Sketches on Atheism

Death Cult Christianity

David at Applied Faith has a post up, How Evangelicals Can Look Not-So-Crazy about the End Times, concerning the imminent arrival of the Christian End Times

“We’re in a climate where Christians are being mass-murdered and driven out of the Middle East. Russia is violently propping up the Shia regime in Syria, Iran may already have a nuclear weapon, and the United Nations routinely persecutes Israel. Many Christians believe that Islam is evil, and the followers of Muhammad may spawn The Anti-Christ.” 

As you might however have gathered from the article’s title, his worry is not the pending annihilation of our home planet and the eradication of all life at the hands of his particular Middle Eastern god, Yhwh, but rather the somewhat annoying fact that evangelicals, like himself, are broadly considered “crazy” by the general public when they start hollering the end is neigh. It’s an honest complaint, and David cites William Miller’s failed 1844 prediction for the end of the world as an example for why evangelicals should be mindful not to dance too loudly in the streets singing about the coming bloodbath.

Now, while he is correct in fingering Miller’s “Great Disappointment” as a case study in ridicule, I suspect David knows positively nothing about the actual Christian love affair with the promised apocalypse. And so, for David’s benefit and education as to why people of sound mind consider him and his fellow evangelicals “crazy,” here’s a re-post of my 2013 article, Death Cult Christianity.

Death Cult Christianity

revelation_churches

Few Christians will admit it because few Christians even recognise it, but they are members of a Death Cult; a degenerate, death-anxious, exclusively fatalistic religion that has since the Hammer of the Arians (Bishop Hilary of Poitiers) predicted the mass liquidation of all earthly species in 365 CE produced a continuous supply of socially derelict luminaries who’ve longed for nothing short of the total and complete annihilation of our home world. Now, granted, like an awkward uncle it’s something most liberal churches try not to bellow about from the pulpit, but let there be no doubt, Christianity (like Judaism and Islam) is an anticipatory religion; a sect almost wholly fixated on the expectations (and apprehension) of a single and supposedly inescapable future event: the apocalypse detailed in John’s Revelation where all but “saved” Christians (perhaps as few as 144,000) will be butchered by the Middle Eastern god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam…. and it’s a bloodbath many captains of Christianity have been (and still are today) simply giddy about.

Just a decade after Bishop Hilary’s fatalistic proclamation, Martin of Tours pronounced that the heavenly holocaust was at hand (375 CE). For the trireme of morose hopelessness embodied in Hippolytus of Rome, Sextus Julius Africanus and Saint Irenaeus it was 500 CE when the Christian god was going to obliterate everything from toddlers to tiaras. For the Spanish monk, Beatus of Liébana, it was the 6th of April 793. Pope Sylvester II and Cardinal John of Toledo named 1186 as the year the Christian god was going commit its radiant genocide. Joachim of Fiore fingered 1260, then 1290, and finally 1335. 1284 was the date for the glorious massacre according to Pope Innocent III, 1378 for Arnaldus de Villa Nova, the 20th of February 1524 for Johannes Stöffler (later revised up to 1528), and the 27th of May 1528 for the Anabaptist, Hans Hut, who apart from getting his prediction of the end of the world horribly wrong holds the rather unusual distinction of being perhaps the only person in history to be executed a day after in fact dying. The mathematician and monk, Michael Stifel, was quite specific saying 500 million innocent men, women and children, together with millions of equally innocent species would be willfully put to death at precisely 8am on the 19th October 1533. For Jan Matthys it was 1534, 1555 for Pierre d’Ailly, 1585 for Michael Servetus, and 1600 when Martin Luther hoped the earth would be destroyed in a cataclysmic blast of resplendent carnage. 1794 was the year the Methodist, Charles Wesley, was certain god was going to wreak heavenly havoc on all creatures. His brother, John, fingered 1836, but for the Jehovah Witnesses 1914 was the year they were positively convinced the world would be put to the saintly torch. When it didn’t, they simply dusted themselves off, pulled up their socks, and went on to name 1915, then 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, and finally 1994 as sequentially erroneous dates for their Christian god to commit its rapturous mass murder. The Baptist minister, William Miller, was sure our world would be blissfully annihilated on the 21st of March 1843; a date amended on the 22nd of March to the 18th of April, only to be revised again on the 19th to the 22nd of October 1844, which came and went without as much as a godly sneeze.  The Methodist, Joanna Southcott, was certain her Christian god would annihilate everything on the 19th of October 1814, and Joseph Smith got his prediction of the end of the world fabulously wrong when 1891 passed to 1892 and children were still playing under the sun. For Jim Jones it was 1967. Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God wanted it all to end in 1936, then 1943, and finally 1975. Leland Jensen thought 1980, Pastor Chuck Smith named 1981, and television evangelist, Pat Robertson, was no doubt left scratching his head when his god failed to blow our home planet and everything on it to smithereens in 1982. Tara Centers was so confident the Christian god was poised to extinguish all life that she took out full page ads in newspapers on the 24th and 25th of April 1982 announcing that “The Christ is Now Here!” Edgar C. Whisenant got it wrong in 1988 but did sell 5 million copies of his book 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988. He revised the date to 1989, then 1993, and finally 1994, but didn’t sell as many books the second, third, and fourth times around. 1993 was the date for our planet’s dazzling demise according to the Disciples of Christ, David Berg, and after getting it wrong in 1988 and then again in 1999 the World Mission Society Church of God was certain 2012 was in fact the year their god was going to end it all. For the Christian radio broadcaster, Harold Camping, it was 6am on the 21st of May 2011 (a date later updated to the 21st of October), for Ronald Weinland of the Church of God it was May 27th 2012, June 30th for José Luis de Jesús of the Growing In Grace International Ministry (Inc.), and for Warren Jeffs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints it was the 23rdof December 2012 (a date amended a few days later to the 31st of December) for when the Middle Eastern Christian god was going to commence its enchanted bloodbath and extinguish all terrestrial life. And most recently, on the 8th October, 2015, evangelical Christian radio host Chris McCann got his date for the end of the world, 7 October, 2015, wrong… Just like everyone else.

