criticism of theology 1

Perceptions differ from each person, and since the perception of the Absolute is different in particular because it is separated in all religions by universal knowledge´-or-at least from the human form with knowledge and ability, the perception of it has been different throughout history, religions, persons, prophecies, and morals, whether it was Abrahamic´-or-No.
Conceive the absolute according to whim, knowledge, social environment, social environment, image and mentality itself, present in the surrounding image,´-or-other, according to need, and from here, according to its politicization, and according to the understanding of the sacred text in this´-or-that religion.
And stripping subjects of psychological self-benefit is illogical in the perception that satisfies them.
And it differs between those who follow the same religion and those who follow the same sect, and it differs even in the minds of those who deny its existence, for he denies a certain deity.
This is because all the imagined images are images of struggles that are not outside the world and outside its data and dimensions. They are different combinations and abstractions. The mind cannot imagine and visualize except with an existent.
These perceptions are taken that people deal with through language, visual and audio, and at the levels of modernity´-or-primitiveness with its gradations, the inability´-or-the longing for its realization, for the authoritarian deity is not the deity of the slave, and the deity of primitive man is not the deity of this age. Knowledge and science are used to feed´-or-distort perception. On the linguistic level, the deity of the poet is not the deity of the speaker, because he is the closest person to language and the closest to using it.
And the Absolute in most of the perceptions cannot be-limit-ed, rather it is liquid, but liquid after the-limit- of grandiosity and amplification of everything that is above man. The absolute was taken in the ancient perception in ancient Egypt, in a primitive form from the tools of the surrounding environment and symbolized by it. As for the level of the Absolute in the degree of ability, knowledge, supremacy and power, it was taken from a distant symbol such as the sun in Ra. The Creator God differed in various myths, and the story differed according to the sociology of the geographical environment. And the meeting almost predominant was that the absolute, in all its forms, the separation of ability and knowledge.
A person is depicted´-or-dependent, no matter how young he is and a believer, on the extent of his weakness, which he removes with his divorced one. This is due to the absence of a reliable meaning outside this divine text, whatever it is, its negation will cause severe turmoil and chaos, just as all the proposed conceptual institutions are institutions without beyond. Metaphysics is a basic space for the self, as it wants someone to convince it of its existence in it, by stripping the environment, religious perceptions, and religious interpretations of it throughout his psychological history. Relying on existence as a meaningful space alone is not sufficient for the human being in most of it.
This is for two reasons:
• The religious, in most of his utilitarian perceptions, cannot taste the existential aesthetics´-or-the artistic insights, poetics, etc., not the religious in its immediate and immersive degree, because his sensor is rooted in-limit-s and ethical standards that are derived from the quality of his current religion.
• It is not possible to remove deification and, after that, religiosity from the subject in its freedoms, because this religiosity is a complete conceptual device, by which his world lives,´-or-a large´-or-small percentage, and modern freedom has transcended the concepts of sanctification, desecration, ridicule and disapproval of anything.
• Not providing a ready-made meaning, even if the religious meaning is illusory
Religion is an essential participant in the conception of the world, by virtue of the historical and archaeological view of ideas, and to set aside´-or-deny this is neither logical nor just. But its comprehensiveness on other dimensions is also illogical, and this will become clear later.
But the imposition, and not the imposition, I mean the authority that is imposed only, but that religion is a dimension in society and an authentic dimension with the psychological dimensions of each state and its specificity. And the imposition is not in the use of authority for religion only-;- the imposition is in the presence of the text that allows its use. Stephen King novels with visual and metaphysical visions cannot be used for the simple reason that they do not contain a body for that.
This is not an excuse that the terrifying authoritarian texts are present in religions only, but in many other forms, to the experience of Hitler and Stalin such experiences, but Hitler s ideas do not go beyond his time because they do not have a divine connection said on the part of the religious. The deconstruction I am doing is centered on religion because it is time-spanning.
Ideas are not monopolized by anyone, in the sense that a believer cannot not use Bertrand Russell s logic because he is an atheist, and an atheist cannot not use the idea of Ibn Arabi because he is a believer in some way. Attempting to create a schizophrenia between religion and others, complete severance and complete will is a dogmatic attempt.
But I understand this dogmatism with a historical view of the self, from repression on both sides, and a complete filling that has nothing to do with it in terms of religion and a complete emptying of various aspects, including revolution, including falsehood, and other forms, but this is not at the level of ideas.
Ideas can be discussed by you and I, while feelings are not, and a person cannot be stripped of his feelings and the motives of his feelings in the formation of his thoughts, but this historical view cannot be accepted if another is attacked by any party under the pretext of his previous psychological suppression and filling him from childhood with these´-or-that thoughts.
This matter is not determined by ideas as a first and treatment but rather by law, because it ends people s lives as happened in Arab history.
Faith is proportional to knowledge in a large proportion, with the survival of an irrational subjective ratio, but even this irrational ratio is in aesthetics, meaning a Muslim person does not know anything about the belief that is the basis of any religion. For him, a Muslim is an illogical form, and the intent is not only Islam but any religion. On the other hand, non-religious ideas are likewise. A person’s saying about himself as a religious sect classification does not mean to me that he knows anything about faith.
And here because of the semantic nature of non-lexical language, and because its carrier is variable, and because the establishment of any name “Muslim, ideal, nihilistic” does not negate the existence of ideas of doctrines, religions, etc. in it.
The thing about saying this is that I want that as you experience more consciously and that faith changes. It develops, it renews, etc. If faith is proportional to knowledge, no one has absolute knowledge. And any such belief in a religion´-or-another, but things never end because the search does not end.
Hence, I see that tolerance is very logical, not only human, as the form of truth is a final product for someone and an absolute product is false.
There are people, who are like drums of information, but there are no arguments, meditations, aesthetics, and discussions with that information, and there are people who are philosophers with the daily experimentation of everything in their head and networking with universal concepts and with their readers.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1