Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Some confused readers see religion everywhere...
I get some comments by some readers that are so desperately uncapable of even conceiving that people might not be religious, that in an attempt to push away the disturbing thought that they might be wrong, they antagonize by absdurdly saying more or less: "I believe in God, but you, you simply have another type of religion, the atheist religion". As those readers seem to be a bit confused on what religion (even the simple word) really means, and what not believing in God means, they might find this link helpful.
From CASTI CONNUBII (Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, 1930) (emphasis mine):
14. For although Christian spouses even if sanctified themselves cannot transmit sanctification to their progeny, nay, although the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity, nevertheless, they share to some extent in the blessings of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is theirs to offer their offspring to the Church in order that by this most fruitful Mother of the children of God they may be regenerated through the laver of Baptism unto supernatural justice and finally be made living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and heirs of that eternal glory to which we all aspire from our inmost heart.
The above has been written in 1930. But could have been written 2000 years ago. This is typical of religious language, it is ageless. It perpetuates more or less the same the same content in amazingly unchanged intact form. And the impact such a language has on people, since very early age, is still overlooked. Irrationality, presumption and dogmatism are instilled day by day - though the administration of rituals, usage of words, continuous exposition to religious content - together with propensity to not question and acquiesce to the sacred words, and a morality which glorifies suffering while demonizing pleasure and creating guilt (this expression is dreadful, appalling, just absurd and barbarian: "the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity").
Of course the Church is aware of the correlation between faith and upbringing. The previous point of the same encyclical:
13. But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's household,[16] that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase.
From Friedrich Nietzsche's The Antichrist (49):
--I have been understood. At the opening of the Bible there is the whole psychology of the priest.--The priest knows of only one great danger: that is science--the sound comprehension of cause and effect. But science flourishes, on the whole, only under favourable conditions--a man must have time, he must have an overflowing intellect, in order to "know." . . ."Therefore, man must be made unhappy,"--this has been, in all ages, the logic of the priest.--It is easy to see just what, by this logic, was the first thing to come into the world :--"sin." . . . The concept of guilt and punishment, the whole "moral order of the world," was set up against science--against the deliverance of man from priests. . . . Man must not look outward; he must look inward. He must not look at things shrewdly and cautiously, to learn about them; he must not look at all; he must suffer . . . And he must suffer so much that he is always in need of the priest.--Away with physicians! What is needed is a Saviour.--The concept of guilt and punishment, including the doctrines of "grace," of "salvation," of "forgiveness"--lies through and through, and absolutely without psychological reality--were devised to destroy man's sense of causality: they are an attack upon the concept of cause and effect !--And not an attack with the fist, with the knife, with honesty in hate and love! On the contrary, one inspired by the most cowardly, the most crafty, the most ignoble of instincts! An attack of priests! An attack of parasites! The vampirism of pale, subterranean leeches! . . . When the natural consequences of an act are no longer "natural," but are regarded as produced by the ghostly creations of superstition--by "God," by "spirits," by "souls"--and reckoned as merely "moral" consequences, as rewards, as punishments, as hints, as lessons, then the whole ground-work of knowledge is destroyed--then the greatest of crimes against humanity has been perpetrated.--I repeat that sin, man's self-desecration par excellence, was invented in order to make science, culture, and every elevation and ennobling of man impossible; the priest rules through the invention of sin.--
God for some is a vague persistent echo of the mother's caresses. They cannot accept that the womb of the universe is indeed void and cold. They cherish the idea of a loving presence, who unconditionally follows their life, unconditionally loves them, understands them, sustains them. And this hope is so strong that it becomes a creating force. A force that creates God.
Sunday, September 28, 2003
A day, in the future
Rene Magritte - The art of living
[found here]
"What are you studying Jane?"
"I am studying history, I have got a test tomorrow"
"Any particular topic?"
"Yes, the time range in which religion and its myths were still followed by millions of people, up to about two hundred years ago, around year 2050"
"Amazing subject, a bit boring, but then again, it's school, isn't it?"
"Yeah, we are supposed to study all old religions. It's amazing what people were like! And each new religion taking over the previous one was always claiming to have better views than the others. People could not see all that was common to all religions: the persistence of superstition and magical thought, and the fallacious hypostatization of contrivances produced to cope with anxiety"
"Yes we kind of tackled that in our Life Philosophy class"
"You know Mike, those years were quite interesting. Barbarian, but interesting. I keep reading and watching movies on that. Those were years in which people would claim to be in contact with an invisible reality beyond life, a divine reality, source of all Good. But, for the most part, they failed to see that such a reality was an invention of human mind. And despite the charitable facade and the aspiration to santity, the inherited human-made contrivances were source of conflict and intolerance, as religious faith went along with the presumption of possessing the ultimate absolute truth."