End Times in our timedancing-at-armageddon-survivalism-and-chaos-in-modern-timesThe EndAll told, in the last fifty-six generations (1,700 years) there have been more than three-hundred prominent captains of Christianity who have announced with excited yips of childlike anticipation that their god was about to lay waste to all life on earth. In this generation alone there have been over forty major public incidents where socially-reckless, apocalypse-hungry Christian leaders have proclaimed that their god was here and it was time to die… and when the captains speak easily persuadable, astoundingly gullible congregants regretfully listen. Today a staggering 41% of US citizens (130,000,000 adults) believe that their Middle Eastern god will commence its mass extinction of all creatures in their lifetime. It’s a ghastly figure but it is a number reflected in the multi-billion dollar Christian apocalypse industry that has in just the last twenty years produced 29 End Times films (with such grand titles as “Tribulation” and “Judgement”), 60 documentaries (like “Racing to the End Times”), and some 1,120+ grotesquely warped End Times books, of which the Left Behind series has alone sold over 40 million copies. Apocalypse-II-Revelation-Christian-MovieFilm-DVDTheApocalypse_317x450web-pic-1Add into this mix literally thousands of Christian End Times websites (like Ark Haven), thousands of blogs (like Christian SurvivalThe End-Times Christian Spiritual Survival Page and End-Time Preparation), and scores of geographically-specific Christian-only Survivalists groups and what we have is the largest and (somewhat antithetically, albeit hilariously) longest-lasting Death Cult in the history of humanity; a debauched sect geared to producing media products like Richard Mitchell Jr’s “Dancing at Armageddon: Survivalism and Chaos in Modern Times,” and Robert J. Logston’s, “The End-Times Blood Bath” which has a delightful foreword that reads:

“The Rapture, The Beast, The False Prophet, The Four Horsemen… there is a good chance you will personally witness these events. It is foretold that during the End-Times two-thirds of all people on earth will die and Christ will return for the remaining Christians. Reading this book will introduce you to the main players and prepare you for the reign of the Beast.”

Now, without delving into the depraved depths of thanatophilia, or even the detestable notion of the anticipated slaughter of children whose only crime is that their parents were born into the wrong religion, it is perhaps only appropriate to remind the death-craving religious audiences of the Robert J. Logston’s of the world that they should probably read their bibles a little more carefully, because if they did they’d see that the very first Christian Doomsdayer, Jesus Christ himself, got his own prediction of the end of the world stupendously wrong when he boldly announced: I TELL YOU THE TRUTH, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, Mark 9:1). Evidently, the character Jesus wasn’t exactly telling the truth. All those standing there in the story went on to die perfectly normal, entirely non-supernatural deaths, and that leaves the 21st Century Christian evangelical in quite a credibility muddle. If the Host, Guest of Honour and Master of Ceremonies of the Christian apocalypse got his own date with annihilation wrong then it’s perfectly safe to categorise any and all ensuing thought of magically-delivered, earth-wrecking firestorms as little more than the demented ramblings of conspicuously unbalanced minds; minds whose warnings are about as convincing (and ultimately as menacing) as a hippy threatening to punch someone in their aura. Indeed, when confronted with such brain haemorrhaging nonsense all any sane individual could quietly hope for is that these emotionally unstable Christian luminaries and the simpleminded (death-anxious) flocks they oversee might one day instead direct their efforts to improving life on this planet today, rather than wishing for its obliteration tomorrow.

Advertisements

221 thoughts on “Death Cult Christianity

  1. And christians call me crazy just cause I eat their infants! Go figure. Great post. I particularly like this quote: ” Many Christians believe that Islam is evil, and the followers of Muhammad may spawn The Anti-Christ.” I LOVE stuff like this. Of course, many Muslims think awful things of christians, too. It’s like a battle for who can be the bigger idiot, religiously speaking. When I realize I share the planet with lunatics like these end-of-days types, I think the end has already come and I’m stuck in some sort of vortex of hell with these fools. They are good fodder for satire, however.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Ah, John. Talking so sensibly and articulately like that is all fine and dandy but using the word ‘crazy’ is a far greater crime and cause of offence than those who simply promote a global death-cult and then act on the assumption that it’s going to happen in our lifetime. Using the word ‘crazy’ in this context is a banning offence over at Seriusbizness, let us never forget, whereas promoting the death cult isn’t. Silly fellow; you really must get your sensitivity awareness under control and stop being so stridently insensitive to those who have mental health challenges outside of religious batshit wingnuttery.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fair crack of the whip, Tildeb, “Crazy” was David’s word, I was merely repeating it… and adding “emotionally unstable,” “simpleminded,” “death-anxious,and “degenerate.”

