Prehistoric Scribbles I - What Would Jesus Do?

I've decided to post here a series of articles I wrote waaaaaaay back in the days when I was on Delphi, now that I've found them again. Here's the first.

---------

What Would Jesus Do?
One of evangelical Christianity's favorite questions, second only to "Who do you think Jesus is?" I've got a better one for you though. If Jesus was on Earth today, what would he be doing? Would he have a TV show, preaching the "good news" globally in 24ish different languages? Would he come out in an Armani suit, discuss the news from "God's perspective", and preform miracles live? Would he go on tour, performing miracles as he moved from town to town with his entourage, staying in the best hotels and renting civic centers for the tour? Would he run for president? Would he go apeshit and beat "cult" leaders to within an inch of their lives for impersonating him? Would he beat gay people in his own name? Would Jesus be on-line? Would have a website, and get hundreds of e-mails a day? Would he hang out in chatrooms and message boards, starting flame wars when someone disagreed with him? Would he spam and troll the boards run by people of other religions? As Ray Stevens said, "Would Jesus wear a rolex on his television show?" Would he?

I don't think so. In fact, I'm of the opinion that if Jesus was here today, he would be nauseated by the activities of his so-called followers. I'm reminded of his rantings at the Pharisees and the episode when he cleared out the temple. It becomes quite obvious to almost anyone who reads the New Testament with an eye toward the cultural climate of the time that the popular image of Jesus is not quite right. The picture that comes out if you read it without bias is quite different.

Jesus was a rebel. He did not acknowledge any form of authority other than his own, be it civil or ecclesiastical. He didn't even really acknowledge "God" as having any authority over him, due to the simple fact that he claimed to be the son of "God". If someone questioned him on a matter the response, again and again, is "It is my father's will." Who would question him after that? Jesus hung out and traveled with whores and tax collectors and failed fishermen, the outcasts of society. He traveled the region, crashing wherever anyone would let him and living off the willingly given resources of his admirers. He partied, contrary to the popular opinion. The incident surrounding the "water to wine" miracle is very clearly stated as a wedding party. The wine ran out so he turned water to wine in order that the party could continue. And don't give me this shit about the water in the Middle East not being drinkable, so they drank wine instead. That's a cop out. It seems pretty obvious from the context of the story that the water in question was drinkable, being that it was sitting around in jugs that the party goers didn't seem to have any problems drinking out of. He did the miracle 'cause he wanted more wine, damn it.

So, what's the point? Simple. If Jesus was alive today, he wouldn't act anything like what his followers believe he would. And he certainly wouldn't be on TV asking for donations. If Jesus were alive today, he'd probably be a biker. He'd drink, he may or may not smoke, and he'd probably hang out in bars and strip joints. He'd ride around the country - I envision him on a Fatboy - living as he could from city to city.

Why? Why do I say this? In the New Testament, Jesus helped individuals. Yeah, there were times when he preached to large groups, but in that time, it was more personal even in larger groups. At the time, "larger groups" meant a very different thing than it does now, maybe a thousand people, tops. Jesus's style was mostly individual and, above all personal.

And that's what I see him doing. Getting to know people. Real people...and giving them hope.

Hunting Jesus

Much and nothing have happened since my last post. Call me lazy or call me unmotivated, both are likely true. It's been a years of trials, that's for sure. The comfortable norm upset. And in a way that's a good thing. I'm rid of baggage that I'm better off without, and moreover once again motivated to do things. To imagine, to write, to dream, and to work my Art. It's amazing how stagnant and dull one can become when someone else takes over your life.

But enough of that. As I type this I'm in the process of perhaps the oddest project I've undertaken to date. At my Lady's (insistent) prompting, I am endeavoring to become a Christian again. What the fuck, I know. Though I don't understand her reasoning at the moment, I'm willing to trust. So I go attempting to re-engage (rebuild, recreate?) the faith I once had. Not easy going mind you, as I now know so much of my previous errors. So in a way it becomes an exercise of suspension of disbelief - on a personally epic scale.

