We cannot be like God. He is unique, but we should try to be like He asks us to be.


Aeschylus (525-456) Prometheus Bound, Oresteia.


God has established a moral code, which He wishes His children to adopt.



Any Romanian child has more knowledge about the Bible than the great majority of the Americans of any age. But, in time, as he grows up, his faith diminishes. First, he learn that Father Christmas, he who - after a thrilling waiting - gives him presents, and fills his soul with joy, he, Father Christmas himself was not a fabulous personage, but a well-known individual, and everything was only a little theatre, specially staged for children. After such a deception, it is almost a logical consequence to come to the conclusion that the whole religion is a story for children in which he stops to believe when consider no longer to be a child.


Later on, when he learns at school that, in the name of the Christianity, people made the greatest atrocities (Inquisition, crusades, etc.), and when find by himself that some priests are not the most educated persons who could be his masters, his faith is completely wiped off.


That's why, the endeavor to preach the Bible to a grown-up who has lost his faith only with some biblical stories and its threatening has no chances.


For all that, the religion is still necessary. Where is the mistake? I think it is in the weak quality of the priests. They do only their duty of keeping the religious service. They ceased to be people's confessors, and most times have not the necessary intellectual level. The parishioners frequently are more educated. They are not able to respond to the matters of the real life.


And, for coming back to the children, the priests do not know how to preserve the contact with the children when they learn that Father Christmas is not real, and to explain that any story has a morale, and the morale is that which count.


Some people need religion and it as a pity that churches are no longer able to do their duty.




I knew some young Mormons who came in Romania to do proselytism. As a matter of fact, they stopped me in the street. Since then, I met them several times, as I am curious to know what they say, why they try to persuade Romanian people - who are Christians for about 2000 years - and in which way they hope to do it. I am interested in religion generally, as part of the culture and civilisation. As a European I am particularly interested in Christianity, whatever would be the church that preach it.


I do not discuss now their cheekiness. Most of them failed in the admitting exam at a university, and are afraid to do the military service. That's why they come here for a period of two years. They proved to be incapable in their own life, but want to teach others. That reminds me of an old caricature featuring a beggar inviting people to buy a booklet for learning how to become a millionaire.


Also, I do not discuss now the American government that absolve them of carrying out the military service, under the condition to go oversees for make proselytism. Politics is and always was perfidious and immoral.


What is surprising to me is the wrong method recommended by Mormons' leaders. They preach the some simple ideas everywhere in the world, without taking account that people are different. Besides, their doctrine is very poor, special conceived for the Americans of the 19th century. Even if the Romanians are keen on everything coming from USA, they reject the Mormons' church. For all that, the Mormons do a bad service to any religion, because make them ridiculous.


6 April, 2001

The Bible does not contain properly a cosmogony, which is very good. The first part of the Old Testament is only a history of the Jewish people, sometimes transfigured into a metaphor. Even the Genesis comes into this category. The Eden may be identified with the old Sumer, and God with a Sumerian king, who accepted a Jewish tribe on his territory for different works. As they did not keep the arrangement and tested from the tree of knowledge, namely they aimed upper then it had been allowed to them, the king expulsed them. This idea is propped by placing the Eden at east, therefore on the Earth and not in the heaven, were there are not points of the compass, and where four rivers branch, among which two are just Tiger and Euphrates (Geneses 2, 8-14). More than it, after God observed the sin committed by Adam and Eve, declares "Here is that man reached like one of us . . ." (Genesis 3, 22). Consequently, God was not alone. He used to speak in the name of the leadership of Sumer and accuse the Jews that exceeded their rights as employees, infiltrating themselves among the employers, ore - much worse - made what we designate now to be economic espionage.


I said that it is very good the Bible does not contain a cosmogony, because we have not a unanimous recognised one not even for the time being. In exchange, the Bible offer us a metaphor that is full of teachings, of moral consequences, being in this way a useful educational guide.


2 April, 2001

There are two trends in religion. The first is that antique, in which people used to implore idols and divinities. They, the people, were considering themselves insignificant, while the divinity was not only almighty and sometimes malevolent, but always capricious, so that people could not be sure that their appeals will be fulfilled.


The second trend is that developed by the Christianity, where God is good. Even if he tries us from time to time, he does it with an educational purpose, as the parents educate their children, or coaches train the sportsmen. The all of these does it with good intentions.


The God's promise is an optimistic one: if we shall follow his guidance, our future will be a happy one. And his promise is approachable because he is good and not capricious. People are his children, and he, as every parent, love his children.


Consequently, our task does not consist any longer of invoking the mercy and help, but to follow the guidance. As the sportsman does not implore his coach to bring him the performance on the plateau, but work under his guidance, in the same way, we do not ask God to give us something for which we did not work.