"Yeah, but then we had the Great Epistemological Revolution"
"Exactly. With the spreading of culture, and the study of philosophy and science, it became obvious to the majority of people that religious thinking was sustained by a foundation of prejudice and concepts lacking a validity whatsoever, and quickly religions faded away."
"And what happened then?"
"Well, as religions died, and with them any illusion of transcendence, humanity fixed their eyes on the true reality of themselves, without fabrications meant to turn their awareness away, and to delude. This gave way to a new form of humanism. Which, in turn produced a change in the economical structure: as people became aware of their finitude, they desired to get more out of their life, but they also realised that more could not be meant in terms of matter. They realised that also consumerism was a big lie, that the possession of objects does not per se provide happiness. Ironically, the death of metaphysics made people less materialistic."
"In short, the death of metaphysical thought made humans more concentrated on what really matters in life?"
"Yes. People became aware that this is the only life that we have got. And that we should pursue only true values and things that make us truly happy. Moreover they became progressively disentangled from the promises of the Technology-God. Research continued, but without the rhetoric of creating a mundane paradise of wonderful technological achievements. And yet the whole process determined almost automatically a fairer distribution of world wealth, but interestingly, in a natural way, as a result of the change in people's approach to life. Therefore the earth did, indeed, become a better place for everybody."
Saturday, September 27, 2003
The true existence of a God does not possess any more necessity than the existence of fairies and elves. The only "necessity" for its existence lies in people's ignorance of the universe, fright and non-acceptance of their finitude: the ego rebels against its limitations and devises a super entity which will give extra powers to humans! So humans can dully and gaily continue their daily activities as if. As if they were immortal, as if they had all the time in this world, projected in an endless path of transcendence, through history and through eternity.
The idea of God somewhat sustains the alienation of humans from the instant, as it sets no limits to history. Thorugh the idea of God, history, in a sense, continues after life, extending itself into the transcendental destiny of humans. Because of this idea, likely, humans immerse themselves into so many useless things and project themselves through the earthly transcendence of technology: they think they have all the time of this world. Exchatology sustains technology.
Conversely, let's imagine that humans knew, knew exactly that they delude themselves with the idea of a God, with the idea of being special amongst all creatures (since, for instance, dogs and cats don't have an afterlife, which to me seems quite unfair). Let's suppose that the idea of God could, at best be a hope for the despair deriving from the non acceptance of death. But let's also suppose that such hope did never reach the state of solidifying into a soothing mental creation of an omnipotent being, declared as existent, let's suppose that constant was the feeling of human finitude, unsoothed. What would happen? There would perhaps be a new brotherhood between humans since they would really feel equally finite and transient, the rhetoric of production and technology would be mitigated by the idea that projecting ourselves towards the future as if only the future could give us happiness, only steals from us the actual moment. More care would be given to the instant. Being happy, avoiding unnecesary conflicts, avoiding simulacra of true happiness, rejecting surrogates of satisfaction.
Friday, September 26, 2003
Why if someone says "I am Napoleon" he is likely to get psychiatric treatment, whereas one who says "I saw God" might get away with it?
Everybody can state whatever and then say "God told me that" and then react in a scandalised way if those (human) words of alleged divine inspiration are attacked. When will the pretension, the pathological delirium come to a stop? When will dogmas and alleged absolute laws be considered for what they are, mere human fallible words? When will proper limits of logic and sense be universally recognised?
The next Copernican revolution
Thanks God the Church now accepts that the earth in not immovable at the centre of the universe, and has changed its idea of what the Holy Scriptures say (I guess the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is not immovable is it?). But now we need a total Copernican revolution as regards the concept of human being:
1. human beings shall not be defined in abstract patho[theo]logical terms but shall be seen in their full corporeality
2. if the real world is defined in terms of contrast between immanence and transcendence, the former will always be considered subjected to the contrived latter, and the real world will be seen as a ghostly entity, the next Copernican revolution shall be that of recognizing as absurd any idea of transcendence
3. the preliminary notion for the above is simply recognizing that words, all words, are simply human words. However beautifully written or morally elevating they remain the mere expression of human minds. Any alleged "divine inspiration" is a cheat, an absurd pretension, a way to surcharge human words and expecting that they become untouchable and unquestionable because of such pretension.
