50.1 51.1 52.1 53.1 54.1 55.1 55.2 56.1 56.2 57.1 57.2 57.3 57.4 58.1 58.2 59.1 60.1 60.2 60.3 61.1 62.1 63.1 64.1 64.2 64.3 65.1 65.2 66.1 67.1 67.2 68.1 68.2 68.3 69.1 69.2 69.3 70.1 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 72.1 72.2 72.3 72.4 72.5 73.1 73.2 73.3 73.4 73.5 74.1 75.1 75.2 76.1 76.2 77.1 77.2 78.1 79.1 79.2 80.1 81.1 82.1 82.2 82.3 83.1 83.2 83.3 83.4 83.5 84.1 84.2 84.3 84.4 85.1 86.1 87.1 87.2 87.3 88.1 89.1 89.2 90.1 90.2 91.1 92.1 92.2 92.3 92.4 92.5 92.6 93.1 94.1 95.1 95.2 95.3 96.1 96.2 97.1 98.1 98.2 99.1 99.2 99.3 99.4 99.5 99.6 100.1 101.1 101.2 102.1 103.1 103.2 104.1 104.2 104.3 104.4 104.5 104.6 104.7 104.8 104.9 105.1 105.2 106.1 106.2 107.1 107.2 108.1 108.2 109.1 110.1 111.1 111.2 111.3 111.4 111.5 111.6 112.1 112.2 112.3 112.4 112.5 112.6 112.7 112.8 112.9 113.1 114.1 115.1 115.2 115.3 115.4 115.5 115.6 116.1 116.2 117.1 118.1 119.1 119.2 120.1 121.1 122.1 122.2 122.3 122.4 123.1 123.2 123.3 124.1 125.1 126.1 127.1 127.2 127.3 128.1 128.2 128.3 128.4 129.1 130.1 130.2 131.1 132.1 133.1 134.1 135.1 136.1 136.2 136.3 136.4 137.1 138.1 138.2 138.3 138.4 139.1 139.2 139.3 139.4 140.1 140.2 140.3 140.4 140.5 140.6 141.1 142.1 142.2 142.3 142.4
Nó AN BUNÚS AN REILIGIÚIN ... Arabach nó Arabacha CÉN FÁTH IAD AN-coimeádach? …DLITE an aireagán SCRÍBHNEOIREACHT ...! Cosúil scríbhinn curtha ach 5 000 bliana. Níl aon fhoinse scríofa ar an smaointeoireacht na gcuideachtaí legendary. Ní mór dúinn, dá bhrí sin tátal a bhaint astu, ó staidéir stairiúla agus antraipeolaíochta, smaointeoireachta “primitive”, an chéad toimhde. AN Deighilt AN CHOMHLACHTA AGUS gCUIMHNE DÓIBH.[1] Don primitive, mar dúinn, le rêve est tellement réaliste que nous avons l’impression que notre esprit sort de notre corps lorsque nous rêvons. Dá réir sin ar bhunús an Myth an scaradh chomhlacht agus aigne. Déan Teagmháil Linn, Is léir anois go bhfuil an dá hiomlán aontaithe, , Ach ní raibh sé soiléir an primate, qui pense de façon peu réaliste, agus creideann sé tuiscint féin amhail is dá mba eolaíocht. Tá fós, lá atá inniu ann, dhaoine a chreideann go fhágann an spiorad an chomhlachta; go bhfuil labhairt na astral – nó, a cheapann eitilte ina codladh. Admhaím mé a bheith acu ar eitlíodh iontu go pearsanta isteach sa teach arís agus arís eile nuair a bhí mé óg. Ach d'éiligh aon duine riamh a bheith le feiceáil; sa stát seo, rud atá lasmuigh de chomhtharlú staidrimh – páirtí na réaltachta. Más amhlaidh, tá daoine a bhfuil rudaí le feiceáil! Teaglaim na n-uimhreacha sábháilte unfold os a gcomhair. Féach a chomharsa nó ag a chomharsa cith a ghlacadh (j'aurais ca Bien Aimé, Tá mé comharsa álainn!), srl. Go deimhin, fógra go bhfuil suim, Scríobh mé ar líon mór, le bhraith mór, ar leathanach páipéir a chomhdaítear mé ar mo cuisneoir. Dúshlán mé, whoever, a insint dom go bhfuil sé scríofa ar líon, agus tá sé cad a d'iarr agus is é an dath duille? An Myth bunaidh an scaradh chomhlacht agus aigne, a bheadh ag na miotais tionscnaimh de shaol an spiorad tar éis bháis, de reincarnation agus ina dhiaidh, de Paradise agus de ifreann ..., srl. Sochaithe Animist An Myth an scaradh chorp agus aigne fréamhaithe go daingean i Chomh luath agus an mentality, Ní thógann sé i bhfad chun chomhcheanglaíonn an príomháidh léir, idir nádúrtha "léiriú" nó "osnádúrtha" i spiorad na sinsear ar iarraidh. Mar sin,, imeachtaí go léir, gcuspóir nó a n beo is féidir a bheith a bheith infheistithe le spiorad na sinsear. Ós rud é gur féidir leis an gcomhlacht agus aigne a bheith scartha, ar an mbealach primitive smaointeoireachta, Is féidir aigne, "Loighciúil" maireachtáil ar bhás an chomhlachta. Is féidir leis an aigne, fós, follasach leis an maireachtála! D'ou, creideamh i reincarnation, an bhiotáille, srl. Polytheism Taobh istigh de, sochaithe primitive, Níl páistí iad arna dtarraingt anuas ag na tuismitheoirí, ach