What is the Bible’s view of sex? Is belief in a creator reasonable?
The first question is the heading on
the front of the pamphlet, which reads THE WATCHTOWER ANNOUNCES JEHOVAH'S KINGDOM and on the top right-hand corner
reads NOVEMBER
1, 2011. There is a picture between the writing on the
front cover of the pamphlet. It shows
two well-dressed people. On the left is
a woman holding an umbrella, a man is on the right. If we turn the page, we inevitably get to the
contents. The top of the page reads:FROM OUR COVER
3. Does the answer matter?
4. Ten questions about sex unanswered
8. Why live by the bible’s standards?
Then further, down the page we see the following words:
REGULAR FEATURES
10. The Bible changes lives
12. Did you know?
13. Keys to family happiness
-cultivate
spirituality as a couple
16. Learn from God’s word
-how
do God’s laws benefit us?
21. Draw close to God-fulfilling our obligation
to God
29. Our readers ask…
30. For young people rescued- from a fiery
furnace!
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
18. How can fathers stay close to their sons?
22. When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?
-what
the clay documents really show.
On the next page (3) is a painting of
a woman with her arms folded on the right-hand side, there is writing on the
bottom third of the page but that is irrelevant for the time being. Towards the right of the woman, we see the
headline “Does the answer matter?” reads:
I
was ten years old when I began going out with boys. At first, we would hold hands and kiss. Soon, though, we were touching intimate body
parts and experimenting with various sexual activities.
It started well enough but when we
get to the part where is says: “experimenting with sexual activities”; the
language is clearly written very carefully as its function is to entice a great
number of people to Christian morality, as we shall soon see. What an odd phrase to use, “sexual
activities”, it appears to me the writers of this pamphlet were very weary
indeed of what to write, every word is vitally important, this is also true of
a propagandist. Language is as important
as the rampant lying, misinformation and subversion of the truth to a
propagandist. However, getting back to
the pamphlet itself, it is the writing underneath this so-called story where
the keen observer sees the simplicity of the language, and is easily able to
detect what sort of audience it is aimed at:
Would
it surprise you to learn that Sarah was brought up in a religiously devout
household? Her parents tried to raise her
to live by the Bible’s moral standards.
Earlier I spoke briefly of propaganda
but not in reference to the pamphlet itself.
Now I do speak of propaganda in direct reference to this pamphlet. For the first time in the pamphlet we hear
words such as “religiously devout” and the “Bible’s moral standards”, so by
their reckoning, if you are brought up by the Bible’s moral standards there is
no reason for you to sleep with multiple partners or have an interest in sex at
a young age. The propaganda I speak of
is clear for all to see. Let us take a
brief look at “the Bible’s moral standards”.
I do not wish to quote from the Bible or any other source save for the
pamphlet itself but allow me to make some references to the Bible. Noah’s Floods and the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorrah, are not doubt some of the most famous passages in the whole of
the Old Testament. Noah’s Flood is a
flood to end all floods; a flood to end all life, it is one of the gravest
crimes committed in the whole of the Bible, if not the greatest, for it is
harder to imagine a graver crime in practically wiping out the whole of
humanity. The most disturbing aspect of
this holocaust is the person or indeed, the divine being responsible for such a
heinous act is God himself. It puts every
serial killer combined to great shame; it puts every crime of Hitler, Stalin
and Mao as minor offences, they are unable to compete with utter destruction of
human and indeed animal life God is responsible for. All this and we are told are “the Bible’s
moral standards”. Another contention for
one of the most ghastly crimes in the Old Testament is the barbaric destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah, and again who is responsible for this monstrous
crime? Why, God, of course. So if God was to rule the earth, as these
people believe he will, the people of New York had better behave themselves for
if just one individual acts in such a way that God believes is unacceptable,
will he then raise New York to the ground?
Would the Supreme Being be justified in killing every man, woman and
child because a single individual or a small number of individuals have acted
contrary to God’s laws? Again, these are
“the Bible’s moral standards”.
So the combination of simplistic
language and propaganda in the pamphlet are handy tools for the writers of this
booklet to use. It targets a specific
vulnerable group, and that is the key.
For somebody that is both educated and cultural, such things they would
laugh off, and that is the intention. In
this way, they function the same way as the tabloid press do in Britain: to
teach people how to think. It is difficult
to teach people how to think when they already have the capacity to think for
themselves. Just like the bully who is
able to dominate and bully his wife, he must choose his victim carefully.
The pamphlet gets more interesting as we turn over the page, and the headline at the top of the page reads:
TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT SEX ANSWERED
I will not go all through ten questions for that would be tedious indeed, so I will just pick two or three questions and discuss them afterwards:
3.
“Does the Bible approve of a man and woman living together if they are not already married?
Answer: the Bible clearly states, “God will judge fornicators”. The Greek word fornification, porneia, broadly refers to the misuse of sexual organs of those who are not married to each other. Therefore, it would be wrong in God’s eyes for a couple to live together even if they intended to get married later.
Even
if a couple are deeply in love, God still requires they marry before enjoying
sex. God created us with the capacity to
love. God’s primary quality is
love. Therefore, he has good reason for
insisting that sex be enjoyed only by married
couples.
6.Is it wrong to have an abortion?
Answer: life is sacred to god, and he views an embryo as a distinct, living being. God stated that a person be called to account for injuring an unborn child. So, in his eyes, killing an unborn child is murder.
8.
Does God Approve of Homosexuality?
Answer:
the Bible clearly condemns fornication, which includes homosexual
relations. While the Bible is definite
about the disapproval of that lifestyle, we also know that “God loved the world
so much that he gave his only-begotten son, in order that anyone exercising
faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life”
Even
though they do not condone homosexual relations, true Christians show kindness
to all people. God wants us to honour
men of all sorts. Therefore, genuine
Christians are not homophobic.
There are many points to be made
here. I may have used the device William
Blake uses in attacking Swedenborg, but a better discussion and analysis is
required here. I kept to my promise and
only quoted three questions out of ten, along with their answers. However, I must add the three questions and
answers are sufficient. It is only
sensible that I address the former questions then onto the latter, this
prevents any confusion. Just a brief
reminder then, question 3, asked the following: “Does the Bible approve of a
man and a woman living together if they are not legally married?”
I have left out direct quotes from
the Bible, which I believe are unnecessary here. “God will judge fornicators”, is the answer
to the question. A “fornicator” will be
judged, it is clear what the Bible’s view on this issue, or people say God’s
view? Sex outside marriage is forbidden
under any circumstances, “even if they intend to get married later”. It appears, to me, in the 21st century, only
a select few could take these things seriously.
What runs through the Bible and other religious texts are such examples
as these: that people are told how to live their lives by somebody or something
that has never had any proof of existence.