Here you can read the sentence of the Inquisition against Galileo in English, while here you can read the original version in Italian.
Amongst the statements contained in the sentence issued by the court of the Roman Catholic Church:
-
The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
-
The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.
Read here yet another example of what the alleged infallibility and absolute truth of religion can entail. Nowadays the hideous consequences are in the life of millions of people, in the conflicts that an alienating religion can produce in them and in the conflicts that irrationality and dogmatism can determine.
In the name of God people start wars, or fight against other nations. In the name of God joy and beauty are negated and sin is morbidly seen everywhere, even in the innocence of a newly born baby. In the name of God a poor family with a dozen children cannot use effective contraceptives and is therefore doomed to despair. In teh name of God sex is portrayed as evil when not sanctified by the forms dictated by the Church. In the name of God condoms that save lives are condemned. In the name of God we still experience nowadays a bit of what the Middle Ages must have been like. People are not burned at the stake but are stigmatised and accused and terrorized and ignorance and arbitrariness is smuggled as unquestionable truth: "God said it". God said it? I only hear voices of humans full of pretensions.
There was a time in a far forgotten past, of which only tenuous traces remain and echoes, in which the first men on earth who became aware of themselves as distinct from other beings and objects around, developed, together with that awareness, also that of their finitude and smallness. In that distant time terror mixed with awe facing the unknown. So much around appeared more than them. An overwhelming infinity, liable of crushing any being on earth, unleashing uncontrollable forces.
The new awareness of humans gave them a sense of forlornness and despair and fright, while deep inside they retained a memory of a time in which what was now separate (as separate can be a being who see himself as distinct from the rest of the world) was united, in which life went along with a sense of caressing bliss, as if still part, unconscious, of the protecting womb of the universe. Facing the dreadful events of nature, feeling desperate and vulnerable, they imagined that beyond every single aspect of what they did not know, hid a divinity, a god with whom they could try to establish a contact so as to have its indulgence, if not help, or at least be spared from its wrath. It was then that the first men began to pray, pray the god of the rain, the god of thunder, the god of darkness, all the gods that animated the numberless aspects not controlled by human knowledge. It was in those distant times, at the very time in which men appeared on earth as they are, when their consciousness emerged, that, originated by terror and awe, the first idea of divinity appeared in the mind of humans.
As culture became more and more complex, these human creations, gods, changed, became more complex. In some cases some gods were forgotten or put aside to be replaced with others. Some gods died while others were born. Plausibly, all the most important moments of people's lives soon became entwined with these creations: births, deaths, harvest, conflicts with neighbouring communities. In each important occasions the contrived images of gods were asked to support, to help, to reconcile, to provide strength.
Under various forms, the human creations of gods have accompanied the life of people throughout their life for thousands and thousands of years, becoming a formidable and powerful mental habit, transmitted through generations. The intense familiarity with the idea of divinity, and the energetic and emotional investment in the relevant symbols, made the contrivance appear real. Such is religious faith: a mental habit, a set of inherited powerful symbols engrossing human experience. But if men were able to go back through the history of the human race, and even for a brief time feel what those first men felt, they would immediately understand how the idea of divinity originated to soothe the intense fright and despair and uncertainty for the future, and even to make up for a sense of unity lost, of which a trace still remained in their mind.
But once the realisation is made, there cannot be a religion as the one we have come to know, which has reached us through a path of generations. We cannot be controlled and believe as absolute an true, or divine, the fabrications of ancient human minds. New forms must be found, void of ghostly alleged truths and dogmatism. New words shall be said. New truths revealed. And old lies must be uncovered.
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Staygone writes:
I think I'm probably annoying you now, so this will be my last comment. If what you're saying is true, then why do certain things happen that cannot be explained by mere chance? I've had experiences in my 18 years in which I can honestly say I met God face to face, or felt His presence when making a critical decision, or if I simply needed to talk to Him, He was there. Are these things the results of my being in a Christian environment all my life?
First I would like to say that you don't annoy me at all, and that your comments are welcome and appreciated. I appreciate exchange of opinions, so please feel free to write as many comments as you wish.
Coming to your question: of course I cannot be in your subjectivity, and people sometimes experience subjective states which they interpret in various ways. As you also suggest in your question, I believe that cultural (therefore also religious) symbols/content become attached to our feelings or emotions, therefore one tends to explain those feelings and emotions in terms of the symbols or cultural content absorbed.
