Christianity Is Immoral

[Bikerman 2]

In a previous thread I have argued that most Christians are immoral. I would like to develop this now and argue that the entire basis of the religion is itself immoral and wicked.

 

Before I start it is important to realise that I am talking about Christianity as in 'following Jesus'. I take a Christian to be someone who tries to live their life according to the teachings of the character from the New Testament - Jesus of Nazareth. It is also important to realise that I am not 'having a dig' at individual Christians. Fortunately, I think, most self-professed Christians actually don't follow the teachings of the bible character.

 

So, let me start by trying to establish what I believe jesus teaches. I am NOT going to include the usual versions of the universal ethic (do unto others.....love thy neighbour....etc) because that particular ethic far pre-dates Christianity and is common to most religions before and since. There is nothing specifically Christian about the notion of treating others as you would like to be treated.

 

So what messages can we say are particularly Christian? I want to concentrate on four.

 

1. Jesus/God is the only one who can forgive sin.

2. A true follower should cast aside worldly considerations and follow Jesus.

3. Turn the other cheek to enemies/transgressors.

4. Thinking bad things is as bad as doing them (thought crime).

 

The biblical support for these is beyond dispute, and I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find the particular references.

 

So let's consider these individually.

 

1. I find the notion that anyone has the power to forgive a sin committed against me immoral. The notion that someone can injure me and then receive pardon, regardless of my wishes, is repugnant. To those who say that secular courts do the same thing, you are quite wrong. Secular courts act on behalf of society and do not forgive anything. A not guilty verdict is not forgiveness, and a person who serves a sentence in prison is not 'forgiven' for the original offence.

 

2. Jesus says repeatedly that a true believer should walk away from worldly responsibilities - such as family - and follow him. This is deeply immoral. All of us have people who are, to some greater or lesser extent, dependant on us. The idea that we should simply walk away and not worry about their well-being is obnoxious, yet this is the message that Jesus repeatedly preaches.

 

3. Forgiving enemies might seem like a noble and worthy goal but it is not. If someone strikes me, and I simply turn the other cheek, then how are they to learn that their behaviour is unacceptible? What is to stop them hitting someone else - especially since their experience teaches them that such behaviour carries no sanction? I am perfectly willing to forgive someone who has done me wrong, but I would first wish to see some evidence that they are genuinely sorry for the wrong.

 

4. The most repulsive part of the Christian doctrine is the notion of thought crime. God, we are told, is like the ultimate dictator. Not only does he see what you do, he sees what you think, and what you think will be counted as evidence on the day of judgement.

Even the God of the Old testament, Yaweh - selfish, sadistic, genocidal maniac that he is - does not condemn people for their thoughts, only their actions. It is the supposedly new improved, user-friendly version - Jesus - that introduces this repellant notion. Thus we read in Matthew:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment…

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The notion that people's thoughts are equal to their actions is profoundly and deeply immoral. One of the things that separates us from other animals is our ability to NOT act on our instincts and impulses. Thus I may look at a pretty girl and think 'cor....I'd like to.....' (I leave the rest for the reader to imagine - and I promise that I won't convict you of sexual thought crime). To say that this is on a par with actually raping the woman is actually evil. It denies my humanity on a basic level. It also means that, having thought something bad, I may as well go right ahead and actually do it - since there is no difference as far as God sees it.

 

So, in summary, I believe that Christianity, at the very core of the belief system, is immoral and wicked, and I am deeply thankful that most Christians are content to ignore much of the immoral twaddle that the character in the New testament insists upon.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[ritu 1]

I completely agree with that, though I am not a follower of Christianity, even in my own religion, I have found preachings which act as a rule script for many of my religion mates. Mostly I have found glorification of people who have renounced their earthly lives,which included their wife or new born kid. Even in the grand epic Ramayana, Laxman's wife Urmilla hardly finds a mention about her pain that she had to undergo while being separated from her husband. Does she not deserve to be glorified, the fanatic supporters often say that was for exemplary precedent, but she often lies in the space allotted to the supporting cast. Moreover, as Gautam Buddha left his wife and son to search for enlightenment, the society might have benefited but what about his own family, they were no more than commoners, and were they not part of the society that had to be served?

