The Real Meaning of Christmas--It's a Capitalist Trick

Forgive our absence, we have had to deal with a loss that has taken a toll on us, but we are now making our way back into "the fold" so to speak, and this seems to be a good time to do so.

Christmas--what is it?  What does it mean?  When I wander the malls, all I see is stress in the eyes of shoppers who somehow believe that getting that perfect gift is all that matters.  Or maybe it's cooking that perfect Christmas dinner, or hosting that perfect Christmas party......   Interestingly, until a few years ago, I used to be one of those people that was always looking for the perfect gifts, and hoping to cook that perfect dinner, and host that perfect party.  That is, until I boycotted Christmas.

Sadly, Christmas for me had nothing to do with being jolly or happy.  It was, in fact, an exhausting time of year where I was responsible for all the cooking, cleaning, decorating, shopping, etc. etc.--which put me under a lot of stress.  So why did I do it?  Most would say I did it for my family--but when I think about it, that isn't completely true.  Certainly, I bought those gifts and cooked those meals for the people I cared about, but what prompted those actions in the first place?  Was it religion? Yes, but it's not that simple.  Christianity is part of  the capitalist matrix that promotes the excessiveness of the Christmas season--which I have boycotted.  Christianity within the matrix created the perversion that "Christmas" has become.

Now, most would believe that when anyone says that Christmas has become a perversion, this would mean that we have taken "Jesus" out of the equation, and turned it into a quest for more material goods.  But no, Christmas has ALWAYS been a perversion, and I will explain why.  Although I disagree with the excessive materialism which has become part of the "Christmas season", people should also realize that Christmas never really was about Jesus at all until the emperor Constantine made it so a long time ago.  Christmas in essence, is a pagan celebration--not a Christian one.  

To be honest, since I know the history, I shake my head when I see the pagan symbols intertwined with the Christian ones--knowing very few people understand how this came to be.  (Easter is very similar, but that is for another post some other time.)  Christmas is not really about Jesus, as no one knows IF he was ever born, and if he was, no one knows exactly when that might have taken place.  Most likely, if he had been a real person, it would have been in the spring as Luke 2:8 states that when Jesus was supposedly born:

 “... there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” 

As winters in Judea were cold and wet, sheep at that time would be placed in corrals and would not be in the fields.  Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time.  In spring however, shepherds would stay with their flocks night and day, tending new births.  They are in the fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the spring or early fall.

Furthermore, the Bible tells us that Mary and Joseph were on their way to pay taxes when Jesus was supposedly born, but Palestine is very cold in December, and it was much too cold to ask everyone to travel to the city of their fathers to register for taxes. Shepherds were not in the fields in the winter time. They are in the fields early in March until early October. This would place Jesus' birth in the spring or early fall. 

So if Christmas isn't really about Jesus, what is it about then? Originally it was a pagan celebration based on "Saturnalia," which has nothing to do with Jesus at all.  The Roman Emperor Constantine created the Christian celebration known as Christmas during Saturnalia in order to make it easier to convert the pagans to this new religion. The first official "Christmas" celebration on December 25th was held in 336AD, and a few years later, Pope Julius I officially declared that the birth of Jesus would be celebrated on the 25th December.  Funny how a pope can decide when a so-called "god" was born--lol.  Really, I find that highly amusing. Constantine also paid people to be baptized into Christianity in order to gain new converts, which explained its growing popularity.  The gift giving, feasting, etc., which are integral to the "Christmas season" however, all have pagan origins, some based on Saturnalia. As wikipedia states:

Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honour of the deity Saturn held on December 17 of the Julian calendar and later expanded with festivities through December 23. The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at the Temple of Saturn in the Roman Forum and a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving, continual partying, and a carnival atmosphere that overturned Roman social norms: gambling was permitted, and masters provided table service for their slaves.^[1] The poet Catullus called it "the best of days."^[2]
In Roman mythology, Saturn was an agricultural deity who reigned over the world in the Golden Age, when humans enjoyed the spontaneous bounty of the earth without labor in a state of social egalitarianism. The revelries of Saturnalia were supposed to reflect the conditions of the lost mythical age, not all of them desirable. The Greek equivalent was the Kronia.^[3]
Although probably the best-known Roman holiday, Saturnalia as a whole is not described from beginning to end in any single ancient source. Modern understanding of the festival is pieced together from several accounts dealing with various aspects.^[4] The Saturnalia was the dramatic setting of the multivolume work of that name by Macrobius, a Latin writer from late antiquity who is the major source for the holiday. In one of the interpretations in Macrobius's work, Saturnalia is a festival of light leading to the winter solstice, with the abundant presence of candles symbolizing the quest for knowledge and truth.^[5] The renewal of light and the coming of the new year was celebrated in the later Roman Empire at the Dies Natalis of Sol Invictus, the "Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun," on December 25.^[6]
The popularity of Saturnalia continued into the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, and as the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, some of its customs may have influenced the seasonal celebrations surrounding Christmas and the New Year.^[7]