ag an chlann nó leis an teaghlach sínte (grands-tuismitheoirí, uncail, aintíní, comharsana, srl) Mar sin,, Ní haon ionadh go bhfuil na biotáillí marbh teacht i bhfoirmeacha éagsúla. Leis an am, agus na glúine ó, n-intinn de agus tá a gcuid sinsear reified coincheap i Diax. Mar sin, tá an chuma ar na déithe a bheidh nasctha leis an ghrian, la Mer, an domhain, na torthúlachta, srl. Ar ndóigh,, tar éis na milliúin bliain, ar bhunús na déithe a fháil caillte agus caillfidh reification a bhunús san am a. Mar aon traidisiún scríofa, níl ach an traidisiún béil, trína chuid scéalta agus psalm, Cuideachtaí le déanaí go bhfuil a bhainistiú. Aondiachas I sochaí na nGiúdach, clan imíonn i bhfabhar an teaghlaigh aonair núicléacha. Leanaí atá níos airde ag an clan, ach ag an teaghlach. A bhfuil a athair, feidhmíonn sé mar phríomh-patriarch, más rud é nach authoritarian. Tá sé an t-údarás teaghlaigh, mar sin, an tábhacht a bhaineann leis an líne fireann sa Sean-Tiomna, saintréith de chuid cumann patriarchal. Is iad na sinsear anois aithreacha. Ní bheidh an chuideachta anois polytheistic, ach monotheistic, íomhá an struchtúr teaghlaigh. Na déithe a bheith, an Dia. An ceann tugaimid anois Dia,An t-athair ...! REILIGIÚIN LES ARABES Má tá difríocht idir na reiligiúin Arabacha ó chumainn polytheistic agus animistic ar bhonn na aondiachas, seo nuair a, an t-idirdhealú ach mór-. Amach as an difríocht, ar an mbealach Arabach na smaointeoireachta, Is mar an gcéanna le gach traditionalists cuideachtaí, primitives donc. Dealraíonn Smaointe Arabach a bheith ina : "Cheapann tú mar a rá liom, más rud é nach ...! "Cé go, i ndáiríre, tá sé ina mór "is dóigh linn go léir an rud céanna" sa unconscious comhchoiteann. Ní cheadaítear sa tsochaí Deviance primitive. Ní mór do gach duine smaoineamh ar an mbealach céanna. Cad glaonna Durkheim "ag smaoineamh i unison". Deviants diúscairt, urscaoileadh lasmuigh den clan, nó stoned díreach chun báis. Na Giúdaigh stoned na Críostaithe. Toisc go raibh Íosa ag smaoineamh beagán difriúil ó na nGiúdach orthodox. Ach beware, Ní gclochadh reiligiúnacha, arabe ni Meme. Gclochadh Tá tréith na sochaithe primitive na Meánmhara. Linn a fháil gclochadh i réimse leathan de chultúir, ann agus reiligiúin. Giúdachas Les reiligiúin arabes, Judaic, Críostaí agus Moslamach, Tá crystallization de custaim agus traidisiúin Arabach, ó ann 3 000 bliain san Éigipt do Giúdachas. Tá roinnt sleachta sa Sean-Tiomna a thagann as an reiligiún monotheistic gcéad ar a dtugtar, Éigipteach a rugadh (Is é, chomhtharlú go mar an Giúdaigh), ... An adhartha de Aten Gréine ...! AN CHRÍOSTAÍOCHT Bhí Íosa ina Giúdach, Mar sin, tuismitheoirí agus an Meán-Oirthear cultúr (Araibis). Rinne sé staidéar Giúdachas, agus rinne sé roinnt mionathruithe. Dá réir sin an cáineadh na manach na Giúdachas, a éileofar bhí Rómhánach Íosa maraíodh ar deireadh ag crucifixion ... "blasphemy" creidimh! Ach i gcoitinne, sé retransmit ach na traidisiúin primitive atá ann fós ann 2 000 bliana d'aois agus a bheith scríofa ag sin ar a dtugtar "naofa" téacsanna. L'Ioslam Bhí Muhammad ar Arabacha (na hAraibe Sádaí). Agus tá, chomh maith, gur craoladh na luachanna ar a chuid ama ó shin níos mó 1 000 bliain san Araib. REILIGIÚN NÓ SCRÍBHNEOIREACHT REILIGIÚIN NA SCRÍBHNEOIREACHT Reiligiúin atá scríofa nósanna crystallization agus custaim na sochaithe primitive a bhí ann sna téacsanna Araibis. An scríbhinn le feiceáil ann ach 5 000 bliana, ach bhí sé ag tosú a "havoc" nach bhfuil ach 2 000 bliana. Roimhe sin labhair muid ach de sects reiligiúnacha. D'fhéadfadh a bheith ann go leor sects go bhfuil pobail. Bhí an Impireacht Rómhánach ina bhreacachan de chultúir éagsúla creidimh. I Chríostaithe go luath Labhair féin ag caint faoi na sects Giúdach. More, Bheadh scríbhinn athrú ar an gcluiche. Ní raibh na Giúdaigh a fhios fiú scríbhinn ag tús an