Upon
fully embracing the cold, hard sobriety of reality, the only
“supernatural”
force left to believe in during my developing years was god. He was
the last superhero
still believed by the larger society to be real. And I was already
comfortable both with the notion that: a) I could be an effective
superhero within a superhero collaborative, and b) a superhero didn't
need super powers. Batman, Robin, Iron Man, and a few others didn't
have them. Thus, I felt confident that I could be a “superhero”
in the “army of the lord”. HE
had powers that he could bestow upon me, and I could fight evil as a
superhero under his impeccable charge. It seemed perfect!
You
see, it's very important that one understands that I am not the guy
who came to “de lawd” after living a rambunctious life and
seeking absolution for misdeeds against humanity. I was the
idealistic teen seeking to join a league of superheroes dedicated to
protecting humanity against injustice and evil. I was the teen who
only lost his virginity about a month before his 16th
birthday. I was also the teen who became so enamored with females,
tried to bed every one who possessed even a slither of sexiness. I
was the same
teen who later became celibate, forewent parties and intoxicants, and
immersed himself in prayer as substitutes for about 14 months from
age 19 to 21 [from about a month before my 20th
birthday to a month after my 21rst].
It
was during this time period that I also came to realize that there
was no devil to be afraid of while still
holding on to the belief in a god. This came as a result of my
friendship with one Michael Wayne Tyson. Many will recall Tyson's
leaving Iowa State after a stellar freshman football season and
returning home. He did so because of spiritual reasons. He believed
that god was directing him to return home for further spiritual
guidance. Upon his return he introduced me to Triumph the Kingdom of
God in Christ. It was a small church on West Washington Street but,
at the time, we met at various church members' homes.
Triumph
had split with the larger Church of God in Christ (COGIC) over the
acceptance of Father E. D. Smith's “revelation” that man could
live (here on Earth) and not die. The “revelation” was that man
only died because he simply wasn't close enough to god. Now, all
church members do
continue to die despite said revelation but the idea intrigued me at
the time. It
seemed possible that – since it's estimated that man only uses 10%
of his brain in a lifetime – a close relationship with god would
reveal the secret to using the entire brain and thus the... “greater
things shall you do...”.
All members of Triumph hadn't accepted Father Smith's pronouncements
at that time, so those who did,
met at members' homes until the full body came into acceptance.
This
is why Tyson and I were so close. Many didn't understand the close
relationship between the acknowledged Mr. Athletics and I – the
“nerdy brainiac”. But, despite the notion of many that the term
“cool nerd” is an oxymoron, that's exactly what I've always been. My sister
had taught me to “hand dance”, as we called it (a variation of
what has come to be known across the country as “stepping”), in
the sixth grade. As such, I've always been the nerd who was an
absolute killer on the dance floor. I could also easily vacillate
between the King's English and Ebonics. THIS
is what made me “cool”
– despite being a
proud, and now lifelong, nerd! But Mike and I were tight because we
had a spiritual connection predicated upon spiritual information that
most Christians didn't realize. Most importantly, we had already
eradicated “the devil”; and “hell” – for us – was not a
place where one burns, but a
state of mind.
Mike
and I were taught that Satan, the devil, the “enemy” was merely
the “inner me” and thus, there was always the notion of personal
responsibility. The “devil” was merely symbolic of the
selfishness of man taking on demonic
proportions. So there
weren't three entities (or more specifically, personalities)
in
one's head – you, god, and the devil – only two. We were taught
that these two“personalities”
are “god” and YOU.
Thus, the act of prayer and/or meditation consisted of internal
“seeking” of an answer by way of the removal of “self” from
the equation and centering on the “greater good”, if you will. It
was the seeking for what we called then a “selfless”
rather than “selfish”
solution. All aspects of “what is good for me” was pushed so far
back into the subconscious as to constitute a vague memory whereas
“what is good for the whole” was brought to the center of
consciousness.
[NOTE:
The act of prayer and/or meditation was actually called “seeking”
at the time and the most uttered mantra was, “seek your mind”,
inspired by the biblical promise of “seek and ye shall find”. The
removal of “self” from the equation was (is,
still to them) thought to allow one a closer interaction with the
“god force” within, and thus, capable of hearing the, “still,
small voice” that is the sometimes
dormant “god-self”
that is the very breath of life within all. This is considered by
Triumph to be the “proof” that there is good in us all for as
long as we live;
either the “god
force”
drives out evil/selfishness or the evil/selfishness drives out the
“god force”,
ultimately culminating in death.
The
ultimate goal is to merge oneself into the god-self within, thus
reaching “perfection” – oneness with god. This is believed (by
Triumph) to have been god's plan in saying that the meek shall
inherit the earth – and not heaven. The only impediment to heaven
on earth is “self” – not evil nor devils, but the
selfishness of man taking on demonic proportions.
When this occurs, said person is in “hell”. The battle was within
and not
without. All men are considered capable of the most demonic as well
as the most saintly things dependent only upon whether or not they controlled
SELF!
Not only is there a more spiritual interpretation of the bible narrative at Triumph, there is the notion that the bible foretells its eventual obsolescence with it's prediction that god would write his words “upon the tables of thine heart”. Thus, the bible narrative is merely a tool to get one to the ultimate force – the god within, that – is believed – will take man the rest of the way. I believe it was Psalms 82 that started with, “I have said, ye are gods and all of you are children of the most high. ….but you fall like princes.... Arise, oh god, judge the earth. For you shall inherit all nations.”]
So there was no devil; there was only the “self-ish” part of consciousness that, unfettered, could lead to demonic proportions (and thus a “hell-ish” existence); and there was the “we-ish” part of consciousness, the “god force” if you will, that was the “breath of life” within us all. Or,... two distinct personalities: one self-ish and one we-ish. This meant that we were all capable of both the most saintly things and the most demonic things, depending on what we fed ourselves daily. Depending upon whether or not our daily musings were about we-ish or self-ish things. “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he”.
Not only is there a more spiritual interpretation of the bible narrative at Triumph, there is the notion that the bible foretells its eventual obsolescence with it's prediction that god would write his words “upon the tables of thine heart”. Thus, the bible narrative is merely a tool to get one to the ultimate force – the god within, that – is believed – will take man the rest of the way. I believe it was Psalms 82 that started with, “I have said, ye are gods and all of you are children of the most high. ….but you fall like princes.... Arise, oh god, judge the earth. For you shall inherit all nations.”]
So there was no devil; there was only the “self-ish” part of consciousness that, unfettered, could lead to demonic proportions (and thus a “hell-ish” existence); and there was the “we-ish” part of consciousness, the “god force” if you will, that was the “breath of life” within us all. Or,... two distinct personalities: one self-ish and one we-ish. This meant that we were all capable of both the most saintly things and the most demonic things, depending on what we fed ourselves daily. Depending upon whether or not our daily musings were about we-ish or self-ish things. “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he”.
Now
an astute reader may glean from the previous two paragraphs that I
morphed from what I was originally taught... that the two parts of
man's consciousness are a): selfishness
and selflessness,
to
a more evolved designation of these two parts of consciousness as b)
self-ishness
and we-ishness.
There are two reasons for this.
First
of all, I realized that the prayerful/meditative aspect of targeting
“what is good for the whole” did not involve the total sacrifice
of “self” but rather an inclusion
of “self” within the auspices of “whole”.
Thus, I replaced the self sacrificing
word “selflessness”
with the self inclusion
word “we-ishness”.
Secondly, my study of other religions began to crystallize in my mind
just how truly subjective
the notions are
of what constitutes good and evil. Thus, I rejected the the
subjective pillars of good (or selflessness)
versus evil (or selfishness)
as the two definitive parts of man's consciousness in favor of the
more objective pillars of me-ism
versus we-ism
(or even group-ism,
if it's a better fit for you). And again, though me-ism at its lowest
level can be a mere irritant, at its highest level, an individual can
take on the most demonic
proportions. Likewise, though the lower level of we-ism provides the
basics of human harmony, at its highest level one may choose to
completely sacrifice
self interests for the good of the whole (you-ism,
it can be called), and thus the individual can take on the most
saintly
proportions!
So
some 40 years ago, Mike and I were already free of the fear of
demonic possession from “outside demons” that many Christians
still fear today, the superstitious need for exorcisms, and
the fear of eternal torture. We were free of the superstition of an
“imaginary foe”
who would preside over mankind's infinity of pain in our very
early adulthood!
We were in agreement with other Christians that the devil had only
the power given to him/her/it but not
in agreement with the nature of this “enemy”. To us, this devil
was mere symbolism and but to all our Christian friends – outside
of Triumph's small “renegade” group – the devil was a lurking
evil entity seeking to “possess”
the bodies of human beings. So Mike and I tended to converse with
them only
along the common ground of this “entity” only having the power
given to it by the individual and not
on his symbolic nature, surmising that they were simply not “ready
to receive” the truth.
