In response to Brandon Gaudet's post "Desensitization: Video Games v. Religion" (January 26, 2012):
I agree with the ideas expressed in the above post - I merely wished to add to some of the points brought up in the last paragraph, particularly those involving the idea of Christians going immediately to heaven upon their deaths. Historically, Christianity has on more than one occasion endorsed warring against and killing those of differing religious views. According to the Bible, people who do not worship the Christian God go to hell, or at the very least to purgatory. Thus, a Christian killing a nonbeliever is not harmless to said nonbeliever - they are not going to a better place upon their demise, in fact they could be said to be going to a much worse place.
A Christian could safely kill another Christian in the knowledge that the person they killed would go straight to heaven. Yet despite this, Christians have warred against other Christians far less frequently than they have fought with non-Christians. Furthermore, one of the ten commandments in the Christian faith is "Thou shalt not kill" (or "Thou shalt not commit murder", according to some interpretations). Judging by the history of religious wars fought by the Christians, this commandment applies less to killing nonbelievers than it does to killing fellow members of the faith. Why? Why has God apparently declared it forbidden to kill people who are going straight to heaven anyway? It seems to me that if dead Christians go to heaven, this commandment should be totally unnecessary, at least in regards to members of the faith. I could understand refusing to kill nonbelievers to give them a chance to reconsider their religious affiliation, but that is a separate matter.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Response: Individuality vs. The Family
In response to Julia Monturo's post "Search for Self at All Costs" (January 26, 2012):
I do agree that choosing one's own quest for enlightenment over the happiness of one's family and friends appears selfish at first glance, and in many cases (such as seems to be the case with the man in the film we watched on Thursday) it probably is. I don't object terribly strongly to the idea of one doing it anyway, as I do not feel that a person should consistently place their family over their own personal satisfaction, but the idea does seem to clash with a doctrine which advocates selflessness.
However, I can think of certain motivations which would render this choice less selfish. For example, if one has assurance that one's family will remain in good living conditions regardless of what one chooses to do, and one wishes to undergo this quest in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment for the purpose of then passing on one's learnings to others, then it is arguable a relatively selfless decision, particularly if making it causes one some sort of emotional pain. Alternately, if one's family was unpleasant and hostile, then I do not think that abandoning them to live a life of meditation is selfish in the same way as leaving a family who loves one (and who one loves in return) - although it still could be interpreted as selfish in another way, some could argue that living away from hostility is not a selfish choice so much as an inherent right.
I do agree that choosing one's own quest for enlightenment over the happiness of one's family and friends appears selfish at first glance, and in many cases (such as seems to be the case with the man in the film we watched on Thursday) it probably is. I don't object terribly strongly to the idea of one doing it anyway, as I do not feel that a person should consistently place their family over their own personal satisfaction, but the idea does seem to clash with a doctrine which advocates selflessness.
However, I can think of certain motivations which would render this choice less selfish. For example, if one has assurance that one's family will remain in good living conditions regardless of what one chooses to do, and one wishes to undergo this quest in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment for the purpose of then passing on one's learnings to others, then it is arguable a relatively selfless decision, particularly if making it causes one some sort of emotional pain. Alternately, if one's family was unpleasant and hostile, then I do not think that abandoning them to live a life of meditation is selfish in the same way as leaving a family who loves one (and who one loves in return) - although it still could be interpreted as selfish in another way, some could argue that living away from hostility is not a selfish choice so much as an inherent right.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Selflessness is Relative
One thing that bothers me about Sri Krishna's advice in the Bhagavad Gita is his advocation and description of 'selfless service' and selflessness in general. As seems to be the case in many religions or philosophies, this supposed selflessness is not actually selfless; in the case of Krishna's advice to Arjuna, one should practice selfless service because doing so will bring one closer to achieving the ultimate goal of being at peace and possessing "the joy of spiritual awareness" - which is something that one wants for oneself. One paragraph in particular stood out to me as being especially nonsensical: "Through constant effort over many lifetimes, a person becomes purified of all selfish desires and attains the supreme goal of life" (pg. 145). The sentiments expressed by this passage appear to be very nearly in exact opposition to one another. On the one hand, the person referred to by the passage is purified of all selfish desires; on the other, they are attaining something (the supreme goal of life) which they desire.
The Bhagavad Gita is certainly not alone amongst religious and philosophical texts in containing this somewhat hypocritical version of selflessness. Christianity, with its required obedience to biblical scripture and the will of God, is no better - in fact, it may well be worse, considering that numerous Christians state that those without religion are necessarily immoral. How, I ask, can someone (let us say an atheist) who does things for the benefit of others alone, because they choose to do so, be less moral than someone who helps others because they believe that they will be granted eternal reward (and exempted from eternal punishment) if they do so? If anything, I would say the opposite is true; however, I think that the issue is more complicated than that, and while there is no space to go too far into it here I may address it in another post. For now, I shall merely refrain from stating that religious people cannot be moral (I believe they can be), and instead list a few other religions/philosophies which suffer a similar lack of consistency regarding selflessness - namely Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, and secular belief in 'the golden rule'.
The Bhagavad Gita is certainly not alone amongst religious and philosophical texts in containing this somewhat hypocritical version of selflessness. Christianity, with its required obedience to biblical scripture and the will of God, is no better - in fact, it may well be worse, considering that numerous Christians state that those without religion are necessarily immoral. How, I ask, can someone (let us say an atheist) who does things for the benefit of others alone, because they choose to do so, be less moral than someone who helps others because they believe that they will be granted eternal reward (and exempted from eternal punishment) if they do so? If anything, I would say the opposite is true; however, I think that the issue is more complicated than that, and while there is no space to go too far into it here I may address it in another post. For now, I shall merely refrain from stating that religious people cannot be moral (I believe they can be), and instead list a few other religions/philosophies which suffer a similar lack of consistency regarding selflessness - namely Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, and secular belief in 'the golden rule'.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)