So shhhhhhh, be very very quiet. I'm hunting Jesus...

Ex-Witch Dot Done

Well true believers, it's finally happened - after all this time, the fanatics at ExWitch.com finally done banned this old dog :D Not that it was unexpected of course - my recent shift in style to "in your face truth, screw the niceties"combined with their even more recent descent further down into the dark depths of Jesus Nazism was simply a recipe for such an event. Truthfully, I'm amazed that they put up with me for this long actually, but it doesn't matter in the end. My job and the lessons I needed to learn there have been done there for a while, and it's past time I moved on to another trench in this war of ideas. But first, a break for a while - gots to make me some more WoW money y'all :D.

To my friends on EW - those few that remain as I see the exodus I predicted has begun - I'll see you around in the funny papers, nothin but love for ya :D This includes CountryGal/Shadowvoices, Anita, Catfantastic, Azlan'sTraveler, LadyGarnetRose, Nuisereset, PrayerPower, Butterfly, and Ithril (though I have the feeling I'm forgetting someone).

And to the unnamed management of EW, thank you for once again showing your true faces. Keep it up, you're an excellent argument against your own religion HA!

"You Never Were A Christian"

"There is no such thing as an ex-Christian."

"You never really believed."

"If you truly knew or loved the Lord you would have never walked away."

I hear this stuff all the time from Christians (mainly the evangelical sort), and it truly does get tiresome, what with all the constantly having to explain that yes, I was once just as they are now. It gets old, really. Now, I'm not starting this thread to rag on or complain about anyone, but rather to address the issue, which is in fact two separate issues.

The first issue is semantics - what is the definition of a Christian? The original definition of the term (coined by the Romans) was "a follower of Christ". Functionally, the only proper definition of the term can be "one who believes in the tenants of Christianity". Ironically, I agree with CS Lewis on this matter as the following link shows:

CS Lewis from Mere Christianity

Now, given that my opinion of CS Lewis is rather low (the man advocated the execution of witches - see the end of Mere Christianity, Chapter 3) it should seem ironic that this agreement is the case.

The second issue is more important (from a Christian perspective) - that of whether being a Christian equals being born again/saved (the same concept really). I contend that, according to the bible, this must be the case. Why?

According to the vast majority of Christian doctrine, the bare bones minimum requirements for salvation are as follows:

1) Belief in fundamental Christian doctrines, mainly that there is one god, Jesus was his son/him, everyone is a sinner, and that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for the sin of mankind

2) Conscious and freely given submission to Jesus as lord

If I am missing anything, please correct me. Now, if any individual who meets those two requirements is saved it is plain then that anyone who meets the definitional requirements of the term Christian (above) is indeed born again/saved by definition especially since requirement 2 above is a tenant of Christian belief.

Now, it should to plain to anyone that a person can believe in Christianity and meet those two requirements (thus being saved/born again) and then later change his or her mind/beliefs/willingness to submit. Thus, it is therefore obvious that a person can indeed have been a truly born again Christian and leave the faith, thus becoming an ex-Christian.

As an aside, in regards to the last quote above, it should be obvious to anyone that an individual can fall out of love with a person just as well as they can fall into love with them, even if they know the individual well. People change, especially when they learn new information or let their blinders fall away in regards to information they knew but glossed over before for the sake of love.

Now, with such understanding rather easily reached, one is forced to ask why many Christians insist so doggedly on maintaining that we (yes, there are many ex-Christians) are in effect lying when we say we were once Christians. The only reasons I can think of, based on experience and conjecture, are as follows:

1) Dogma - The individual heard it from some preacher or other authority figure somewhere, so that's it. Period. This type of individual is obviously ignorant, stubborn, and closed minded in the extreme, unwilling to deal with new information simply because it contradicts what they already "know".