Giúdachas. Bhí an tábla na dlíthe scríofa i Aramais ...! Ós rud é go raibh cúpla cultúir scríbhinn, a ghlac éifeacht mais le fada an lá a scaipeadh toisc go bhféadfadh roinnt daoine a léamh ach. Samhlaigh an tionchar a bheadh ag tábla na dlíthe i scríbhinn do náisiún na illiterates. An tionchar a bhí chomh mór más rud é nach níos mó sa lá atá inniu leis an scaoileadh gadget nua "naofa". D'fhéadfaí an teacht na scríbhneoireachta a thabhairt ach beannaitheacht chuig an plebs aon téacs ó na sinsear. Íosa, Muhammad buíochas a ghlacadh freisin, léamh ná scríobh nach bhféadfadh ceachtar! Ábhar iontais do “mac Dia”! (Riamh Go deimhin d'éiligh siad a bheith ar an mac Dia. Tá sé a gcomharbaí a bhfuil éileamh. Reification posthumously. Reminds sé agat ar rud éigin? (féach ar barr éagsúla.)) Ach gcuid focal, nó a bhfuil tuairisc amháin i scríbhinn[2], tháinig slán a n-. Agus téacsanna, agus a bhfuil bainte amach macasamhla méideanna ollmhóra daoine. Is féidir le, cad a bheadh de ghnáth sect áitiúil Arabach ó bhéal, reiligiúin a bheith leis na céadta milliúin de bhaill. Mar sin, tá an chuma ar scríbhinn go bhfuil ag an tionscnamh na reiligiúin .... Seachas sin Giúdachas, Ní bheadh an Chríostaíocht agus Ioslam curtha sects ach saorga Arabacha réigiúnacha mar go raibh an dá ag an am. More, siad iad féin a "ádh" a bheith ceart in áit an chuma ar na scríbhneoireachta ...! An Impireacht Arabacha Sumerian! Sects Arabach a bheith ar an gcéad ar fud an domhain leas a bhaint as scríbhinn a bheidh le tarchur ar fud na cruinne. Mar sin, an barrachas de Judeo-Ioslamach agus chrétiennne, Mar sin, Araibis, ar fud an domhain. Ba chóir a rá go bhfuil an "mór", ar son, Rugadh reiligiúin monotheistic ó scríobh seachas an t-aireagán de Dia! Mar sin, is é an sects Arabacha go bhfuil leathadh, cosúil wildfire, ar fud an domhain i bhfoirm reiligiún trí scríbhneoireacht. An t-idirdhealú idir an cultas agus reiligiúin bunaithe ach amháin ar líon na gcomhaltaí sect. Gan trácht ar an aireagán déanaí clódóireachta ag Gutenberg, a bhfuil ar chumas le pléascadh ar leathnú na reiligiúin Arabach, a bhí i bhfeidhm cheana féin, ar fud na hEorpa. Priontáil ag 15ú haois a cheadaítear chun freastal ar na coilínithe, a úsáidtear an Bíobla clóite a indoctrinate mhuintir an phláinéid. Coilíniú agus a phriontáil dá bhrí sin in ann an phláinéid chultúir traditionalist smaointeoireacht primitive Arabacha chlúdach chun aimhleasa na áitiúil. Deir an Bíobla i bhfad : "Daor a bheidh tú a chur faoi bhráid do mháistir"? Cén slí níos fearr do chumainn daor? Agus, Bourdieu a parody[3], Is i scríbhinn a, Mar sin, tá sé fíor! More, tá roinnt a chreideann go fóill gur féidir le Dia a bheith le haghaidh sclábhaíocht! Nuair a bheidh i ndáiríre, Seo iad na scríbhinní an crystallization na primitive custaim traidisiúnta Arabach, ó tá cúpla míle bliain. Fealsúnacht Is é an Fealsúnacht distinguera de façon reiligiún radacach. Nuair a dúirt Buddha : "Ná gcreideann gach rud a rá liom" osclaíonn sé an doras ar bhealach smaointeoireachta ó bhonn le hais a reiligiúin a chur ar an smaoineamh bunaidh traditionalist a deir, agus orduithe: "Creid gach rud a rá liom". More, Ní ghlacfar le fealsúnacht tairbhe, ón tús, scríbhneoireachta. Tógfaidh sé roinnt céadta bliain dá bhrí sin taobh thiar d'fhorbairt reiligiúin. Fhealsúnacht na hÁise is dócha thar aon rud eile ar a dtugtar fealsúnachtaí. More, mar nach fhealsúnacht a rugadh i suíochán na scríbhneoireachta, an Meánoirthear, beidh sé ag fás, i ndáiríre, go bhfuil níos déanaí. Ní dhéanann an scríbhneoireacht a fhorbairt san Áise, An Ghréig agus an Eoraip tar éis an Mheán-Oirthear. Beidh reiligiún Arabach, dá bhrí sin, Is céim chun tosaigh ar an fhealsúnacht, tríd an modh tarchuir na scríbhneoireachta. An fhealsúnacht seo go relegates leis an cúlra i rith na Meánaoiseanna. Creideamh é i ndáiríre an dorchadas