The Antichristian Phenomenon

This is far beyond nasty, this is fucking insane

My pastor’s reaction surprised me. Instead of showing the Christian love that he had preached, he began to blame me for a multitude of problems that would occur as a result of my sudden decision. My wife’s reaction was even more surprising. She took me aside to tell me that she was praying for me. She then said these words, “I am praying two things for you: that you will either get right with God or that He will take you out!“

Do you know what is worse than leaving the faith and your own wife praying for your death? Leaving the faith and your wife joining your pastor to accuse you of child sexual abuse so that they can remove you from the family as quickly as possible.

Disgusting

Related articles by Zemanta

• Some of us had it easy
• Others watch bad pastors too

In this article a few topics converge to the core of what I would call my quarrel with Christianity, its teachings and more importantly: its followers or rather lack thereof. You might think “a lack of following?” and following that remark present me with an estimate of the vast amount of people who identify themselves as Christians, being a big chunk of the global population pie. And that is exactly my point: these people identify themselves as Christians whereas I am speaking of strict followers of Biblical dogma.

I must start with the Old Testament. Anyone who has ever read even part of it will undoubtedly recognize that this collection of books is mostly concerned with he history of the people of Israel. The god found in the Old Testament presents itself as one only concerned with the Israelites. This god completely lacks any sympathy for any other tribe or people and will not hesitate to wipe out any people, city or tribe that are either a threat to his precious, chosen people or who simply piss him off for various petty reasons. It is an angry, tribal god, a boastful bully who enjoys the reek of burnt animals and requires his followers to cut off a part of their penises. Regarding the Israelites themselves, the Old Testament describes how this people was freed from Egyptian slavery and how they consequently, after many a bloody conquest, they established kingdoms (of Judah and Israel). However, these kingdoms were lost after the Israelites were conquered by other peoples, leading the Israelites into Babylonian exile. Of course, this was all the result of disobedience of that wonderful god. However, because the OT god is such a good guy, all hope was not lost, since through Isaiah it was prophesized a king would come who would would restore the kingdom of Israel, rebuild The Temple and other neat things such as reviving the dead and making the OT god the god of all nations and peoples.

This is a very important clash with Christian belief, which is rooted mainly in the New Testament. Jesus did not revive all the dead, nor does the entire world now serve God (look at me!), nor was death abolished since Jesus’ arrival – nay, Jesus even died himself. As the Moshiach (“the Anointed One” who will bring the Messianic age), Jesus utterly fails. Still, Christians swear by him as the Messiah prophesied in the Israelites’ scriptures, even though the Israelites’ themselves disagree (and for good reason). Leaning on the crutch that is the Old Testament, a new dogma developed with Jesus as the center-point. The gospels from the newly formed scriptures claim this Jesus figure spoke of a god of love for everyone; or rather: some new god as it does not match the pattern of our Old Testament friend. Other important theological additions include the concepts of Satan, heaven and hell. All these modifications and additions strike cacophonous chords with the older scriptures, but such seems the nature of Christianity: Reinventing dogma as it goes along. It is this exactly central characteristic that I often find myself entangled in.

To part from the basic level of scriptural discrepancy and move into the realm of Christian theology, we see the aforementioned central characteristic return. There are numerous Christian denominations with varying interpretations of the scriptures and I will concentrate on the prime example: Catholicism. Catholicism stands out among the denominations not just because of its size, but because of its sheer brutality. Over the centuries the Catholic Church made the Judeo-Christian religion into a political machine. This machine has had a firm grip on many powerful nations in the history of the world, with the pope at its head. This political influence brought about extra dogmatic additions and inventions which lead to “holy” wars (and consequential plunderings, one of the factors in the the amassment of the excessive wealth of the Vatican), the Spanish Inquisition, the selling letters of forgiveness “from god”, and so on. One of their more recent dogmatic inventions is papal inerrancy, which as an effect relieves the pope of any responsibility.

The Catholic Church is of course an extreme example of the reinvention of dogma and I am certainly not arguing that this practice will lead to the monstrosities we find in the history of the Catholic Church. To be fair, I will provide you with another example, and it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Mormonism. In addition to the original scriptures this church has the book of Mormon, magically revealed to the church’s founder Joseph Smith, Jr. The book was supposedly translated from golden plates having “unknown characters”, given to Joseph Smith by an angel named Moroni. The plates are, of course, now buried somewhere in the hills near Smith’s house. Mormonism hasn’t lead to anything too disturbing, barring occasional polygamy and the wearing of magical underwear.

