A battered woman visits a health care professional seeking advice about stopping her abuse. The health care professional determines the seriousness of the abuse. If it's physical the woman is immediately counseled about leaving the man, how to do so, and the police are probably called in. If the abuse is verbal or otherwise psychological, things are a little different. Then the advice is determined by the severity of the abuse. Questioned are asked to determine whether or not the pros of the relationship outweigh the cons of the relationship.
In this determination the health care professional seeks to discover how much of the battered woman's attachment to her batterer emanates from FEAR and what portion actually represents LOVE. Said professional will ask how the batterer is with the kids, if there are any. He/she will ask if the batterer is abusive ALL the time or whether or not there are things that “trigger” the abuse. But still, the bottom line will be that he/she will offer to the battered woman that no one should be in a relationship with someone that they FEAR no matter how much they profess to LOVE that same individual. Said professional will opine that such a relationship is incongruent and an unhealthy one!
Now the battered woman's fear can be based on anything from fear of actual physical abuse to fear that the claims of the batterer – that she is nothing without him and that she needs him to provide sustenance for her and maybe her kids – is true. But the bottom line is that, if the batterer is verbally abusive to her – and the kids as well – whatever other lovable qualities he has still renders him unlovable! She's still only with him out of FEAR!
Imagine that the said batterer was a serial child killer. Would any woman still LOVE him; worship and adore him? Or would she simply be appreciative of the fact that she can rely on him for sustenance? And if it's the latter, wouldn't her reason for staying with him actually be FEAR of poverty? What if he tested her by requesting that she kill one of her children to show her loyalty to him? Would she even consider it? Hell no! She'd tell him where to go, how to get there, and maybe even provide the means for him to get there expeditiously!
What if she told her abuser how disappointed she was that he was not the beacon for peace in her home that she thought he would be and he responded with, “You think that I am here to bring peace? I'm not here to bring peace, but a sword. I'm here to sow discord between members of your family. I'm here to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law so that a man's foes will be folk of his own household.” And what if he followed that up with the notion that, “Any woman who loves her parents or children more than me, isn't worthy of me”?
I don't know of any woman who would “stand by her man” under such extreme circumstances! ...and yet... Christians (the group of believers I'm most familiar with, but the same applies to all believers in a deity) claim to LOVE their god who exhibits every characteristic attributed to the male abuser cited above!
Jehovah/Yahweh/Jealous [Ex. 34:14 says one of the NAMES of the Christian god is Jealous] is a serial child killer according to the “bibble” (because it's all dribble to me). He supposedly killed hordes of children in the “great flood” [mass infanticide AND mass genocide] as well as hordes of Egyptian children in the Passover. This makes him an UPPI (Unapologetic Perpetrator of Pandemic Infanticide). This is not a lovable quality and yet believers are asked to not only LOVE this god, but to worship and adore him as well. But how do you love unlovable qualities?
The Passover occurred because Pharaoh refused to “let [god's] people go” even though Pharaoh wanted at one point to let them go; but he couldn't do so because Jehovah/Yahweh/Jealous “hardened his heart” so that Pharaoh couldn't let them go. And the reason given for the “hardening” of Pharaoh's heart...? Wait for it.... so that an insecure god could “show his glory”! Sounds a bit self centered to me. So how is it that selfishness and jealousy are considered negative characteristics for the followers of Christianity but are okay characteristics for their leader? [Biblical Texts to Show God’s Zeal for His Own Glory]
Like the batterer above, Jehovah/Yahweh/Jealous asked Abraham to kill his son to show allegiance to his god (Gen. 22:2-12). Who DOES that shit?!! Jesus – whom, through the magic of the trinity is both the “holy spirit” AND Jehovah/Yahweh/Jealous all in one – said in the new testament that he didn't come to bring peace but war (a sword)! [Matt. 10:34] He said that he came to set families against each other so that family members would be enemies! [Matt. 10:35-37] Hate your gay son. Despise your favorite uncle who lives with a woman he refuses to marry. Kick your atheist daughter out of your home so that “as for me and my house, we will serve the lord [my batterer]”. [Joshua 24:15] Not only is the EFFECT of these policies the destruction of the family, the destruction of the family is THE DESIRED RESULT!!!!