      Like

      • I must have missed this earlier.

        It’s not a fair crack of the whip. Even David’s use of the term in the title didn’t rely on mental illness stigma. The standard here is whether someone is relying purely on a negative connotation of mental illness to convey and promote an idea. David had managed to use the term in a neutral enough fashion, showing how it really takes intentional ignorance to rely on stigma instead of blind dumb luck.

        In that regard, there is an example of use of mental illness stigma on this page, just not in your post.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think SB is drawing attention to point that the word “crazy” is often attached to genuinely mentally ill people, people who through no fault of their own are suffering… Whereas the Crisis Cultists Christian Doomsdayer’s are willfully participating in a destructive, sick, and perverted exercise. I can see the distinction, can appreciate the complaint, although I wouldn’t pounce on it, but then again, I’m not American. Different horses for different courses, I guess.

        Like

      • “Whereas the Crisis Cultists Christian Doomsdayer’s are willfully participating in a destructive, sick, and perverted exercise.” Which is crazy; not mentally ill. Crazy is a derogatory term meant to insult idiots. It is not a medical term. To confuse the two is just, well, just crazy, as well as extremely naive and ignorant. End-of-days christains are crazy, annoying, ignorant, stupid, dangerous, insulting to normal people, and a cancer on the skin of society that will not go away by talking gently to it and cooing it with dulcet lullabies. Such thinking and proselytizing by christians isn’t nice. It isn’t harmless, and it isn’t OK. It needs to be treated as such. $Amen$

        Liked by 1 person

      • I do, but I’m wearing them and you’ll have to pry them off my cold dead legs.

        As for my ‘exactly’, I don’t know why it appeared beneath your hosanna comment and not the one above. I suspect a communist plot.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Your sarcasm, as always, is misplaced. If you’d read that article I linked you a long time ago by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, you’d at least have a clue where the boundaries lie. I’m not making this stuff up, nor am I claiming to be a police force for language. Indeed, as I have told you repeatedly in the past, I never claimed to have the right to give anyone permission to use the word “crazy.” I did, however, inform you of the presence of sound research into the concept of mental illness stigma. Despite that, it was always your choice whether you used it or not.

        I really have no clue why you are continuing to bring this up. If it is something I said, please quote it. My email is up on my website. To date, you have yet to avail yourself of that communication option. You do not have to take up space on others’ blogs to resolve this issue.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SB, I warn others of your willingness to ban on the basis of you banning me because you did not agree with a point I raised over using the term ‘crazy’ for those who supported certain batshit wingnuttery clothed as religious beliefs. I read the article you keep on supplying – as if you’re oh-so-reasonable – and it did not pertain to what I was saying nor anything I had done. You got it into your head that I was vilifying people with inherited mental illness for their condition and this was not true then and not true now. I referred specifically and repeatedly (to no avail) to those who willingly and knowingly and proudly boarded the religious train to Crazytown BECAUSE it was religiously acceptable and therefore magically not mentally unbalanced, not dysfunctional, and not delusional. I was arguing that no one – least of all an atheist like you – should willingly grant to RELIGION a special privilege and exemption for those who exhibit what in any other arena in life would be diagnosed as just that: mentally unstable, dysfunctional, and delusional.

        You were offended. Big deal. But you banned, and that is a big deal. Your willingness to ban on this basis demonstrates a very real problem that I keep highlighting over and over and over hoping you’ll see the error of your ways: if you’re going to ban me for using the term ‘crazy’ pejoratively then you’ll need to ban everyone who uses the term ‘crazy’ as I do. Your banning changed nothing. That’s why I continue to point out the poor reasons you now rationalize for your very poor decision: that you use the same reasons and ban other commentators who do the same as I, people like John, like Mak and Ark and Arch and many others, including significant contributors to atheism like Sagan and Feynman and Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens who have all used the same term pejoratively. These are the kinds of commentators you should ban, too… if you’re being intellectually honest, that is, and really upholding some principle you pretend to have for caring and concern for others with whom you may disagree, for championing tolerance and respect. Except for me. You cherry picked me and then pretended the fault was somehow mine, that responsibility was somewhere other than you… the person doing the banning. This is relativistic bullshit worthy of Fox News reporting: claiming the other guy is guilty of doing exactly that which you yourself exercise.

