June 11, 2013

Why Im not a Christian and The Body: a comparative study of the essay and the film

The Oxford Dictionary defines the world Christian as a person who has received Christian baptism or is believer in Christianity, whereas, and according to Russell, nowadays this world has lost its meaning somehow and it is used to describe someone who lives righteously no matter what religion he belongs to. Both works, Why Im Not A Christian and The Body, talk about the Christian creeds in different and controversial ways: the first one focuses on the flaws of this religion and question the existence of it and the second one is about pure and blind faith. Russell states in his essay some of the reasons why he is not a Christian; he says he does not believe in God and Immortality and also thinks that Christ was not the best nor the wiser man. Russell wants to find a reasonable explanation for the origin of the origin of the word, life and even God; Russell does not believe in Christ because there is no proof of his existence and according to the Catholic Church, God only can be proved by the unaided reason. However, in the film The Body, which questioned the core of Christianity: the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the supposed evidence of the existence of God (which was found in Israel in an old tomb) could have meant the falling of the church so it was better decided not to tell anything and destroy everything related to this finding, since that may have contradicted centuries of biblical teachings and an loss of the faith would have been imminent. It was such shocking news that the religious fanatics tried to kill the people who were involved in that case. Russell also says in his essay that he does not think that people believe in the religion because they feel it, it is more like a custom which was taught through their whole lives and it makes them feel confident and safe most of the time because a

part of that time they live afraid of their own Gods full -blooded behest since they seem to be quite violent or simply hard to carry out.
I think that all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty.

In other words, Russell says that fear is the engine which makes religion moves, it has done since its beginning and it will do it as long as there are believers. On the contrary in The Body, the existence of hell as an eternal punishment for all the sinner is not that worrying, but the possible non-existence of heaven which would be even worse than just a punishment since there would not be this kind of reward for being a good person, there would be nothing after death, just like Russell thinks. Another important fact that Russell mentions in his essay is the character of Christ. He is supposed to be a good and carrying man, but according to Russell, Jesus was not as good and merciful as gospels say just because He believe in Hell and everlasting punishment.
I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of this sort into the world.

Unlike what Russell says, in The Body, every single word written in The Holy Bible is considered as sacred and they (religious people) never question it, they just follow that teachings with faith. And they also believe in Heaven and therefore Hell no matter whether one believes it or not. To sum up, both Works give us different outlooks: Russell shows an analytical perspective of religion, trying to find logical reasons, pointing out the mistakes of the church and Christ; and The Body emphasizes the faith at any cost avoiding uncomfortable questions or situations. Roberto Montes Velasco