2) Arrogance or Need To Be Right - An individual of this sort may believe that since they "know God" and "God" (really some authority figure) said that there's no such thing as an ex-Christian that that is the end all and be all of the "discussion". Alternatively, such an individual, having dogmatically picked up this erroneous idea, simply be so horrendously insecure that he has a pathological need to be Right, regardless of anything else, and thusly cannot admit to being wrong especially in such a sensitive issue. This second permutation is especially common in Christian men in my experience.

3) Fear - The individual is afraid to admit that another person could find perfectly valid reasons to leave behind the faith that the individual still embraces. Perhaps they are afraid that to admit such would allow fatal cracks to appear in their own faith, and, as they are afraid of the consequences that their religion gives to unbelief or perhaps fear the identity crisis that deconversion can bring, they would rather deny contradictory information than allow this to happen. It is plain to see though that this betrays a crippling insecurity in their own faith, a fear that it could stand up to such contradictory evidence.

4) Compassion - This would seem to be the rarest motivation for such insult (indeed, is it not insulting to tell another person that their true accounting of their own life is a lie?), such an individual is generally - but not always - aware of Hebrews 6:4-6 and other such biblical verses (there is one I can think of, but can't find at the moment) which essentially state that any who fall away from the faith is eternally damned and can never return to it. In either case, the motivation for such individuals would seem to be that them want to maintain the hope that an ex-Christian can still return to the fold and be saved from damnation. This can be due either to general charity or specific like of the individual ex-Christian in question. While this is admirable, it owns up to neither the facts of the situation nor to the harshness inherent in their chosen religion.

Obviously, the any given individual evidencing such a belief can have more than one reason behind it. Further, the reasons for such belief may not even be consciously known to the individual, which is where it gets tricky.

So This Is Christmas

The first year of World War One, the British and German troops in some places on the Western Front made their own peace - a bit of truce, a bit of humanity amidst the war. It started by singing songs, and (at least in one place) by one brave German risking his life to bring a Xmas tree to the British in the opposite trench.

Why am I talking about this on Christmas Eve? Because I wanna be that German. Any other time, I am, as you can tell gentle reader, something of an amateur culture warrior. I oppose both Christianity and Islam, and the expansion of either, and I am very much a liberal (generally speaking). All this culture war crap is necessary - vitally so in my opinion - because by debating such matters on the internet (and elsewhere) endlessly to the point of nausea we as a culture can hopefully keep the conflict on an intellectual level, and keep it from becoming something worse. Hopefully. But this is Christmas. Peace on Earth, goodwill to men, and all that. Regardless of our beliefs, for tonight and tomorrow let us have peace, let us make our own private truces. We can go back to the trenches in due time.

Peace, everyone. Please.

Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year to all!

Daemons All About

I haven't seen the Golden Compass yet, but I definitely want to - all the moreso because of the uproar certain groups (you know who you are) are making over it. It must really suck, to be so afraid of new ideas (or old ones in this case) that you have to get your panties in a knot and scream and holler and write pamphlets and propaganda campaigns against something as simple as a fantasy movie. Heaven forbid people should see something you don't want them to see, hell, they might start thinking for themselves if they do right? Sucks to be so insecure doesn't it?

Christian Terrorists

Well, not alot to say today. Just ran into this gem on YouTube and thought I'd comment a tad.

Christian Terrorist Wannabe

Said Wannabe Advocates "It is time we rise up and force a massive change for the better."

I don't know whether this guy is a real Christian (definition - someone who believes in a Christian doctrine) or some sort of Trojan horse (ie it's an act to make Christians look bad) but then it really doesn't matter does it? The individual does indeed sum up the basic idea of Christianity (and Islam btw) rather nicely - obey God or he will roast you for all eternity. Really looks pretty horrible parred down to the bare bones basics, doesn't it?