You average non-catholic, non-Mormon Christian thinks he has not strayed as far from the Biblical path as those silly Mormons, but nothing less is true. Although they have indeed not built an empire or added any extra books to their precious Bible, they are in fact very unbiblical in just about every aspect of their lives. Most of them simply don’t realise it, because they haven’t actually read the Bible. I have no statistics on this, but time and time again I find myself debating a professed Christian who hasn’t even read “the Holy Book”. I am sure anyone who is active in these kinds of debates have had similar experience. These particular Christians tend to forget that there is a reason why we oppose their religion. It is because we have studied it, through experience and inquiry and have found it not to belong in the world we inhabit this day. Hiding gods whose baseless laws and morality they unverifiably passed to men have no place in modern government. Without actually having read the horrific, inhuman laws found in the New Testament or having realised God’s disgust for us as worthless, sinful mortals you as a self-proclaimed Christian have no right to call “their” God just and loving. These “Christians” have a one-sided conception of the Biblical god. In my experience, especially Christians from largely secular countries have this skewed perspective, and in these countries Christianity has once again reivented its dogma, and a new Christian god is born yet again.

There is but a relative handful of Christians who have actually understood the Bible and its god. A lot of them spend their lifetime trying to piece the biblical puzzle together in such a way that their god can be called loving in the face of his vile deeds – spending their lives studying theology. Some of these Christians write Apologetics, doing just that: thinking of excuses why an all-loving god would do such horrible things – and not to mention finding ways how scripture can be interpreted so that it doesn’t collide with scientific discoveries, but this is largely beside the point. There are also those Christians who do not try to understand the actions of God, but take them for face value. These Christians are abhorred by almost all Christians for giving them a bad image. It is the likes of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church I am speaking of. These Christians show a much better understanding of the Bible and God: God does indeed hate homosexuals, God does hate sinners, and God will punish us for eternity in hell after we have died if we escape the apocalypse. It is ironic that their scriptural knowledge is not applauded by fellow Christians, but rather ignored. Ignored, like Christians have ignored so much else: the maturing of human society, our sobering from our superstitious beliefs and our advancement in the knowledge of the world in which the Bliblical God and Biblical doctrine have no place.

It’s been a slow time over at the ACP. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be much of an activity going on around here. Perhaps I should get my cat ‘o nine tails ready to provide some…incentive.

Fortunately, in this slow period, someone decided to send us an email to explain why we go wrong. This is a historical moment as we haven’t actually received any such thing until now. I think it deserves a post of its own.

Our contact is Jonathon who by now has sent two different emails. He seems to be open to communication so in the spirit of openess, I will post the discussion here so that they rest of you might join in. I will provide the email as it was sent with my replies (which I’ve already sent back) in between. Feel free to comment on any part you wish. (more…)

This past weekend, Cleric and I decided to relax and watch a couple movies… something fun, maybe kind of bad, with lots of explosions.  We’re both Sci-fi buffs, as was his friend D., who was over, so we decided to whip out the Starship Troopers Trilogy.  The first one was great; the second was a botched attempt at making the series into horror, and the third… a catastrophe—acting, lips, and special effects aside.

When religion and cinema mix, it must be a tasteful blend, or one risks alienating part of the intended audience.  It is clear that there was a distinct purpose for mixing religion into SSTIII, but it was done so distastefully that I felt the need to get up several times to get more popsicles.  Not that I was particularly hungry, or too warm, I just couldn’t stand what I was seeing… and I sat through Expelled.  What went wrong?  Lets start from the top. **Severe Spoilers ahead.  Not like you’d actually want to watch anyway, but if you do for some bizarre reason, watch before reading.** (more…)

When we talk about religion, we always see it as something cultural, even as a cultural phonomenon perhaps. Religion is however quite far from it, especially when we actually talk about religion and not so much about its practices (although we will get there too). Religion is first of all a political tool. Religion is used as a banner to divide or unite people, and it has been excused as a justification in warfare many times. Religion is also secondly a socio-political identity.