We are undoubtedly part of a larger system, to which we are connected sensorially. Sometimes our awareness and our very biological being might create in us a sense of marvel when contemplating the universe, when perceving intuitively all that connects every single aspect of reality to the other. A feeling that is similar to aesthetical appreciation, or sometimes to the higher forms of sensuality. And because of our consciousness, we might feel the need to give a name to this marvel. Some people might create works of art or music to describe it. Others use poetry. I believe also religion is a way used to provide a name to what challenges our rationality or strikes us as incommensurably beautiful and perfect, and this is more likely to happen the more we are brought up in a religious environment.
So I understand the sense of "divinity" can be very strong. But the same feeling if a person is born in another area of the world might end up being coded in a different way.
The problem with religion though is that, unlike art, music, poetry, it becomes a dogmatic semi-knowledge which one belives reflects unquestionably the true sense of reality, and not even subject to rational inquiry. It is supposed to be accepted as is (often under a 'transcendental blackmail'). Had religion the same lightness of poetry, its same lack of conceit (from a knowledge point of view) and fragility, were it comparable to music, and each person could actually play a different music, if it was tteh unique expresion of each one, with different unique symbols and words acknowledged as subjective, probably there would not be many problems with religion. It would not even be religion anymore. It would be a poetic celebration of the world, non dogmatic, and acceptable to everyone. But as it is, religion starts as a subjective feeling of some humans and is perpetuated to other humans who are supposed to accept the shape given to those subjective feelings. As it is, the human subjective origin of religion is negated, whereas subjective content is smuggled as objective and absolute and as of divine origin. I prefer the unpretentious fragility of a song or a painting if one needs to celebrate the world.
The concept of sin as a strategy of power
The obsession of the Church for sins, and particularly carnal sins, is an eloquent evidence of its alienation from the world. Moreover sins are the way through which the Church can administer its power as a salvific entity. By convincing people that they are fundamentally bad, sinners since birth, often stained by sins in life, the Church endorses itself as the medium through which sin will be cleared (of course, they would say, just as representatives of Christ etc. etc.).
It is pathologic to even conceive that a baby that is just born is already a sinner who needs cleansing. What a barbarian concept. But despite its pathology it shows a lucid and pitilessly effective strategy of power.
"Thou are stained by the Original Sin" (it even sounds scarier with a few latin words here and there and by wearing black gowns): "Thou need my hand and the sacred water to cleanse thy soul". What a delirium. Likely the only accepted delirium in our society that does not lead straight to a padded room.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
I mentioned St. Domenico Savio: he is one of the myths of Catholic parishes. Full of religious devotion, he died a few days before his 15th birthday in 1857. Pope Pio XII made him saint in 1954. The usually lengthy analysis within the Church that takes to the declaration of sainthood was in his case particularly short. I shall in another occasion discuss his figure and relate it to the core teachings of the Catholic church.
The alienating teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on sexuality
Let’s consider some of the teachings found in the Cathechism of the Roman Catholic regarding sexuality (emphasis is mine):
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
Inordinate? So now what we naturally feel should pass preemptively through the theological sieve of Roman Catholic Church to make sure feelings are acceptable and not morally disordered? Quite absurd and reflecting a negative conception of humanity. The above concept demonizes and creates guilt for something natural. It is a factor of alienation.
All the above derives from a conception of sexuality that does not reflect the true nature of human beings. I don’t see anything wong in seeking pleasure isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. If two teenagers kiss and make love (with or without penetration), responding to their simple human nature they are considered in sin and maybe a Catholic priest will tell them that they are morally disordered. It is really pathological to think that, and such approach can create heavy psychological problems and guilt for something that should be pleasure and joy. But Catholics have a problems with pleasure and joy. This is a gloomy alienated conception of reality, a denial of the nature of human beings. Incidentally it is an approach that comes from celibate experts of theology (a discipline, theology, more concerned with transcendence than with immanence and reality) and this makes such approach even less credible.