The End of Monotheism

Or, How Judaism Evolved From Pagan Roots

I've been aware of this material for some time, and meaning to write a post on the subject, but really why bother? This guy's video does most of the work for me. A little commentary though - I think, given the ancient sources, it is obvious that YHVH was originally a pagan god just like all the ones the bible spends a great deal of time denouncing. It's also a safe bet that a group of henotheistic YHVH worshipers were, over time, responsible for steering early Hebrew society in a monotheistic direction. After all, given the personality exhibited by their god (see my posts here and here), he is not the type that can handle competition of any sort. Fast forward a couple thousand years, spawn a couple of offspring religions off Judaism, and you get the mess we have in the world today.

Those interested can follow discussion on this matter here.

Religion And Being A Jackass

Ran into this over on The Wild Hunt blog, and as such these jerks at Operation Destroy America get the honor of being the inspiration of tonight's blog. Apparently these bigoted little swine decided that it would be ok to try and cram their religious bias down the throats of the US Senate by shouting down and otherwise disrupting the prayer offered by a Hindu guest chaplain. Now, the folks at Wild Hunt covered the reaction to this by the Religious Reich and the political implications rather well I think, so I won't bother going into that aside from thanking the various pundits of religious bigotry for again showing their true colors and desires - that being namely a theocratic government to replace the present (if waning) republican system we have.

No, what I'm going to get into is a bit broader. What I'm going to ask, plain a simple, is what the bloody hell gives these idiots and millions like them the right to assume that they can force others to conform to their religious expectations? I'm not just talking about this incident, but rather about every Christian fanatic that has ever used any form of force to apply their religion to others. I'm talking about the brow beating, the group or public intimidation tactics, the "wolf pack" and tag team conversion attempts, the hard sell street evangelism, the counter conversion attempts, the ever-so-concerned warnings about the "dangers to our immortal souls", the unwarranted gagging of dissenting opinion, the constant lies and slander, and the apologetic deceit constantly shoveled out as "truth". Not to even bother mentioning the countless historic incidents of physical violence, forced conversion, genocide, etc.

Now to be fair, it's not only Christianity that does this (*cough* Islam *cough*) or has done this historically, but talking about here and now, and in the US fundamentalist Christians are the biggest offenders, so they are the treatment. Further, not every Christian is a jackass - many are rather nice. But even the nicest can have a religious arrogance of sorts about them. You know, the kinda thing that permits the kind of jackassery I was talking about about, or simply turns a blind eye and excuses it when a fellow Christian is doing it because, after all, it's a fellow Christian.

Often, Christians will offer one of two excuses for this sort of crap. The first of these is that it's their duty to God to see his will done (or whatever), and therefore they must obey him. That alone assumes a whole bloody lot though. Not only does it presuppose the existence of God as they see him, but it presumes that their religious views about this god are literally true in some sense. And guess what dear reader? There is zero objective proof to back up any of that in the least. None. So, in essence, shmucks of this type are justifying making other people's lives miserable (or more annoying at the least) because they believe their own opinions are the end all and be all of existence. That isn't religion, it's nothing more than arrogance, hubris of the sort was punished by divine vengeance in the Greek myths. Furthermore, if that's the case and the accepted standards of behavior, then what's wrong with returning the favor and giving them the same treatment? Pagan hardcore evangelism and high pressure conversions anyone? Some of the more nutcase Satanist wannabes or Islamic jihadists from going out and hunting Christians for sport maybe? Or maybe a revival of the old Aztec religion and daily human sacrifice? After all, any of the above could use the excuse that their god(s) told them to do it. Oh, but that isn't the One True Christian GodTM. Hubris, pure bloody hubris.

The second commonly used excuse is that of love. The line goes that the Christian so loves the individual (or the world or country or whatever) that they have to warn them of the horrendous dangers "to their immortal souls" that they face if they continue with their "sinful" ways. A lot time people will be placated by this line, and I am no exception as I have been in the past. But they shouldn't be, because it's not true. Why? Firstly because it presumes that the Christian knows what's good for the individual in question better then the individual does, which is really just the same argument as I noted above. Pure hubris, but perhaps slightly less so than the above example. But there's another reason that this excuse is simply so much bullshit.

