Where Did Morality Come from?

***

Many Christian believers assert that human morality was established by God. I think differently.

I think there is a set of universal values that any “decent” human being would recognise and appreciate (whether they themselves practice it or not). These values are things like compassion, honesty, equity, love, peace, liberty, etc. We humans then build around these basic values other offshoots and rules and regulations to promote and ensure these basic values are applied as much as possible to ourselves. Many of these rules and regulations become a kind of standards and what we know as “morality”. This is just a manifestation of the natural inherent instincts of the human species to ensure us humans a good chance to survive long into the future.

In other words, I believe those universal values such as compassion, honesty, equity, love, peace, liberty, etc. were established by humans ourselves out of needs; survival needs.

Millions years ago, early humans were living together in small groups. It became slowly but surely obvious that certain behaviours would be beneficial to the survival of individuals as well as of their group. Groups where members widely practiced and promoted behaviours such as helping, supporting, protecting, caring for, sharing with one another tended to have greater chances of surviving nature disasters, wild animals, accidents, rival/enemy groups, etc. than groups without these behaviours. As small groups expanded into tribes, villages, towns, etc. these behaviours became more and more recognised and valued. They were systemised and promoted by societies as “good social standards”, and then “moral standards”.

Because these values were established by the overall consensus of societies, different societies/cultures might not have identical sets of values. And when the overall consensus of a culture changes, these values would also be affected. 

However, the “core” values such as compassion, honesty, equity, love, peace, liberty, etc. mentioned above do not change much. It could be said that they have stood the test of time. It is because they are always required and valued (or being useful) in any societies whether primitive or sophisticated, in pre-historic times or today. That is why these values could be seen as “universal”.

Certain forms and degrees of these universal values can also be observed in many social, especially “highly evolved”, animals like primates, wild dogs, elephants, dolphins, etc.

We should always remember that whatever moral values we hold might only be truly valid in our own frame of reference. Other cultures, including our own, in a different time and/or a different place might have different views on what we currently uphold.

Numerous “moral” values have come and gone. For example, not too long ago it was acceptable and certainly moral for one to use military power forcing other people to convert to one’s own religion (those refused to be converted were considered not deserved to live). These practices have fortunately been modified to a much milder version today simply because the overall consensus no longer accepts those bloody approaches of the past. For example, not too long ago “moral women” were expected to stay home bearing children and looking after the family instead of getting out in the society living and working cheek and jowl with men. It was not even considered moral for a woman to drink alone in a public bar in parts of England some 60 years ago. Today all this has changed because of big shifts in the general living conditions, education opportunities, economics, politics, ethical viewpoints, etc.

Even the above mentioned “universal” values should not be observed absolutely in all circumstances. For example, during the Nazi occupation in Europe, many people lied to the Gestapo in order to save the lives of the Jews they were hiding in their own attics. It would not be appropriate at all if they applied the moral code “honesty” then. For example, an incorrigible serial killer should be locked up for life because his/her liberty has to come second in comparison to the safety of other people.

Perhaps when it comes to morality, in a way there is nothing absolute. (Including the preceding statement, of course).

***

Cigarettes

***

I could compare some of the religions today with cigarettes (I avoid using “opium” as an example because I do not want some people to get on their high horses and drag Mr Karl Marx out of his deep sleep!)

Only using common sense, one could see that cigarettes are harmful to our health. Just looking at the amount of yellow nicotine resin coating on fingers after only a few cigarettes, one could tell what actually takes place inside the lungs of a long-term smoker. Yet when talking with an addict, we could see how warply and cleverly the human mind can operate. When having a reasoning target to achieve, the mind could twist and turn, dodge and weave to bring out smart arguments using benign "facts" to cover harmful reality.

When craving for a smoke (because of withdrawal or lack of strong will) a person could convince and calm themselves with benign "facts" (such as "science has not proved exclusively that smoking is harmful", "if smoking is really harmful then the government would have forbidden it just like heronine", "hundreds of millions other people also smoke, it should be ok", "smoking relaxes the mind", "smoking is cool", etc.) and push aside the harmful reality of smoking (the rates of having cancer in lungs, ears, nose, throat and early death in smokers are much higher than in non-smokers)

The cigarette industry of course because of profits has always hidden the real facts about cigarettes. They have carried out researches about impacts of cigarettes on human bodies, however instead of announcing its toxic truth they use the knowledge to try to produce more products that are more attractive and addictive to people. Governments also because of the huge tax benefits from cigarette production and distribution have ignored this matter until the recent years.

Science today has proved clearly that breathing other people's cigarette smoke ("passive smoking") is just as harmful as actually smoking it. However, when the law prohibits smoking in some public places, many smokers got very angry. They see their freedom has been violated. They see their needs and lifestyle should be respected by everyone.

We still often see people smoking in the middle of a crowd or mothers obliviously smoking right next to their young children. To avoid the confrontation, rather than out of politeness, we walk away from them instead of come up and object to what they are doing.

Until when, and in what situations, should we stop worrying about confrontation and let these people know our actual views about this?