Jesus says in the Bible that, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” [Matt. 10:37], “doubling down” on his “trinitarian counterpart” Jehovah/Yahweh/Jealous' “clear sign” that Abraham was not deserving of “god's love” if he loved his son more than he loved his god. But the family is supposed to be the cornerstone of society. I was taught that it is within the family unit that various personalities overcome their differences by accepting that "blood is thicker than water". We don't choose our family members and we all have some that we might have rejected had we knew what their personalities would evolve into, and had that option and the accompanying foresight been a reality.
But we learn to accept those family members as they are simply because we value our families so much. And again, a health care pro would opine that the family unit who opts to accept each other's differences are ideal for society, as they are learning blocks toward a much more accepting society. So why would Christians embrace a god who feels that they should reject – and even be willing to kill – their family members for his “glory” when, conversely, they would counsel the battered woman to sever ties with the batterer who seeks the exact same thing? It's because they value the ASSOCIATION with their god OVER their principles!! The $64,000 question is "why"?
It is my firm belief that believers value their association with their god over their core principles because of FEAR; otherwise their principles would be paramount! For instance, when I was in law school my graduate chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. had taken over the undergraduate chapter on campus because of several things. During this period one undergraduate member had hit a pledge in the testicles with his fist and I decided to inform the national president of the incident. Many of my brothers didn't approve of my action but it mattered not to me. When another frat – Andy Young – opined, during the 2008 presidential campaign that Bill Clinton was “blacker” than Barack Obama because he had slept with more black women, I dubbed him "Andy “sellout” Young for daring to suggest that the number of black women one had been inside of was a “barometer for blackness”.
When a FAMU band member was killed in a fraternity hazing incident I opined that the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Now, why did I take these stands? It's simply because I always value principle over association! Anybody who expects to lead me anywhere categorically has to possess the same principles they expect me to exhibit! PERIOD! I don't care if it's a drill sergeant, fraternity member, friend, fellow police officer (if I were one, contrary to the “code of blue” where “good” police officers overlook the antics of the bad ones), or a GOD! It matters not! I always adhere to principle over association no matter who the hell said association is with! That's what keeps me grounded!
Now a great many folk can truly understand my predilection for principles over associations in every instance described, but draw the line when it comes to their god! Why is that? I think that I have clearly demonstrated why it's not plausible that said allegiance is because of any love they feel for their associated god, any more than love would explain allegiance to their batterer who violated the same principles they hold dear. It's fear!
It is the fear of being subjected to eternal pain and torture. It is the fear that the being they believe to be the provider of all sustenance will not provide for them. It is fear of his supposed omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence! These are the things that prompt the believer to overlook the incongruence of their supposed god's character with the principles near and dear to their hearts!
But the fact is that the Bible says that, after the resurrection, those found lacking in the book of life are only subjected to a “second death”. Only the devil/serpent/Satan is said to be bound and tormented forever. [Rev. 20:10, 13-15]. Conversely, the Qur'an does say that the skin of individuals abiding in the “fire that is hell” repeatedly burns off and replenishes itself for the process to begin again – the prospect of which must scare the hell (no pun intended) out of Muslims! [Surah 4, Ayah 56] Fortunately, the English translator of the Qur'an that I have opines in the introduction that the various ayahs that state that the “evil ones” shall “abide in the fire forever” – and then add the qualifier: “except as thy Lord pleases” – indicate that a reprieve from hell is possible. But again...fear, and not love...
