Christianity Uncovered - Part 2

Most of today's Christians believe that their religion is one of love. Nevertheless, their scripture says that Jesus came with a sword to bring dissension, as in Matthew 10:34 and Luke 14:26. Their scripture says, "Abandon your family" (Matthew 19:24; Luke 14:26). Their Jesus not only promotes slavery, but also instructs how slaves should be punished, as in Luke 12:47-48. In fact, the idea that their God is love was not introduced until the late second century apology of 1 John, specifically 4:8 and 4:16. However, neo-Christians do aspire to agape love, a love described in the first letter to the Corinthians. For example, "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Cor. 13:7). However, the love depicted in that description is not authentic love. Bearing, believing, hoping and enduring are not love. Those are conditions based on object-ive indoctrination, not on unconditional love. In other words, Christendom's great chapter on love is merely a discourse on past limitations and future hopes, a love that strives to sustain conditions of conflict, separation, and limitation. Conditional love is born of belief, and as such, it can only be experienced through the conditions of those beliefs. If we ponder that, it is rather amusing. Their god, as other gods, is clearly a conditional god.

Today's Christianity, as a whole, is quite amusing, that is, from a full-spectrum-consciousness point of view. I often ask Christians why they go to church. This is both a joke and a superb litmus test for estimating someone's self-built barriers to love. Why do Christians go to church? Because they have faith. Get it? Faith is the unquestioning acceptance of something in the absence of reason. Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is a thing that is hoped for without evidence that it exists. Faith is an unsupported belief. Faith is a hope, a belief in an expectation that arises from the perception of lack. Beliefs, especially religious beliefs, are hilarious because they are not true and could not possibly be true. If something were true, we would not have to believe it. said, "It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong."

There is humor woven throughout Judeo-Christian literature. In Genesis, the Elohim (a plural for God) create "male and female" in Gen. 1:26-27. Then in Gen. 2:21-25, the second creation story, the into a profound sleep to make out of him a faithful, subservient companion called Eve. This Eve was not "created" or equal, as the female in the first creation story. The deeper comedy, however, is that nowhere does it say that they ever woke Adam up. Perhaps this ties in with the Awakened Ones, the Bodhisattvas of the East, who have been suggesting through recorded history that we wake up. Interestingly, the events of the two Abrahamic creation stories do accommodate a different explanation of how the serpent got into the Garden of Eden in chapter two of the Book of Genesis. It never did; for what happened after Adam was put into a deep sleep is just a dream. Even the "no boundary" quantum theory could support that view; that is to say, if there is no time, how could there have been a creation, except in our brains, which are, as neuroscientists say, what connects us with the perceived universe?

The concept of a created man and a "made" woman "fashioned out of a rib" in chapter two of Genesis repeats over and over in the literature of the Abrahamic religions. The sons of the Elohim took the daughters of men as they chose (Gen. 6:2). The woman's husband shall rule over her (Gen. 3:16). The didactics are not limited to the Old Law and the impositions of the God of Jacob. In Ephesians 5:22, wives are instructed to submit to their husbands; in 1 Cor. 11:9, we learn that woman was made for man. Again, in Col. 3:18 and Titus 2:11-12, "let women learn in silence and be completely submissive, for no woman shall be permitted to teach or have authority over men." The Malleus Maleficarum, a fifteenth-century Catholic text, summed up women by saying that women, being formed from man's rib, are only imperfect animals, whereas man belongs to the privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged. And to give equal time to the Protestants, Martin Luther, in the sixteenth century, reportedly said, "Girls begin to talk and to stand on their feet sooner than boys because weeds always grow up more quickly than good crops." However, my favorite Martin Luther quotation is: "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians." Hey! That makes sense, for without reason, no one would challenge his hollow, faith-based reality.

Perhaps that last quotation, about destroying reason, explains why today's roughly 500 million Christian women concede to the loathsome view of them taken by their Bible and Christian leadership. In the early twentieth century, they seemed to have displayed enough reason to effect an emancipation through women's suffrage. They questioned political authority, but why not religious authority? Do women honestly feel that they can play "pick-and-chose" with these theo-beliefs by saying yes, I like that verse, it's true, or no, that verse is no longer relevant? Do they really feel that they can change their god into a more loving god/goddess version, and somehow that will make the reality of their ridiculous and intolerant religion, and their submission to it, more palatable? Why do they give patronage to a reality that demands its adherents to be unquestioningly attached to beliefs through faith, thus the nonacceptance of truth, honesty, or a life that pivots upon unconditional love? If they would simply allow the Bible to speak for itself, they would see the intolerance that the scripture demands, and they would clearly recognize their error. Yet do Christian women ever ponder the teachings advanced by the three Abrahamic holy books? The theologian Clement of Alexandria summed up the Abrahamic teachings perfectly when he said, "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."

