I was having this conversation with Andre last night, as we were walking to the MRT and thus on our way home after class outing. Well, I realised that I myself am confused over such matters, and perhaps it would do for me to straighten out my thoughts here.

I believe we started on the topic of someone I like, and why he advised me to give her up - she being such an ardent believer in her faith, and yet her faith supposedly states that one is not supposed to marry out of the faith (? I'm not exactly too sure about this point explicitly, but at least thats the gist of it).

Christianity - I try to shun this topic as much as possible, not just because I am an aethist and see religion as an encumbrance, but rather because of the fact that I remain rather skeptical. Yes, I am what the Romans would have called a pagan. But what be it, when I see religious people, people professed to be such sticklers to their faith and yet they commit the cardinal sins that the faith professes. I mean, is adultery not a sin? Then why do I know of an adulterer who continues visiting the church? Yes, perhaps everyone is not perfect, but to me it seems so hypocritical that one should continue following the faith of which he broke the rules on how to lead your life. I myself would not condescend to delevate myself to that level - to be a person who does something morally wrong.

Many religious people profess that the presence of a religion provide the basis on which one can cultivate one's self, where one can attempt to reach the state of being an upright and moral person, and at the same time through the faith attain hopes that were not present before. Yes, I do believe the fact that someone can believe that there is a higher being, that there is such a presence up there that can serve to contribute to their wellbeing is tantamount to them using such a belief for their own benefit. But does this make them morally right in whatever they do, do they actually have the right to critcise what they think is wrong solely from the religious point of view?

Perhaps if one looks at the neverending battle between the creationists and the evolutionists, where from do the religious folks draw their right, or rather, their self-induced belief to critcise something on a totally different level? The creationist theory appeals to the believers of the Christian faith, that God created the world, and man. These are based upon the book Genesis of the bible, but where from do they gather evidence that can dispute the observations and hypothesis of someone who engaged in doing so? I can say that I am biased, because I support the Darwinian theory of Evolution, but from whence do they get their "moral highground"- the fact they seem to themselves to be superior, and thus churn out accusations, albeit baseless ones, against mere theories that happen to contradict their beliefs?

When I say baseless, it is not in jest. Looking at the bible, if I am not mistaken upon this piece of information, I do believe that one of the Roman Caesars actually rewrote the history of Rome and made it into a christian empire through the changing of the bible, and if I am correct the New Testament. With this kind of evidence, recorded on scrolls, it just deepens my skepticism over how exactly true can the Bible be. No offence, but being the "critical thinker" that I have been oft descibed, it's just a thinking point for some out there.

Next, can I ask the question - Is Christianity inherently expansionistic? In the same way the West believed Communism to be expansionistic, I would love to ask the same question. I once entertained four invitaions within a single day to convert to Christianity. Perhaps their over zealous nature put me off, but then again it could also be because I looked at the world, and again saw the same picture. Christianity is propagating itself, no matter how you look at it. Since the Crusades in the Middle Ages, where again with a supposed moral highground the forces of Europe invaded Turkey and the Middle East, and then with the colonial era of the 1700s- 1800s, where missionaries went about spreading the gospel, and even now, with the over dominating presence of the superpower known as America and its forwarding of its ideology.

Perhaps if the reader being Christian is highly incensed with me by now, as I think he/she should be, let me explain why I think this way.

I was brought up to be a morally upright person, to do what I think is right. I know, I do not normally follow these, especially because I lack self discipline. I let my emotions get hold of me easily, but when the time comes I do know that I have to pick the morally right option. To me, my own belief is that as long as my conscience is clear, that I believe that I have done no wrong, I do not need to seek the acceptance of others, much less something surreal and non-material. I might feel too strongly about this, because I've always been a headstrong and obstinate fool. Besides, given the kind of person I know I am, I wouldn't be able to put up with the many things that come with an acceptance of the religion, like praying every night, saying grace and all.

I'm sure that religion is not a factor in the way I lead my life, I try to care for everyone around me, be it when they're sick, or if they're down, I try to cheer them up, no matter what. I'm being completely honest with myself here, because I don't see the need in putting up a facade to mislead people over what I really am. I've long abhorred the putting on of facades, especially after I was, well ok I don't want to talk about it.

Though I've said this much, do not think of me as a science person. Well, yes I might be handy at practical science, but I don't admit to loving science in general. Perhaps I shall "see the light" one day, but I guess not at this point in time.

Thinking,
Merv.