The Antichristian Phenomenon

кухненски масиWhy do people still believe in god? I’m not looking for the philosophical answer so let me phrase that better. How has the christian god survived for so long? Surely, as a core concept it’s not a more believable deity than all the ancient ones, and is much less likeable. What differentiates this god and makes him/it so enduring to all kinds of evidence against its existence, or better yet, what makes people defying common sense?

The force of habit, you may think. Along with lack of the necessary education that will remove the persisting notion. Or maybe it’s the very reason why people believe in gods in the first place – hope. Ok, second place – first would be explaining things. All of the above is correct. But even so, there are still vast numbers of people who believe – even indifferently so. Even though many of them do possess sufficient education. And hope is a mighty reason, but surely all these people can’t just believe any nonsense just because it would be nice if it were true.

Which forces us to consider another option. Is the christian god really so unlikely to exist?

Yes. Actually, he is. But the ancient jews who invented him, had one trully incredible idea – perhaps without realising it. They made their god invisible.  God is invisible. Despite his occasional portrayal as a thin Santa with a triangle-hat. Why is invisibility important? God can take any form. God is everywhere. You can’t climb Mt. Olympus and say, ok, there’s no one here. But god isn’t just unseen, he’s is also…trinity-istic(?). What does that even mean? It doesn’t actually mean anything. But it is wonderfully, ingeniously vague.

Vagueness is a very powerful weapon. The christian god doesn’t need to throw  down lightning bolts to kill you. He can just take credit for your random death (or healing). He doesn’t need to appear. He is everywhere! He’s not anthropomorphic. You don’t need to physically experience his presence. He is “transcendental”. He is a shapeshifter. Christians can believe in god because he’s so quick to adapt to any new situation. The earth isn’t flat? The universe is vast? We’re made of quarks? Blah blah, God still can take credit for all that. And should you recall that the Bible tells a pretty much standard mythological creation story, the christians have the answer to that too. It’s weapon number 3: “symbolic”. Or even better, “it’s saying exactly the same thing as what science has discovered, if you interpret it like that”. The constant adaptation leaves god leaking philosophical inconsistency from every pore, but in philosophy  christians have always managed to do fairly well at excusing their contradictions. God isn’t believable – but he is just adaptive enough for most people to not rule him out completely – and that is exactly where the force of habit and the power of hope come to fit in. The “Symbolic” idea allows him to overcome the major obstacle of “what you said is untrue”, “transcendence” allows you to think that if he’s in your head, it’s actually reasonable, and being vague allows his more clever believers to devise convincing-sounding arguments to link him to reality.

It’s funny, really. The ancient jewish god was quite similar to his contemporaries. He made his appearences (though not physically), he sent down natural disasters, he was often sinister and very, very anthropomorphic in his reactions. But he was invisible. And then he became trinity and grew in all his vagueness. Nowadays the reason he can’t be disproven is that he cannot be properly defined. Ironically, god has evolved, camouflaging from his enemies, as effectively as any living creature could have.

As some of my may be aware, there is a Hollywood movie based on the events of Anneliese Michel, a German girl, who supposedly suffered from demon possession and underwent the treatment of exorcism from the Catholic church in the 70s. After several sessions, Anneliese was ultimately found dead in her bed due to dehydration and malnutrition. A legal case was charged against the parents and the priest who agreed to exorcise her, and the court found them guilty of neglect which lead to Anneliese’s death.

Several decades later, Hollywood decides to make a movie out of this historical event. The result is so-so. The main part of the film is reflecting the trial against the priest, who helped to take care of Emily Rose, the American recast of Anneliese Michel. He is defended by Erin, a skilled attorney, and a so-called “agnostic”. This alone starts to ring a bell into my head. Why is it that all women you see in these kinds of movies are always people who are no longer believers or are depicted as to not be sure what to believe? I am sure this might possibly reflect the statistics that most of the churchgoers in USA are women, but regardless, it would be nice to see an unfaithful man who would turn back to his faith, for once.

During the first part of the movie, very little happens at first. The events unfold like a typical court case, and most of the arguments brought up against the priest rely on “scientific” opinions about Emily’s condition: she was possibly suffering from epilepsy that later developed into schizoid epilepsy, which, according to the movie itself, is a term one of the “scientists” made up. As I am no expert in this field, I will not argue whether this is a possibility or not, but one thing I DO know, is that the screenwriters have a terrible knowledge of anthropology in particular. This becomes particularly evident when Erin lets an “anthropologist” testify about demon possession in various cultures, which somehow developed into some New Age mumbo jumbo about some people being more susceptible to possession than others, and this could have a possible biological reason. If the screenwriters would have bothered to actually look up what social and cultural anthropologists do, is that we DO NOT make up theories why some people would become possessed by demons. If anything, WHAT we do is that we make third-person accounts of such events and try to put these events into a cultural/social perspective. So yes, I got a huge axe to dig with that part in particular, and most of the movie and its ability to appear realistic were ruined to me, at that point.

