A love like no other
by Mriana
My thoughts about religion appear no different and with all this talk of late concerning "God's Love," I am left scratching my head, because I do not see love in the stories of which Christians love so dearly. If that is love, it is a wicked and demented sort of love, as well as the complete opposite of what I consider love. In fact, I would not call it love at all and do not tell me I do not understand. I understand very well and IF it were real, someone would end up in jail for such acts that are considered “love” by many Christians.
Where do we begin in this so-called "Lovefest?" I know, let us start at the very beginning, where we have some deity, many years older than this young maiden. A typical motif of many miraculous birth stories before it, and this young maiden is said to be around thirteen or fourteen years of age and is also a virgin. This deity apparently has sex with her because she conceived a child. Of course, back then this was not so unusual for a man ten to twenty years older to take a teenage girl as his wife, which was better than what Muhammad did. Muhammad lusted after a female toddler, married her at six years, and molested her at age nine, with God's permission of course. To me that is a horrid deity that allows such things to happen or even do himself.
It never was a deity who did such violent crimes against humanity, but rather human beings -- sick human beings who try hard to call such abuses love, even attribute such acts to a deity, including the abuses in their story books. However, most Christians, except for when it comes to their religion, are at least two centuries beyond such things and today that is called child abuse. Specifically, child molestation, even statutory rape, whether it is consenting or not. Worse yet, IF God is the father of all creatures great and small and we are the “children of God”, then it would be considered incest.
Oh, but you say we cannot think of this in modern terms? Of course we cannot because it is all rewritten myth set to a specific culture. Mother Mary is no different than Isis, Maya, or any other similar motif. She is Virgo, who gave birth to the Sun during Solstice. I have gone too far, you say? Really? I do not think I have gone far enough, but Man is a horrid creature for attempting to make such stories real and outside the animistic celestial plain. Regardless, if the story were real, it still makes such a deity horrid, because love it is not, whether said deity is Zeus or not. Not to mention, what would Zeus's wife say? Oh yes, there is at least one miraculous birth motif among the Greeks too. Such a myth is not specific to Christianity nor is it a case of "Myth Became Real" as C. S. Lewis would have us to believe. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has called the Virgin Birth story “a legend”, which is a type of myth, but none of it was ever true. It is only a myth, which so many Christians believe was real.
IF that were not enough, this God, also known as God the Father and God the Son, committed homicide and suicide, if one takes it as most people state. However, it was the humans who did it. The humans, even in the Crucifixion story, killed a man they called Jesus of Nazareth. However, I will humour the Christians and allow them to place the blame on something outside of the humans and we will humour them further by call this thing "God" once again.
So there were these primitive barbaric people who for some reason wanted to impale people. What's that? You said I would humour you? Oh yes, I did, didn't I? There had to be a human sacrifice and this man named Jesus, who thought he was the Sun... er... Son of God volunteered. I don't know. Maybe he had schizophrenia. Now days we would say such talk is a symptom of schizophrenia.
So this mentally ill man agrees stauroo, which is the Greek verb for "To be crucified." Stauros means "an upright pale or stake," in which case these primitive people... er... God that is, was no better than Vladimir. The Tau or T symbolized the god Tammuz and was something that pagans converting to Christianity were allowed to keep (Strong's Concordance & Vine's Dictionary). It was adopted to stand for the "cross of Christ," but the method of execution was adopted by the Greeks and the Romans from the Phoenicians (Ibid). Thus Vladimir did nothing new nor was Jesus the first god-man to be impaled either.
So let us say that God the father did kill his only son. That is a horrid thought to most sane people and hardly an act of love. In fact, that is child abuse and to impale or crucify/Sustauroo anyone, is not only barbaric, but murder. Of course the intent of the humans was to kill Jesus, whether he actually committed a crime or not. According to Pilate, Jesus was innocent of any crimes and Herod mocked him as though he thought Jesus was some silly magician, claiming to be some divine entity, another incarnation of Vishnu.