We
did
tend to proclaim always that we deemed hell to be symbolic
only and I
constantly offered that – if
I did
believe that god
committed any
being to eternal, constant, pain and suffering – there would be no
way that I would be capable
of loving him! I would offer that – if
he did commit such
atrocities – I would most likely think
at first to merely feign love out of fear. But I would never truly
love him because he would be doing the unlovable! And his being
all-everything and all (my thinking at the time) meant he'd know
my “love” only masked my loathing, so I'd probably just “let
it rip”! The
only reason
I've been able to maintain
a love for this “essence called god” from 20 years old until I
stopped believing in him some 7 or 8 years ago (or, for about 36 or 37
years) was because I didn't
believe in hell nor the vicious portrayal of Jehovah/Yahweh.
So
Mike and I were aware (me from age 20 and Mike some years earlier)
that “demonic
spirits”
(spirits of greed, pride, unbridled lust, thirst for power, etc.)
emanated from internal selfishness and could only “link up” with
you if you provided a selfish playing field for them to germinate!
Outside of that the “devil”, the enemy, the “inner me” only
had “the power that you
give it”! And since all “demons/demonic spirits” were conceived
and nurtured within,
they couldn't jump
into
nor possess
the body of another! Have you ever been concerned about the
personality of another jumping
into
and taking
over
your body? EXACTLY!
Conversely,
most
Christians never
delve too deeply into the teachings of other religions because
serious study of them implies to fellow Christians that they are
seeking another “way”.
The thinking is that said individuals would have doubts
about Christianity, and doubts
open the avenue for sin, which in turn would open them up to the
clutches of the devil who would preside over their eternal
castigation!
But ME?
The devil for me was nothing but
my own selfish desires
(which I had spent considerable energy keeping in check) manifesting
to its fullest.
I monitored myself constantly on whether or not I had made everyday
decisions based upon me-ism or we-ism. My guiding principle of always
seeking that which is good for the whole
assured me that I would never be tempted by the “dark
side”.
But most
Christians – by not
allowing for the intense study of other theologies – tend to never
discover the common threads running throughout the various god
paradigms. Thus, they can't fully appreciate the fact
that most theologies are mythology based – regardless of the amount
of truths interspersed therein.
Now
keep in mind that I was a believer when I initially started what
became a half-life study of various religions. Thus, I didn't start
out even to proffer the possibility
that god wasn't
real. Contrarily, I assumed that he was
real, that there was only one
god, and that he was simply known by different names and under
different religious banners because of his “presentation”
of himself to different peoples in different ways, owing to their
various cultures.
I had adopted a pluralistic
concept of religion; and not the narrow form of pluralism that only
encompasses the three “Abrahamic” religions of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam (so named because all trace their history
through Abraham). I'm talking about the broader concept of pluralism
that encompasses the whole of man's religious experience. My goal was
to write a book on comparative religions that dealt with the
commonalities within the world's religions rather than their
differences. At twenty-three I had determined that the title of said
book would be, “We And The Father Are One” and actually started
writing it some years later.
But it was during this time
period that I determined that I would read the entire Bible. I did so
twice and added three quarters of the Qu'ran for good measure. My
first reading of the Bible was motivated by a desire to know the
lord's ways and instructions better. Having many doubts afterward, I
read it a second time, but much more objectively and utilizing much
more critical analysis. I had the same objective mindset when I
embarked upon reading the Qu'ran, so after drudging through about
three fourths of it I stopped, feeling that I already had the gist of
it.
I didn't stop with study of the
Abrahamic religions. I read quite a bit on Hinduism, Buddhism,
Scientology, Mormonism, and Taoism – even studied a bit from a
Bhagavad Gita I have, one of a group of major "sacred" books of Hinduism. I found that whereas
Christians have their preposterous claims (walking on water, parting
the Red Sea, Noah's Ark, Jonah in the belly of a whale, etc.), the
other religions proffer questionable claims of their own.
The
book of Mormon speaks mainly about two groups – the Nephites
(descendants of Nephi) and Lamanites (descendants of Laman). Laman
and Nephi were siblings but Laman was said to have a “dark heart”
and to have rejected god's instruction. Thus his descendants were
said to have dark skin to match their dark hearts. Said dark skin was
considered to be a “curse
from god”.
At some point the Lamanites – actual adversaries of the Nephites –
joined the Nephites in battle against an outside enemy of both
groups. God is said to be so pleased by this that he turns the skin
of the Lamanites back
white,
which was an indication of pureness! So, just as I wonder why any gay
person would want to be a Christian, I question why a black person
would want to be a Mormon.
Hindus
don't actually have various gods, as many non-Hindus believe; they
proffer one godhead
with various personalities
of godhead. [Note: Depending on who you ask either
Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva, Lord Vishnu, or Lord Brahman is the Supreme
personality of godhead. I haven't the inclination to figure that one
out. Anyone able to clarify?] Thus, all their gods are one – just
as Christians consider all three members of their holy trinity to be
one. The difference is that they believe the personalities
of godhead
can, has and will in the future “appear” in the form of various
human beings; so Hindu believers can always hold on to the hope of direct conversation with their god. Additionally, one could
conclude that Allah is a “collaborative
deity”
as well since the Qu'ran – like the Bible, when the deity is
supposedly speaking – uses the first person plural
(“we” instead of “I”) several times throughout.
Like
other religions, Hinduism too possess a “my way or the highway”
mentality. A purport of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is (a purport is an
explanation. Actual verses are very short; purports make up the vast
majority of the book) states that there are only two types of men:
devotees
to Lord Krishna and demons.
Another purport even claims that Jesus was a devotee of Lord Krishna;
a claim similarly made by the Qu'ran when it states that Isa
(Qu'ranic name used for Jesus) prostrated himself in Islam.
My
rejection of the “god of Abraham” – which collectively spans
the three religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, making him
the god of over half of the world's population (even without Judaism,
which constitutes less than 1%) – was based on study of the Bible
and the Qu'ran, as well as the origins
of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. My subsequent study of other
theologies – Scientology, being the most obviously
fictitious – led me to reject them all
as fiction-based. So I rejected all gods and
all theologies. Consider this: If any
entity – other than god – exhibited the same
qualities, or lack thereof, that god exhibits – or not – it would
be clear to all
that said entity was imaginary. If any
entity could not be seen, touched, smelled, nor tasted – and could
only be “heard”
in the “channels
of your mind”
it would be overwhelmingly agreed upon that the abode
of said entity is..... wait for it......YOUR
MIND!
So the question is begged: “Why not god”?
I
had rejected faith in favor of evidence a few years before deciding to tell the world that I had evolved into atheism. You see, after
rejecting the life paradigm that had been so integral to my being, I
first sought out a discipline to replace that
paradigm which embraced the tenets of humanitarianism while rejecting
divine entities and scriptures as the source
of said humanitarianism. I sought one that acknowledged that
humanitarianism was from the wellspring of human beings and not
gods. I found Humanism and then felt comfortable enough to publicly
express my atheism, as it meant I could be defined as much by what I
did/do
believe as I would be – and forever will
be
– defined by what I didn't,
don't, and never will
again believe.
During
this time I had started interacting with various atheist groups on
social media and discovered that the body of nonbelievers were no
more of a monolith than the body of believers. Just as the lone
similarity among believers is their belief
in a divine being; the lone similarity among nonbelievers is their
lack
of/rejection of
said belief. Some are former believers and some never believed. Some
prefer to bask in hedonism and others desire to change or help heal
the world. And... I'm constantly at odds with many about the
difference between religions
and theologies.
Many of them
want to reject all
religions, while I only
wish to reject theologies.
Theologies
constitute a subset
of the group called religions. Thus, whereas all theologies (belief
systems based on deities) are religions; not all of the recognized
religions are theologies. The three religions that I know of that do
not proffer a belief in a god are Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism.
The original Humanist Manifesto of 1933 called for the establishment
of Humanism as another
religion without a god – a
stand
I
wholeheartedly
agree
with!
But many atheists reject all
religions as dogmatic regardless of their belief in a god or not –
revealing a complete lack of knowledge of the meaning of the word
dogma. No religion without a god proffers its principles as
incontrovertibly
true
(a necessary element of “dogma”) because the only reason mankind
tends to believe anything
is incontrovertibly true is a belief that said morsels come from an
all-knowing god.