However, to understand what this means, we must first understand that religion in a political context is not always as much as believing or having faith in god(s), but merely faith in something, whether it be a divine being or not. The definition of religion is:

1. A belief or faith in something
2. Rituals
3. Rules

Suddenly the word religion gains a very broad meaning, and can span more than the world religions which be invoked in our thinking when the word religion is mentioned. As such, many of our current cultural phenomena can be seen as a religion. One of those can be the animal right activist groups. To be an animal rights activist, you should first of all share a belief that animals are equal to or better than humans, rituals might involve to not eat meat or consume any product taken from dead/living animals and lastly, rules that forbid you to say, eat meat. This is all put into an overarching system and also gives the animal right activist an identity with other animal right activists by following this agenda. Thus, to truly be an animal right activist means that you actually follow a religion of sorts, in a purely political context. The only reason why you or anyone else would declare yourself an animal right activist is only to politically prove you share the idea of these typical ethics and morals mentioned (animals are of equal or above equal worth compared to humans, you follow a vegetarian diet, you do not consider any form of research conducted on animals ethically correct etc), thus, declaring yourself an animal rights activist outside a political context is useless. Obviously, the idea also unites other animal rights activists under certain organizations such as WWF but also creates a we vs them mentality, let’s say, the evil factories that pollute the rivers and seas so fish will die.

It is also very evident that religion is also more strongly envoked upon when a political identity is needed. I saw a short three-part documentary called We Are All Neighbours today, conducted by anthropologist Tone Bringa in a small village in Bosnia. 1/3 of the population was Catholic, the remaining 2/3 Muslim. It is recorded during the early 90s, (1993) and the conflict between Croatians and Muslims over Bosnia has just begun. At first, the conflict can be heard because of gunshots and shelling, but it is only in a distance and remains so for quite a while. While the villagers are worried the war will break out and soldiers will invade their village, they still don’t understand much of the basic idea of the conflict, that different ethnical groups (Croats, Serbs, Muslims) struggle to gain politcal control over a country (Bosnia). Croats, Serbs and Muslims have lived peacefully in this village for quite some time, and they don’t understand why the fuss. Sure, some of them have different faiths (Catholics vs Muslims) but they still believe in the same god. They also openly declares they don’t understand how you can attack your own neighbour for belonging to a different ethnical group. However, as the violence draws closer it eventually escalates in a bloodbath, where neighbour stands against neighbour, and eventually the Catholics kill their Muslim neighbours when the Croatian soldiers arrive (Croatia is more strongly associated with Catholicism). We can clearly see as the violence draws closer the villagers also keep more and more to themselves; Muslims to Muslims and Catholics to Catholics, despite many of them being good friends before the war begun. They often excused their own newly gained animosity with that “they might consider me a spy” or equally farfetched reasonings. In a world of paranoia however, it doesn’t seem as impossible as it would have before the war.

Here, we can clearly see how one’s religious identity becomes more important to strengthen one’s national identity (Catholics associate themselves with Croatia and support the Croatian army, Muslims the Bosnians and Serbs). Thus, religion is merely a political construct, and when you openly declare you are this or that, you also openly declare a political stance. It might not sound very rational to claim, especially if we look at something such as Atheism.

However, Atheism maybe more than anything is a political construct and many ideas in Atheism support this. First of all, there is a “belief” in science, that at least science is more superior to any other way to view the world. Science is associated with a secular society, and in turn associated with freedom of thought. Here, we can slowly see how Atheism is taking upon more and more political leanings, since freedom of thought often reconciles with freedom of speech. Atheism also often stands for many other common ideas in secular societies, such as a more social welfare model as well as Liberalism (which has partly been mentioned with freedom of speech). Religion on the other hand, is often associated with Conservatism (in a political sense but also culturally) and then that religion’s internal structure (ie rules and rituals) will decide how a Conservative society will look like.

Of course, I am not going so far as saying it is always this way, this is merely shown to point out an example how many Atheists might actually consider themselves, and that at least in a political context, their lack of belief in a god will actually create such as strong socio-political identity that it can be considered a religion, and how the word religion in turn is merely there to express one’s raher ethical, moral and political views than actually your ideas of faith.

Since Db0 was so kind to remind me of this in his post, it was hard for me not to reply to that, especially after learning about the Seed Theory originally created by Carol Delaney and her colleague whose name escapes me right now. There is actually a reason why females are considered inferior in the Abrahamic religions. To understand this, we must first of all understand what was before Christianity and Judaism. That’s right, many pagan religions where some were cheerishing the fertility of women, since good fertility means a good harvest. Fertility of course, is the very central theme in many agricultures, and why shouldn’t they, when it’s the very thing they rely upon to survive? Looking at this further, we can also see a notion where every god of fertility in pagan religions is depicted as woman. Coincidence? I think not. Thus, fertility as a whole is more strongly connected to the female gender rather than the male one, and in addition connected to the earth since the earth can be fertile. Women then, stand for the earthly. Is there any question too why it is the female who gives birth to the world in most mythology sagas? As a quick example, we don’t need to go further than Gaia, which is probably the most well-known of all world birthgivers.

