Jesus and Christ. Artur Zadikyan
in the city were slaughtered by the sword by the Israelites – destroyed, put under a spell. There were no survivors left. Jesus burned down Hatzor.
Joshua 11:11. Modern RBO translation
…How often we do not understand, and do not pay much attention to, what is the real cause of the present event. By the formula of cause-and-effect relationship, by the law of repetition, we try to understand the regularities of influence of one event on the fulfillment of another, even if it has not happened yet. And it can be just an ancient religious attitude or a prediction. Becoming an attitude of life, such a thing gets into our consciousness and invisibly forms our worldview, expanding to the level of all mankind. Knowing about some mythical flood, people really expect some catastrophe. Someone, being obviously not optimistic, imagined the merit of mankind in the death of one third of it, allegedly for some sins, and we allow the justice of the realization of such a thing (Rev. 9:18). Without even taking into account that they say this on behalf of the one who atoned for all these (though it is not clear what) sins by his death, being immortal.
And it is not clear whether human consciousness was formed in such a way in the process of evolution and then formed such a worldview – or whether someone, expressing such a vision of the world, from proverbs to divine revelation, formed such a mentality in man.
Any event becomes frightening for us if there is even a delusional prediction of it. However, such delusion plays a positive role, as a person becomes afraid and tries to counteract everything that even does not look like a source of danger, but can lead to similar consequences. As an example: the apocalypse awaits mankind not in the form of another flood, although nuclear war will be both a flood and hellfire.
The harbingers of the apocalypse in the form of wars and major terrorist attacks are never without a religious component, much less a belief in an idea – a kind of religion.
One of the main motives for turning to terrorism is a strong need to strengthen personal identity, which is achieved by belonging to a group. Secondly, there are motives of self-assertion, giving such activity a special heroic significance, etc. And most importantly, terrorism is most often the result of ideological absolutism, a belief in the possession of an allegedly higher truth, a unique recipe for the salvation of one's people or even the entire humanity. And terrorism is not necessarily a localized attack by one or a group of attackers. Terrorism can be expressed in a global war with the use of nuclear weapons. In today's world, it is as relevant as the asteroid fall that led to the death of most of the biosphere.
From time to time we hear: "… another suicide bomber carried out a terrorist attack this morning". Our consciousness, in terms of perception of reality and sense of reality, has become inflamed. Illnesses come in many forms, including not only bodily illnesses. Now pneumonia has struck the mentality, and the "infection" with fatality has infected us with the effect of dumbing down of sensitivity. There is such a peculiar effect of physical "dumbing down" of sensitivity, but I mean spiritual, moral "dumbing down" of sensitivity. It is used to train combat agents of special services or fighters of special brigades. And in general, fighters called up for operations where violence is an accompanying attribute, including the one used against them. Here's a simple explanation. For example, you roar, or even go into hysterical convulsions, when stung by a wasp. And when you are trained, subjected to the same stings for a year, or even more, and even with the use of special drugs, you will be able to dissolve a hive of wild bees. So is the community of people: at the beginning of any social-psychological process, for us, for a society living in appeasement and condemnation of minimal evil, for example, a scandal between a student and a teacher – such an insignificant negative event, a minimal nervous phenomenon – is perceived as something dangerous, terrible and immoral and unspiritual. And when such things become a daily occurrence, then even in relation to something that is much more criminal, such as rape, the scale shifts, the justification of a rapist becomes quite acceptable, because "…a lady with a tarnished reputation". And then there's more. Look at the news, we no longer have the reaction to perceive everything emotionally: there – killed, here – raped, beaten, robbed, dismembered. And it's all over the place. Violence, violence, violence. Some people still somehow want to ask where is God? Because appealing to the authorities is useless. The authorities can not constantly carry out point operations and begin to tighten the general legislation. This raises fears of usurpation of power, tyranny and dictatorship. And we close our eyes again, indignant, and with a sigh we comfort ourselves: it is good that it did not happen to me; or even worse, it cannot happen to me. And I'll tell you: it can, and it can.
I have my own theory about this, and it is that if something happens to someone else, it can happen to you. When thinking about the human psyche, I involuntarily recalled a science fiction story that described the case of a robot android with intelligence. In the story, the ISKIN that possessed a "body" began to be presented to people as crazy, and the reason was that it had become too human. Are we not like that relative to anyone else? We have no one to compare ourselves to in terms of intelligence. If the same gods or highly developed aliens, whom we have imagined in any variety, were in real contact with us, then it would be possible to compare our mind, spirituality, mentality with theirs. But this is the folly and at the same time the arrogant narcissism of man. The fact is that we cannot logically combine one inference from three consecutive logical combinations. We can build one logical line, and even then a small one, out of several logical combinations, and not always and not in all cases. If already two logical understandings have to be combined for one logical conclusion, they either lead to misunderstanding of one of logical concepts, or to a conflict. Chess lovers understand well what I mean, for the rest of you, my smile, and… For the sake of clarity, let me give you an example: the mystery of Dzhokonda's smile lies in the absence of modern dentistry at that time. Now draw conclusions about how many logical combinations are "inside" such a conclusion. When asserting such logical conclusions the following effect can happen: if they are given by a person who has combined such a thing logically and clearly, if even for a long time, and sometimes it is a whole book and even a separate branch in science (agree, the whole book can be a justification of one logical sense, which is usually the case), then we either understand in the end what the point is, or, seeing the agreement with him of understanding, the more "abstruse" personalities (or experts in such a subject), we agree with him, taking what he said on faith. Even this sentence explaining a combination of logical concepts is built on a combination of logical concepts and… is difficult to understand. This is the paradox of faith, the essence of which is: you don't have to understand, but you do have to believe. Although it may not be the truth. Otherwise gods and beliefs would not change in the history of mankind (because the new faith is based on the fact that the old doctrine was false).
So, the following paradox emerges from all this: we, mankind, do not understand the combination of more than two-stage logical thinking. That is, we do not see, for example, in the monumentality of the pyramids of pharaohs the desire to surpass their greatness. We do not see in the history of the greatness of some god the desire of human leaders to immortalize their name by one or another deed, including global wars. And this is the incentive of not only the persons in power. We only assume and, intuitively understanding, still doubt. On this basis we consider as false the meanings that can be understood only by putting three or more logical concepts into a logical combination. This manifests itself in limitation and in not understanding where our action will lead. With experience and knowledge of examples, as they say, with wisdom, man and mankind intuitively begin to assume possible consequences. On this fact are born taboos, rules and belief in an invisible spirit that controls the cause and effect relationship, one that we cannot calculate, but only assume instinctively, based on the same experience of past similar variants. This is in the mass of all mankind, which develops according to the principle of natural selection, according to the main criterion: the goal is the survival of the species. But not selectively, not by choosing the most reasonable. Although in millions of variants it is still the more reasonable, intellectually superior to the general mass of "human beings" who bring civilization to a new stage of development. An example of this could be something that explains what comes as a consequent act from a common knowledge statement. It could be a prediction of the weather in the long term, for example: the summer will be rainy because… the winter was snowless. A variant of this prediction could calculate the outcome of stock market futures for fuel and food commodities. There may be logical combinations, quite distant