Another point which I strongly disliked is that the movie at first seems to attempt to present how the eyewitness testimonies described the event, which ultimately would make the movie neutral on whether demon possession is a possibility or not, but then suddenly changed position and started to support the idea that demon possession is in fact possible, and that demons exist in this world. It’s not like I can buy that, but the setting for such a storyline was completely wrong. I’d understood if it was something like The Exorcist, The Omen or any other fictional setting that doesn’t try to be scientific (an exception would be the X-Files, but I never liked the few episodes they had that explored Scully’s Catholic faith, anyway) but it’s more about telling a compelling story. Now, the problem is that the compelling story in the Exorcism of Emily Rose is supposed to lie in the court case at hand. As such, the movie utterly and horribly failed. Instead of giving different and varied personal accounts of the event and developing the interpersonal relationships between the characters, which would ultimately had made the movie more into a drama that, in my opinion, would’ve been a perfect choice for this kind of setting, it tries to scare by giving the viewer a sense that demons might exist. Besides creating a tingling sensation, that’s all what it did for me. If I wanted to see something actually scary, The Exorcism of Emily Rose would certainly not be on that list.

Neither did I agree with the final verdict of the jury, since the evidence to support his case was mostly based on eyewitness testimonies and emotional retelling of events, as well as some holes poking in the logic of the “science proponents”. (Spoiler: The priest was found guilty but the verdict was changed into his favor, making it far less severe than it initially was.)

With that said, I do not completely dismiss the movie. It’s worth seeing once but some of the aspects are incredibly hard to overlook (particularly, if you study anthropology…) to make it really enjoyable, especially as an unbeliever. It does raise some interesting questions about ethics and philosophy, such as whether it was more humane to let Emily die by her own choice than strapping her to a machine or put her into a psychiatric ward, where she, no doubt, would not have been much better off. However, these things do not make up for the major flaws that ruined the movie to me. If this movie had been a drama, if it had been interested to explore these questions in more detail, if it had been interested to portray an objective stance on the matter, then yes, I think it might have been an outstanding movie.

However, as it is, it did not and thus it is mediocre but works a Saturday night entertainment when you’re bored. I should also mention one more thing which really put the nail into the coffin though, and that was the post scriptum they added when the case was closed. Instead of saying that the events presented in the movie are fiction and that the real person behind Emily was Anneliese Michel, they wrote EMILY, which made it sound like the whole thing happened in USA. Furthermore, the final note added that Erin’s case was based upon information provided by someone who knew Emily from that time. I don’t exactly remember the details. As you can see, however, the implications remain clear: Emily existed for real and so did Erin and this case. Despite that this is all fiction and a retelling of events.

This movie is so incredibly unprofessional I’m surprised it passed the screenwriting status. If I were Anneliese’s parents, I would be terribly offended by the fact that the filmmakers somehow claim that the events Anneliese went through was based on a girl in USA. I mean, give her the proper credit. The girl suffered terribly, after all. If you are going to write a movie about her life, then at least make sure that it doesn’t omit the fact that it was HER and not somebody else.

I just saw this Greek post on making a multiple choice test in the Bible that I thought was brilliant and I couldn’t help but repost the translated version.

The following is basically a little test to see if you still remember the Good Book and all the nice values it has provided to you. Use it in case you need to freshen up your memory, to test if you children are paying attention in School and so on.

Try to figure out which are the correct answers and see how close to inspired perfection you stand. One of the following questions has more than one answer. Can you tell which one?

Good Luck!

1. A Few children were making fun of Prophet Elisha as he was going up a mountain, shouting at him “Get up baldie!”. Elisha…

   a) Cut the ears of 42 of them and made them eat them.
   b) Cursed them so that a fire broke out around them, burning 42 of the kids.
   c) Cursed them so that two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of them.
   d) Turned 42 of them into pigs.
2. What is the 10th Commandment that God gave to Moses to write on two stone plates in the Mount Sina

   a) Do not put one ox and one mule in the same field.
   b) Do not cook a kid (baby goat) in the milk of it’s mother.
   c) Do not sleep with a deaf-mute so that you don’t turn into a deaf-mute yourself.
   d) Do not open you house’s door to idol worshippers.
3. What is the name of God?

   a) Whiner.
   b) Cheater.
   c) Jealous.
   d) Naughty.
4. How should parents kill their son in case he’s drinking and talking back to them?

   a) Implate him.
   b) Stone him.
   c) Burn him alive.
   d) Decapitate him.
5. What happens if you’re not a (female) virgin on the first night of marriage?