 Saturnalia--a solstice celebration, in honor of the coming of the new "sun." (son?)  Sound familiar?  It should. The birth of many other "sun/son" gods such as Mithra were also worshiped at this time.  The notion that Jesus too was supposedly born at this time as the "son" of God has, for our world today, created a perversion on top of a perversion.  That is, a so-called god, who is said to come for all, is instead celebrated by some via gluttony and exorbitance, while millions of "believers" and others starve to death without proper clothing or shelter.  But remember, these so-called "Christians" who indulge in these "Christmas celebrations" are not honoring their god, but the pagan gods, Saturn, Mithra, etc. In fact, Christmas does not honor Jesus at all, and Jesus, according to the Bible, would NOT be pleased with all the excess that has become a part of the "Christmas season".  The Bible quotes him saying as such to a rich man looking for a way into heaven:

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Mark 10:21

In other words, what so-called "Christians" celebrate as "Christmas" today are nothing but perversions, on top of perversions, on top of perversions, and they are all promoted via the Capitalist matrix we all live in.......which brings me to the tree.

Many times, I have seen Christmas trees in churches. Why, my mother used to take me to what is known as "The Singing Christmas Tree" which was a concert held in a Pentacostal church.  There, the carolers were tiered up to look like an actual tree!  It was quite beautiful, but it had nothing to do with their so-called Jesus, and really, should be considered "sacrilegious"--lol.  I can't help but to laugh when I think about that tree now. In fact, the Christmas tree has pagan origins. According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"The use of evergreen trees, wreaths, and garlands to symbolize eternal life was a custom of the ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Hebrews. Tree worship was common among the pagan Europeans and survived their conversion to Christianity in the Scandinavian customs of decorating the house and barn with evergreens at the New Year to scare away the devil and of setting up a tree for the birds during Christmastime."

So no, I do not set up a tree (when I used to have a real tree, a nativity scene {how bizarre!!} lights, and everything else) and I do not exchange gifts. I do not participate in a "celebration" co-opted by Christians in order to promote their own agenda.  I do not participate in a "celebration" which is promoted by the system in order to generate a larger cash flow for the capitalists.  Instead, I give money to certain charities, and have a nice relaxing dinner with a good bottle of wine, because, as Tony's grandmother once wisely said, "Every day should be like Christmas day."  In other words, we should treat our fellow human beings every day with the same love and respect many show only at Christmas time.    For us, Christmas means the love of family and friends, no headaches, no hangovers, and no excessive bills to pay.  That is the BEST Christmas of all....:) Cheers!!

Separation of Church and State?

One of my old professors, (and now my friend) sent this article my way--which, when I read, disappointed me immensely.  It seems some state governments in the United States are ignoring their own constitutions by offering poor students "vouchers" for private, mostly Bible based, schools.  This means, that some states (in this case, Louisiana) are using tax payer's money to fund schools that teach that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans 6000 years ago--among other things.

We all should be appalled--in fact, we should be outraged that this is happening.  It sets the precedent that there are no standards for education, and that as long as you have enough money to back you, you can teach students that Leprechauns really do have a pot of gold, and at this school, we will teach you how to find it!!

No.  Instead, we should be focusing on teaching students critical thinking skills, so they can identify this type of hokum when they see it. But this is not what the government wants.  You see, if you teach people how to think, then they are more apt to see what is really going on.  Can you see it?  Can you see what is really going on?  Governments LOVE religion, because it keeps people in the "sheeple state"--they believe what they hear without thinking about why.  What governments fear are those that question why--and demand real answers.  This is what critical thinking skills gives us, and this is what governments want to avoid.  So now can you see why governments support creationist nonsense?  Ah yes---to keep the critical thinkers at bay. So those of us that can think, we need to do what we can to stop this nonsense in its tracks. 