A bird coming to peck from our palm is not mild, as we are tempted to think, but cheeky. Also, when we ask God to help us too frequently, we are not his obedient children; we are cheeky.


2 April, 2001

The God's glory is ensured without our everyday hymns as well. Coming from our part, the glorifying hymn sounds like a flattery, as disgusting as afterwards an appeal follows. God, help me please! And we ask his help for anything, even if our demands are not always just some Christian ones.


2 April, 2001

The faiths are responsibly not only for their direct issues, but also for the secondary ones. Thus, the Christianity is directly guilty for the alienation of the man from the nature (the eternity is in the other world, not here), but also because, trying to make man better, it made him worse. God asks man to be good with each other. Everyone can be good to another man, but not by yourself. The Final Judgement will put in the balance what everyone did to his neighbour. In this way, people are linked each other, interested one another. The Christianity join people together, but, being together, they reach to do wrongdoing faster than good deeds. Only seldom people join themselves for good deeds. Much frequently the malefactors does common "business". From the crusades to the disgusting and perfidious, fashionable care for human rights, demagogical shown just by those who were and are the first who encroach upon them the Christian world did not make man better that he was; on the contrary.


2 April, 2001

I have just read the leaflet from a CD with music of American Indians, where the author insisted on the idea that, in Indian spiritualist faith, man is considered to be part of nature. It is here from his attachment to the nature arises.


I am thinking the morale issued from the Christian faith is opposite. In Christianity, people are taught that their existence on the Earth is temporary; the eternity is in the Eden, likely in the Hell. From here the scorn to the earth and everything is on it, the neglecting of the medium.


Even in Extreme Oriental faiths, although mankind's existence on the Earth is considered to be temporary too, the care to plants and animals is extremely important. Only the Christians are inimical to the medium.



18 March, 2001

Religions played an important role in the history of every people, the more important the longer his history is.

We, the Romanians, belong to the Christian Orthodox civilization and, consequently, we are educated in its spirit. Someone could declared that he is Orthodox, Catholic, Hindus, Muslim, or atheist; he could let be baptized how many times he wants, but he will never can change his origin, his education, which is of Christian Orthodox. We cannot change our past.

The Americans are different. They came from wide world and they are from different religions. That's why they still seek for a religion and at any time it seems to them that they have just found out a better, or at least a suitable religion.


14 March, 2001

People perceive the religion in different ways, according with their nature. At the extremities, there are:

- Those with weak will. They need help and implore the divinity's support for this. They do not want to understand but to believe, because the belief absolves them to make any effort and give them a reason for life.

- Those with too much will, usually avid of the power, who take advantage of the religion in order to handle those from the first category.


Between the two extremes, there are those more of less balanced trying to understand and take from the religion as much matches with their understanding.


14 March, 2001

The Christianity has spread on two different ways:


1. Step by step, particularly inside the poor section of the population. This is the characteristic way in the first four centuries, inside the Roman Empire. The biblical message used to be optimist: there is a future life, therefore a hope, and it depends by our will to make it happy. God is good, people are equal each other, so that their chances are equal as well.


2. By imposition, particularly by Goths and other barbarians, as far as they occupied the territory of former Roman Empire and after Wulfila translated Bible in Goth language in the 4th century. The arguments were the sword, frightening and intimidation. God ceased to be good. On the contrary, the old manners came back; people are threatened with the Apocalypse and all kinds of punishments and obliged to rise hymns, because kings were God's representatives on the earth so that people have to glorify the God but the kings too. As a matter of fact, the occidental church lost its message of love and the religion became a mean in the politician's hands. Priests serve no longer the religion but use the religion for their own interests. This explains the future apparition of the protesting cults and sects.


If in Orthodox churches Jesus Christ is featured during the Ascension, giving an optimist message as he promised to come again in a happy kingdom, in the Catholic churches he is featured mostly during his passions. The only message is that, if he suffered we have to suffer too. The penitence is the only way.


11 March, 2001

The young Mormons are like children wanting to teach their parents how to make children. The Christianity was born here. Not just here, in Brasov, but in Jerusalem, not so far away from here. To be more exactly, at about 1500 Km, namely the distance between Seattle and Los Angeles. Thanks to the apostle Andrew and his followings, our ancestors became Christians as early as the first years. During the centuries, the Romanians had to fight against the pagans to keep the Europe Christian. The Romanians are born Christians as nation and are Christians as individuals, willingly or unwillingly, because they are educated in Christian spirit, in Christian morale.