If everyone thinks somebody else will do it, then who will?

***

Right to Speak Up

***

I don’t really give a hoot if somebody decides to believe in virgin birth, walking on water, heal the blinds, coming back to life from death, etc. and hence conduct their personal lives accordingly.

However when these people hold government administration power in their hands and use those beliefs to make policies that have negative impacts on my welfare then I believe I have the right to speak up.

When people using their own beliefs to openly or tacitly regard me as “morally inferior” to them then I believe I have the right to speak up.

There are people who hold those same beliefs but out of their own choice or otherwise have never done any harm to me nor disrespected me (of which I am grateful). However if these people indirectly or unwittingly condone these behaviours by not recognising or openly opposing them then I believe I have the right to speak up.

***

Prejudice

***

Many Christian believers say they are not prejudiced against non-believers.

Living in a western society, the majority of people I know are Christians in one form or another. From my observation, the devout people tend to be more prejudiced against non-believers. And many are not even aware that they are prejudiced.

Many Christian readers at this moment probably think: "It could be anyone else but not me, I'm definitely not prejudiced". This is because perhaps you have many acquaintances, colleagues, friends who are non-believers whom you always respect and regard as individuals equal in all aspects with yourself; you consider the fact they are non-believers as a private, separate matter that has no influence in the relationship between you and them.

In fact it is very easy to know if you are deep down prejudiced or not. You only need to do a small mental experiment to find out; the only requirement is that you must be totally honest with yourself.

Just try to imagine that an over-21-year-old member of your family one day announces that they would reject Christianity and become an atheist. This could be one of your children, or your brother/sister or your boy/girl friend or your husband/wife. Let us assume that this person has always been very responsible and mature in their life and their way of thinking. They would explain to you clearly why they want to reject Christianity using all the standard reasons that an atheist would use. 

Try to imagine what your feelings and reactions would be when that person is determined to choose that direction in life. Do you think you would be shocked because of this news? Would you try to dissuade or to stop them from doing this? Would you use all the standard reasons that a Christian believer would use (such as Christianity is a true and noble religion; atheism does not have a foundation for morality; the family's tradition has always been Christians; what would our neighbours, relatives and friends in the diocese think about this? etc.) to discuss with them? Or even if you could not be in the position to do this with them, would these thoughts come up in your mind? I want to repeat here, you must be absolutely honest with yourself to make it work because this is an experiment for yourself - and nobody else but you would know what you are thinking (!)

If you answer "No" to all of these above questions then you are really a believer who is not prejudiced in this regard; and you probably are the first one I ever know of.

Similarly, imagine if one of your children announces their intention to marry a non-believer. What would a parent like yourself think and react to this news? You could use the same questions above for self examination. Remember to be true and honest when answering.

Sometimes you could surprise even yourself.

***

A Confession

***

I have a confession to make.

Many times I have asked myself “Do I really want to do this?” By “to do this”, I mean to talk about Christianity the way I do now. It is not that I have doubts about my feelings towards Christianity, it is my feelings about many of my good friends who happen to be Christians. 

Majority of my friends do not know about my views on Christianity (simply because I dare not let them know). Some of those who do have stopped being friends with me, about which I am saddened. The very few of those who do and yet still accept our difference in this philosophical area and remain friends with me, I appreciate and am grateful to their tolerance and patience (not to mention their friendship!).

I know even those people who have been “tolerating” me cannot understand why I am doing this and what I am talking about. They were born and grew up in decent Catholic families. All their lives they are surrounded with love, kindness, compassion. They enjoy church music, spectacular worship ceremonies, friendly caring atmosphere at church activities such as helping homeless people, organising charity fund raising, etc. They find solace in praying, in almost-transcendental tranquility when contemplating the spiritual meaning of life. And a lot more. All they could probably see in me is a mad guy raving about something he doesn’t know and doesn’t even try to find out.

But I believe I have found something. And what I’ve found is not what many people would  want to see. 

What I have found is while there are many great things about being associated with Christianity - as the examples I mentioned earlier (note: I am not saying “there are many great things about Christianity”), there are many dark aspects of this religion. These dark (rotten, evil dark) aspects of Christianity are most of the time cleverly concealed behind a loving, caring facade that many people are attracted to because it responds to and satisfies their human and spiritual needs. 

All I want to do is to point out these dark aspects. First of all for myself as I have always said, and secondly for people who might have had similar observations but have never put them together categorically or dared to speak out.

I also want to assert that there is no need to be part of an out-dated and monstrous religion to cater for one’s human and spiritual needs. If you feel the love, kindness, compassion while you are in a religious environment, it is simply because these qualities already exist within yourself. They are also inherently within almost every one of the human species, even though of different levels and magnitudes. It is just mistaken to associate these universal qualities with religious doctrines or to regard them as exclusive properties of church’s teaching. If you tend to help homeless people or to run charity fund raising events, you would do that anyway even if you were not a Christian believer, or any other religions’ believer for that matter. 

