Christianity Is Immoral

[Bikerman 2]

Well, I wouldn't particularly recommend the bible to anyone as a basis for morality, but that isn't really the point. The point is that if you say Jesus would have done this or that, or you say 'This is a Christian idea....' or, in fact, if you say anything about Christianity, then what is it based on? The only source is the bible - and that includes all the nasty bits as well as the cherry-picked passages that Christians love to quote.
What about the basic starting point? God tells Abraham to kill his son, simply to prove his faith. How do you make a moral God out of that? I really want to know....

.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.

Have you got any idea how insulting that is? I don't avoid doing evil as part of any 'religion' and I really resent someone telling me that I do. I avoid evil because I am a rational person who has thought carefully about morality. But even if I hadn't, do you really think that irrational notions are required for people to do good? Do you think that atheists like me, who explicitly say loud and clear that we are NOT religious are just lying? Edited May 9, 2012 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Ananya 0]

What matters you call it in the name of rationalism or religious minded.If your rational views help you to keep you a person bearing moral values.Then that matters.Then happily you can be called as someone religious.My intention has got nothing to insult you.My only view is on one hand someone is calling himself as truly religious and then doing all sorts of irreligious activities and trying to remain boastful as to be called as religious.What one will do after an immense religious study and then coming up with so strange ideas of killing masses in the name of religious war.If you end up becoming a beast from within what purpose will it serve by doing so vast religious study. If following a religion turns you up to become something you aren't intended to then anyone who isn't religious is better off. But my very point is that concept of religion is misconstrued by many.It shouldn't be turned into something entirely complex.So many wrong beliefs people bear just because they are a follower of a particular religion.The very common one is one who follows Hindu religion is different from one who follows Muslim.Now we belong to human community. how can 2 people differ just because their faith on religion differs.One things of being superior compared to the other. Buddha said a vary fine thing on this if the pains and pleasures of every human being is same then there is hardly any difference amongst human beings.

[Bikerman 2]

But calling me religious IS insulting. I reject religion - religion is a worldview that includes some sort of creation deity or some supernatural organising principle. I do not believe in anything like that, so calling me religious is therefore incorrect, If you want to say 'spiritual' then I would probably accept that term because spiritual can just mean awe at the universe and I certainly have that,If you believe in a monotheistic deity then by definition you are saying that everyone who doesn't is wrong - they MUST be, or else you are. If Jesus is God then Islam is wrong and there is no 'final prophet'. If Islam is right then Jesus was not God....and so on.Sure you can pick and mix and build some personal religion from the pieces - and many people do - but you end up with either a peculiar and idiosyncratic religion with weird beliefs - the Mormons would be a good example - or you end up with such a wishy-washy confused mush that being a member of that religion is essentially meaningless - an example of that is the Church of England.You ask what it matters? So do you think that, as long as a lie results in a useful outcome it is then OK? It's not for me, maybe that is a difference. I believe that people have the right to truth, even if it is not what they might want to hear. I don't think it is ever justified to lie to people just to make them happy unless you are certain that they would wish you to do so - ie almost never.

[Ananya 0]

If I don't believe in monotheistic deity then what shall I do? Then being a Hindu will I accept that there are 33 millions deities.If being a resident of this planet I consider that there are so many deities.Then this immense universe will comprise of truly infinite number of deities.See since from childhood I got acquainted with 2 school of thoughts equally one saying that deities are many.Commonly I used to hear from my grandma Goddess Laxmi for wealth,Goddess Saraswati for Vidya or knowledge of any kind from music to studies ,Vishnu as lord of Brahma or universe.The second school of thought emphasizing on 1 god concept which I came to know when I grew up and from school texts teaching us the preachings of poet cum saint like Kabir.You know about him or not I don't know.Basically Kabir was brought up in a family of Muslim Weavers. But Hindus claimed that his biological mother was a Hindu.All the ideologies of Kabir were found in the form of verses.It is his one of his teachings that says God is shapeless and transcends all limits of description. God is beyond every description be it his place of presence or be it the form of presence.Don't ever try to seek him in temple or Mosque or Church, if you ever intend to seek him try to do it in your within.And devotion is the only means to do that.The later one satisfied my quest of seeking God.With age I started understanding that not everything can be explained.But if something is truly inexplicable by using the tools and equipments lying in our hands does that put a big question mark in its very genesis or existence itself? Well if you think in the context of almighty you wouldn't be able to declare some variables and then just put it in some equation.If the equality satisfies you would reach a firm conclusion. When it comes about God you have to rely on something called as Faith.And then comes devotion towards it. That is the reason you find people getting stubborn when it comes about their belief in God.They stick to some notion and then they find their own notion as firm as a rock.But every belief system has to be created keeping in view transparency of thoughts. I am very self opinionated but I always try to change my outlook if someone behalf me is speaking logically. The reason why I keep on reading various preachings delivered by spiritually enlightened spirits. Most of the time I find myself updating my view as they all satisfy my queries I direct to my own conscience.The moment you will turn opaque all path will get blocked and you will end up finding yourself in a stagnant pool wherein you won't come across with something new and maybe something that would have enriched your own view. I can call you spiritual oriented.The moment you will start progressing to that path and achieved enlightenment like Buddha then definitely spiritual too.