        I don’t mind being banned by those who fear my commentary as an informed atheist willing to stand up to religious intolerance and misrepresentation and vilification of atheists, criticizing the ideas of others that grant unwarranted and unreasonable privilege to religious belief, and against those who offer exemptions to those who choose to champion them. But I sure as hell am bothered that you as an atheist would stoop to such a disreputable action yourself as if what I offered was just too intolerant and insensitive to bear for your commenting community… but fine and dandy coming from any and all other source(s). And it pisses me off because the only other way I can publicly criticize your action to ban me is by using space on other people’s blogs to reveal what you did and why you did it. You’ve earned it. Because you don’t allow me to express myself on your blog in my own defense but have tried me and found me guilty of some heinous crime you presume I committed, I will point out each and every time we encounter someone whom you should criticize and ban for the same reasons you gave to ban me. This list should embarrass the shit out of you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I disagree with SB, I’m happy to say. Religionists are—by any reasonable definition of the word—crazy.
        Strangely, each and every one of them follows the one and only unique path to union with the Godhead … and they kill each over over disagreements. Weird? Craaaazeeeeeeee~!

        Liked by 1 person

      • @JZ

        As intellectuals, it is our responsibility to attempt to move society toward a better, more just place.

        Using pejorative terms such as crazy, a term that reinforces negative stereotypes, does not move us closer to the stated goal above.

        Trying to defend what is essentially punching-down on a marginalized group in society by invoking ‘free-speech’ is a cop-out and betrays what could be seen as a privileged, cavalier stance regarding the systemic problems that our society has.

        Like

      • Arb, really? “Using pejorative terms such as crazy, a term that reinforces negative stereotypes, does not move us closer to the stated goal above (move society toward a better, more just place).”

        Although I state the obvious, it seems to be required here: the pejorative terms are used BECAUSE they have a very intentional negative connotation. Like John using ““emotionally unstable,” “simpleminded,” “death-anxious”, and “degenerate.” No one as far as I can tell and in the context of criticizing an unwarranted religious privilege uses any dysfunctional term with a positive connotation. Yet that is the unreasonable and unwarranted demand made by SB… just for me… and that I’m an asshole for not ‘correcting’ my use of these terms and thus justifying the banning.

        Well, is that a banning offense, Arb?

        How about the Arb using, “My ire toward the loon-factory that is organized religion…”, “the farcical fail-o-tron of delusional christian nonsense…” From the same post, “Get out your funny hats and squeaky shoes ladies and gentlemen…”

        Punching down to affront psychiatric patients, the elderly, to clowns and their tiny parade cars everywhere?

        Come off it. Your writing in this way is a stellar approach to the wingnuttery found in all kinds of places of power and influence and I for one am glad you’re doing it. Who cares if there are tangential self-made victims to your references? That’s their problem. And on occasion, you know I disagree with you as you do with me… but banning in the name of sustaining negative stereotypes? Hardly.

        We use pejorative terms regarding poor mental health with intention all the time, and the intention is not to “marginalize” those who suffer from legitimate mental health dysfunction but to denigrate those who CHOOSE to exercise this dysfunction AND THEN hide behind the religious label because of privilege. And using these kinds of pejorative terms DOES serve the intention of trying to “move society toward a better, more just place.”

        That’s why I do it. That’s why John does it. That’s why you and the Intransigent One does it. That’s why a veritable host of worthy atheist writers do it.

        Hindering this move by claiming it promotes a negative stereotype is this kind of popular privileged bullshit tsk tsking those who ‘offend’ delicate snowflakes by the harshness of language. This is a real problem and it isn’t addressed but promoted by banning people on this basis and then excusing the banning with such drivel. This harshness of response (rather than agreeing to disagree and leave it at that) in the name of sensitivity to ‘marginalized’ groups of people is sweeping the Western world where people dare not criticize just about anything that might conceivably offend someone somewhere belonging to some marginalized group regardless of the scope and depth of the problem being criticized. That’s exactly what the DSM-V allows with its special exemption for religious belief from labeling the same behaviours that are otherwise descriptive of mental dysfunction! And applying this kind of bullshit protectionism and excuses for banning in the name of mental health snowflakes because they are a marginalized group is another move away from doing what you propose, which is just another reason for people like we are to talk even more about these issues. That it offends IS the point.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oh look… more punching down, more negative connotation against a stereotypical minority… our basic rights and freedoms coming in somewhere a distant second. Quick, let’s ban Jeffery Taylor and pretend his criticism of the pernicious effects from religious privilege is less of an issue than his use of mental health dysfunction when he says (emphasis mine),

        “These statistics should prompt all rationalists to sound the proverbial tocsin with unrelenting fury. The religious-secular divide among Americans is deepening, putting those who value reason, evidence and consensus-based decisions in direct opposition to putrid supernatural gobbledygook’s slackwitted votaries; in other words, to those who hear voices, see visions, and engage in kooky superstitious rituals – prayer, for instance – that would lead to their immediate institutionalization if such symptoms were not classified under the (scandalously) ennobling rubric of “religion.”

        Remember, the PPP survey deals not with the simple spread of faith, but with the desire of one part of the population to force its antiquated way of life and counterfactual worldview on the other.

        The situation, thus, is dire. We no longer have time for niceties. We need to speak out forcibly against faith and expose it for what it is – a delusion deleterious to liberty and the commonwealth.”

        Oh dear. How very insensitive of him. Obviously, he should be banned because that fixes the real problem… saying uncomfortable things using terms not approved by SeriusBizness that he judges to stigmatize those people with involuntary mental health dysfunction.

