Religion of Love

Basics » Interview » Part 2  (Previous | Next)

Interview Part 2

[164] Question: Which set of criteria should be valid for a good religion?

[165] Answer: The question of the personal freedom that a religion allows to the individual is important. A religion should create a maximum at relative quality of life for as much as possible with as few presettings as possible. It should neither constrict too much nor permit too many liberties. [166] A good religion exhibits real profoundness. The latter means also, that founders of a religion individually have within the religion even only a marginal relevance: Contents are to come to the fore. It means in particular that out-dated is indicated as such. [167] Beside depth is width: All substantial components of the life find consideration, according to their relevance. Differing opinions that are not finally decidable are admitted, if necessary with specification of their probability. Statements are judged not concerning their origin, but concerning their validity and their profoundness. Not radicalism is characteristic of the good religion, but wisdom. [168] Furthermore, practice relevance characterises a good religion: Utopias recede. The symbolism is clearly parsimonious and appropriately positive. Proven traditions are kept up; man is understood as small fraction of the universe, which bends itself before the Almighty as lawgiving other and only one in love, lowliness and self oblivion. The language is simple, clear and reverential.

[169] Question: How should religion be exercised?

[170] Answer: There is no silver bullet. Without firm exercise for the perfection of the own abilities and characteristics, however, no profound religiousness is attained. We know that religiousness is particularly beneficial for man. Ze can select zis form of practising religion freely. A too little like a too much, however, will harm zis personal salvation. [171] The last responsibility in doing has man, however, before L and not before the religious writings. L compensates for all unjustness that occurs in the respective life, in order to examine man.

[172] Question: Is religion without L imaginable?

[173] Answer: L revealed to me: "A religion without the one L is debased. With L as creator of the universe, we owe zer at least thank and regard. Without zis word we would not be. Ze gives us the eternal life, if we want to agree to this. Knowledge of all things is not possible for man, due to its finite narrowness in a finite world before the infinity of L. L reveals zerself to those that ze finds condign. Ze intervenes in the world, if ze considers it essential. Ze reigns in the background."

[174] Question: What then is with humans who do not have a notion of L?

[175] Answer: The notion of L is for each individual person a consequence of fair-minded and consequent deep thinking. Only ego- and anthropocentrism come to another conclusion. The conception of a not-divine soul of the world misjudges the holiness of L and zis characteristic as creator. Nobody can really belong to the religion of love who denies the existence of L, since L is the highest goal to that the religion of love is geared.

[176] Question: Are humans, however, free?

[177] Answer: The word of L limits the freedom of man. As a basic principle this one is, however, free, since a complete determinism does not have attraction, also for L. The signification of man is to perform the divine task with the divine presettings in the context of the freedom. Each human can perform or miss the sensed task. The word of L regulates the consequences. [178] L loves, however, each individual person - also in the imperfection, which fronts the perfection of L. The idea of developing karma has, however, reduced validity, since the justice of L oscillates around the centre of the possibilities. Each human can rely on L and zis unrestricted justice.

© 2006-2008 by Boris Haase

Valid XHTML 1.0 • Disclaimer • imprint • • pdf-version • questionnaire • bibliography • subjects • definitions • php-code • sitemap • rss-feed • top