What about the Americans? The first American settlers were Christians, but not the best ones. On the contrary! What they did? Among other things, they slaughtered the Indians, set the slavery up again, even if it had been abolished in Europe for more than 1000 years and many other bad deeds. And - what was the worst - they did all these with the Bible in their hands. Afterwards, people from everywhere in the worldwide have come in America. They were not all Christians. Together, Christians and not-Christians, they sought after the best religion. Sometimes, disappointed by what they found, they look for new solutions. A new religion would be the best, but they were not able to do it, so that they refreshed an old one, if possible with some American savor. Possible under the divine inspiration! May be or may not be. Who knows it? Anyway, they are still looking for a religion and new and new cults and sects appear frequently.


11 March, 2001

As a beginning is proved - both biblical and archeological - an end must be as well. The idea of an imminent end gives birth to the salvation idea, evidently for those who will be alive then. How to save themselves? With prayers will be more difficult, but with some technology maybe. Anyway, the solution is not to be found in a book written several thousands years ago. But, till then, it would be good for us to keep the planet entirely, and for this the Bible teaches us more things than any other book.


10 March, 2001

As the Bible is unique, there is the impression that it is for all the people. Today, every book has an address: books of chemistry, books of geography, books for children, for grownups, etc. Nobody read a book that is supposed not to be addressed to him. No one write a book without address. Just during an author is writing a book he has in mind someone who will read his book.


Was God wrong thinking that Bible could be for all the people? No, God was not wrong, but when the Bible was written the number of those who were able to read was very small. They used to be the wise men of that time. Consequently, Bible was an exact address, just a very narrow one. They, that wise people, who were scientists and priests as well, should to read the Bible and convey its philosophy to common people, according with their understanding, using some reasons and parables for children, other ones for adults, some for ignorance and other ones for those with some knowledge.


Unfortunately, in the meantime, the wise priests disappeared and only simple priests have remained. This happened particularly during the Middle Age, when the clergy join with the political power and caught the test of power and richness. What happened afterwards has nothing in common with the wisdom of Bible.


What is the situation today?

1. The priests do not keep any longer the power, except the Muslims, but they are not capable to improve their message. They use the same reasons from the Middle Age, some of them nave, other nonscientist, and do not differentiate their discourse vis--vis to the interlocutors.


2. The wise people, namely the most intelligent of us, early from their childhood direct themselves to more pragmatic fields and become mathematicians, biologists, physicians, or at least engineers.


Nowadays, almost all the people know to read and write. But are they all prepared to understand the wisdom of the Bible? Is it enough to read the Bible? Surely, not! A tutor is necessary. Bible will always be the tutor's manual of the reference and of that who think to be able to understand its spirit by himself, because Bible must be understand in his spirit, not in its letter.


It is true that the apostles were illiterate, but they were chosen by Jesus Christ specially to convey his message inside the society where they came from. Literacy would of no use, on the contrary. But nowadays most people now to read. The similar of an apostle need to have some master degrees in several fields.


28 February, 2001


For Mormons.

I have a question, but you are not the man to shad light on it. Joseph Smith was a great man, as he founded a new church. Unfortunately, the Mormons' doctrine is a very weak one; in fact, it is not a doctrine at all. The question is why did he it, or - if he did it - why did not do it properly?


Mr. Chirila (I think this is his name), the president, said that we, people, were some spirits who chose to incarnate ourselves and finally we will become spirits again. It seems that he has chose wrong the book: instead of the Bible, he has read a Hindus book. Anyway, he is a good orator (public speaker), a great cunning fellow and, as any gypsy (because he is a gypsy), a very cheeky, unprincipled and of wavering character man.


They talked over the importance of the choice, but only generally. It is true, choosing is the most important act that we do. This is what we do in every moment: choose. The problem is how we choose. For every real choice, we need criterions, and for a good choice, we need correct criterions. This is the real problem, and the question is how the church could help us to have correct criterions?


A guy from the first row said he was Orthodox, but he did not like the beggars begging in the front of Orthodox churches and came to the Mormon's church. Is this a criterion?


By the way, I have a question: which attitude we ought to have with regard to the beggars? If I choose to ignore them, some people will say that I am an ill-willed man. If I give them what they want, I do not really help them, because I would encourage them to go on begging, instead of seeking for a job. (If you ask a drunkard what he wants, he would answer he wants one more cup of drink, but that surely would not be the best deed.) Besides, most of the beggars are children used by adults in a real miserable business.


The Romanians have allergy to everything reminding them by communism and particularly by Stalinist period. The Russian from that epoch used to say that any good things from the world were of Soviet or Russians origin, their system was a real democracy, etc., and, above all, Stalin was the greatest man who ever lived. (We used to say that Soviet dwarf is also the biggest dwarf of the world.) That's why, saying now that something or someone is the greatest, the best, or - still worse - the single true, sounds very false.


