The Antichristian Phenomenon

This dissertation was the result of many months of thought and introspection. It is not objective as my Debunking Christianity articles are, but rather, most of the statements are personal beliefs as well as opinions. I do use “I” in this post, and it is much more personal than my other essays, but no less instructive. I do not mean to offend with my opinions; take them as they are. If you are offended by my imagery or examples, please know now that I do not intend anything personal, nor do I have some vendetta against you and others like you. I am working with archetypes and stereotypes, and I am aware that most people do not fully fall under one arche/stereotype. Now that the disclaimer is over, on to the dissertation. Details are changed to protect the “innocent”, I mean them no offense either, and thank them for bringing me to reflect.

Now, a few days ago I ran into a young man online…

He and I did not know each other, but we got to talking, first about music, then about other things, which fell back into the topic of religion.

As many of my friends and readers know, my belief system is somewhat complex, and difficult to explain with one or two sentences. I call myself a Wisdom Seeker, but even that can not cover the breadths of what I hold as truth. While I know I am not unique in the sense that I cannot find a true “Label”, the difference is that I KNOW I do not fall under an umbrella.

This man, however, refused to label himself to an absurd degree. There is a fine line between being unable to label oneself for lack of labels, and being unable to label oneself simply for want of not being “labeled”. This hails back to the conformist/nonconformist-conformist struggle, where there are two extremes of conformity. Looking at this example through the universal examples of High School, the “conformists” might be the cut and dry average people, wearing brand-name clothing such as Abercrombie and American Eagle, listen to the top 40, watch American Idol, and follow this and that accepted standard of behavior in varying degrees. The “nonconformists-conformists” might be the people who call themselves the Rebels, buy clothes at their own brand name stores such as Hot Topic, dye their hair, listen to “scary” music, and fancy their group to be individualists (Oh, the Paradox!). Yes, I acknowledge that there are many degrees of conformity and not everyone falls in these lump categories (such as myself, and many of my friends and readers), and there are many other stereotypes. These two archetypes are for the sake of this debate only.

When conformists and nonconformist-conformist archetypes are applied to religion, many of the same things hold true. Conformists might be people who acknowledge being a member of one of the Big Three monotheistic religions, or another commonly accepted philosophy for the sake of belonging, and the Nonconformist-conformist type might be the people that claim to be Satanist, Pagan, Wiccan, Atheist, Agnostic, or some other commonly UN-accepted philosophy for the sake of being part of it. However, there is nothing wrong with calling yourself an Atheist if you really are an Atheist, there is nothing wrong with calling yourself a Christian if you really are a Christian. Why would you say that you don’t want to be labeled for the sake of “not being labeled”, when you really do fall into an archetype to some degree? I’d like to think most people acknowledge that not every “Prep” is “Preppy”, not every “Jock” is a “Jock”, and not every “Punk” is the embodiment of “Punk”, and that similarly applies to religious labels! Not every Muslim is going to fly a plane into a building or strap on a suicide bomb, not every Atheist is “immoral and dangerous”, and so on.

So why would this man avoid the term Agnostic? When he explained his core beliefs, they matched up to the stereotypical view of Agnosticism almost perfectly, yet he refused to call himself an Agnostic. I see no reason for this! It would have saved a lot of time and effort if he had simply said, “Oh well, I’m Agnostic,” instead of taking about half an hour to EXPLAIN that he is Agnostic.

I do understand that many religious “labels” hold negative connotations, which is why I more or less created my own. I had to–none of the current blanket labels make any sense for me and others like me. I can foresee some people reading this and agreeing with my definitions, and some disagreeing with my definitions. Decide for yourself. This is why we have a forum to debate such things.

At the basis of “Labeling”, there are three major categories, “Theist”, “Atheist”, and “Agnostic”.

“Theists” essentially believe in God(s), however he or she defines “God(s)”. I could technically label myself as a Theist, but in this day and age, Theist no longer seems to mean “Belief in God(s), however he or she defines God(s)”, but rather “the God of the Big Three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)”. Try telling someone you are a Theist, but do not believe in the God of the Big Three! Then they do not believe you, and call you an “Atheist”.