Similarly, the transcendental tranquility can be experienced anywhere outside the religious atmosphere. Life including the universe itself, even though cold and impersonal, is vast and magnificently beautiful; contemplating which can often bring up experiences equal if not far surpassing any religiously induced sensations.

I understand why some people see me as “angry”. It is basically because they are angry themselves at what I have to say. And they probably are angry because they see I am upsetting the apple cart. They are scared that when all the apples have fallen off then they would not know what to do with the empty cart. They should realise that it is perhaps a chance for them to lighten the spiritual burden that has been imposed on them from previous generations. Walking through life by oneself unaided by any supernatural being is probably a frightening thought at first. However once one has become familiar with the nakedness of truth and more confident of oneself then it can also be exhilaratingly peaceful.

There are quite a few “aggressive” atheists out there doing a great job of “bashing” Christianity. It is very tempting, and quite easy, to just bring up reasoning, logic and scientific evidence to bash the Christian belief. It asks for it, being so blatantly nonsensical, illogical and dark-age immoral. It is however probably not most productive in terms of convincing anybody. The first thing believers will do is erecting a wall of defense around themselves, then after that will certainly be anything but an open and frank information exchange.

I just want to know how come it seems so simple and easy for me to see things that many others do not and can not see. Am I missing something? Am I reading into things to much? The more I search, the more I find disturbing facts in more areas. I have so many questions about the Christian faith and doctrines that have never been answered satisfactorily. I wish someone well versed in Christianity could provide me with straight, honest answers to those questions. Without these satisfactorily straight and honest answers, I have no other choice but using my observations to come up with my own views about this religion. 

I do not want to be and try not to be seen as “aggressive”. It is not easy. There are always people who want to shut me up and tear me down at all costs. Even though it is not pleasant but I am getting used to that. What I am concerned most is by saying out loud what I really think, I am upsetting and offending many of my Christian friends and risking losing their friendship because of that. 

It is a hard task to balance between expressing what one feels compelled to say and maintaining what one values so dearly. At times I have thought of giving up. It is no fun to be seen as a trouble maker, even by one’s ex-friends.

I wonder what an idealist who commits to truth would do?

***

Special Rules of Play

***

Imagine two people playing chess, normal chess with normal pieces and normal rules. However, one person has a special small flag. Every time he wants to, he could raise this flag and the rule stops applying to his pieces. That means when the flag is up, he could move his pieces in any way he wants.

Discussing religious matters with a Christian is often like playing chess with a person having this special flag. Every time he is cornered, he raises his flag called “faith”. All the rules are expected to stop applying to him. He doesn’t see the need to prove anything or to have evidence to support what he is arguing for. Whatever he says are to be considered as true, correct and absolute. 

He would vehemently complain if the other player deviated in any way from the rules that he himself does not observe.

Then he announces that his way of playing chess is "true", "just" and "moral".

***

Atheists in Foxholes

***

Many believers use the argument "There are no atheists in foxholes" when debating about “faith”.

They want to show that in extreme and hopeless situations, people can see how small, weak, helpless they really are and then they beg for help and believe in God.

This statement is in fact very true for many people.

However, this statement cannot be used to prove that atheism is wrong or atheists are shallow and weak.

This statement only describes a natural weakness in human. When facing danger, survival instinct within a person makes them need and want to be protected and saved. In desperate situations, they tend to think of some supernatural being who is much mightier than themselves.

In fact, the above statement proves that the concept "God" (and from there, the formation of religion) originated from fear.

Hitler once said to Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria in 1936 that "Man cannot exist without belief in God. The soldier who for three and four days lies under intense bombardment needs a religious prop."

"A religious prop". This shows Hitler was very clever when he made and used this observation to manage his soldiers' mentality. However, a faith originated from fear is only a tool produced from need. It is not a conviction coming from a genuine heart, it is not from a noble spiritual ideal. Some atheists compare religious faith with a crutch; if this comparison is appropriate then perhaps this is a case where it could apply best. Believers should not promote the comparison between their religious faith with a crutch though (because they are unwittingly doing just that when bringing up the statement about "no atheists in foxholes")

Further more, the above statement does not apply to everyone. There have been many cases where devout believers one day while deeply suffering whatever they are suffering suddenly wake up to the fact that if there was really a loving and caring God as promised then they would not have been in such terrible situations. There are many soldiers after surviving horrifying battles suddenly realise that no compassionate omnipotent God would ever allow all the tragic killing to happen like what has been going on around them. These people from that moment throw away the delusion about God that they have cherished all their lives.

When anyone brings up the statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" to debate for the concept "faith" then perhaps they should be reminded that "there are people who do not need to be in foxholes yet spending their life forever crouching in fear”.

***

One Less God

***

Steven Roberts once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

My version of the same idea: “The reason why I reject your god is the very same reason why you reject all other gods.”

***

A Question without Answer

***

Some people say “If God had not taught his people to love one another, this world would have been collapsed because of crimes”.

What needs to know is:

- Some people tend to think of other people’s rights apart from their own.

- Some people tend to think of their own rights only.

- Some people tend to derive pleasure out of hurting other people.

- etc.