        Good grief.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Tildeb

        ” and that I’m an asshole for not ‘correcting’ my use of these terms and thus justifying the banning.

        Well, is that a banning offense, Arb?”

        I did not see the episode first hand, so I’m wary to comment. However, it usually comes down to “their blog, their rules”. The interwebs are woolly and wild, thus the expectation of different standards of moderation should be expected.

        “How about the Arb using, “My ire toward the loon-factory that is organized religion…”, “the farcical fail-o-tron of delusional christian nonsense…” From the same post, “Get out your funny hats and squeaky shoes ladies and gentlemen…”

        Glasses houses and what not. :> I use similar language when discussing organized religion and what not, often for comedic effect. But, depending the stars or what I had for lunch, I reflect and contemplate some of the splash damage that is possible from the way that I write.

        Not to honour this particular tu quoque further but, if it makes things better for you I’m just as guilty as you are when it comes to stuff like this.

        “Hindering this move by claiming it promotes a negative stereotype is this kind of popular privileged bullshit tsk tsking those who ‘offend’ delicate snowflakes by the harshness of language. “

        There is a larger context to what stirred me to post in the first place. Language is situated in the social context of our society. Said society is stratified into classes – some that make the rules and get to structure society and others that have to follow the rules and live within said structure.

        Being at the top of the western societal heap may not give us insight into how, despite intentions, language effects those closer to the bottom of the heap.

        “This harshness of response (rather than agreeing to disagree and leave it at that) in the name of sensitivity to ‘marginalized’ groups of people is sweeping the Western world where people dare not criticize just about anything that might conceivably offend someone somewhere belonging to some marginalized group regardless of the scope and depth of the problem being criticized.”

        The meat of the problem lies here. How a functioning secular society works is the critical analysis of problems and finding reasonable evidence based solutions to said problems.

        No disagreement from me here.

        The problem lies within the fact that ‘reasonable evidence based solutions’ have had, historically, a distinctly white-dudely based bias and this bias runs through the fabric of our society shaping and creating the beneficial conditions for more ‘reasonable evidence based solutions’.

        Thus, this dominant narrative may not include all of the available information when it comes to formulating ideas, theories, and social patterns. Thus, not only the fact itself, but who is saying the fact is an important consideration when are talking about critical analysis and evidence based solutions. To be clear, I am not commenting on the nature of facts in themselves, but rather how they work in society.

        “And applying this kind of bullshit protectionism and excuses for banning in the name of mental health snowflakes because they are a marginalized group is another move away from doing what you propose,”

        This seems to be a justification for telling it like it is, and letting the cards fall where they may. This works, to a certain degree in the hard sciences, but the closer one gets to human society the less useful this means of presentation becomes. I am most certainly not in favour of protecting bad ideas but at the same time, I am acutely aware of the dominant narrative and the inherent blindspots it possesses that can obfuscate relevant input/feedback from marginalized sources.

        It is a fine line to walk I think, if one appreciates the dissonant nature of how ‘facts’ are often treated in society.

        “just another reason for people like we are to talk even more about these issues. That it offends IS the point.”

        It is important to continue to hammer away at inane religious convictions/behaviour. No argument from me there, but at the same time is it not worth considering that some of the methodology used, despite the intention at the time, may have some splash-damage associated with using said term?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You know I agree with much of what you say here. But here’s the problem in a nutshell:

        “It is important to continue to hammer away at inane religious convictions/behaviour.”

        This is very hard to do when one has be banned for reasons of language sensitivity. THAT is the issue and one where I stand amazed more people who have commented have not given SB a virtual slap on the wrist but have prevaricated not on principle where many of my comments add to the discussion but, I suspect, in practice for fear and discomfort of being seen as intolerant, as one who also ‘stigmatizes’. And that’s the kind of infection that does not improve over time but helps people to self-censor and say little when their voices most need to be heard.

        Like

  3. My dad is constantly telling me god is about to judge the US. That our main crime is allowing gay marriage. I told my dad, so beheading Christians or child sex rings doesn’t upset god as much as those damn gays? He says that God blessed the US and what is much given much is expected.

    One of the punishments was to happen last month. An asteroid was to hit the Atlantic Ocean and would flood the south and east coast. As u know, that didn’t happen.

    I’m pissed that I wasted my money on scuba gear.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. (spoke with a Bible Belt Drawl)
    Jooohnnn Zan_DEE!!!
    jesus is gonna go OT on your ass for tellin’ all his ‘secret knowledge’. but you know? he still loooveees Yew!! he don’t keer wat denominashun ya’ar.
    think rufflin’ paper cuz Gawd don’t want your Tips. (visa and master card accepted. Amex on approved credit only)
    -KIA

    Liked by 1 person

  5. A great post John. Christians would do well to learn about their history it would cause them to act with more humility and circumspection (if they are wise).

    It was studying Christian history in 2013 that started me on the road to losing faith. So much of the history made no sense if there was any sort of deity acting behind the scenes. One of the aspects that caused me disquiet was what you highlighted how the great figures of Christianity invariably thought that the end would happen in their lifetime and were always proven to be wrong. This made me question whether they were truly hearing from God.