It is interesting to consider that the worst examples of perversions actually often comes from people who have demonised or accepted the demonization of sex and women. Being such a powerful force, even when rejected, sex cannot be suppressed, thus it may manifests itself in perverted ways (see recent scandals involving Catholic priests). It is also a fact that many priests are homosexuals. I believe in some cases homosexual behaviour is associated to the living in environments were women (let alone sex with women) are not allowed.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
The above paragraph speaks for ritself. It is a monument to guilt and is liable of causing intense psychological problems, instead of avoiding them. Sex with a person is sin, masturbation is sin. Do these Catholic educators realise that this is pathology? They see sin everywhere there’s pleasure. These people should not have any education responsibilities whatsoever as they can create severe damages. And I am not even going to mention St. Giovanni Bosco, who, according to a study was pathologically obsessed with pureness. Not by coincidence, one of his disciples, St. Domenico Savio, who unfortunately died young, had a motto "death rather than sin". I wrote a post (Aug. 28th) on this a while ago in my other blog.
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
Here too, we are told how sinful it is that a man and a women should have sex if they are not married because sexuality is "naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children". Here we find again the usual procreation-oriented concept of sexuality. On the grounds of such a concept, two adults, who love each other and don’t want to get married and/or have children must be considered in sin, or indicated, considered as sinful (incidentally, in how many small towns, such Catholic dogmatism may give way to forms of ostracism and intolerance?) and their feelings shoudl be considered "against the dignity of persons".
The whole set of Catholic teachings, as they emerge from the Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church are absurd and are evidence of a form of alienation from the real world and the true nature of human beings. Moreover this unjustifiably immoderate, morbid, attention to sex can reasonably be considered a source of psychological problems and pathological denial of natural human drives. For such reasons, I would make it illegal that priests have anything to do with the education of children, who can do without being exposed to gloomy, guilt-ridden, psychologically terrorizing content.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
The above would not even require many comments. It is simply absurd. Medieval in spirit, obscurantist and unfair considering that homosexuality is a sexual orientation that can be found in nature. But the above attitude seems to intend to cast homsexuals to a "limbo" of no pleasure. Only friendship is allowed to them. What a patronizing and alienating logic. And hypocritical, as I have said in other posts, given the high percentage of homosexuals amongst priests and bishops (nearly 60% according to some studies), many of whom are not at all luminous examples of celibate virtue (some studies show that at least 50% may be the heterosexual/homosexual priests and bishops that are sexually active)..
The above are just some examples of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church Cathechism on sexuality and do not cover all. Some othe teaching regard marriage.
I hope StayGone does not mind me posting her comments here, I am doing it for the sake of a clearer thread. StayGone writes:
Those that mentioned have not been set forth by the church, but by God. You've got to understand that everything in the Bible was inspired by God. I don't want to seem confrontational, but I hope you understand why I find your comments a little unnerving.
There is nothing wrong if you think differently than me. I appreciate your commenting. However consider one thing: you say "The Bible was inspired by God". Theoretically, I could write a book, and say the same. In the world there are many books that people claim have been inspired by God. It seems to me a good way to... have more success (and power). The Bible was definitely written by humans, that's the only thing that can be said. The rest is not even a hypothesis, it is a mere ungrounded illogical statement, a faith that is. Faith is irrational and dogmatic. Of course I cannot expect that who believes stops believing and if I had the power to brain-wash people and turn them into non-believers I would not use such power (though religions do brain-wash people, since early childhood). But it is dangerous that someone should think he (she) holds an absolute truth, immutable and untouchable and not subjected to reason and rational inquiry: such attitude prevents people from having a common ground of debate and solidifies them in representatives of dogmatic monoliths.
One more thing, compared to, say, a Catholic, if I speak to someone who has a different opinion than mine, I would not think and/or say: "Thou don't believe thus Thou shall be condemned to hell". I simply say: "I don't have your same views but I am open to any truth as long as it makes rational sense and does not contrast with what you believe God has given to humans: their brain". In my opinion it is dangerous to believe that the truth is already possessed, once and for all, and every other concept shoudl be derived from that truth or should not contrast it (which leads some Christians to object evolution for the mere fact that it is in conflict with the Bible).
I don't see why and how it can be rationally acceptable that any concept regarding humanity shall be derived from the Bible. The Bible is full of contradictions and is not a scientific book. And one of the best evidence of Christian irrationality and dogmatism is represented by the Church's reaction to Galileo and in general by the way the Church has reacted in those times, and by the reactions of many Christians to evolution. Other irrational and absurd positions regard sexuality, which don't reflect modern psychology or medicine. It is absurd to demonise sexuality (premarital sex, masturbation, homosexuality). It is criminal to forbid condoms, knowing that abstinence is impractical and that condoms save lives.
StayGone commented the post before the previous one:
"It's really saddens me to think that this is your actual view of Christianity. Every single Christian doesn't fit the mold you've described."