   a) Your father must pay the husband 100 pail.
   b) Your husband whips you and then divorces you.
   c) You’re stoned to death.
   d) The whole village spits on you.
6. What is explicitly allowed to be eaten according to the Holy Writ? (All others are explicitly forbidden)

   a) Fried Oysters.
   b) Rabbit stew.
   c) Lemon Pork.
   d) Grasshoppers with ketchup.
7. According to the Holy Writ, God cannot defeat

   a) Those who have iron chariots.
   b) Those who have iron spears.
   c) Those who have iron swords.
   d) Those who have iron bows.
8. When Jephthah came victorious from battle, what did he burn on the alter as an offerring to God?

   a) His only son.
   b) His only daughter.
   c) His two small grandchildren.
   d) His wife.
9. What did David offer to Kind Saul so that he would get his daughter?

   a) The heads of 200 Phillistines.
   b) The dicks of 200 Phillistines.
   c) The testicles of 200 Phillistines.
   d) The penis skins of 200 Phillistines.
10. For what reason did God torture Job?

    a) Because God was bored and had nothing to do.
    b) Because Satan challenged him to destroy him for no reason.
    c) Because Job ate raw meat.
    d) Because Job forgot to use incense.
11. How does God punish pretentious women?

    a) He makes them bald, and exposes their cunt.
    b) He makes them full of zits, and exposes their tits.
    c) He makes them full of sores, and exposes their thighs.
    d) He makes the grow a beard, and exposes their arse.
12. What is the punishment for the lame?

    a) Do not approach the holy so that they do not desecrate them.
    b) They must pay double the tax as the healthy.
    c) The must burn double the amount of animals during sacrifices.
    d) They are not allowed to eat bread.
13. Which Christmas tradition is forbidden by God?

    a) Sing Christmas carols for money.
    b) Giving gifts.
    c) Decorating a tree.
    d) Eat turkey.
14. What did Jesus suggest people do, if they can tolerate it?

    a) Self-flaggelate
    b) Become a eunuch.
    c) Rip out their eyes.
    d) Stay unmarried.
15. Hare, according to the Holy Writ is:

    a) Marsupial
    b) Reptile
    c) Ruminant
    d) Predatory
16. How do we make animals with dots?

    a) We make them wear tunics with dots which can get discoloured, and leave them in the rain.
    b) We make them look things with dots while they’re drinking water.
    c) We throw them on the coals and take them immediately off them again.
    d) We make them stand under thinly grown Garlands every noon.
17. According to the Holy Writ, feeling come from…

    a) The intestines
    b) The stomach
    c) The liver
    d) The kidneys
18. Which from the following creatures appears in the Holy Writ?

    a) Unicorn
    b) Dragon
    c) Basilisk
    d) Satyr
19. When Jesus dies, which from the following miracles happened?

    a) A rain of blood fell over Jerusalem.
    b) All street of Jerusalem got full of zombies.
    c) All sheep in Jerusalem started baying.
    d) All wines in Jerusalem turned into vinegar.
20. Question 20 omitted because I’m too lazy (and obviously sinful) to translate all that text. Maybe later.

How well did you do? Compare your answers to the holy truth:

1. C (2 Kings 2:23-25)
2. B (Exodus 24:26-28)
3. C (Exodus 34:14)
4. B (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
5. C (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
6. D (Deuteronomy 14:7-8 and Leviticus 11:1-20)
7. A (Judges 1:19)
8. B (Judges 11:30-40)
9. D (1 Samuel 18:27)
10. B (Job 2:3)
11. A (Isaiah 3:16-17)
12. A (Leviticus 21:16-23)
13. C (Jeremiah 10:2-4)
14. B (Matthew 19:11)
15. A (Leviticus 11:6)
16. B (Genesis 30:37-39)
17. A (Psalms 7:9, 16:7, 26:2, 73:21, Proverbs 23:16)
18. All of the above (Isaiah 34:7, Numbers 23:22; 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 74:13-14, Isaiah 13:21-22, 34:13-14, Proverbs 23:32)
19. B (Matthew 27:51-53)

Reddit delivers again, this time from the personal experience of one redditor with the Mega-conman Benny Hinn. The whole story is very cringe-worthy, particularly the way that people are manipulated shamelessly and then blamed for the lack of success. Some choice quotes that made my eyes pop in surprise.

We sat next to a latino family who, by the looks of their clothes, did not have a pot to piss in. Upon the first offertory (and there were 4 offertories that evening), the family father cut a check for $3500 and slipped it into the lock box carried by one of the three dozen visibly armed ushers. Each lock box had a sign on the front reading, Suggested Donation: $1000.00. The family gave additional money each time the lock box went by, but I am not sure how much.