    I managed to rationalise it for a while at least. My rationalisation was: ‘when people follow God with all their heart their values start to diverge from the world at large. Then looking at the world at large and noticing this divergence they inevitably conclude that the end must be near. But it is not the world that has changed but rather their own values’.

    I used to despair at the Christians who somehow thought the world situation is worse now than at any time in history. I would say to them ‘have a look at the 1930’s and 1940’s surely that was a worse time than now!’

    Liked by 1 person

    • Great comment, Peter. The huge numbers of Christians who think it’s all going to happen in their lifestyle smacks of what I might call a “I’m So Very, Very Special Complex.” I’m sure Victoria has a clinical name for it, but you know what i’m talking about. These are the kinds of people who thank Jesus for a great parking spot. Now we all know Jesus doesn’t organise superb parking spots, even when it is pouring rain, but he will most certainly help Australia thrash Argentina tomorrow in the Rugby World Cup because we all know rugby is the game played in heaven, and Jesus hates Argentinians 🙂

      Like

  6. So many things could be written about end-times prophecy and preaching; none of them would be flattering to people that believe it. It’s a shitty promise to people that while their life sucks, they should just sit and take it because retribution and salvation is right around the corner.

    One thing that never gets fully explored is the fact that many Christians who believe in it will also swear that their deity will not do such a thing again. Death by flood has a rainbow for a promise, but somehow the end of the world is a different animal entirely.

    But mostly, I think, it’s the paranoia it feeds that makes it popular. The godless are out to get them, and they’re the only ones who know what really is going on. Any person is susceptible to it if they become insulated enough to contrary opinions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • they should just sit and take it because retribution and salvation is right around the corner.

      This is the bit I find most repulsive about it. It inspires non-activity. Where Humanism says “we have the capacity and moral obligation to solve our problems,” the death cultist says “this is out of our control, hallelujah!” It’s quite perverted. If you think about it, Christianity started as a Crisis Cult, and nothing has really changed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • A doctrine that assumes a divine creator/provider/daddy/disciplinarian agency also has to include the ongoing threat that that agency also has the power to remove or withhold it: what can be given can also be taken away, oh ye of little faith… and will be taken away if we don’t behave well, follow the right rules, do the right chores. Lana (she’s rather brilliant and has had to emerge from her religious cocoon to find her intellectual wings, so to speak) has a terrific post here (one in a series) on why this a doomed strategy for believers.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It does way more than inspire inactivity, John. There is a fierce promotion of separating people from what might help them get away from the faith. If you notice, the more extreme churches are also the most insular.

        That comes from the concept of how the elect will be saved, and the false believers will perish along with the rest of the world. Take a look at other cults, and you’ll see similar behavior.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Oh ye of little faith~!

    Do you not realise, o’ faithless one … that each and every one of those predictions actually came true, and bang on time?

    Yep.

    God(s) destroyed the world and everything in it (heck with it, why stint ourselves?) … the Universe and all who sail in her. But—

    —because He/She/It realised that They were now pointless, They remade the whole thing and re-kickstarted it right where They left off; which was a very merciful thing to do as it gave all you blasted sinners and blasphemers and atheists and other such rubbish a chance to redeem themselves. (Was that compassion and holy mercy, or what?)

    No?

    And other than the ones who were ‘raptured’ (cardboard replicas left in their place)(possibly to confuse the Devil) nobody other than me ever noticed. And now you know, but don’t tell anyone or God will get mad especially if His Divine secret is blown. Be warned …

    Like

    • Hey Argus,

      Since I could not reply above, please allow me to respond to your comment, supra.

      Tildeb is misrepresenting my entire position on the matter. Here is my entire position on the matter. I highly recommend you go to the source. Read the comments too. There’s a wealth of information there that illustrates why I have the position I have.

      At no point have I said that the term “crazy” is unacceptable for describing religious behavior. I have said that the term “crazy” as it is used sometimes is part of stigmatizing behavior. But also, and if you read the post and comments I linked, you’ll find that I am completely disinterested in policing anyone using the term. I don’t even police people using that term on my blog.

      Like

      • Nice dodge, SB. I notice you avoided here the central issue I raised on your blog once again: in the context of responding to those who advocate religious claims about reality contrary to it, I know perfectly well you feel that people – assholes, according to you – should not use the term ‘crazy’ because it promotes a negative stigma. So, once again, how does one apply a positive connotation to the term ‘crazy’?

        Liked by 1 person

  8. I’d appreciate a bibliography; just a list of years keyed by letter to a list of scholarly sources would do.

    This kind of nonsense is not only ridiculous and gruesome, but highly dangerous. Think of all those self-styled “christian Zionists”, from Tom DeLay on down, and what it means for policy if you regard nuclear war, triggered by events in the Middle East, as part of God’s great plan.

    The Millerites, as I’m sure you know, morphed into the Seventh Day Adventists, who believe (as Ben Carson recently reminded us) that Darwin was inspired by Satan.

    And KIA, as this last example shows, you can be an internationally acclaimed neuroscientist, and still believe this kind of nonsense.