My posts do not expect to cover the reasons of each single Christian for their believing. I cannot be in each one's mind. Some people might partly appreciate Christianity for some of its teachings and maybe not believe in others or in its transcendental pretense. In my posts I don't talk of every single Christian. I can allow that some people might define themselves as Christian while not accepting Christian dogmas, some others might have a vague belief in a Christian-like God and not care for the Church teachings (after all we have free will right? Although the concept of sin and hell subject free will to psychological terrorism). What I criticise is the Christian religion as a whole, for its dogmatism and its content of gloomy pessimism, grief, suffering, guilt and denial of body an sex. More over I criticize it for contributing to irrationality and mental passivity. The worst of Christian religion, as regards the above-mentioned aspects, is represented by Catholicism.
For its pretense of expecting faith in an ungrounded belief, Christianity (and many other religions) is a dangerous factor of irrationality, it feeds our society with the germs of blind dogmatism and intolerance.
If Christianity was more like a moral philosophy than a theistic set of ungrounded beliefs, it would be more acceptable: the world is full of absurd philosophies. But, unlike philosophies or science which are humble and don't claim to provide absolute answers (which would be in contradiction with the very concept of research), what Christianity (and many other religions) say is: "What I state as true is true and unquestionable. It is the very voice of God that speaks through me". And not only that, they establish a pathetic mechanism of psychological terrorism. They say more or less: "I represent God on earth. And, you know, God is power, he would not be God otherwise! Now, if you don't believe in me, you are going to burn in hell. If you don't do what I say, you are going to burn in hell!" If their "truth" was so self-evident they would not need these pathetic means of irrational enforcement, and people would just follow Christianity because it makes sense (while, as it is, it doesn't make sense, and the potentiallt interesting 'poetic' content is spoiled by conceit and pretense).
A moral belief should be self-evident, should appeal to people's conscience without the need of psychological terrorism. How morally valuable can be an action made for the mere sheepish terror of hell?
Some modern official documents of the Roman Catholic Church read like commercial contracts. When reading some of them one can be caught, all of the sudden, by a sense of absurdity with respect to all this fabrication smuggled as true. Like facing a madman who keeps repeating something that just does not makes sense, a delusion. An endless delirium that has gone on for two thousands years. Christianity does not surely draw its force and power out of its metaphysical plausibility or sense. Rather out of the obsessive iteration, association to some fundamental moments of people lives (people enjoy the habit of having a bit of ceremonial officiality with frills) and its providing contrived images and concepts to soothe the anguish of life and the inevitability of death. Moreover, formulas and concepts repeated over and over again, create a symbolic/ritual framework, which is really what religion is about. Religion makes everything fit, events of various type and particularly what we don't like. The pettiness of the church is in getting power out of human fears, grief and despair, to have power by covering the position of whom promises for each one a treasure, which however is all a fraud. A perfect fraud: but they can always say "nobody ever complained". Surely when everything is switched off, there is nobody that can complain for the fraud. In the meanwhile because of this promised heavenly contrivance, the Church extols sacrifice, stoicism and suffering, instils guilt and condemns pleasure. Therefore Christianity is a double fraud: here now (as life is made void of true self-sufficient meaning, and pleasure is negated) and there (the inexistent "there"), after.
A "reborn" old Greek Gods believer !
"Dad, I have studied old Greek history at school, it was so interesting!"
"That is nice Mike, I did not know you studied those things nowadays in second grade. When I was seven I did not know anything about that."
"Dad, I decided I want to believe in Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Hermes and so on!"
"What do you mean believe?"
"Yes, I quit being Christian, I want to belong to the old Greek religion. It's more interesting and ... how can I say... fun. On top of that you've got more than one God. And they have wonderful costumes too! Herms has even got small wings at his ankles!"
"Don't be silly, those Gods don't exist"
"How do you know? They do! They did, so they must still exist if they were Gods"
"Mike! Come on! Those were fantasies, they don't exist, it is a fact. Everybody knows that.
"Well, but how do they know? Gods don't let themselves be easily seen!"
"Mike, they don't exist. People believed they did, but they don't"
"No I don't believe it. I believe in them now! I like them a lot too. And if you say they don't exist, well how do you know that the Christian God exists?"
"Because, it does!"
"Well how do you know? Maybe in some years...just like you said it happened to the Greek Gods."
"Mike. HE exists. THEY don't"
"You know what dad? I will believe you if you prove it to me. Otherwise I stick to my new Greek Gods!"