Christian Gobblydegook--Theologians are Full of It

What is written below is an excerpt from a book written by a Dutch Theologian named Herman Bavinck, titled, “The Doctrine of God”:

"Mystery is the vital element of Dogmatics. It is true that the term "mystery" in Scripture does not indicate abstract-supernatural truth in Romish sense; nevertheless, the idea that the believer would be able to understand and comprehend intellectually the revealed mysteries is equally unscriptural. On the contrary, the truth which God has revealed concerning himself in nature and in Scripture far surpasses human conception and comprehension. In that sense Dogmatics is concerned with nothing but mystery, for it does not deal with finite creatures, but from beginning to end raises itself above every creature to the Eternal and Endless One himself." p. 13

What was written above is a prime example of illogical gobblydegook written by, and promoted by many so-called “respected theologians.” So, what does it REALLY mean? Let's look at it logically to find out.

P1. If a mystery is revealed, then it would be understood.
P2 According to Bavinck, God's mysteries are “revealed.”
C. Therefore, God's mysteries are understood.

But that is not what Bavinck said. He said that what has been “revealed” surpasses human conception and comprehension, i.e., they CANNOT be understood. This then begs the question as to how a Christian can know ANYTHING about any so-called “mysteries,” if these mysteries surpasses their conception and comprehension. Again, let's look at it logically.

P1 If something surpasses human conception and comprehension, then it cannot be revealed to humans.
P2. God's mysteries surpass human conception and comprehension.
P3. Therefore, God's mysteries cannot be revealed to humans.
P4. If God's “mysteries” cannot be revealed to humans, then humans have no method of verifying God's “mysteries” as being true.
P5. God's mysteries cannot be revealed to humans.
C. Therefore, Christians have no justification for saying God's “mysteries” are true.”

Furthermore, if God's mysteries cannot be revealed to humans, as they surpass our conception and comprehension, then we have no way of knowing anything about this god. We have no way of knowing if he is what Christians claim he is, i.e., whether or not he is an all-loving, all-knowing, all-good god, or whether he is a sadistic tyrant, because the Bible indicates that the Christian god is capable of being all of these things.

So much for "revealing" the "mysteries" of God.   Instead, what I have "revealed" is just another Christian theologian spreading illogical gobbledygook as his own version of "truth."

Why James Holmes' Rampage is the Result of the Teachings of Christianity - Part 2

This post is a follow up to my previous post,  Why James Holmes' Rampage is the Result of the Teachings of Christianity.  For clarification, I will restate my thesis from my previous post:

"One hypothesis was put forth by the Christian apologist, Rick Warren, in one of his latest tweets, when he said, "When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it." The implied hypothesis being, that it's the result of teaching science, and in particular, Darwinianism and materialism. I propose that there is a better explanation. My hypothesis, which is not new by the way, as I have pointed out numerous times, the great Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago, that if you promulgate the notion that people are born bad, and cannot help but to sin, but will still gain entrance into paradise as long as they "repent"-- they are more likely to sin, repent, sin, repent--and repeat when necessary. Pelagius was wise, and realized that this belief would lead to "moral laxity"--which is quite evident in our predominantly Christian society, and amongst Christians in particular. My hypothesis is that when Christians are taught they are "born sinners" and cannot help but to sin, as they are taught it is not possible for them to be perfect, and that they are nevertheless given the "free gift" of salvation, they will have more of a tendency to act immorally, or, when Christians are taught they live in a world that is dominated by Satan, that it leads to immorality. Either way, it leads to immorality and chaos, and Christianity provides believers with a basis for the belief that they are absolved from taking responsibility for their own bad behavior. Jesus does that for them."

Why James Holmes' Rampage was the Result of the Teachings of Christianity

In times like this, when something horrendous happens, people tend to hypothesize as to the reasons why. As most everyone knows by now, the "nice Christian boy," James Holmes massacred 12 innocent people and wounded many more in his rampage in a Colorado movie theatre. One hypothesis was put forth by the Christian apologist, Rick Warren, in one of his latest tweets, when he said, "When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it."  The implied hypothesis being, that it's the result of teaching science, and in particular, Darwinianism and materialism.  I propose that there is a better explanation.  My hypothesis, which is not new by the way, as I have pointed out numerous times, the great Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago, that if you promulgate the notion that people are born bad, and cannot help but to sin, but will still gain entrance into paradise as long as they "repent"-- they are more likely to sin, repent, sin, repent--and repeat when necessary.  Pelagius was wise, and realized that this belief would lead to "moral laxity"--which is quite evident in our predominantly Christian society, and amongst Christians in particular.  My hypothesis is that when Christians are taught they are "born sinners" and cannot help but to sin, as they are taught it is not possible for them to be perfect, and that they are nevertheless given the "free gift" of salvation, they will have more of a tendency to act immorally, or, when Christians are taught they live in a world that is dominated by Satan, that it leads to immorality.  Either way, it leads to immorality and chaos, and Christianity provides believers with a basis for the belief that they are absolved from taking responsibility for their own bad behavior.  Jesus does that for them.