These people live by what they call the moral code of the Bible. So if a man or a woman had led a life where
they have had numerous sexual partners, and never married, and are content with
their lives, then all is well and good. However,
if such people turn to the Bible for guidance, suddenly they have to be told by
their divine creator, no, not their mother or father, but God, that such
actions are forbidden. Of the Ten
Commandments, we are told murder is wrong, unless you are God of course. Therefore, some person that has murdered many
people, during a break of his murderous activity he decides to read the Bible,
he sees that murder is wrong, so he stops it.
Because preachers of the Bible would have it, we are all immoral so we
need the Bible to teach us to be ethical and moral. Firstly, it would help if would help if the
Bible is ethical and moral, which is clearly is not. There is no question people are against
government interfering into their own lives but for them it is perfectly
acceptable to be told by an imaginary being.
For it begs the question, how can one think for themselves when they
need the Bible to tell them everything what to do and what not to do? This is why Christianity is such a handy tool
for governments of different varieties.
If a number of individuals need a
book to tell them how to live their life, how to be moral, what is good and bad
then it would be necessary to go to church and forget about the brutality of
your own government; just pray and see what God brings for tomorrow. Religion is a government’s dream
Going back to question 3, the pamphlet-in the second paragraph says the following:
God created us with the capacity to love. God’s primary quality is love. Therefore, he has good reason for insisting that sex be enjoyed only by married couples.
So we are told in this pamphlet it
was God who created us; as if it was factually proven, it is quite
extraordinary really. If it was very
clear that God did in fact, create man it would be a very queer thing to
do. Because or at least as everyone
should know, that humans evolved from their ancestors so it is quite
inconceivable God created man. In fact,
one could argue Charles Darwin’s studies prove the non-existence of God but I
refute that. For nobody can prove
something that does not exist. If I say
a giant monster exists in the form of Darwin’s beard, nobody could prove its
inexistence; it would be impossible to prove.
However, one thing is clear: God did not create man, for how could he
when human existence evolved from other animals? Unless of course, firstly he created
bacteria, jellyfish, dinosaurs, mammals and so on. Even so, it is clear man and indeed woman
were not created, but evolved, that they were created is a myth fabricated by
many people. Some of this nonsense is
taught in schools; it should not be.
Imagine, if schools taught that Martin Luther king Junior was a white
man who preached violence at every given opportunity? No, I do not think anybody can, but people
would start to believe it.
In continuing the answer to question
3 of the pamphlet, the first part of the sentence reads, as we have seen, “it
was God who created us”, but the second part of the sentence
is even more astonishing, “with the capacity to love”.
In 1945, when Hitler shot himself,
did the surviving Jews of the death chambers in Auschwitz, Belsen, Treblinka,
Dachau, Buchenwald, Mauthausen and sachsenhausen, refer to Hitler as love? If people were saying, “Hitler is love”, the
response may be quite predictable, especially in places such as New York and
Tel-Aviv. There is a difference, two
differences actually, between God and Hitler’s crimes. God’s crimes are not factually documented,
and would surprise many, myself included, if God did such a thing, let alone
exist. Hitler’s crimes are factually
documented; such horrors happened. The
second point with God is there were no survivors to tell their story of the
horrors, even though it is a fictional story.
Of Hitler’s victims, many lived to tell the world what they endured
which makes any denial of the death and torture camps as obscene as saying “God
created us with the capacity to love”.
“God’s primary quality is love”, is the next line of the pamphlet in response to question
three. This goes a lot further than just
saying “God has the capacity to love”, Hitler has the capacity to love, or
rather did, one may say that and even get away with it but to say Hitler’s
primary quality is love, the person uttering such nonsense could and should not
be taken seriously again. To say God’s
primary quality is love is to say this Supreme Being’s biggest and best quality
is love. Yet people reading the Bible
believe this to be the case. Imagine an
A-level student studying Othello, the
tragedy written by William Shakespeare, countless times other characters in the
play often refer to the villain in the drama as “honest”, yet he is anything
but honest. He is a perpetual liar, a
murderer and much else besides. He even
murders his own wife, Aemilia, and his outrageous lies prompt Othello to murder
his wife, Desdemona, then finally take his own life. Would the student believe Iago to be honest
because the other characters in the play say he is honest? If she or he did, and made reference to it in
their exam, essay or presentation, they may find themselves disappointed with
their marks. However, for those with
religious convictions who forever study the Bible and appear to read little
else, they will always say absurdities like “God’s primary quality is love”,
despite the actions of the Supreme Being, which clearly contradict this foolish
analysis.
Let us turn to question six. The question was “Is it wrong to have an
abortion?” The answer we get is
laughable but we must proceed. For a
brief reminder then, the first sentence of the answer is:
Life is sacred to God, and he views even
an embryo as a distinct, living being.
I would first like to tackle the
first part of the sentence, “life is
sacred to God”, I think the attentive reader knows where this is
going. We have gone from “God has the capacity to love” to “life to God is
sacred”, it clearly is not. Each of
these statements are incorrect. On the
other hand it could be argued there is some merit in the last statement for it
does not say all life to God is sacred, just life, so perhaps he picks and
chooses, but that too is also incorrect because in God’s holocaust he targeted
all life forms : men, children, women, animals, the elderly and so on, so life
to God is not sacred; nothing could be further from the truth. These are simple
arguments even a child could grasp and argue.
The astonishing thing is the followers of Jehovah are not a dozen
people, a few hundred, tens of thousands, or even several hundred million but
well over in excess of one billion people follow the Christian faith. True, many have been truly brainwashed and no
amount of education and enlightenment can change that, in fact many are well
extremely educated. I challenge any
individual to find a book that is more genocidal than the Old Testament, nobody
will be able to live up to the challenge because no such book exists, and no
book could exist. Murder, mass murder,
sodomy, rape, pillage, incest, and the abuse of every kind are common themes in
the Bible.
“And
he views even an embryo as a distinct living being”; this, of course, concludes
the second part of the sentence. God, oh
the almighty God, views and embryo as a living being, how many, one may wonder,
embryos were there during the great holocaust, did anyone count? Clearly
not. However, what about the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah? Did anyone count
the embryo’s there God had destroyed?
Yet, despite this, our glorious creator, see an embryo as a distinct living
being, well there is nothing extraordinary in that statement for God does the
same as the embryo as he does to a born child, their murder on his say so,
clearly means nothing to him. Of course
here we are talking about abortion, women must not, so we are told, have
abortions, because embryos are akin to living beings. So therefore, a woman, a young girl or
whoever decides to have an abortion is a murderer. They have murdered their unborn child. Well in fact, they have not; the person
carrying out the abortion is clearly the murderer, so by the Bible’s standards,
all these doctors carrying out these abortions are murderers. Clearly, the girl
is complicit in the murder. Abortion is
an issue, which has been raging many years, and there is no doubt it will be
raging in years to come. However, the
very idea that an embryo is akin to is a living person is just an argument
peddled by political and intellectual thugs in order to win the debate. The argument will clearly not be won when
people claiming those who carry out abortions are murderers. If people are of the opinion, and many are,
that those things, which are bad for you ought to be banned, then surely the
Bible ought to be at the top of the agenda.