mór de smaoinimh fealsúnachta linn na tréimhse seo. Ar an ábhar sin, go fóill, go bhfuil ár smaointeoireacht, arís agus arís, beaucoup plus près de celui des sociétés primitives, mar smaointeoireacht réasúnach agus loighciúil a bheidh ann i 1 000, 10 000 nó 1 milliún bliain. Fealsúnacht Is dócha gurb é nach mó ná 3 000 bliana. Ach tá an smaoineamh primitive traidisiúnta bhí thart ar feadh na milliúin bliain! Mar sin, tá muid ag smaoineamh cionn cad a cheapann tú go fóill? Is é ár gcultúr fós imbued go hiomlán leis an mbealach a primitive smaointeoireachta. Ní féidir leat pas a shíl primitive, a shíl réasúnach, i cúpla míle bliain. Is é ár smaointeoireacht fós bunaithe cuid mhaith ar sin ár sinsear is primitive. Má bhí an chuma fealsúnacht áit a bhfuil an scríbhinn a rugadh! Ní bheadh againn go raibh detour fada tríd an dogma na reiligiún agus ar deireadh thiar mar thoradh ar an ais mar gheall ar na céadta bliain ina dhiaidh sin cúpla. Is féidir linn a rá go bhfuil an reiligiún curtha ar earráid fada mar gheall ar an-de. WE ARE LÁ ATÁ INNIU ANN? NÓ SA NAOFA? Nach bhfuil an chuid is mó daoine fós in ann smaoineamh dóibh féin, agus is gá chun a bheith dictating, agus chun cloí, an smaoinimh coitianta primitive. Mar a chuirtear síos ag antraipeolaithe[4], sa tsochaí primitive, ach "duine a bhfuil an focal" Labhraíonn. Agus labhraíonn sé ach a dhéanamh arís go leanúnach na luachanna, an custaim, Tsochaí seo traidisiúnta primitive. Rinne muid an botún a aistriú an teideal Eabhrais Íosa "prophet" i bhFraincis. More, iarbhír an t-aistriúchán nach bhfuil ach is ann i bhFraincis. Má bhíomar ag iarraidh a aistriú i gceart ar an ngairm, Ba chóir é a rá ... "An té a bhfuil an focal"! Díreach ar an mbealach céanna a thabhairt dúinn, i sochaithe primitive, sé ag a bhfuil an "focal" na sinsear. An té a athrá ar an theagasc ancestral an aithreacha. Ceachtanna a mhair, más rud é amháin iad siúd a conformed. Mar le maireachtáil, i sochaithe traidisiúnta, Bhí cloí le timthriallta na séasúir, d'fhonn a bhailiú agus a seilg, ansin a ardú agus a chothú, le haghaidh a marthanas féin agus an phobail. Iad siúd a bhí ag iarraidh nach defy na rialacha a dhéanamh a tháinig slán gá go. Iad siúd a sowed réimsí roimh an gheimhridh ghann. Conformists Amháin, a sowed na réimsí san earrach, mhair. Iad siúd a bhfuil éist lena n-athairs clan agus a n-athair bitheolaíoch (nó uchtála) mhair. Tá na focail go bhfuil cead dá bhrí sin go mairfidh an speiceas, agus an saol sóisialta. Tá na focail, tar éis éirí dá bhrí sin "naofa". Toisc go raibh an traidisiún, i gcuideachtaí timthriallach, an Marthanais. Samhlaigh go amárach, an chéad riail aon chuideachta : "Ní budh mharú" Tá a thuilleadh. Ní bheadh an chuideachta fiú maireachtáil glúin. Má bhí cónaí ina n-aonar gach duine ina uaimh, agus gur fiú an bhfear agus na mban marú a chéile, bheadh an cine daonna a bheith imithe i bhfad ó shin, ní féidir a atáirgeadh fiú. Seo "dlí", "Ní budh mharú", arna dtarchur ag na sinsear, agus ag ceadú an mairfidh an speiceas, tar éis éirí dosheachanta naofa, Mar sin, "Dia" mar atá gach rud a chinntíonn an teacht slán na speiceas. Dlíthe ancestral a chlaochlú go mall i "dlí Dhiaga". An naofa é dá bhrí sin, dosheachanta. I sochaithe primitive a chaill sé a chúis is mó uaireanta réasúnach, bunaithe ar chúis, Is mar a : meas ar an saol. More, boinn sé uaireanta neamhréasúnach nó imithe i léig. Is é seo a idirdhealú idir creideamh, dogma reiligiúnacha, Tar éis an dogmatism primitive, de philosophie. Creideamh Tá chaill sé a bonn réasúnach bunaidh agus folaíonn sé freisin miotais agus creidimh, agus tá sé seo a dhéanamh gan aon idirdhealú. REILIGIÚN NUA-AIMSEARTHA Ní sochaithe nua-aimseartha ina gcónaí i modh cioglach[5] seo a leanas na séasúir. Tá cónaí orainn i sochaí atá le teicneolaíocht an eolais líneach agus pléascadh exponentially. Dhaoine