Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'religion'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Categories

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Forums

  • Special Announcements & FAQs
    • Special Announcements
    • Frequently Asked Questions and Topics
  • Discussions
    • Got Questions?
    • Introductions
    • Testimonies of Former Christians
    • Ex-Christian Life
    • Debate Areas
    • Rants and Replies
    • General Christian Theological Issues
    • Science vs. Religion
    • Ex-Christian Spirituality
    • Podcasts
  • Controversy and Conflict's Totally Off Topic
  • Controversy and Conflict's News and Current Events
  • Fun and Nonsense's Humor and Satire
  • Fun and Nonsense's Critic's Corner

Product Groups

  • Converted Subscriptions
  • One-Time Gift
  • Monthly Support Packages
  • Yearly Support Packages

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


More About Me


Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?

Found 8 results

  1. Right now, I am pounding these keys. Pounding them hard. Pounding them like my heart would pound in the wee hours of morning as a child. Pounding these lettered plastic keys like they are bones being turned to dust. And this pounding will not yield much relief or vengeful satisfaction because, as Chaucer put it so simply,"Forbid us something, and that thing we desire." Still, I am slamming away at my Logitech K260 Model keyboard with heated thought. Each slam of the space bar is my mind willing its force towards that which I despise so much for the turmoil and pain I will never get complete closure to. Every time I harshly tap the period key, it is one more moment of emotional wounding tearing through my physical form when all I want to do is banish these things from my daily contemplations of "where to go from here". One would think if relief were surely desired, I would "man up" and move on. Sweep the nasty little shards of broken years under the rug of my stubborn headed skull. Sadly, I am human, and we are known for our lack of follow through in almost anything, depending on our mood that day. Sometimes, I look at this mess I have been cleaning up for the last 35 years, and I wonder if it isn't almost like an addiction. You lock up all the hurt, unresolved conflict, and hopeless hopes, and every now and then, you just have to wallow in them. Boy, am I wallowing tonight. So where did all of this start? Well, I think what started my official filling of the sorrowful bathtub to lounge around in began with a posting by my father this afternoon, but we all know that is probably just what snapped my limits and caused me to unbolt the doors of my pain filled closets. And I say closets, because one couldn't hold all my skeletons. Really though, I think this has been working on me for a couple of weeks now. Earlier in this month, I had posted about my mother giving my eldest son a call after a nearly 3 month hiatus of communication with him altogether, on her part. Then, about a week and a half ago, my father called, inviting my eldest to an event for cleaning up a local waterway. Not too eventful a phonecall. Said he would call him back with the actual day and time, which I told my son shouldn't be a problem either way since his grandfather promised to not make a big deal about his bug phobia this time. Then, just last week, I fielded a call from my youngest boy's father, asking if I had plans for the weekend since my father had called asking to take our child out to a movie or something. I already had plans of course, so I advised to say not this weekend. Now, this was slightly irritating. They have my number, my email address, and my father tries to go around me, and get my ex to cut off my weekend time without me being asked first. Stil, I let it roll off. Today, I get a phonecall from my ex again. My parents called him asking to let me know they had been in a terrible accident, the truck was totalled, and they were on their way by ambulance to the hospital, though they are sure they will be fine. While it is true I could give a shit less their condition, it bothered me my ex was being used as a go between of sorts. I made it clear to my ex that they have not been forbidden to leave me a voicemail or email and that by no means should he feel obligated to be a third party to all of this. He didn't seem to mind since he is currently keeping a foot in their ass to see our son, but he promised he wouldn't try to negotiate any "peace talks". Relieved he understood the boundaries, I hung up. Fast forward to a few hours ago, and my oldest son logs on to FB. Mind you, he is friends with them on there, which I do not mind or care. None of my business is my attitude so long as they communicate to him, about him, and not weed out information about me. I've always told my son to advise nosey folks to go to the source, and if they don't get an answer, tough nuts, it isn't your problem. My kids and I like this arrangement and takes the pressure off of them for the most part. I digress, sorry. So, Sean mentions that Grampy is posting on Granny's FB page, and he shows me a new picture of the cat, something mom baked recently, etc. No big deal until the almost journal like entries pop up. And it pains me to tears that I actually read this one: "As I awoke this morning I found a mess our aging dog had left in the family room. Needless to say it was not solid. I cleaned it up and then used the rug cleaner to take care of the rest of the matter quickly. It was very early at the time and Marquita was in bed and I knew she would awaken from the noise but it had to be done. Three hours later another 'accident' happened and Marquita found it and was not happy about it. While helping her we also talked about what we go through physically at our ages as each of us found bruises on our feet but were clearing up. I said we were very fortunate, that, at our age, we were more well off than others who could not walk or live a more active life in various ways. And I said we still had the joy of God in our hearts. As I went outside to attend to something the Lord spoke to my heart and reminded of how many people are living today without joy, instead prefering to live a life of complaining and hurt. They don't realize they actually 'nurse and nuture' those feelings simply by keeping them in their hearts and thinking about (meditating) and speaking about them daily. It was at that moment that the Lord brought to my attention that we can also give our joy nuturing as well by thinking on what blessings we have and not allowing hurt feelings to overtake our thinking, no matter how those feelings came about. It was something I had not realized before. I had already determined long ago that things like worry, guilt or condemnation from the past or present were not going to rob me of my joy. I was the one, and only I, who could decide what to think and not to think. If you're having trouble living a joyful life and your thoughts seem to center around things that make you feel badly about life then check out what your thoughts are. What you think has a big impact on the way you live. In Proverbs 23: 7 we find 'For as he (man) thinketh in his heart so is he." This passage really hurt me to the core, and elicited such a blinding anger - outrage even - it took everything for me to not call this bastard up. Just typing this has my throat feeling constricted, eyes tight, and shoulders frozen with such pain. I look at this particular part of the message and I just cry with hopeless angst because he will never see what he has done. He applies blind Christian faith tactics to his wrongdoings. I had already determined long ago that things like worry, guilt or condemnation from the past or present were not going to rob me of my joy. I was the one, and only I, who could decide what to think and not to think. How does one get joy by avoiding responsibility for transgression? I have had to look at every single one of my family members over the years, knowing they were well aware of my having stolen money, my impulsive lying, sneaking out of the house, and having the police at their home throughout my childhood and early adulthood. I know these family members have listened to my mother crying about how I nearly drove their marriage into the ground just to get out of that horrible home. And while I stand in front of these relatives who have my complete history of malfeasance, I don't say a word in my defense. I don't cry about what my father did to me, how my mother neglected my mental illness as