Humanism
seeks to provide a set of ethical, codified principles for humanity
to live by that are arrived at through consensus which can also be
altered
via consensus – just like the U.S. Constitution. We believe all
religions to have been concocted by mankind but with one glaring
difference among them. Whereas religions that aren't
theologies allow for philosophical, ethical, and principled
expansion; theologies
allow for very little expansion as they were concocted along with a
lie
that the religious directives come directly from an all-knowing
deity. Their
principles, thus, remain static regardless of how obviously wrong
they prove to be at later points in time.
The
proof that all theologies are concocted
by man
is in the proverbial pudding. All
of the gods have hatred for the same
things and people
that the creator(s)
of said gods have; all gods allow
the same things that the creator(s) of said gods want to indulge in! The Abrahamic gods hate homosexuals because the creator(s)
hated homosexuals. Islam allows sex and marriage to prepubescent
females because the creators(s)
of Islam – most likely men
only –
wanted sex and marriage to prepubescent females. Virtually all
of the gods of all
of the theologies view women as “less
than”
because the (probably male) creator(s) of said theologies viewed
women as “less
than”.
Many of these gods also
allowed for men
to have multiple wives because.... the men
who created these gods
desired multiple wives. Yet none
provide for women to have multiple husbands
because their male creators didn't
want
women to have multiple husbands. The god of Mormonism determined that
white skin would designate purity/closeness to god and dark skin
would designate evil/detachment from god because its
creator
John Smith held those views. The Judaic god allow Jews to enslave all
non-Jews because its
Jewish creator(s)
desired to enslave all non-Jews.
Now
you would think that a perfect, all everything god – as all gods
are depicted – would exhibit more equality
in the esteem held for all members of his/her/its creation.... that
he/she/it would not be a “respecter
of persons” and
view no
one
as “less
than”
nor anyone as “more than”. Yet the Bible, for instance, condemns
male
homosexuality while saying nothing
on the subject of female
homosexuality. But that's only because the creator(s) of Christianity
didn't give a flying fig about female homosexuality. They were
concerned about male
homosexuality because men were needed for battle and I guess they
didn't trust gay men to fight.
[Note:
Speaking of “better
than”,
I still cringe at the preoccupation with freaking so-called
“royalty”.
Now even Black folk are caught up in the frenzy because a supposedly
“royal”
dude is set to marry mulatto female, Meghan
Markle.
To me “envy
not the oppressor and take none of his ways”
is rational, sound advice for breaking the cycle of oppression.
Likewise “envy
not those who tout themselves as better bred than you and take none
of their
ways”
is rational, sound advice for those seeking to build equality-based
societies. There is no freaking room for the notion
of “better
than”!
A
man marries a woman. Seen it before. White man marries half
black/half white woman. Nothing new nor spectacular. So-called
“royal”
white man marries a mulatto woman, bestowing some of his freaking
so-called “royalty”
upon her and Black folk lose their damn minds! The only way “Prince”
Harry can impress me is to denounce the notion of royalty entirely.
Outside of that he's still
just another white man who thinks that he and his family are “better
than”
who has determined he would bestow upon Black folk a “line
of royalty” of their own;
allowing some
Black folk (in Meghan Markle's “downline”)
the “luxury” of touting that they, too are “better
than”!
I
AM NOT A FREAKIN' RESPECTER OF PERSONS!!!!!!!
PERIOD!!!!
WE ARE
ALL EQUAL!!!!
PERIOD!!!!]
Once
I redefined myself as an atheist and Humanist – and exposed such to
the world – I was more comfortable interacting with my older,
overwhelmingly believer friends as well as my newer (much sparser in
number) nonbeliever friends. At this time many may have noticed me
referring to the Bible as “the
bible narrative”
because most of my believer friends are Christians and I started
phrasing my social media musings in ways that spoke both to them and
to my nonbeliever friends. But in actuality I had begun to see all
religious “sacred” books as mere philosophical narratives, filled
with many jewels of knowledge and humanism despite the obvious flaws
therein – just
like
many a
philosophical treatise!
Things
started to smooth out with my believer friends as they could see that
we still valued most of the same core principles though I no longer
saw said principles as the directives of a deity; but I had yet to
find a “comfortable cove” within the nonbeliever community.
Expressing my Humanism was easy but my atheism was still coagulating.
Within atheist groups we would trash religions, but I kept that part
of my social media self separate from my social media interactions
with my believer friends. But then that
changed when I concluded that theologies were not only man-made
mythologies – they were and are
mythologies that are detrimental
to human harmony!
This is not merely because of their sacred books' claims of divine
proclamation, but because
of
the books' claims of what their god(s) want their followers
to do!
People who view these mythologies as divinely directed will never
relinquish their world view because they view the “battle for
souls” as a holy war in which their
way
is the right
way. Thus, human harmony is only possible with the exposure of the
mythology of theology. Why, you ask?
First
of all, Christians and Muslims (which together encompasses half of
the world's population) are extremely harsh to homosexuals and many
members do the most horrific things to them – in
the name of their god.
The Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas is notorious for its
gay bashing and demonstration rhetoric at the sites of funerals for
homosexuals. Homophobic American pastor, Scott Lively was an integral
part of the passing of the 2014 Ugandan Homosexuality Act that
provides for a lifetime of imprisonment for gay people. In the
lead-up to its passage, information was “leaked” to the public
that the original
bill
– calling for the death penalty – would pass, prompting riotous
killings of suspected gay persons. ISIS throws homosexuals off
buildings and stone to death those who survive in
the name of Allah.
And while “orthodox” Christian and Muslim leaders condemn these
acts, they're all unwilling
to denounce the passages in their “sacred books” that condone
such actions.
I understand their concern. They're concerned that admitting that certain passages are wrong/are not divinely inspired would destroy the already perpetrated lie that the texts are sacred in their totality and the perfect word of god. They feel that this would undermine the cornerstone of their man-concocted belief systems. In reality one should think of it as not destroying the theologies, but transfiguring them. There is precedence. Thomas Jefferson, a deist, constructed “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” – commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible – in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine.
I understand their concern. They're concerned that admitting that certain passages are wrong/are not divinely inspired would destroy the already perpetrated lie that the texts are sacred in their totality and the perfect word of god. They feel that this would undermine the cornerstone of their man-concocted belief systems. In reality one should think of it as not destroying the theologies, but transfiguring them. There is precedence. Thomas Jefferson, a deist, constructed “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” – commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible – in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine.
By
telling truth, believers can maintain the position that early man
spoke to gods who revealed preferred ways of living for mankind. They
can proffer that unfortunately, the selfishness of men led them to
corrupt parts of god's book(s) with their own prejudices. They can
then assert that only the “spiritual eye” can sift the original
intent
of
god
from the musings of men. Finally, all spiritual leaders could gather
together at an ecumenical council – after having fasted for 40 days
– and construct sacred books that at least removes the obvious
lies!
Just
think of the lies that religious leaders could stop telling
believers and that the lies believers could stop feeling obliged to
listen to – a relief for all. They could remove passages that
condemn homosexuals, minimize women, condone slavery, and place gods
above families. Jesus could be depicted as a man who didn't intend to
“set father against son....” but intended to make families
stronger. He could be characterized as a man born of natural birth,
with a natural father (Joseph) who “heard a calling” to be
god-like, achieved such, and provided a blueprint for others to do
the (non-miraculous) “great things” that he did. Mohammad could
be described as a fallible, illiterate man who did
receive the Qu'ran from god telepathically
(leaving “god” as the only supernatural; no angels, demons, jinn)
but, owing to his illiteracy and inability to do what virtually no
one could – namely, memorize the entire Qu'ran – couldn't
challenge the validity of the ayahs subsequently offered as sacred
scripture by unscrupulous scribes. This would maintain
over half of the world's mythology of theology in substance of not in
form.
If
it's not clear to you by now, let me categorically state that I don't
give a rat's patootie about believers having
an imaginary, so-called “divine”
friend! That's harmless on its face. What
is
extremely
harmful
to human harmony are the things these imaginary, so-called divine
friends supposedly instruct their believers to
do!
And I am particularly
incensed with the freaking notion of killing
in the name of a god or gods!
Then there is also
the problem of believers' imaginary foe – the devil, who comes
complete with his own horde of underlings believed
to have the ability to inhabit the bodies of men.
Whether these “possessed souls” face death, exorcism, or death
during exorcism the end result is typically brutal and mostly death.
This is the reason that I morphed from atheist to anti-theist! So my
stand is categorically that the objects of divisiveness and
orneriness must
be
removed from the “sacred books”! If
not,
the mythology of theology has
to be
exposed! [For further delineation of the atrocities of the biblical
god – as
stated
in
biblical
scripture
– check out this Facebook “note” I offered up on January 19,
2015: The Dual (Good and Evil) Nature of “God”.]
