How do you feel about religion? What types of attitudes towards religion exist?
I have a rather positive attitude towards religion. Without religion, neither the gloomy Gothic, crushing with its grandeur, nor the Baroque, dazzling with its magnificence, would exist. There would be no frescoes by Giotto in Padua, there would be no stunning ceiling of the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo, there would be no famous “Last Supper” by Da Vinci. There wouldn't be amazing organ music. There would not be so many delightful novels written where this topic is touched upon in one way or another. Without religion, my favorite rock opera by Andrew Lloyd Webber, Jesus Christ Superstar, would not exist. Without religion, art would have developed in a completely different way and, perhaps, much more slowly and much less effectively. All the magnificent, grandiose cathedrals were built thanks to religion, although not the exalted side of it, but the completely selfish side, in which those in power were interested. With the help of religion it was convenient to control the people, and the majestic architecture and amazing stained glass windows and frescoes were an excellent accompanying tool for attracting parishioners to the church. However, this does not negate the contribution that religion has made to the development of art.
Religion remained a good lever of pressure for a long time until people wised up. They began to ask the right questions, develop science, rebuild their own picture of the world... In this picture of the world, religion finally began to take its true place: from an instrument of control in the hands of power, it gradually began to become a spiritual outlet, a symbol of search and faith. Finally, religion turned from a “compulsory program” into a choice, retaining an important place in the cultural life of people and remaining, however, the cause of many strife and conflicts.
I generally believe in God. Well, or into something else: the supreme and omnipotent. I don’t understand what relationship the church, especially the Russian Orthodox, has with God. I believe that if God exists, and he is omnipotent, then to communicate with him you don’t need a special place, and even more so, special people. If there is a God, then he does not need pathos and window dressing. And, since we have a law on insulting the feelings of believers, then in an amicable way we need to hold accountable church ministers who drive expensive cars bought with money from donations. We need to hold accountable those who discredit the very idea of religion by supporting the release of frankly lousy propaganda like the recent cartoon (it’s a shame to even mention the word “cartoon” in this context) Children vs wizards. Honestly, I'm still scared that children might see this. It is necessary to bring to justice those who are trying to use such a bright and pure idea as religion to brainwash the population. It is finally necessary to bring to justice those who are trying to return religion to its medieval version - a political instrument in the hands of the authorities. All this absolutely offends the feelings of believers.
A person needs to believe in something. It doesn't matter what: yourself, Jesus or the Spaghetti Monster. Faith is a spiritual need of a person: even atheists who do not accept the very idea of religion believe in luck, chance, destiny, justice... A person who does not believe in anything (if such a thing exists) must be absolutely empty. But religion has no place in politics. It should influence the lives of everyone, and not the vector of movement of millions. It must be the opposition to power, because power is, in most cases, not a lofty sphere of activity. But here, in a seemingly secular state, for some reason everything is turned upside down. And this perverted version of religion, which offends my feelings as a believer, is simply disgusting to me.
What types of attitudes towards religion exist?
One of the main questions that consciously or unconsciously faces a person in life is the question of faith. By its nature, the human psyche is structured in such a way that without faith a person cannot exist. And therefore, sooner or later, both the whole nation and the individual are faced with the question: to believe or not to believe? If you believe, then what and why? If you don’t believe it, then why?
Let us first try to briefly characterize the nature of religious faith. A person’s faith is an attempt to compensate for his weakness and vulnerability in the face of his own internal disorder, as well as the hostility of the external world, the aggression of which forces one to seek protection from the omnipotent Absolute, abstracted by the consciousness of a person. Faith in the Absolute gives hope, if not for physical salvation, then at least for spiritual salvation. And if ontologically the origin of faith indicates the level of development of the subject, which can be judged by the image of his god, then psychological faith demonstrates what worries and worries a person who seeks consolation from his protector. In other words, one of the main functions of God is to compensate for the missing virtues of an individual or an entire people. These missing qualities find their ultimate expression in the divine ideal, which becomes a role model in man's striving for perfection. That is why in the series of ideas about God among different peoples we encounter different dominant properties of God. For some, God is love, for others - justice, for others - law, etc. Some stages of the formation of both an entire people and an individual person are associated with the transformation of ideas about the properties of God, which can even go as far as his complete denial. This means that ideas about God change not only in comparison of one people with another, but also at different time and cultural “segments” of the same people or person. In the history of mankind, three distinct approaches to assessing religious faith can be distinguished.