Humpty Dumpty Meets Reductio ad Absurdum--How Christian Rabbits Morph into Mad Hatters

This post is a followup to my previous post, “What Happened When Humpty Dumpty Met the Sons of Gods.” 

When I wrote the post, I was setting up a snare to catch Christian rabbits, as they take the bait and travel further down the rabbit hole. In doing so, they are “hoisted by their own petard” as they try to explain away problematic Biblical passages—in this case, Genesis 6:1-4. The Christians claim that Jesus is the only son of god, but then Genesis 6:1-4 states there are “sons of gods” --meaning there are many gods, and many sons of gods! It also implies there are goddesses as well, and that gods and goddesses have sex. This is where Humpty Dumpty semantics comes in, as I want them to admit that the words don't mean what they say they mean—literally. In doing so, they get entangled in a Humpty Dumpty semantic snare, as their explanations can then be turned against them, because now they have provided weight to these explanations that can now be used against them in the case of the Trinity. It leads to an absurd position for the Trinity doctrine and the historic Christian faith as a whole.

Why Would Death be Pleasing to a God in that he Requires a Living Blood Sacrifice, When he is Said to Love “Living” Beings?

This is from a series of twenty questions at the back of the book I am almost finished (editing is taking longer than I thought)  The answers come from a rational as well as a Christian perspective, and are meant to be though provoking, as well as offering better rationalizations.

What Happened When Humpty Dumpty Met the Sons of Gods

While I have presented this information in a paper, this post was inspired by a podcast by Credo House in their failed attempt to explain the difficult passages of Genesis 6:1-4, which speaks of the “sons of god” who TOOK women and had children with them:

Did Jesus Ever Sin?--YES!

Most Christians will adamantly claim that Jesus was without sin, as the Bible makes reference to his so-called "sinless nature" on many occasions such as 2Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1Peter 2:21-22; 1John 3:5.  However, Jesus himself notes that only God is "good" (Mark 10:17-18)--thereby implying that he is not "sinless" and not "god" either! The passages below indicate that if Jesus existed, then he was not lying when he implied that he was not "good" as he himself broke the laws, and under his direction laws were broken. In Luke, he forgoes the law by healing people on the Sabbath:

Credo House Proves the Bible is Illogical and Inconsistent via the Trinity

In my previous post on the trinity, I PROVED that the Christian conception of Trinity is illogical, and inconsistent with other passages in the Bible, such as Jesus sitting at the right hand side of Yahweh.

In this post, I will go further, and show that this Christian conception of the Trinity is actually based on the Bible, which would mean that the Bible itself is illogical and inconsistent.

Assume what the authors, C. Michael Patton, Th.M. and Tim Kimberley, Th.M from the Credo House say is true in the video below, and in this case, we actually believe they are right. That is, Athanasius, Constantine and the rest of the Nicene Council base their conception of the Trinity on the Bible.


10 Myths about God: #5 - The Trinity was Invented from Credo House on Vimeo.


As I had proven in my last post, the Christian conception of the trinity is illogical and inconsistent with other Bible passages. Now we see that the Christian conception of the Trinity is actually based on the Bible. If the Christian conception of the Trinity is actually based on the Bible, then the Bible itself is illogical and inconsistent. Therefore, the Bible is illogical and inconsistent.

Thanks Credo House--for proving that the Bible is illogical and inconsistent!!

Why Christianity has Contributed to the Development of the Porn Industry.

For the most part, Christians have always felt uncomfortable with their sexuality. In this post, I will explain why this is so, and why the attitude Christian society has towards the human body and human sexuality has led to sex being viewed as something "dirty," and that the human body itself is "filthy." The Christian view that humans are "born sinners" and that the body is filthy, and sex is "dirty" then leads people to act on their so-called "sinful nature"--which has inevitably contributed to the development of the porn industry.

Yahweh is Proven to be a Pernicious, Lofty, and Fickle God

This is an excerpt from a book that we have written which is near completion, and was inspired by a heated online conversation we had with a well known Christian. In this excerpt, it will be proven that Yahweh, touted as the “ultimate and only true god,” is nothing short of a fickle, and pernicious god, with an added air of loftiness about him when it concerns the subjects of knowledge and wisdom. To prove this, I can show where in the Bible Yahweh views wisdom as being good, and also views it as being bad.