 

When you say that actions and thoughts are equal when it comes to evaluating the the amount of sin committed, I think that I would be hold responsible of committing hundreds of crimes everyday,for we are all bound to come across people and situations who make us wanting to blow them off..... where do I hide now

[Bikerman 2]

Yes, the simple fact is that most religions were founded a long time ago and are based on systems of thought that we now consider immoral, sexist, racist etc. I don't know of any mainstream religion that has, at core, the notion that women are equal - or even autonomous beings in their own right.I know that Muslims sometimes like to claim that Islam teaches this, but that is rather a sick joke to anyone who has actually read the quran or observed the goings-on in a Sharia state,

[Ananya 0]

All the 4 topics you pointed out above are not just the teachings of Christianity but also the same kind of preachings have been given by Buddhism, Hinduism rather if you do an in depth study of almost all religious preachings underneath its all the same.Its truly nice to know that you mind really argues on these things.Before commenting too much on your listed points I would like to let you know that I am myself a religious minded person and do believe in existence of god in whatever form it be.Be it in the form of Maa Kali ,Durga, Allah,Jesus or Gautama Buddha that hardly matters to me as our basic notion of finding God in a church or Masjid or temple is truly baseless.Because my faith on something matters visiting a holy place or keeping fasts doesn't help.The problem is 90% people are truly superstitious as far as religion is concerned.It really sounds nice that you aren't superstitious.I believe in Socratic way of looking at religion where our mind questions and we are quite logical and rational.Socrates died and consumed poison but didn't chose to believe in something that was truly irrational.I believe in religion and God but not in superstitions.Now coming to your points 1) do we commoners really forget and forgive for every sin committed to us.Its only that almighty who really forgives our sins. We had exploited our mother nature to such a huge extent so as to achieve something that we call as progress. Despite the fact that this nature is the biggest gift we have received from the god.The amount of massive exploitations we have done in lieu of that aren't we really forgived? But then this must taken into account that whatever has been created has to get destroyed one or the other day. because after a destruction only a new beginning happens.

2)One can follow worldly considerations as much as possible but the day he would get tired he would himself follow Jesus on his own.

3)As much as forgiving is concerned.Talking about this reminds me of a childhood story rather a truth I learnt about Buddha.One day when Lord Buddha was meditating a person came behalf of him and spitted on his face.Lord Buddha then opened his eyes and paid thanks to him and said " because due to you today I have learnt to control my ego" .See there is a huge difference between we commoners and great souls like that of Jesus and Buddha.Our world is comprised of so many classifications.High class,middle class and lower class.Developing nation,Developed nation and Under developed nation. This again is a sort of classification but a classification at a higher level and definitely a real classification.Previous ones are just illusions because you can remain rich within this lapse of what is called as life and death.You can't transcend that limit. Your body is embodying a soul and that is neither rich nor poor,neither fair complexioned nor dark complexioned.Its just above all categorizations.This world is a playground of illusions when we attach ourselves to these worldly possessions our ego gets inflated.Even having a lot intellect inflates our ego.Our ego prevents us from forgiving others.Someone has thrown a stone towards you and you are retaliating and you are throwing a second stone towards him.Now if this process continues on and on both of you will end up lying in a pool of blood.I am not saying to be a coward.Cowardice is something even I think great souls will also not approve.Because I read somewhere cowardice is one of the greatest sins one can imagine of.You would definitely protest but there can be 101 ways of protesting. Don't you think doing the same kind of ill treatment drops us to the level of the person confronting us.If a dog barks on us we can't simply start barking. We also do have within us a Dog and a God. The choice to awaken one of them rests solely on us.

4)Definitely when you are thinking again and again about doing something Then just do it and see what comes as consequence. The consequences will teach you what's right and what's wrong. If you don't want to believe in Christianity don't believe in it rather don't believe in any religion because at the root every religion will teach you same thing.Life is a great teacher and it teaches everyone their share of truth.Be a constant observer and learn from the mistakes you make.