Yes, I do need to focus that God, not humans, killed His son to show His love. Well, if that is parental love, I do not want it and I would not force such a love on my own children. However, IF God was sacrificing Himself, he certainly did not show much love for Himself and such an act would be suicide, pointing to depression or something. Thus He did not love Himself nor His son for it was a murder-suicide all rolled up into one. What is that you say? It was to redeem the human race? Again, we are not a fallen creation needing to be saved by some demented and sick deity. Said deity is mentally ill and his so-called love is nothing but paedophilia, abuse, murder, and suicide. Of course, such behaviour is not exclusive to the New Testament. This deity was cruel and abusive long before Jesus came along. If you love the Jesus story and truly believe such barbarism was the greatest sacrifice and the greatest act of love, I have a few more for you.
There is Jephthah in Judges, who murders his daughter as a “burnt offering” (Judges 11:34-40). Yes, this was suppose to fulfill his vow to God if he was victorious in the war/battle. His daughter was a burnt offering to God because of that vow and she was not as lucky as Isaac/Ishmael (Genesis 22/Surah 37:102), depending if you are reading the Bible or the Quran. Seems God really does not think much of females, especially if the boy got a break from being murdered by his father. These acts are not only abusive, but in the case of the girl, it was also misogyny and the Quran is worse than the Bible in this matter, as such acts of degrading women are attributed to a deity. It is definitely not love though, not matter who the deity is.
On the other hand, God does not love animals either, for both in the Quran and the Bible, animals are slaughtered often and the Isaac/Ishmael story was no exception. Like clothing, it is no matter if the animal is destroyed, we can always get another. Yes, until the breed of animal becomes extinct. Luckily, goat and sheep have not become extinct, but other animals have and it is a form of animal cruelty and abuse. It is not love for anyone and in this day and age, the ASPCA would be on God's butt for such treatment of animals.
Of course, let us not forget that God had forty-two children killed because they made fun of Elisha (2 Kings 2:23-24). Actually, Elisha cursed the children “in the name of the Lord” for calling him "baldhead" and two female bears just happened to come out of nowhere and killed all the children. This act was attributed to God, of course. Again, how is this the act of a loving god? I guess, only if his name is Jealous (Exodus 34:14) and here I thought love was not jealous. Even 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 does not even clarify this as not being part of love. However, it does say love is not irritable or resentful. This deity does not portray that idea that. It does portray a resentful and irritable deity, willing to kill even children, who are prone to name-calling. Thus, in anger, He sends bears out to kill little children. What a loving vengeful god, whose name is Jealous. If that is love, I am a monkey's aunt. Oh wait! I am a monkey's aunt. Scratch that last. If it is love, then 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 has it all wrong and love is actually abuse, jealousy, misogyny, rape, incest, hatred, resentful, cruelty, murder, suicide... Did I miss any? I would prefer a deity who actually shows the qualities expressed in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, but neither the deity in the Bible or the Quran show such characteristics.
And what of Job, who lived in the land of Oz (Uz to be exact, but I'm retelling it)? God made a deal with Satan. Job was supposedly righteous and in God's opinion, would never turn his back on Him. God took the bet and allowed Satan to do whatever to Job, just to prove Job would always be faithful to Him. So Satan, not God, as evidence in Job 1:12, took everything from Job, including his children, BUT he was not to lay a hand on Job himself. Attributing all his loses to God, Job took it all lying down. He lost everything including ALL his children, without a fight. Oh but this so-called loving god gives Job replacement children. You cannot replace people! So once again, God allowed children to be killed, slaughtered like cattle. Oh and let us not forget, women and children are chattel at this time. Again, that definition really was not a god's doing, but rather a human act. So by that definition, Job just got new cattle. Nice treatment of human beings, not. It is not love either. Oh, yes, God had his reasons for treating Job in such a manner and I heard all the lame excuses in defense of God in this story, but you can find a much similar story in Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian mythology. In fact, where Job mourns his birth (Job 3), the same motif can be found in the Egyptian story of “A Suffer and a Soul” composed during the Middle Kingdom between 2050-1800 BCE (Old Testament Parallels, Victor H. Matthews, p 208-209). Again, the author of Job wrote nothing new. The story of Job is a series of Midrash, nothing more, but the whole story is nothing more than one of a vile god.
I could continue with examples of demented love in the Bible and even the Quran too, but the point is, such acts attributed to anyone, even a deity is not love. It is not even taking responsibility for the things that humans do to each other nor is it admitting to story-telling. How can love and hate become one and the same, when it truly is not? Not even other animals treat their young in such a manner, unless they are sick themselves. Any decent tribe of apes would throw out a sick and violent ape, leaving him/her to survive on his/her own and they have too. Just ask Jane Goodall.