Also, believers are told that their god is the provider of all sustenance they receive. This is despite the fact that every good thing – be it a job, promotion, love, unexpected money, etc. – comes to us all via another human being! I seem to never be able to forget my dearly departed mother's response to an act of kindness from a neighbor or church community member, "I ain't gon' say thank you, baby, but I appreciate it" -- a ringing reminder that she felt GOD was the provider of all her sustenance no matter who said sustenance came from and that all thanks inure to him.
If the battered woman in the example above heard her batterer say that he was the provider of all sustenance -- no matter whom acts of kindness came from -- would she believe him? Yet, the believer believes that nothing, whether good or bad, happens except it be their god's will – either via his “perfect will” or his “permissive will”. And the “bad” things are viewed as happening for their “ultimate good”. Sadly this mindset makes severing ties with their god virtually impossible for many believers.
Finally amongst the fears of god(s) stated three paragraphs above is the issue of his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence – the all-everything god. Now I'm not omniscient but even I know how a god – IF he is omnipotent – could insure world peace, IF indeed that was what he desired! But as I have pointed out above – according to the Bible – the goal of this trinitarian god is to sow discord and NOT peace. But assuming for the moment that peace amongst mankind IS his goal, that he actually exists, and that he IS an all-everything being, here's how he could accomplish it.
Now for this insight as to how an all-everything being could insure world peace to have any validity we must, for the sake of argument, assume that your god actually did create and actually does control the laws of the universe such as gravity, centrifugal force, planetary motion, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, etc. If this is true, it would be rational to assume that he could CHANGE any law and/or CREATE any other law he deemed necessary. All minds in agreement so far?
We will call this hypothetical law -- that conveniently doesn't interfere with free will -- the “no weapons law” after the oft-cited verse, "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper..." [Isaiah 54:17]. This law would make it veritably impossible for one human being to harm another, and here's how it would work... All tools and potential weapons in existence would work exactly as normal UNTIL an attempt was made to use them to harm another human being. Hammers could be used to build houses, etc., but the moment someone tried to hit another with it, it would boomerang back and hit the perpetrator instead. Guns would work for target practice and to allow for the killing of animals for food, but would blow off a hand, foot, toe, etc. when attempts were made to harm or kill humans. The computer hacker attempting to place a virus on another's computer would end up with the virus on his/her own computer instead.
Eventually all who try to harm others would cease and desist said actions of their own accord -- via their own free will! Now clearly, I am not -- AND NO ONE ELSE IS -- all-knowing. And yet, little ole me can fathom a way that an all-powerful god could insure world peace. The fact that world peace doesn't exist leads to a few inescapable conclusions about the god many of you serve. The conclusions about your god would be that he/she/it:
(a) is not omniscient (all-knowing) and simply doesn't
KNOW about the "no weapons law" described above;
(b) is not omnipresent (everywhere at once) or he would
have heard ME speak on the matter countless times
and, thus, be aware of what he could do;
(c) is not omnipotent (all-powerful) and simply is more
powerful than us but certain things are outside of his
purview;
(d) doesn't want peace and is true to his "word" that
manifestly states that his goal is to sow discord
-- though believers are taught that an anti-god (a devil, the believers' imaginary
foe) fills that role; or
(e) simply doesn't exist!
If believers were to opt for any of the above first three options listed above to explain their god's non-institution of a "no weapons law", they would merely have to adjust their thinking that their god is all-everything. He/she/it would merely be relegated to a god who is more powerful, more knowledgeable, and capable of being in more places than mankind but simply not all-everything -- yet still worthy of praise for what he tries to do. Accepting the fourth option would mean accepting the express "word of god" as it is written, and thus, accepting the rule of a diabolical god. Accepting the last option would mean accepting the notion that "if it is to be, it is up to we". Rejecting them all means they are simply afraid!
Since the vast majority of believers would reject all of the options listed above as an explanation of their god's non-institution of a "no weapons law" -- coupled with all that has been offered here -- I have come to the inescapable conclusion that they cling to their god merely out of fear. THIS is the reason that I blaspheme your god(s) with regularity. I seek to remove that fear by being the example of one who blasphemes without consequence. ...but this is not without risk!
The risk I take is solely the risk that one of YOU -- the very people I seek to free from the matrix of fear -- may do me harm. I need worry about nothing that your imaginary friend may do to me because imaginary beings have no power. The fact is that [WARNING! BLASPHEMY COMING] since the beginning of goddamn time not one goddamn god has harmed or killed one goddamn person! ...but PEOPLE with gods have killed a whole slew of people in the name of their goddamn god(s). [BLASPHEMY OVER. THE SQUEAMISH MAY CONTINUE FROM HERE] If this were not true I wouldn't give a damn about any of you wallowing in your own ignorance and fear. It is my sincere compassion for humanity that prompts me to take the risk I undertake -- and unlike police officers, I don't get paid diddly for putting my life on the line. According to your Bible there is no greater love that any man can have than to lay down his life for his friends. [John 15:13] I'm risking mine for strangers!
If it is to be, it's up to we...
Why do I care so much? And why do I denigrate the god that I once praised? Ironically, I just finished watching a movie whose plot is strikingly on point: "The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016)". The huntsman was one of many huntsmen (male and female) taken by the evil ice queen as children and forced to train as mercenaries to conquer other lands, increasing her kingdom. They were told as children that love is a weakness and the representation of love evidenced by any longing for their parents -- slain by the queen's henchmen -- would not be tolerated by her. They weren't even asked to love her. Her only requirement was loyalty.
When the "main" male huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) falls in love with a female huntsman, he learns that love is good, contrary to the edict of the ice queen. He leaves and later leads a mutiny against the ice queen. There was a time when I my loyalty to "god" mirrored the loyalty the huntsman once had for the ice queen -- except that I was NEVER willing to kill for my god, despite the pronouncements from his supposed "sacred book(s)". That loyalty is gone -- just like the huntsman -- after discovering the deceit.
The huntsman discovered that, contrary to the ice queen's pronouncement, love is good. Malcolm X discovered Elijah Muhammad's deceit -- proclaiming that all white men are devils -- as well as his infidelities. I discovered that man's gods don't bring families together and instead, tears them apart. The huntsman fought against the ice queen literally, Malcolm fought against the Nation of Islam figuratively, and I fight against the tyrannical effect of the idea of god(s), all for the same reason -- that man might live in peace and harmony!
If it is to be, it's up to we...
The major religions have an apocalyptic view of the world wherein war is inevitable in order for peace to finally reign. Their constituents, thus view catastrophic events to be indicative of "end times" wherein the "evil ones" will be purged from the earth. But who are these evil ones? Christianity calls all non-followers heathens. Muslims call them infidels. The Qur'an refers to them as "those who hated instruction". The Bhagavad Gita: As It Is (one of the main Hindu sacred texts), in one of it's purports (explanations) states that, "There are two classes of men, namely the devotee [to Lord Krsna (Krishna, English)] and the demon". (Chapter 4, Text 3, PURPORT)
Armies are arrayed constantly with the notion that "god is on their side". This ranges from believing god to be for your cause and thus, clearing the way for victory, to -- definitely in the case with some Muslims -- god actually using your bodies to fight his battle. The Qur'an states that in the Battle of Badr "So you slew them not but Allah slew them, and thou smotest not when thou didst smite (the enemy), but Allah smote (him)..." (Surah 8, Ayah 17). Clearly the belief in god(s) destroys families and societies, and has the enormous potential to destroy the only world we know of.
If it is to be, it's up to we...
In an age where mankind is capable of constructing philosophies, laws, and governing systems -- like the golden rule (which predates Christianity); equal protection of race, color, and creed; and democracy -- that lift up families and societies instead of destroying them as theology does, it's time to embrace man's superior systems over antiquated superstitions. Therefore, I evolved from mere atheist to anti-theist -- seeking the eradication of all belief in all gods! And for those who are yet desirous of an organized belief system to guide them -- like I was, coming out of a sort of Christian pluralism -- I recommend Humanism, where belief lies solely in each other and the power of collaborative will; and NEVER seeks to make enemies of familial and societal members who think differently.