The Non-Ethics of Christianity

Most Christians believe they have no laws to follow, since according to Paul, Jesus died to save them from the laws--so where does their "ethical code" come from then? Not the 10 commandments, because they were part and parcel of the "laws" that Jesus died to revoke. (It was MEN that separated them into categories later.) Jesus however, said "ALL the laws, and ALL the prophets MUST be followed until heaven and earth disappear. (Matt 5:18) So do Christians even have a moral code, and if so, where does it come from? Do Christians follow Jesus, or do they follow Paul? The answer is--Paul. Let me explain.

The belief that Christians do not have to follow the laws came from Paul. According to Paul, Christians are in essence, "lawless. " This makes "sin" something of a paradox because a sin is defined as a transgression against God's laws--but there are no laws! This was evident when Paul first began preaching, as his followers began having orgies, and participating in all sorts of debauchery--because they believed they had no laws--so he had to backtrack a bit and tell the Corinthinas that well, you can do anything, but not everything will be good for you. (1Cor. 10:23) Hmmm..... Unfortunately, even if there were "laws" to break, they would be redundant anyway, when anything can be forgiven as long as a believer sincerely "repents." There is no punishment for the "sinner" (as long as they don't get caught by the "secular" police!!) and no compensation for the victims under the Christian system either--making "sins" virtually meaningless. This is why Christianiy in and of itself is immoral and unjust.

Unfortunately, today we live in a society full of these "born sinners"--people who believe they were born bad, and cannot help but to do bad things--which explains the chaos. However, if Christians cannot help but to sin, do they really have "free will??" Not according to the Bible--but that is for another post. To explain the insidiousness of Christianity and their lack of real ethics and morality, take into consideration this wee bit of Socratic dialogue. In a conversation between a Christian and Jesus--according to Paul's version of Christianity:

Sinner: "Jesus, I know I shouldn't, but I really want to have sex with my neighbor's daughter. She's only 6, but I want her so bad."

Jesus: "You know that would wrong, but we both know you are a born sinner. So we both know it would be wrong to rape that little girl, but your sinful nature will compel you to rape her anyway, so go ahead. I have your back. When you are done with her, just come back and see me. Explain to me what you have done, and tell me how sorry you are for doing it, and I will forgive you. It will be like nothing happened at all, and you will still get to live with me in paradise forever."

Sinner: "Thanks Jesus! I'll be coming back to talk to you in a few hours! I gotta go, she'll be getting out of school right away, and I don't want to miss her!"

Yes people, THIS is Christian ethics and morality. I don't even have words to explain how sick this philosophy is.....

I often wonder what society would be like if people were taught they could be "perfect" in their choices, and that yes, they CAN make the right choices. What if they did not have a "fall guy" to take the blame for them? What if they had to take responsibility for their OWN actions? I doubt I will find out within my lifetime, but maybe someday...........

Why I Hate Christianity

There are many reasons why I hate Christianity--and yes, I do literally hate Christianity. Why?--because of the negative doctrines it promotes, and the resulting "moral laxity"--which the Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago.  Let me explain by offering the following analogy.


The following would be a "life situation" for many, and is analyzed from a Christian perspective:

Christians believe they are born bad, and cannot help but to do bad things because they are "born sinners." (Original sin) Now, a Christian man who says he loves his wife still beats her because she doesn't do as she is told. She forgives him for hurting her every time, because that is what her religion tells her to do. The man beats her because the same religion tells him he has authority over her, and he cannot help but to do bad things, so he does them thinking he can't help himself--but it's ok, because his god will forgive him. Until one fateful day when a beating ends in death, and he kills his wife with his bare hands. 


THIS IS WHY I HATE CHRISTIANITY.  I hate the fact that this religion tells people they are EXPECTED to behave badly.  I hate the fact that there are NO CONSEQUENCES for their bad behavior in this life or the next for believers as long as they sincerely say "sorry" to Jesus.  What about the victims??  What compensation do they get under the Christian system?  None.  There is no justice for victims of Christian crime--unless it is through secular laws.  Therefore, Christianity in and of itself is IMMORAL and UNJUST.  This is the biggest reason why I HATE Christianity.

If people believed they could do the right thing the first time, and took responsibility for their own actions instead of having "Jesus" do that for them, the world would be a much better place to live in.

Why Paul Most Likely Started Christianity

History tells us that many people have claimed to have visions and religious experiences--so why was Paul's taken so seriously over those of so many others?  This short excerpt from Chapter 4 might shed some light on the reasons why Paul had such a "vision" which started the religion of Christianity in the first place.