God
stated that a person would be called to account for injuring an unborn
child. Therefore, in his eyes, killing
an unborn child is murder.
Therefore, “God stated that a person
would be called to account for injuring an unborn child”.
If we are to be
really clear about this it is very unlikely God said anything of the kind but
let us pretend for the rest of the essay that God does exist and everything he
says in the Bible is factual. At this point,
it must be said the Supreme Being himself has not been held to account for
injuring all those unborn children, I think the word hypocrisy comes into play
here. To be fair to God he did not
injure all those unborn children, he just drowned all those women carrying
their unborn children and thus murdering their unborn child. So who will judge God for his grave crimes? A question not likely to be answered anytime
soon. However, the next point must be
made. Under no circumstances must a
woman never have an abortion? Just take
several examples. Suppose a woman is pregnant,
her partner is a violent man who is abusive to women, he is an alcoholic who
abuses children; the pregnant woman is a prostitute who lives on drugs and
alcohol. Does God believe such people
should raise children in this environment?
Alternatively, take another case; a woman is pregnant who has always
maintained she will torture her child slowly, first as a baby, then an infant,
and so on. That does not matter where
God is concerned because according to him a female, under no circumstances,
should never have an abortion.
I would now like to move on to the
final question. This, I believe, is the
most interesting of the three. The
question is brief and simple. “Does God
approve of homosexuality?”
Again, I would like to
look at the first sentence of the answer, which reads, “the Bible condemns
fornification”, which includes homosexual relations. I do not think you could have a clearer answer than the one
given. As we saw, only married couples,
that are a man and a woman, are able to have sex in God’s world so homosexuals
are not permitted the same rights as everybody else. Thus, enter almighty God the bigot. One of the biggest problems with the Bible
and modern interpretation is that it was written hundreds of years ago, that is
clear enough. People who read the Bible
religiously still believe the things God said is still relevant in today’s
society. In the mid-1960s, homosexuality
(for men) was illegal in Britain; ten years later, it was not. It is clear as the years pass people become
more civilised and enlightened, as do entire nations. Slavery was once deemed acceptable; now it is
not. Up until the early 1990s, it was
legal for a man to rape his wife in the United States; now it is not. During the First World War deserters in
Britain were shot; now they are not, it goes on and on, nothing stays the same
for too long. Perhaps Saudi Arabia is
the exception. Everything changes, just
like evolution, the changes are gradual but they are changes nonetheless. I am sure if Jehovah were to write his
updated version of the Bible, tomorrow he would have far more enlightened views
on many issues. People who take the
Bible in its entirety literally are very dangerous people indeed.
While
the Bible is definite about God’s disapproval of that lifestyle, we also know
that God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten son, in order
that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have
everlasting life.
When I read this answer, quoted
above, I thought perhaps I was reading the answer to another question by
mistake. This could be translated as
‘God loved the world so much so therefore he was not homophobic’, because the
people who wrote the pamphlet know full well that the people reading it may be
homosexual themselves, therefore they have to add this extra bit of nonsense
which has nothing to do with the question raised so they do not scare people
off completely. Clearly, as the years
pass by people become more civilised and to oppose homosexuality is seen as an
anathema in many western countries. So
extreme caution is required in tackling this sensitive area. It is very clear then that the Bible disapproves
of homosexuality. Yet with the Bible,
disapproving of such things is still seen by many as a beacon of
enlightenment. The question needs to be
asked: what right does anybody have to tell others what to do as long as they
are not bringing harm to anybody?
Perhaps, and this argument has often been made, the rest of society do
not wish to endure their vile lifestyle choice, and pass on their disease. God loved the world so much but there is
nothing in the Bible that says he loves homosexuals. He loved the world, so we are told, but not
homosexuals. The very fact that there
are many practising Christians who themselves are homosexuals shows how
ludicrous and backwards the Bible’s view on sexuality really is. For this raises the question: what indeed is
a Christian? Somebody who picks and
chooses from the Bible, clearly.
On page eight of the pamphlet we are
asked a question which they answer for us.
The question posed is:WHY LIVE BY THE BIBLE’S STANDARDS?
Then under this heading in smaller writing, the pamphlet reads:
Is the Bible’s view regarding sex old-fashioned and needlessly restrictive? No.
A straight answer to a straight
question then but such issues have already been raised in the essay, the
Bible’s view regarding sex is old-fashioned otherwise they would not have posed
the question in the first place. For how
many Christians in the world have only had sex after marriage, and only with
their husband or wife. The question
does not need answering but another important point must be made here: that
many Christians believe the promiscuous or fornicating-types are destroying the
values of the family and are spreading their vile pestilence to generation upon
generation. For again we come along to
that idea that the Bible teaches people how to act morally and decently because
clearly people are not moral until they have read the Bible. A counter-argument to this is that people
have good morals and principles without ever needing to read the Bible for guidance
or for similar reasons. I would argue
the very opposite that the Bible teaches morality. It teaches immorality, as is clear when we
read it. If I were literally to name the
crimes committed in the Old Testament, this essay would no longer be an essay
but double the size of War and Peace
and would be unpublishable. Thus far I
have offered two basic arguments for God’s criminality and immorality in the
Bible; just two. For indeed I could have
set out to write an academic essay, quoting the Old Testament here, there and
everywhere. However, the point is
immorality is everywhere in the Old testament so it does not teach people to be
moral but immoral. As we have seen, the
Bible forbids abortion and thus facing young girls and indeed older women into
having unwanted babies. Forcing a woman
to have a baby he does not want or her partner does not want is not only
immoral; it is outright dangerous. Then
there is the treatment of homosexuals, lest we forget these are issues I have
not raised; they were raised in the pamphlet.
In addition, we see there are still more examples to come. Of course, one of the great menaces we have
in society is faith schools. This
amounts to nothing but brainwashing. It
thwarts independent thought, tells children the world is six thousand years-old
and the most disgraceful aspect of faith schools is the fear of the Devil. If, little boy, you do not believe, then the
Devil will deal with you; this is child abuse, just like much of the Bible
glorifies and justifies child abuse. Is
there any wonder why child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church is so
endemic? There are sections in the Old
Testament that indeed glorify child abuse on such an horrific scale that it is
no surprise that child abuse is so endemic for people who practise the religion.
- sexually transmitted diseases
- out of wedlock pregnancies
- the painful consequences of broken marriages
- a guilty conscience
- the degradation of being used by others
I would like to look at each of these
briefly, if I may. (1). sexually
transmitted diseases; so
if we are to follow the Bible’s code of ethics, we reduce our chances of having
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), do we?