And these are only natural socio-psychological tendencies existing in humans as well as in other highly evolved animals in the wild such as primates, dolphins, elephants, wild dogs, etc.

What more, USA is a country with at least 85% of the population devoutly believing in Jesus while countries like Norway, Switzerland, Denmark have not more than 20% Christians of some description. If God is the foundation and basis for morality then why the murder rates in the USA are around 20 times higher than Norway, Switzerland and Denmark?

(http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)

***

Death

***

Someone has just asked me what my views are about death and what might happen after death.

"Death" is huge topic and I would normally need a lot more time to prepare an appropriately thorough answer for these questions. However, I gave this person the following response as a brief and interim version of my views.

My short response is: 

Death is an inevitable part of life. I don’t know and believe that nobody can know for sure what happens after death.

My long response is:

Because death is just a part of life, we need and should talk about death in the same manner as we talk about any other normal phenomena in life.

Nobody can avoid death, because of that we should just accept it when it comes. It is useless to worry too much about it. Because of the natural survival instinct, we all need and will do anything to delay death (to lengthen life) as long as possible. However we should also prepare ourselves (mentally and spiritually) for death. One of the ways of preparation is reminding ourselves regularly that death could happen to anybody, at any time and anywhere. We need to remember that one should live to the true value of life and of oneself every minute while we are still alive. Enjoy and apply the compassion, truthfulness and beauty of human and of the universe in the span of time that we are still (somewhat) in control of our own existence. If one has been prepared thoroughly and consistently, one might not be as terrified and suffer when death comes as much as one would otherwise be terrified and suffer without any preparation.

Just a side notes here: I believe in the law of conservation of energy. I don’t object the idea that besides the physical shell consisted of numerous cells perhaps there could also be a form of energy operating in parallel to constitute the whole person, that is the Self, for each individual. Only "perhaps" because nobody has been able to scientifically prove this. And even if it is possible to prove the existence of such form of energy, I think it may or may not retain the personal and cognitive characteristics of the Self after the physical brain has ceased to operate. Again, nobody has been able to prove this.

However, the issue of "another form of energy" mentioned above is not important at the time being. Until science could prove exclusively what happens after death, all explanations are only guess-works. Those religious promises and “affirmations” about Heaven or Hell are all delusions and baseless dreams.

I look at death as a far away trip, not knowing when I will leave and where I am going to . And because I know that once I have left I will not come back, I tend to live with my loved ones, friends, people and with myself as if the trip may take place tomorrow. In this position, I tend to see each blade of grass, each leave; listen to a voice, a sound with sharper and deeper appreciations. In other words, I tend to live a fuller life.

I don't see the need to delude myself that there is a God who would save me and extend this life forever for me. Especially when that promise comes with too dear a price tag: I would have to be a slave abandoning my own mind, confining my own life to obey blindly those absurd and immoral doctrines. I don't see the need to wish for a forever existence after death. If (a big "If") it is to happen then even if I didn’t want it would still happen; if it is not to happen then regardless how much praying and begging in front of those wooden statues it would still not happen.

My life is with me, most of it right in my hands. I don't see the need to create and advertise those delusions, nor I think advertising them is a moral thing to do. If I were an egg merchant and not sure whether the eggs are rotten or not, I would not make loud statements "guaranteeing" that the eggs I sell are not rotten. I do not accept the argument "must have faith that they are not rotten then they won't be rotten".

Unless I want to use this argument unwittingly or deliberately to deceive others, and myself.

***

Religion vs Science

***

The strength of science is that it knows its relative values and the limit of this relativity.

The downfall of religion is that it demands absolute values and does not know the limit for this demand.

***

Faith

***

Christianity is a belief entirely based on “faith”. “Faith” is a concept that demands absolute acceptance without questioning. Many things called “miracles” within Christianity are accepted in the name of “faith”. Some of the examples are virgin birth, walking on water, rising after death, etc. Yet in any other fields in life, these very same things would be considered by the believers themselves as nonsensical, superstitious and absurd.

That would be ok, provided believers keep their beliefs as personal and private. Most people would respect or at least tolerate what others believe if they are not affected by these beliefs.

Christianity however is an aggressive religion. It demands the one-and-only status for its god and its principles. Christians believe their way and their teachings are superior than any those of everyone else. Christians believe that their religion is the foundation of morality. Christians want to apply their own rules and standards over on top of every other rules and standards.

Christianity undeniably has become the most widespread and powerful religion in countries such as America. Widespread because of the vast number of devout followers; powerful because of the high positions of many of these followers in the governing authorities of these countries.

These devout-Christian-high-ranking government officials often use their own religious views as basis and foundation in their policy making. These are policies are about health matters (cutting stem cell research funding, making abortion illegal for being evil), about sexuality matters (making law against gay marriage because being gay is diseased and dirty), about education matters (teaching children unscientific facts such as the earth is only 6000 years old, dinosaurs existed at the same time with man, man came from dirt while woman came from man’s rib), about personal matters (making law against euthanasia because it’s forbidden by God), etc.

