- Category: Articles Essays Etc
“Religions are maintained by people. People who can't get laid, because sex is the first great earthly pleasure. But if you can't get that, power is a pretty good second one. And that's what religion gives to people, power. Power is sex for people who can't get or don't want or aren't any good at sex itself.” –Bill Maher
In what I consider a very perplexing decision, the Catholic Church forbids its leaders from having sex (a vow of chastity or more commonly known as celibacy) and then these sexless people decide how the rest of us must have sex. Like I said, it seems quite odd if you think about it, but most all religions are quite odd just most people don’t think about them. The entire idea of celibacy is strange on its face, and for the Catholic Church to adopt it and condemn it upon their holly priests and other clergy members, was a poor move indeed. It has led to, or at least aided in, some of the most horrific atrocities that can be committed, the rape of young children. But I’ll get into that in a bit; first I want to give you a bit of background on how this great idea of celibate priests came to be.
The brief background of why priests take a vow of celibacy come from the imitation of Jesus and his apostle Paul, granted it’s not directly from them as very little actually is; but the idea of being alone in the desert or on an island, mixed with poverty and the feeling of righteousness was imitated by monks and other religious leader over the first thousand years A.D. Then in the year 1079 the Catholic Church, under Pope Gregory VII made it a law that priests were required to be celibate. I assume that one of the reasons for this was to limit some of the corruption that was so prevalent in the Church at this time. It took hundreds of more years to be taken seriously and evolve to what it is today.
“Sexual innocence, which can be charming in the young if it is not needlessly protracted, is positively corrosive and repulsive in the mature adult. Again, how shall we reckon the harm done by dirty old men and hysterical spinsters, appointed as clerical guardians to supervise the innocent in orphanages and schools? The Roman Catholic Church in particular is having to answer this question in the most painful of ways, by calculating the monetary value of child abuse in terms of compensation. Billions of dollars have already been awarded, but there is no price to be put on the generations of boys and girls who were introduced to sex in the most alarming and disgusting ways by those whom they and their parents trusted. "Child abuse" is really a silly and pathetic euphemism for what has been going on: we are talking about the systematic rape and torture of children, positively - aided and abetted by a hierarchy which knowingly moved the grossest offenders to parishes where they would be safer. Given what has come to light in modern cities in recent times, one can only shudder to think what was happening in the centuries where the church was above all criticism. But what did people expect would happen when the vulnerable were controlled by those who, misfits and inverts themselves, were required to affirm hypocritical celibacy? And who were taught to state grimly, as an article of belief, that children were "imps of" or "limbs of" Satan? Sometimes the resulting frustration expressed itself in horrible excesses of corporal punishment, which is bad enough in itself. But when the artificial inhibitions really collapse, as we have seen them do, they result in behavior which no average masturbating, fornicating sinner could even begin to contemplate without horror.This is not the result of a few delinquents among the shepherds, but an outcome of an ideology which sought to establish clerical control by means of control of the sexual instinct and even of the sexual organs. It belongs, like the rest of religion, to the fearful childhood of our species. Alyosha's answer to Ivan's question about the sacred torture of a child was to say ("softly")—"No, I do not agree." Our reply, to the repellent original offer of the defenseless boy Isaac on the pyre, right up to the current abuses and repressions, must be the same, only not delivered so softly.” –Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great
That’s the short note about celibacy in the Catholic Church, now we get to the rules and regulations that were created by sex deprived, possible child molesters for you to follow or else it is a sin and may be responsible for you going to Hell.
The Catholic rules can be divided into three groups: sex before marriage, sex after, and masturbation. (For some reason the masturbation stays in lieu of your marital status.) We’ll start where everybody starts, masturbation. To the Church, masturbation is very bad, in fact any sexually gratifying act that’s end result does not have the possibility of creating a child is forbidden. Everybody knows why masturbation is a sin; actually let me rephrase that, because it is confusing as hell! It doesn’t seem to come from anywhere, or at least any ‘Godly’ source, but if you ask a Catholic person the answer you’re most likely to get back is, masturbation is a sin because it is enjoyable. It really seems like the Church goes out of its way to forbid anything that’s pleasurable. One may wonder how a belief like this would propagate and become so widespread? My personal theory is that people have evolved to not trust pleasurable things, or things that “seem too good to be true,” and so any belief system that has an abundance of ‘pleasurable’ features would therefore not catch on and propagate to any significant means.