That old woman, who prayed for your president, surely did the same for Stalin forty years ego. She is a woman who, like Judas, for a few advantages, is able to sell both her mother and father, if she did not it yet.


The Mormons make the Eucharist with water instead of wine, because they do not drink wine at all. It is true that people sometime drink too much wine, but they did it before Jesus as well and, for all that, Jesus chose the drink wine. Are the Mormons wiser? I think this is an exaggeration, and any exaggeration is a mistake. When we do not hit the aim, it is equally wrong if the arrow went rather left, right, up or down.


The Eucharist is an individual act and people are able to receive it only after a confession. There is a psychological moment for every man. We cannot plan it weekly, or monthly, in a collective action. It is true, Orthodox and Catholic churches sometime do it in very special moments, supposing that just that moment rallied people to confess and - in this way - they are prepared to receive the Eucharist. Besides, people are not obliged. Only those who want go ahead for it.


A good Christian does good deeds. What is so good in what they do here? If they had done good deeds, people would say: "look! This is a good church." Now, people ask for what are they here? And the answer comes: "because they prefer to come here instead of doing military service and the American government encourage them, because it is cheaper and more efficient to send missionaries instead of soldiers."


28 February, 2001

At the beginning, it is the word that was. The Bible says that. Of course, the God's word! "Word" has a deeper meaning here. It says that God had a plan, a project, before starting to make the world. He didn't play making earth, plants, animals and finally some little men, at random. First, he had had a project. All the nature was conceived as a whole. That's why we ought to preserve the nature as it is, with the mankind in it. This is our first duty. If we have too many "original" eccentric ideas, there is the risk of becoming non-functional inside of our upper-system and, consequently, the system will eliminate us, just because it was conceived as a whole.


28 February, 2001

Bible appeared in a certain historical period, when people used to have a certain mentality, some conceptions specific for that time, and were educated according with the doctrines of older religions. In order to make itself understandable, the Bible had to use the language of that time, and needed to combat the bad customs of those times. Today, mankind is different. Not better, but different. The church ought to refer to our customs - good or bad - and to select from the Bible those parables that are still of nowadays interest or match with our life's questions.



Last Sunday I met a fellow, who said to me he was going to a church, I asked him why he went to that church, as there is another closer to his house. He answered that he meets there more interesting and nice people, and the priest keeps the service properly.

You invited me to your church. Except you, who are interesting there? I am afraid, no one.



If you had asked someone living three centuries ago "which kind of cars will be in the future?" he probably would have said hat a car with more horses or something like this. In no case he would not has been able to conceive a car without horses, but with an engine. Bible was written in according with people's knowledge at that time. It was the priests' mistake that they made opposition to science and the Bible seems to become obsolete now. It is not obsolete at all, but it must be wisely interpreted in according with our real life. Priests are again against, because hey are uneducated.


Some things are easy understandable. For example, the Bible said that Jesus would come to the Earth and rule as a king. Why "as a king"? Because kings used to be the maximum that a man could be at that time, the maximum which men could imagine. How would it sound if it had been sad "as a president"? Ridiculous, of course! We say king, but understand the maximum of power and - maybe - wise. And so it happens with almost everything from the Bible. Consequently, let's speak about the signification and not about the story!


In ancient Greece, as people used to believe in gods, they were saying that Olympus is the place where gods live. But Olympus is a mountain not so high, and soon people climbed on its top. Then, the priests changed the expression and said that gods live somewhere far away, in a place like a mountain.

Such things happened many times, and the priests have to adapt the ideas to new discoveries, otherwise they lose their credibility. The first Christians believed that God is in Heaven, and the Heaven is in the sky. It was all right as long as the earth was thought to be a platter in the middle of the Universe. Now, the sky is vague definite and nobody is curious to know where the Heaven is. Unfortunately, the priests of the 15th century were the latest who understood and accepts to change the old ideas.


Of course, nobody believes now in Mythology. But our ancestors did it. We must know the way in which they thought in order to understand them and their works. Also, we must know the most important fairy tales of people from wide world; they are filled with life philosophy. Some major themes are to be found in any religion, like the deluge. They are the same, but with small differences. Just in those differences we could find deeper philosophical meanings of the religions.


The great masters painted mainly biblical scenes. As the most numerous old paintings feature biblical subjects, it is almost impossible to understand the history of the art, without knowing something about the Bible.


During the communist rule, young people don't officially learnt about it. They would have been hindered if they had not learnt something from other different ways than school. And so the Mormons are. They cannot understand their own religion if they do not read about the others, in order to make differences.