What this so-called love really is, is self-hatred, barbarism, misogyny, glorification of murder and suicide, child abuse, rape (oh incest too, remember Lot and his daughters), sexual molestation, and everything else that is not love. How anyone twists any of that crap into love is beyond me. The crucifixion is NOT the ultimate sacrifice. In reality it is the ultimate in barbarism by humans, twisted and projected onto this very human concept of a deity and called "love," the ultimate sacrifice. To me, this is sick and demented thinking, because such a thing is not love at all.
However, I can consider what Joseph Campbell stated about the Gnostic tradition in reference to the crucifixion, "We are ALL Christ crucified." Indeed, such symbolism is very picturesque of the human condition. Every day we humans are doing something that causes harm to each other, even other animals, but I would not call it love. It is far from love. Rather it is a symbol of what humans do to each other every day with all their cruelty and hatred. Christians and Muslims just personify it into something external to themselves with their beliefs and behaviours. They are slaves to their mythology and cannot break free of it long enough to see how they hurt people. It never was a deity who did such violent crimes against humanity, but rather human beings -- sick human beings who try hard to call such abuses love, even attribute such acts to a deity, including the abuses in their story books.
In my opinion, there is no greater disgrace to humanity than twisting such cruelty into love, which it is not. A vampire would show more love than that, especially towards the woman he loved. Talk about eternal life and awesome sex! However, we are getting into lust, not love, with that analogy, and I really do not wish to rant about the cannibalism of communion at this time. So, I will keep it to the idea of a so-called loving god.
This so-called Christian love is not love at all. It is a twisted and demented definition of love, but it is not love. Yet they attributed this very human definition onto a their deity, as they call that god "a god of love." Such vulgar violence is the exact opposite of love and such a story as the Crucifixion would have been far better if kept in the heavens, remembering that Jesus, Samson, Horus, Mithra, and other such deities are actually symbols for the sun, especially when you attend your Easter Sunrise Services. Yes, Samson was a sun symbol, not a real life Hercules or what have you. All of which developed out of animism and pagan fertility rituals. If such a story as the Crucifixion was kept in that realm, it would be a far better story than killing another human being and calling it “love” and/or the ultimate sacrifice.
The Winter Solstice is coming and the story of the sun sitting on the Southern Cross, not moving for three days, and then rising again is far better. In the end the sun brings longer days and eventually new life to the earth long about the time of Easter, the Spring equinox, which I like and appreciate more than humans killing another person. Keep in mind, Easter is set by the moon or rather as the “Book of Common Prayer” states in "The Rules of Finding the Date of Easter Day":
So get a clue, Christians! Your Jesus is nothing but a new symbol for the Sun and you worship the "Sun of God," every time you celebrate Easter Sunrise Service. Both Christmas and Easter are remnants of pagan rituals, not about some human being called the Son of Man or Son of God, who sacrificed himself to humans as “an act of love”. This same Sun God goes through this same cycle every day and conquers “death” as it goes into the underworld at night and rises again in the morning. It comes into the father's house around noon (age 12) and cycles through the 24 hour day in series of sixes. Such a story is far less barbaric because it is kept in the form of animism, but no... Humans had to go and create an anthropomorphic deity, denying any relationship to solar mythology. Each passing religion, from Horus to Jesus, had to make the deity more and more human, and then call such acts “love”. You should have left it as the Sun, because it makes for a better and more beautiful story, but I guess some people prefer lunacy (1b in Webster's Dictionary), which is related to lunar, and we all know there is a full moon around the spring equinox.
Get real and keep it real, people! Now I am off to join George Carlin's sun worshiping religion. Thanks for reading and let the crucifixion begin. I am sure you, Christians, will find a way to do that, especially if you read this far. I can hear the word "blasphemy," even heretic, now, but it is nothing new to me. Happens every time I hammer nails into your mythology, because "you all can't handle the truth" about your religion.