    Like

  9. As for places like Liberty University, see my piece “Credit where none is due”. The Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS), an accrediting agency recognised by the US Department of education, actually requires its 55 members to be committed to biblical literalist young Earth creationism. Harvard, for example, would not meet their high standards.

    https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/credit-where-none-is-due-creationist-colleges-and-courses/

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Pingback: On the Way to Heaven’s Gates | ladysighs

  11. Listen good people. It’s just on 6:00am and I’m sitting up in bed reading John’s post and all your comments. Loving them in fact. However, unwittingly, you are all giving me and Jean (still sound asleep next to me, along with three of our gorgeous dogs) a bit of a problem.

    For at 08:30 Jean and I are having breakfast together, at a local (Merlin, Oregon) eatery, with some dear neighbours who are pretty committed Christians. I’m petrified that I’m going to blurt out the fact that I read this most interesting blog post earlier today, and be fried! Just like my breakfast eggs!

    So if you see puffs of smoke rising above the café you will know my end has come. I guess on a full tummy!

    So thank you, and good night! 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  12. There’s a perfectly good explanation for why all those predicted ends of the world did not happen. If you ever managed a large enough project, you know that things come up, mistakes are made, vendors miss deadlines, stuff that was assumed to work turns out not to – and as a result, the release date keeps getting pushed out. And apocalypse is a planet-scale project, so obviously it’s nearly impossible to coordinate everything to work perfectly on schedule. But I think things like WWII, Indian ocean tsunami, and a few genocides testify that God is already doing some beta-testing. So there’s hope. Of course, if all else fails, there’s always the fail-safe option of sun’s explosion in a few billion years to do the trick.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. John,

    Great post. Informative as always. Thank you for reposting your post “Death Cult Christianity.” My present situation has not afforded me enough time to peruse your earlier posts. This was timely. Your quote from David’s Applied Faith blog made me laugh and roll my eyes:

    …and the United Nations routinely persecutes Israel.

    Fairly soon I plan to publish one or two posts — may have to be another series — about the deepest first roots of Zionism, i.e. the earliest stages of the modern state of Israel. Personally, I do not identify “Israel” as a nation. This doesn’t make me anti-Semitic either. Instead, I call it by its historical identifier: Zionism, which could’ve easily been a startup nation within Argentina, Uganda, Cyprus, and yes, even the great Lone Star State of Texas via the Galveston Immigration Scheme (GIS) from 1906 to 1914, but for some weird reason(s) the Zionist Organization (c. 1897) decided on Palestine. Imagine that. 😛 Unfortunately for the Zionists, every bit of that land they wanted/demanded was already inhabited by ancestors of Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, and Palestinian families (all Semitic tribes possibly Canaanites) since 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE. This vision was all going on well before the Balfour Declaration post-World War One! Sadly, most Americans or Britians, and their “allies” know little to nothing about, much less understanding, the violent exhiling killing conquest (ethnic cleansing) of over 750,000 and rising around Jerusalem. The U.S. even assisted and funded terrorist groups to “build” this false-Israel. 😦

    But OF COURSE modern Fundy-Evangy Americans, like David, know nothing about their highly erroneous labeling of “Israel” and calling and/or supporting a terrorist movement, or that according to international law (and the U.N.) illegal occupation and genocide, and let alone their own highly erroneous “biblical” history and canonisation! Talk about an uber convoluted whacked-out history! :/

    David’s PERSONAL history/premise quote you shared is so beyond wrong, it should indeed be correctly labelled psychotically delusional.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “Zionism, which could’ve easily been a startup nation within Argentina, Uganda, Cyprus, and yes, even the great Lone Star State of Texas via the Galveston Immigration Scheme (GIS) from 1906 to 1914”

      You can add northern Western Australia to this list. A great swath of the Kimberlies were offered to the Jews after WW2… But they declined.

      “David’s PERSONAL history/premise quote you shared is so beyond wrong, it should indeed be correctly labelled psychotically delusional.”

      I like to call his worldview a Cartoon of reality. He banned me for that 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Superb post, John. Imagine living in the thick of this mentality? Ugh. While reading your post, I was reminded of something Vyckie Garrison said in one of her articles published this past September regarding her mindset when she was a Christian:

    “Predictions of doomsday End Time Apocalyptic paranoia are like the heat of the sun in my little “fertile ground” theme. This is serious business (emphasis on “business”) which truly terrifies bible believers. So scary in fact, that when we learned that Bill Clinton (who was most likely the Anti-Christ) had won the presidency, fear for our children’s future compelled us to take the final step which landed us in full-fledged fundamental-Christian-extremist-ville ….”

    What bothers me the most about all this is not so much that the end-time apocolyptic paranoia is raking in the bucks, but what it does to the minds of children. It absolutely impacts their brain development, and we have significant evidence that this kind of chronic stress can cause brain atrophy. This atrophy in specific regions of the brain, i.e. hippocampus, can cause depression and anxiety disorders, as well as causing dementia and alzheimer disease later in life. It’s child abuse, but preachers, evangelists, teachers and parents get a free pass when it comes to terrorizing children.