Which is a perfect example why the poor in very religious countries have so much more difficuly rising out of poverty. The fact that the scum that is Benny Hinn can accept such donations for nothing more than a stage show is sickening.

Well, the old lady who fell was crying. Not because she injured herself. But because the men in blue told her (according to one of the Pepsi Center employees who allowed us to stand nearby) that she couldn’t be healed because her faith in God was not 100%. She was told to stand against the wall until she confessed to God that her faith was shaken and be forgiven for it, or confess the sin she was hiding that was preventing God from healing her. A sixtysomething woman, bawling her eyes out (old people crying really gets me).

This is the face of fucking evil folks. This is what you indirectly support as a moderate christian who tolerates faith healing nonsense just because you can’t bring yourself to admit that your God is not omnipotent.

Fuck. This. Shit.

It wouldn’t be as bad if it was simply foolish people losing their money to a professional conman and thus taking themselves out of the social pool in a Darwinian sense (although that’s pretty bad anyway.) It’s the fact that a scum like Benny Hinn achieves so much financial power that he can easily start lobbying politicians for policies that benefit him (even scarier, imagine politicians actually attending and believing his shows…) and he can purchase and control actual capitalist businesses and run them according to his greedy-scummy nature.

As a bit of a closet atheist when it comes to one segment of my family, religious discussions between my father and I can be…awkward, at best. After all, he’s a Catholic, raised me to be Catholic, and assumes that despite our differing political beliefs that I still am. Usually this isn’t a problem, but alas, the recent controversy around the National Day of Prayer, every May in America, inevitably brought it up. You’ve all heard the arguments, I needn’t re-hash them for you. What was disconcerting to me was to hear the statement that non-Christians, specifically atheists, should leave the country. I’ve heard the sentiment many a time online, on television, on the radio, etc…hearing it from a parent is another experience. As most atheists are aware, that sort of experience is quite unpleasant, and a little terrifying.

Because of it, I wanted to talk about the sort of mentality that lead to the statement and why it, and Christianity as a whole, should concern Americans more than Islam. While this website isn’t specific to America at all, the world is nevertheless affected by America’s policies—for better or for (in my opinion) much, much worse. Compared to other developed Christian countries, the United States is obsessed with it’s religion. We’re a diverse country, but the majority group—that is, those who practice Christianity—feel that the country “belongs to them”. And they are willing to enforce that belief. That, ladies and gentlemen, makes Christianity a greater threat to “our freedom” than Islam ever was.

Now, I won’t pretend America is the beautiful shining “land of the free” it’s made out to be. We all know better.

The mindset, it’s a rather common one in America and, I’m sure, in much of the Christian world. I imagine it’s a fascinating thing to feel that an entire country and it’s history, laws, and resources belong to you. While as a white, able-bodied person I am privileged, it is one thing to be in a privileged group and another to feel that said group is entitled to something as, for example, white supremacist groups feel. And Christian nationalism is the religious and cultural equivalent of white supremacy, and the two are intimately entwined.

Now: a quick bit of sidetracking. If you don’t care about semantics, just skip this paragraph. To build on ACP’s previous post—What is religion?—I will give my own definition of religion. A definition is possible, as most can agree on which things are religions and which are not, except for when an ulterior motive is involved. One of the problems with definition is that while a religion often acts as a social group, it is possible to adopt the rules and even partially the culture of a religion yet be disconnected from the group. Adding to the problem is that religions rarely follow their own rules, are too organic to be considered organizations (rather, organizations exist within a religion, and religions exist outside of organization). The cultural and often racial aspects of religion are too strong to deny—race and culture go hand in hand, and religions change entirely when adopted by new cultural groups. A religion is looser than an organization and tighter than simply being “like-minded”—it is a loose group of people who share specific beliefs concerning the supernatural, from which extends a shared culture and morality as well as different interpretations of the beliefs, which may be enforced by organizations representing the religion. Anyway, that’s  the definition I’ll be using—mostly I just discussed it because I’d like to encourage the definition to be talked about.

Onwards:

The danger of Christianity in America is twofold. First, it is a negative influence on decisions which affect the entire country and, two, Christian nationalism threatens to turn the country into more of a theocracy than it already is, at the cost of non-Christians in America and around the world. Islam only poses a true threat to freedom in the countries where it has legal clout—for the same reasons Christianity is dangerous in Christian countries. Outside of Islamic governments, Islam poses little threat to the rights of Americans and others. That sounds rather insane to say, but consider that Islam’s only threat to America lies in its few radical extremists’ ability to cause fear by taking lives. Yet the actual number of lives they take is small compared to even the seasonal flu.