An “Atheist” does not believe in God(s). Though there are surprisingly many types of Atheists, most of them seem to reason that there is No God either because they believe Science overrules the possibility of Gods, they do not believe in the God of the Big Three and do not acknowledge the possibility of any other God, or they have never seen proof. Yes, I am aware that Atheism is far more complex than this, but these have been three common reasons I have seen for Atheism. Atheists claims are no more or less valid than Theist claims. However, since I do believe in a form of a God, though not the God of the Big Three, I am not an Atheist. Now that I get turned away from both categories, I look to Agnosticism.

Agnostics agree with the blanket statement “I do not know, I do not care”. Generally they believe there is not enough evidence for a God, but do not believe there is NOT one, as Atheists do. I can not identify with this mindset. I KNOW what I know, and I DO care. Therefore I am not Agnostic.

I will propose that there should be another devision of “Theist” to allow for believers in the God of the Big Three to differentiate themselves from people such as myself, who do not believe in the God of the Big Three, but instead in other forms of beings. This would not be an issue if the Big Three did not control all connotations of religious definition! For crying out loud, most Christians cling to the “Big Bad Satan/Lucifer Myth” like a starving man might treasure the last piece of bread, or a child might clutch his security blanket (see my last article, Debunking Christianity II - Satan and the Nature of Evil for more information on this myth, and my thesis to disprove it)! However, we move aside from the complicated Theist/Atheist dilemma, which grows increasingly more complex with even more examination, we can attempt to label parts of this complicated belief system. As many of you know, this is difficult as well, and many will recognize their own dilemmas within mine.

Within my philosophy, I identify with various aspects of many philosophies/religions, but can I really claim them? Yes, I acknowledge truths and/or at least a few logical concepts within (now read the whole article before jumping to conclusions and flaming) Paganism, (true) Satanism, some Eastern and Native American religions, and even the Polytheistic “Mythologies”. Though should I say that I agree with even a portion of any of these, I am immediately misunderstood, and negative labels are placed all over me.

Yes, I believe that the laws of nature are truth, parts of absolute truth. I honor and respect them as they should be honored and respected. I agree with portions of the sacred feminine, and I do view the earth through a slightly anthropomorphic scope. I reaffirm this through sciences such as Biology and other “Earth” sciences. BUT I do not “believe in” or “follow” NeoPaganism/Wicca. I refuse to follow either of these, because I do not agree with them, especially in this day and age. True forms of ancient Pagan practices and beliefs have been smashed to the ground and trampled under the heavy boots of Christianity, and all seems to remain today are teenage goth-girls drawing pentagrams and casting love-spells. (Yes, I know I generalize)

And Satanism! To identify with ANY “Satanic” concept is to destroy the hope of being understood. False-Satanism and popularized Devil Worship have destroyed any hope for any aspect of this philosophy to be understood other than by those who agree with them. Its not that I worship a figure named Satan/Lucifer, or even acknowledge that such a figure exists; its not that I promote freedom to the point of outright hedonism (I am actually a firm advocate for moderation, more likely to deny myself a luxury than revel in it); and its not that I follow the teachings of Anton LaVey religiously. Really the only place I find myself agreeing with the philosophy is in the emphasis on individualism. I do acknowledge the myth of Satan/Lucifer as a MYTH, but the mythical figure itself can be looked up on as a sort of Herculean Hero for standing his ground against God, even to the point of complete damnation. Do not confuse this sort of acknowledgment with worship, or even support for this broken religion, but rather affirmation that I, and others like me, would do the same in those circumstances (Expect an expansion on this in the future, more along the lines of a Debunking Christianity article). Should Mr. Lucifer return to earth to seek a following, I would not follow, despite his past fame. However, the idealized, romanticized Lucifer-figure would not do such a thing, since the figure is looked to as the embodiment of individuality and free thought. It is far more likely that such a figure would come to earth not to find (read: drones) “followers” , but colleagues. The types of people who agree with this point of view, and place individuality and free thought as high priorities would idealistically walk ALONGSIDE each other, not following blindly!

Again, the extreme emphasis on individuality is the only area I agree with Satanism. There are many interesting debates on this topic in the forum, that are much more in-depth and multifaceted than my blurb. Eventually, though, there will be a comprehensive write-up in the FAQ.

I have written additional comments on polytheism, but posted them in my personal blog, since I find the topic not fitting for this already lengthy article.  It seems to have added itself as a comment at the end…

In conclusion, I question the true motives of those who clearly belong to a group, yet refuse to admit belonging, as well as those who place labels on themselves TO belong, and finally the nature of labels themselves. Is there a way we can better define what Is?

But in the end… does it really matter?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pm and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.