Well, in a word, no. There is an
assumption that somebody who has casual sex with a large number of people are
at a higher risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases, this could be argued
for and against with equal credibility but let us take just one example: the
adult entertainment industry. The people
who perform in these movies no doubt have sex with many people but very few get
STDs, because, largely, they are protected, they are tested and the process is
very methodical. On the other hand, a
prostitute who stands on the street corner is far more likely to catch some
STDs, because precaution is not a prerequisite.
Therefore, things are not as black and white as the Bible paints it.
(2). Out
of wedlock pregnancies. It is even more unacceptable, according to
the Bible if you fall pregnant outside marriage but later get married to that
very same person. This appears to me to
be a very extremist view on the matter.
These strict guidelines are nothing but out-dated views on the
family.
(3). the painful
consequences of broken marriages. This goes back to the
idea that we have no morality or any idea of morality until we read the Bible
or at least become familiar with views expressed in it. A marriage is not a contract where you must
remain married until you cease to exist.
How many people are utterly miserable in their marriages? How many start to loathe each other after so
many years of marriage? How many
marriages do not work because the couple find themselves to have evolved so
much that parting is the only option? Very many people indeed and no amount can
keep such unhappy people together. It is
not just a case of two people getting married then going on to read the Bible,
being a far less likely chance of a broken marriage or divorce, this is another
myth peddled by so-called moralists.
(4) A
guilty conscience. This does not even require a response so we must move on.
(5) The degradation of being used by others.
The Bible does
not reduce or limit somebody being used by others. This morality, the Bible claims to peddle, is
not only an obscenity but also a total fraud.
You could compare it to the state, on one occasion giving all its
citizens lots of extra money because they are so benign, benevolent, altruistic
and so on, and in the next instance they are blowing up hospitals, schools and
shops, with people in them. For clearly,
the two contradict each other: the contradictions in the Old Testament are so
clear and evident that it is hard to believe so many people take it
seriously.
On the same page (8), is a photograph
of what appears to be a couple, arguing about something or other, under the
picture in clear blue writing, reads the following:
Those
who ignore the Bible’s standards often cause emotional pain
Do they? This is what is called bully tactics. You will suffer if you do not follow the
Bible’s standards, I thought the very opposite would be the case. It is akin to a threat: if you do not follow
our values, or rather God’s values, you will be subject to emotional pain. What is wholly despicable here is their
target audience. They wish to target the
most vulnerable group so their intent is to hit all the right notes. I am of course referring to the pamphlet and
not the Bible itself. It seems perfectly
plausible that somebody who wishes to practise or believe then surely they
would do so on their own terms. If an
individual wishes to be a Muslim or has thoughts about being a Muslim, the
person, quite clearly, would read the Quran, not leaflets containing simplistic
language to induce individuals to join them in their moral depravity. The quote above is nothing more than a subtle
threat. It, like other comments we have
seen, have the impression that they are expressing facts; it is astonishing how
they do this. In that way they work like
a public relations or propaganda machine, and of course, none of them are
factual at all.
Towards the bottom of page, eight the pamphlet continues in the same vein:
What, though, if you are not currently living by the Bible’s moral standards? Is it possible for you to change your lifestyle? Will God hold your past conduct against you?
Morality and the Bible are oxymorons. These three questions quoted above are as foolish as each other. Let us tackle the first one: “what though, if you are not living by the Bible’s standards?” Dreadful privation. What standards are these? To raise entire communities to the ground, killing everyone? To rape, to abuse, to pillage, to murder? What the question should ask is ‘what though, if you are not living by the Bible’s criminal standards?’ However, the primary reason why this question is being asked is that the writers of the pamphlet know that everybody reading it would not have done all the things that are required of them. Therefore, they, like a playground bully, terrorise the younger children, have them exactly where they want them. For they know they will be reading the pamphlet for a reason. Be it out of depression, desperation, a sense of hopelessness about the world or whatever, they wish to keep every door open to ensnare them. In addition, ensnare them they do.
Consider this fact: some who made up the first-century Christian congregation were fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals. They chose to change their lifestyles and reaped significant benefits.
They speak as if the “fornicator”, the “adulterer” and “homosexual” were criminals. I am aware these issues have already been discussed in this essay but I would like to elaborate on homosexuality. To change ones lifestyle from a fornicator to a married man or woman is possible and may even be desirable, and of course, the same can be said of adultery. However, on the issue of homosexuality, this is where the Bible fails to grasp even the basic issue concerning this. It is as if the homosexual has been naughty and must stop all this naughtiness and act, as the Bible wishes them to act. It is inconceivable to him that a man may find another man sexually attractive or indeed for a woman to find a member of the same sex attractive. For they must “change their lifestyle and reap the benefits”. Indeed. How can homosexuals reap the benefits by marrying the opposite sex when they only find their own sex physically attractive? Like many other issues in the Bible, it sees things only in black and white. It fails to grasp the problems it concerns itself with. That they have a total disregard for homosexual relationships, and if we read what the Bible has to say about them it is not quite the God of love, decency and morality we are often told of, in fact such passages are utterly disgraceful, and people who agree with such descriptions ought to be ashamed of themselves.
On page sixteen, again we are asked a number of questions with answers, this time there are only five questions, not ten, as we saw before. I will just select two questions and answers from the five:
1. Why should we obey God?
It
is only right to obey God-he created us.
Even Jesus always obeyed God.
God’s laws give us a way to prove we love him.
All
of Jehovah God’s laws are good for us.
They teach us the best way of life now and teach us how we can gain
everlasting rewards in the future. 2. How do God’s laws benefit our health?
God’s
law against drunkenness protects us from disease and accidents. Over drinking, is foolish and leads to
foolish conduct. Jehovah allows us to
drink alcohol but only in moderation.
Therefore, the first question asking
us why we should obey God is interesting, but the answer is even more
interesting. I first would like to tackle
the first part of the answer and then inevitably go onto the second part. I would like to address all three sentences
in their entirety: “it is only right to obey God-he created us. Even Jesus obeyed God. God’s laws give us a way to prove that we
love him”.
Therefore, it is only right to obey
God because he created us. Here is
another example where a statement is painted as a fact and there is nothing
factual about this statement; for the argument has already been had about God and
creation-we came to the conclusion that it was not possible for the supreme
being to have created us, but that is beside the point here. That we must obey him is what I am concerned
with at this point. Even if God did
create us, does that mean we have to obey him?
This is the talk of totalitarianism.
Imagine the scene: God is the divine ruler of the world, he is the head
patriarch of every country on earth, and you have no option but to obey
him. You must obey your master because, after
all, you are only a human being. What a
docile bunch are these Christians?
Imagine if a President or Prime Minister could brainwash one billion
people in obeying everything he said? For
it is usually a he. If such a thing happened,
we would be living in an Orwellian world of hell. For if God commanded us to kill
non-believers, would we? If God ordered
us to torture our children, would we? If
God told us to commit terrorist attacks: blowing up schools, bombing villages,
raping, and pillaging whole communities, would we? The answer to that question, or rather those
questions, remain unanswered, but it is time such slaves of this faith started
asking themselves such questions, and what lengths they would go to to obey
Jehovah.