The Mormon Church is a new one. Why they did not approach the religion from a scientific position? The traditional church has fallen in mistake just because, after they got the power and because of the laziness, the priests preferred to impose their rule, rather than to study in order to be real priests, namely spiritual people guides. Why the Mormons repeat from the start the same mistakes? The traditional church was good at the beginning and was wrong later. The Mormons had a wrong start.


Why they did not adopt 3 April as the Easter Sunday, for example? It was then when the moon eclipse occurred. For the priests, it has hard to accept that what seemed to be a miracle was a banal eclipse. But now, we know it certainly. The Mormons could have been so wise to adopt it.


That's why, please, don't repeat the same mistakes of the past. Nobody wants to know if Joseph Smith had a vision, a hallucination, or simply invented it for children and stupid people. If you insist on it, you prove that you did not understand what the Christianity is.


I am not cleverer than you are because I am older, but because I am more educated. You cannot know what the Christianity is if you are not able to make comparisons, at least with the Judaism and Mythology. You only say that Joseph Smith was great and some naiveties around him. This is not a religion yet. Not the best, but not at all.



Any religion has a cosmogony. From that cosmogony result the life philosophy of that religion. The Old Testament begins with an almighty God, who does anything he wants, including the mankind, apparently for his own pure amusement. At that time, people were used to believe in some dreaded divinities and God could not be much different. The idea that God is unique was not quite new. Even the Dacians - the Romanian's ancestors - used to believe in a single god: Zamolxes. What was really new came later and it consist in the idea that God is a good and forgiving divinity. All that we have to do is to behave in according with his norms. So, there is a chance! We have a chance, which was not possible with other divinities. Mankind has a chance! This was something absolutely new. Not only the individuals, but also the mankind.



One of the main pretended motivations of almost every religion - at least the Christian one - is the idea to make man better, lover. But:


1. After 2000 years, the Christians did not become better at all. On the contrary, they go on doing evils. Only their methods are some better ones, namely meaner, dirtier. Meantime, they have built a competitional society, where people could not live without a little wickedness. The concurential society is the Europe's invention, consequently an outcome of the Christianity. Maybe a secondary, unexpected one, but clearly one of its effects.


2. Some species of animals and birds are particularly lover inside of their group and family. Some of them just to other species. Love is not a discovery of the Christianity, not only of the mankind. On the contrary, mankind is going to banish love from its bosom.


If it is proved that religion was inefficient from this point of view, why it insists? That means it was and is efficient in a different way. Which one? Well, it was certainly useful in politics as an instrument for manipulating people. It is useful today yet as an instrument for separation and split people and spread hatred among them, according to the principle: "Divide et Impera".


2001 January 26

1. In the Old Testament, it is said about the Jews as "the Chosen People". It was a mistake. Jesus did not correct it. It was Saint Paul who did it.


2. There are lots of remainders of the past linked by the faith in a severe, unkind, hostile, vindictive divinities. People have to invoke them in order to obtain their allowance. But God is good, and goodwill is the spirit of the Christianity.


3. We are urged to raise hymns to glorify the God. This is a political influence; glorifying the God, people will glorify the king or the emperor, as kings and emperors pretend to be God's representatives.


4. Priests were those who wrote the Apocalypse, because it was easier to manipulate a frightened people than a brave one.


Even if the Bible was written under the divine inspiration, it is clear that some priests sneak some of their own ideas, according with their interests. That's why we have to be careful for understanding the real message of the God.


2001 January 25

Why was necessary that Jesus to baptize people second time, after they had been baptized many centuries ago (Chapter 18)?


* / *


The Romanians accept heartily everything come from USA. Why they do not accept the Mormon's religion? But they are tolerant with the missionaries' presence. Why are they so tolerant? Because the Romanians are strong enough in their faith. No chance to change it.

* / *


Unlike the Judaism, where the Jews are considered to be the single chosen people, the Christians think that chosen people are all those believe in God and his son, Jesus Christ. But the Bible was written under the divine inspiration. Was God wrong when Old Testament was written and corrects his mistake in the New Testament, or the priests sneaked some of their ideas? As they were Jews, they made from Judaism a national religion. If yes, it is supposed there are other mistakes or wrong interpretation too. That's why, we are to interpret the Bible.


* / *

The twelve apostles used to be faithful and so were the first Christians. The prove is they keep their faith on, in spite of the persecutions. Later on, the politicians realized that they could better obtain benefit from Christian doctrine: to be good, patient and especially obedient, rather then to make opposition. It happened in the year 313. Soon after it, the priest begun to taste from the advantages to be next the power and wealth. As a result, politicians and priests went hand in hand. But the power corrupt, perverts and the priests betrayed the faith. (But this did not happen everywhere; surely not in Romania, which never was a great power, but people had to fight against lots of pagans.) Shortly, in 300 years, many of the Christian churches lost their faith.