These policies have direct negative effects on the lives of people. Therefore the Christian belief of the believers has direct negative effects on the lives of other people.

Not to mention numerous "normal" Christians walking around with the conviction that non-religious people cannot live a moral life because without God shining the way they would not know what moral is. Many Christians do not say out loud these thoughts but the ways they act and behave show clearly their disdain towards non-religious folks.

People have the right to speak up and object these unwanted interferences and offensive behaviours of these Christian doctrines on their lives.

For that reason, people have the right to speak up against the concept and application of Christian “faith”.

***

A Familiar Story

***

At an animal show, a farmer proudly announces that he has in possession the “most pure white” sheep ever in the whole country.

An observer points out that his sheep is in deed not pure white because it has many black patches on its body.

The farmer argues: “But it is the most healthy sheep!”

The observer says: “We are not talking about healthy, we are talking about pure white” 

Farmer: “But it is the most handsome sheep!”

Observer: “We are not talking about handsome, we are talking about pure white” 

Farmer: “OK. It is white here, and here, and here”, pointing to various white areas on the sheep.

Observer: “But it’s black here. and here. and here”, pointing the other areas which are clearly black.

Farmer: “But these white areas are more important. We should concentrate on these beautiful white areas. We shouldn’t look at those … uhm… non-white areas. Yeah, they are not black. They are only non-white. They don’t count. The sheep shouldn’t be judged by those non-white areas.”

Observer: “All I want to say is your sheep is not pure white as you said. Your sheep is just a normal sheep like any other sheep that are here today or those have been in the past shows”

Farmer: “Whatever you say, I believe that my sheep is the purest white sheep ever in the whole country”.

Observer: “I cannot share that belief with you. I cannot vote for it”.

Farmer (angry): “You petty and intolerant non-believer!!”

***

Circular Argument

***

When asked “How do you know the Bible tells the truth?”, some people say: “God speaks through the Bible, therefore the Bible tells the truth”.

When asked “How do you know God exists?”, the very same people say: “The Bible says God exists, therefore God exists”.

Then these people conclude: “Therefore the Bible tells the truth and God exists”

***

History of the Bible

***

The Bible is a collection of some 66 to 86 different books (depending on the religious creeds and on the way to count). Every sentence, every clause in the Bible is numbered for ease of reference.

A vast majority of Christian believers think the Bible is the words of God which was recorded a few thousand years ago and has been kept unchanged ever since.

The truth is entirely different.

The contents of the New Testament, just like of the Old Testament, has been changed and debated non stop by many different Christian creeds for many centuries. The New Testament that Christian believers use today is a product quite new. The structure of the New Testament changed almost non stop between the first century and up to the 16th century. Even in the 19th and early 20th centuries, some minor changes (but not insignificant) was inserted in the Catholic Bible.

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament have the same origin: the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew Bible is a collection of numerous myths passed on verbally over thousands of years from one generation to another before they were written down. Some sources say the Hebrew Bible was writen between the 10th to the 7th centuries BC, other sources say it was between the 5th and the 3rd centuries BC. The Hebrew Bible consists of 24 different books written in Hebrew.

The Old Testament is a collection of a number of books taken directly from the Hebrew Bible plus a number of other documents outside the Hebrew Bible. Some sources say the Old Testament was compiled between the 12th and the 2nd centuries BC. The original books of the Old Testament were writen in Hebrew and Greek.

Catholic scholars themselves admit that they do not know who compiled these documents together and who used what authority to canonize the Old Testament. "Canonization" is a process to formally recognise that their Bible has a sacred value (that is it came from God).

The Old Testament of each of the Christian creed in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant is slightly different from one another. Each creed recognises and/or rejects a number of different books that should be part of their Old Testament. The number of books included in each of their Old Testament is therefore also different from one another (Catholic: 46 books, Orthodox: 53-56 books, Protestant and Church of England: 39 books).

When Jesus was alive, he and his disciples used the Old Testament to spread their belief.

After Jesus had died, his disciples continued to use the Old Testament. Until approx 45 years after Jesus' death, his disciple started to write documents recording his life and teaching. Many priests in the generation after these disciples also wrote many similar documents based on their own knowledge and views. A number of these documents were refered to as "scriptures" and used in conjunction with the Old Testament in their worship ceremonies at the time.

Some sources say these original documents were writen in Greek and then were translated into other languages such as Latin, Egyptian, etc. Some other sources say these documents were writen mostly in Hebrew.

In the first 3 centuries, there were many fierce disagreements and debates among the Christian leaders about the value and accuracy of these documents. Especially about the what are called the apocrypha (which are the documents even though had existed since the beginning and believed to have been written by the disciples but have never been recognised by a number of Christian creeds).

There were a few Christian priests attempted to compile a number of those documents together to form a universally accepted Bible. However because of the above mentioned fierce disagreements and debates, these attempts were not successful. In all of the documents (or "scriptures") in existence, only the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were recognised by everybody at the time. This is one of the main reasons why Christianity has been divided into so many different creeds.