My thoughts about religion appear no different and with all this talk of late concerning "God's Love," I am left scratching my head, because I do not see love in the stories of which Christians love so dearly. If that is love, it is a wicked and demented sort of love, as well as the complete opposite of what I consider love. In fact, I would not call it love at all and do not tell me I do not understand. I understand very well and IF it were real, someone would end up in jail for such acts that are considered “love” by many Christians.
Where do we begin in this so-called "Lovefest?" I know, let us start at the very beginning, where we have some deity, many years older than this young maiden. A typical motif of many miraculous birth stories before it, and this young maiden is said to be around thirteen or fourteen years of age and is also a virgin. This deity apparently has sex with her because she conceived a child. Of course, back then this was not so unusual for a man ten to twenty years older to take a teenage girl as his wife, which was better than what Muhammad did. Muhammad lusted after a female toddler, married her at six years, and molested her at age nine, with God's permission of course. To me that is a horrid deity that allows such things to happen or even do himself.
It never was a deity who did such violent crimes against humanity, but rather human beings -- sick human beings who try hard to call such abuses love, even attribute such acts to a deity, including the abuses in their story books. However, most Christians, except for when it comes to their religion, are at least two centuries beyond such things and today that is called child abuse. Specifically, child molestation, even statutory rape, whether it is consenting or not. Worse yet, IF God is the father of all creatures great and small and we are the “children of God”, then it would be considered incest.
Oh, but you say we cannot think of this in modern terms? Of course we cannot because it is all rewritten myth set to a specific culture. Mother Mary is no different than Isis, Maya, or any other similar motif. She is Virgo, who gave birth to the Sun during Solstice. I have gone too far, you say? Really? I do not think I have gone far enough, but Man is a horrid creature for attempting to make such stories real and outside the animistic celestial plain. Regardless, if the story were real, it still makes such a deity horrid, because love it is not, whether said deity is Zeus or not. Not to mention, what would Zeus's wife say? Oh yes, there is at least one miraculous birth motif among the Greeks too. Such a myth is not specific to Christianity nor is it a case of "Myth Became Real" as C. S. Lewis would have us to believe. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has called the Virgin Birth story “a legend”, which is a type of myth, but none of it was ever true. It is only a myth, which so many Christians believe was real.
IF that were not enough, this God, also known as God the Father and God the Son, committed homicide and suicide, if one takes it as most people state. However, it was the humans who did it. The humans, even in the Crucifixion story, killed a man they called Jesus of Nazareth. However, I will humour the Christians and allow them to place the blame on something outside of the humans and we will humour them further by call this thing "God" once again.
So there were these primitive barbaric people who for some reason wanted to impale people. What's that? You said I would humour you? Oh yes, I did, didn't I? There had to be a human sacrifice and this man named Jesus, who thought he was the Sun... er... Son of God volunteered. I don't know. Maybe he had schizophrenia. Now days we would say such talk is a symptom of schizophrenia.
So this mentally ill man agrees stauroo, which is the Greek verb for "To be crucified." Stauros means "an upright pale or stake," in which case these primitive people... er... God that is, was no better than Vladimir. The Tau or T symbolized the god Tammuz and was something that pagans converting to Christianity were allowed to keep (Strong's Concordance & Vine's Dictionary). It was adopted to stand for the "cross of Christ," but the method of execution was adopted by the Greeks and the Romans from the Phoenicians (Ibid). Thus Vladimir did nothing new nor was Jesus the first god-man to be impaled either.
So let us say that God the father did kill his only son. That is a horrid thought to most sane people and hardly an act of love. In fact, that is child abuse and to impale or crucify/Sustauroo anyone, is not only barbaric, but murder. Of course the intent of the humans was to kill Jesus, whether he actually committed a crime or not. According to Pilate, Jesus was innocent of any crimes and Herod mocked him as though he thought Jesus was some silly magician, claiming to be some divine entity, another incarnation of Vishnu.
Yes, I do need to focus that God, not humans, killed His son to show His love. Well, if that is parental love, I do not want it and I would not force such a love on my own children. However, IF God was sacrificing Himself, he certainly did not show much love for Himself and such an act would be suicide, pointing to depression or something. Thus He did not love Himself nor His son for it was a murder-suicide all rolled up into one. What is that you say? It was to redeem the human race? Again, we are not a fallen creation needing to be saved by some demented and sick deity. Said deity is mentally ill and his so-called love is nothing but paedophilia, abuse, murder, and suicide. Of course, such behaviour is not exclusive to the New Testament. This deity was cruel and abusive long before Jesus came along. If you love the Jesus story and truly believe such barbarism was the greatest sacrifice and the greatest act of love, I have a few more for you.