[Bikerman 2]

God IS a superstition. I don't honestly see how one can arrive at a rational case for the existence of God. At some point there must be an irrational step because the end belief, in some sort of super-natural being (which any God must surely be) is itselt irrational (it is not the product of empiricism or logic).

Point one was not meant to imply that people judge - I understand that God does the judging and that is what I object to. If a Catholic, for example, kills my Dog, all he'she need do is attend confession. Their sin will now be forgiven after a few Hail Marys.
Now, the offence was against me, not God. I didn't notice God paying the vet bills or buying the dog food. Yet I am completely bypassed in assigning forgiveness. The only person who can morally grant forgiveness is ME not some sky fairy.

Point two - Jesus does not say 'when you are ready'. He says 'right now'. The message is clear - drop everything an follow me. That means abandoning moral responsibilities such as dependents and is therefore an immoral thing to do.

Point three - all I see here is assertion. Jesus doesn't seem special to me. He is often narky, frequently incoherent, sometimes downright nasty and doesn't display any great wisdom or knowledge.
Let me put it this way - if an omniscient and omnipotent being set out to produce a scripture, would he/she/it really only be able to manage what we see in the bible - a flawed and contradictory account which is so basically unclear that people have been, and still are, fighting over the meaning almost since it was first produced. If an omniscient being really DID write a book, it would be impossible not to be awe-struck at the contents. It would speak of things that we have no inkling of, and do so in testable and obvious language. It would tell us things that could not have been known otherwise....and so on.
The bible gets nowhere near any of this. It is all too obviously the work of humans, with all their flaws.

Point four - you miss my point I think. Even the most saintly person occasionally thinks bad thoughts. I know that I do, and more than 'occasionall'. Jesus, through Matthew, tells us explicitly that those thoughts can and will be punished. That is horrific - far worse than anything in Orwell's 1984. Thought crime, pure and simple.

.Even having a lot intellect inflates our ego.Our ego prevents us from forgiving others.

I don't see how the fist follows and I'm not even sure about the second. Believe me, some of the most egotistical people I know are also some of the stupidest. I don't think that intelligence over-inflates the ego. Any truly intelligent person is well aware of their own limitations. It is the ignorant or foolish who does not know those limits. Of course some briliant people may be egomaniacs, but others are actually self-hating hermits.Nor do I see how a large ego would prevent forgiveness. I can well imagine very egotistical people being very keen on forgiving people - it makes them look good and feeds the hungry ego yet more.

[Ananya 0]

The main problem is you don't believe in God and I do.Making you believe in God isn't something which I really want to impose on you.Because its an innate faith that comes from within.Those who believe in God ,its something like a beam of light falling on us.We can see the rays coming but without knowing the actual source. Can you please tell me how actually life comes in a baby?Though I am an engineering student and not a Medical one but still I know this much that our medical science can well explain the facts that how an egg gets fertilized,then how spinal cord formation starts even before the mother herself knows that she is pregnant e.t.c OK muscles forming, blood vessels forming,bones forming but this much is just a lump of flesh bearing no life.Where from the life is coming? A mother does give birth to a child but the life within that child is a gift of that unseen GOD. This huge universe is whose creation? About Bible I can't say much but I have read many teachings that Jesus has given.Teachings given by Jesus doesn't come to us as it is.Many a time his teachings are being tampered by commoners like us.Now Jesus gave emphasis on confession because real confession comes when one realizes that really he has done something sinful.Its truly meaningful as you have done something wrong and you don't realize it that it was wrong.A human being should be like a ping pong ball that strikes and bounces back.We can't be truly perfect but then we must come back to the right track.Well after confessing when we will be forgiven that again seems to be like a child being scolded for something and then given a chocolate for doing the right thing. Its not that playful its not the question of when and how we will be saved from the crimes we have committed.Its about the realization that comes from within and then making us transcend to a level where we will not repeat that same sin we had done in past.Because once one does something wrong it can't be changed like we in India say that an arrow that has gone out for striking someone can't come back,likewise an abuse made to someone can't be taken back.Even if you say sorry afterwards the impact made on that person for that very moment when he was hearing your abuses can't be removed.But saying sorry matters only when you realize genuinely that yes I have done wrong and I won't do that again and our way of apologizing should be so that it helps to heal that other person.