There
is a reference in the Qu'ran about the Battle of Badr – wherein god
supposedly says, “think not that it was you who slew the enemy, but
we
who slew them with your hands”. [There's that suspicious use of the
first person plural, again...] The Bible infers the same sentiment in
proclaiming that the “holy spirit” “came upon” Sampson
allowing him to slay many Philistines. This is the most dangerous
notion in either book! The notion that a god kills using
the bodies of men
prompts too many deaths. Try using that lame ass excuse in any court
of law virtually anywhere! Try offering as your defense that god used
your body
to kill the victim and thus he/she/it/they
killed the victim!
You will immediately realize it that falls upon deaf ears.
But
overwhelmingly believers opt to defend
maniacal acts their god(s) instructed followers to perpetrate in the
sacred books as merely adaptive
leadership and wisdom
used to reign in the barbarous nature of “biblical times” man and
“qu'ranic times” man. It was situational, temporary, and for
“those times” only.
This allows them to keep the orthodoxy (committed to spreading faith
peacefully) and the fringe elements (committed to spreading faith
coercively) as a cohesive whole within the body of their respective
theology. The fringe groups can then be said as actually following
the way of their divinely sacred writings; the specific passages can
be deemed to only
apply to conditions that existed then:
and viability of those passages for today can be said to be
predicated upon whether or not said conditions returned
today. They can then opine that those conditions haven't
re-aligned themselves and that the religion itself is “not at war”.
The fringe groups then need only to re-calibrate
current international problems as “end
times” events and
opine that said conditions have
re-aligned themselves to recruit more fighters for god by convincing
them that their religion IS
at war.
The
end result is marginal validity of the actions of the fringe groups,
allowing them to recruit those who desire to fight
for god while the orthodoxy recruit those desiring to “love”
for god. The mythology of theology grows either way – the goal of
both factions. It's a simple game of “good cop/bad cop”. But the followers of the "god of
love/benevolence/compassion" have an uneasy and frayed alliance
with the followers of the "god of punishment/glory/damnation"
– who expect said followers to kill for him – within each
respective theology as it is. And it
is the unwillingness of believers to cast away those passages of
divisiveness and orneriness – by deeming such passages as
non-divinely inspired and convening an ecumenical council to correct
it – that dooms over half of the world's mythology
of theology to eventual
extinction
in both form and
substance!
If
believers did
“transfigure” their theologies they could could still maintain
the lie (okay, I'll just play along – faith)
that god(s) exist, and has/have “ordained” through human
intermediaries certain laws for man to live by. As for the ecumenical
councils... it is imperative
that the laws they keep as “in
the true spirit of god”
be at
the very least
as fair, just, inclusive, equally applied, and as compassionate as
the very
best
laws mankind has already
enacted. Otherwise your god would come off as “less
than”....
man. This Facebook note I created should provide some guidance: [Top Ten Reasons that Man's Law is Superior to God's Law].
Not
only has the mythology of theology created gods that are unfair to
the living – the great flood, the passover, devaluation of women,
condemnation of male homosexuals, generational curses, curse of dark
skin, death penalty for working on the sabbath, vengeful acts, death
penalty for apostasy, etc. – they are also depicted as depraved,
vengeful lunatics in their treatment
of the dead!
The Bible says that god will resurrect all
who have died
– from the beginning of time – on one specific day of judgment.
After whatever period of time it takes to pronounce judgment upon
these people, those deemed
to be good
continue to live on. Those determined
to be bad
are killed again. Until that day of judgment, the dead are just dead!
This scenario is the only
one
depicted in the Bible and to me it's already
cruel enough. Think about it. A supposedly all-knowing god resurrects
people that he should
know
won't win the ultimate prize of immortality just
so that
this sadistic, vengeful god can go Rambo in killing a bunch of folk
all
over
again!
If ever a being – human or otherwise – was depicted as seemingly
irretrievably drunk on his own damn power, this
god would be the poster child!
The only indication that the dead
are in heaven or hell is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (the
beggar, not the dead/undead zombie) but that's a parable – based no
more on a past, present, nor future event than the parable of the
mustard seed, the parable of the prodigal son, or any other
parable/fable. They are stories used as “teachable moments” –
that's it. The true nature of “hellfire” is “revealed” in the
book of Revelations. Those brought back to life on judgment day who are not
adjudicated to be worthy of their “second life” are thrown into a
“lake of fire”, thereby experiencing what Revelations refers to
in clear language as “the second death”. Until the resurrection
on judgment day the dead are merely dead – neither in heaven nor
the non-existent hell! [When
you have time, here's a Facebook note added on January 18, 2018
(excerpt from a larger work) dealing extensively on what
the bible
says
happens after death. It's quite different from what Christian
ministers lie
about
during eulogies: On Death, Hell, and Hedging One’s Bets.]
But...
early Church leadership decided to adopt the concept of hell because
all of the pagan religions had some sense of it – some sense of
punishment after death. My guess is that waiting for a “second
death” for possibly eons after your “first death” just wasn't
much of a deterrent. You'd be experiencing nothingness indefinitely,
and then
have the opportunity to live again. And judgment of innumerable human
beings could take a very long time as well. Who knows how long you
might enjoy that “second life”? It could be years! This, I'd
imagine provided little
deterrent.
It's also clear that going to heaven after some future resurrection from nothingness – to be dead and then given life again, replete with all memory – may have appeared to be a bit “iffy”, and thus not as appealing of a reward. So the clergy adopted the fiction (compared to biblical teaching) of going to heaven immediately upon death. How? By both discouraging and forbidding laity from reading the bible AND forbidding the translation into other languages for laity to have access to the bible for about the first 1,000 years of Christendom – thus leaving the laity no choice but to believe the clergy's teaching on heaven and hell. Here's an interesting Huffington Post article on the matter: “Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years”.
A couple of acknowledged reasons for the Church's prohibition on laity reading of the bible are: 1) concealment of the fact that the compilation of their “final draft” of the Bible eliminated competing scriptures known to exist at the time; and 2) concealment of the fact that both Jesus (the Rabbi) and his disciples were lifelong adherents to Judaism and Jewish practises and thus, had no intention of establishing a new religion. Still, keeping the “sacred book” from parishioners allowed them to devise the more palatable fiction that the dead go immediately to heaven – an immediate instead of a future reward as depicted in the Bible! [No immediate hell equals little deterrent and no immediate heaven equals little incentive!]
It's also clear that going to heaven after some future resurrection from nothingness – to be dead and then given life again, replete with all memory – may have appeared to be a bit “iffy”, and thus not as appealing of a reward. So the clergy adopted the fiction (compared to biblical teaching) of going to heaven immediately upon death. How? By both discouraging and forbidding laity from reading the bible AND forbidding the translation into other languages for laity to have access to the bible for about the first 1,000 years of Christendom – thus leaving the laity no choice but to believe the clergy's teaching on heaven and hell. Here's an interesting Huffington Post article on the matter: “Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years”.
A couple of acknowledged reasons for the Church's prohibition on laity reading of the bible are: 1) concealment of the fact that the compilation of their “final draft” of the Bible eliminated competing scriptures known to exist at the time; and 2) concealment of the fact that both Jesus (the Rabbi) and his disciples were lifelong adherents to Judaism and Jewish practises and thus, had no intention of establishing a new religion. Still, keeping the “sacred book” from parishioners allowed them to devise the more palatable fiction that the dead go immediately to heaven – an immediate instead of a future reward as depicted in the Bible! [No immediate hell equals little deterrent and no immediate heaven equals little incentive!]
To
buttress this idea of an immediate reward, Paul's words were twisted
to read, “to be absent from the lord, is
to be present with
the lord” as if one equals the other. But this is not what Paul
said according to scripture but.... it was instilled in the minds of
early Christians by clergy that didn't allow the laity to read it for
themselves. What he said was that being absent from the body is a
prerequisite for being present with the lord – just like algebra is
a prerequisite for calculus, with no requirement as to how soon the
“requisite” must follow the prerequisite. ...and let's face
it..... no one ever
implies that “to be absent from algebra is to be present with
calculus”. [Doesn’t Paul say that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?]
In
truth, the only people the Bible says went directly to heaven is
Jesus and the two men crucified with him. But the church invented the
“absent from the body” paradigm and most likely had to explain
itself once parishioners were allowed access to the Bible. This was
probably when they promulgated the notion that the soul is absent
from the body at death, is then with god, but
has to wait for
the resurrection to
obtain its new, heavenly body. That sounds good but it also is
contrary to scripture. Ecclesiastes 9:5 states: “…but the dead
know not any
thing,...” so
they couldn't be “with god” embodied
or not because then
they wouldn't be in the condition of knowing
nothing! Again, On Death, Hell, and Hedging One’s Bets
goes
more in depth on this matter and
lists the verses in three of the four gospels wherein it is
categorically stated that God is,
"not
the God of the dead,
but of the living”.
