An excerpt from "The Philosophy Gym", one of my favorite books,
(http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Gym-Short-Adventures-Thinking/dp/0312314523/sr=8-2/qid=1165976793/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-9744516-4390206?ie=UTF8&s=books)
God: "Wrong? Is it wrong?"
Jarvis: "You said so yourself in the Bible"
God: "Ah, the Bible, why do you assume that the Bible is a hundred per cent reliable?
Jarvis: "You mean it's not?"
God: "I didn't say that. But look, if you plan to base your morality entirely on the contents of
one book, you'd better be sure that it's the right book. And you'd better be sure to what extent it can be relied upon, hadn't you?
The Lord pointing to the Bible in Jarvis's lap.
God: "Flip back a couple of pages. Scan down a bit. That's it. Leviticus xi, 7-8. What does it say?
Jarvis: "'And the swine, though he divide the hoof...he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat'."
God: "Ever eaten a bacon sandwich? Then you have sinned! Now a little further down."
Jarvis: "''These shall ye eat of all that are the waters; whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales...'"
God: "'...ye shall not eat of their flesh.'. Didn't your last meal include moules marinière? Why aren't you Christians boycotting seafood restaurants and warning of perils of lobster thermidor?"
Jarvis turns a bit pale.
God: "If you read over the page from the passage about homosexuality, you will discover that it's also wrong to wear a jacket made from a linen/wool mix.
Jarvis: "I hadn't notice that before."
God: "Further it says it's sinful to lend money for interest. Yet you condemn not one of these things, do you?"
Jarvis: "No."
God: "But you confidently cite that particular passage of Leviticus to justify your condemnation of homosexuality. It seems you are picking and choosing.
(p.s. this couple near columbus circle almost gave me one of the most candid moments, but i was a fraction late to press the shutter, evidently!)
5 comments:
Organized religions are stupid. Religious literature is down right laughable (not contstrained to Christianity). And if there is a real God he'd laugh if anyone so much as mentioned abdicating reason to try to follow some book to the letter.
The only 'moral' authority that can keep you in check is your own reason and will to use it.
whoa ajju i didn't know you were an atheist?...
Good point! But as a theist, I have mixed emotions. While I cannot and will not abdicate reason to follow a book by the letter, religion cannot be disregarded altogether. Eastern/indian philosophy is deeply rooted in religion. Althought my understanding of the subject is meager now, perhaps I might get a different perspective if I dwell deeper. Trust me I am trying but its so damn cryptic!!!
I don't think Ajju is commenting as an atheist, he's merely calling organized religion stupid. Believing in the existence if God and strictly adhering to 'rules of worship as laid down by society' are two completely different things.
Remember how when we were in school, we would go to church and were told that if we wanted to pray, all we had to do was close our eyes and talk to God? Simple, right?
:) Interesting points Ajju.
However, I cannot agree nor disagee with you here. Perhaps we are but a spec of dust to know with any certainty as to what extent God really controls the world.
I said religion or general belief in God is a pre-requisite to philosophical pursuits, based on the ten pages I read in "An Introduction to Indian Philosophy" by RadhaKishnan and Moore. After the 10th page, my head started to spin and I put it down. Well so that hardly qualifies. I will get back to you on this one when I am better qualified.
Good post .. My view is that rules must be there .. but they must evolve. Defining eternal rules (as those defined by many/most/all religions) based on primitive life styles and ideologies without revision is just ridiculous. Everything must evolve and adapt .. species do .. life does .. so shud ideologies.
I am an Atheist (whatever that means). I have not read religious texts or literature in detail so my views are purely based on empirical observation and ofcourse are hence subject to constant revision. What I have generally observed (it is ofcourse not true for each and every person) is that GOD is a concept invented by man:
- to explain away things he cannot explain (at the moment).
- to feel safer and more secure when in peril. It sometimes helps pple from goin completely insane at times of extreme desparation cuz they have something to hold on to (even if it might be totally imaginary).
- to control pple primarily based on fear. Almost every religion I know of seems to say that u will be punished or have to pay for ur sins eventually. This can be and has been used for the overall good but its such a powerful weapon as well.
I really dont know the REAL definition of GOD or if there is one. I wont claim that there is NO GOD. But the way most pple define the concept ... I prefer being an atheist cuz I really dont understand or agree with all the definitions that I know of. I do however like aarjav's version ... I think my thinking is very close to his. I haven't closed my eyes and spoken to GOD in a long long time tho :-). The pratice of talkin or praying somehow always makes me feel like I am fooling myself into believing that someone/something is listening and going to reply in some way when infact noone/nothing ever does listen or reply. Nothing ever happens :-D. I don't like fooling myself. So I stopped. So far I havent felt the need to go back. Maybe someday when I am in extremely deep shit I'll have to go back to fooling myself to keep my sanity :-). Till then I'm gonna call myself an atheist.
Post a Comment