a child, or how I have struggled and won the fight to control my anger. I realize I go on and on about how I want to clear my name. I want to show that while I am ultimately responsible for who I am, my parents neglected issues that could have resolved long before I reached adulthood and hurt my own family. I don't understand how he cannot understand emotional scars and trauma. He is the product of an abusive childhood, so I know he deals with irrational thoughts, memories that haunt his daily life, and probably nightmares/sleep disturbances. To this day, once or twice a week, I will wake up horrified that I might have wet the bed again. Absolutely horrified, and embarrassed upon waking only to find that it didn't happen. This is an occurrence I cannot seem to get rid of, but after spending the first 12 years of my life wetting the bed, I guess I might not ever get rid of the feelings associated with it. It would be nice if it would stop haunting my sleep though. There's my instant fear and dread when I hear men raise their voices in argument. I still get that queezy feeling in my stomach when in those situations and am shaken for at least half an hour after the incident is over. My job, with angry truck drivers and dispatchers was really starting to take a toll on my every day nerves. So much baggage to sort out in this life, and he gets to go nimbly pimbly along like nothing will bother him because he has decided he won't let his joy be robbed of him. I just cannot believe that because I have these issues, I am "nurturing" these feelings by acknowledging them and confronting them. If I didn't do so, I might still be physically violent. To think, even though he physically, verbally, emotionally, and sexually abused me, he shouldn't let those things bother him. He DESERVES joy, he says. The Lord told him so he said. Well, the "Lord" told me to NOT forgive his self-righteous, self-worshipping, self-serving ass. I don't want him asking me for forgiveness. I wanted him to see what harm he has wrought in my life, see the legacy of abuse he helped to spread through me, and maybe, just maybe, offer some support in getting control. All I have ever been told is that I am a free loader, a joke, a fake, a liar, a failure, a sinner. I realize now he is jealous. Everything he has ever thrown at me has been without any grounds. He says I am a failure. He never finished college, and retired from a shitty machinist job after 30 years with a whole whopping $216/month as a pension, having never earned more than $13/hr. I on the other hand have TWO degrees under my belt, along with multiple certifications and have put my education to use in jobs that I have mostly enjoyed and earned a hell of a lot more at. He says I am a joke. He abused his child on every level possible, and says God spoke to him and encouraged him to be have joy in life. THAT is a joke. I could go on and on. He has no merit, and I know this. It has to be jealousy. I have been in relationships with people I actually LIKE. I do things that make me happy, and despite what he thinks of it, I have a lot of support and appreciation for what I do. My kids can actually approach me now, and I am honest with them when given the chance. He could never say he has any of these things. He is downright psychopathic to think if God is real that he is forgiven and has entrance to Heaven. You cannot repent to this so called God without being genuine of heart and intention. I know this because he would preach this at me every time I screwed up. Same rules apply asshole.
  2. "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion." - Albert Einstein I just ran across this quote and feel like rambling a little bit about it; hope you don't mind...I certainly hope that Albert Einstein did not really mean that "it is somewhat new kind of RELIGION". After realizing how damaging and even murderous "religion" has been to the spirits of so many people (not excluding those who are STILL in delusion), I find the thought SO abhorrent!!! Religion had been a set of guidelines to give structure and order to my life. It felt safe and secure to "believe in something bigger than myself" and "give myself over" to it. I speak of this as the "christian box". One pastor who I had admired up until the time of our last meeting, had previously said that "We put god in a box and then jump in there with him"...I thought that was really profound and something to consider...as being a christian; I see it IN THE LIGHT now. Our last meeting with him, he arrogantly told my husband that "People who are non believers don't feel a need to trust Christ especially if they are intelligent and wealthy; they are spiritually immature and trusting in themselves". OOOOOOOOOO, that really ticked my husband off. Being the intelligent spiritual but NOT christian man that he is; he was "kind" and did not really fire back but even told the pastor how that comment could only be seen as "insulting and arrogantly degrading". So here...the Pastor who talks about "jumping into the box" with god...was telling ME to "GET BACK INTO MY christian box" so that I would not consider being with and then marrying my first love. THIS agenda; stifling true love because "he was not a christian" really WOKE ME UP. I had been married to TWO, not one but TWO, "christian" men...the first one being passive aggressive porn addict (oh, but he was a christian!! rolling eyes) and the second, "controlling religious abuser good guy christian" *SO deluded as to call himself a PROPHET OF GOD...wtf??? I think that he actually is Obsessive Compulsive AND Narcissistic personality disordered or mentally ILL. I will NOT be jumping into ANY boxes again. Living and thinking "outside the box" is a much better life for me!
  3. I am an atheist and an ex-christian, and contrary to what Christians may think about atheists, I willing to accept that the Christian god exists. Although I post this in the Colosseum, I am debating no one specific save for any one Christian that can show me their god exists. But because I have been subject in the past to believing lies as truth, I desire to remove falsehoods, lies, myths, speculation and such and have written the below test as the only way that a Christian may possibly aid my return to Christianity. Below the actual test is an example of where I myself am stuck. Christians, can you show me your god? ==== Atheism Exercise for Christians #1 ==== 1. Provide your definition of "exist." 2. Using your definition of "exist", relate something that you know does not exist but reference thereof is available. 3. Using your definition of "exist", relate something that you know does exist and reference thereof is available. 4. List the type and specified evidence you use to support your answer for #2. 5. List the type and specified evidence you use to support your answer for #3. 6. To use types of evidence found specific solely to something that exists, deduct and list the types of evidence you listed in #4 from the types you listed for #5. 7. The same types of evidence used to support the existence of your answer in #3 can be used to prove the Christian god exists. Using only the types of evidence used to prove something that exists from your answer in #6, provide the specific evidence of each type that can be applied to proving the Christian god exists, so that you may supportively declare the same. ==== My example to show Christians where I am stuck ==== 1. "Is real" is my definition of "exist." 2. Peter Pan is not real. 3. An apple is real. 4. Types of evidence in support of Peter Pan: Types of evidence: Specific Evidence books: 'Peter Pan and Wendy' by J. M. Barrie, 'Peter Pan in Scarlet' by Geraldine McCaughrean movies: 'Peter Pan' (2003), 'Hook' (1991) costumes: http://www.clicket.com/kidscostumes/hallow...umes/peter.html bus line: peter pan bus lines http://www.peterpanbus.com/ belief: I can believe Peter Pan exists followers: http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/pixyFriendsPage.html 5. Types of evidence in support of an apple: Types of evidence: Specific Evidence books: I can read 'Apples' by Roger Yepsen belief: I can believe apples exist touch: I can pluck an apple from a tree and hold it in my hand sight: I can see an apple with my eyes scent: I can smell an apple taste: I can eat an apple and taste it with my tongue 6. Remaining types of evidence used to prove something exists: touch, sight, scent, taste. 7. I am unable to provide specific evidence through touch, taste, scent, smell, or sight to show the Christian god exists.
  4. Guest