The first is an extremely negative attitude towards religious faith.
The second is a compromiser, seeking various benefits and benefits.
The third is an extremely positive attitude.
Among the supporters of a negative attitude towards religious faith we find the Indian schools of Charvaka and Buddhism, the Greek atomism of Democritus and Leucippus. But this problem was illuminated especially clearly in German philosophy. This is how anti-religious worldviews are presented in the works of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Engels, and Marx.
In his “Genealogy of Morals,” Nietzsche puts forward the highest value for man - the value of life, which manifests itself in the “will to power.” The strongest will to power is possessed by the superman - the “blond beast” (St. Petersburg, 1908. - pp. 785-786). This is the highest biological type, which relates to an ordinary person as the latter relates to a monkey (Nietzsche F. The Gay Science / Collected works. T. VII. - M., 1902. - P. 65-66). The beauty and strength of the superman replace the need for God for life. This is how the author states this in the words of one of his characters: “Where is God?... I’ll tell you! We killed him - you and me! We are all his killers!<...>God is dead! God is dead! (Nietzsche F. The Gay Science / Collected works. T. VII. - M., 1902. - P. 127). This statement of the philosopher means that religion has exhausted itself and is no longer able to satisfy a strong person who becomes a god for himself. The idea here is extremely simple: religion, that is, belief in God, can only belong to weak beings who need some invisible support in the form of a non-existent but uniting Absolute.
In many ways, Ludwig Feuerbach continued and developed the tradition of rejection of religious faith in the 40s of the nineteenth century, who tried to substantiate the human basis of faith. In his work “The Essence of Religion,” he argued that the content of religion is what is the subject of human interests and needs. And therefore “the gods are the embodied... fulfilled desires of man” (Feuerbach L. Selected philosophical works. T. 2. - M., 1955. - P. 452). For the German thinker, the consistent denial of the existence of God, that is, atheism, becomes a kind of the same religion. After all, the mutual denial of religion by atheism, and vice versa, turns into a conceptual norm in which extremes, coinciding, form a dialectical unity among themselves. For Feuerbach, the sacred faith in atheism completely replaces religious faith. This is how he himself states it: “No religion! - this is my religion” (Feuerbach L. Selected philosophical works. T. 1. - M., 1955 - P. 268).
We find further criticism of religion as a perverted form of existence of human consciousness in the works of the classics of scientific materialism. F. Engels in “Anti-Dühring” wrote: “... every religion is nothing more than a fantastic reflection in the heads of people of those external forces that dominate them in their everyday life - a reflection in which earthly forces take the form of unearthly ones.” "(Marx K., Engels F. Works. T. 20. - P. 328). Thus, for Engels, religion becomes a pathology of human consciousness that needs treatment, that is, enlightenment. K. Marx explains the reason for such perversity in the first volume of his “Capital”, finding it in the extremely difficult socio-economic existence of peoples (Marx K., Engels F. Works. T. 23. - P. 89-90). In other words, religious faith, according to Marx, becomes a “drug” that temporarily relieves the physical, but mainly the moral pain of the oppressed classes and entire peoples.
Let us now consider the concepts of a compromise attitude towards religion, which allow for the benefit of faith under certain conditions. The main propagandists of such views were the figures of the French Enlightenment of the 18th century, among whom the figure of Francois-Marie Voltaire stands out, sharply attacking church Christianity, but considering religion as a whole useful for the people, because it plays the role of a dam for the feelings of the raging mob. Voltaire’s complex attitude towards religion lay in the fact that, although he castigated the moral doctrines of all existing world religions, he also rejected atheism, considering it the greatest delusion of reason (Voltaire. God and People. Vol. 2 - M., 1961. - P. 335). The general conclusion about the necessity of religion was expressed by Voltaire in the following words: “If God did not exist, he would have to be invented!”
Of great interest is the fundamental work of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), who in his book “Suicide” revealed, thanks to statistical data, the dependence of the number of suicides on a person’s affiliation with a religious faith in general and a particular religion in particular. Durkheim, based on the figures, comes to the important conclusion that the number of suicides among non-believers is much higher than among believers. Within believers, the number of suicides from the three religions he studied: Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism is highest among Protestants. The question arises: why is the suicide rate higher in Protestantism than in Catholics and Jews? An analysis of two confessions and a separate religion showed that the higher the intensity of faith, the more traditions that do not leave freedom for interpretation, the more rules, norms and customs that regulate the life of a believer; and the less room remains for manifestations of one’s own tyranny and crimes, among which suicide is considered the most serious.