To the average American, even the Christian ones who are only moderate or Christian in name, Christianity poses a greater threat. The reason is that as a Christian-controlled government with significant support from certain politically inclined sects, America’s policies are not being decided on facts and reason but on faith, which can fit any preconceived viewpoint. It’s not just an accident of human nature—it’s what Christian nationalists want.

Like extremist Muslims, the Christian establishment (as well as the other Judeo-Christian religions) uses terrorism to enforce it’s morality. Where radical Islamists use direct violence and threats of direct violence, Christian organizations use other methods to induce fear (the threat of Hell, for example). Not a big deal, right, after all, so does every political group. There are a few problems, however. Unlike white supremacy groups and specific political parties, Christianity is not a fringe political group, nor is it’s pull kept to one side of the political spectrum. Christianity exerts a pull over anyone who proclaims themselves to be a Christian, even if they disagree with the specific message. The fear of Hell can influence any Christian.

And Christians have long since declared war on secular America. As Atheist Revolution recently mentioned, America’s top Republican presidential candidates for 2012 have made it clear there is room only for the Christian god in the nation they plan to run. In the documentary Jesus Camp, Christian fanatics train children to be “soldiers of God” in order to “fix this country”. We’ve all heard the rhetoric—“take this nation back for Christ”. Christians have for years been attempting to force religion back into the classroom, and continue to expect shows of faith from citizens. The sense of Christian entitlement in this country is so strong that non-Christians are often told to simply leave the country if they don’t like it—the presumption being that Christians own the nation. All of this leaves an increasingly small amount of space for an increasingly larger group—that is, those in America who desire secular government. History has shown that formerly powerful groups who have lost their power and feel (justified or not) oppressed lash out legally and violently.

Radical Islamists can frighten Americans who fail to put death tolls into perspective. Their real power lies in their ability to frighten critics of Islam—and that is truly terrible—but the overall effect of censoring criticism of Islam does little to really harm this country and much of the world. If Islamists really wanted to destroy America and Western culture—as we are constantly told—they need only give Christian nationalists more power.

“The thing about religion is that it provides a powerful language through which you can justify any ideology.” —Reeza Aslan, author of God Or No God.

As the only person who seems actively interested in social science beyond the layman perspective, I’ve come to realize that even though this site is about religion (and the lack thereof); we have written nothing about what we mean by religion and how it’s possible to study various religious groups and organizations. One of the reasons why could possibly be because religion is a very troublesome term in and by itself. It is not constructed with a scientific perspective in mind, so when people refer to religion it can have vastly different meanings, especially within the academia. As a social anthropologist, it is not possible for me to attempt to frame in all these different definitions within social science, but I can at least start by referring to the most common definitions used in anthropology.

The broadest definition in anthropology of what a religion is “is a belief in Spiritual Beings” (Bowie, 2006). This seems to agree with the more common and general definition of religion in everyday language. When someone says that he or she is religious, it is most likely a reference to a belief in a spiritual being, for example the Christian God. From a philosophical perspective, spiritual can be replaced with metaphysical, and it becomes possible to understand this being as existing beyond or after the physical (world) . What is implied here is that this spiritual being is more often than not a single substance on its own residing outside the universe as we know it. The problem with this definition is that there are religions that can be classified as atheistic in nature. A classical example includes Hinduism while more modern examples are modern Satanism and thelema. Pantheistic religions are not necessarily included in this definition either, especially the naturalistic strain. So while Bowie’s definition is useful especially when studying more classical religions, it also leaves something more to be desired.

Clifford Geertz offers another which doesn’t refer to the actual belief system itself, but rather the social meaning a religion can carry to those who practice it. To him, religion is

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

The positive side of this definition is that religion certainly fulfils such a social role in different societies. Christianity wasn’t really that questioned as an authentic and realistic belief system until the Enlightenment which led to such beliefs that the earth was indeed flat and in the center of the universe. Atheistic religions such as modern Satanism and thelema are also safely encompassed because they too function in such a manner to the practitioners. The biggest critique against this definition is how it is possible to basically take any system of symbols and make it seem like a religion. Is it a religion to be a vegetarian? To be a vegetarian usually includes following specific norms and ethics which are felt as true to those who are professed vegetarians.

Same problems arise when attempting to refer to how the word religion is described in a dictionary:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow .

It is possible to ignore point 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. So instead I will start by addressing the first point. The biggest problem with this definition is that superhuman agencies should preferably be involved, and as discussed against Bowie’s definition, same critique applies here. It also assumes that religious practice must contain some kind of rites of rituals. In this day and age where individual spirituality is becoming increasingly popular , it is questionable whether it is needed for a person to be classified as religious. A deist is a very typical and good example of this. A deist is not necessarily a part of any organization, does not necessarily perform and rites and rituals in his or her worship and a deist might even follow a typical scientific approach when it comes to the creation of the physical universe. It is therefore highly questionable whether these beliefs can actually be called “beliefs” except for the actual belief in a spiritual being, in this case a deity of unknown properties. Pantheists also fall short in this definition since there’s nothing that says that a pantheist cannot follow a typical scientific description of the universe, and the most common interpretation of pantheism usually excludes any form of spiritual being. It becomes even more troublesome when studying modern Satanism which falls short on everything but on a moral code that dictates how people should attempt to live, but even then there is such a large difference between individual practitioners even this point can be questioned.