[Bikerman 2]

I have yet to see anything which is beyond material explanation. I would even go further - I have yet to see any reliable evidence that such a thing exists.From my perspective you are looking for an answer to a question that does not exist.The physical universe is already explained to a very large extend. The last frontier of science is the human mind. This is a far more difficult enterprise - eplaining the formation and dynamics of stars and planets is childs-play compared to explaining consciousness. It is only really in the last century that science has started on this problem, and only really in the last couple of decades that serious progress has been made.Science may never address issues such as 'what is a well=lived life?' (but I don't see any reason in principle why it cannot) - but answers to that question are not found in bronze-age scribblings or mysticism - they are found in the thought and writings of the great philosophers. Mysticism is the ultimate cop-out - it says 'the answer is too difficult, therefore God(s) did it'.

[Ananya 0]

I'm not saying that something that is inexplicable has to be put in the account of God.Beyond our explanation can be termed as anything you like God if you believe and not God if you don't believe.Isn't it really there something i.e above material explanation.Material explanation leads you to believe you are restricted to the domain of materialistic happiness and nothing surpasses that domain.That is the ultimate one can achieve in ones lifetime. We tend to believe if we have bought a plot of land it belongs to us when that piece of land is going to outlive us.Its going to stay wherever it is even if I am supposed to die tomorrow.If you refrain to go out of the realm of Science its perfectly OK.But Science has its own limitations.Science can well provide you with a theory called fission and fusion reaction and equip you with nuclear energy.But won't teach you to remain in the brink of human welfare and not to exploit that to harm a whole community.If the very science that gives you the sense of progress.Then progress has to be defined in real terms within the realm of consciousness.So science is the subset of something.Not the superset. WHAT'S THAT?

[Bikerman 2]

I think you are confused. A materialist outlook/philosophy does not mean believing that only 'material hapiness' is possible - it questions what that phrase means. If you mean happy with things other than material possessions then I see no contradiction at all. Believing that there is no supernatural is not the same, or even remotely related to, believing that only material possessions can bring happiness.Science actually WILL tell you about 'the brink of welfare' - in fact it is the only thing that can. If you want to make rational choices about the environment then you can either adopt a scientific approach and make decisions based on evidence, or you can adopt some other approach and base your decisions on gut feelings or signs from heaven, or a voices in your head...I know which approach I think is easily the best...Your last two sentences don't make any sense to me. Everything is defined within the realms of consciousness - even unconsiouss thoughts are rooted in consciousness. That has no implication that science is a subgroup of anything.Science is based on one axiom - that the material universe exists in a way which is related to our perceptions of it.That is the only pre-requisite - the only thing that needs to be assumed.Any other philosophy or religion must make that same assumption, or it is meaningless. Religion also assumes more - normally a deity or plan or purpose.Science is a method, a way of examining the universe. You could call it one of a number of different ways of looking at the universe - and therefore a subset of 'ways of looking at the universe'. But that gives a misleading impression - that the other ways are somehow on a par, or equally valid, when clearly they are not. Science is the only one which has proven successful time and again. The only one which allows us to make rational decisions. The only one which makes testable predictions which come true everytime.What does religion actually tell you about consciousness? What facts can we take to the bank and rely on? I don't mean deep-sounding statements which can never be tested and are therefore meaningless, I mean good solid information that might help us better understand consciousness?

Edited May 12, 2012 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Ananya 0]

If the world had been created in a different way,Its laws would have different then.Science would also had been different accordingly.Today what you are seeing as the laws governing the nature.Those laws would have been entirely different then.You are saying science is a way of looking at the universe and that is perfectly true.But what if the universe would have been different at the first place.The way to look at it would have been different.I am not undermining science.See if nature took about thousands of years to create marble.We human beings took just 10 years to do it.I have got no issues with science but my point is what can be put above it.If our brain takes decisions based on some science and the decision is to when to run or when to stand then leave it.But the decisions regarding the kind of behaviour we have to show to some person with respect to the the deed he has done. Then in that case brain will just provide us with some kind of flowchart where decision boxes will point you to various action paths that if you do this this will come as outcome but if you instead follow a different plan of action something different will come out. So decisions taken by brain has to be strictly kept in vigilance by our conscience.And there comes the role of consciousness or self awareness.If you ask invention of wheel is important or invention of brake.Earlier one gives us the power of locomotion but later one gives us the power to control the direction as now you can stop yourself lest you throw yourself in the thorn of bushes.So activities initiated by our brain comes under the domain of consciousness. In my opinion science can be thought of as a subset of spiritualization as spiritualization is the means through which one can go deep under himself and search the underlying truth and here comes the argument which you are free to comment anything.