Another “compromise” concept belongs to the pragmatic school of American philosophy, represented by D. Dewey and W. James. They believed that everything that would benefit a person in his life could be considered true. And since many people need religion, it is not so important whether God actually exists, the main thing is that he gives people self-confidence, helping them to fulfill their desires. This means that every religion that has its supporters is true.
We find an attempt to find a compromise between religious and non-religious worldviews in Blaise Pascal’s “Pencils”. Being a deeply religious philosopher, he critically analyzes the value of faith and comes to an interesting conclusion: “If you believe in God, and he really exists, then you can win eternal bliss; if we believe in God, but he does not exist, then we lose nothing; if we do not believe in God, but He exists, then we lose the possibility of eternal bliss; If we don’t believe in God, but he doesn’t exist, then we won’t win anything. Hence, it is more profitable to recognize the existence of God” (section III, p. 233).
We find a deep religious sense of faith in the existence of God, to whom any form of compromise is alien, in most ancient cultures, the general opinion of which is that the human mind is part of the divine substance. And since like strives for like, a person who seeks traces of God in everything has intelligence. Anyone who does not believe in God is devoid of intelligence. Consequently, disbelief in “God is evidence not only of a person’s immorality, but also of low origin, relating him rather to the world of things than to the world of moral freedom. After all, the low cost of an unbeliever is due to the fact that he, like a thing, can be bought. The only question remains is the price. It is impossible to buy a truly religious person, if this is not consistent with his principles. And everything that can be acquired for money is no longer of high value.
The “Pimander” of Hermes Trismegistus describes the attitude towards religion of one of the most ancient cultures - Egyptian. The Egyptians believed that God endowed all people with reason, but not intelligence. For the mind becomes the highest reward, thanks to which a person turns from an animal creature into an immortal, capable of contemplating the Good. While reason leaves man with animal passions and anger (IV; 4-5). The mind manifests itself in faith, therefore it reaches the truth; the understanding is in lust and delusion (IX; 9-10).
The Indian culture of the eras of Brahmanism and Hinduism, while sacredly honoring its main religious monument, the Vedas, bows to the caste structure of society, in which only the upper class - priests or Brahmins - do not doubt the existence of God - Brahman. All other castes are allowed not only to doubt, but even to deny it. Therefore, the multi-religious structure of Ancient India was pluralistic and endowed the world with many religious and philosophical schools, among which we find both atheistic and theistic concepts. However, if caste affiliation was only an external manifestation of the quality of individual consciousness, then the main internal characteristic revealed itself only in the worldview of the priest, which boiled down to the main thesis: “Everything is God.”
The “Sun” of the philosophical and religious culture of Ancient Greece, Plato, in his “Laws” (Book X), was harsh towards the wicked who did not believe in the gods. Plato divides them into two kinds: the first are atheists who retain the virtue of justice; the second, more terrible, are people, although not devoid of abilities in the sciences and arts, who nevertheless commit injustice. Imprisonment should correct their character. But if this does not happen within five years of imprisonment, then Plato proposes either depriving them of life or condemning them to life imprisonment. For atheism, while remaining a manifestation of mental illness, is dangerous for the state.
Medieval Christian thought not only condemns atheism, but also explains the reasons for its appearance. From the moment Adam committed the Fall, he himself and all subsequent humanity lost the ability of reason to contemplate God. For this reason, a “revaluation of values” occurred. The immortal soul began to command the mortal body. Now all humanity, corrupted by the fall of Adam, and even strengthened by the fratricide of Cain, prefers the mortal to the immortal. However, there is a force that qualitatively separates some people from others, and grace becomes this force. Being undeserved, according to Augustine, or partly deserved, according to Thomas Aquinas, grace returns to man some abilities lost by Adam, among which the virtues of faith, hope and love manifest themselves most clearly. They become the necessary, but insufficient criterion by which one can assume that Man has been chosen by God for the sake of saving his soul.
Let us draw a general conclusion about the connection between human consciousness and religious faith. The weaker and more insecure a person feels, the more powerful and perfect his God. And vice versa, the stronger and more independent a person perceives himself, the less he needs God. Therefore, only that person who has achieved his cognitive and moral perfection feels his weakness in front of the outside world and needs a protector. Conversely, mental myopia becomes the reason for a person’s erroneous confidence in his own abilities and in his belief in his power over the world.