If you love someone, truly love them, you love them as they are. You don't try to force your own ideas on them, or manipulate them into being someone they aren't. You simply accept them. And if that means letting them go their own way, that's what you do, regardless of how much it may hurt. If they have found a source of love or hope or peace or joy that you don't approve of but they aren't hurting themselves someone that truly loves the individual will deal with it and keep on accepting them. And no, Christians cannot say that non-Christians are hurting themselves, as they cannot prove this to be the case as noted above. They may believe it, but that does not matter in the final analysis.

Finally though, what all of these Christian types are forgetting is simply human decency. How would they feel if someone came into their homes or churches and tried to convince them that their religion was oh so evil? How would they feel if they were praying or simply holding a conversation about religious topics and some schmuck came up and started berating them for it? How would they feel if some guy on the street or one of their friends came up to them and tried to convert them through high stress or social pressure methods? How would they feel if their religion was demonized at every turn, or if they were made out to be evil incarnate because of their religious views? Wouldn't like it very much, would they? No, that would be horrible, the end of the world even! They wouldn't stand for that! They'd organize and fight back (*cough* Harry Potter *cough* The DeVinchi Code *cough*). But it's ok if they do that sort of thing, perfectly fine. Well, don't be surprised oh ye of the Religious Reich if others feel the same way, and decide they aren't going to take it anymore either.

May Nemesis's glory shine on you all.

Seduction (An Addendum)

A lot of folk may think I hate the character Jareth from my last blog. That's incorrect. I really like him. I think he's pretty damn cool and stylish (in poncy sort of way). Now, to continue.

Just watched Labyrinth again for the first time in years tonight, and I realized something - Jareth really isn't that bad of a guy. Yes, he's domineering and a complete control freak, but in his own way he does indeed seem to love Sarah - he simply wants to control her, like everything else. But the kicker is, as fearsome as he seems, the Goblin King has no real power. It's all illusion and intimidation, sound and lights. I also noticed something else - in one of the songs (Within You), he repeatedly states "I can't live within you". Now think about that, the general longing of that song, contrasted with Jareth's ultimate powerlessness in any real sense. You can't live without someone, you're so afraid of loosing them, that you try to manipulate their every move despite your inability to truly control them. Classic psychological abuse pattern in a way, but also rather sad. Sad that the individual can't have enough trust, enough faith that the one they love will stay with them. It betrays a critical lack of self confidence, and phenomenonally low esteem. I know. I've been there. So, in a way, Jareth is not so much a monster to be hated, but rather someone to be pitied.

And when I came to that realization, I felt very much at peace, like something had changed. I long time ago, something Tobias (a friend on the Cypress Nemeton boards) said made me think that maybe, just maybe, I didn't have to hate the Christian god as I have, as my past has dictated. I think now, that that sentiment was right. I hated him for something he took away from me, but, just now, my girlfriend made me realize that it was within my power to take back all long. I just didn't realize it.

This is hard to say, but I don't think I hate him anymore. I pity him.

Seduction

I ask for so little. Just let me rule you and you can have everything that you want. Just fear me, love me, do as I say, and I will be your slave! - The Goblin King, Labyrinth

I was pondering over a number of things when I ran across this quote in the sig of one of the members of a forum I frequent. Now, I remember when Labyrinth came out, always liked that movie. But pondering such matters as I am tonight - trust, betrayal, perception, love, God, and the gods - this one little line puts a lot of things into perspective. Jareth, the Goblin King's line there is obviously a seduction, a promise of all the world if only Sarah will bow to his will, give her life to him. The fallacy here is obvious - if Sarah does as the Goblin King says and lets him rule her, it matters little if he says he'll be her slave, because in the end he still rules her. She is still ends up the slave in this arrangement. Anyone with a brain can see this is a false promise then. A pretty lie intended to lure her in and make her give up her freedom of her own free will. A seduction. Further, it is obvious as well that this is not a promise made out of love but of a desire to control, to dominate, to supplement Sarah's will and mold her to the Goblin King's wishes. This is not love. This is tyranny, hidden beneath a velvet glove. In other words, the seduction is a lie.