As mentioned above, the word woman, that is "of and for man" is a disempowering word. References from various Samarian and Mesopotamian texts suggest that the feminine entity in the first of the two Bible creation stories was Lilith. Later, Lilith was demonized by the Hebrews, and subsequently by the Christians, for leaving Adam in Eden's garden. She was labeled a dark goddess. However, when viewed in context with the whole of various creation stories, Lilith was the quintessence of femininity. The second feminine entity in chapter 2 of Genesis is Eve. Eve was a wo-man, the subservient partner of Adam, a feminine parallel to man, made out of his flesh. Lilith, on the other hand (for those who recall chapter one of this book), was a cunt, a freethought goddess without original sin, a feminine parallel to nature.

Why do people engage in such an absurdity as present-day Christianity? It does not take a degree in religious studies to see how this new Christianity got its deep grip on society. History is quite clear regarding the roots of this deception, which was firmly grounded by the end of the sixth century. Theodosian laws, for example, condemned all non-Christians, thus promoting ardent persecutions of freethinkers, deists, pantheists, polytheists, pagans, and others whose confiscated property enriched the new church. Then came the barbaric reign of Justinian, which barred anyone outside specific neo-Christian beliefs from civil service, and whose forced baptisms upon Arabs encouraged the way for the establishment of Islam. Christianity was spread through violence and now propagates its faith through the fortune raised from that violence. In the United States that is a serious felony, and their propagators are nothing less than accessory felons.

However, what has kept neo-Christians ignorant of their complicity during two millennia of treachery and crimes against humanity and nature? What is the expected value that they hope to realize by the acceptance of this unquestioning belief through faith in their scripture? Is it because of their fear of death? Is it because of hope and the anticipation of heaven? Perhaps their fear and insecurity is perceived to be reduced through the hope that the meek will inherit the earth. Maybe their fear of not being good enough is tranquilized by the hope of salvation. The truth is that today's Christianity offers no wisdom about reality or how to trigger direct, authentic experiences with the source of who we are. Christianity only desires to feed and sustain faith in its beliefs, a faith that steps between both individual and collective, and their direct experience, so that what is false continues to perpetuate itself.

There is indeed a source, which will become clear as we unveil who we are. However, before this source can be grasped, first we must uncover the false as the false, that is, what source is not. Sabdana's, those who venture beyond beliefs, call this the process of neti-neti. Through neti-neti, the true is recognized by realizing what is not false. As the false is seen, it dissolves, and the real is revealed. To paraphrase an idea known to first-century Gnostics, when you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments [beliefs] and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then you will no longer be afraid. That is the process to an unobscured heart and the source of who we are. Without fear, there is no hope; without hope, there is no fear.

Source is not a god of death, nor would source prescribe death for cursing one's parents (Lev. 20:9), death for adultery (Lev. 20:10), death for blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), death if the tokens of virginity could not be found at the time of marriage (Deut. 22:20), or death for not being good enough in God's eye (Gen. 38:7). How about death to Anamias and Sapphira for not tithing enough to the Apostles' satisfaction (Acts 5:1-10)? Neither is source interested in the perpetuation of the institution of slavery, like being subject to a master with all fear (1 Peter 2:18), obey your masters in all things (Col. 2:22), slaves both male and female, thou shalt have (Lev. 25:44), and slaves shall be submissive to their masters and please them (Titus 2:19). Christianity is a religion designed for Roman world domination, not the birthing of human beingness, or co-creating peace on earth.

Although some of today's Christians see their god as a loving father, the Bible clearly shows that their patriarch is a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillating, petty, racist, conditional god. They say their god is omnipotent, yet if we have "free will," how can that be? How can their god do whatever he likes, regardless of whatever we like? Why was I, and all bastard children, denied access to heaven (Deut. 23:2)? How can God's omnipotence and human free will exist at the same time? They claim that their god has causal powers, yet source, as will be shown, is causeless. Their god is outside themselves in some sort of multiple dimensionality, whereas source is dimensionless. Their god is a reflection of fear and hope, yet source's presence is changelessly in the now. Their scriptures say that sin is real; however, source's reality is one of peace; thus sin is not even considered. Their god demands worship, obedience, and prayers. Yet for those who genuinely seek peace, the notion of such attributes in a god does not exist.