Ego puts us in a situation where we see ourselves only and nothing comes in our sight.I haven't said egoistic people will be intellectual ones but some intellectual persons sometimes grow up to become egoistic.Don't you think its ego that makes someone hurl abuses when a single abuse has been directed towards him.Clapping of hands happen using 2 hands so contribution has to be from both sides.If one side remains calm other side will settle down .Who will make the first move remains to the person having lower ego.This very thought is ego that its me whom he is trying to hurt.So this thought doesn't let you to forget and eventually not to forgive.

Edited May 5, 2012 by moderator (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

What you are doing is known as an 'appeal to ignorance'. In other words, 'we don't know how, therefore God did it'. It is a terrible way to think and is responsible for a huge amount of suffering and death.As for life? Start by defining your terms. What do you mean by life? The egg is 'alive' before fertilisation, as is the sperm. There is no point at which the two suddenly become another life - it is a gradual process. If you think of life as a binary thing - either yes or no - then you get into all sorts of problems. Is a bacteria alive? What about a virus? it is not a useful way to think.As for Jesus - I've done quite a lot of research and diging around that topic. I haven't yet come to any firm conclusions but my working hypothesis is that he never existed (and I have very good reasons for thinking that, which I'm perfectly willing to share but it would take a long long posting). What makes you say that Jesus emphasised confession? Where does that idea come from?Ego doesn't make us only think of ourselves - that is egotism. Ego is essential and we all have one. A person with low self-esteem is no use to anyone, not even themselves. Ego doesn't cause people to hurl abuse - that is more likely to be the opposite. People who are unsure of themselves are FAR more likely to react in stupid ways than people who have a strong sense of who they are. Until you know who you are, how can you possibly make good decisions about other people? Empathy comes from ego - it is the realisation that I am a person who likes some things and not others, therefore maybe other people ALSO like some things and not others. Therefore maybe I should treat people like I want to be treated. And voila - you have the 'golden rule' which religions dishonestly claim that they invented.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Ananya 0]

Well may be I'm ignorant.May be associating something that is beyond our scope of explanation as almighty isn't the right way.But when we as part of human community has witnessed so many great souls coming to our earth taking birth as human beings in the past but possessing all divine qualities.Then as part of that human community there surely arises no question to bear doubts regarding God.I am not saying anyone to maintain low self-esteem.A very thin line separates between what we call as self prestige and ego. Self prestige is good and should be kept intact by everyone but egoism is harmful and going to perish both sides if both of them refuses to maintain their ego in check.

[Bikerman 2]

part of human community has witnessed so many great souls coming to our earth taking birth as human beings in the past but possessing all divine qualities.

I see no evidence for that assertion. I see a few stories written down which are pretty contradictory and steeped in the superstition of the times.In the middle ages people saw demons everywhere, The literature is full of them. Now we don't. Is that because they were once here and have now vanished? Unlikely. Far more likely that the cultural conditioning made it easy for people to talk about demons and miracles as everyday occurences when in fact they were simply natural phenomena. That is again what religion does - assigns supernatural causes to anything a person doesn't fully understand. It is a profound cop-out and thoroughly intellectually lazy. Just about everything that was once inexplicable and thought therefore to be God's work is now understood and known to be no such thing.