I
find it particularly odd that at every funeral I've attended the
minister's eulogy always depicts the “dearly departed” as now
residing in heaven and no one is ever
said to be now residing in hell. But this is the flip side of the notion of the
immediate reward of heaven; the very nature of this paradigm implies
that the dead also
must endure the immediate
punishment
of hell (assuming you believe in hell). And we've all had relatives
(Ray Ray and 'em) who we know
couldn't pass the smell test for entrance into the “pearly gates”.
This would mean that Christians go about the daily routine of
praising the same god who has sentenced their loved ones to eternal
pain and suffering – to eternal “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.
And then, these same Christians have the audacity to yell foul when I
point out the atrocities of their god simply because I am too
compassionate a man to ever accept that an infinite punishment is a
proper sentence for a finite “crime”! Hell, even the U.S.
Constitution – drafted
by men –
prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishment! Shouldn't a kind,
loving, benevolent god be at least as compassionate as man?
[Note:
I just finished (04/16/2018) watching Netflix's newly released, “Come Sunday”,
a movie about Minister Carlton Pearson's ostracism by his church for
preaching that there is no hell – at least not the “eternal
torture kind”. I
know it's just a movie but it's clearly sanctioned by him which means
it's at least close to his
truth. Additionally, though he's a believer and I'm not, we agree on
one salient issue. We both see the Bible “not as the literal word of God
but a book by men about
God – primitive men prone to mistranslations, political agendas and
human emotions.” ~ Carlton Pearson
After
about 10 years of preaching a gospel of inclusion that holds that
everyone – saint or sinner – goes to heaven, Pearson was declared
a heretic by the Joint College of African-American Pentecostal
Bishops in 2004. Part of the dialogue in the movie version of that
meeting went like this:
(Pearson) “Bishop Ellis? I want to ask you something. Is there anybody you've loved in your own life? Anybody you were close to? An uncle? A brother? A friend? Who backslid and is in hell right now?” (Bishop Ellis) “This ain't about me, Bishop.” (Pearson) “It's a simple question. I'll get to the point” (Ellis) “My daddy's in hell. What about it?” (Pearson) “How do you know? I just want to understand...” (Unknown Bishop) “Bishop Pearson, we have a process.” (Pearson) “How do you know he's in hell? If you can't answer the question...” (Unknown Bishop) “Bishop Pearson...” (Pearson) “Then either you're not sure or you're afraid to answer.” (Ellis) “Because he sinned until the day he died. That's how I know.” (Pearson) “How long's he been there?” (Ellis) “Fifteen years.” (Pearson) “Fifteen years. And did you love him?” (Ellis) “ 'Course I did. He was my daddy. But he beat my mama. He beat me. He was a fornicator...” (Pearson) “And now God's punishing him. He's suffering in hell, he's tortured and tormented for all eternity. So, let me ask you something. Would you get him out of hell if you could?” (Ellis) “That ain't up to me.” (Pearson) “How about if it was? If there was a way we could negotiate with God, with Jesus and the blood, you'd get your daddy out of there as quick as you could, wouldn't you?” (Ellis) “I can't answer that.” (Pearson) “Of course you would. Anybody would. So the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Are we more merciful than god?”]
(Pearson) “Bishop Ellis? I want to ask you something. Is there anybody you've loved in your own life? Anybody you were close to? An uncle? A brother? A friend? Who backslid and is in hell right now?” (Bishop Ellis) “This ain't about me, Bishop.” (Pearson) “It's a simple question. I'll get to the point” (Ellis) “My daddy's in hell. What about it?” (Pearson) “How do you know? I just want to understand...” (Unknown Bishop) “Bishop Pearson, we have a process.” (Pearson) “How do you know he's in hell? If you can't answer the question...” (Unknown Bishop) “Bishop Pearson...” (Pearson) “Then either you're not sure or you're afraid to answer.” (Ellis) “Because he sinned until the day he died. That's how I know.” (Pearson) “How long's he been there?” (Ellis) “Fifteen years.” (Pearson) “Fifteen years. And did you love him?” (Ellis) “ 'Course I did. He was my daddy. But he beat my mama. He beat me. He was a fornicator...” (Pearson) “And now God's punishing him. He's suffering in hell, he's tortured and tormented for all eternity. So, let me ask you something. Would you get him out of hell if you could?” (Ellis) “That ain't up to me.” (Pearson) “How about if it was? If there was a way we could negotiate with God, with Jesus and the blood, you'd get your daddy out of there as quick as you could, wouldn't you?” (Ellis) “I can't answer that.” (Pearson) “Of course you would. Anybody would. So the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Are we more merciful than god?”]
But
the Christian god isn't the only one who exhibits depravity towards
the dead. The Muslim god is equally vile and vicious! The Qu'ran
states that – in hell – the skin of the inhabitants will burn
off, replenish itself, burn off, repeat – eternally! How's that for
“sadism cloaked in benevolence”. But, to be fair, there clearly
is the view among some Muslim scholars that hell need not be a
permanent
abode. This is taken from a few ayahs that start with the, “your
abode is hell” and how you will burn forever but end with, “except
as thy lord pleases”. This makes the Muslim god seem at least more
benevolent than the Christian god in their common cruelty toward the
dead. At least he has already indicated – according to the “sacred”
book – a willingness to pardon from his cruelty.... some (but no
commitment. As he
“pleases”.
Whimsical).
Conclusion: Your
gods are as bloodthirsty as the imaginary “pagan”
gods that preceded them and their thirst for blood burns eternally!
And
my love for humanity, fairness, equality, harmony, kindness, …..and
love...
just won't allow me to except any lesser amounts of compassion coming
from a deity! Hell, he's supposed to be better
than me – not worse!
The simple fact is that believers in gods want the same main thing that, 1) anti-theists and 2) Humanists (both labels are applicable) like me want: for mankind to live life more abundantly and harmoniously! We simply disagree on the optimum pathway to get there. Additionally, of the numbers of nonbelievers who care about the future of the world – and that percentage at least equals the percentage of believers who care – a much larger percentage of them (nonbelievers) are willing to DO something to effect change versus believers who have the luxury of “leaving it in god's hands”. For those nonbelievers the mantra is, “if it is to be, it's up to we”.
Finally,
I say this to my former “companions in Christ” who continuously
try to get me “back into the fold”: clearly, you never knew me as
well as you thought. Let me offer the condensed version. Owing to my
one-year-older sister being my only playmate, I read her first grade
books like “Tip and Mitten” with her. When I arrived at Fruth
Elementary the administrators wanted to put me directly into the
second grade. My mother declined. Starting ahead of my class, I
became a voracious reader which in turn made me question authority
more than my peers. I was always taught to be respectful of authority
but – starting school in 1961, two years before the March on
Washington – that I should never be afraid to question authority
either.
The
more I read, the more I challenged all my teachers for the entirety
of my academic matriculation. Entering Jr. High School my attitude
towards my teachers was, “you know more than I do owing to advanced
age that has allotted you more time for study. But you're no more
intelligent than I”. So at a very young age questioning even god
seemed rational to me. After all, I was hearing about this deity from
second hand sources. And if you're accustomed to the notion of “trust
but verify” from
even first hand sources it seems absurd not to apply the same
standard to second-hand sources.
So
even though I and a part of my core group of friends – Mike Tyson,
Nils Haynes, Wesley Armstead, Charles Taylor, and Robbie Robinson –
sang in numerous church and community choirs throughout my teens, I
didn't share the same feelings about the nature of god that they had.
They had blind trust and I was merely cautiously optimistic. Because
I was always unable to accept virtually anything on face value and
absent the empirical evidence to back it up, it was during my late
teens that I recall the only time that I was actually mad at god
(though many have accused me of being angry at him now
when I believe him to be fictitious).
And
I wasn't angry at god because I felt he hadn't done enough for me
– the reason many believers attribute to such anger. I was angry
because I felt he hadn't done enough for the
world. I was angry
because the world around me – and I mean the international
community, not just “my world” – was in such turmoil. I was
told that god was all-powerful and wanted world peace and
couldn't understand why such an all-everything being was such an
underachiever in this area.
And
he even had eons to get it right! So
I demanded that he take human form as he is said in the Bible to have
done with Jacob so that I could whip his behind for dereliction of
duty!