    De-converting the Christian

    De-converting the Christian Ben B. The goal of christianity is readily observable to anyone who researches history. Every torturous and bloody crusade and inquisition of old, to the less violent and less deadly missionary incursions of today, always completed with fortunes spent on political lobbying to this effect, is testament to how they seek to assimilate every non-believer by force, law, and fear. What they can not achieve forcefully overnight, they reserve themselves to the subtleness of the serpent they warn against, and proceed with gradualism. As an atheist having been subjected to this system, I counter with the mission to deconvert christians. I seek to show them they are their own person, and that they can be their best friend or their own worst enemy. I want them to know it is beneficial for them to think for themselves, and adhere to what they think is best for themselves. I do not hate them, nor do I fear their beliefs. I was once a fundamentalist christian. With the following, I speak from experience. Nothing about Christianity and the christian must ever be assumed. This is the game they themselves unknowingly are pawns of, calling it belief and faith. If necessary, the Socratic Method, effectively used, will deconstruct any argument when the one employing it defaults to admitting they know not one thing about Christianity. Christianity is adamant with knowing the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Let them think they know what they are talking about, as this is what is used against them, in order to set them free. Christianity is about fear, and nothing more. There is no more foundational aspect than this. To strike at every branch of the tree of fear will accomplish nothing. Countering their doctrines by pointing out the contradictions, absurdities, and falsehoods only works to solidify their beliefs, just as it solidifies your disbelief. To strike at fear itself is the only effective way to set them free of themselves. Just as the Christian needs belief, scripture, and fellow congregants to sustain their faith, the de-converted will understand that these three things are without merit, and of mankind's creation, and no god, and have no practical use in living one's life. This is why the atheist has no belief, no scripture, and no church. 1. Golden Rule: beliefs effect nothing. Belief has no power to effect *anything*. The truth is what *is*, and belief cannot change this. If the christian believes you will burn in hell for your lack of belief, leave it at that. You know that they do not really know this, but only believe they do. There is no reason to get upset at them for this, as it is to be expected of them. It is their nature to effect their fears; to counter these claims is to waste one's breath. Truth requires no belief. 2. Christians are controlled by fear. Christians are mentally chained to belief, and these chains are their fears. This mental chain rules them physically in everything they say and do. The greater their fears envelope them is observable to their adherance to their religious beliefs. These fears always stem from the fear of the unknown. All christians say they do not fear death; yet they all believe they will go to heaven once they die. They fear hell; they do not want to go there when they die. The fanatical christian, under the burden of the greatest of fear, believes he will not even die, but will be miraculously raptured straight to heaven. The evidence of fear is shown by the beliefs they profess to counter them. 3. Their thoughts are not their own. It must be realized that the whole of christianity is assimilation, and not free-thought. For everything you point out to them, they have read and memorized the response. This is the whole of their indoctrination. They will even tell you they think for themselves, but all their responses to their psychological environment have been long planned out. 4. Christians are easily offended. This must not be used against them, if you seek to de-convert them. For them, to be offended is all the ground they need to blacklist you and shut you out completely. The more offended they are, the more they are struggling for your help, and offending them will not help them to autonomous awareness and realization. 5. They must be accepted for who they are. Christianity plays a game where, if you are not with them, you are against them. Nature does not dictate who is to be who's enemy, of even if there should be enemies; only man does this. To the christian, the non-christian is the outcast in desperate need of salvation. Do not play this game; accept them unconditionally. Christians, like most people, build a metaphorical steel-reinforced concrete nuclear bunker that is ever ready for them to retreat into should the nature of their being be pointed out to them. You do not want them to retreat. How, then, is a Christian de-converted? It takes time for a Christian to de-convert; the deeper they are within christianity, the longer it may take. The secret of de-conversion is that no one can be de-converted by another, they can only de-convert themselves. The Christian can never be forced into de-conversion, nor can they be lead to it. They will always lead themselves, after metaphorically 'having their world stopped' by another. 1. The Christian needs only one thought or experience that is unsatisfactorily answerable by their religion, pastor, and bible. This is the position that is necessary to enable the christian to force themselves to confront their very existence. It will forever gnaw at their very being until it is answered. When no one else can answer it for them, they are forced to answer for themselves. This is how they are led to confronting their very existance; it pits them at a cross-roads of which no map or guide exists, and they must choose for themselves. This is their awakening; the beginning of their autonomous thinking and realization. 2. You must appeal to their very existence. For de-conversion, no question about their faith will achieve any other response than that which they already memorized. A christian can never be told otherwise than what they have been indoctrinated with. However, the christian does not spend much time studying their own life. Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living, and nowhere is this more helpfull than in de-conversion. Religious indoctrination is the necessity of the question. The question must appeal to their very self. How the Christian personally should live his life, as nature presents it to him, is found in no book. The question, "What will that do for you?", as simple and unassuming as it reads, has more power than all the scriptural recitation will ever produce. The bible does not appeal to one's existence, only their fears. 3. De-conversion is often a slow process, sometimes taking years. There is no over-night de-conversion. It does not happen. This does not mean they must be constantly attended to, and helped through their de-conversion. In fact, the christian may never remember your name, and not even remember you until years later, if at all. You only need to plant the seeds of doubt, by appealing to their very existance, and leave, regardless of their reaction. In conversion, constant reassurance, church attendance, worship, sermons, fellowship, religious outtings, revivals, and so on are needed to keep one converted. It is interesting to note that for one to be converted to Christianity can "happen in an instant" when the "holy ghost enters your soul." Christianity needs converts, and they are needed now. For a fundamentalist to de-convert, the appeal to their very existance is equivalent to a tiny hole in the hull of an ocean-liner. Nothing may be apparent for a long time, but eventually, the ship, as their beliefs, will sink. Time is the referee. In this, no supervision is ever necessary for the Christian who will unknowingly undergo de-conversion. 4. In the end, it will be the Christian who has de-converted themselves. Just as it is falsely thought that one can be converted to Christianity, so to is it false that someone can de-convert a christian. No one has ever wholeheartedly converted to christianity save by choice, so to will no one wholeheartedly de-convert but by the same choice. Whereas fear of the unknown is the vehicle of conversion driven by false pretenses of truth, knowledge of what is not true is the vehicle of de-conversion driven by the de-converted who has found the truth in himself. Once truth is known, there is no need for belief, as it has been successfully subdued, rendered absurd, unnecessary, and without merit.