Many mainstream Christians mistakenly believe that Jesus was the founder of their religion, and that he founded it when he told Peter to build his church on "this rock," (Matt. 16:18) but Catholics have admitted this is not the case, as the evidence points away from this belief.¹ It was not through Christ that Christianity came into being --it was through St. Paul. Paul is claimed to have come from the Greek city of Tarsus (Acts 21:39), and educated in Jerusalem by a rabbi named Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Prior to becoming a Christian, Paul was an active Pharisee who was devoted to the law, and was very much opposed to Jesus and his followers.

So why did Paul, who most likely began as a Mithra worshiper, become a Jew, and then ultimately reject Judaism in favor of Christ?--it could be because of a girl. The fourth century writer Epiphanius, makes reference to what the Ebionites thought of Paul, and how he became a Jew and was circumcised in order to marry the daughter of a Jewish priest. When the girl spurned him, he became angry and denounced Judaism and the law--and Christianity was born.² Paul being spurned could also explain why he spoke so disparagingly against marriage, and told his followers only to marry if they feel they "cannot exercise self control." (1 Cor. 7:8-9)


Christians believe that Paul's "conversion" apparently occurred on the road to Damascus, where he had a vision of Christ,³ but we know that many "con men" make similar type claims in order to woo people into their fold.  This is how a "cult" works, and Christianity can be defined as a cult.  For example, Joseph Smith had a similar type vision to Paul, and Mormonism was born. David Koresh, the leader of the Davidian cult in Waco Texas that saw 76  people die in an FBI firestorm (17 of which, were children), also had a vision that he was a modern day Cyrus.  There is no reason that we should take the vision of Paul any more seriously than the vision of any other person.     


Nevertheless, Paul then went on as a self-proclaimed apostle, spreading the word to all who would listen to his schtick in various locales within the Hellenized world he was familiar with. He gained his converts by convincing them to give up their "dead pagan idols" in favor of the living God, and by preaching an apocalyptic message in which he told them the living God would return to judge them, and those who believed and worshipped the living God would be delivered, while those that did not would face his wrath. The belief that a living God would deliver them was a particularly strong message for those who had led lives of misery and persecution, as it offered them false hope and salvation in the afterlife when none was forthcoming in the lives they led on earth. This view is also the basis for "rapture theology" which many Christian denominations, such as the Pentecostals and Baptists believe in today.

1.Lives of the Popes, Richard McBrien, p. 25
2. Paul: The Mind of the Apostle, A. N. Wilson, p. 34
3.The New Testament-A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Bart Ehrman, 266; 268

Chapter 2 - Why Yahweh is Not Against Abortion

This is a short excerpt from Chapter 2 dealing with abortion.  The chapter goes into much greater detail to explain why the Christian god is not against abortion at all.  The following is just one of many explanations:

If we consider that according to Christianity, the Christian god is all knowing, then the Christian god knows if a fetus will grow into an evil monster. Perhaps then the same reasoning Christians apply to the biblical slaughters of pregnant mothers and their fetuses (Deuteronomy 20:16-18) can be applied to aborted fetuses as well. i.e., The Christian explanation for the slaughter of the Canaanite fetuses is that they could have grown to be evil monsters if they were allowed to live, so the Christian god orchestrated their termination because, as Christians tell me, God knows best "in the larger sense." So just like the Canaanite children could have grown to be evil monsters if they were allowed to live--which is why Yahweh allowed them to be slaughtered--so could the aborted fetuses of today have grown to be evil monsters, and therefore, the Christian god did not allow them to be born. Furthermore, if we take into consideration the above Christian explanation of the slaughter of the Canaanite children, the question then arises as to why the Christian god allowed "evil monsters" such as Hitler to be born in the first place--who then went on to kill more than 6 million of his "chosen people" (Jews) in the Holocaust of WWII. It makes no logical sense that an all-good, all knowing, and all powerful god would kill an entire group of "potentially evil" people in the Bible, but fail to eliminate the fetus of one of the worst mass murderers in human history--the murderer of his own so-called "chosen" people. 

If Yahweh exists, he would know, and since he knows, why would he not get rid of someone like Hitler? Since the Bible tells us that "...EVERY decision is from the Lord" (Proverbs 16:33), this would be his will--according to what the Bible tells us. According to the Bible, everything is determined by God, i.e, allowing evil monsters to live (instead of killing the potentially evil fetus) and abortion.  Ironically, Christians claim abortion to be the murder of the innocents--making Yahweh a murderer of the innocents.