The start of my blasphemy of your god (name one) was about five years ago in response to continued proselytizing from a Christian co-worker to whom I had disclosed that I am an atheist but a former Christian. He surmised that he could "bring me back into the fold" by continuously preaching/witnessing to me. As if that the other huntsman could change the huntsman's mind, or other members of the Nation of Islam could change Malcolm's mind. When your eyes are open to the truth, there is no going back! So his repeated attempts prompted me to say, (blasphemy no. 1, stated in the NOTE at the end of article. Believers would be too shocked to continue to the end if I stated the blasphemy here).
I later "doubled down" on by blasphemy by exclaiming that, (blasphemy no.2, also in NOTE at end of article). By then my blasphemy had taken on a different purpose. It was designed specifically to help to remove fear from the minds of believers that their imaginary "boogeyman god" possessed the power to do anything to me in the form of chastisement. It had become clear to me that -- just like the battered woman -- believers didn't love their god; they merely fear him. So I opted to try and allay their fears by exposing their imaginary god to be weak, feckless, impotent -- just as the health care professional might try to expose the true lack of power in the batterer -- albeit probably using different techniques. And I do this with great risk to my well-being and my life -- again, not from your powerless imaginary god, but from his believers, the very people I seek to help to free from the bonds of mental slavery!
I blaspheme because I seek a mutiny from "gods" for the betterment of humanity, just as the huntsman orchestrated the mutiny against the ice queen for the betterment of humanity. The only difference is that the ice queen actually did have powers that the huntsmen had to fight against. The gods we've created only have the power we have given them over us. We can take that back!
If it is to be...
[P.S. Since many of you believers will feel that I am worthy of severe chastisement after reading the full text of my blasphemies laid out in the note below, I issue a prayer challenge to you. I want all of you to pray to your god to chastise me! Some may pray for severe "near death" chastisement and some may pray for my actual death. I don't care which way you go, just that you pray that he "show up and show out". But, this chastisement must come in a form to make it clear that "god" is the one punishing me. Any harm from a believer will only further the argument that your god is imaginary and powerless to chastise me personally.
I'll make a suggestion. For those seeking merely a "show of power" why not pray that your god cause it to rain only upon me and for said rain to continue upon me -- on an otherwise sunny day -- for at least 10 straight minutes. Afterward, those who want me dead should pray that a lightning bolt strike me dead from within that pillar of rain. Somebody will start recording the phenomenon within minutes and post it to YouTube. ...and if the rain culminates with the fatal lightning blow at the end... no one would ever believe that god isn't real! This should be right up the alley of a "god" who's depicted in the bible as zealous for his own glory!
For all you believers who are seriously pondering your relationship with your god, welcome. Your subsequent research will be the beginning of your mental freedom. For the rest, happy praying!]
[NOTE: Blasphemy no.1, stated about five years ago in response to repeated proselytizing (and repeated on numerous occasions): "The only thing that your god can do for me is kiss my ass, suck my dick, and go straight to motha fuckin' hell"!
Blasphemy no. 2, stated repeatedly after my decision to expose imaginary gods as weak, feckless, impotent, and useless: "The only thing god can do for me is lick my ass clean after I take a shit"!
Blasphemy no. 3, not referred to above, but augmented to include the devil (imaginary foe of believers, since so many believers view non-believers as devil worshippers) and the holy spirit since the bible specifically states that blasphemy of the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin (Mark 3:29; Matt. 12:32) but doesn't specifically state that the same is true for blaspheming any of the other two parts of the trinity: "The only thing that your devil, god, Jesus, holy spirit, or any other fucking god, demi-god, or anti-god you can think of can do for me is be my own personal bidet and lick my ass clean after I take a shit"!]
No comments:
Post a Comment