However, when the Abrahamic religions came into the picture and turned the world upside down with its monotheism, there was suddenly no room for a fertility godess. As a matter of fact, god is so divine that it is the very opposite of what is earthly. Men, who never were considered fertile in the sense as women then, were seen as closer to god. Why is that women cannot even sometimes leave their own house during their periods, or if they pray their prayers will not be reached? Periods if anything, is the very physical evidence of female’s fertility. Men, who do not have periods, and thus are not connected to the earthly are more pure, and also stands closer to the divine.

It is also noted that men not only are more divine, they are the actors, while women are merely spectators. Why is that the most romantic sex would be where the woman is passive, lying down on her back? This is a very old notion in Western society of how sex should be performed. Men once again, are the actors. This in turn refers back to god, where god created the world, not the woman. We call god the creator and god plants the seed. Men too, plant the seed in women, not only because you plant a seed into the ground but also literary, in English and many other European languages is the semen of men sometimes known as seed.

Why then is the earthly considered so bad that women’s sexuality should even become prosecuted? I cannot honestly answer, more than it seems to be an attempt to demonize pagan religions.

This is an analysis I based on Fall From Grace in Genesis:

My own tack on Fall From Grace? It’s a way to make a claim between the earthly and the divine. You see, in the Abrahamic religions and also in many pagan ones, women in particular are often considered being more “earthly”, because of their difference in fertility. This is primarily based on the fact that women can have children and have periods. This sets women further away from god, since god is divine and not earthly. Don’t you for example think it’s funny it’s Eve who ate the fruit first, not Adam? A serpent is often symbolized with cycles, notice how this seem to fit nicely with periods? Furthermore, this is probably a way for the Abrahamic religions to taint the pagan religions in where female fertility was seen as a positive thing. In paganism too, a cyclist thinking is not that uncommon. So in such a sense, the woman represents nature and paganism, which in Christianity is so far apart as you can get from god. Notice also how it is Eve who later suggested Adam to eat the fruit. Thus all the blame was to be put on Eve. Adam did nothing wrong, after all he is the man, and is closer to god. Even if he did wrong he did less wrong because he doesn’t have periods.

In addition, it is also the child who inherits the sin from its mother, not its father, further explaining that women are tainted but men are not. So frankly, I have actually no idea how some Christians could reproduce with this idea in mind. Going further to not have sex before marriage could be a part where a man who has sex with an unmarried woman will become tainted. Among gypsies, the skirt closest to the body is tainted as well, and among some Muslims women’s underwear cannot be mixed with men’s underwear during washing, or the men’s clothing will be tainted.

I would one day like to see where men’s semen is considered as tainted too, although that will probably not happen. Most often periods are also a sign with lack of body control, and to keep oneself clean and pure. This can be traced even further back from Ancient Greece where there some there were ideals a human should adhere to show dignity. One of those was to keep oneself pure. Of course, this notion too, was constructed by men for men, women were not often considered and even if they were, there were other ideals for them to follow.

Hm, I realize I am too tired to really think more clearly about the matter right now, so I will just continue when more ideas arise. I guess I call this part 1, so if there are anything else to discuss, it will be in part 2. Maybe a more elaborate analysis of From From Grace perhaps?

Image via Wikipedia

If you see the Christian religion, you will notice that in the fundamentals, there is a distinct call for repressing one’s pleasure. This is found from the very first calls for modesty, to the banning of masturbation and sinification (is that a word?) of sex. All of this of course if double as strong when related to women.

I’ve always wondered how can this Joylessness meme which exists in most Abrahamic religions keep replicating in most of their mutations, and occasionally getting so strong so as to deny all forms of pleasure. Especially compared to the pagan religions which not only lacked this meme but on the contrary celebrated all pleasures in life and even had gods specifically assigned to them.

Indeed, the Abrahamic religions went into great lengths to demonify all aspects of Paganism (especially those related to the pleasure gods) so as to convince people that such actions were to be avoided. This was certainly so that their own converts would not be sways by the very powerful pleasure meme. Of course, since the pagans themselves could not be convinced to give this up, other methods of…persuasion were implemented.

Shutting down human urges, especially the sexual ones seems like a recipe for disaster. It builds up aggression, breeds depression and generally is the source of a lot of bad things. Nevertheless, it survives.

I think there must be some kind of sister-meme which not only uses this pent-up pressure to feed and promote the religion but also gives a significant advantage in order to overcome the disadvantage such a behaviour creates to the spreading of the meme. Indeed, the easiest to figure out is one of the ways in which this is expressed in the extremely repressed religion of Islam, where the rules and bans are so much more severe, especially related to sexuality.