[Note:
It's important that we also realize that the desire for world peace
the Christian god (Yahweh/Jehovah/Jealous ~ see Exodus 34:14) is said
to have is contradicted by the very word of Jesus who said that he,
“came not to send peace, but a sword” – that he came to sow
discord even among families! (Matthew 10: 34-37) And via the magic of
the “holy trinity” wherein “god the holy spirit” impregnated
Mary with himself (“god the son”) so that he (the son) could
sacrifice himself to himself (“god the father”) for the
propitiation of the sins of man, the motivations of Jesus mirror exactly the motivations of Jealous.
And
specifically because of the official stand of believers is that god
doesn't ensure world peace because he doesn't desire to usurp free
will, I devised a plan whereby an all-everything god could ensure
world peace without usurping free will. [I call is the “no weapons”
law and it's explained starting at paragraph 20 in the “blasphemy article” mentioned below.]
The
compassion I felt for others was also buttressed by my core group of
friends that included Paul Woods, and later William Evans (who was a
year ahead of us) along with my aforementioned “choir buddies”.
In many ways we were vastly different, but in ways that mattered we
were all in concert. One very crucial similarity was our compassion
for others. We were all compassionate teens who grew into
compassionate men. We never had macho feelings that prohibited hugging
and frequently ended conversations with, “I love you, man”. This
is an important distinction because many a man who is taught about
the god paradigm still refuse to allow compassion to enter into their
sphere of consciousness, believing it to be incompatible with the
machismo deemed necessary to “be
a man”. Thus,
compassion only becomes a part of their lives after years of
revelings. Then, coming to god in later years to
secure their spots in heaven,
they allow themselves the luxury of compassion as a prerequisite of
serving god. They then have the needed excuse
to be compassionate whereas we didn't need the excuse. If others felt
we were “soft” because of our compassion, they were invited to
“try us”! Because of my “compassion nurturing” at an early
age I always critiqued god in terms of what he did for the world and
not merely what I felt he might
have done
for me. I mean if it's true that, “he unto much is given
much is required” doesn't it also follow that “he who can
do more should
do more”?
Oddly
enough the compassion that I've always had for others hasn't always
played well within the atheist community – especially relative to
the compassion I've always felt for the plight of homosexuals. More
than a few questioned my sexual preference because of it. I never had
to explain my compassion for those “other than” to my Christian
friends as we were always taught to have compassion for all people –
despite the biblical prohibition against male homosexuality.
Additionally, most of them already knew
that I had a gay brother with whom I've always been willing to “ride
or die”. And the mere fact that you are reading this means that my
brother has given me prior consent to this limited discussion of his
sexuality. Otherwise, it wouldn't be here as I've always felt that
his secrets were simply not mine to expose.
Thus,
I always allowed folk to think whatever they wanted to about my
sexuality, and never exposed just how personal the issue of
homosexuality was to me. As far as I was concerned there was only one
group with whom pontification about my sexuality even mattered –
the women I pursued. Since none of them ever got a “gay vibe”
from me, I never gave a flying fig about what others thought. Their
prejudices against me didn't stop me from getting sex from a lot of
women, so there simply wasn't any damage done! And additionally, two
years ago I found out that another family member is gay. I've talked
to a few close friends about that but it wouldn't be proper to expose
the identity here as I've gotten no prior consent and it's just not
my “secret” to reveal.
Anyway,
after my challenge of fisticuffs with god – somewhere between 16
and 18 – it became imperative that I develop a new vision of just
who god was and what he represented. It was imperative because the
vengeful and proud
god who also
warned mankind that “pride goeth before the fall”; the jealous
god who decries jealousy as one of the fruits of the spirit of evil;
the “repented”
god who killed all of mankind save one family because of HIS design
flaw; the “glorious”
god who stacked the deck by hardening Pharaoh's heart and proceeded
to cast all manner of afflictions upon Egypt, including the murder of
the innocent first
born children –
to show his glory; the supposedly “fair
and just” god
who would institute generational curses upon the innocent; the god
who told Saul – through Samuel – to kill all
of the Amalekites, to include women,
children
and
babies;
this god wasn't working for me.
Hell,
even I
was an infinitely more
moral being than Jehovah, as depicted in the “buy-bull”! How in
the world was he going to lead me in any
way? This creature was morally bankrupt and drunk on his own power
but his flock were conditioned to believe that “might makes right”
so they never
questioned what I felt
compelled to
question. Their
standard response was always, “but he's god. He can do what he
wants” whereas my
standard response – owing to a lifetime of questioning everything –
was, “not if he expects to lead me,
he can't. For me to follow, he has
to exhibit at
least the qualities expected of me”! To wit: I have never
been a “respecter
of persons”. So the acceptability of the “mysterious ways” of a
god who was “right because of might” was never
palatable to me. The relevance? You can't change me back
into a believer who accepts blind faith when I was
never
that
dude!
Reflecting
on my “god journey”, if you will, has made me also internalize
one very salient truth. Had it not been for Mike introducing me to
Triumph's more metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, it's very
likely that I would have become an atheist by my early twenties. As a
child I was taught that god is love but the Bible depicted him as
otherwise so that
god I had always
rejected as a teen internally but remained silent because I loved the
company of “church folk”. Their
god was a bully but
they
were loving. So initially, I didn't want to rock the boat but it
became more difficult and I was on the brink of just saying, “fuck
it”. But Mike used to always say – from behind that Cheshire cat
grin of his – “my
god is all
good”, so I gave Triumph “a try”.
Over
time I have come to realize that many of the people that I personally
know who categorize themselves as “spiritual but not religious”
were raised to believe in the Christian god, whether or not their
parents were church attendees and whether or not the child's
attendance was mandatory. And I have come to realize that they claim
“spirituality” because they were raised to believe in an
all-loving protectorate
god. They reject
“religion” because the sacred book they are most familiar with is
the Bible and the god depicted therein is not
the all-loving
protectorate god who
appealed to them so much.... until... they actually started reading
the Bible for themselves. Ironically, their reasons for choosing
“spirituality” are same reasons that I became an atheist and
later an anti-theist and my suspicion is that there are many
“spiritual but not religious” people who were raised in other
faiths as well. Some of these people are also known as
“non-practicing” (Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc.).
It
is also important to note that I have always
fought against seemingly insurmountable odds since I was a child. To
me principles always
took precedence over my associations. Unfortunately, over 90% of the
world value their associations
over their principles. This isn't the cause
of most problems but I believe it to be the main
impediment for solving
the world's problems. A small percentage of police officers commit
bad acts but at least
half of their peers
are willing to assist in a cover-up. Republicans know that Donald
“Treason” Trump is bad for the country but aren't willing to
impeach because party loyalty takes precedence over the good of the
country. But for me, it's always
been about the principle and no
one gets a pass,
regardless of our association. In 2008, in the run-up to the
presidential election Andy Young (a Hillary Clinton supporter) made
the claim that Hillary's husband Bill was
"blacker than
Barack" because he had slept with more black women that Barack,
as if the number of black vagina's one had entered was some kind of
“barometer for blackness”. So in an article on my blog
I called him Andy “sell-out” Young! And
he's my frat brother!
But I have never
been a respecter of persons and I
have always valued my principles over my associations.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. PERIOD!
A
funny story about me and “insurmountable odds”: Though Mike and I became fast friends in high school, that wasn't
always the case. We attended different junior high schools but the
same elementary school for four years. I attended Fruth for the first
two years and Mercer elementary from grades 3 through 6, because my
family moved from downtown to uptown Charleston. In the 6th
grade Mike and I fought about 15 times or so after school. He didn't
like the fact that I was highly opinionated and a “know-it-all”
as he put it. He would demand that I shut up, I didn't, and we would
then fight from the school almost up to my home. The irony is that
both of us could only recall one
fight where I
had gotten the best of him.
That means that at
least 14 times he
whipped me.
But it still never shut me up. It was all about the principle
of free speech, and I was unwavering! Mike finally realized that I
was always going to speak my peace regardless and simply gave up. We
never fought again, though disagreements were plentiful. As adults we
simply realized that, if we fought, we would likely never be friends
again; and that friendship had come to be vitally important to us
both.
Being
a precocious, analytical teen, I was already accustomed to having
two-sided debates within my own head. Playing “devil's advocate”
allowed me to always consider the “on the other hand” side of an
issue. So when Triumph offered that the “good and pure” voice was
the voice of conscious and that this “voice” was the “essence
of god” within one that connected him/her to god, who is a spirit
itself/himself/herself, it was palatable to me. They likened it to
Elijah hearing god in the “still small voice” and offered that
closeness to god via steadfast adherence to his ways would make that
voice stronger and louder. This was key to me because, though I
believed in a god (owing to the loving god depicted my my mother and
the “village” that raised me) I could only follow him if
the main
second-hand source I knew of at the time – the Bible – proved to
be a misstatement of his true character. I desperately needed
instruction from the
horse's mouth,
because hearsay
testimony just wasn't going to cut it!