  5. How Should Christians Celebrate the Birth of Christ? First Draft, 12/17/2004 Current Draft, 11/30/2005 -Ben B. 1. Introduction. 2. Arguments. a. Christmas Tree. b. Giving Presents. c. Hanging Stockings on Mantle. d. Santa Claus / St. Nicholas, etc. e. Santa's Reindeer. f. Christmas Eve and Day. g. The Nativity. h. Mistletoe and Yule Log. i. Christmas - what's in a word? 3. Common Rebuttals. a. "You're just being a Scrooge!" b. "Jesus is the reason for the season!" c. "It's about spending time with family!" 4. Conclusion. Introduction. Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the all. -Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas How should a Christian, in accordance with Christianity, celebrate the birth of Christ? To understand how a Christian should, it is best to discover and understand its origins. To most Christians, the origins of Christmas are not well known. Christians who have investigated Christmas delve only deep enough until they find out it has pagan origins, and there is where the investigation stops. However, the further one digs into history and tradition, the further warped Christmas is found to be. A true Christian will adhere to his/her doctrine of faith and not rely upon other teachings and rituals rejected by Christianity. A history of paganism, shamanism, ancient gods, rituals, mythology, astrology, entheogenic drugs, sex, blatant lies, commercialism, and more perpetuate this farce that many so-called Christians celebrate as a testament of the Christian faith. For those who convince themselves to be serious Christians in search of truth, this may come as a shock, be deemed blasphemous by fundamentalists, and many may find it easier to be upset with me for pointing this out, rather than seek the truth for themselves. For anyone interested in truth, rather than belief, some of this may come as a surprise, and should a Christian continue to research this question, the more they will be dismayed at what they may have once believed and held dear to their heart: an outright lie. My message is not against Christianity, but for. In today's society, with the aspect of Christmas, atheists and agnostics have more in common with Christianity than a lot of Christians. There is a deep level of evil, itself being ignorance, that permeates Christianity and its method of attack is gradualism over thousands of years. Christmas does not bring any peace and quiet to the soul, but rather panders to the unquenchable desires of the heart and promotes greed and selfishness. Unfortunately, one does not usually care enough until it reaches a boiling point. The first step toward the path to freedom is to realize one is born into the slavery of ignorance. Arguments. "The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates, Plato's Apology Christmas Tree. Ancient Egyptians, who worshipped the sun god Ra, would bring date palm leaves into their homes as a symbol of life's triumph over death for the arrival of the winter solstice. For Saturnalia, the Romans would honor Saturnus, the god of agriculture, in part by decorating their homes with garlands of laurel and green trees lit with candles. Druids would use evergreen trees during mysterious winter solstice rituals by placing the branches over doors to keep away evil spirits. During the later part of the middle ages, Scandinavians and Germans would place evergreen trees in their homes. As legend would have it, Martin Luther, the father of the Lutheran church, started the practice of decorating the Christmas tree somewhere around 1500. What does God have to say about the Christmas tree? From Jeremiah 10:2-5: Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. God specifically instructs his followers not to do as the heathen: do not cut down trees, do not mount and fasten them, and do not decorate them. Doing so is absolutely worthless and has absolutely nothing to do with honoring Him. For an even deeper meaning of the Christmas tree we come across Shamanism. At the heart of Shaman rituals we find the use of entheogenics; specifically Amanita Muscaria "Fly Agaric" mushroom. Shaman priests consume Fly Agaric in order to undergo what is known as the Death/Rebirth experience in order to gain enlightenment. Fly Agaric is commonly found growing in a symbiotic/mycorrhizal relationship with coniferous trees throughout the world. Shamans find the act of cutting down a Christmas tree as absurd, not because God prohibits it, but because they are cutting down the wrong thing. Shamans see nothing special or magical about a coniferous tree, but that which grows underneath it. The roots of the Christmas tree are tangled in mythology and the worship of ancient gods, prohibited by the Christian God, and Shamanism. One could also speculate the absurdity of it also as being inherently the wrong thing to cut down in the first place. Giving Presents. If life is indeed a gift, what then, does one actually deserve? In Christianity, the roots of gift giving stem from the wise men giving gifts to the Christ. Today, giving gifts during Christmas has two main faults: 1) the one who is giving gifts symbolizes the wise men (who in turned received no gifts from Christ) who gave gifts to the Christ, the receiver, and 2) the receiver symbolizes the Christ. Anyone who receives a gift is in effect pretending to be the Christ, and those who give said gifts are in effect saying the receiver is the Christ. Both the giver and receiver partake in this false ritual of blasphemy. In shamanism, the gifts are the Fly Agaric mushroom. The gift of entheogenic enlightenment is considered greater than any materialistic desire. It is rather peculiar how close today's practice of the mythical god Santa leaving presents under a pine tree is with that of Fly Agaric being found underneath the same pine trees in nature. Hanging Stockings on the Mantle. The current belief behind hanging stockings on the mantle generally follows how St. Nicholas threw three coins down a chimney of the home of three poor virgin sisters, each landing in separate stockings laid on the hearth to dry, and thus saving them from turning to prostitution. James Arthur, an ordained Christian priest and long time student of Tibetan Buddhism, makes a connection between the Fly Agaric mushroom and the symbolism of hanging stockings on the mantle of the fireplace. Referring to Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said: He who is close to me is close to the fire; he who is far from the fire is far from the kingdom. You will note that, by the gift of St. Nicholas, the three virgins were saved from having to turn to the pain and suffering of a life of prostitution. If we are to look into the way of the shaman further, we can start to see the connection between enlightenment from the Death/Rebirth experience of the Fly Agaric mushroom and hanging stockings on the mantle. However ludicrous this may seem, there is nothing not worth looking into if one wants to understand what one's faith stands on. Santa Claus / St. Nicholas, etc. Few people stop to think about how detrimental this fable and lie is to a child's upbringing. Santa Claus is the omniscient and omnipresent invisible being who has been given the status of God by knowing who's been bad or good, epitomized in the song, 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town', written by J. Fred Coots and Haven Gillespie in 1934. Christians who perpetuate the myth of Santa Claus knowingly or unknowingly teach their children there is more than one God who knows your deeds. Parents know Santa is an outright lie, simply because they pretend to be Santa for their children. This lie is held for years throughout a child's most impressionable years. Children inherently believe everything their parents tell them, and when the bubble is burst for the child, resentment can build up against the parents. If you have children and wonder why they may