The Abrahamic-rooted Christian god is, by all evidence, a supernatural concept invented and reinvented within the evolution of our ancestors. Simply looking at the progressive names for God gives an idea of how this pernicious myth developed. The first Hebrew god was Elohim, a plural word, meaning gods. In the Bible, it is used roughly 2,570 times. For example, "Elohim said, 'Let us make man in our image' " (Gen. 1:26); "Elohim said, 'Behold, man has become one of us' " (Gen 3:22)"Let us go down and confound them" (Gen 11:17); "Who will go for us?" (Isaiah 6:8). The singular of Elohim, which is El or Eloah, appears 226 and 57 times, respectively. The first time a singular god is revealed in the Bible is in Exodus 6:2-8.

Evangelical apologists come up with interesting reasons why the word god is plural hundreds of times in the Bible, for example, by suggesting that the verbs nearby are singular. What these apologists seldom care to share is that what they call the Old Testament was oral tradition until the Common Era, and it wasn't included in their canonized Bible until the tenth century CE, during the Church-sponsored Dark Ages. In other words, singular-thinking writers transcribed those singular verbs after hundreds of years of oral tradition.

Religion and its accompanying beliefs are too important for Humanity to blindly submit to in such lockstep. Could there possibly be one thing regarding what someone so intimately pivots his or her life upon that shouldn't be honestly questioned? When will we admit that truth is not created or invented; it's uncovered. If a god were true, it would have been uncovered and clearly understood in our daily lives. No Bodhisattva who has uncovered enlightenment has ever uncovered a god with it. No Bodhisattva who has uncovered enlightenment ever hid the truth from those seeking it. But because God was invented, and thus not true, god(s) can only be defined through the condition of faith. Like Christian love, the Christian god is founded on conditions. The Christian god is a cause-and-effect-driven creator, yet the source of who we are does not create, for creation implies that time-a before and an after, a past and a future, fear and hope-is real. Source is in the now, the present instant. There is no instant in time, conditions, or beliefs. Source is timeless. The time of duality is forever changing: energy, neither created nor destroyed, being manifested into something else. Quantumly speaking, creation is simply a perception of a projection. From the now's point of view, source travels no distance in no time, thus has no need of space or time. No god is required for the universe's perceived existence. Natural laws arising from the nine-planed optic matrix within which this dream continues is enough to explain the illusion of our world.

I clung to an indoctrinated monotheistic viewpoint in various forms until the summer solstice of 1999, when unexpectedly, through a fuller realization of light, came the awareness that there is no god beyond belief. In other words, understanding light is the evidence and proof that no god(s), as presented in the Abrahamic religions and defined in English language dictionaries, exist(s). By light, I am not speaking of 1 John's apology that says that the Christian "God is light, and in him is no darkness." I am also not speaking of the duality of photon particles and their waves, which are merely manifestations of the simulated, divided light projected from the still, causeless fulcrum through which duality effects its motion upon the holographic-like screen that we call reality. Understanding light exposes the source of us. From the point of view of source, there is no god(s). Like the conceptual attributes of God, there is no energy in, or of, source. Energy, as you will also see below, is a product of the perceived separation from source. When scientists stop glorifying the illusion of energy and creation, perhaps they will come to realize what light really is. Yes, in duality, E = mc2, but to realize enlightenment, we must understand that mc2

Belief in a god is one of the last barriers to awareness, and this belief is a significant obstacle to peace. The last emancipation will be a letting go of the "one-based" monotheistic philosophy of our ancestors. The idea of a supernatural Supreme Being needs to fade away onto some back walls of local museums as soon as possible, if humanity is going to take its next step in evolution. To realize that reality quickly, we must begin as soon as possible to divest religion's words from our vocabulary. Religion and its propagators use words to disempower, distract, and disconnect us from the now. By now, I mean that which is neither in the past nor in an anticipated future. We can indeed cease feeding the distraction and disempowerment of those religion-based words. Words such as faith and those associated with faith have dense vibrational patterns that limites both our sapiential and sciential capacity to discern wholly. Consequently, the use of these words suppresses our direct relationship with source. Remember, the people whom we encounter are reflections of the vibrational pattern that we radiate. By using and identifying with religious words, we maintain barriers through which our life force must filter through, so our true self is not reflected back to us because it was not clearly given or expressed from us to begin with. By using and identifying with religious words, what is presented in the mirror is the reflection of religious beliefs, the veils that cover us, not our authentic selves. For example, put a flashlight to the palm of your hand. Filtered through the hand, the light is no longer bright, but merely dim and reddish. When we present this hand to a mirror, it has no choice but to reflect back to us that very same dimness. Yet our unveiled selves are more brilliant than a thousand stars.