Inventing terms like self-prestige is just a semantic game. The ego describes our self awareness and self-esteem without need for another phrase to complicate things. Egoism means being centred on ones own self and of course that is bad thing. it has nothing to do with having a healthy ego, rather the opposite. It is more symptomatic of early damage to the ego which is now self-obsessed,

You seem to have a world view where you see equal explanations and all that is needed is for both to accept each other. It isn't like that. In reality one explanation is always better than another and the weaker explanation should be discarded in favour of the more accurate. If someone tells me that their alternative medicine is better than scientific drugs I wait to see where they go when they are properly ill. They ALWAYS go for the modern drugs - at least we only see the ones that do because the others usually die.
We have a word for alternative medicine that works. We call it medicine.

Not only is there absolutely serious doubt about the existence of God, i think the case is overwhelming that there is no such thing.

In any conflict between superstition and science then 'backing down' is simply not an option. It is another way of saying 'accept superstition and go back in time to when disease was usually fatal, to when old women were burned as witches, to when Christians set of in the name of the Pope to murder as many Muslims as possible and earn time-off in purgatory. Religion has nothing to say about the universe worth knowing. it contributes nothing to the sum of human knowledge. The only positive things it does have are tricks and methods of bringing people together and giving a sense of community. These are valuable and should be retained. The supernatural stuff, however, needs to be junked.

[Ananya 0]

Well then don't you concede that Christ had ever come to this earth or the same regarding Buddha? Again its not about equal explanations. Its about truth. As truth is always one and the same .There cannot be 2 or 3 versions of truth.If after investigating a murder mystery there comes 2 or more versions of truth then there happens to be some loopholes that has to sorted out.That is why we see that at the core of every religious teachings the same truth is being revealed.Why are you associating religion with some sort of crimes of burning women in the name of witches or murdering Muslims.Those acts are truly irreligious.The concept of religion commences from noble and pure thoughts and ends where brutality starts.About 90% people who call themselves as religious basically imposes their superstitions,selfish interests or brutality in the name of religion.But that really doesn't undermine the very purpose of religion.If something is truly unacceptable in terms of humanity then how can that be called as religious when religion is itself brought to dispel ignorance To put it simply Religion is not to go by some set of theoretical rules as is being said by a brahmin or a priest.But rather its to put faith on noble actions.As such I too see many flaws in every religion I happen to come across but then I know that religion isn't the version of some commoners posing before the society as the messenger of God.Religion isn't that a complex thing as it is taken to be.Its just to follow path of righteousness.

[Bikerman 2]

Well then don't you concede that Christ had ever come to this earth

No I don't. I don't think the matter is proven one way or the other, but I think the balance of probability is that he was invented.

Why are you associating religion with some sort of crimes of burning women in the name of witches or murdering Muslims.Those acts are truly irreligious.

No they are most certainly not, Have you read the bible - 'suffer not a witch to live'.Have you read the quran? Kill the infidel. These acts are highly religious and are actually REQUIRED by the bible and the quran.

But that really doesn't undermine the very purpose of religion.If something is truly unacceptable in terms of humanity then how can that be called as religious when religion is itself brought to dispel ignorance

Where do you get these notions from ? Who says that religion was 'brought to dispel ignorance? What is the basis for that claim? Religion traditionally encourages ignorance. Again you need to read the scriptures rather than cherry-picking what you THINK they say. On learning, the bible says:

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Hardly encouraging ignorance to be dispelled. In fact it was punishable by death to even possess a bible all through the centuries of religious control.

[Bikerman 2]