Among the Christian creeds in the 3rd century there were in total more than 40 different Gospels (in addition to the 4 Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), about 40 books of Acts, more than 10 books of Revelation and hundreds of Epistles (which are letters written by the Saints). Each Christian creed used different books in conjunction with the Old Testament for their worship purposes. At the time, none of those books were regarded as "God's word".

It is believed that in the 4th century, the concept "canonization" was for the first time raised by Anathasius of Alexandria when he proposed the 27 books that should be compiled together to form a Bible universally accepted by everyone.

From around the 4th century onwards, in general all Christian believers agreed on the majority of these books. However in reality there are still many different Bibles accepted and used by different creeds, each Bible is a different collection of different scriptures. In other words, these different Christian churches could not (and still can not) agree universally on which scriptures could be accepted as Word of God.

This disagreement caused a serious division among different churches who held different fundamental beliefs. During those times, Christianity played a crucial role in the government structures of many European countries. The more Christianity expanded and embedded itself strongly in these ruling structures, the more serious the impacts of these religious differences have on the political and military stability among the European powerful countries of the time.

Many church committees (called Councils) were established and convened off and on from the 4th centuries in an attempt to resolve these differences. These Councils investigated in detail each and every of these books before voting on their value and accuracy. After many centuries, through many different Councils, a common ground still could not be achieved. The decisions made by these Councils often were not consistent nor appropriate. Some books were accepted and some decisions were made by some Councils would later be rejected by other Councils, and vice versa.

In the 16th century, the division among Christianity reached its ugliest peak when a war broke out between the Catholic and the Protestant. Also, around this time there were other bloody and widespread wars taking placing among countries like England, France, Germany and Turkey. Emperors and Christian leaders all saw that it was utmost important to resolve these religious difference as quickly and peaceful as possible. This fact had huge influences on the Council at the time when they discussed and voted for the "sacred value" of each of those scriptures to be compiled into the Bible.

At last, in late 16th century, the canonisation process of these scriptures took place formally for all the churches. The Council of Catholic (Trent) voted and officially announced the contents of their Bible in 1546; the Council of Church of England (Thirty Nine Scriptures) in 1563; the Council of the Protestant (Westminster) in 1647; the Council of Orthodox (Jerusalem) in 1672.

During the above selection process, some scriptures were accepted even though they had been rejected previously; some scriptures were rejected even though they had been accepted previously; some other scriptures were accepted by this church however rejected by other churches, and vice versa.

The scriptures voted and accepted by these Councils in general have remained the same ever since.

There were however a few minor (but significant) changes taking place in the Catholic Bible lately. In 1870 some small additions were made into the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John). Also on 2nd June 1926, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was officially "open to dispute." ("Comma " are small segments of comments deliberately added to the Bible by some compilers since as early as the 3rd century to mainly in 16th century. "Comma Johanneum" are such comments made by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam in 16th century).

Discussion:

1. It should be known that until the Gutenberg printer was invented in the 15th century, all Bibles were written by hand. During those times, the number of people who could read or write was very small, most of them were priests. These priests worked for various Churches who held different views about what should be in the Bible. This means that the contents of the Bible during those times could be modified very easily when mistakes were made by these scribes. These mistakes could be either unintentional or deliberate to suit the current views of some Church leaders.

2. It should be noted that the list of scriptures that were accepted and included into the Bible was decided by the Council at the time by the method of voting. The members of these Councils used their own judgments to decide and vote for which scriptures they believed to have sacred value. In other words, those scriptures scored most votes would be considered as God's Word. This "selection by voting" clearly shows that it was human who decided the "sacred value" of these scriptures.

3. The issue "How do we know for sure the contents of the Bible were God's Word and not entirely a product of man's imagination?" has always been hotly debated in the last 2000 years. Some religious researchers insist that both cases could be right: "The Bible was inspired by God word by word through the writers at the time, however the writers could also use their own views and temperaments to express these words". Other people think this is nothing but a statement trying to cover both ways: allowing the Bible to have a sacred value but at the same time using the fallible human nature to absorb any mistakes when necessary.

4. The existence of thousands of different versions of the Bible by different Christian creeds throughout history shows that the Bible is highly unlikely a product of an omnipotent God. The non-stop changes in the contents of the Bible generated from and depended directly on outcomes of the disagreements and conflicts among opposing Christian churches in the last 16 centuries support this view.

5. All historical details about the Bible presented here are clearly documented in all major libraries of the Christian creeds. All the priests during their study to become official clergies would have learned about these details. If a "normal" believer announces that the Bible has not been changed for a few thousand years then he or she could only be seen as ill-informed in this regard. However, if a Christian priest or a Christian organisation makes any such announcement, they could only be seen as dishonest and deliberately deceiving.

(based on various sources)

***

Goal posts

***

Humans in early times were afraid of thunder, volcanoes, etc. They hence worshiped the god of thunder, the god of volcanoes, etc.

When the phenomena of thunder and volcanoes were “deciphered” by science, these gods disappeared into oblivion.