In 1995, at Stanford University, physicists made two particles of matter by supercharging a trillion-watt laser through a linear accelerator. If they had access to all of our sun's power in one spot, there might have been enough power to make one ounce of matter. Thus, it would take more than a thousand stars to make the physical mass of a person. Even then, we are much grander than our physical vehicles.

Identifying and letting go of the language that fosters religions' deleterious agendas is intrinsically a pro-freedom activity. In the West, freethinkers such as Thomas Paine, the father of the North American Revolution with the British, and the person who coined the term United States of America, often spoke of the insidiousness of Christian scripture. Thomas Jefferson, another U.S. founding father, said, "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus will be classed with other fables." Jefferson insisted, "Religion is a matter that lies solely between man and his belief." Both of these gentleman and many others have encouraged a primacy of a very high wall of separation between any religious faith and a Constitutional sectarian government. The American Revolution guerrilla leader Ethan Allen was even said to have stopped his own wedding until the presiding judge affirmed that "God" referred to Nature and not to the god of the Bible.

However, since the Joseph McCarthy Era, during the post-World War II years, Christianity has infiltrated nearly every aspect of the United States government, trimming that wall of separation into a small hedge, which now, inescapably, allows their beliefs to pollute our everyday environment with its virulent, theocratic moralistic views. These views may have all the good intentions of its faithful, yet that does not reduce the irrationality of the superstition or diminish the threat to the nation of my birth from that faith's agenda for a monotheistic, theocratic government.

The U.S. Constitution is not a body of laws that evolves at the whim of the majority. Many Christians, however, in their pursuit of a Christian theocracy, not only preach that religion plays a vital role in holding society together, but also that the nations founding fathers would have wanted God in the public square. The facts are clearly the opposite. Most of the U.S. founders had a deep disgust for Christianity and its god. Their creator, although not specifically defined, was certainly not the god of the Bible. If Charles Darwin had been born in 1709 instead of 1809, the word creator probably would not have appeared in the Declaration of Independence.

In my American nation, the symbols of Christianity are being forced upon its citizens everywhere. "In God We Trust" was adopted as the new national motto and added to currency in 1956. Could there be a more irreverent homage to the portraits of Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln and Washington than putting an invocation to the Christian god next to them on coins and currency? Every dollar I use is an advertisement for the Judeo-Christian religion. Other offensive pseudo-patriotic slogans exclaim "God Bless America" on public mass-transit vehicles and even in post offices. These signs further erode any semblance of a separation between church and state, promoting instead the propaganda of a theocratic government. The majority of the U.S. citizenry, who are inflicted with the Christian meme, not only think that the government's endorsement of their monotheistic religion is acceptable, but also that it's honorable for them to inhibit and deprive freethinkers, pantheists, atheists, spiritual nontheists, deists, polytheists, Wiccan, etc., of their liberty and full membership in this American nation. Most of these Christians even think that their majority status gives them the right to oppress and offend nonadherents to their faith. They espouse public prayer, the election of politicians who claim that God called them, annoyingly express their "God bless"-ing of everything, and advocate an evangelical agenda to legalize what is Constitutionally illegal. They believe that it is their Christian duty and mission to indoctrinate others with the falsities to which they cling. In that process, what has become lost is the reality that the United States of America is one nation under a Constitution, not under a god and certainly not under their neo-Christian groupthink.

The fact is, "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion." That declaration was drafted in 1796 under George Washington, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate, and signed into law by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. And even though that document, less than two pages long, was read aloud in Congress without dissension and well-publicized at the time, there were no complaints, and there was no public outcry, as would be media-ted today. Before the testimonium clause is this paragraph of ratification and proclamation, published in several national newspapers of the time:

"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof" (p. 383).

The people of that era knew well that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution said: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law the Land." The people of that time wrote Article VI of the Constitution. Despite that indisputable event, Christian revisionists continue to media-te their faithful towards the reactionary side or the far right of even an appearance of religious neutrality. The past sixty years have shown that they have been quite successful in forcing their theo-beliefs on the common citizenry. They cleverly removed the original national motto, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," which was coined by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, from U.S. currency and public places. They successfully proselytize that the U.S. was founded as "One Nation under [their] God" and one nation under their religion. However, the historic truth is, according to people such Herman C. Weber, DD, an expert in religious censuses and statistics, that few early Americans were members of a Christian church. In the 1933 Yearbook of American Churches, for instance, it says that just 6.9% of U.S. citizens belonged to a church in 1800. By 1850, religious membership had risen to 15.5%. By 1900, Christians had doubled their percentage to 37%. However, not until 1942 did Christian affiliation exceed 50% of the U.S. population.