I'll develop my answer a little.Do I think there was a real Jesus. No.Why? OK, first you need to understand quite a bit of background.1. There was no early christian church. There were a number of rival sects which featured Christ in one form or another - often completely different versions.2. Paul was the leader of the sect that eventually 'won' and became what we know today,3. The gospels and Acts of the Apostles were written well after the Jesus character's crucifiction. The earliest gospel was Mark and that probably dates to 80CE give or take. The rest came between 85CE and 130CE.4. Paul was the first part of the NT written. It was written in the 50s-60x CE (or most of it was - some came later, probably after his death, therefore was not the same author obviously).5. Paul never met Jesus. Moreover he never mentions any events from the life of Jesus. When he talks about Christ he is talking about a spirit, not a person. This is inline with the other sects - they had greek-influenced ideas and had particularly picked-up on Plato and his 'cave' allegory. *6. In some of the sects, the Christ figure was purely spirit, in some he was material (and there was at least one weird mix). The idea of a three-god pantheon was common - greeks, egyptians, sumerians - they all had creation myths involving 3 gods of some description, though not a trinity - that was invented in the second century.7. None of the other early books in the new testament mention a physical Jesus or any details of his life. They all talk about the spiritual Christ.8. it is only when the Mark gospel appears that we have any notion of a real Jesus. Now we get the story of Jesus, but most of it is not written literally and there are huge gaps. Mark says nothing about jesus's conception, birth, childhood or early manhood. and concenrtates on the last few weeks of his life. Mark is also very different in content structure and language to the other gospels.Now we start to put it together. Paul wrote a lot everything we know about the early Christians comes from Paul. He was responsible for growing the church until it outgrew or absorbed the rivals and became THE Christian sect.and HE NEVER MET OR KNEW JESUS. That is a key fact. He talks to christ all the time - but this is in visions on the spiritual place and he describes talking to Jesus ONLY in those terms. He never mentions what Jesus - supposed to have been around 20 years before - said, did, believed - nothing. That is simply too strange to have a simple explanation. Paul does mention events in Jesus life on the spiritual plane because many of the 'saviour Son' sects had similar theology - lifted from the Greeks but with some Egyptian and mostly, of course, the source religion - Judaism.So, the theory I currently think is probably right is that whoever wrote mark's gospel (non of the gospels were written by apostles of course, (nor had any of the aurthors ever seen Jesus - too long ago, they were either not born or young kids) invented Jesus as an earthly character - maybe as part of a plan, or maybe simply a personal idea.The physical Jesus is still recognisable as the Son-Saviour figure common to many sects, but now it has a physical saviour instead of one that only existed on the astral/spiritual plane. Another document - the Q source - was also around with a different but similar idea - probably another sect. This is used to write Matthew and Luke. Johm comes last and is different again. All have fundamental differences (despite what you were probably told at school or by others - it is amazing how many people I meet who insist that the bible is totally consistent and accurate. Once I demolish that certainty it can be interesting.In reality we know absolutely nothing about Jesus apart from what is in the gospels and in Acts of the Apostles (also written later with the gospels). The author of mark has done a real number and turned Paul's Christ sect into a special sect - the only one in which the crucifiction happens on the material plane instead of in spirit. Over the next couple of centuries the finer points are tied up or invented and by 300 or so there is a fairly common set of books and beliefs emerging, though still many different sects and beliefs. Mark's gospel version is popular and is adopted into the first semi-official collection of satyings and rules for the Christ sect. matthew and Luke join it with a new account of the life of Jesus and the apostles (Acts) written around this time and also becomming part of the 'cannon'. In the 400s it becomes the official religion of Rome and it never looked back until the middle-ages when Luther kicked-off.The rest is history over centuries, exerting power, retaining control, keeping the peasants in check etc.PS _ Before any outraged Christians leap in and tell me this is wrong, please make sure you know what you are talking about and can talk sense about the history of the church. Otherwise you will end up looking stupid and I'll look like a bully. I don't want either - so trust me when I say this is not just pulled-out of my *bottom*. This is based on serious scholarship and is seriously discussed amongst bible scholars and theologians - not on the conservative/evangelical/creationist wings of course - they are too far gone and too removed from reality to persuade by anything we would recognise as evidence. I don't blame individual creationists but I do blame parents, priests/pastors/preachers televangelism, politicians looking for cheap votes, and thought it saddens me - some teachers.America is the most advanced country with a lot of the stupidest views in the western world. It isn't just religion - conspiracy theory, hatred of federal government, too many damn guns and many other differences exist, but the religious one is a biggie. Most europeans live in largely secular society. Even those that say they are Chrtistian are mostly not really when you ask for detail. It is more of a cross between habit and social club (one of the two things Churches are useful for - bringing communities together). If you asked them to describe what they believed, you'd get 'sort of God', 'something but I don't know', 'not sure, maybe this cosmic force sort of thing', spirits man - we are all astral' and 'Jesus is my Lord and Saviour - but when that last one arrived, the rest of the people would roll their eyes probably. We don't tend to do public religion - even the ones who still believe.We do have a growing number of damn creationists which I spend far too much time tracking qand monitoring - I thoink we probably have you seppos to that for that - thanks for nothing guys - but as long as it doesn't grow much more it will dwindle before too long in the same way as all the other christian sects. Religion will be here for a long time, but it will become more and more of a social thing and less and less about the supernatural - especially after 2025 when life on another planet is discovered and Stephen Markison creates the first useful synthetic life forms.Of course the killer blow will be in 2134 when stormtroopers finally prize the Pope out of Vatican Village with laser bazookas, confiscate the vatican nuclear keys and shut the vatican gates for the last time, after opening the Library up. The few remaining Indian and Chinese diocese will finally go the same way as the rest and refront the building as lifestyle editors - you pay them to trim your lifestyle to match the latest pattern books.That will be it in the west - the Chinese would have been totally secular for a cople of decades, but europe and the US, being only 1st world coutries, will be about 20 yrs behind the new world block.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Ananya 0]