There is Jephthah in Judges, who murders his daughter as a “burnt offering” (Judges 11:34-40). Yes, this was suppose to fulfill his vow to God if he was victorious in the war/battle. His daughter was a burnt offering to God because of that vow and she was not as lucky as Isaac/Ishmael (Genesis 22/Surah 37:102), depending if you are reading the Bible or the Quran. Seems God really does not think much of females, especially if the boy got a break from being murdered by his father. These acts are not only abusive, but in the case of the girl, it was also misogyny and the Quran is worse than the Bible in this matter, as such acts of degrading women are attributed to a deity. It is definitely not love though, not matter who the deity is.
On the other hand, God does not love animals either, for both in the Quran and the Bible, animals are slaughtered often and the Isaac/Ishmael story was no exception. Like clothing, it is no matter if the animal is destroyed, we can always get another. Yes, until the breed of animal becomes extinct. Luckily, goat and sheep have not become extinct, but other animals have and it is a form of animal cruelty and abuse. It is not love for anyone and in this day and age, the ASPCA would be on God's butt for such treatment of animals.
Of course, let us not forget that God had forty-two children killed because they made fun of Elisha (2 Kings 2:23-24). Actually, Elisha cursed the children “in the name of the Lord” for calling him "baldhead" and two female bears just happened to come out of nowhere and killed all the children. This act was attributed to God, of course. Again, how is this the act of a loving god? I guess, only if his name is Jealous (Exodus 34:14) and here I thought love was not jealous. Even 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 does not even clarify this as not being part of love. However, it does say love is not irritable or resentful. This deity does not portray that idea that. It does portray a resentful and irritable deity, willing to kill even children, who are prone to name-calling. Thus, in anger, He sends bears out to kill little children. What a loving vengeful god, whose name is Jealous. If that is love, I am a monkey's aunt. Oh wait! I am a monkey's aunt. Scratch that last. If it is love, then 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 has it all wrong and love is actually abuse, jealousy, misogyny, rape, incest, hatred, resentful, cruelty, murder, suicide... Did I miss any? I would prefer a deity who actually shows the qualities expressed in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, but neither the deity in the Bible or the Quran show such characteristics.
And what of Job, who lived in the land of Oz (Uz to be exact, but I'm retelling it)? God made a deal with Satan. Job was supposedly righteous and in God's opinion, would never turn his back on Him. God took the bet and allowed Satan to do whatever to Job, just to prove Job would always be faithful to Him. So Satan, not God, as evidence in Job 1:12, took everything from Job, including his children, BUT he was not to lay a hand on Job himself. Attributing all his loses to God, Job took it all lying down. He lost everything including ALL his children, without a fight. Oh but this so-called loving god gives Job replacement children. You cannot replace people! So once again, God allowed children to be killed, slaughtered like cattle. Oh and let us not forget, women and children are chattel at this time. Again, that definition really was not a god's doing, but rather a human act. So by that definition, Job just got new cattle. Nice treatment of human beings, not. It is not love either. Oh, yes, God had his reasons for treating Job in such a manner and I heard all the lame excuses in defense of God in this story, but you can find a much similar story in Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian mythology. In fact, where Job mourns his birth (Job 3), the same motif can be found in the Egyptian story of “A Suffer and a Soul” composed during the Middle Kingdom between 2050-1800 BCE (Old Testament Parallels, Victor H. Matthews, p 208-209). Again, the author of Job wrote nothing new. The story of Job is a series of Midrash, nothing more, but the whole story is nothing more than one of a vile god.
I could continue with examples of demented love in the Bible and even the Quran too, but the point is, such acts attributed to anyone, even a deity is not love. It is not even taking responsibility for the things that humans do to each other nor is it admitting to story-telling. How can love and hate become one and the same, when it truly is not? Not even other animals treat their young in such a manner, unless they are sick themselves. Any decent tribe of apes would throw out a sick and violent ape, leaving him/her to survive on his/her own and they have too. Just ask Jane Goodall.