[Bikerman 2]

Again you seem to be confused. It doesn't matter what the rules are, science is the method we use to find those rules. The scientific method, boiled down, is : observe, hypothesise, test, refine. This method works, and it works regardless of the actual rules.The notion that science is a subset of spiritualization (whatever that means) is absurd. The knowledge we have of the modern world - the knowledge that enables you to type your replies, for example - owes nothing at all to spirituality and everything to science. Whether you believe the wheel or the brake is more important - both are the products of scientific thinking. Neither came about by someone searching for inner meaning.You have not answered my question. What does spirituality tell us about consciousness that we can test? Show me one single useful prediction about consciousness that arises from some spiritual understanding. I'll give you as many as you like that arise from scientific analysis - all I ask for is a single example.

[Ananya 0]

No I used the word brake as a symbol to signify restraint or control imposed by our conscience.Its just a metaphor.Seeking spiritualization is seeking self awareness at the highest level.The most spiritually awakened and enlightened person is the one who has witnessed the truth.One who has conquered all the limitations that are somehow crippling us in terms of materialistic joys.Definitely increased consciousness is what spiritualization enables one to have.Isn't it consciousness to win control over senses that make us attached to everything or take revenge for any attempt made to belittle us.The consciousness that science equips one with are made to keep in view only human community's welfare and not every creature in this universe. Even if you talk about that consciousness that speaks of human welfare then that is also a byproduct of our inner Conscience.Because if brain does the job of observe, hypothesise, test,analysis then the decision regardingwhose welfare a part of human community or the whole of it has to be made at the end of consciousness.

[Bikerman 2]

But this is just platitudinous guff.Truth is what science is all about - it is a system, honed and refined, to arrive at objective truth. I'm talking about measurable, testable, workable truth - how things ARE, what is REAL.The notion that science is only concerned with human welfare is yet another misconception. Science is a METHOD, not an AGENDA. If you want to learn about other species, if you want to do conservation work, if you want to understand the biosphere in general, or specific parts of it, then SCIENCE is the way to do it. You don't learn about new species by meditating or embarking on some spiritual quest - you do SCIENCE.Do you think those people doing the most to help the environment are using 'spirituality' as a tool? Do you think they sit around in circles chanting? In fact 'spirituality' - whatever that actually means - is far more selfish than science. Spirituality is all about the 'me' - whether it is understanding MY position in the universe, or understanding how MY actions affect others, or understanding how I can live a 'good' life. A scientific consciousness opens one up to the entire universe - it is exactly the opposite of what you say. Rather than focussing on humanity, science teaches us that we are a minor, tansient part of a much bigger picture. Science doesn't set mankind up as a be all and end all - just the opposite. Science teaches us just how insignificant we are in the universe and gives us a (proper) sense of humility when we compare our achievements to the wonders of the Cosmos.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

Let me recommend some reading to you. Specifically the writings of Jaques Monod, who I think sums this debate up beautifully.

Modern societies accepted the treasures and the power offered them by science. But they have not accepted - they have scarcely even heard - its profounder message: the defining of a new and unique source of truth, and the demand for a thorough revision of ethical premises, for a complete break with the animist tradition, the definitive abandonment of the 'old covenant', the necessity of forging a new one. Armed with all the powers, enjoying all the riches they owe to science, our societies are still trying to live by and to teach systems of values already blasted at the root by science itself.

No society before ours was ever torn apart by such conflicts. In both primitive and classical cultures the animist tradition saw knowledge and values stemming from the same source. For the first time in history a civilisation is trying to shape itself while clinging desperately to the animist tradition in an effort to justify its values, and at the same time abandoning it as the source of knowledge, of truth. The 'liberal' societies of the West still pay lip-service to, and present as a basis for morality, a disgusting farrago of Judeo-Christian religiosity, scientistic progressism, belief in the 'natural' rights of man, and utilitarian pragmatism. The Marxist societies still profess the materialist and dialectical religion of history; on the face of it a more solid moral framework than that of the liberal societies, but perhaps more vulnerable by virtue of the very rigidity which up to now has been its strength. However this may be, all these systems rooted in animism exist outside objective knowledge, outside truth, and are strangers and fundamentally hostile to science, which they are willing to use but do not respect or cherish. The divorce is so great, the lie so flagrant, that it can only obsess and lacerate anyone who has some culture or intelligence, or is moved by that moral questioning which is the source of all creativity. It is an affliction, that is to say, for all those who bear or will bear the responsibility for the way in which society and culture will evolve.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Ananya 0]

