Thursday, August 11th, 2022 04:05:30

Blasphemous Enigma

Updated: October 25, 2014 1:29 pm

WHY is Satiricus a Hindu? Well, frankly primarily because he finds Hinduism simple enough for a simpleton like him. He just has to believe and revere Hindu gods, and respect Hindu scriptures, and that is enough. No intellectual effort is required, because no intelligence is required. That, however, is not the case with Christianity. Had he been a Christian, he would have been required to know the answer to Roman Governor Pilate’s question, ‘what is truth’ (about Christianity), why the Christian god is “jealous” of all non-Christian gods, and also by which route all pagan souls would go to hell, as a prominent American Christian padre declared not long back. He would also have been required to believe in the resurrection of Christ despite prominent British clergymen saying they don’t believe in it.

All in all, being a Christian would have been too much for this wretched retard. To make matters far worse for this Bharatiya bird-brain, secular India now has a Christian sect whose followers recently said they believe in Christ but insisted he did not preach a religion called Christianity, as the Bible says nothing like that.

Satiricus feels flummoxed. He wonders….what is the point of having Christ without having Christianity? If he did not preach Christianity, what did he preach? And if belief in Christ, does not necessarily mean belief in Christianity, would that conversely mean that non-belief in Christianity is the same as non-belief in Christ? To cap it all, how can the Christian Bible be a Christian Bible if it does not say anything about Christianity? Putting it differently, do these latter-day doubting Thomases want this pagan nitwit to believe that the Bible is Christian because it is all about Christ but not at all about Christianity?

Oh, well, if, as it seems, Christianity is a puzzle that is wrapped in a riddle that is encased in an enigma, how can Satiricus’s infantile understanding understand it? He simply thought belief in what the Bible says was enough for being a Christian, but now he is told that non-belief in what the Bible does not say is also a requirement. Translated into English, this means, that there was a Christ is the truth, that there is a Bible is the truth, but that there is any such thing as Christianity is not the truth.

So then, what is the real truth, the Christian truth? Pagan Satiricus would like to patriotically stand by what our Indian intellectual atheistic Christians tell it to be, but he finds that there are Western Christian scholars of Christianity whose views are tellingly different. In fact they are bluntly blasphemous on all three—Christ, Christianity, and the Bible. For starters, Charles Smith, Editor of Truth Seeker, says the Bible, held holy and hoary, was actually re-written so many times that the present Bible is just about 300 years old, as it was discussed, debated and adopted by majority vote in Christian theological assemblies in 1563, 1647 and 1672. Going one better (or worse), Peter Stanford, author of The She Pope, shockingly says Christianity is a concocted religion, and Christmas, the top Christian festival, is “one of the great frauds of history”. To cussedly cap it all, the Dead Sea scrolls now say in all probability Jesus Christ was a myth himself.

What does all this mean? It means what yours truly already knew—that being a believing Hindu is much simpler than being a partially-non-believing Christian. To this dunce’s delight even the dons of the dictionary seem to agree with him. For, as it was reported the other day, terms relating to Christianity have been deliberately deleted from the Oxford English Dictionary for Children.



Macaulayian Paradigm



WHAT does a devout secularist do when he sorrowfully sees a friend indulging in cussed communalism? Today’s technological answer is “unfriend” that friend. That is what American Facebook lovers are reportedly doing, and Satiricus has decided to follow suit in the case of his friend Tarun Vijay after reading his recent pernicious piece in the press. In it he declared with dastardly delight that Modi’s Modison Garden speech in Hindi represents “upsurge against anglicised class”. If, the secular gods forbid!—that really happens, what would happen to those “complete” Indians for whom complete Indianness depended on the knowledge of English? Would they not deteriorate from complete Indians into incomplete Bharatiyas?

Does not the essence of Indianness lie in English education? Wasn’t that what Macaulay taught us? And did not Indian intellectual Jaitirth Rao praise Macaulay for it? Did not Signora Antonia Maino a.k.a. Madam Sonia Gandhi say so? Satiricus would also like to say so—but unfortunately he has to admit that his poor-quality English makes him a poor-quality Indian.

Comments are closed here.

Archives

Categories