Chapter 1 Part 2 - What Good is Christianity??

In this second excerpt from Chapter 1, we examine so-called "Christian contributions" to society:

The ancient religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism have certainly influenced the Abrahamic faiths and their history, and it is through this history that we also come to understand why and how Christianity has became one of the most dominant faiths in our society, as opposed to any of the other religions. It is also important to note that many so-called "learned Christians" of today such as David Aikman, are blissfully unaware of the history of their religious beliefs, as they adamantly proclaim Christianity should be credited with promoting "tolerance" and "freedom of thought,"¹ when we have just pointed out that this is not the case at all. Christianity is not so much about freedom of thought and tolerance as it is about control and manipulation.

In reference to any so-called "contributions" to society Christianity may have made, most were mere tokenism, and other so-called contributions were made with another agenda in mind.

Consider what Dinesh D'Souza posits in his book, "What's So Great About Christianity" :

The "Dark Ages" were the consequence of Roman decadence and barbarian pillage. Slowly and surely, Christianity took this backward continent and gave it learning and order, stability and dignity. The monks copied and studied the manuscripts that preserved the learning of late antiquity. Christopher Dawson shows in "Religion of Western Culture" how the monasteries became the locus of productivity and learning throughout Europe. Where there was once wasteland, they produced hamlet, then towns and eventually commonwealths and cities. Through the years the savage barbarian warrior became a chivalric Christian knight, and new ideals of civility and manners and romance were formed that shape our society to this day." p. 43

In actuality, the people at that time were far from being "backwards." In fact, the some of the women were so adept at healing, the church found them to be a threat to their power  and persecuted them (i.e., the "witches"); the monks were busy writing only in Latin, so the general population would have no access to it (keeping the power in the hands of the clergy); and the so-called "chivalrous knights" were responsible for untold killing and torture during the Crusades and Inquistitions. This is not to say Christianity has not made any contributions to society. Some argue we would not have hosptials, orphanges, and universities if it were not for the Christians in the world--but at what cost? Was it worth it to murder all the medicine women so that men could take over their duties and create "hospitals" where millions more died of infection before they figured out they needed to wash their hands? (Something the medicine women already knew.) Was it worth it to create orphanages where children lived lives of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of priests and nuns? Was it worth it to teach only a select few in universities and keep the general populace ignorant for centuries? I do not think so. Christian contributions to society are minor in comparison to the misery it has caused.  In fact, if it were not for the supression of many artists, scientists, philosophers, healers, and others who went against church dogma and were either tortured or killed because their "contributions" threatened church hierarchy, we might be much further ahead today in the realms of science, medicine, art, and morality--were it not for Constantine and his cohorts.

1. The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, David Aikman, p. 40

The next post will be an excerpt from Chapter 2 - The Enigma Known as Yahweh

Chapter 1 - Why Christianity is Responsible for the Dark Ages

In the coming weeks we will be posting excerpts from our book, "Consequences of Christianity." This is an excerpt from Chapter 1.  In this chapter, after explaining the relationships between the various gods of the Middle East and Asia, we go on to explain how the library in Alexandria Egypt influenced Christianity. Enjoy!

 Reasons for the similarities between the various gods could be found at one time in the immense library located in Alexandria, Egypt. This is due to the fact that in ancient times before Christ, there was a great deal written and recorded on the various religions of the known world, and much of this knowledge was, at one time, stored in this library. It was a library built of marble, and it was said to be incredibly beautiful, with statues, and pictures everywhere; and was also said to contain an incredible 400,000 volumes of written work. In fact, it eventually grew so large, that an additional library was created in the temple of Serapia, which was said to contain an additional 300,000 volumes. The one time Hellenistic ruler of Egypt, Ptolemy Sotor (367-283 BC), and his son Philadelphius, founded this library with the purpose of the continued perpetuation, increase, and diffusion of knowledge. To do this, the chief librarian, at the king's expense, was ordered to buy as many books as possible. Any books brought into Egypt were then taken to the museum where they were meticulously copied by transcribers before being given back to the owners. After paying a fee to the book owner, these copies were then placed in the library.