atá idirghníomhaíonn a thuilleadh leis an timpeallacht ar timthriallach. Athrá ar an bpróiseas céanna gach bliain atá oiriúnach do na séasúir. I sochaí forbartha, tá obair ar timthriallach-, tá sé líneach. Athdhéanamh gach lá, ach ag casadh i bpróisis atá tagtha chun athrú ar an timthriall séasúrach féin! Níl forbairt theicneolaíoch a cruthaíodh chun freastal ar na timthriallta nádúrtha, ach athruithe agus athraíonn an timthriall nádúrtha. Ach conas is féidir linn freagra a thabhairt ar na hathruithe sin? Bealaí traidisiúnta primitive agus neamhréasúnach, nó loighciúil agus réasúnach? Nuair a bhíonn an 50 blianta Deirtear go bhfuil truailliú a mharaíonn, agus daoine sruthán fós ola, Tá a fhios agam go dúnmharú coir, a dhéanann siad gníomh sin a primitive (neamhréasúnach) d'aois nua-aimseartha (loighic)? I 50, 100 nó 1000 bliana, nuair a fhoghlaim daoine atá againn a mharaigh a fháil ar thart agus an tubaistí nádúrtha ollmhór go gcónaíonn siad, bhfuil cúis ag ár conservatism, An gcuireann sé a rá go bhfuil muid ag daoine nua-aimseartha, nó primitive? Anseo tá cruthúnas, go bhfuil ár smaointeoireacht fós i bhfad níos gaire don go bhfuil an Caveman, go bhfuil an a bheith réasúnach go gcreidimid. Agus beidh muid ró-dhéanach, ar an drochuair, níos réasúnaí. Toisc go bhfuil an duine á fós ag foghlaim ó bhotúin, ionchas réasúnach seachas, éifeachtaí a ghníomhartha. Na daoine ar 21ú haois creidim fós i primitive, suaimhneas. Comhlíonadh ag teastáil. Reassures sé. A bheith in iúl céard atá le déanamh, agus cad a cheapann, cad a iompar lá tar éis lá a athrá, Is dearfach, agus níos lú treampánach, gur shíl saor in aisce agus athrú iompair. Toisc go bhfuil cultúr daonna bunúsach coimeádach, origines SES par. An sagart ard, a bhfuil urlabhra, bhí in ionad na sagairt ard de chuid an chumainn tomhaltóra. Fógraíocht Imríonn díreach mar an ról céanna, aontú, na sagairt na sochaithe primitive. Tá go leor daoine sa lá atá inniu criticiúil a rá nach bhfuil cad a insíonn an fógraíochta iad a, ach tá ag gach duine go fóill carr gásailín go dtí an doras! Is maith ag gach duine chun an cineál céanna gach duine eile, agus a bhailiú i cruinnithe móra cultúrtha, nó do spóirt, mar a bhí roimhe, i processions, le séipéal comaoineach a fháil le chéile .... AN REILIGIÚN COIMHLINT versus RÉALTACHTA More, ar an drochuair, againn a thuilleadh maireachtáil i sochaí timthriallach. Tá cónaí orainn i ndomhan atá anois líneach, le hiarmhairtí pléascadh. Iompar primitive, coimeádach, Is é an laghad cuí i gcoinne "fírinne", réaltacht, Qui athrú. Iompraíocht reiligiúnach, Tá timthriall dogmatic bheith as dáta agus go hiomlán neamhleor réaltacht chun aghaidh a thabhairt seachas timthriallach, Is é arís agus arís eile, ach ina réaltacht atá ag athrú go bhfuil gá le réitigh nua agus a oiriúnú iompraíochtaí nua. Sochaí an Duine, faoi na cuing na eacnamaíoch santach, coimeádach, a ruin. La religion, Is é i gcónaí i láthair, ach i bhfoirm eile. Is é seo an smaoineamh primitive reiligiúnach a leanfaidh de. Agus reiligiúnacha, Is iad na coirpigh is mó nua-aimseartha! Na coirpigh is tromchúisí a, chaitheamh naisc seaicéid, nó éadaí traidisiúnta, reiligiúnach agus ní téigh go dtí an teampall agus rialta a bhraitheann ciontach in aon coireachta. Atheists, orthu, Is féidir nach bhfuil coireanna atá rompu mar gheall ar a gcoinsiasa nó a. Believers ag na déithe, logh iad go léir a gcoireanna. Ní bhíonn a cheistiú féin agus le dúshlán a. Níl siad a n-iompar a athrú chomh fada is nach mbeidh daoine is mó a athrú. An conformist reiligiúnach, coimeádach, traditionalist i ngach gné de shaol agus ar a iompar. Fiú má Gabhann an bus ar an doras, beidh sé úsáid as a chuid gásailín gluaisteán. Agus creidim crua mar a iarann, go Sábhálann an carr a chuid ama agus airgid.