Even Jesus obeyed God, so we are
told. If we may, for a moment, come back
to reality and approach this part of the answer with facts and not with
frivolous nonsense then we can say there is some enlightenment to speak
of. There is no concrete evidence to
even suggest Jesus existed but let us, for the time being, pretend he did. If Jesus obeyed God then all those docile
slaves of religion must do. For some
people will go through any measure to control, manipulate, brainwash and
indoctrinate people, and the pamphlet is certainly very truthful in what
passages it selects from the Bible. The
reasoning is simple: if the writers’ of this pamphlet cannot get all those
misguided creatures to agree, they will always go one-step further. On this occasion, they have used the Jesus
card. If Jesus obeyed God, yes even the
mighty Jesus, then surely the readers of this pamphlet ought to. It is the tactics of a thug. What queer thing propaganda of this sort is? For it sometimes appears that because such
things are utterly ludicrous and existence is really a distant dream or
nightmare, depending on your perspective.
For imagine a world without religion?
It is quite inconceivable for the present, and no sensible person can
say religion can be outlawed.
I should now like to focus on the
second part of the answer in the second paragraph; here is a reminder of the
two sentences:
All
of Jehovah’s God’s laws are good for us.
They teach us the best way of life now and show how we can gain
everlasting rewards in the future.
Again, this is the logic of a
totalitarian ruler. All of God’s laws
are good for you. As we have seen in
this pamphlet before it is written as though it is fact and must not be debated
or even questioned. Just to recap some
of God’s laws we have seen in this pamphlet then. God’s justification in forcing women not to
have abortions is totally perverse. It
is perverse in a number of ways. If a
young girl is raped, well too bad for her because if she falls pregnant she
must not terminate her unborn baby because this is the law of Jehovah. The Supreme Being wants to force young women
to give birth and destroy their education, because according to him, all life
forms are sacred, that, of course, is nonsense, Noah’s Flood tells us that
much. This law clearly is not good for
us. Let us look at another one of his
laws: the intolerance of homosexuality. Jehovah’s laws are good for us, we are
told, preventing people who may love each other from being together because God
is a hateful God who clearly cannot accept anything different from heterosexual
marriages. If a brute started shouting
and raging on a public platform on the immorality of homosexuality, and it is
against God’s laws and so forth-he would be seen as roguish thug, peddling his
hate and contempt. For it is queer
things indeed how people are so interested how other people live their lives,
and if they do not live by the standards the Bible preaches then something must
be wrong. Considering how the Old
Testament is full of hate, violence, vengeance, destruction and unbearable abuse,
it is utter hypocrisy to accept people to live by their moral standards. Here then are just two of God’s laws, and
both of them just show how backwards and perverse they really are. Therefore, such laws, so we are told “teach
us the best way of life”. It is this word ‘teach’ that perhaps should be replaced, for
God does not teach anything; he is nothing but a totalitarian monster. He forces his barbaric laws on all of
us. Does he teach us love? He certainly did not love the people of Sodom
and Gomorrah, let alone teach them to love.
Does he teach the homosexual to love?
certainly not. Perhaps he loves
the attacker who has raped a young girl and if this same girl decides she wants
an abortion, then she is disobeying her almighty creator. How dare she even consider terminating the child? These are the laws of an immoral monster, and
it has to be said we have not yet touched the surface.
That concludes this pamphlet. However, I would now like to draw the
reader’s attention to another pamphlet; I only want to look at a few sections
here.
This pamphlet is again printed or
rather dated November 2011. Above the
date, reads in large writing:
AWAKE!
In the middle of the front cover we
have all sorts of wonderful things happening, so much is happening that it
would take many pages to explain which is why I shall refrain from doing
so. Then at the right-hand side at the
bottom of the page, reads in coloured writing:
IS BELIEF IN
A CREATOR
REASONABLE?
A CREATOR
REASONABLE?
The pamphlet is an emphatic
improvement from the previous one. I
will not go into details but the pamphlet discusses DNA, evolution, global
warming/climate change and art. These
are the things, which we ought to be concerned about but that are a discussion
for another time. I would only like to
look at pages 17-19. It is concerned
with the world of the arts, or as the pamphlet calls it “Entertainment”.
Towards the top
of the page in bright green writing, reads:
Where can I find
Good entertainment?
Then beneath this headline is smaller
writing:
If
you are a Christian, you are selective about your entertainment. You don’t settle for what others say you
should watch, read, or listen to, why not?
Because much of today’s entertainment glorifies illicit sex, violence
and spiritualism-things you need to avoid.
Nevertheless, there is good entertainment out there. Let us see how you can find it.
Then towards the left hand-side at the bottom of the page in blue writing, we see the following:
Ask yourself,
Do the movies I watch make it easier-or harder-for me to obey God’s commands regarding sex, violence, and spiritualism?
This is split up into three
sections. The first section deals with
movies, the second with books, and the third is music. This page (17) starts with movies. I will now quote “good entertainment” from
the page, and as in the previous pamphlet, tackle the issues one at a
time. So, page 17, on movies, it says:
What
to avoid. Many movies promote values
that are contrary to the Bible’s standards.
Some feature graphic sex and violence, while others include supernatural
themes. Nevertheless, the Bible says:
“put them all away from you, wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene
talk”. Furthermore, God condemns any
acts that are associated with spiritualism.
How to be selective. “If the trailer doesn’t seem appropriate, I won’t watch the movie-Jerrine.
“I never take someone’s recommendation unless I know for a fact that the person has the same values as I have”-Caitlyn.
“To
help me know more about the content, I use an internet site that reports the
levels of sex, violence and profanity in each move”- Natasha.
TIP
look for films that are less likely
to contain objectionable material. “I
thoroughly enjoy period pieces-movies based on classical literature”, says a
teen named Masma.
I first wish to tackle the small
piece I quoted earlier, also on page 17.
Here is a quick reminder of the quote:
Do
the movies I watch make it easier- or harder-for me to obey God’s commands
regarding sex, violence and spiritualism?
It is extraordinary what levels people
will go to to “obey God’s commands”. First,
let us be clear that film or “the movies” did
not exist when the Bible was written or indeed published so it does not comment
on these things. So in this section of
the pamphlet we do really come to what is labelled Christian Morality, what
this indicates is something very bizarre and even extreme. A true Christian will not even view a film if
it contains sex, violence or blasphemy; this coerces one into asking the
inevitable question: why watch the movie in the first place? They do claim movies are entertainment, but
only on God’s terms. So it must be
concluded that Christians do not watch movies for artistic or entertainment
purposes but for reasons of propaganda.
“I must not watch violence, sex or blasphemy”. Can such people think for themselves? Clearly not.