Essay on religion
Answers:
The answer will be available in 20 seconds
Every person has his own religion, and everyone has the right to choose which religion to believe in. Everyone strives for their own understanding of the essence of life. There are people who deny religion and belief in God; they are called atheists. But personally, I believe that when something bad happens, we first of all pray to God that everything will be fine, even if we deny its existence. Man is a spiritual being, therefore faith occupies a very important place in his life. Without faith, a person would not have developed; if people did not believe in good and evil, then there would be no such concepts as a “good” or “bad” act. A person cannot be only good or only evil. Every day we discover something new in ourselves, and only in our own actions do we understand what our true essence is. Most religions describe people's actions and their consequences. In childhood, for a child, the whole world is divided into good or bad. That is, a small child unconsciously chooses what to believe in, and sometimes it seems to the child that buckwheat is evil and kindness is a tasty porridge. And gradually, as we develop and grow, we begin to realize the difference between good and evil, good and bad. From childhood, religion teaches us kindness, justice, and the meaning of life. But everyone chooses how to live and what to believe. Who wants to follow the path of God, and who is calm from the thought that there is a God who protects everyone from problems and leads them to the right path. This is how a person’s personality is built, because everyone has the right to choose what to believe or not believe. Religion does not teach gambling, adultery, drinking alcohol, or other dubious pleasures. Religion teaches us how to live and think correctly. But for each person, the understanding of “correct” is different, it all depends on upbringing and perception of religion. Sometimes people who have committed sins find hope for forgiveness in religions. Someone wants to find the meaning of life or be closer to God. And now we live in a world where all technologies are developing, but no technology in the world can replace a person’s worldview and faith. What is religion to me? I am not a person for whom religion plays a decisive role in life; most likely, for me religion plays a secondary role in life and behavior. But when I think that God exists, and that he protects me and my family, friends, acquaintances and all people, my soul becomes calmer, and there is no anxiety and torment in the inner world. I love my family and friends very much, and therefore every day before going to bed I read a prayer, in the hope that God will protect all my beloved people from troubles and problems. I believe in religion, prayers, God. Still, I don’t go to the mosque, I don’t read the Koran, but my life has just begun, and I will go through all the tests with the thought that God will protect everything that is very dear to me.
Similar questions
- Please help me decline the verbs by person: cover, sleep, throw off, shine
- What are the similarities between the Renaissance, the culture of antiquity and the culture of the Middle Ages?
- Friends love to visit. After breakfast, Winnie the Pooh visited Owl and then went to Piglet for lunch. After lunch, the friends stopped by the Rabbit's and came to Winnie the Pooh's for dinner. How far did Winnie the Pooh walk before lunch? And how much after? Come up with a similar problem
- Having finished his business in the motorized rifle unit in half a day, Tretyakov found a funnel filled with water in the forest. Taking off his cap, dark brown from dust and sweat, he knelt down. A wisp of white cloud slid across the mirror of water, and Tretyakov saw himself in it. Not he himself, but someone black, like a gypsy, unfamiliar, looked at him. The cheeks were of an indeterminate dark color from the dust that had accumulated in the overgrown stubble; the sunken eyes were outlined in black... Tretyakov drove to the edge the shrunken leaves that had fallen on the water and a water beetle that was jumping weightlessly on thin spider legs. The water, like on a peat bog, looked brown, but when he scooped it into his palm, it turned out to be clear and cold. He hadn’t washed his face like this for a long time; he even pulled his tunic off his shoulders. Now Tretyakov felt clean and refreshed. The sky turned blue, no one’s steps were heard, and only in the distance the incessant roar of the cannonade of task 1 barely rumbled. Underline the grammatical basis of any complex sentence. 2. Select test words for any three verbs with a spelling at the root, including participles.
- 1. The function is given by the formula y = x – 7. Find: a) the value of the function corresponding to the argument value equal to 4; b) the value of the argument at which the function value is –8. 2. a) Plot a graph of the function y = 3x – 4. b) Using the graph, find the value of the function corresponding to the value of the argument 2.5.
A visitor named Marina sent another question:
Thanks for your articles. Makes you think. And not only think, but also change your life...
Is it possible to know your view on religion in general? And on Orthodoxy in particular?
Marina, thank you for your activity. The topic of religion is so relevant today, especially after all the recent events.
Let's start, as always, from the beginning. To the question of attitude towards anything in this world, the most correct answer, according to Universal laws, is SINCERELY.