A fault of this definition therefore lies in its assumption that a person must be a member of a religious institution or organization and how it presupposes a belief in a spiritual being in order to be classified as religious.

2 is very similar to Geertz’ definition and same critique applies there. Don’t members of the Weightwatchers agree on certain fundamental beliefs and practices of how to lose weight? Here I mean that it is actually a belief to consider it better and healthier to lose weight than not to, as there are plenty of serious studies showing that the relationship between obesity and unhealth are not as crystal clear as have been previously believed.

3 is not very different from 2 except that it attempts to frame in a more global and general perspective, so same critique again applies. Even if the way of how to lose weight may be different among those who attempt to eat according to different diets, they all seem to share and espouse similar ideas why overweight is bad and what general methods to use to lose weight.
To sum it up, there is no real good definition of what a religion is as all of them got some major critique against them for not being inclusive enough or for being too vague and broad. It is however possible to attempt to find suitable definitions depending on what kind of definitions one is looking for, and then have an open discussion why that definition would be better over the other.

I have uploaded my thesis about Satanism in black metal on Academia.edu and it will thus be fully viewable for everyone as an online resource. The file conversion didn’t seem to like some format editing in the original version, but it should not distract the reading experience too much. I have changed the file  from .doc (mostly because it felt too public and easy to access and change the content) into .pdf. Now the online version will appear as it does in the original paper.

No one is allowed to reproduce my thesis without my permission. Any attempts to claim authorship and profit out of my thesis will be strictly forbidden.

Abstract for those too lazy to read it on Academia.edu:
Satanism and antichristianity have always had prominent roles in black metal. While most musicians and fans would claim that true evil is organized religion and even more so Christianity, black metal also appears as a new religious movement, making this statement highly paradoxical. One way to understand this is the constant search for an authentic masculine identity, and how the modern consumerist society is perceived to create a social climate that make some groups within the society feel alienated. Such a group includes heterosexual, working class men that made up most of the early black metal scene.
With the help of the anti-aesthetic, which can take such expressions as self-mutilations and in the forms of opinions that it is good for humans to suffer instead of being happy, black metal men attempt to find their True Selves by separating that which they find masculine from the feminine – where Satanism and antichristianity become tools to do this. By idolizing and revering Satan as the perfect man, black metal men have started a war against Christianity to conquer which they think always belonged to them – namely their masculine identity from the on-going “feminization”.

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 6, 2010, as a National Day of Prayer.  I call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God’s continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us.”

But Mr. President, my (lack of) faith does not have any equivalent to prayer, I don’t have any God to give thanks to, or ask for guidance or protection. You “call upon” me to do what, then?

Even if we put aside the fact that prayer has not been proven to provide a result more consistent than the randomness that would occur naturally, even if we grant that some people “enrich” their lives with it (without questioning exactly how talking to themselves enriches their lives, of course), and even if we acknowledge the role in the history of the United states played by Christianity… I’m sorry, I mean, “a generic concept of religion without referring to any specific denomination or faith but slightly alluding to Christianity, so as not to blatantly exclude or offend anyone except atheists and agnostics”, then it still begs the question, what about those of us who DON’T pray, for whatever personal reason? Effectively, you’ve just told us to participate in a religious exercise, and no matter how much of a “universal” spin you try to place on it, the fact remains that it is not universal. The fact that it is fundamentally unique to specific spiritual worldviews indicates that the government should keep its hands out, or violate the freedoms of those who do not hold the worldview that includes the exercise.

This fact makes these words incredibly hollow:


Let us rejoice for the blessing of freedom both to believe and to live our beliefs, and for the many other freedoms and opportunities that bring us together as one Nation.

Yes, the blessing of freedom to live our beliefs. That implies that no government official ever tells you what you should be doing in your personal, private, spiritual life. EVER. Well, Mr. President, by issuing your Proclaimation “calling the citizens… to pray”, you are doing just that.

Having grown up as the youngest son of a Christian minister, first in the Baptist denomination, then into Pentecostal and Non-Denominational Churches (part of the Charismatic movement for the most part), I was heavily indoctrinated in Protestant Christianity from a very young age (since birth really). From my earliest memories, I was in church everytime the doors were opened (mainly because my father usually was the one who opened them). For much of my early childhood, we even had a family bible study every single weeknight. As a result, I have a very strong understanding and knowledge of this religion, and it’s sacred writings.