[6] Ar an ábhar sin, go bhfuil níos mó comhshaolaithe atheists, gcreidmheach. Reigns Conservatism, nuair ba chóir iad a athrú a gcuid nósanna. Ba chóir a thabhairt coimeádach, traditionalist, primitive. Ní mór dúinn glacadh le iompraíochtaí nua, in oiriúint do réaltacht nua. Ní mór dúinn a fhorbairt glas fuinnimh in-athnuaite, ach, ina ionad sin, a bhí fós ag iarraidh a fhorbairt ar chostas níos ísle, gearrthéarmacha, loighic eacnamaíocha sa coimeádach go luath: schistes gáis, gaineamh, gual níos mó, "Glan", atá mar chuid den loighic coimeádach. Againn dá bhrí sin,, go fóill, iasachtaí níos mó as an shíl primitive a cheapann muid. Smaoinimh nua-aimseartha agus réasúnach, smaointeoirí saor in aisce, Is é fós sa infancy. LA RELIGION, MAR CEANN de irrationality Agus ní beimid ag caint, níos mó, a fundamentalists creidimh a abhcóide, mar shampla, atáirgeadh daonna endless de na speicis ar domhan. As gach loighic. Go gairid 10 billiún! Cén fáth nach 100, nó 1 000 billiún, má leanann muid ar an loighic agus dogma reiligiúnacha neamhréasúnach! Féadfaidh an talamh, b'fhéidir, teacht chun beatha an oiread sin daoine. Ach ní bheidh sé inmhianaithe ag gach. Ar ais go Chlochaois, easpa acmhainní. Agus os a chionn, ghearradh ar an crann deiridh na foraoise is déanaí, a fháil ann, chothú an talamh go léir, agus ag ithe an t-ainmhí is déanaí beo ionas nach ndéanann sé teacht ar graze ár réimsí! Má bhí Dia, Is é a bheadh sé bhfuil cúis acu do dhaoine, chun gníomhú ar bhealach dogmatic, illogical agus neamhréasúnach, reiligiúnacha nó mar sin ..., a mhalairt ar fad, i loighciúil agus réasúnach? La atáirgeadh à outrance, Whiff eile de na luachanna na sochaithe primitive, a raibh an atáirgeadh ábhar marthanais le haghaidh an chogaidh phobal. Sa lá atá inniu, nach bhfuil an cine daonna i mbaol mar gheall ar a birthrate meath, ach is é a láithreacht iomarcach ar domhan. REILIGIÚN AGUS FORBAIRT More, ar an lá seo, Is é an reiligiún monolithic a mhúintear fós i scoileanna in áiteanna éagsúla ar fud an domhain. Siombail ar an teip ar an gcóras oideachais idirnáisiúnta a, preferring Iarthar an ola a dhó ina gluaisteáin mhóra, seachas cánacha a íoc níos mó ionas go bhfuil ag gach leanbh ar an saol slándála, cúram sláinte agus oideachas. La religion, ar scoil, Ní smaoineamh go thoradh ag smaoineamh monolithic traidisiúnta primitive. Chóras oideachais trí mheán a bhí againn le dul, nach bhfuil chomh fada ó shin, agus mé i gcónaí a shéanadh. Seeing dom ró-fhada i bhfolach an fíricí, an reiligiúin, Sé athéisme Hittite philosophie. Murab ionann agus smaointe. Agus go háirithe i bhfolach fada mhaith liom éisteacht leis an míniú a thug an stair anthropological na reiligiúin ag na tionscnaimh a sheachaint mise le mo thuairim féin. Ós rud é fuath dogmatism an difríocht de shíl múineann sé gurb é an bealach smaointeoireachta. Sin an fáth go bhfuil fós sa lá atá inniu a dhéanann staidéar páistí i scoileanna scartha ... reiligiúnda. I gcás ina gcuireann sé cosc leanaí a bheith ag obair le daoine éagsúla ó iad féin. Mar freastal ar dhaoine gorma a chosc agus Whites mar an gcéanna scoileanna atá caite ciníoch! Shéanadh mé i gcónaí go léir manaigh, dea-bhrí, Cuireadh oideachas againn i coimeádach an creidimh monolithic primitive. Agus anois go bhfuil orainn mar thoradh ar chaillteanas, má tá athrú ar ndóigh, radacach, nach bhfuil a dhéanamh go tapa. Tógfaidh sé cé mhéad tuilte, sciorradh talún, tinte millteach, ouragans d', srl. Cad é nach go dtí deireadh an domhain, ach a bheith ar an deireadh an domhain coimeádach go hiomlán as feidhm timthriallach in ár stair díreach? Sa lá atá inniu, bás níos mó ná deich milliún duine gach bliain mar gheall ar thruailliú, agus níos mó ná milliún mar gheall ar athrú aeráide. Beidh sé cé mhéad a fháil chun na milliúin in aghaidh na bliana, don levers múscail? Bhris muid cheana féin ar an taifead, an cinedhíothú is mó i stair an chine daonna. Beidh sé ag iolrú dó le cé mhéad roimh stopadh? Nó níos measa, Beidh sé ag fanacht ar feadh leath de thalamh talmhaíochta atá faoi uisce ag an aigéan? SCRÍBHNEOIREACHT REILIGIÚN Cruthaithe An t-aistriú ó chumainn ó bhéal agus i scríbhinn, Is féidir an chuma linn a bheith riachtanach, le nua-aimseartha agus grandiose. More, a mhalairt ar fad, i sochaithe ó bhéal, an ceann a bhfuil an focal, D'fhéadfaí focail a chur in oiriúint do réaltachtaí nua. Bhí Íosa ina, mar shampla, neamhní an gclochadh, i níos nua-aimseartha. Ach scríbhinn, athrú go léir a tháinig. Scríbhneoireacht tháinig a shocrú traidisiúin primitive, ag dul ó ré bygone. Seasta Scríobh an méid a bhí ag athrú, a oiriúnú an chúis .... I bhfocail eile, primitives bhí níos nua-aimseartha ar bhealach go. Scríbhneoireacht, tríd an reiligiúin i scríbhinn, tháinig go dtí gcúl an chine daonna, mar gheall ar dhaoine, nach bhfuil máistreacht fós na hiarmhairtí a bhaineann leis an crystallization scríofa, traidisiúin atá as dáta anois go hiomlán. Mura gcreideann tú go fóill, Is é Dia sexist, agus creidim go bhfuil "soumettras thou bean d'fhear céile"[7] Is focal diaga agus fós ábhartha. Agus a chreidiúint, go má roghnaíonn Íosa 12 fir nAspal, toisc go raibh Dia sexist. In áit a bheith mar gheall ar, ag an am a Íosa, fir, Arabacha, i sochaí patriarchal, Bhí sexist, agus go raibh na téacsanna scríofa ag fir agus do na fir. Agus nach raibh na téacsanna scríofa a, ni inspirés, ag Dia mar creidim roinnt! Agus téacsanna, lá atá inniu ann a léiriú go fóill ag fir go perpetuate conservatism sexist den am atá thart. Is iad na popes de gach acabits na caomhnóirí an traidisiúin .... Agus ní féidir athrú dá bhrí sin, reiligiún. Mar más rud é go raibh Dia i ndáiríre, nach bhfuil sé sexist, ceachtar i bhfabhar an sclábhaíocht! Cé hé a cheapann riamh, aujourd'hui, chun filleadh ar an sclábhaíocht? Ní mór dúinn dá bhrí sin, stad ag féachaint ar an scríbhinní mar téacsanna “naofa”. Tá níos mó reiligiún. Nach bhfuil reiligiúin an fhoinse "naofa" téacsanna. A mhalairt ar fad, is iad seo na téacsanna, a dtugtar “naofa”, go n-éiríonn, do na Conservatives a chreideann naively primitive le haon ní a, reiligiúin des. Scríbhneoireacht Bhunaigh creideamh Arabacha. Scríobh scríbhinn naofa. Tá an céanna "creidimh" tionchar ar fhorbairt foclóra ó bhéal agus i scríbhinn Foclóirí. Slowing a dhul chun cinn agus trína chinntiú go bhfuil teanga, cosúil le Fraincis, Is iad, aujourd'hui, fós elitist, fiú tar éis an t-athchóiriú. Na teangacha a bhí i bhfad níos mó beo sular féidir linn iad a adhlacadh i bhfoclóirí! Tá sé chomh maith mar gheall ar an foclóirí go bhfuil na teangacha na Síne agus Seapáinis scríobhtar an chuid is mó am-íditheach a fhoghlaim. Tá an téacs scríofa a chosc “religiously” aon athchóiriú. Sacralizes an téacs. Bunreacht na Stát Aontaithe anois imithe i léig, ach ní féidir a leasú chun na Conservatives ó shíl primitive. NÍ MÓR Desecrate A SCRÍOBH Is é seo an fáth, tá sé in am a stopadh á léitheoirí éighníomhach den am atá thart traidisiúin, Ní mór agus a bheith páirteach i scríbhinn rialacha nua. Ní mór a bheith ina uirlis Scríbhneoireacht, nach oilithrigh ag foireann. Táimid ag rialacha gá, caighdeáin[8], atá níos buan, ach atá ag athrú. Chun a thuilleadh sclábhaithe na scríbhneoireachta nostalgic, ach scríbhneoirí na todhchaí. Buan-i reifreann, a ligeann do smaointe a athrú. A chur in oiriúint don athrú. Ná bhfuil rialacha socraithe, ach, modifiable. Mar gheall ar an pléascadh na forbartha teicneolaíochta sé dodhéanta aon rialtas reachtaíocht a rith go tapa go leor chun teorainn a chur le forbairt neamhrialaithe teicneolaíochtaí nua, ach, luath agus is, 10 d'fhéadfadh daoine a fháil billiún ann. ÍOSPARTAIGH NA Brothers Arabach A modernity An bhfuil deartháireacha Arabacha ciceáil asal lena chéile leis na mílte bliain amháin ar bhonn a gcuid difríochtaí