Naturally, this is far from easy to do. Religion, in particular Orthodoxy, has long become part of the state machine. How this mechanism works has already been discussed in articles and. The scheme is simple, understandable, and removes unnecessary expectations and illusions.
So is religious history. Yes, often, the idea is working, the information, in certain aspects, is correct. But the way this is all developing and what it is turning into is not very encouraging. It is not difficult to detect a whole set of inconsistencies and distortions. Excessive aggression and disrespect for so-called dissidents are striking. The rituals themselves contain not the most correct techniques. Commercialization, rigidity, inflexibility, substitution of concepts. The list can be continued, but that’s not the point.
At one time, it cost me a lot of work and effort on myself to refrain from a position of condemnation and rejection. This is very difficult to do, it took a lot of time and effort. But, I can say, it worked out, the desired state is being maintained more and more often.
The scheme here is simple. If you take a position of condemnation and negativity, then you will achieve nothing except harm to yourself and others. You will only add another portion of dark energy. You can’t even dream about LOVE and JOY.
But if you manage to move yourself to a position of respect, shift the emphasis to ACCEPTANCE, then the result will be completely different. More, in my opinion, correct.
This is part of our material world. The world is far from perfect and far from the fairest. Our main task is to work on ourselves, on our cockroaches, to grow, learn, develop. And condemning and branding is not part of the ability to love. This is the opposite skill. And why train him? Not profitable, not advisable.
The position of condemnation firmly fixes a person in the destructive sector of energies. What you give out is what you get. Well, I yelled and criticized, but when to create, to create. And, with what? Where to get LOVE on this range?
Many very gifted individuals have made mistakes with this. They have turned and are turning into a destructive, embittered mouthpiece. At the same time, love, family, one’s own creativity and personal qualities are forgotten. Talents and abilities are not directed in the direction that was dreamed of. An elementary test for a person, for his skills, for his strength. Most people screw up on this.
I won’t give examples, you can find them yourself if you want. The main thing is to find the strength to grasp, understand and realize the correctness of this scheme for constructing interaction. Our parents, grandfathers, and ourselves, were taught to FIGHT for many years. Pressure, oppress, destroy. But, in fact, they were simply taught to highlight the negative for any reason. That's the whole manipulative story.
Those who constantly struggle are easily and simply controlled. This is what representatives of the opposite camp are trying to achieve. We need an obedient mass of people. When necessary, they go to the barricades. When necessary, they obediently go to the factory when the whistle sounds. When necessary, they go to banks in orderly rows for loans for “urgent needs.”
A person who LOVES- strong and self-sufficient. He has an abundance of positive energy around him, he is at the right level of interaction with the outside world. And this level is constantly growing, with proper work on yourself.
A negative figure experiences a regular lack of strength, impressions, money, material objects, and energy. He is constantly in varying degrees of fear. This is not true, this is bad, this is terrible - a carousel without end and edge. It makes sense to work on yourself and get out of this meaningless whirlwind.
Moreover, hating person is WEAK. He can act only among similar people, among the masses of those who are also afraid. Yes, it is possible to destroy, break apart, but such people don’t get to the point of creation. There is simply nothing, no strength, no skill, no creative energy. We are not even talking about any management or proper interaction here. Just insult, don’t care, humiliate. Not the highest level.
Over the years, the ability to hate significantly increases, grows, and develops. You don't need to put in extra effort to grow. It will do everything itself. And, as a “pleasant” addition, all the mechanisms of the carrier itself will be completely destroyed. And health, and the thought process, and all other qualities that distinguish a person from an animal. The result of such actions is a stinking ruin, at a not very advanced age. Look around, how many such creatures there are, how many such participants in the struggle, first of all, against themselves.
That's why I recommend learning to treat everything with RESPECT. And to religion, and to the state and other, not the most perfect processes of our material world. Better think about how and what is needed formulate within yourself, and how convey this information to your family and friends. How to make sure that they also have a desire to move into the range of love, joy and respect, and a desire to grow and develop. This is an interesting task, not easy to implement, but it’s worth it.
Easter is coming soon - a religious holiday, and therefore it’s time to talk about religious holidays and attitudes towards religion in general. I shouldn’t blindly follow the crowd - “I believe” or “I don’t believe.” To understand your attitude towards religion, you need, at a minimum, at least briefly, in general terms, to know what religious postulates and dogmas it preaches.