When after attaining spiritualization these great souls free themselves up from all ties.Then how can you talk about a better life.Where arises the question of leading a better way of life?Just because they leave their home and family members to attain this state doesn't mean that they are selfish and they are apathetic towards other people's sorrows. Rather they choose this path after becoming fully aware of the tremendous pains and sorrows that people around us face Spiritualization definitely brings in bliss and we can't deny that but then it should be something truly seen as a bright side and not as a darker one.. Wait! are you thinking about techniques of Art of Living that are being taught.Those who teach these techniques after taking a bulk amount of money often refer to them as spiritual gurus.Well they can offer peace and tranquility to some extent who are really bored by over consumption of every resources that give comfort.But they are not at all spiritual oriented.Seeking spiritualization is to seek the deeper truths of life.The truth that eludes ourselves when we are absorbed in our own day to day life.Its something like to win a battle over yourself.

 

To most philosophers, the word "consciousness" connotes the relationship between the mind and the world. To writers on spiritual or religious topics, it frequently connotes the relationship between the mind and God, or the relationship between the mind and deeper truths that are thought to be more fundamental than the physical world. Krishna consciousness, for example, is a term used to mean an intimate linkage between the mind of a worshipper and the god Krishna.^[58] The mystical psychiatrist Richard Maurice Bucke distinguished between three types of consciousness: Simple Consciousness, awareness of the body, possessed by many animals; Self Consciousness, awareness of being aware, possessed only by humans; and Cosmic Consciousness, awareness of the life and order of the universe, possessed only by humans who are enlightened.^[59] Many more examples could be given. The most thorough account of the spiritual approach may be Ken Wilber's book The Spectrum of Consciousness, a comparison of western and eastern ways of thinking about the mind. Wilber described consciousness as a spectrum with ordinary awareness at one end, and more profound types of awareness at higher levels.^[60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

When you point out 'old covenant' its not something I really know about.To remain in the ethical premises can be thought of as something gifted by science.But my personal outlook differs in this context as when brain makes one observe things and helps in reaching a particular conclusion.Different observations will lead us to different conclusions.But when it comes about choosing a particular course of action definitely the role of conscience do comes.

[Bikerman 2]

When after attaining spiritualization these great souls free themselves up from all ties.Then how can you talk about a better life.

I mean better as in 'less pain and suffering' - something which most people would agree with i think, and something which science, and ONLY science, has consistently delivered.

Where arises the question of leading a better way of life?

From philosophy, where such questions belong and where they are must fully addressed. The Greek philosophers asked exactly that question - what shall we say is a 'well lived' life? Philosophy has been addressing that particular issue ever since.

Just because they leave their home and family members to attain this state doesn't mean that they are selfish

Yes, I believe it does mean exactly that. Family is not simply something to discard in search of personal fulfillment and to do so is, in my opinion, not only selfish but actually immoral. One has obligations and responsibilities to other. To abandon those responsibilities and obligations is, almost by definition, an immoral act.

Spiritualization definitely brings in bliss and we can't deny that

I can and do deny that.It may bring temporary peace or even soimething akin to 'bliss', but so does heroin or cocaine and I believe in neither case is the effect more 'real'. Certainly we can 'think' in different ways which are interesting and may offer some benefits, but that cannot be done at the expense of responsibilities and it could never even get close to offering the same benefits that science has already brought to humanity.

Wait! are you thinking about techniques of Art of Living that are being taught.Those who teach these techniques after taking a bulk amount of money often refer to them as spiritual gurus.Well they can offer peace and tranquility to some extent who are really bored by over consumption of every resources that give comfort.But they are not at all spiritual oriented.Seeking spiritualization is to seek the deeper truths of life.The truth that eludes ourselves when we are absorbed in our own day to day life.Its something like to win a battle over yourself.

No, I was not talking about such people - who are basically nothing more than con-merchants. Conscience is nothng more than personal morality nudging one. It is found in the vast majority of people - excepting, perhaps, sociopaths and psychopaths, and it has little debt to any particular notion of spirituality.

[Bikerman 2]

I think a recurring problem is the definitional one. What, exactly, IS spirituality? Unless that is addressed then we may be talking about entirely different things. To me it is simply a feeling or state of mind in which one experiences something of the awe and splendour of the universe. Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't necessarily transcendent, though it can be, and it hasn't got anything to do with supernatural entities, though some people insist otherwise.