A lot of times one hears so much about how God, the Christian god that is, loves us and gives us free will and all that, and how any other gods are o-so-dangerous demons out to eat our souls like so much trail mix. Or some such. There's lots of different variations on that theme out there, but who the hell cares really? After you've heard it the first million times, one-million-and-one sounds the same as all the rest.

Lets take a look at this rationally shall we? First, lets examine the Christian god. We know out the starting gate that he is a jealous god, as the traditional rendition of the 1st Commandment states:

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments." - Deuteronomy 5:6-21

Regardless of the oddity that a supposedly all powerful and perfect being having feelings of jealousy (which by the way, is a sin as the 10th Commandment implies) and the obvious reference that yes Dorothy there are other gods, this alone shows us that this god cannot stand competition in the slightest. And certainly the idea of sharing is right out the window. Plus, he's already stated he's a right git - I mean, who the hell punishes kids for their parents' offenses? This is supposed to be just? Let's look further at the character this god exhibits shall we?

And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, - Deuteronomy 10:12

And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. - Matthew 21:22

I had planned on digging deeper, but as I was fighting with the search engine trying to find half remembered verses I came across the gem of Deuteronomy 10:12. Combined with the Matthew verse, I don't need to look for any further support do I? Combined, they echo the Goblin King's words almost verbatim. "Fear me, love me, do as I say, and I'll give you the world. Oh, and by the way, everyone else is an evil monster." With the unspoken addendum that if you don't take this "glorious" offer he'll ship you off to be tortured for all eternity in hell, of course.

Now, lets look at the pagan gods. Y'know, the ones everybody and their neighbor swears are evil demons out to corrupt our souls. I'm going to narrow it down a bit, and look only at my relationship with Hekate here, so as to be most accurate. Never once has she asked that I let her rule me, never once has she demanded I do as she asks. Not once. In fact, I've specifically not done as she asked on a number of occasions since my dedication, and she hasn't even gotten cross with me. Nor does she ask that I fear her. In fact, I have found it true that she favors those who don't fear her. And love? She never asked me to love her, I just do - not for what she can give me, but for who she is behind the veils and fearsome reputation. She has never promised me the world either, despite what some of you may think from a certain quote - remember, what's not said is as important as what's said. In many cases, she simply shows me the way, I have to do the work myself. It is the same with that enigmatic quote. She has given me some things, yes, but she has also stated flat out when she cannot or will not give me something asked for. So, in short yon peanut gallery, she does not rule me. It is instead all about us. Because that is what the focus of the relationship is like - not all about her or all about me, but all about us. Further, as I've belabored a good deal on the Cypress Nemeton forums (mainly here and here, also note my current attitudes toward "evil" here as opposed to a few short months ago when I didn't believe there was such a thing rather relativist fashion), she has prompted a good deal of change in me - I am, to use the phrase, a "better" person now than I was even as little as six months ago. Of my own free will, not because someone rules me. And, as a kicker, what happens if I don't take her up on this metaphoric offer, or if I want out later? I walk away, free and clear, no consequences. This she has promised.

So, in the final analysis, one offers an almost precise parroting of the Goblin King's fallacious promises, whereas the other offers only free partnership. Who's the real evil monster here, hmm? Seems rather damn obvious to me, despite the pretty lies. Or, as my ex-girlfriend once quoted "There is something more fearful than darkness, and that is a mask of garish light..."

You have no power over me, Goblin King.