For if they are unsure whether to watch something they can always
consult their little pamphlet, nothing to do with their own values about sex or
violence because they do not have any values; all their views and beliefs are
in the Bible, this takes away a person’s freedom, humanity and individuality,
they cease to become a living organism; they become a slave to their
ill-conceived morality.
Many
movies promote values that are contrary to the Bible’s standards
This misses the point entirely. Showing a film about abortion often shows two
sides of the argument, but the Christians who base their very fabric of their
life on so-called morality are not even interested in the argument itself. As far as they are concerned God’s commands
are final, I must point out I am not basing these arguments on the Bible but on
the pamphlet itself. Four months, three weeks and two days,
often abbreviated as 4-3-2 is a Romanian film and deals with the very sensitive
issue of abortion during the Nicolae Ceausescu regime. Abortion was virtually banned during the
dictatorship of Ceausescu, under Decree 770.
From in 1974 until his death in 1989, the film shows what extreme
measures a young girl has to go through in order to have an (illegal) abortion,
not performed by a professional but by a complete stranger who the girl has
never met before. The characters in the
film often talk about the lengthy prison sentences if caught. It shows the young girl in a tremendous
amount of pain during the abortion. The
film shows the harsh conditions under a ruthless dictatorship and the harsh
conditions in Romania at that time. However,
the film does not “promote values that are contrary to the Bible’s
standards”. Is human suffering immune to
such people who call themselves followers of this faith? Nevertheless, the film won awards, and was
considered by many to be the most outstanding film of that year (2007). A pity for Christian ill-conceived morality
then.
Some
feature graphic sex and violence, while others include supernatural
themes. However, the Bible says: Put
them away from you, wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene
talk. Furthermore, God condemns any acts
that are associated with spiritualism.
It suffices to say that Christians
put morality over culture. I want to
look at what is referred to as “graphic sex” or “violence”.
First of all,
graphic sex.
From Iran, there have emerged some
very exceptional filmmakers; this is exceptional in itself. It is exceptional because such people are
extremely limited in what they able to do in a film, the same as God’s laws in
reference to sex and violence. Nevertheless,
the catastrophic thing is that many potential film directors in Iran will never
be heard, their films will never be seen and their views never heard. This is because they are unable to make their
films like their western counterparts.
There will be no tears lost by the Christians because they would never
view these films in the first place for it is not in line with their
values. What people fail to grasp is
that film, and the arts in general, is very different to reality. The followers of this faith are unable to
appreciate art, any art. It is as if
they, like a child, ask if they may be permitted to watch a particular film and
because it contains “graphic sex” are unable to do so. It may be the greatest piece of art created
in the history of the world, and they may know it, but they will never be able
to watch it because they do not believe in art, only in God’s selected
morality.
Some truly outstanding films contain
“graphic violence” and many deal with issues all of us should be concerned
with. One of the most outstanding
achievements in post-war cinema is Dekalog,
a series of ten short films, as the title suggests. One of the films is called a short film about killing, it depicts a
young man, 21, who kills, this murder is not only graphically violent; it also
is extremely realistic. Later in the film,
the man is on death row, and is later hanged; we see this. It is, as one may expect, another graphically
violent scene. Few people, after seeing
this film, would not think and ponder the issues in the work; for pieces of art
such as this is designed to provoke thought.
Now, violence is never glorified in the film. To be executed for violently murdering
somebody, like the violent act itself, can never be justified. Perhaps it would have been justified if the
killer was awarded medals for his crime but that clearly is not the case. Without the two scenes I highlighted the film
would be worthless. Based on these two
scenes then Christian moralists would be unable to watch it, which is a big
shame indeed, because Christians and secularists would not be able to debate
the emotive issues of the film. Gandhi himself,
a Hindu, had similar views about film back in the 1940s and even before that,
he believed a woman’s garment should not be too short in film, but like the
later Tolstoy, who corresponded with the young Gandhi, are what I would label
religious lunatics. Gandhi saw
everything in the eyes of God and morality, and therefore was a philistine when
it came to art. Free people, or rather,
relatively free people, should be thankful the world is not run by Bishops,
Priests and Popes; for if they were the consequences would be
catastrophic.
So “wrath, anger, badness, abusive
speech and obscene talk” are forbidden for a good Christian to view in a
film. Ingmar Bergman, described by many
as the greatest film director to have lived, and Liv Ullmann, who appeared in
many of his films, and was once his wife simply referred to his as “the
genius”. Bergman not only directed some
of the most beautiful films a human being can ever behold, he also wrote
them. I refer to Bergman for a simple
reason: many of his films discuss the issues of faith and atheism. All of Bergman’s masterpieces, and there are
many of them, would be unviewable to the Christian, who puts abject morality
before art. These faithful followers of
Jehovah are missing out in seeing films like the seventh seal; Persona, Wild Strawberries, the Silence, The Virgin
Spring, Sawdust and Tinsel, and so on.
Bergman himself was an atheist but his father was a clergyman. Some of this atheism is depicted in those
wonderful films of his. There must be
literally thousands of films containing “wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech
and obscene talk”. Even moving away from film, take your average wretched soap
opera, you find practically in every episode, all the negative tempers quoted
above. It is quite laughable considering
such things: a devout member of this slave morality watching a film, must
analyse and observe every nuance, every action, every word, every tone, all in
the effort to see if they are permitted to even watch it. If such people worked in this comical way, it
would be a long time before they saw a film, or do much else, so it appears
If
the trailer does not seem appropriate, I will not watch the movie.
Again, this is a queer statement to
make. Appropriate by whose
standards? Clearly not their own. People develop with principles, views and
belief systems in a whole variety of different ways. Our views are often based on our experiences,
the books we may read; what our parents have taught our friends and us; perhaps
what newspaper we read and much else besides.
However, for a Christian none of this really applies to them. For the Bible steals all of the values they
may have had but now they have converted to Christianity they have ceased to be
an individual who cherishes freedom because they no longer have a free mind;
they are no longer able to make decisions, their whole mind is like a
mechanical robot, in order to watch a particular film they must consult their
ill-conceived morality. This is akin to
an actor forgetting his or her lines. The
director says “It will be fine, improvise, darling, improvise! However, the
actor in question is unable to improvise because that would mean being
spontaneous and not referring to somebody or something what has told them what
to say. With a Sun-god worshipper, it is
different of course. They are not being
told what to say, but what to think. It
is as if their brains have been removed, and some villain from a distasteful
movie, are controlling their minds. He
tells them what they can watch, what they must not watch, and programs their
brain for this to happen. This is what
the Bible does. It poisons the brain
with nothing but this wretched ill-conceived morality.
I
never take someone’s recommendation unless I know that the person has the same
values as I have.
She means the same values as the
Bible has. These people in any case
appear to be simple-minded fools. What
this is saying in other words is unless the person who has recommended the
“movie” to me is a Christian then I will not take that person’s
recommendation. What has values have to
do with watching a film? Nothing. This, again, is the issue of seeing things in
black and white, as the Bible clearly does.