As in Fourth Nephi is written, "After three hundred years both the Nephites and the Lamanites are wicked". Joseph Smith refreshes the faith in an American version at the beginning of the 19th century. What hamper us to think they will become sinners in the following years, supposing they are not some ones yet?


* / *

People from throughout the world are God's sons, even if not all of them are Christians. If they believe in other things, that is so because God wants it. That's why I respect the faith of every people. If I go in India, for example, I should keep my religion, as I am educated in this way and I could not change my education of a life, but I should try to learn as much as possible about the Extreme Orient's faiths, because I am an intellectual and I want to know.

* / *

2001 January 24

Christianity is much more than a collection of stories, fairy tales. It is an attitude; it is a way of life. It has a morale.


Let's make the difference between the faith and the church. We can be Christians and may belong to different churches. Some churches are better, or less good, according with its priests and believers. But, let's not confound the faith with the church. Now, let's see who we are.


I am a Romanian. As most of my fellow countrymen, I am Christian. Perhaps not the best, but a Christian one, because the Christianity itself was born here. Not just here, in Brasov, but in Jerusalem, not so far away from here. To be more exactly, at about 1500 Km, namely the distance between Seattle and Los Angeles. Thanks to the apostle Andrew and his followings, our ancestors became Christians as early as the first years. During the centuries, the Romanians had to fight against the pagans to keep the Europe Christian. The Romanians are born Christians as nation and are Christians as individuals, willingly or unwillingly, because they are educated in Christian spirit, in Christian morale.


What about the Americans? The first American settlers were Christians, but not the best ones. On the contrary! What they did? Among other things, they slaughtered the Indians, set the slavery up again, even if it had been abolished in Europe for more than 1000 years and many other bad deeds. And - what was the worst - they did all these with the Bible in their hands. Afterwards, people from everywhere in the worldwide have come in America. They were not all Christians. Together, Christians and not-Christians, they sought after the best religion. Sometimes, disappointed by what they found, they look for new solutions. A new religion would be the best, but they were not able to do it, so that they refreshed an old one, if possible with some American savor. Possible under the divine inspiration! May be or may not be. Who knows it? Anyway, they are still looking for a religion and new and new cults and sects appear frequently.


* / *

Is this church a true one?

A church is a community of Christian believers.

"Cogito, ergo sum!" Descartes said! Consequently, I exist. If I am in doubt, I could pinch myself, for verifying my existence. As concerning you, maybe you exist only in my imagination. I could pinch you as well, but it would not be convenient to you, so that I am satisfied if you say something that I had not known before, proving in this way your existence.

As I exist and you exist too, we already form a community. If we are some Christians, our community is a church. A true church, because a false one couldn't exist. A church exists or doesn't.


* / *

The man is a social being. He cannot live alone. Psychologically, he needs to be surrounded by other people, because he cannot define himself absolutely. He defines himself by means of his fellow men and God, if he is a believer. They make him whole; without them the man is not complete.

They save man from restlessness of his limitation in time and space.


* / *

Blaise Pascal, mathematician and physicist, considered one of the great minds in intellectual history, became a good and fervent Catholic believer. He entered the Jansenist community and led a rigorously ascetic life until his death. Of course, most of us wonder how was that possible? A more attentively reading of his works shows us that his change was not an abrupt one, and it was not accidentally at all. As a matter of fact, it was not a change, but a process. Here is one of his declarations: "I spent many days studying abstract sciences, but the rather small number of people what one can communicate with on the scientific field had disgusted me by them. When I started the study of man, I saw that these abstract sciences are not specific to him and that, penetrating in them, I was deviating from my condition more than those who were ignoring them."

It seams that the idea of communication was in fashion at that time. Spinoza said: "My aim is to reach a high nature and endeavor that many other to get it together with me. I cannot be happy if I do not endeavor that many other people to know, exactly like me, so that, their intellect and wish to correspond to my intellect and wish." But Spinoza was neither Christian nor believer, but an excommunicated Jew.

Coming back to Pascal, he understood that by means of religion, his live will more complete. Obviously, he perceived the religion at higher level than he could do it before studying abstract science. The same thing happens nowadays with more and more people, as they learn abstract sciences as early as in school.

Due to its high scientific position, Pascal had become more and more alone. He found out that church was for him the best way of the communication with as much people as possible.