The library not only contained thousands of volumes divided into the four faculties of literature, mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, there were also botanical and zoological gardens used to facilitate the study of plants and animals, as well as an astronomical observatory containing globes, astrolabes, and other instruments that were then in use. The library also served as a place of instruction where lectures were held. Intellectuals and students from all over the known world would congregate there, and it is said that at one time there was no fewer than 14,000 people in attendance. Some of the most eminent fathers of the Christian church such as Origen and Athanasius were also familiar with the great library.¹

Many of these intellectuals who frequented the library became familiar with Buddha, Mithra, Krishna, Horus, and a host of other gods and goddesses who were worshiped by other known nations. Tragically, this magnificent library was burned during the siege of Alexandria (48 BCE) by Julius Caesar. To make amends for this action, Marc Antony, during his reign of the empire (40-30 BCE), presented Cleopatra with the second largest collection of works in the known world; the plundered library collection of Eumenes, King of Pergamus. It was not to last however, as in the year 391, Roman Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all non-christian temples, and the Christian patriarch Theophilus, gladly complied by destroying all pagan temples and the library at Serapia.² The destruction of this vast library by Christians was a death blow to free thought for more than a thousand years. To add insult to injury, a church was then built on the foundation of Serapia in honor of the “noble martyrs” (i.e. Christians) who never existed.³

The Christian “saint” (and I use the term loosely) Cyril who succeeded Theophilus, struck the final death blow to free thought when he had his monks and his assistant Peter the Reader, brutally murder the brilliant female philosopher/scientist Hypatia (350?-415 CE), who was the daughter of the mathematician and last curator of the Alexandrian library, Theon of Alexandria (335-405 CE). On her way to one of her lectures, Hypatia's chariot was mobbed by monks, and she was dragged into a church where she was killed by the club of Peter the Reader. Her corpse was then cut into pieces, the flesh scraped from her bones with shells, and the remnants thrown into the fire. Cyril was never called to account for this barbarism, as according to them the “ends justified the means,” and the “means” was to eradicate free thought in favor of religious indoctrination. By 414 CE, the intellectual “Dark Ages” was in full swing, culminating in the prohibition of teaching, and the closing of all schools in Athens by the emperor Justinian (529 CE).⁴

1. Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, TW Doane., p. 440;

2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Decree_of_Theodosius.2C_destruction_by_Theophilus_in_391

3. Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, TW Doane, p. 440

4. Ibid., 441

In My Absence...

In my absence, I have been working on a project which is on the verge of completion.  It will be available to the public within a month or so, but I thought in the meantime, I would offer a few excerpts.  The first one will be on the subject of faith:

Faith, especially in the religious sense, is nothing more than hope or a belief in something without any facts or “knowledge” to substantiate those beliefs, or as Nietzsche posited, "Not wanting to know what is true." While wisdom is acquired through the knowledge and experience we gain in life, faith requires nothing more than the will to believe. The Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard once said, "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe,"¹ which he believed was an adequate explanation for his faith. Because there is no evidence, Kierkegaard believed that faith is all that was required to be a Christian. Many Christians today however, feel otherwise, which may be due to the increased pressure from non-theists to find reasons and evidence to support religious beliefs of all types.

Faith in any case, is only good if it is faith in the right thing. One can have faith in flying pink elephants, and swear they are real through faith alone, but that won't make them real. To be real, there must also be some verifiable knowledge of flying pink elephants such as: “How big are they? Are they light pink or are they dark pink? Do they fly at night, during the day, or both? Where is the best place to see a flying pink elephant? Do you have any photos of a flying pink elephant? Has anyone else seen these pink flying elephants? And so on.

Besides religious faith, other types of faith also play apart in our lives. Women in abusive relationships for example, can have "faith" that their mates will one day stop beating them--but faith will not stop the beatings. These types of scenarios are examples of having faith in a "bad thing." It is only action that can only stop the cycles of abuse; on the part of the mate who makes a conscience decision to stop, and/or on the part of the woman who makes a conscience decision to leave. To be abused over and over again, keeping the "faith" that it will one day stop, more often than not ends in tragedy .It is having faith in a "bad thing."

Having faith and believing that god will somehow "do the right thing," such as stopping spousal abuse, or stopping the murder of the "chosen people of God" by the Nazis in WWII--has not stopped women from being killed by their partners, nor did it save 6 million Jews from being gassed to death by the Nazis.  These are just a few examples that illustrate that faith without evidence can be dangerous.  It is only action which brings about the right or the wrong thing--not faith.

This is but a short excerpt, from one section of my project. Much of this section also deals with having faith in the "right" things.  The entire project deals with the consequences of the Christian religion on society, and I will be posting more excerpts on subjects dealing with the attributes of the gods of Christianity, and the abuses-both known and unrealized--that can be attributed to this bizarre belief system.