Alas, today, unfortunately, the bulk of “believers” are just a tribute to fashion. “Like everyone else” they go to be baptized, “like everyone else” they follow religious holidays, and “like everyone else” they declare themselves involved in religion and faith. But at the same time, they cannot even approximately tell what 10 commandments every believer must observe, why it is customary to remember the dead on the 3rd, 9th and 40th days, and what the soul is doing during these 40 long days.
The baptismal cross is put on display on the neck, on top of the clothes, and not on the body. And this cross looks like a piece of jewelry, and not as a talisman and a symbol of belonging to the children of the Lord.
I'm not going to convert anyone here. Moreover, according to generally accepted concepts and standards, I am a person who does not believe in God. In the God whom the majority of all “believers” imagine. But I deeply respect faith and conscious believers, those who try to live according to the laws of God. And for this we familiarized ourselves with the necessary literature, at least in popular publications.
Otherwise, these believers look very ridiculous, who swear, but at the same time do not forget to cross their mouths, from which filth flies out. They drink until they pass out, and at the same time proclaim a toast: “God willing, not the last.”
They fight to the death, kill each other, and then run to church for absolution, and after that they come out not thoughtful and subdued, but with an understanding of freedom in subsequent similar actions and the opportunity to again engage in bloody showdowns.
In family relationships, too, without hesitation, they change partners, and cover up all these sprees with polygamy and the boring monotony of family sex. As if some kind of mass entertainer should entertain and show new poses, movements, techniques. What, they themselves are not smart enough for this??
So, what am I getting at here? Moreover, simply declaring oneself a believer or an atheist is not enough. You need to be able to reasonably explain your position - after all, a modern woman has the right to independently choose her ideology and her morality, but without submitting to the opinion of the crowd, but under the influence of her consciousness and development.
Need an example? Please. One of the main commandments of Orthodox Christianity is not to commit adultery. Now, how many of the “true believers” can boast that they keep this commandment?
How many will agree that a woman is sinful by birth and sinful by nature? That she exists only to reproduce the race and please a man? What do you think, women, of this interpretation of the role of women in modern society?
But here it is, the same absolution. It turns out that a thief and murderer, but who has received remission of sins, is more pure before heaven than an unbeliever, but who lives not according to Christian, but according to universal human laws, which echo almost verbatim: do not kill, do not steal, do not covet your neighbor’s wife, etc. .d.
But - I repeat: I will neither turn anyone away nor attract anyone to faith, and I do not have such a moral right to do this - I am only expressing my point of view and attitude towards religion. I just urge you to be honest both with yourself and with God to whom you pray. And not for show, and not on holidays or in times of trouble - but as faith requires.
And therefore, my attitude towards religious holidays is also twofold. On the one hand, I am glad that people, at least on this day, are trying to be kinder and closer to each other. On the other hand, I am annoyed by the kilometer-long queues to the Temple on this day, of people who go to bless Easter cakes and colored eggs, because “that’s how it is,” because “that’s how it is.” And, having frozen in this line, sometimes they “warm themselves up” so much from flasks and bottles that they can barely cross the threshold of the temple on their own.
And it’s terribly funny to hear how people complain about the consequences of a holiday celebrated on a grand scale: hangover and gluttony. Honestly, I think for those who think that Easter is a great bright religious holiday, this sounds blasphemous! By the way, for some reason, few people remember that Easter is preceded by a long and difficult Great Lent, and even fewer observe it. But on Easter they rush into gluttony as if they had never eaten boiled eggs, sweet cakes, or cottage cheese casseroles.
By the way, why not bake such wonderfully delicious Easter cakes at the usual time, not Easter? The recipe for such a traditional Easter cake was given to me by my grandmother, and her grandmother taught her, and so on. Sometimes I spoil my family with such culinary delights, but to be honest, this is quite rare. And my “confectionery and culinary” passion does not always awaken on the eve of Easter.
And I will be happy to share the recipe with you, but in the next article, so don’t miss it. And once you’ve prepared it, don’t forget: the composition of the Easter cake is very high in calories and filling, so take care of your figure: soul and soul, but you shouldn’t forget about your body either!
By the way, this body will be much more attractive if you start taking care of it now, when the summer heat is about to arrive and you will need to put on a swimsuit. A diet that allows you to lose weight gradually is usually more gentle, and it is much easier to maintain than a three-day fast. But that's a completely different story...
Thanks for reading my blog