Aggression

There is a very strong activism part in Islam (especially the fundamentalist one) which is very difficult for Christians or Atheists to match. Indeed, the ease with which Muslims gather and go on the offensive at the smallest excuse is quite surprising for westerners. The answer of course lies in their own repression. A fundamentalist Muslim not only is controlled by a wealth of inane rules which make their life difficult but is also forbidden from using most of the things that would allow them to relax. Not only that, but because of the allowance for polygamy, it means that there are less women for each male (Most of them of course being taken by the richest and most powerful members of the society). Thus you have a large male populace which has a lot of pent-up aggression and no way to take it out.

Is it surprising that they jump to activism and violence at the drop of a hat? Not only that, but this is quite a powerful competitive meme because it keeps the religion pushing on everyone else and constantly being on the forefront or action.

But another question remains. How do the Christians get rid of the this aggression? It is obvious that the Joylessness meme still exists as exemplified by their constant attempts to stop anything of joy. In the western societies there is no biggest opponent to Sex, drugs and rock&roll than the fundamentalist Christians. Of course these are not the only things that they have in their target. Violent video games (which, incidentally are great for letting out steam), Alcohol (even when you don’t drink it), porn (masturbation facilitator) etc.

Until now, I didn’t have a clear answer to this. I know that fundamentalist Christians are of course much more easy to leap to activism but they are nowhere near the levels the Muslims achieve on a regular basis. Of course, the christian religion is much less repressed than Islam but still, all this pressure has to go out somewhere. They don’t drink, they don’t fuck, they don’t dance…or do they?

[youtube]sfe6nY5qmQY[/youtube]

And another piece of the puzzle falls into place. Whereas normal people would go to a club and dance or headbang, these Christians, who I’m certain are frowning quite a lot at such excursions, think nothing of standing up in their church and doing the “Crazy Monkey”. I’m certain that when they return home, they must find that this was an exhilarating experience and they will choose to interpret their tiredness and strange feeling of peace as the touch of God, never realising that their own bodies need this kind of experience once in a while and those feelings is their own reward.

This practice in turn, not only allows the Christians to nullify the joylessness meme (to a degree) but it also uses that builtup emotion to feed their own god delusions.

After July’s stream of brave confessions, the time has come to publish those that have been posted on the forums. These confessions have been made by truly antichristian people with great courage. Whether this bravery is sincere is up to you to decide.

(more…)

I know everyone embeds xkcd all the time but I just couldn’t resist doing it this time

Heya! Blue Linchpin here. This isn’t so much an essay as letting you all know about something, and a call to action.

Google recently created Google Knols, an alternative to Wikipedia which will likely soon eclipse it, as Google Knols has the advantage of being created by the most widely used search engine. Already there are a great amount of wonderful articles, ranging from what do to when your bowels erupt (seriously!) to medical information on anorexia and cancer, to incoherent rants by religious fanatics. For the most part, its articles are almost all medical or religous, a strange mix.

And it’s that last type of “knol” that really gets me. Here we are, being presented by a great tool in beta that gives anyone and everyone a voice while allowing for ratings of articles so the crap can get filtered out. Depending on your preference, Wikipedia might be better, Knols might be better, or both might be pathetic. But it’s obvious that Google Knols will become widely used in the future, as it is a wonderful tool. The problem is that it is already being used for religious propaganda presented as articles. For example, there is one Knol user, a Christian church, who has been publishing articles via Knol disguised as helpful information about childcare, parenting, marriage, couples advice, as well as more obvious hatefilled bullshit. Some of these articles start out with stories or good advice, then down the line start babbling on about God. (As a side note, there’s a ridiculously idiotic writer on Knols who’s claiming some pretty silly stuff, like an article about liberals that has basically all the information about conservatives, only ‘conservative’ is replaced by ‘liberal’…d’oh!)

While most articles are written by conservative Christians and are simply rants against liberals, abortion, atheists, etc, Google users have been fighting back a little by denouncing these, but they aren’t being removed and no one (besides your favorite person, me!) has been fighting back by writing articles of their own, voting, or reviewing the propaganda.

So if you’re bored or interested, please head over and help out. Google Knols will certainly be getting a lot of viewing and coverage in the future, and possibly become the new Wikipedia: so it’s important not to let ranting, fanatical Christians take over a source of knowledge.

P.S., my profile on Knols is here, you can find the articles I’ve written or am working on there, as well as horrible articles I’ve reviewed. I could use some help!

Love, Blue. <3