Updated: Mar 6
Continued from https://www.philosophicallyinclined.com/post/is-there-a-god
Christians think Isa was God. Muslims think he was a prophet. Some debate on who the highest prophet/God was, Isa, Krishn, Muhammad, or someone else. But all these debates are perverted with the illusion of knowledge. To declare someone God or not God assumes you know what God is. Do you? Or must I say you have an idol in your mind that you call God? You must also know the differences and similarities among God, a man, and a prophet. Do you? The truth is their status/designation doesn't matter at all. Just because a man is God (whatever that means) does not make anything he says true, neither does being not God (whatever that means) disprove any of his arguments. Since truth is independent of the sayer, it is perverted to debate his status. We see the same perversion in the gospel when the people asked Isa if he was greater than Abraham and the prophets (John 8:53). Had he just called them perverted, I would have loved it.
Another perverted question is which the truest religion is? None. Religion is man-made. Truth is not. Ram, Krishn, Isa, Buddha, and others never established a religion. Did Ram or Krishna ever say the word Hindu/Hinduism? Did Isa ever say the word Christianity? Did they ever command to establish tax-free institutions like temples and churches, collect money in their names, and dislike those who don’t agree with them? Did any of them ever write a book like the ones religious people abandon their minds for? Not one of then reportedly ever said or did anything that constitutes/exemplifies a region.
Ram and Krishn did talk about dharm but dharm doesn't mean religion. Dharm means law/duty. Sanatan means eternal, so Sanatan Dharma means the Ethernal Laws/Duties. Clearly, truth is not a religion, rather an antithesis to it. To call Santana Dharma a religion is like calling “conservation of momentum” a religion. It is eternally true for all things in the physical realm. It is true for even for the farthest objects we can see in a telescope. Similarly, Isa never spoke of Christianity. He said that he had come to reestablish the laws of the prophets (Matthew 5:17). Krishn said that he had come to establish the Dharm (the law) (Gita 4:8).
If you look carefully, it may occur to you that all these guys were liberating people from religion, virtue signaling, and worshiping idols (idol worshippers can be controlled just like banks can control governments). They never established any religion at all. They only spoke the truth. People came up with religion. Chances are powerful people did it to control the weak via man-made laws. Religion can be used to package them as morally just and rooted in higher principles. The people who claim the US to be a Christian nation are wrong. Christ urged people to follow the commandments but never asked anyone to announce judgment on anyone who didn't keep them (John 8: 3-11). He left justice to God. If the founding fathers were inspired by Christ, they would have not produced a man-made system of justice. They would have done what Christ did, merely urged people to keep the commandments and explained why.
Rulers benefit form religion. It allows them to package their will to rule as their will to establish justice and do good. Once people accept man-made laws, which look like moral laws, they get trapped. Now, the ruler has to do justice only for one generation so the next generation doesn't see a problem with being ruled over and forgets morality for legality. Now, he can exercise force via laws without any fear of opposition because the people have already accepted his laws as just. It is only about time that new laws will be made and no one will object to any of them. When life gets really bad and all sorts of socioeconomic problems arise, people will push for legal reforms, which will have more intended and unintended negative consequences. But they won't have the revelation that they need morality not legality, because living under man-made laws is all they have ever seen.
Similarly, rulers benefit from perverted debates over which the best religion is. The lack of moral conscience needed for people to accept slavery, wars, and other communal infractions is predicated on portraying the to-be victims as less than the prepetrators. Hitler would have failed to kill jews if all his people together objected to murder. The Bolsheviks would have failed to kill the bourgeoisie if their supporters refused to murder. In both cases, propaganda was used to program people to accept the jews and the elite morally less. Thus, to instigate these perverted debates is in the best interest of those who want to control, divide, and set people at war with one another. Imagine if all nations understood they the truth is the same. Just like the law of conservation of energy holds in all nations (there is no debate on that), even on all planets, the higher laws remain the same in all nations, and on all planets. They were revealed by men who spoke different tongues in different cultural contexts.