hate you, it may stem, in part, from this blatant lie you told them, knowing you yourself nobody likes to be lied to. The myth of Santa Claus, as he is commonly known as today, has many names and many origins. Santa's origins pre-date Christianity back to when sky-riding gods ruled the earth. Mythical gods Odin, Thor, and Saturnus provide for the foundation of this myth. Within Catholicism we have St. Nicholas (c. 346) of Myra, Lycia (modern Turkey); Protestants believe in St. Nicholas of Bari, once living in Asia Minor, died in either 345 or 352. St. Nicholas is also the patron saint of children in Siberia (Russia), a supplanter to the indigenous Shaman. Most religious historians and experts in folklore maintain there is no valid evidence to indicate that St. Nicholas ever existed as human. During the 10th century the Christian author Metaphrastes collected and wrote many traditional legends about St. Nicholas. During the 11th century the Roman Catholic Church taught that during the Muslim invasion of Asia Minor his remains were transferred to Bari in Italy where they became known as Nicholas of Bari. During the 19th century St. Nicholas was superseded in much of Europe by Christkindlein, the Christ child, who delivered gifts in secret to the children. He traveled with a dwarf-like helper called Pelznickel (a.k.a. Belsnickle) or with St. Nicholas-like figures. Eventually, all three were combined into the image that we now know as Santa Claus. "Christkindlein" became Kriss Kringle. Around this time there were two competing images of Santa Claus: St. Nicholas the elf-like gift bringer described in 'Twas the Night Before Christmas', and the friendlier Kriss Kringle image from the Christkindlein and Pelznickel characters. Red, blue, green, and purple were common colors surrounding him at this time. For Christmas of 1841, Philadelphia merchant J. W. Parkinson hired a man to dress in "Criscringle" clothing and climb the chimney outside his shop. Thomas Nast, who worked for Harper's Weekly as a caricaturist, developed his own version of Santa in 1863, having whiskers and dressed in all fur, head to foot. In 1866 Nast portrayed Santa as a toy maker, and in 1869 George P. Webster first wrote about the North Pole as Santa's home. Nast never settled on just one image of Santa Claus, but his closest drawing to the modern day myth stems from his works around 1881. The present day push for 'Santa Claus' in name and in image is the product of Haddon Sundblom in 1931 for Coca-Cola. Any current images of Santa Claus implanted in the subconscious of today's society are the direct result of Coca-Cola's marketing. Before 1931, Santa was known to be shorter, wore different articles and colors of clothing, and sometimes not even human, but often gnome or elfish in stature. The present-day Santa Claus can be found everywhere in the United States around Christmas: at shopping malls for kids, ringing bells for the Salvation Army, and so on. When a child asks a parent why he sees more than one Santa, the lie is somewhat exposed, and parents, in giving the half-truth, say that they are either Santa's other helpers, or that the Santa they saw is just a person in a suit, but the real Santa is at his home in the North Pole. Santa's Reindeer. Santa's original eight reindeer, Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner/Donder, and Blitzen are either the witty offspring of either Clement Clarke Moore in 1822, written for his two daughters, or the anonymous submission to the Troy (New York) Sentinel on December 23rd, 1823 by Major Henry Livingston Jr's 'Twas the Night Before Christmas'. Either way, the reindeer were unknown before the early to mid 1820's. Whether or not there is symbolism in a name with the reindeer, it would be best to see if there is any meaning implied. 'Donder en Bliksem' and 'Donner und Blitz' are Dutch and German, respectively, for Thunder and Lightning. Thunder and lightning symbolize both the Norse god Thor and the Greek god Zeus. Vixen's roots can be found, by definition, to be that of a malicious fierce-tempered woman. In today's society, a vixen is synonymous with sex and lust. Comet may simply refer to one of the 'signs of heaven' that God told us not to be dismayed about. The counterpart to the Greek god Eros, Cupid is the god of love. This leaves us with Dasher and Dancer. Of such generic terms, one can only postulate them together as that of agitated (dashing) dancing. Mind you, these names may have been given simply because they rhymed in the song, but there is still great meaning in a name. Rarely if ever are books and music written that last if they doesn't have meaning. As for Santa's most famous reindeer of all, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is the product of copywriter Robert L. May in 1939 for Chicago-based Montgomery Ward (now defunct). Rudolph's purpose to Montgomery Ward was solely a marketing gimmick to save money. Previously, Montgomery Ward would purchase and give away coloring books for Christmas, and creating their own booklet was their means to saving money. So, before Christmas 1939, there was no Rudolph. It is interesting to note the concept of flying reindeer. It is well known in shamanism, regarding the Death/Rebirth experience induced by Fly Agaric mushrooms, that the shamans would often drink the urine of reindeer who consume the Fly Agaric, as this filters out the nauseating effects, but not the 'flying away' death/rebirth experience, and makes it safer to consume. With certainty, Santa's Reindeer can be summed up as a cross-breed of one author's imagination that combined Greek and Norse mythology with a folk song, shamanist tradition, and that of corporate marketing. Christmas Eve and Day. When was Jesus born? Within Christianity today December 24th/25th is commonly referred to as the night/day in which Jesus the Christ was born. However, research suggest the best guesses (since there is no birth certificate for Jesus or any other accompanying document establishing this date) among theologians, historians, and Israeli meteorologist center around late September and early October in as late as 5 AD. Not until the beginning of the fourth century AD did western church leaders really take an interest in the birth of Christ. These church leaders selected December 25th because this was already the date recognized throughout the Roman Empire as the birthday of various pagan gods. Eastern churches began to recognize the birth of Christ in 375 AD. Ireland started in the 5th century, followed by the church of Jerusalem the 7th century, Austria, England, and Switzerland in the 9th, and Slavic regions in the 9th and 10th century. What does the bible have to say about when Jesus was born? Luke 2:8: And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. The shepherds brought their flocks of sheep in from the pasture in October, and did so for the simple reason: there is no grass for grazing in winter because of the snow. This also throws doubt unto the winter nativity scene as well. What, then, is the significance of December 24th/25th? The main significance is the tie-in with the winter solstice. Many ancient religions observed the winter solstice as it was seen at which the days stopped getting shorter. Myths arise out of the belief that the sun was in effect leaving the earth, pitting man in eternal darkness. Rituals were construed in order to appease the sun god into returning. In ancient Egypt, the god-man/savior Osiris died and was entombed on December 21st. At midnight priests would emerge from an inner shrine professing a virgin birth and showing an image of a baby to worshippers. Ancient Greece celebrated Lenaea, the festival of the wild women. The god of the harvest, Dionysus was torn apart and eaten by a gang of wild women, and later reborn in a ritual as a baby. During the empire of ancient Rome, the festivals of Saturnalia covered a full week, from December 17th to the 23rd. By the third century, Emperor Aurelian (270 to 275 AD) established the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun, on December 25th, incorporating pagan god-men/saviors such as Appolo, Baal, Dionysus, Hercules, Mithra, Osiris, Perseus, Theseus, and many more. It is not difficult to find that Christianity not only did not establish