Another effect of this style of upraising is that I have undergone a long, painful, arduous journey escaping what I now think of as the brainwashing that I was subjected to for more than half of my life. To this day, I still have not escaped all of the effects of this time in my life. After all, it was perpetrated at the most developmentally important part of my growth. My natural bend to intellectualism was discouraged and stunted, because it does not fit with the practice of blind faith. My kneejerk sense of morality, which has both negative and positive aspects, does not always correspond with a realistic purview of ethical behavior. Depite my initial liberation from irrational beliefs, I still pay a penalty for the brainwashing I endured in these, and many other different ways. I am progressing daily. But, it seems such an unnecessary struggle should have been avoided.

The steps of Brainwashing according to:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing1.htm

1.Assault on identity
2.Guilt
3.Self-betrayal
4.Breaking point
5.Leniency
6.Compulsion to confess
7.Channeling of guilt
8.Releasing of guilt
9.Progress and harmony
10.Final confession and rebirth

Why do I think of this as brainwashing? Let’s consider the definition of brainwashing (according to Oxford American Dictionary): make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.

1. The first step to brainwashing is to attack the subject’s sense of self, or identity. Since a child is developing his/her sense of self within the context of the religious teachings, this step is fulfilled by default, as there is no prior sense of self to overcome.

2. Christianity is built upon the concept of guilt. We sinful creatures must be redeemed from the sinful nature we inherited, that was passed down through the generations from Adam and Eve. So, the second step, which is guilt is obviously fulfilled.

3. Attending church, listening to the songs, the sermon, and just the casual conversation of the congregation, constantly reinforces to the child how guilty everyone including the child him/her self are. This fulfills the step of self betrayal by convincing the child of his/her own lack of intrinsic worth. The child is forced to admit this, at least inside, if not to others. Ultimately, this step is about internalizing the guilt that is hammered down in step 2.

4. This leads to the point where the child wonders what he/she, the wretched sinful creature can possibly do about his/her dismal state. Obviously, there is nothing that he/she as an inherently evil creature can do. This is the point where God and Jesus come in. They are willing to forgive you, and give you a new life, one without the sinful nature that makes you so evil. The child is worn down to the point of relinquishing his/her control of self, the breaking point. I clearly remember spending many sleepless nights at the tender age of 8 crying out to God to save me. I was terrified of going to hell. It was much worse than any horror movie, or any other source of fear that I had felt before or since that time. It is a very powerful motivator to embrace the teachings of Christianity. To this day, I still have a deep fear of going to hell, even though I no longer even believe in such a place.

5. The step of leniency is fulfilled by the grace and mercy that God exhibits by giving the child a chance at salvation, simply by believing that Jesus died as a sacrifice to redeem him/her from his/her wretched sinful nature. He/She can now go to heaven, because she/he believes. Isn’t God good to help that child. Isn’t He showing leniency to such an unworthy creature.

6-10. To save time and space, I won’t belabor the obvious. I think that you get the gist of what I am saying here. For these reasons, I will summarize the rest of the steps in one short paragraph. The child is encouraged to confess his/her sins often, at various times, in various ways. The pain that is associated with the guilt is attributed to the “world” as opposed to the “things of God” or the “Kingdom of Heaven”. This encourages the child to avoid the “evil” things of the “world”. After the conversion experience, it is the world that is blamed for the evil that may occasionally overtake the child. To remedy this, the child is encouraged to avoid the world. It is by renewing his/her mind in the Word of God that he/she insulates him/her self from the world, and the attendant guilt. This renewing and dedication to the things of God are put forth as providing the peace and harmony that has been denied the child through the aforementioned mechanisms. This, in turn, provides a sense of comfort and a cessation of a sense of responsibility within the child, as long as he/she continues to live in the prescribed way.

Considering that nearly every one of these steps can take place in a single church service, and that many children go through thousands of these services in their lifetimes, one can easily see the erosive power of such a mechanism on a person’s will, especially as the personality, will, emotions, virtually every aspect that we think of as representing the very humanness of humanity, is yet to be formed. I have often thought that continuing to teach something that has already been learned ad nauseam must be a form or step of brainwashing. In what other aspect of life is this sort of instruction used, and considered normal?

The alert reader may wonder how the definition’s statement of adopting radically different beliefs is fulfilled. Well, I’m glad you asked. Part of what led to my eventual deconversion was my noticing the fact that many of the most important claims made in the Bible are of a supernatural nature. Though I have spoken with a few people who claim direct exposure to what they consider to be supernatural events, I have not witnessed nor heard of any experience or phenomena that could not either be explained using natural means, or reasonably doubted (most often because of humanity’s notoriously untrustworthy mechansisms of perception). This has lead me to ask the question, both of myself and others: What in our daily experiences supports the idea of the supernatural phenomena reported in the bible? Is there any reason or evidence that shows that such claims are truly possible/probable. These beliefs that we are expected to hold in Christianity really are radically different from our personal experiences of the natural world. What reason, other than the teaching (brainwashing), and widespread acceptance of such beliefs, do we have to believe these truly incredible claims?