Because a film may contain violence, sex or blasphemy, they must not
view it. What they fail to understand is
that the depiction of violence in film often holds a mirror up to violence in
the real world and not simply glorifies it; if they took the time to watch the
films they would find that out for themselves.
In the film Dogville a woman
is subjected to the most hideous physical and sexual violence, the physical
violence in the film is not shown; it challenges the norms surrounding the
issues in the film. If anything, such
films can change the way we perceive things, how we behave and examine our
actions we otherwise would not have examined.
It helps to create a better society.
Such films are not made for showing gratuitous violence. The primary point is that in order to come to
the conclusions the film must be viewed in the first place. The reason Christians do not watch such
things is because it is not permitted in the Bible, or at least would not if
God decided to grace us with his presence and write a second edition of the
Bible.
To
help me know more about content, I use an internet site that reports the level
of sex, violence and profanity in each movie.
This statement above is exactly what
I have been arguing in this section of the essay: that these so- called
moralists have no views and thoughts of their own, concerning the issue we have
been discussing. Something we have not
discussed is profanity. Ken Russell’s
film, the Devils, was a highly
controversial film when it was first released.
In one scene, nuns are inserting crucifixes in their vaginas. Viridiana,
a film directed by the Spanish visionary, Luis Bunuel, won the Palme d’or
at Cannes in 1961. It was also denounced
by the Vatican and by the Spanish Government on grounds of blasphemy and
obscenity. Films such as these still
provoke controversy amongst Christians all over the world. Luis Bunuel, Ingmar Bergman and the director
of Dekalog, Krzysztof Kieslowski, are
three directors with outstanding reputations, but unfortunately, Christians
preaching ill-conceived morality will never see their films. Instead, they will have to content themselves
with watching children’s movies, cartoons and not much else besides. Can these people continue in the same vein
indefinitely? There is no logic to this
in any conceivable way. So how does the
Christian studying film do in this situation?
Not to watch films they are required to watch and fail their degree. This is the mind of a person who has no
sense. They are willing to destroy their
education, lose all their friends, family, and career, all in the name of the
moral standards they speak of.
If we turn the page we inevitably
reach page 18, and we now turn our attention to books. On the right-hand side, we see the following:
A
lot of books and movies are off-limits if judged by Bible standards. Nevertheless, when I find a story that does
not conflict with these same standards, I enjoy it that much more.
Then towards the bottom of the page
on the left-hand side, we see the following sentence:
Do
the books I read entertain me with the conduct God approves of?
Now, like the previous section, I
want to quote some writing on this page; I will select some passages:
What
to avoid similar to movies, many books promote values that are contrary to
God’s standards. For example, some are sexually
graphic or have spiritualistic themes. However,
the Bible says: “let fornification and uncleanness of every sort of greediness
not be even mentioned among you”
How
to be selective. “When looking for a
good book, I read the book cover and browse through the chapters. If I see anything objectionable, I don’t buy
it”-Marie.
As
I grew up and began thinking for myself, I realised the importance of listening
to my conscience. If I determined that a
book was bad, I would stop reading it. I
realised it didn’t harmonise with God’s thinking”-Corinne.
TIP:
Broaden your taste. “I find that I can
get much more engrossed in classical literature than modern fiction”, says
Laura, 17. “The wording, the character
development, and the plots-they’re just fantastic!”
I would first like to analyse the
first statement in the top right-hand corner of page 17, I will repeat it for clarity. “A lot of books and movies are off-limits if
judged by Bible standards. But when I
find a story that does not conflict with these standards, I enjoy it that much
more”.
Again, my argument has been made for
me. “A lot of books and movies are
off-limits if judged by the Bible standards”.
Not his own standards, because he does not have any, all his standards,
he would claim to have, are just the standards of the Bible. If this person had standards he would say “my
standards” and not “Bible standards”, this is just repetition of what we have
seen before. This would be like somebody
who bases hers or his standards on somebody else’s; they just merely copy
everything their friend likes, dislikes, reads, watches, listens to, eats, and
so on. For clearly those Christian robots,
have no imagination, no creativity and little value for culture. He goes on to say, in the quote above, “When
I find a story that does not conflict with those standards, I enjoy it”. These standards are not his, because he is
bereft of any. How can anybody enjoy
reading a book just because it contains what a person believes to be “Christian
morality”? He may enjoy reading King Lear, but will never read it.
I would now like to turn to the
single sentence towards the bottom of page 17, but I must repeat it: Do
the books that I read entertain me with conduct God approves of?
This sentence above is bordering on
the ridiculous. If a book entertains
you-well perhaps entertain is the wrong word to use here-what does it matter
that God disapproves of it? Soon we will be told God is forcing them to like
particular books and not others. God
unquestionably disapprove of the Iliad and
the Odyssey, quite possibly the
greatest books ever written. All the
plays of Shakespeare except a few of his light comedies would also be
forbidden; the works of Blake would also, Christopher Marlowe, Philip Roth,
John Steinbeck, Dickens, Ibsen, Zola, Balzac, Aeschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides, Strindberg, Hesiod, Ovid,
Anthony Burgess, James Joyce, Harold Pinter, Norman Mailer, Edward Bond, Byron,
Dante, Virgil, Dostoyevsky, Cervantes, the list goes on and on. It has to be conceded, the system Jehovah has
devised is an impressive one. God does
not even have to scroll through books to decide what to read and not what to
read; he has his “morals” to go by.
Judging that the Old Testament is the most genocidal book ever written,
judging by God’s standards, no Christian should be permitted to read it. This is clear. For Jehovah is the ultimate hypocrite and he
has over one billion people worship him.
Similar
to movies, many books promote values that are contrary to Bible standards...But
the Bible says: “let fornicators and uncleanness of every sort or greediness
not be even mentioned among you”.
It says “many books promote values
that are contrary to Bible standards”, this is interesting. Take the play, Romeo and Juliet as an example.
There is clearly violence in the play, warring families filled with
hatred and so forth. However, the play
does not “promote values that are contrary to the Bible’s standards”, on the
contrary. Because of the terrible
consequences of the play, culminating in the deaths of the two lovers, the
houses of the Montagues and Capulets are able to live in peace, as are the other
citizens of Verona. What the Bible is
doing here is thwarting progress. It is
like the brainwashed millions in Britain, not because of religion but the
tabloid press and this is the only place many get their “news” from. Therefore, the tabloid is able to lie,
deceive, manipulate the truth, present misinformation, disinformation, and
generally say what they like without scrutiny.