the date of Christmas, but early Christians admonished it for its pagan roots. How is it that which was once admonished by Christian forefathers is now openly celebrated by today's Christians? The Nativity. The greatest lies derive from the smallest assumption. The origins of the nativity scene (crèche) derive from Catholicism, not Christianity, by St. Francis of Assisi in 1223 AD. In Grecio, a small mountain-side town overlooking a beautiful valley, St. Francis realized the chapel of the Franciscan hermitage would be too small to hold the congregation for Midnight Mass. Here he borrowed an ox and an ass from a local farmer, setup a manger, and placed statues of Joseph and Mary around a doll of Jesus in the manger. This is the scene commonly referred to as the scene at with the three wise men visited Jesus bringing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. However, the bible says nothing about how many wise men visited. Matthew 2:1: Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem The reason for three wise men arises out of the three kinds of gifts. Logic will tell us that just because there were three kinds of gifts, this does not mean there were three wise men. All we can conclude was there were at least two wise men because of the plural use of 'man'. There is also no evidence these men were kings, as sung by the carol, "We Three Kings". And when the wise men arrived in Bethlehem to visit Jesus, they did not find him in the manger. In fact, he was in a house at the time of arrival. Matthew 2:11: And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. Possibly a rather minor point within the celebration of Christmas, but upon discussion of when Jesus was actually born, one has to also research other information surrounding his birth. Mistletoe and the Yule Log. Used in pagan rituals, especially by the Druids, mistletoe was believed to give protection, be useful for love, bring life and fertility, protect against poisoning, and an aphrodisiac. The early Christian church prohibited the use of mistletoe because of its pagan origins. The roots of kissing under the mistletoe are unknown, but likely stems from the fertility aspects of mistletoe. In Norse lore, Frigga is the Norse Goddess of love, marriage, and fertility. Her son Balder was slain by Loki with an arrow of mistletoe, but when balder was reborn, Frigga blessed the mistletoe and gave a kiss to whoever stood underneath it. The tradition of burning of the yule log is not very common anymore outside the pagan community, but is interesting to note nonetheless. Yule logs, often times birch, oak willow, or holly, were burned as a ritual in an attempt to bring the sun back. This practice also stems from the myth that the sun was going to leave mankind entrenched in eternal darkness. Whatever rituals these have been used for, they have deep roots within pagan, Druid, and Norse lore, not Christianity. Christmas - What's in a word? Christmas does not mean "the birth of Christ". Christmas, the offspring of the Roman Catholic Church, stems from two words, Christ and Mass, having roots in old English "Cristes Maesse", or the mass of Christ. The Catholic Encyclopedia states "In the Christian law, the supreme sacrifice is that of the Mass. The supreme act of worship consists essentially in an offering of a worthy victim to God, the offering made by a proper person, as a priest, the destruction of the victim". According to Catholicism, mass is the sacrificing of a victim. The Mass of Christ is the literal of sacrifice of the victim who is Christ. Keep in mind that Mass is a ritual rejected by Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and so on, according to the World Book Encyclopedia. How tangled is this web of perversion when, on the supposed day Christians celebrate the Birth of Christ, followers are in effect following a long tradition of celebrating the death of Christ. The word Christmas is neither Christian nor holy, but a vicious attack on Jesus the Christ. Common Rebuttals. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." -Salvador Hardin "You're just being a scrooge!" There is no biblical support or instruction on how to celebrate Christ's birth. Anyone who questions Christmas today is often times bluntly rebuffed as being a "Scrooge" and told they are "spoiling a joyous time of the year". One will note that the one calling the other a Scrooge may appear hurt, because a needle is being pushed into their bubble but has yet to pop it, and they must defend. Isn't it humorous, coincidentally, that these same people rely upon yet another fable as their rebuttal; that wretched character in Charles Dickens' work of fiction, 'The Christmas Carol'? One may wonder what predecessor to this rebuttal was used before this one before 1843, when this work was first published. "Jesus is the reason for the season!" Others will ignorantly call upon the jingle, "Jesus is the reason for the season!" This is false because, upon investigation, Jesus really has nothing to do with the season during the winter solstice. This excuse is mostly used simply because it rhymes. The use of 'reason' in the jingle should cause one to laugh simply because of the absurdity of the lack of any reasoning involved with Jesus and Christmas. "It's about spending time with family!" As a last ditch effort to defend Christmas, the only leg left holding up the ritual of Christmas is family. "It's about spending time with family!" Christmas has become so ritualized that it is often deemed the best part of the year to spend time with one's family. If the last resort is merely to spend time with one's family, then do just that. However, in light of the above blasphemous traditions, why would any Christian want to observe this ignorance with the rest of ones family? At this point in defending Christmas, we know that one's family is far more important than the lies surrounding Christmas. To spend time with family, why does it have to be this one time of year? One's family is far more important than customs of old. Don't wait until this one time of the year. Don't spend time with your family just because 'everyone is doing it'. If a Christian is going to spend time with family, why must it be within the embrace of pagan worship, rituals, myths, drugs, lies, false gods, materialism, and commercialism? Is it not possible for a family to enjoy the company of each other without these things echoing in the background as if to portray a stage awaiting the approval of the audience of evil? Conclusion. "...for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him..." -Socrates, Plato's Apology These arguments are by no means a definitive list of all that is wrong with Christmas in regards to Christianity. If one continues to look, one will find more and more lies in every aspect of their life. Christmas brings feelings of a lessening of self-worth to the poor when Santa bypasses their homes, and envy and hate among those who get presents, but did not receive as "good" of a present as the next person, or did not get what they want. It promotes the greatest lie a child will ever believe. It incorporates the marketing and commercialism of the biggest companies and corporations in the world. Folklore, myths, and pagan rituals are accepted as part of the faith. In celebrating the birth of Christ, it does not even fall near when He was born, and in fact portrays each of us as Jesus the Christ ourselves. At the least, hopefully this will bring those of blind faith to disbelief and anger towards foolishness. How deep the icy cold hands of ignorance are embedded into our psyche can only be determined by how far one is willing to question everything they hold beyond questioning. If one's faith resides on blindly believing what they are told, how does one know they are not living their entire life in a lie and for a lie? The truth shall set you free. Actual truth does not ebb and flow at the whim of history. It may take a thousand years for black to become accepted as white, but that does not mean it is. After attempting to examine a ritual firmly entrenched within the workings of the lives of so many, I ask again that which I certainly do not know: how should a Christian, in accordance with Christianity, celebrate the birth of Christ?
  6. Guest