What this so-called love really is, is self-hatred, barbarism, misogyny, glorification of murder and suicide, child abuse, rape (oh incest too, remember Lot and his daughters), sexual molestation, and everything else that is not love. How anyone twists any of that crap into love is beyond me. The crucifixion is NOT the ultimate sacrifice. In reality it is the ultimate in barbarism by humans, twisted and projected onto this very human concept of a deity and called "love," the ultimate sacrifice. To me, this is sick and demented thinking, because such a thing is not love at all.
However, I can consider what Joseph Campbell stated about the Gnostic tradition in reference to the crucifixion, "We are ALL Christ crucified." Indeed, such symbolism is very picturesque of the human condition. Every day we humans are doing something that causes harm to each other, even other animals, but I would not call it love. It is far from love. Rather it is a symbol of what humans do to each other every day with all their cruelty and hatred. Christians and Muslims just personify it into something external to themselves with their beliefs and behaviours. They are slaves to their mythology and cannot break free of it long enough to see how they hurt people. It never was a deity who did such violent crimes against humanity, but rather human beings -- sick human beings who try hard to call such abuses love, even attribute such acts to a deity, including the abuses in their story books.
In my opinion, there is no greater disgrace to humanity than twisting such cruelty into love, which it is not. A vampire would show more love than that, especially towards the woman he loved. Talk about eternal life and awesome sex! However, we are getting into lust, not love, with that analogy, and I really do not wish to rant about the cannibalism of communion at this time. So, I will keep it to the idea of a so-called loving god.
This so-called Christian love is not love at all. It is a twisted and demented definition of love, but it is not love. Yet they attributed this very human definition onto a their deity, as they call that god "a god of love." Such vulgar violence is the exact opposite of love and such a story as the Crucifixion would have been far better if kept in the heavens, remembering that Jesus, Samson, Horus, Mithra, and other such deities are actually symbols for the sun, especially when you attend your Easter Sunrise Services. Yes, Samson was a sun symbol, not a real life Hercules or what have you. All of which developed out of animism and pagan fertility rituals. If such a story as the Crucifixion was kept in that realm, it would be a far better story than killing another human being and calling it “love” and/or the ultimate sacrifice.
The Winter Solstice is coming and the story of the sun sitting on the Southern Cross, not moving for three days, and then rising again is far better. In the end the sun brings longer days and eventually new life to the earth long about the time of Easter, the Spring equinox, which I like and appreciate more than humans killing another person. Keep in mind, Easter is set by the moon or rather as the “Book of Common Prayer” states in "The Rules of Finding the Date of Easter Day":
"Easter Day is always the Sunday after the full moon that occurs on or after the spring equinox on March 21. This full moon may happen on any date between March 21 and April 18 inclusive. If the full moon falls on a Sunday, Easter Day is the Sunday following. But Easter Day cannot be earlier than March 22 or later than April 25."
So get a clue, Christians! Your Jesus is nothing but a new symbol for the Sun and you worship the "Sun of God," every time you celebrate Easter Sunrise Service. Both Christmas and Easter are remnants of pagan rituals, not about some human being called the Son of Man or Son of God, who sacrificed himself to humans as “an act of love”. This same Sun God goes through this same cycle every day and conquers “death” as it goes into the underworld at night and rises again in the morning. It comes into the father's house around noon (age 12) and cycles through the 24 hour day in series of sixes. Such a story is far less barbaric because it is kept in the form of animism, but no... Humans had to go and create an anthropomorphic deity, denying any relationship to solar mythology. Each passing religion, from Horus to Jesus, had to make the deity more and more human, and then call such acts “love”. You should have left it as the Sun, because it makes for a better and more beautiful story, but I guess some people prefer lunacy (1b in Webster's Dictionary), which is related to lunar, and we all know there is a full moon around the spring equinox.
Get real and keep it real, people! Now I am off to join George Carlin's sun worshiping religion. Thanks for reading and let the crucifixion begin. I am sure you, Christians, will find a way to do that, especially if you read this far. I can hear the word "blasphemy," even heretic, now, but it is nothing new to me. Happens every time I hammer nails into your mythology, because "you all can't handle the truth" about your religion.
Comments
Post a Comment