Why I did not convert
Why I did not convert
(Gujarati version at મેં ધર્મ કેમ ના બદલ્યો)
Narrates my journey to non-religiousness
My other write-ups on this site make it obvious that I am neither religious nor an atheist. Here is how it happened.
I was born and raised in a Hindu family and started out as quite a religious person. In search of knowledge, I read a lot of religious literature. The more I read the more I started doubting the validity of their claims and eventually was turned off by some of the actions of our heroes. The thought of converting to another religion started bugging me.
The religion I was most familiar with was Jainism. But it is too austere for me to follow. The next one was Islam as the religion of many of my friends and colleagues. A Muslim friend gave me a book meant for convincing people like me to convert to Islam. I read it thoroughly but was far from impressed with it. And yet, I told that friend that I would like to convert. By mistake, I mentioned that I would like to join the branch of Islam other than that to which the friend belonged. He burst into a very heated diatribe against that other branch of Islam and advised me to stay Hindu rather than convert to it. Later, another colleague belonging to the other branch of Islam told me, in a comparatively mild tone, all that was wrong about the branch he did not belong to. I had also noticed that the rules of Islam were quite rigid. For example, the fasts in Ramadan must be ended exactly at a specified moment* and not later. I could not have adhered to them. No way could I have accepted the concept considering marriage as a contract between two loving persons. So, I decided to avoid Islam.
Now I turned my attention to Christianity. I read the Holy Bible (King James Version conformable to the edition of 1611) thoroughly, each and every line of it, in search of something holy. I found very little of it in the Gospels (the first four books of New Testament). The rest of both the Testaments are very disappointing. The Old Testament is just a collection of self-serving stories written by Jewish scribes. Many of the Bible's dictums are less useful than those of Hinduism. The thrust of all the stories is against idol worship which is not so bad after all if one understands the concept behind it. (Please see Forms of Worship.) There is also an excessive emphasis on circumcision as if God's design of human body were imperfect.
Let us start from the beginning. The story of Adam and Eve does not make sense. Please see UnGodly Genesis on this website. Then the reason Cain killed Abel does not hold water. Why would God want any of them to offer Gim anything? Why would Ge not accept Cain's offering? Was it Abel's fault that Ge did not accept Cain's offering? There are many such unanswered questions throughout the book.
What was so great about Abraham that 'God' would promise him the land now known as Israel? Wasn't he a coward and a liar? (Genesis 12:11-16) Didn't he have a concubine named Reumah? She bore four sons named Tebah, Gaham, Thahash and Machah. Why is the Bible totally silent about their lives but gives so much importance to Sarai's pregnancy? (Genesis 22:24).
And look at the way Dinah's brothers deceitfully killed all the male Hivites. (Genesis 34:1-30).
Consider the commandments. The very first one gives away the fact that it was written by some one other than God. Why would Ge need to say "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? unless there was a possibility of another God's existence?
The second one visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children up to four generations could not have come from kind loving and forgiving God.
The sixth commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' is quite clear and has no exceptions. I have read interpretations that one is not supposed to kill hisr friends or neighbors. But then, who would kill a friend or neighbor or anyone unless there is some animosity involved? It was violated by 'God' of Bible so frequently that one wonders why? Joshua annihilated the entire populations of about 30 cities but the Bible does not even mildly criticize him. Why? Wasn't that a genocide to be condemned by all? Samuel told Saul to "go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3) "Then came the word of Lord unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king...." (1 Samuel 15:10,11) Could God really have said these words? Not at all. Must have been some impersonator.
The seventh one forbidding adultery was violated by David considered so great a hero that Jesus was specifically mentioned to be his descendant (Matthew 1:1-18; Romans 1:3). What was so great about David? He even conspired to have Uriah the Hittie killed so that he could marry his widow with whom he had already committed adultery.
The tenth commandment against coveting one's neighbor's things, wife and animals is imperfect. What if one or both of the families moves and are no longer neighbors? Would it then be permissible to covet each other's belongings? Is it permissible to covet the belongings of people other than one's neighbors? There are occasions in the Bible when the followers were asked take 'spoils' of the enemy. Does not sound quite holy, does it?
Even in 'Exodus', the Biblical 'God' kept on hardening Pharaoh's heart again and again. Why? Can "The Lord is a man (?) of war:' (Exodus 15:3) be truly said about God? And the way this 'God' kept reminding 'His' followers that 'He' was the one who brought them out of Egypt, 'He' sounds very much like a blackmailer to an impartial reader.
A lot of importance is given to the so called 'Resurrection' of Jesus Christ. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have given accounts that are similar but not identical. A careful reading of these gospels shows that, after the 'resurrection', Jesus conveniently kept Himself to His disciples and followers only. He did not meet with Pilate who was sympathetic to Him, nor with any of His opponents or even general public. He did not prove to anyone that He had arisen on the third day like He had said. There is no mention of how long He lived after the event, nor of His having resumed His pre-crucifixion activities like saying parables, curing the sick etc. and miracles He used to perform before crucifixion as if He did get intimidated by the people that crucified Him. What then was the purpose of 'resurrection'? What is the spiritual significance of such resurrection, if any? He is said to have ascended into the heaven. If He could do that, why could He not descend from heaven; why did he have to be born? Why could not He ascend in sight of all people before crucifixion? Looks like the whole event is just a fabrication to mislead people believe the unbelievable.
One common criticism of Hinduism is its caste system. But I found a milder version of caste-ism in the Bible. Aaron and his sons were granted 'an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.' (Exodus 40:12-15)
I was told that Jesus died for me long before I was even born. If that were true, the numbers and types of sins I am supposed to commit must have been predetermined back then and I cannot be faulted for committing them now, can I? If it were in my power to control the sins I commit, should I not commit many more so as to make it worthwhile for Jesus to have died for 'my' sins?
A Christian priest once told me that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God and the only bridge through which I could reach God. Why would God not need and create dozens or even hundreds of begotten sons and daughters to reform such incorrigible people as we are? Is God so weak that Ge would not be able to reach me and my other fellow humans but need a bridge? Would Ge not need many more bridges than just one?
A Christian minister sent me the book 'Jesus Among other Gods' by Ravi Zakaria, who calls himself 'a Christian apologist' and hails from India. The book really turned me off against converting to Christianity.
Hinduism has a better approach. The Vedas pray, "May noble thoughts come to us from all over the universe." (आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः). It leaves the door open for self-improvement.
Ishaavaasya Upanishad, one of the main scriptures of Hinduism says, "Do not grab anyone's belongings" (मा गृधः कस्यस्वित् धनम्) not just your neighbor's. It also says that a true devotee sees God in all living beings (not just humans) and all living beings in God and therefore does not hate anyone. This is better than loving just one's neighbor. If one does not hate someone hse cannot kill that person. What more would be needed for world peace if all people stop hating others?
A few more Biblical fallacies (along with many more from Hinduism) are discussed in Religious Fallacies. There are many unacceptable or objectionable actions by the biblical characters on almost every page of the book. I was therefore quite disappointed on reading it.
Ultimately, therefore, I chose not convert to any religion. It does not make sense to give up one imperfect thing in preference to another imperfect one. One should rather try to bring the shortcomings to the attention of hisr fellow religious followers. I would rather be a non-religious un-labeled humanitarian theist redirecting my search for truth inward instead of outward.
_________
* This is based on personal observation of Muslim friends interrupting their ongoing activity to break the fast by sipping a little water at an exact time. A reader has informed me that this is not mandatory.