    Interesting sites

    A short compilation of different interesting sites. History If you really want to study what you believe in I can recommend Early Christian Writings and Historical Jesus Theories on the same site. The Early Jewish Writings equivalent is up too. Science If you want to study Evolution Theory I can refer to the EvC Forum where chemisists biologists etc. are posting. The electronic database PubMed can provide you with scientific articles regarding countless biological/evolutional studies. General physical issues can be studied on Physics Forums. Religion and no religion And sites regarding xianity vs non-xianity. The rejection of Pascal's Wager, Jesus Never Existed, Who is this King of Glory? [A.B. Kuhn], Messiah Truth, especially the "Knowing your orchard part" where xian prophecy fulfillments are handled, Positive Atheism. Studying all these different issues will maybe help to judge the Orwellian doublethink facets of certain kinds of xianity. And there are a lot of offside topics too. What about humour? What about God as a Oscar winner trying to demonstrate justice...? For what? Lots of this kind of articles abound on the web and someone can read along and judge for him/herself.
  7. Guest

    Quick rant on Christianity

    In the world in which we all live, we have the natural, and the supernatural. The natural consists in the observations, examinations, and experiences of who we are and the life that each of us lives. The supernatural, or 'other than natural', consists of that which permeates our minds, absent of the reflections that consist naturally. Very few (scientists, philosophers, etc) take the time to write down what it is they have observed and experienced, unless it is other than 'normal'. The normal repetitious machinations of every day life appeals to very few. In the days of old, most subscribed to geocentricity. It happened every day and everyone experienced the same thing. The sun rose; the sun set. Without the examination of what happens naturally, man was left with the culmination of what others have said, and most often, the first thing that comes to mind tends to suffice, as very few wish to wait patiently for the truth, especially if what they are told is what they desire to hear. After the majority entertains the first thoughts that enters their minds, this spectacular inferance is often quickly written down, to the applause of the many. Over time, this written accord becomes the law of lands, and the majority establish their entire livelyhood around it. Enter the person who questions what is presently thought. No one wants to admit that they have lived their life for a lie; we all will only live for so many heartbeats, and such an epiphany has the ability to literally reboot the psyche, the being of a person as it literally means, that up until now, they have dwelt in ignorance. In return, that person lashes out, violently if necessary, to such contradictory accord that they have entertwined their life around. On the scale of the majority, the many attack the few. But this action is only natural; it is the epitome of ignorance to never know what a person has been dealt in life, even though that person may have thought they lived correctly. When the accords of supernatural thinking is around long enough, it is always taken as absolute truth. As with any religion, the unknown workings are always attributed to one god or another, and by doing so, degrade a person's ability to think for themselves. Rightly observed, this manner is the stealth of gradualism. In order to get a people to think what is not true, they must first be led to believe they themselves are unable to think for themselves. This gradualism, this attrocious ignorance on part of other ignorants, is the true evil. If there is evil in the world, it is cunning, it is sly, and it is slow to effect. With religion, we have long extant doctrine that few apply the natural liberty to question. Who would question what they have been raised with? Why would anyone doubt their parents teachings, or anyone who has lived before them? They obviously know more than the younger generation. But this is not always so. Just as the older generation was once the younger generation, the old beliefs become the new. Evil, the ignorance of the ignorant, has always benefited from this gradual encroachment on the minds of mankind. Who would doubt the belief that they were created by God for knowing that they may very well be simply natural and not special, the effect due to the result of a fertilized egg? As simple as this may be, it is terrifying to many. When a religion is around long enough, and has its own written doctrine, the terrified now have something to wrap their terrified death grip around. Never let go, otherwise death will ensue! But all along, this grip has been wrapped around a viscious restraint of the Ego-Self, always appeasing fears by countering with wonderous promises of everlasting life. Christianity, as other religions, has this strangle-hold upon the world in which we live. Each religion, contradicting the other, refuses to acknowledge the possibility that they themselves may indeed be wrong. And so, in greater numbers, they lash out. In a finely tuned religion, they enter politics and try to set laws to hinder the development of mankind. Everything that occurs naturally, with the unrestrained religion, will eventually become illegal. What happens when mankind is literally forced to obey the doctrine of gradual ignorance? Wars will ensue, destruction will be widespread, and extinction of mankind, at the hands of mankind itself, will be the greatest achievement of this ignorance. Christianity is filled with those who necessitate numbers of assurity that they are thinking and doing what is right. But none of christianity ever realizes its effect on the history of mankind. Who would oppose the many? Who has this raw courage? Enter the ex-christian. The ex-christian, by experience, is able to fully understand the depth of depravity of his former religion. This person will think the unthinkable; that the bible may be the gradual encroachment of evil; it is the devil's playbook. The church is thought to have become the devil's playground, with each member a marionette, and as a puppet, it never knows what is really happening. Who would dare curse the bible and the church like this? In the end, it is found that such blasphemy is simply the truth, and that christianity is repulsed by this truth. It has always been the few who have really known what is happening, and they are perpetually persecuted for it.
  8. Guest