Few people realize that in 1850, only about one percent of Irish-Americans attended church. But as anti-Catholic bias grew and the Anglos tormented the new Irish immigrants, the Vatican ordered all parishes to provide schools so that Irish-Americans would have a sense of community. By the late 1880s, church attendance among the Irish is said to have grown six-fold. In nineteenth-century North America, an Irishman was treated less favorably than a Negro. Hate is religions favorite fuel.

In 1954, the U.S. Congress, in direct violation of the First Amendment, began to secure the presence of Christianity's monotheistic God in government. For example, pressured by McCarthy-era hysteria and Christian groups such as the Knights of Columbus, the Pledge of Allegiance went from a patriotic oath declaring liberty and justice for all, to a religious invocation through the insertion of the words "under God." This made the Pledge of Allegiance into a Judeo-Christian prayer advocating, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2002, "an impermissible government endorsement of religion [that] sends a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." What was America's response to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court? Kill those liberal judges!

It is now time to get religion out of the state. It is time for Christians to start rendering to the United States of America what is the United States of America's, in compliance with Matthew 22:21. It is time to remove "In God We Trust" from currency, and public places. It's time to remove me, and other pro-Constitution Americans, from this "We" that these Christians promote. As long as a nation allows its government to endorse monotheism, that nation will be a divided nation, and the world as a whole will be suppressed, disempowered, and disconnected.

The United States was established through common law. On February 10, 1814, Thomas Jefferson wrote that common law

is that system of law, which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England . . . about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. . . We may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.

Christian values are not American values. Christian values are not nature's values. Christian values can never lead the world towards an era of peace.

The United States is a secular nation, a nation whose founding principles arose from freethought and deism, not evangelism and theism. The U.S. was designed to be a guiding model for the world. Yet Christians (with their legally protected and privileged superstition) fail to realize that their First Commandment is in direct opposition to the United States Constitution's First Amendment. In fact, for the most part, their Ten Commandments are everything that the U.S. Constitution is not. Christian values are inherently un-American and unnatural values. Christianity needs immediate marginalization, such as its addition to the NC-17 laws, along with cigarettes, alcohol, and pornography. That is to say, no children under 17 should be allowed in or exposed to faith-based environments. There should not be a single religious school for children in the U.S., especially tax exempt one's, that indoctrinate our youth into the ignorant and superstitious beliefs of hollowness.

Wherever we see Christians polluting our environment through burning Harry Potter books and other literature, we should gather for huge Bible collections to compost their un-American literature. Wherever we see their crosses of suffering polluting our environmental landscape, we should send letters asking for its removal. The need for suffering is a delusion. We need to employ constructive, creative tension to produce an environment that nurtures peace and the liberation from suffering.

To alter the division that has become the United States and which this theocratic agenda has perpetrated upon the world, we need to explore immediate redress. At the top of the list should be the swift reversal of the current constitutionally illegal Christianized national motto, "In God We Trust," which replaced "E Pluribus Unum." In its place could be the motto "In Love We Trust." As Christians think that their god is love, it shouldn't be too difficult to persuade them that it's in the best interest of the U.S. and the world to change the national motto to a less offensive, more inclusive wording. Whenever they hear or say "love," they can think of their god. That's much more palatable than to have pro-Constitutional Americans, many whom are not Christian, being forced to hear, say, or swear to monotheistic concepts, which Thomas Paine would say was an outrage to common sense. Fortunately, I have never had to be a witness in a courtroom. However, if I were, and if I were asked to swear to their god on their Bible, the presiding judge might declare me in contempt because of my laughter. It would be like swearing to Bobby Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The U.S. Founding Fathers, including George Washington, abhorred the "age of Ignorance and Superstition" imposed upon humanity by Christianity. However, the time has arrived to for the U.S. to realize the ideal of Annuit coeptis, Novis ordo seclorum, by finishing the pyramid on the Great Seal, as seen on the one dollar bill, both before and after its desecration by "In God We Trust." It is time for my nation to ascend, and lead a new order beyond ignorance and superstition, into an era of human beingness, peace and love. Time for an emancipated United States of America to be first nation in history to "Trust in Love."

 Filed under: Religion


You must be logged in to comment

Site Statistics