Of course once I realized that both “voices” in my head are mine I started questioning why I ever believed that the “higher me” – or what I have come to realize is nothing but the more noble side of my character – was the voice of the divine. After all, there wasn't two audible voices in my head but my own thoughts on opposite sides of a pondered matter that I heard, Bishop Pearson heard, and anyone else “hears” when meditating/praying. True, it was the more conscientious voice in my head but mine, nonetheless. And there was that creeping euphoria that always accompanied the decision to take the “path more noble” that rendered the believer more resolute in the decision arrived at. But that euphoria isn't indicative of a “holy spirit” being present; it's just a fact that doing the noble thing on a regular basis can be quite euphoric!
I
can't tell you how many times I've felt this euphoria in church. As
stated earlier, the god they praise may be bi-polar but the people
were full of love. This is because everyone attending comes with love
in their hearts and with the expectation that they will find nothing
but love when they arrive. It's a virtual love fest but in reality no
different from the love fest at Woodstock – minus the drugs. The
church becomes a veritable cornucopia of love every Sunday morning
because all the members are filled with love even before they arrive!
Upon arrival, their love blends with the unbridled love of others,
creating a total atmosphere of love. Where two or more are gathered
in my name (love), there shall I (love) be. Put another way, where
two or more are gathered in the name of love, there shall love
proliferate!
You
see the ones who penned the Bible and the other “sacred books”
knew the power of love and tied this most powerful of forces to god.
The Bible creators ingeniously declared that god IS
love, an indication that there can be no
love without him –
that “drawing thyself
nigh unto him” is
the only way
to have love in one's heart. Christians internalize this erroneous
assessment which prompts them to utter absurdities like the one I
heard in 2013 on the TV show Belle's
coming from Elise Neal's character (Jill) and directed toward Richard
T. Jones' character (Jack). Jack was an atheist and was professing
his love to Jill, moments after he had revealed his atheism. Jill's
response was, “How can you love anybody,
if you don't love god?”
Love
and devotion aren't the only emotion followers of gods are required
to exhibit toward their respective deities. Fear
of their gods is also a necessary requirement. [Thou
shalt fear the LORD
thy God. ~ Deuteronomy 10:20] Here are over a hundred biblical verses
that attest to Yahweh's/Jehovah's fear requirement. (Fear Of The Lord)
The unhealthy nature of relationships involving both fear and love
was the subject of an article I wrote almost two years ago entitled,
Why I Blaspheme Your God(s).
And since I'm not the one to merely mention the fact of my blasphemy
without reiterating the exact words I have used, the footnotes
contain the actual text of the blasphemies. I put them at the very
bottom because I didn't want believers to be privy to the blasphemies
without first knowing the “why” the blasphemies were uttered.
The
article centers on an abused woman seeking advice from a health care
professional about the abuse from a man she's romantically involved
with whom she professes to both fear and love. I
then offer that it is simply unhealthy to love a person/being that
you fear and just as unhealthy to fear the person/being that you
love. One may be able to feel appreciation
towards a person/being that they fear, but never true love. AND it's
the type of appreciation born of the feared person's/being's status
of “lesser
of two evils”
– like the slave who appreciates his master not being as brutal as
other slave masters.
The two feelings of love and fear are simply incongruent! This is an incontrovertible truth!Ask any health care professional about this – relative to a human being; not a god – and you get the same definitive truth I just shared with you. There may be a different response if you reveal that the “person” you speak of is “god”. Health care pros who are believers are likely to proclaim that god is an exception to an otherwise universal rule. But again, ….why not god? Isn't the “standard” aspect of a principle a necessary element of the principle even being a “principle”?
The two feelings of love and fear are simply incongruent! This is an incontrovertible truth!Ask any health care professional about this – relative to a human being; not a god – and you get the same definitive truth I just shared with you. There may be a different response if you reveal that the “person” you speak of is “god”. Health care pros who are believers are likely to proclaim that god is an exception to an otherwise universal rule. But again, ….why not god? Isn't the “standard” aspect of a principle a necessary element of the principle even being a “principle”?
As
for the blasphemies spoken of in the article, the actual reason that
I have uttered them is to demonstrate the inability of the believers'
god(s) to do anything to me in retribution – not to infuriate them.
I only seek to reveal the impotence of the imaginary all-everything
god in doing a damn thing to me, no matter what the hell I say about
him/her/it! The same god who's rumored to have done all manner of
atrocities to the early Egyptians just to “show his glory; who's
rumored to have spoken
the world into existence, is unable to shut me up! That's the “hmmm”
moment I'm after.
Although
the sole purpose now
in my occasional utterances of blasphemy is to assist in the removal
of the fear of this imaginary divine monster, my very first blasphemy
towards a believer was a mere response to his proselytizing. Just
like the Carlton Pearson of earlier years, most believers feel
compelled to witness to me about the galooory of god in order to save
me from the fiery pits of hell. I get that. But they just won't take
no for an answer, prompting more extreme responses like, “the only
thing your god can do for me is....(insert the most vile and vicious
things you can imagine)”. I consider this to be a mere last resort
for the accomplishment of effective communication.
I
use the handle “Nicety1” on the internet almost as much as I use
“Servant2All”. Both are important representations of my
personality. The former – Nicety1 – comes from a 1989 song by R&B
artist Michel'le called Nicety. The hook in the song goes, “Some
people think I'm nice. Some people think I'm nasty. But if you really
want to know, just ask me. And I'll say I'm nicety.” Now her
point is clearly that she is both nice and
nasty, whereas mine is that I can be either nice or
nasty. An oft-quoted mantra of mine is that I am as nice as I am
allowed
to be and as nasty as I am forced
to be. And since my default position is always to be nice, I'm
unapologetic when nastiness is required.
See I was taught that the onus is
on the communicator to make himself understood and not on his
audience to understand him. Acceptance of this burden, I am told is
primary pillar of effective communication. Thus, the communicator
needs a working knowledge of various analogies and methodologies to
accomplish his task. They need not all be benign, but
the more harsh approaches are always to be last resorts. Again, if the
communicator fails to get his message out, he/she hasn't effectively
communicated. So I've initially been nice in telling believers that I
want no part of their god(s); that I don't believe they exist; that
they can have their imaginary friend and simply request that they
don't ask me to play with him.
When they continue to extol the
virtues both of their god(s) and of believing in them, I realize that
they are driven by what they deem to be the only avenue for world
peace. My understanding of that drive means that I know that they
won't stop. Therefore I must make them stop. Since I know their
intentions are pure, coupled with the fact that I am not a violent
man, attacking their god becomes the only nonviolent action
remaining. And believe me, telling a believer that the only thing
their god can do for you is kiss......, suck....., and go
straight...... has proven to be a 100% effective proselytizing
repellent. I hate to be that cold but I'm.....nicety!
Still, my severance of ties with Wesley Armstead has proven to be the most difficult of all. Until him, all the folk I had been forced to sever ties with after using my proselytizing repellent on them were acquaintances. I had used it on Lamont Bolland – effectively, as it achieved its purpose – but our friendship didn't suffer. Wesley was the first casualty and it hurts because he and Chuck Taylor are probably my oldest friends. But it's always proper to question the friendship of a man who refuses to accept that you have found a tao (way) different from his and who constantly points out to you that his tao is the right tao. After all when you're talking about two men past the age of sixty – provided you still respect each other as men – you allow each other your own respective taos.
Still, my severance of ties with Wesley Armstead has proven to be the most difficult of all. Until him, all the folk I had been forced to sever ties with after using my proselytizing repellent on them were acquaintances. I had used it on Lamont Bolland – effectively, as it achieved its purpose – but our friendship didn't suffer. Wesley was the first casualty and it hurts because he and Chuck Taylor are probably my oldest friends. But it's always proper to question the friendship of a man who refuses to accept that you have found a tao (way) different from his and who constantly points out to you that his tao is the right tao. After all when you're talking about two men past the age of sixty – provided you still respect each other as men – you allow each other your own respective taos.
But since we've been talking
about effective communication, it's about time we examine the
effectiveness of god's communications, assuming for the sake of
argument that he/she/it is a real entity. We all know how disastrous
second-hand communications can be with mankind. Each time the
communique is delivered from one person's mouth it is heard
differently by the listener, remembered two days later even more
differently, and regurgitated the following week as an entirely
different story. This is why hearsay testimony is inadmissible in a
court of law. The reliability of the testimony is simply too suspect.
Now an all-everything god should
be an effective communicator – at least as good as the best of men.