Not sure how many who actually like to cook around here, or bake bread, but I was doing exactly that at my aunt’s place. As some of you may know, baking bread requires the dough to rest for a certain amount of time, usually thirty minutes or more, so I had nothing to do and joined my cousin who was zapping on the TV. Then this movie shows up and the whole premise sounds very exaggerated and bound to fail: Christian girl attending a Christian school leading her perfect (Christian) teenage life gets to know that not only is her boyfriend actually homosexual, but he also made her pregnant. Now, I am certain most people would go “Ewww!” over that, and I certainly did as well. However, my cousin decided to give this very convoluted plot a go, and I decided that at least I can laugh over how ridiculous it could turn out. The movie does start out decently with an ironical tint in the eye. It would possibly trick you to believe its general message would be religion sucks, but not quite. First we get to follow the main character, ironically named Mary, as she introduces us into what would seem to be the perfect teenage life. Then the scenery changes where Mary and her boyfriend Dean are telling each other secrets while under water in a swimming pool, and Dean tells her that he thinks he is gay. The events that follow are actually pretty genuinely funny, not because it sucks so much. Mary hits her head in shock, she gets a revelation that Jesus is trying to tell her that the only way to save Dean is to sacrifice her virginity to him, so so she does. Of course how Dean could even possibly be physically attracted to her so he can actually bang her is an interesting question, but she became pregnant nevertheless. The first half of the movie then revolves around how Mary is trying to avoid getting caught up and exposed by her more radical Christian friends as well as her mother and how Dean was sent to a place called Mercy Camp that “treats” homosexuals. In the second half, we are introduced to Roland and Cassandra, two students who both attend this Christian school without really being Christians themselves but really got no other choices left unless they would want homeschooling. Cassandra is depicted as your typical troublemaker – but this doesn’t bother you because in a way she is portrayed as an antihero and an antithesis to that which is Hilary Faye, the super-ultra conservative Christian girl who’s the also of course the most popular at the school they both attend. Now the movie tries less to be a comedy and more a drama, and the result is pretty much so-so. What is mostly lacking is character depth. Take for example Roland, who I don’t know who he is and where he came from and what motivates him. It might be that I missed some background introduction scenes while I had to run away to attend the dough, but obviously being wheelchair-bound would still warrant more character development than what he is doing in this very moment, which is basically following Cassandra around (they later become a couple). Roland and Cassandra befriend Mary, because they aren’t as bothered by her pregnancy as others and they support her in her choice to rather keep the baby than aborting it. So what happens at this point is that a war breaks out between Cassandra and Hilary Faye which is slightly over-the-top and unrealistic. It ends up with Hilary Faye spraying cuss words and other offensive statements (to Christians) all over the school walls and then tries to blame Cassandra for it since Cassandra is the trouble-maker. Then there’s the guy called Patrick who has a crush on Mary and also the principal’s son. All of this of course accumulating with the prom as the climax. The problem I had was that Hilary Faye was portrayed as single-minded. There was a mention of how she looked like before she took her diet pills and facial makeup and how that was suppose to fit her inside, with the movie hinting that maybe she really is so aggressive as she is because she’s really insecure and scared deep down, but she doesn’t get more development than that. And same unfortunately applies to the rest of the characters. Tagged along with a liberal message of being accepting and not judgmental, the second half felt cliché and trite. It kind of felt like the movie itself didn’t quite know whether it wanted to be a more light-spirited comedy or a deep drama, and it was really saved by Cassandra’s actor, Eva Amurri. She just stole all the light whenever she was around, because unfortunately, she was actually the really decent actor in this movie, and she carried her character well. Think of Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean, and you should get an idea how it felt like whenever she was on the screen. That she lied, stole, smoked and basically did every other immoral thing a teenager can do didn’t bother you so much because you could sense her rebel spirit. It should be noted that Cassandra was also portrayed as a Jew.

Anyway, my conclusion of “Saved!” as a movie is that it’s half-decent high school stuff if one can bother to overlook the extreme Christian overtones. On the other hand, I do like how it tries to approach young Christians (obviously this movie has a very peculiar target audience which didn’t really include me) and tell them that being caring and loving is more important than judging others because they don’t fit into your particular worldview. There’s actually a quite nice quote uttered by Mary which goes; “If God wants us all to be similar, then why are all we so different?”.