* / *

Gothic cathedrals, by means of their huge sizes for that time, used to have in view, besides the improving the trade prestige of the towns, the increasing the difference between the God and the pettiness of the men. The idea - useful for the politicians of that times - was just opposite of the Christian doctrine, which proposes to render the dignity to the man and the trust in him. This message was resumed in the recent times, because only nowadays people understand deeply the Jesus' message, beyond the ritual and legend, maybe even in the philosophical plan, as the philosophy itself has become more accessible, entered more in the preoccupations of common people.


* / *

The best way for to be successful in politics is to find a great number of people going in a no matter way and put yourself in front of them. This is what Joseph Smith did, even if not just in politics. The United States were being very young and its prosperity was making the Americans to ignore the past and to want to do everything by themselves. An own prophet seemed to be a good idea at that moment. Is it topical, yet? Of course not, but he created a church in the meantime, and this is what counts, because the church exists.


* / *


Many years, people asked themselves whether Jesus Christ and the other characters from the Bible really existed. With all these questions and in spite of them, the Christianity went on.


Nowadays, we know that most of them existed in reality and they belong now to the history. The scientist proved it.


What is remarkable is that, in the whole this time, the Christianity followed its way regardless of these recently discoveries, not knowing that, one day, some scientists will prove them. The idea was stronger that useless questions. This was the Europe's way, and nowadays America bears the banner further.


Is now useful the question whether Joseph Smith was a real prophet or not? In my opinion, the only question is what is his message, except that he was an American?


* / *

Instead of a Cosmogony


When thinking of micro-cosmos, we have in view tiny lifeless particles having certain characteristic physical features. In macro-cosmos, the only difference is that the tiny particles become very large cosmic bodies. We wonder ourselves if life exists on other planets but any planet strictly speaking is conceived as something without life. Into this inanimate and simple medium, between micro and macro cosmos, life does exist at least on our planet on which we live with all of our faiths and fights. Odd, isn't it?


The culprit is our imagination, or more specifically, our lack of imagination. We understand what occurs around us but our knowledge decreases substantially as our thinking moves farther away. In both micro-cosmos as well as macro-cosmos, our mind imagines simple particles whirling unceasingly around each other. Really? Is the world senseless? Unlikely! What would be the sense of a world without sense?


We will never be able to provide answers to these questions but this does not prevent us from imagining other cosmogonies. But why? The reason for any cosmogony ever conceived was to make sense of our life and to serve as support of morality. Any religion does offer some moral norms based upon a particular cosmogony. The science, on the other hand, destroys any cosmogony, and implicitly the moral norms that had used that cosmogony as support, offering nothing as a replacement.


If you are not a religious person at all, consider the following proposition. As science accepts the infinite as mathematical notion, then we may accept that Earth is a particle in the micro-cosmos of another superior system which, in turn, is a particle in other systems and so on. Perhaps we are somewhere in an infinite flight of stairs. Can Earth be a particle of the liver of an upper being? It seems we must accept that life could exist both in small and large infinite. There is a god for us and we are gods for our some smaller ones.


But how could I tell to those smaller beings what I want they to do. How could I address to them? They do not know Romanian language, not even English. It must be another way, not to make them to understand me, but to oblige them to work properly. If don't, the inflicting punishment will be drastic and then... what, for example, a section of the liver becomes out of the body? A decaying material. Of course, it would be a naivete to think that God looks like us and He watches our individual existence.


Is there a moral? From an individual point of view the answer is NO, but - from a collective one - it is YES. We must keep Earth alive; otherwise the vital functions of the upper being will surely remove us as a decayed corpuscle! In which way? This would be the topic of the religion.


This is not just a cosmogony but it deserves to think on it.


It looks like such of pantheism. What a trump of a fellow this Spinoza was! He knew nothing about he structure of the atom, but thought better than many contemporaries. As we understand him now, I wonder when we will understand the ancient Greeks, although Hindu tradition is nearer by the pantheism.


* / *


About prayer


For the beginning, here is a joke.

Two Jews at the Wailing Wall, in their characteristic style, were beseeching God to help them. One of them, poorer, was content with some food for his children. The other, a rich man, was asking help in the succeeding of a large business, which he was going to start. Disturbed by the first one, the rich proposed hem: "look here, here is some money, go and buy some food for your children, and leave God to think quietly about important things.


How justified really are our claims for God to help as in solving our private problems? Maybe God has something else better to do at very that moment. We frequently say about the bird that comes and pecks grains from our palm that it is mild. In reality it is only cheeky. Imploring the God, we also are both as believers as much we are cheeky.


God surely has a will. I do not know whether he has goodwill as well: the goodwill to listen and fulfill our petty requests. In exchange, the wish for us to behave optimally in respect of the functional requirements of the system in which we are part is an objective one. God, no matter how we define him, surely wants this thing.


It is not of help for us to implore the divinity in fulfilling our desires already set up, but the question addressed to ourselves: whither we direct our steps? Then, maybe the God will help us and will reveal the best way. Joseph Smith did not know which church to go to and then he had a revelation. So, before revelation, he had a problem. He put to himself a question and was waiting for a reply: which way to lead his steps. The question preceded the revelation, and not inversely.


But, the questions are the privilege of the intellectuals. Common people put fewer questions. Many questions disturb them. They obey themselves to the traditions and customs and are ready to believe in myths and paranormal events. New ideas, philosophical questions trouble them and, for this reason, they dismiss them before even listen to the questions. What directs them is the tradition.


Because people are different, their attitude referring to religion is different. At the extremities, the intellectuals put questions and discussing them is useful, while the common people are to hold to the traditions without asking more. Thanks to the intellectuals, the tradition changes itself, but slowly.


The rapid changes, like revolutions are catastrophically.


The communism was such a trial. It wanted to replace the traditional religion with the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. We do not need to show how that this trial was a stupidity.


* / *


God, thank you for giving me a little gift and I am able to paint. I shall do my best in painting nature, because it helps people to be better. It teaches them to love the nature, to love each other, to love your creation, to love yourself. I shall try to render toe beauty of the nature, because your creation is beauty.




God, help me to make my American friends to understand my good things, because they are good men and want me to understand them as well. I hope that we will succeed together in finding the right way better than separately. Just our different points of view could help us to understand your way.


* / *

About the prophets' role.

While I speak about painting, you speak about the painter. Speaking about Voltaire, for example, we do not have in our view his ugliness - he was a very ugly man, you know - but the sharpness of his mind and the beauty of his works.


As a community of people - composed by people - a church is as good as much as its believers are. Of course, some wise men are welcomed, but do not put their portraits on the walls and turn then into some dictators. People are sick and tired of dictators, prophets and all kind of clear-sighted persons. We do not pray to them, but to the God.


* / *

The Mythology the loving Lord.

The first part of the Bible was written during the Babylonian Exile (586-538 BC). At that time, the Greek civilization and its mythology were well known. Moses pulled the Jews out of Egypt around 1300 BC, where people used to believe in the plurality of gods as well. Consequently, the Judaic monotheism must be judged according to the faith in gods, not according to the animism, even if, maybe, the Judaic tribes used to believe in idols. Their scholars surely had knowledge of Greek and Egyptian mythology.


Gods, semi-gods, heroes and simply mortals were conceived living in a world hierarchically organized, with severe relationships, in which the gods were able to do whatever they wanted, without any moral restraints, while the mortals could only claim the gods' pity. From here, the idea of prayer directed to the gods or to the idols, the prayer being the only right of mortals. This is the position of the slave in relationship to the master.


The monotheism reduces the hierarchy at two levels: that of the Lord and that of the people. People are all equal in front of the God and equal each other. The Greeks invented the democracy, but only for free men. The Jews grounded it from the moral point of view.


Jesus Christ, thanks to his sacrifice, absolved the people from other sacrifices, because of some ancient mistakes. Their unique duty is to love the Lord, because he loves them, as they are his creatures. The fright of divinity is replaced with love.


This idea was not well understood from the beginning. There is some inadvertence even in the Old Testament, tributary to the old faiths, yet. Apocalypse and the threatening of the Final Judgement are such reminiscence. The subsequent progress of the events, particularly during the Middle Ages, distorts even more the main ideas of the Bible, due to the use of religion as political doctrine. The fright of the divinity was amplified because of Inquisition, the king's army, etc.


But all this happened in occidental Europe, not here, were the political power used to be weak, and where the permanent threatening of the barbarians made kings and people unite together to fight against them. They did it on behalf of the faith, which motivates them for the same reasons.


Coming back to occidental Europe, just the mistakes of church brought about the appearance of the opposite current: the Rationalism. When the church was refractory to some obvious scientific discoveries, it eliminated itself and the Rationalism had its way free. At its turn, as any philosophical current, the Rationalism died also because of self-outrunning. Its exaggerations in varied fields - socialist ideas and their materializing in communism are such exaggerations - shown its limits. The lack of its moral motivation made the people to become Christians just nowadays. I do not think that people were real believers during the Middle Age - the period considered to be the apogee of the Christianity. Only nowadays, people understand Christian doctrine and believe from their own conviction. They have a deeper understanding. They are not Christians scared by Apocalypse of the Last Judgement, but from the conviction that they live in a world created by the Lord, the Lord loves them and they should do the same: love Lord and love each other.


* / *