This imaginary dialogue suggests one thing. The existence of a Christian God has not more legitimacy than the existence of the old Greek Gods, who, however, were less boring and gloomy. Now we consider them mythology, old fantasies. When will the time come that the same notion will also universally be applied to "modern" Gods?
Another quote by St. Augustine
Possibly his most famous quote, a prayer to God, mentioned in his Confessions (8, 7, 17):
"Grant me chastity and continency, but not yet"
The Saint apparently had lots of fun, but with conflict. And yet he was enjoying it, since he prayed God to become virtuous but not right away. In my opinion, he would have been better off had he continued living with his concubine, or had he written a joyful Treatise on the Pleasure of the Flesh, instead of becoming one of the greatest fustigators of sexuality and the body of all times, contributing a great deal to the pathological mysoginy and sexophobia of the whole Roman Catholic Church.
A reply to a seminarian
DrChrist has commented to my previous post he writes:.
Just some information: The Catholic Church has NEVER officially taught that unbaptized babies go to hell, although some unenlightened members of the Church may have thought that. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the official position of the Church on this topic when it says "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[Mk 10 14 ; cf. 1 Tim 2:4 .] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." As to your quote from St. Augustine, it is in keeping with Church teaching that Adultery would lead one away from God. Even our society looks down on adultery...so why condemn St. Augustine for it?
Some unenlightened members might have said that unbaptized babies go to hell? According to the article mentioned in my previous post it was a Pope, St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church to state that. I will check that more in depth in another occasion. The Catholic Encyclopedia online, however, states: "The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God." Whether unbaptized children go to hell or do not simply share the vision of God, the concept of excluding innocent children is quite obscurantist. Of course is consistent with the barbaric, guilt-ridden, demonizing concept of original sin.
As far as the quote from St. Augustine is concerned, that does not regard adultery at all, so what DrChrist says does not correspond to the truth. In that paragraph St. Augustine reflects over marriage (check Soliloquis I, 17). The full paragraph says:
"[...] I perceive that nothing more saps the citadel of manly strength, whether of mind or body, than female blandishments and familiarities. Therefore, if (which I have not yet discovered) it appertains to the office of a wise man to desire offspring, whoever for this reason only comes into this connection, may appear to me worthy of admiration, but in no wise a model for imitation: for there is more peril in the essay, than felicity in the accomplishment. Wherefore, I believe, I am contradicting neither justice nor utility in providing for the liberty of my mind by neither desiring, nor seeking, nor taking a wife."
Therefore he expresses the classic idea of general corruption produced by women even in marriage. The same concept that St. Gregory the Great had ("Sexual desire is absolutely impossible without fault").
Elsewhere he speaks about the body as being a stain compared to the mind (quite indicative of a substantial manicheisn and prejudice towards the corporeal world) (Soliloquies I, 12), emphasis is mine:
"Therefore the soul has need of three distinct things: to have eyes, such as it can use to good advantage, to look, and to see. Sound eyes, that means the mind pure from all stain of the body, that is, now remote and purged from the lusts of mortal things: which, in the first condition, nothing else accomplishes for her than Faith. "
Again, St. Augustine in his "On Marriage and Concupiscence" expresses concepts in denial of the sensual love, considered evil. He says more or less that inasmuch as sensual pleasure produces children, that somewhat redeems marriage, but does not cleanse the stain of lust:
"Since, therefore, marriage effects some good even out of that evil, it has whereof to glory; but since the good cannot be effected without the evil, it has reason for feeling shame." (Chapt. 8 - On Marriage and Concupiscence).
St. Augustine wouls deserve a quite long article as regards his vision of the body, sex, and women. I just would like to quote another text from On the Holy Trinity (12, 7, 10), in which he says that women are the image of God only when they are with their husband! Of course the same does not apply to men (emphasis is mine):
"How then did the apostle tell us that the man is the image of God, and therefore he is forbidden to cover his head; but that the woman is not so, and therefore is commanded to cover hers? Unless, forsooth, according to that which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one. As we said of the nature of the human mind, that both in the case when as a whole it contemplates the truth it is the image of God; and in the case when anything is divided from it, and diverted in order to the cognition of temporal things; nevertheless on that side on which it beholds and consults truth, here also it is the image of God, but on that side whereby it is directed to the cognition of the lower things, it is not the image of God."