Thus, he should realize the ineffectiveness of second-hand
communications and thus communicate with his flock directly. But
instead of any direct words from any “god” we've received
second-hand information about god for at least well over 2,000 years. The
excuses are many. “You can't see god because his glory would blind
you. That's why Moses was only allowed to see his hind parts!”
(So...you're saying that the creator of our ocular equipment doesn't
know the proper setting for his galooorious brightness not to be
blinding to the human eye?) “If god talked to you, his voice is so
powerful, it would burst your eardrum!” (Sooo... god lacks the
capacity to whisper?)
Actually, there is one account in
the bible narrative I recall that says that god spoke to Moses, man
heard and became scared, so presumably, god stopped talking because
of the fear. Well I ain't buying that 'cause I ain't neva scared!
Here's the account. During the wandering in the wilderness days,
Moses invites his fellow wanderers to go to the mountain with him to
hear the word of god. The people go, stand at the nether part of the
mountain while Moses travels up higher. The wanderers hear two voices
and assume Moses is speaking to god and god is talking back, giving
him the Ten commandments. But the people refuse to listen to the rest
of the laws that god gave to Moses. They said that Moses should go,
hear god's message, and relay it back to them and they would follow. The reason for their
apprehension? They said:
So
this is the given reason as to why god
fails the “great communicator” test!
He doesn't talk directly to man (and we can only “hear” him in
the “channels of our minds”) because an audible voice would scare
the bejesus out of them. His voice isn't too loud; he actually can
whisper; it's not that men of today are unworthy of dialogue. It's
just that men who god talked to over 2,000 years ago were frightened
by the act so god just KNEW that all others living after them would
be afraid also so he just stopped talking to man. Now ask yourself.
If you were creating a god for people to follow. You got all of the
laws together and you know that people will want to consult with god
directly as to the veracity of your laws. You know your god is made
up so how do you deter the desire for first-hand information directly
from the "creator"? You add to your sacred narrative an account of god
speaking to man and man fearing that he would die from speaking to
god. You show god as a caring soul who is merely honoring man's
request to not hear his divine sweet voice lest he die. Brilliant!
The verdict here is this: Only a
god who revealed himself to me – and the world – in ways in which
we can see, hear, and touch him can convince me of his existence!
None of you can! And you can't for one very important reason. I have
always thought differently than you do on theological matters. My
mantra has always been “trust, but verify” whereas the mantra for
most of you has always merely been “trust”.
So
my world went from idolizing heroes, to idolizing divine paradigms,
to realizing that neither existed, to despair because neither
existed, to realizing, “if
it is to be, it's up to we”.
In short,
I've always been the one with a vision
quest,
if you will, to save the world – or at least be a viable member of
the team that does. Superheroes and gods were nothing more than
mechanisms for the achievement of said vision quest. Thus,
I've gone from the kid who wanted to be a superhero
to a teen and young adult to wanted to be one of god's league
of superheroes to a middle-aged – and now, old-aged
– adult who simply wants to be a regular
hero!
This
vision quest is ingrained within me, having reached full fruition at
the tender age 20. It's a part of my DNA! I couldn't eradicate it if
I tried! But my previous desires to first be a secular
superhero
and then a godly
superhero both sprung from the exact same well as my present,
readjusted, and more attainable desire to be a one of a troupe
of regular
heroes! My vision quest is and always has been firmly predicated on
my desire for humanity to live life more abundantly and harmoniously.
As a kid I imagined that superpowers would be the avenue for
achievement. As a teen and young adult, I was convinced that god was
the conduit. But, from middle-age I've realized that, “if
it is to be, it's up to we”.
Superman, SuperJesus, SuperAllah, SuperKrishna, and SuperGod, just
ain't coming! That's my
reality – and yes – I actively attempt to convince others of
it and make no
apologies for doing so!
But,
sometimes I fee like my name is Howard Tubman! I mean, I'm trying to
free mankind from mental slavery, but I always have to be wary of the
slaves who desire to kill me and return to “Massa”. The irony in
this case is that “Massa” is imaginary and thus incapable of
harming me..... and my only “enemies” – some
of whom would kill me,
thinking it was a directive from their imaginary friend – are the
very slaves I seek to free! What a kick in the head! And on that
note, doesn't the bible narrative state that, “No greater love hath
any man than to lay down his life for his brother”? Hell I might
not be laying my life
down
but I certainly am
risking
my life to get this message out! Doesn't that count for something?
And keep in mind that this stance
doesn't exactly endear me to the atheist community either. Many of
them were never believers and seek ONLY to ridicule the beliefs of
believers as the method of “waking them up” without offering
viable alternatives. They don't have a full understanding of the
believers' actual need for some guiding principles in their lives. I
do. This is why I've sought to “fill the gaps” so to speak with
different ways of looking at the way we view this “god”. I've offered (in the last
entitled section of “On
Death, Dying and Hedging One's Bets”) what I call Barrett's Wager as a replacement for Pascal's Wager wherein he
offers that living life as if there is a god “hedges one's bets”.
His thinking is that, if at the end of life one discovers there is no
god (though how one would know is beyond me, if you're dead and know
nothing) there is no loss. However, he surmises, if one finds that
there is a god he's gained everything.
My “wager” is that, if there
is a creator-god, he's made a choice to not communicate with mankind.
He's merely created us, maybe set in place some universal laws, and
left mankind to figure things out. His decision to refrain from
audible instructional communication is a signal to leave him be. He's
done all he's gonna do. However, all creators love their creations –
songwriters, architects, etc. So our appreciation for an eremite god – who shouldn't need praise – is better spent on
loving and caring for his supposed creation. If there is a god, he'll surely
say, “well done”.
I've unveiled the “no weapons” law (mentioned above) wherein a “real god” could ensure world peace if he desired
such. I've shown you – just as Bro. Pearson did – biblical
evidence that no one goes to hell. I've tried to show the
incompatibility of the emotions of fear and love within the same
relationship. I've shown the more compassionate nature of man's laws
versus what we are told are god's laws. And I offer Humanism as a
viable alternative for guiding principles agreed upon by consensus
without the facade of the “holiness” of said laws, allowing man
to do better as he knows better. Most atheists don't give a rat's patootie about any of this but – like Leah Remini – I can't sit back and do
nothing about the theater of fear and psychological coercion
engulfing people that I love.
What
would you
do if tomorrow the world were presented with definitive proof that NO
GOD EXISTED?!! You would then be faced with my
reality: that Superman just ain't coming to save Earth! What would
you do? Would you simply sulk at the problems of the world and
lament, “woe are us”, or would you roll up your sleeves and get
about the work of solving the seemingly impossible? Well I for one
have always believed in the resilience of man. Thus,
even though I believe mankind has so far detrimentally relied upon an
imaginary being to “fix things”; I believe that he
would resolve to fix them if
he knew definitively that no other being would.
In any event, the mythology of
theology cannot sustain itself as presently constructed. The
“non-practicing” theologists who attempt to retain their
“official” status as Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. by
identifying themselves as “spiritual but not religious”
are soon likely to disassociate themselves completely from their
“official religions” if changes like the one made by Bro. Carlton
Pearson aren't adopted by the full theologian bodies of these religions.
There will be a great “falling away” from these religions if they
can't admit that the monstrous gods depicted in their “holy
scriptures” are indicative of man's attempt to present god to man
replete with his own biases rather than a record of god presenting
himself to man. The god – as Carlton Pearson puts it – “with
the anger management problem” is just never going to be palatable
to most people.
In
the coming weeks (or months) I'll be unveiling a paradigm to
transfigure capitalism in such a way as to halt rising income
disparity, reverse it, and – over time – totally eradicate
poverty. I'm talking about the stuff that can catapult a brother to a
Nobel Peace Prize nomination. This unveiling will incidentally put
some dollars in my coffers that will in turn be used to start a
Humanist community, meeting place, and executive board geared toward
the establishment of Humanism as a religion. You will be privy to
this new paradigm at the same time the world is exposed to it via a
YouTube video. [At some point I'll even use a teleprompter to present
this article as a video as well. I know full well about present-day
society's preference for videos over print media.]
I
truly want to thank all who dared to relive this rather lengthy
account of my religious evolution. It was important to me that I take
the time to effectively communicate exactly why I am an unapologetic
anti-theist – though I knew
that it couldn't be done quickly nor with few words. Your patience is
greatly appreciated. But now – henceforth and forever more – I
don't want to hear diddly about my anti-theism emanating from hate
instead of the love prevalent throughout. Why? Because atheists like
me hate the belief – not
the believer! And because – relative to the believer – the late,
great, overweight lover Heavy D shared a very important philosophical
code-turned-mantra with the prized, wise, right-sized lover Howie B:
“I got nuttin' but love for you, baby”!