It is the only source of (mis)information for lots of these people so
they are living in a fictitious fantasy world, and have little or no idea what
the world is composed of. Comparisons
can be made with Christians. Christians
are not permitted to see sex, violence and so forth. They are only able to see what God allows,
and by reading such plays as Romeo and
Juliet and Macbeth, you are able
to learn, move on and progress. However,
if you are prevented from seeing such things, that stifles progress-because how
are these people supposed to learn from these things and create a better life
for all of us for future generations?
When
looking for a good book, I read the book cover and browse through the
chapters. If I see anything objectionable,
I do not buy it.
This has nothing to do with morality;
it has everything to do with cultural depravity:
“Midway this way of life we’re bound
upon
I wake to find myself in a dark wood,
Where the right road was wholly lost
and gone”.
This is the first canto from Dante’s Divine Comedy, No doubt, one of the most
beautiful pieces of literature ever composed.
However, that does not matter to those ill-conceived Christian
moralists. They will never read Dante’s Divine Comedy. “If I see anything objectionable”; so
clearly such people care nothing for the beauty of literature, from the
stunning lyric poetry in Shakespeare; to the imagery of Homer; the realism in Chekhov;
for the creative brilliance in Don
Quixote, and so on, a Christian
would object to the murder, or rather murders in Dostoevsky's crime
and Punishment, despite it being in contention for the greatest novel ever
written. They would be forbidden from
reading Sophocles’ Oedipus, despite
it being one of the great tragedies; Aristotle thought so, in fact he saw it as
the perfect tragedy. Amongst other
things the hero of the tragedy Georges out his own eyes, and one of the
themes-incest-is prevalent in the Old Testament. There are hypocrites and
hypocrites. Gorging out one’s eyes would
be “objectionable” to the good Christian.
Imagine those wretched faith schools and their reading lists. Such reading lists would consist of pop-up
books and romance novels that no serious person would read anyway, and if they did,
they would keep quiet about it.
As
I grew up and began thinking for myself, I realised the importance of listening
to my conscience. If I determined that a
book was bad, I would stop reading it. I
realized that it did not harmonise with god’s thoughts.
“Thinking for oneself” is clearly
incorrectly applied here. As the quote
above plainly states, this individual began thinking for themselves when...well
that is not the case. What they meant to
say is:
“I began to be indoctrinated and
brainwashed by the Bible and was no longer able to think for myself. The beliefs I had were no longer what I
believed in; the principles I had no longer applied and so forth. My thoughts and opinions can be found in the
Bible because I no longer remain as an individual; indeed, I am no longer an
individual who exercises her freedom. I
am a Christian and therefore have no real values. I just believe I do. For how can I possibly have values when I
just agree with what the Bible says?”
To this person a bad book is not a
bad book because it is badly written or anything like that, it is a bad book in
their eyes because “it didn’t harmonize with God’s thinking”, not with this
person’s thinking but with God’s! What a
queer thing it would be for many people to base their values not on their own
beliefs but on somebody else’s. What
would we say about such a person or persons?
These people would be known as a collective, not as individuals, because
they are not representing their own mind.
However, on the other hand, these ardent followers of Christianity
seriously believe they have values, and that is the remarkable thing about
it.
I would now like to discuss the next
page (18), which is the final page I want to look at, and that will conclude
the essay. The heading is music; again,
I will pick out several passages and tackle them as I have done throughout:
What
to avoid. Similar to movies and books,
much music today is morally degrading…”much of today’s music encourages
behaviour that is against Bible’s standards”, says 21-year-old Leigh.
How
to be selective. “I ask myself”, if I
were to let adult Christians scroll through my music list, would I be
embarrassed by what they would find?
That helps to give me some perspective on the kind of music I should be
listening to”.
I will, naturally, start with the
first statement: “much music today is morally degrading”. They are clearly referring to popular
music. Music is different from “movies”
and books in terms of Christian so-called morality because most of the music,
or perhaps all of it which contains explicit language, violent lyrics, inciting
hatred, glorifying “fornification” and so on is often the worse sort of music,
in other words, of the lowest quality.
Even to refer to it as music, is, in my view, incorrect, but that is
beside the point. For the music could be
Handel or Bach, and still, if this music contained material Christians, and
indeed their mighty God fell out of favour with, they would never listen to
it. What if they hear this subcultural,
popular, car crash music in public, a car, a shop, or even in somebody’s home;
are they going to walk out?
Much
of today’s music encourages behaviour that is against Bible standards
Again, it is Bible’s standards and
not the person’s own standards. The key
word in the quote above is “encourages”.
What behaviour, we are not told, but we can surmise. Again, what kind of person sits down to
listen to some music, whatever music that may be, based solely on the Bible’s
standards? We need not answer that
question. For they do not listen to it
because they like it or not but whether it sticks to certain standards. This behaviour is even more ridiculous and
far-fetched than their watching films and listening to music antics. The primary reason why they are not able to
encounter such things is that these brainwashed sun-god worshippers may be
influenced with something other than the Bible.
Any alternative view is squashed immediately. If the Bible or Jehovah were a government
they would be the worst government in history, the most brutal, oppressive,
repulsive, clearly the media would be state controlled and it be a Fascist
state; a sort of Fascism the world has never seen before. Even minor criticism would be squashed and
rooted out, and how would critics be silenced?
Imprisoned, tortured, murdered?
It would even surpass Orwell’s Big Brother. I am now referring to the re-writing of
history, literature, the dictionary at the Ministry of truth. The Government, or rather the dictatorship of
Jehovah, would be similar to Pol Pot’s. Year Zero” would be necessary, so they
would say, and wish for everybody to forget everything. Schools would only teach the Bible’s morality
and nothing else. Entire nations would
be brainwashed; nobody would be permitted to leave borders, for fear of outside
influence. Only Christians would exist,
not individuals.
I
ask myself, if I were to let adult Christians scroll through my music list,
would I be embarrassed by what they find.
That helps give me some perspective on the kind of music I should be
listening to.
This appears to be a statement from
someone who has been totally brainwashed.
“This is the kind of music I should be listening to”. Music, the most exquisite of all the art
forms, in it it stirs every emotion, every passion, it brings different
tempers, different moods, such is the power of music; it embraces all of
humanity, it is something most people appreciate, and of course, it is
universal. Tell that to the slave
morality, they inevitably will blink, and your words will not register with
their thoughts, they talk, or rather prattle on about how “God is love” and how
he loves us all. They will insist on
referring to the Bible’s standards, at least what they think is the Bible’s
standards. This is beyond folly.
To end this essay it must be made
clear the art of brainwashing is a very great skill indeed, because recovery
from this form of indoctrination can take years, and that is only when they
realise their folly. The future of human
existence is in grave danger and that danger will persist until religion, not
just Christianity, but all the religions of the sun-god worshippers, is outlawed
in its current form. Religion needs to
be re-visited, re-examined, and most of all needs updating. I am not calling for the total outlaw of
religion but just in their current form, for if religion continues to dominate
public life, rational, reasonable, logical and enlightened human beings have a
fight on their hands, our hands dare I say.
February 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment