Ranting about religion.
So I was flipping through my version of Dao De Jing (or Tao Te Ching) last night and I noticed something. Well, something aside from the Wade-Giles romanization, which I still find annoying. The translator put in nifty little explanations of each section, along with notes where a word may have been missing in certain editions, possible alternate meanings, et cetera. What I noticed more, though, was the bias the author had about Laozi and about Taoism in general. Normally, I wouldn’t mind a few references to Christianity, but a particular entry about how in a certain passage Laozi is trying to find God without the teachings of Christ and is therefore failing was a bit much.. I respect those who have dedicated themselves to their religion. Imposing it on others is another idea entirely.
Generally, the one thing I don’t like about religion is the whole “spread the teachings by force if necessary” stuff. I’m big on free will. Let people learn about various religions and choose the one they agree most with. Whoops, did I say learn? We can’t have learning with religion, that would be madness!
Let me expand on that. Say a Methodist tells me I should join their church and be saved. Here’s roughly how the conversation would probably go:
Me: “Why should I believe you any more than, say, a Lutheran or even a follower of Islam?”
Them: “Well… the difference between their path and ours is that ours is right.”
“How do you know?”
“I know it in my heart.”
“Well, I don’t. Say they also know in their heart that their path is right. What then?”
“Well… er…”
Basically, what I’m saying is… claiming that your path is right when, at best, 3/4 of the world doesn’t believe so isn’t the most sensible-seeming strategy.
(I apologize for the above, but evangelism can really get on my nerves. I know several intelligent individuals who are religious and they are very nice people)