    The Structure and Necessity of Faith

    The Structure and Necessity of Faith Ben B. There are three, and only three, all-inclusive proofs used for supporting faith on part of the theist. For a person to have faith, he needs Belief, Written Works, and Witnesses. 1. Belief The faithful must believe a set doctrine to be true. It does not matter what this consists of, as long as it is definable. One may choose to believe Christ will return before the great tribulation, or that he will return afterwards. All that matters, is that one believes what they believe is true. 2. Written Works He must be able to point to where his beliefs are written about. With Christianity, it is the Bible. With Islam, it is the Qu’ran. All religions have written accords as to what their religion envelopes as truth. These need to be written for the purpose of reference; to show others where it is found of what they are talking about. 3. Witnesses He must be able to identify someone else who is witness to what he believes. To have witnesses serves a two-fold purpose. Out of witnesses to a faith is born the necessity of all religious hierarchy and the amassing of a greater and greater following. One may have as a witness a fellow believer who is a simple parishioner. But with the authority of hierarchy, the affirmation of a priest is held as greater, more learned, and more truthful, than that of the average churchgoer. How greater it is, then, to have many priests, and many more parishioners. This is why religions strive to acquire more and more members. There is not a religion in existence that only wants a certain size membership, or strives to lose members. They cannot afford to, as this is detrimental to sustaining their faith. With the absence of any one or more of these three, his faith is without merit and will not stand, and his religious ideology, which is separate from him, is vacant. For example, if John says he can show that faith is written about in the bible, can point to a priest and say he confirms the faith, but John does not himself believe, having two out of three arguments, he is without faith. If John does truly believe in something, and can find someone else to support it, but has no written accord, his faith is held as hollow, as no one is able to examine tangible documentation for himself about what that person's faith consists of. Or, if John believes something, can point to where it is written about, but finds no one else to support his belief, his faith has no support and is either not acknowledged, or acknowledged as absurd. Should John believe, having neither written support nor fellow affirmation, or, having written documentation without fellow support and does not himself believe, or, having only to be able to point to someone who believes something, there is not even a shadow of faith to be found. Herein lies the problem with faith. Faith is founded on three necessities that are in themselves doubtable for lack of independently verifiable evidence. Belief, a fundamental requirement for having faith, is doubtable for the very reason that belief itself requires no proof. A written document proves nothing, save only for someone had to at least have written it. Oral affirmation is not evidence of factual authenticity of what the belief portrays simply because humans are subjected to having poor memories and the uncanny ability to lie when it suits their needs. It is difficult, if not impossible, to tell whether someone's memory is faulty, or they are lying, or indeed honestly think they are telling the truth, without supporting evidence. In this, all three arguments, being the base structure of faith, are themselves questionable, and therefore doubtful. The tri-argument structure of faith is doubtful simply because it is only assumed, and incorrectly, that each argument is foundational to begin with. Faith is simply the assumption that belief, written works, and oral testimony constitute proof. This gives way to the psychological question as to the necessity of faith: What remains should one not have faith? Or more pointedly, what remains should one not have faith in god? The theist will contend that god still exists even if not believed, because they would not want to say that god does not exist in the absence of faith; their whole religious belief-system would be overthrown on this admission. But to answer that god still exists separate from faith is to infer that it is not necessary for one to have faith in the first place. For the non-believer, he will contend that god exists only when one believes so, and only in the manner they choose to believe. Faith proves absolutely nothing other than a person with faith is influenced psychologically with the false and blind assumption that the tri-argument structure of faith is concrete. So what, then, is the necessity of faith? As referenced above, the theist will not admit that god exists only because it is believed so. To not have any sort of evidence, aside from the tri-argument structure, which amounts to circumstantial evidence at most, is the necessity of faith. The atheist is without faith for the same reason, and thus, commonly grounded, with the theist who has faith: the lack of verifiable evidence. To examine deeper the assumption that faith is necessary, one must examine the differences between the theist and atheist. The atheist fearlessly asks questions, and searches for the answer, that the theist fearfully will not. "What if I spent my entire life believing something, and thus forming my life around it, and upon death, find out I have lived my entire life for a lie, allowing myself to be deceived; in this absolute and final life-and-death matter, how do I know for sure that what I have believed is indeed absolutely true?" There is absolutely nothing more bone-chillingly frightening than the sudden realization (or as some would say, sudden and blunt enlightenment and freedom from psychological slavery that was not known to even exist) that one may have given their entire existence up for nothing more than smoke from the flaming pyre of ignorance. It is this very realization, this enlightenment, of life and what a believer is suddenly and bluntly forced to confront, that scares many fundamentalists into enveloping death and that which leads only to death. When a frightened animal is cornered, out of fear its only choice it knows is to lash out and fight to the death, if necessary. It is in this same manner that a question of this magnitude surrounds the theist at the threshold of confronting his own Ego-Self (psyche, mind, thought process, soul, or whatever else it is known as) who is then found without the defense and support of concrete proof, as he is forced to realize belief, bible, and witnessing are all separate from himself. This alone, this very ignorance, has been the foundation of every single crusade, inquisition, and holy war throughout the existence of man. Men would rather kill and be killed than to confront their own soul. They are deathly afraid of life, and would rather others suffer as they do. This observational action of the fundamentalist throughout time is evident of his own unhappiness, and the desire to make others unhappy to make them feel better about themselves. The fundamentalist is not happy, and rather than look outward for greater happiness, he seeks to assimilate others down to his own level of unhappiness. For this very reason, the true philosopher, who neither fears life nor death, has always only had pity for the ignorant, whereas the ignorant, who fears both life and death, always had intolerance, hostility, and violence for the philosopher. Faith is grounded on ignorance, and the greatest achievement of ignorance has only been violence and death. In this, the necessity of faith has always been to subjugate the ignorant with pain, suffering, and death, and it is these same ignorant theists who, never even being aware of their own ignorance, will perpetually fight to save their faith, thinking ignorantly that it is true to do so. The arguments of faith are indicators for what religion is without and requires. For what reason does a religion require belief, written testaments, and members; the axiomatic foundations of faith? Without belief, faith will not stand. Without a bible, faith will not stand. Without members, faith will not stand. Without these three, there is no faith, and without faith, there is no religion. Truth will stand on its own. It is the lie that requires human participation.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.