Religion traditionally encourages ignorance.

The part of the religion that teaches us to accept ignorance.I am not really bothered about that part of religion and I want to make 1 thing very clear that I really haven't gone through every line of Bible ,Quran and Gita e.t.c Neither I follow religion in that way nor I am interested in doing as as my concept of religion is very simple I go through the teachings of Buddha,Christ,Swami Vivekananda Through newspapers, articles and I question my own conscience if such a concept can be really accepted.I told you beforehand that I believe in Socratic way of thinking where our mind questions and answers appear.Now you will say that how can you trust even your own conscience. I am citing you an example.I am a great devotee of goddess Maa Kali.Traditionally it is said that Maa Kali has to be given before her a live goat sacrificed so as to please her.Now who has told us that brutal act of pleasing. Do you think that the goddess has come to this earth to tell us herself to perform such a brutal act.If this is supposed to be called as religion then I discard that thought at the very outset as ask your own conscience whether killing can really something religious. God is one I see her in what form is just immaterial.Even if someone doesn't believe in God then that is also not something irreligious.But if someone goes to temple everyday worships God and then coming out of the temple he does all sorts of sinful deeds. That is not religion Neither do I go to temple everyday nor do I bow my head everyday before God.But I am religious as I question my conscience before doing any act. Its not that I never do anything wrong. No human being can ever claim that. But I realize and try to keep myself in the right track. See the concept of God was basically introduced or rather injected in our brain through all these stories to let people think that beware of all sinful deeds as there is always someone to keep a watch on you. Its all due to that Gita,Bible,Quran.Like Buddha said that there is no place in this earth or anywhere else neither deep down the sea nor far above the mountains where you can elude yourself from the deeds you have done. Well I have seen in my own life that the things where I have done wrong I suffered.If even after not believing in God you maintain high moral values and you are a principle oriented person who is guided by all sorts of good virtues like honesty,kindness,benevolence. You are the most religious person one can ever find.Why to go deep down in these complexities whether Christ did come or not. No one called Maa Kali ever came I believe in her as I see God in her. Whenever in times of my pain the way I tell all my sorrows and griefs to my mother I tell her also and I believe that someone who is omnipresent is listening to me.Then if you call this superstition I have got no issues over that as its my faith.But since I do believe in her existence I never jump on to this idea of taking revenges just because someone has made me cry and suffer.My sufferings are being looked after by someone. The actual teachings of Christ,Buddha or anyone else is passed on generations after generations.I won't be surprised if those teachings were tampered by common people like us. But whatever I read of the principles and thoughts of the great souls like Christ,Buddha,e.t.c it enriched my own belief systems.