Science has made huge progress in the last one hundred years or so, however there are still numerous phenomena in the universe and around us that it cannot “decipher”.

Recently there is a popular argument used by Christians about the wonder of the eye, from which came the conclusion that there must be a God (“since the structure of the eye is so complicated and wonderful, there must be a Creator who created it”).

One day when scientific knowledge about the structure of the eye has become “common” then believers will most likely choose some other things that science has not been able to fully understand to use as an example for the argument “since X is so complicated and wonderful, there must be a Creator who created it”.

And the goal posts will continue to be shifted whenever the ball is brought close to them. But we already know from history that it is just one of the behaviours of Christianity.

***

Why worry?

***

Some people ask “If we reject God then what do we have left?”, “Isn’t human too lonely in this vast universe if in deed there is nobody to rely on?”, “Isn’t this life so meaningless because it has no purpose?”, “Isn’t it so desperate and terrifying that each of us will all die one day and disappear entirely without a trace?”

I can only say that I believe human doesn’t need the concept “God” once we can recognise our own spiritual strength in this life and this universe. Instead of wasting mental and intellectual energy in trying to follow those misguided religious illusions, our time and effort could be used more productively in developing our own personal Self.

I won’t explain the meaning and purpose of life here. It is because I don’t have enough knowledge to do that. It is because only each person would be able to search and find the meaning and purpose of their own life. I can only say that I believe morality is always here around us and within each of us. We therefore do not need to rely on those imperfect religious doctrines to obtain and maintain a life of morality.

I do not know what would happen after death either. I only know that nobody on this earth can actually know what happens after death until they themselves are already dead (with the big assumption that they still retain their cognitive power after death). I believe that nobody can control or change what happens to them after death (with the big assumption that something still happens after their death).

In my opinion, why would we need to be so worried that we have to invent those far-from-perfect explanations just to pacify our own fears?

***

Untouchable

***

About the concept “religion belongs to a sacred realm and should therefore be un-touchable”.

In my opinion, religion belongs to the spiritual realm of individuals. Everyone has their own personal belief. They could do what they like with their beliefs, provided these beliefs do not affect other people.

In my opinion, religions are organisational structures created by human to systemise, unify and manage their different beliefs. Again, believers could do what they like with these organisational structures, provided they do not affect other people.

While I could accept the equating of "spirituality" to "sacredness", I have different view on the concept "religions are un-touchable".

In my opinion if beliefs, ideas, teaching, organisational systems, operational methods, etc. of a group A have negative impacts on the existence and welfare of a group B then group B has the right to react appropriately against these negative impacts above.

If group A bases on their own theory (that is no real evidence) to regard group B as "evil", "amoral" and "inferior" than themselves and at the same time does not accept group B's right to express similar observations against them then it is a very unjust and nonsense thing. It is double standard, which means group A want to apply a rule against group B but does not wish to have the same rule applied to themselves. In my opinion, terms such as "fictitious", "baseless", deluded" and "immoral" that group B uses to describe group A are only proportionate and corresponding to those terms "evil", "amoral" and "inferior" that group A gives group B.

That is on the theoretical side of things. In real life, Christianity also brings so much harm compared with the few good things it gives humanity.

In human history, Christianity has been responsible for numerous bloody wars and terrifying massacres in the pretext of propagating and protecting their religion.

In everyday life, Christians' extreme views also have harmful repercussions s to individual freedom, personal bio-psychological welfare as well as numerous physical lives.

For example, Catholic believers depend on the Vatican Church to judge what is morally wrong or right in their daily lives. Marriage with non-believers, divorce, using condoms, sexual pleasure, homosexuality, abortion (even after being raped), euthanasia, stem cell research, gender equality, etc. are all considered as sinful, diseased, possessed or immoral. These people are forever worried about excommunication, being abandoned at the Judgment Day, being burned forever after death, being ostracised by their own families and communities, etc.

In cognitive and intellectual regard, the concept "faith" in Christianity (typified by "blessed are those who believe without seeing") hinders and reverses the progress of science and humanity.

In my opinion, when doctrines and the application of a religion have real adverse affects on the life of people and the society then this religion no longer belongs to "personal" realm nor is allowed to enjoy the privilege of "being untouchable".

In the case of a religion with so many harmful effects and widespread falsehood so many times in so many areas in human history like Christianity, I believe we should pay more attention to it.

***

Militant

***

Some people think Richard Dawkins and his friends are somewhat "militant" when it comes to discussing "God exists or not?"

In my opinion, there are times we need to take the nearest shade of black or white that we are most comfortable with and tell everyone what we really see and feel. (But probably because of that, I always seem to get myself in trouble when trying to explain to Christian believers about "Another View" that they never seem to be able to see!)

We can always find militants on either side. However I find that in one camp they are far more numerous and vicious than those in the other camp.

***

God created man in his own image?

***

Instead of "God created man in his own image", we should think that it is man who created God in man's image.

Have you ever wondered why the normally accepted images of Jesus, Buddha and Allah are respectively an Anglo-Saxon looking man, an Indian looking man and an Middle East looking man?

