Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tempe, Arizona, USA
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Here's my two cents:
Why I Am Not A Christian . . .
Bertrand Russell once wrote a book "Why I Am Not A Christian" which I felt was quite lacking in substance, considering the title . . . . I thought it would be interesting to write about it . . . .
Before I get into this issue, I must warn you that if you are a christian and are easily offended, do not read this. If you disregard this warning and continue, don't blame me for this, I have warned you . . .
Many people, including those who profess Christianity and many other religions, believe that theirs is an omnipotent God, who created the universe, who is "love". To them I would simply ask this question......... If you could create a universe, and you were indeed the embodiment of love, would you create one in which beings of that world would prey upon other beings.......a world where it is necessary for beings to consume other life in order to live? I think not.
Now, suppose that you go to your doctor because you are sick, and after the usual check-in, you are brought to the examination room. When your doctor comes in, there may be the short bit of small-talk, then he asks you what it is that is wrong. So you tell him, and then, to your complete astonishment, he says "Unless you acknowledge to me, that I am a doctor, and address me as Dr. _____, I will not treat you." I think that the average person, with any common sense, would not wait around to be treated by that so-called doctor! This anology can be applied to Jesus. Why does he insist that others acknowledge his title? Would someone with a normal bearing in life, having a title, (as would a true doctor) feel a need to have their title acknowledged?
When there is a great social stigma attached to a particular thing, it is not uncommon for people to do everything they can to hide this stigma from society. The psychological term, I believe that would be applied, is called repression. One represses what would other-wise cause them pain by acknowledging it to themselves or to others. It is said that Jesus was oft-times considered to be an illegitimate child. What better way to attempt to convince others that you were indeed of legitimate birth, lacking any other proof, than to claim to have decended from god himself! So much for immaculate conception.
The idea of "original sin" is preposterous, from a humanistic perspective, and from a realistic perspective. It is simply a dinosaur that was carried from the past, when the disgrace of an individual was considered the disgrace of every generation afterward. The average person does not hold things against children who error due to ignorance or the errors of their ancestors...........they may punish them as a way to keep them from dangers......but they do not hold this against them for the rest of their lives or for eternity, for that matter. One does not learn, without making errors. But I think that there are plenty of people who prefer to keep others in a non-enlightened state.
I think that the dissemination of lies is motivated by greed. If you can convince a bunch of people to believe, you can also convince them to give, once you do that, you have become the parasite who harvests from these poor deceived souls.
Some people are just lazy..............they don't want to even take the time to actively try to be of any benefit to humanity, so they give their money to the priest, whom they assume (a lot of times falsely) will do good for them, or at the very least, absolve them............. These priests are suppose to be wise men and are suppose to give guidance to the general public . . but most of them are also suppose to live a life of semi-seclusion and remain a virgin all their lives. If I want to learn how to fire a cannon, I'll go to someone who has done it, thank you.
I cannot see any sense in attaching oneself to a doctrine. When you become so rigid in defending these doctrines, as do many people, you then lock out all other possibilities.........and many of the doctrines that exist are inflexible and assumming.....they are assumming because they tend to make a lot of claims which cannot be proven. Once most people write all their doctine in stone, and then cling to it like it is their last thing on earth, they become rigid, unbending, and uncompromising. They close the door to exploration.
I think that any idea of eternal damnation runs against what love is suppose to be........Who could imagine a parent so pernicious as to condemn their children to suffer eternally? Yet, when this idea is supported by biblical text, it seems to be ok to people....... Love is not something that is conditional, based upon someones behavior, in my opinion. If you really do indeed love someone, conditions are irrelevant. As Nietzsche would say, "Whatever is done from love occurs beyond good and evil".
Some people just assume automatically that an athiest has no moral compass . . . but are the above statements impling lack of moral compass, or a penchant for the truth, regardless of the palatibility of it?
The Antichrist, one of Nietzsche's best works, is still very relevant today . . .
"The Sage as an Astronomer: If you still see the stars as something above you, you lack the eye of knowledge." Friedrich Nietzsche