[Bikerman 2]

Well, each to their own. I find your method incoherent, dangerous and almost certain to result in confusion and error.We see exactly that in this thread. You have, several times, made statements about religion that are just wrong - not matters of opinion, just plain wrong.I think that there is no higher imperative than speaking truth - I don't think it is ever permissable to lie, although in some circumstance it is, perhaps, understandable. I'm not saying that I don't lie - I'm as human and as weak as anyone and like anyone else I lie, a lot. I TRY not to, however, and I especially try not to when in a public discussion like this;Take the posting above - you say that you 'go through the teachings of Christ'. That simply isn't true is it? The teachings of Christ appear in only one place - the New Testament.The truth is that I don't think you have the first clue about what Jesus taught, yet you have convinced yourself that you do. I say that not to condem you, or even criticise. It is so common I find it depressing. Everyday I meet Christians who do the same thing - they go out on the streets preaching something they have invented, but call it Christianity. I get people knocking on my door to tell me the 'Good News' about 'Jesus' and when I ask them some serious questions they have no idea. It seems that the more ignorant a person is, the more they feel it is their duty to spread their ignorance.If you are serious about knowing what Jesus taught then you start by reading the bible - critically. Then you need to know the context, so you have to do some work on Hebrew, learn the history of the time, learn about the Roman Empire during the occupation of Palestine - and so on. It is not simply a case of learning a couple of quotes (which are wrong in an embarrassingly high number of cases).I have no respect for anyone who preaches based on 'personal revelation'. 'Jesus talks to me' they say. 'I have a relationship with Jesus' is another common line. Absolute rubbish, yet people take it seriously. Here's the thing though. They only take it seriously when Jesus tells the person to do something nice. When a Muslim blows-up 50 people and himself because God told him to do it, nobody believes that God REALLY told him. Yet when a Christian tells you that 'Jesus told him to pull the little boy out of the fire' then people all shout 'Amen to that'. Rank hypocrisy and double standards and it frankly makes my stomache turn.Thanks-God, says the person who survived the plane crash. The Lord saved me. Oh really? So the other 99 people who died were too evil to save were they? Why do you not say 'Jesus is a monster' for killing 99 people, instead of praising him for saving you? Rank hypocrisy again.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Ananya 0]

Well If you insist me on reading bible and knowing the actual teachings of Jesus, I will find time to do so.I don't know to what extent I can be able to do that as I am struggling with my career right now.But can you give me a guarantee of this fact that to what extent that holy book is going to fetch me the real teachings of Jesus Christ.Because whatever we see as Bible or Quran or Gita,they are all human revelations passed on though generations.Like its said that the Ramayana in Hindus which reveals of Lord Krishna was being written even before Lord Rama was himself born. I myself never took the pain to read it.But I read it as it was included in our Hindi syllabus.I read and took it as a sort of story that tries to inculcate or rather instigate in our minds this very basic concept that the path of righteousness leads to victory or Good wins over bad.Now so many authors and thinkers in our Hindu society has tried to prove after a lot of dissection of Lord Rama's character that he wasn't actually so great as he is being supposed to be.Some said Ravana the evil character of Ramayana is actually greater one as compared to Rama himself.I myself can't actually understand and withstand the very idea of abandoning Sita by Rama which basically depicts the mean minded outlook of a male dominated society towards a woman.But then why I should go so deep in understanding these so called stories and learn the nitty gritty aspects of what you call as religion. Lets just look at this word religion. What it means a set of rules set up by some holy book or a collection of belief systems by a particular community or its just a quest to connect ourselves to some one superior to us? I think religion to be my guide in governing my actions and deeds.What I am? A human being and this community thinks that intelligence and all other sorts of virtues in the highest form is prerogative to this particular class only.But the dilemma is this that very creature possessing so high profile virtues is devoid of conscience.When the very translation of Human Beings in Bengali is 'Manush' i.e someone having self prestige and self awareness i.e a well built conscience.Anything that teaches you to develop that underlying conscience and strengthen it so that you can keep intact your moral values even in times of serious mind conflicts arising out of situations on which you yourself don't have control over is an actual study of religion.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Ananya (see edit history)