***

Origin of Religion

***

Everything started from fear:

People from the beginning of time have always been dominated by fear. Fear of natural phenomena that could not be explained nor controlled, and that adversely affected their everyday lives.

Out of fear came super-beings:

Human in early times guessed, and gradually "believed", that there were supernatural forces at play and there were super-beings behind these phenomena. They further guessed, and gradually "believed", that they could connect with and bribe these super-beings into helping them by worshiping and offering gifts. These concepts became a "beliefs" by human in earlier civilizations.

Religion is result of systemization of beliefs in super-beings:

The methods of worshiping and offering, ceremonial procedures and mythical tales related to these super-beings accumulated with time and became more and more complicated and confusing.

Complicated because they were products came from many different groups of people from different origins based on different reasons. Confusing because even the people who invented these concepts did not themselves totally understand the meaning of what they were doing. However, humans are an animal with a brain for systems. They organized and grouped all their beliefs into manageable systems; from there we have religions.

The fact that today we have so many different religions is because they all came from different groups of people with different cultural and social standards.

Religious organizations are just "specialists" about religions:

Almost parallel with the forming of religions, a small number of individuals became "specialists" in the worshiping ceremonies, offering gifts and telling mythical tales related to their religion. These people gathered together and systemized their activities, structures and rules for their groups. From there we have religious organizations.

Doctrines are products of both religion and religious organizations. Doctrines are collections of "truths", promises and rules that people believe coming from super-beings. Doctrines are in fact nothing more than collections of myths (which are man-made products) inherited and modified from generations to generations depending on personal views and knowledge of these "specialists".

Religion is a man-made product:

We can clearly see that religion is a man-made product: It is evident that these "specialists" have been imprinting their own personal and current social values on the doctrines, philosophies and teaching of their religion.

For example, human's knowledge about the universe once was so limited that they thought the earth was flat. This “fact” was reflected in the Bible. If the Bible was in fact a product of revelation from God then even though it was a few thousand years ago shouldn’t God still ought to know that the earth is round and rotating around the sun!?

For example, in the first book of the Old Testament there is a teaching that "any boy who is not circumcised will be abandoned by the parents and society". This teaching clearly reflects an old Jewish custom which does not have the same value in today society.

For example, until now the Vatican still has the final say in terms of who would, or would not, become a "saint". Roughly speaking, "saint" is a formal rank of a super-being which human worship and an “official” in the kingdom of God. Yet the Vatican, an organization owned and run by a group of "normal" people like us, has the power to make decision on this matter. This is a very clear example showing that a small group of humans could themselves "make up" super-beings, and myths. From there, the believers sustain and immortalize these super-beings and myths on their own self-deluding spiritual pedestals.

***

What do I want to say?

***

I want to say:

1. About religion in general:

- Religion does not have a supernatural origin; religion is only a natural phenomenon created and expanded by human's needs.

- Religion does not belong to an "untouchable" realm; religion should be discussed at in a relaxed manner like any other physio-psychological and social phenomena.

2. About monotheistic religions:

- God is only a man-made product. The Bible and the Koran are also man-made products.

- Religion is not the source or foundation for morality. Moral values found in the Bible and Koran's teaching are already in existence innately in human. Human does not need religions to be able to live a moral life.

- Many teachings in the Bible and the Koran reflect the moral and social views of a dark, turbulent and unsophisticated time in human history; these teachings can only be seen as immoral when compared to today moral standards.

- Many believers are willing to use these immoral teachings for their personal views and personal gains. Many of these personal views have harmful affects directly to our lives.

- Remaining silent even though not accepting these immoral teachings contributes to preserving them, and therefore unintentionally giving extremists opportunities to use them for harmful activities.

- A vast number of monotheistic religion believers are in fact "modified-believers". The belief that they think they subscribe to has been substantially modified by themselves in order to suit their own personal thinking and moral standards. For example, they consider many teachings in the "source" religion “not suitable” and therefore do not practice or accept them. When doing that, in my opinion, they are no longer “real” believers of that religion.

***

A Need

***

Somebody once asked why I would waste time and effort on writing about these sensitive issues.

I do this because I need to. Not because I want to create friction, challenge or show off my knowledge. Nobody likes to be hated. Many of my good friends are Catholic whom I respect a lot.

The first reason is my spiritual need. This is not the first time I have sit down and write about these things. Religion is a huge and complex issue, every time I write about it I have an opportunity to identify and adjust any loose ends in the frame work of my thinking and analysis. When sharing in writing with others, I have to even more careful with every detail in my arguments. Just like a devout believer diligently counting their praying beads, I diligently keep re-examining my thoughts.

When one gets to a certain age in life, most of us begin to spend more time to look into the spiritual realm. Some people hope to find peace by believing that they have found and know the path leading to God. I find my spiritual strength in believing that at the end of that path there is only my self, instead of any god.

The second reason for this blog is I want to point out the harmful effects of monotheistic regions to the daily life of all of us. I believe many people do not notice these harmful effects. The dominating monotheistic religion in Vietnam and many western countries is Christianity.

***