“If we gave in to our every base instinct every time, civilization would have been impossible and there would be no writing in which to continue this argument. However, there can be no question that a human being, whether standing up or lying down, finds his or her hand resting just next to the genitalia. Useful no doubt in warding off primeval aggressors once our ancestors decided to take the risk of going erect and exposing the viscera, this is both a privilege and a provocation denied to most quadrupeds (some of whom can compensate by getting their mouths to the same point that we can reach with our fingers and palms).
Upcoming in Part 2: Sex and Marriage, to finish off Christianity. Then we start all over again with Islam and then Judaism. But first, here's a teaser from the Islam part:
While, when it comes to sex, Islamic views are quite different then the Catholic ones; as an example, they don’t demand or even promote celibacy for their Imams, they do however have rules on marriage and premarital sex that, in my opinion are much more stringent than those of the Catholic Church. Having sex with someone you are not married to is so taboo that there are whore houses that have an Imam (Islamic leader, like a pastor) who actually marries you before hand and then divorce you after. Apparently God is ok with sex as long as it is done under the blessing by an Imam, in the form of a marriage, no matter how short.
- Category: Articles Essays Etc
By Garrett Fogerlie
Keep in mind that the New Testament is a highly questionable source, and should be looked at with skepticism! The majority of its books, if not all, were not written by their namesake but by descendants many, many years later. (One reason for this is that most people though that the apocalypse was going to come in their lifetime, as Jesus said, so why bother to write it down)
Nevertheless, let’s assume for a moment that it is true. The books say Jesus died for our sins, and three days later came back to life. This is thought by many to be the pinnacle argument for why to believe that he is the son of god. According to the New Testament, resurrection is almost commonplace. Both Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus were resurrected. Albeit it was supposedly Jesus that resurrected them, who’s to say someone didn’t resurrect Jesus after his death. Resuection was such a commonplace at that time, that apparently nobody seems to have thought it worthwhile to follow up with either Lazarus or Jairus’ daughter after they came back from death. You would think that they would have been hounded with questions and that these questions would defiantly have been worthwhile to include in the bible. It must have been so common that nobody cared about their extraordinary experiences. Nor does anyone seem to have kept a record of whether or not, or how, these two individuals re-died. Or if they stayed immortal? Perhaps they are still wandering around to this very day? Who knows perhaps that’s where the vampire myth comes from? They may be in complete misery, condemned to eternal life on earth. How can they get into heaven? This misery being inflicted upon a mere bystander in order to fulfill the otherwise unfulfilled prophecy that Jesus would come again in the lifetime of at least one person who had seen him the first time around.
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
When Jesus was put to death, according to the Gospel of Matthew 27:52-53,
"the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
This seems incoherent, since the dead corpses apparently rose both at the time of the death on the cross and of the Resurrection. Oddly enough history has no record of corpses rising form graves. It must have scared the hell out of everyone around the world, but yet no one seems to written it down. Not even the many historians whose records, while meticulous, apparently deemed that corpses’ crawling up everywhere was not as important or interesting as the suns rise and set time, or the yield of a particular crop and such.
The bible records the taunts and comments of the Roman soldiers, at the time of Jesus’ death, and not a single one said, “Holly shit, corpses are coming out of the fucking ground! Run!!!”
Resurrection is apparently so frequent, that no one pays any attention to the dead rising from their graves. This undermines the uniqueness of the resurrection by which all of mankind’s sins were forgiven.
There is no cult or religion before or since, from Osiris to vampirism to voodoo, that does not rely on some innate belief in the "undead." To this day, Christians disagree as to whether the day of judgment will give you back the old shitty, abused, wreck of a body that has already died on you, or will you be given some new form. If it’s the latter, people will have to come up with a new way in which they can recognize one another.
For now though, we can say that resurrection would not prove the truth of Jesus’ doctrine, nor his paternity, nor the probability of still another return in fleshly or recognisable form. The action of a man who volunteers to die for his fellow creatures is universally regarded as noble. The extra claim not to have "really" died, because he was back in three days, makes the whole sacrifice tricky and meretricious.
Thus, those who say "Christ died for my sins," when he did not really "die" at all, are making a statement that is false in its own terms. Having no reliable or consistent witnesses, in anything like the time period needed to certify such an extraordinary claim, we are finally entitled to say that we have a right, if not an obligation, to respect ourselves enough to disbelieve the whole thing, unless or until superior evidence is presented, which it has not been. Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence!