Today these words just escaped from my fingers. Read it, don't, try to understand or not, discuss about it, do what you wish.

Since I like obviously discussing about religion, I follow debates and listen to people arguing about their position. Every once in a while it happens however that someone lets himself be carried away unwittingly in a mental short circuit which hinders reasonments. One of these prisons of reason, I think, is affirming "the bible is wrong". It may happen because one seriously thinks it, or because of inexperience, or because discussing about a particular someone generalised... whatever. The fact is that affirming "the bible is right" or "the bible is wrong" is irrelevant: from the moment it's written on a piece of paper, from the moment the concept is formed, his time is due, and it's submitted to relativity like for everything else. This means that also an authoritative text at some point ceases to be authoritative (because the universe evolves). The non-relevance of the bible of the local sacred text derives and concludes in the fact that affirmations are made on facts, but not only the bible isn't structured in this way, the fact themselves can change. So everyone can carry out the tasks that believers retain pertaining to the bible, for example comprehending love or attempt to form a morality.

It happens that reading some conversations, some lucubrations of certain people, though the knowledge that they're wrong, in that moment they are able to be logically correct. What however is always not right in these writings are the origin and the consequences, that often require an absolute or are so absurd that they cannot be took seriously, they and the one who thought it (if not in some ideological niche). Unless they are a lot, then probably considering that there may be some repercussions it's tried to contradict them the less possible... The superstitious and religious mentality belong to this environment, finding evidence to support them is an activity in which few people risks. I believe I can say that the simplest one should be the one relative to this singular infinite divinity that someone calls with the name of "love". What I can show is that pronouncing "i love god"... nothing happens; "i hate god"... nothing happens; "i love adronga"... nothing happens; "i hate adronga"... nothing happens. So we need inventing a reason for which the thing should work -- just not now. This explains why disciplines like 'cultural mediation' and 'interfaith dialogue' was born.

One of the oldest arguments that I ever heard of is that if there's not the "authority" then "we can do what we want". In a show (the one of ardent atheist with paul leiva) the christian guest said he would go around in his car flipping off people irritating people or something like that. Now, even not considering our biologic impulses, not having a morality or not having absolutes doesn't allow every behavior. For starters insulting people, although I may understand it as an outburst from the religious oppression , it's useless: it doesn't give useful informations, it isn't a constructive critique, it's nothing. Actually the reasons for insulting people have nothing to do with this. In regard to the supposed freedom, instead, it's obvious that for living in a decent way in a community some behaviors cannot exist: or you contribute or you consume without providing anything in change. For this reason behaviors like killing whoever you like or rape whenever you feel like it would be harmful not only to other people but to you too, for we live in symbiosis. Simplifying a little killing the mechanic means not having someone who repairs cars, killing the baker means not having bread anymore, and so on. Living together so requires toleration, but in the end it seems it's worth it. Like said before, everything is relative: if we hadn't the need for eating, for breathing, for reproduction, everyone could run around brawling with everbody... Why do it? Because it's supposed that man is a victim of his urges, and so, in this hypothesis of a lack of morality, everyone, thinking only for himself, would not have consideration for others. But I think there's a problem: to reach this situation the needs were eliminated (so there's no motivation to act like that) -- because else the most obvious answer would be doing what already exists: cities. But even retaking our biological imperative, this would not happen. We feel pain, we know others are human like (at least) like us, we know that for them too the pain is unpleasant. Although it's true that if there aren't 'ties' then there won't be no consideration in provoking pain, it's also true that there won't be any reason for acting like that. And it's still a fantasy, anyway. So the reason for living at the moment together and trying to cope in harmony is that this behavior seems to be the one that grants the best life (maybe not for everyone, there are weird fellows).

I think that many have and had had in mind a metaphor, nothing new, for the monotheist god as 'society'. The comparison, I think, it holds on numerous fronts, while we keep in consideration the aspects concerning it. It's about a gigantic phenomenon, not comprehensible to the single mind, that provides us everything and thanks to which we exist, something that rewards us and punishes us, that is responsible for our life, that satisfies our needs, that judges us and that we feel obliged to respect, to which we practically dedicate our life, and to which we ask for help; it's the whole world around us, it moves everything (at least the ones that we care ), it hasn't a well defined beginning and an end (it may seem a bit stretched but I don't think so). Although this may lead to political arguments, I prefer to remain on religion. This incomprehension generates also fear, because what is not understood is feared. But men are animals that functions by objectives, with causality, and not finding something immediate (and simple) to which attribute negative things some people remedy by repairing in conspirations (so focusing on a "real" (identified) enemy), generally hebraic, but that's another story.