This is the type of theology accumulated through the centuries which still permeates the Church. Even when the single concepts are not valid, the pathologic prejudice towards the real world, sex, and women is still there.
P.S.: DrChrist, in one of your comments you said that my idea of the Galileo case is inaccurate, without saying why. As that appeared to me a gratuitous comment, I would like to have more details. Also I would like to know if you think that the Church showed "enlightenment" during the Inquisition period. Thanks.
Some examples of Christian psychopathology
Pope St. Gregory the Great - Doctor of the Church (AD 540-604):
"Sexual desire is absolutely impossible without fault"
- unbaptised babies go straight to hell where they suffer for eternity
This absurdity has given way to some morbid colourful expressions: "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptised babies"
(Jonathan Edwards, 1703-1758). Edwards is the same who, talking about children, said: "As innocent as children seem to be to us, yet, if they are out of Christ, they are not so in God’s sight, but are young vipers, and are infinitely more hateful than vipers."
- "Christ alone was conceived without sin"
[some of the above onformation were found here, where sources are also quoted]
St. Augustine - Doctor of the Church (AD 354 - 430):
"I feel that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its heavenly heights as the fondling of woman and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state." (Soliloq. i, 10)
Monday, September 22, 2003
Statements of Faith
I believe in God. My parents believe in God and my Grandparents too. Nevertheless faith is a gift.
I believe that our Lord Almighty has a soft spot for my country.
I believe there is a manifest destiny for our country, which reflects our Lord's design: that our nation be the leader of all others.
I read they Bible every day.
The Bible contains the words of our Lord Almighty.
I often use the words of God, and what I say is right as it reflects the perfect Truth found in the Bible. Conversely, other people, unfortunately, grope in darkness, but we will eventually cast some light in their befuddled minds.
People that come from other places are quaint or picturesque at best. But often simply barbarian. When they are not, they are haughty. And that is not cool. It is not democratic.
Unless you are a country singer or a pop star, it is not cool to stand out too much, especially with opinions. It is not democratic.
Country music is great because is humble and unpretentious.
Pop music can be great too, provided that it is humble too and recognizes the power of our Lord Almighty.
Slang is cool, also our president uses it. He is cool too. He is one of the guys.
I believe that our country is heading towards a better mutual understanding amongst humanity. We are heading towards what we call the "Simplification of Love". We believe that any human expression should be simplified. Sophistication is evil. We are trying to support a bill which makes it obligatory to use only 100 words. Who exceed the legal number will be considered antidemocratic and against our nation. Special laws will apply to safeguard national security.
We truly hope that in the future we will be able to simply use one word: "Uh" and a smile.
An Independent Christian Science Organization has recently proved that the world has indeed been created by God and that evolutionary theory is wrong. They have also proved that the Bible can be used instead of books used for any other discipline.
We are all very moral, you can see that by the above statements too. We are an inherently moral country. Therefore, really, whatever we do at any level has a moral backing, it answers to the divine design of our Lord Almighty.
Arabs often think the same as the previous statement, but they are inherently wrong, because they are not Christians like us.
God Bless You.
Excerpt from The Changing Face of the Priesthood: A Reflection on the Priest's Crisis of Soul by Donald B. Cozzens.
Interesting presentation of data from different sources on Homosexual orientation amongst Roman Catholic priests. The Web page contains other interesting links.
The human price of intolerance and ignorance: up to four million people burned at the stake
From Wikepedia:
In 1184, the Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy. This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders up through the 17th century.
Witch trials became increasingly popular through the 14th and 15th century in Scotland, Spain, England, Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. It is estimated that up to four million convicted witches and heretics were burned at the stake during this time.
Among the best known convicted heretics to be executed by burning were Jan Hus (1415), Joan of Arc (1431) and Giordano Bruno (1600).
We need a new Copernican revolution
After the Copernican revolution, which upturned complely the perception that people had of the world (despite the strenuous opposition of the Roman Catholic Church which, for the sake of its dogmas and orthodoxy, was used to condemning people to burn at the stake), we really need another wide-spread Copernican-like revolution: one that establish clearly, once for all, that religion is trickery and fraud in its pretention to represent a transcendental dimension on earth, dimension that is contrived and result of human imagination.
We need a cultural revolution that make it clear that the solemn gloomy dark-gowned beings that we call priests are the expression of the legacy of barbarian times of superstition and ignorance, exploiters of anguish and grief and a factor of alienation and pathology; that is not acceptable anymore that anyone can cheat by saying "what I said is true because God told me that".