dogmatic meager reiligiúnacha. Ach an áit bhreithe an nua-aimseartha, an civilization Arabach a bhí .... Ba iad na hArabaigh íospartaigh ar a bhforbairt féin mar gheall ar an scríbhneoireacht .... Scríbhneoireacht tháinig scléaróis na sochaí nua-aimseartha an chuid is mó dá chuid ama a, i dogmas reiligiúnach a mbeidh an cumainn Arabacha, anois, i measc an chuid is mó coimeádach an phláinéid. Níl aon iontas ann schism mór i ngach reiligiúin ársa i Arabacha. An bhearna idir an reiligiún agus an dearcadh nua, Mar sin, an réaltacht nua, ag éirí níos mó i gcónaí schism dosheachanta. Giúdachas, Chríostaíocht, Ioslam, Protastúnachas ... I mo thuairimse, tá muid réidh le haghaidh eile schism iontach! Bunúsachas reiligiúnach, i dtíortha Arabacha, Shroich bhuaic féidir a ach a contrárthachtaí hArabaigh féin agus níos mó agus níos mó a bhaint amach. Má tharlaíonn sé an méid a tharla sa an-Chaitliceach Québec, le linn na Réabhlóide Ciúin,... D'fhéadfadh tíortha Arabacha bheith, atheists an chuid is mó ...! An hArabaigh bheith coimeádach mar gheall ar an scríbhneoireacht. Ní mór dúinn ach rud amháin a dhéanamh le chéile, Athscríobh stair, chruthú stair. Bí i do oibrí deonach nó deontóir www.referenduminternatiomal.org Ar an gcoinníoll aon atáirgeadh go bhfuil an fhoinse : http://yvesmarineau.com / blog /?p = 135 [1] An t-eolas seo a leanas ar an scaradh chomhlacht agus aigne, sochaithe animistic, Is iad na polytheism agus aondiachas an fhoinse do chúrsaí i socheolaíocht an chultúir ar fáil ag Michael Freitag (1935-2009) le blianta 1980 ag UQAM (Ollscoil Québec i Montreal). [2] Scríobhadh leath den Tiomna Nua le Paul, i ton níos deacra ná an cluiche a insíonn an saol Íosa, sé, Bhí i bhfad níos liobrálaí. Íosa a bhí go mór mór i gcoinne gclochadh, agus ní raibh Muhammad labhairt faoi níos mó sa Koran. Tuilleadh Paul, , leagtar síos rialacha go docht agus a dona sin go léiríonn na hamanna. Mar I measc roinnt pobail gclochadh a Sharia. [3] Pierre Bourdieu dúirt : "Dúirt sé go maith, mar sin tá sé fíor ", ag labhairt le daoine teacht ar dhaoine dea-dhlínse áititheach (Luaigh mé ó chuimhne). [4] Pierre Clastres, "An Cumann in aghaidh an Stáit" nó Malinowski i "Argonauts an Aigéin Chiúin". Molaim do gach duine chun a fháil amach, léamh, oibreacha den antraipeolaíocht d'fhonn tuiscint a fháil ar an smaointeoireacht primitive naive roimh linn agus táimid ag an oidhrí. Pearsanta, Bhfaighidh mé an leabhar níos suimiúla ná anthropologies úrscéal. Captivating. [5] Amach ó fheirmeoirí. Anseo! Nach bhfuil siad, i gcoitinne, níos coimeádach! Mar atá sa "seans"! [6] Ivan Illich avait calculé, le blianta 70, gur chaill an ghluaisteánaí meán 3 uair an chloig in aghaidh an lae mar gheall ar a carr. Chomh maith le costais gásailín lá atá inniu ann níos mó, go bhfuil na subha tráchta níos faide agus níos faide i gcéin bruachbhailte iad. Agus nach bhfuil an tiománaí a bhaint amach an costas fíor a iompar, ar an meán 800 $/mí, nach agus ríomh an t-am ag teastáil as cothabháil agus, den chuid is mó, an t-am a thógann sé oibre a íoc na costais go léir. An costas carr, ar an meán, 10 uaire níos daoire ná idirthurais poiblí. Agus idirthurais, nach mó ná 2 huaire níos moille, Is é an carr iarbhír 5 huaire níos moille. D'fhéadfadh an ghluaisteánaí meán a ghlacadh in aghaidh na seachtaine ar laethanta saoire in aghaidh na míosa, nó 3 míonna na bliana, agus a choinneáil ar an chumhacht ceannaigh céanna. [7] Tiomna Nua. [8] Molann Michel Freitag baint úsáide as an téarma "caighdeán" chun idirdhealú a dhéanamh ar na caighdeáin a thabhairt don duine i gcomparáid le "dlíthe Dhiaga", Mar sin, gásailín líomhnaítear "Dhiaga". Chun desecrate ar dhlíthe agus ar a n-buan. Féadfaidh an caighdeáin gluaiseacht in aghaidh a thabhairt i gcrích ag athrú trí dialectical. Féach freisin ina leabhar "loighciúil agus an tsochaí", 2 toirteanna.