    In an article — How “End Times” Beliefs Harm Children — the authors writes:

    “In my book, Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment, I talk about the emotional difficulties children face when they are taught such notions as Armageddon and the Second Coming. A number of people I interviewed spoke about how, as children, they lived in a perpetual state of fear, because they were convinced that doomsday could arrive any day. Now, this latest threat—that hell would literally break loose on May 21st—brings to light new forms of child abuse and neglect.

    Consider what happened on May 20th, the day before the world was predicted to come to an end: Lyn Benedetto of southern California allegedly slit her daughters’ throats and wrists and then her own to avoid what she believed was the coming “tribulation.”

    At the end of the article the author added an addendum:

    ADDENDUM: As you will see below, this blog generated numerous comments by individuals who described how the terrorizing “end times” religious teachings of their childhoods were emotionally abusive.

    http://religiouschildmaltreatment.com/2011/05/how-end-times-beliefs-harm-children/

    Liked by 1 person

    • “What bothers me the most about all this is not so much that the end-time apocolyptic paranoia is raking in the bucks, but what it does to the minds of children.”

      Did you post that video about the JW kid who was waiting for the end of the world? He’s out now and in his 30’s, and relays the story. Fascinating stuff. And yeah, I cannot even fathom the damage such a belief has adults, let alone children.

      Like

      • Links, please … show a dog a bone and withdraw just as his teeth crash together and slobber flies through the air … not good. For shame, Sir~!

        Like

  15. Wonderfully detailed post. I’ve always viewed the enthusiastic Christian anticipation of the end times to be an extreme revenge fantasy. An infantile notion brought about by a sylopstitic mindset that causes unbridled rage at anyone who dares to reject their beliefs.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Death Cult Christians might get their wish, albeit not for the reasons they believe.

    Current U.N world population projections say we’re on a path to reach over 11 billion by the year 2100. However, the latest IPCC global food production study indicates declining food supplies beginning in 2030 which will get progressively worse by the end of the century (due to escalating climatic impacts, and other factors). My own analytical conclusion suggests a maximum sustainable human population in 2100 under the current population of 7.3 billion.

    Apocalypse Now!

    Liked by 1 person

  17. I really enjoyed that repost John, but then I’m always a sucker for a string of facts 😀

    What I was confused about was one of David’s images: the bible 100% accuracy with prophecies (or some such) and a picture of descending angels that looked like it came out of my ‘Child’s book of Heaven’ or whatever it was called. Why would anyone who wants to be taken seriously use a caption like that and a kiddy piccy? Why not use one of God smiting everyone except David and half a dozen others [insert usual suspects] on Judgement Day?

    However speaking of serious, smiting, and JD, best wishes for tomorrow. We were predicting an NZ/Aus final, so hope that comes to pass. Our domestic betting hasn’t worked well as we’ve both been going for the same teams (and we’ve been right). Have I told you I saw them play each other in Auckland? NZ won 😉

    Like

    • A Yellow/Black final would be awesome… although the blacks did thrash us this year in the Bledisloe. And yeah, I’ve witnessed them beat us at Ballymore. Fortunately I was too drunk to be moved to tears 🙂

      As for David, I’m continually amazed at just wrong he gets things. It’s quite astonishing, and he does seem quite at ease with publishing lies… as you so brilliantly pointed out to him recently.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Excellent post John. As crazy as it all sounds, I find it all rather fascinating. Because of course Christianity hasn’t got the monopoly on end of the world predictions. Although they are certainly leading the way in “most end of the world predictions that haven’t come true and then forgetting about it so that everybody buys into their next one”. I am not sure if I mentioned before, but occasionally I teach a course on the history of time at my university, and one of the topics we discuss is how apocalyptic visions relate to a deeper desire to escape the continual march of time. I wrote a blog post about it some time ago if you are interested. http://cloakunfurled.com/2014/04/16/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-and-i-feel-fine/

    Like

    • a deeper desire to escape the continual march of time

      Deliverance from the ghastly business of survival. I think that’s a principle driver of human hopes… We long for some kind of liberation through immunity.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Haha…well said. Escaping the march of time could be seen as just part of the entire physical laws of the universe the govern it and thus yes “immunity” from those laws would make life easier. Or maybe it wouldn’t because nothing would make sense and we’d all be quite insane, where cause and effect show no consistency whatsoever.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, so we invent the objects of our fear much of the time; it’s as if the human animal is uncomfortable without some level of anxiety, some sense of there being an unknown obstacle between itself and its own contentedness. We almost make a game of it, and the Master Game is overcoming the obstructions between us and our god. It’s so ubiquitous and alluring a game because we can never be shown to have failed in our participation; then again, neither can we ever prove that we have won – the death cult simply posits an end point to this pointless game.

        Liked by 1 person

  19. I suspect that what religious folk are really doing is personifying the inevitable – death – and objectifying it into a an agency that can then be appealed to in order to gain a (hopeless but hopeful) sense of control.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oh, I like that. Yes, owning death (if only in an abstract dream) would be a powerful anesthetic to an overarching death anxiety. I wonder, do they talk about this in Terror Management Theory?

      Like

  20. I have read all the replies several times. Together with John’s post they have crystalized, uniquely so, the utterly terrible nature of all religions. (And I freely admit to two periods in my life where I became drawn into religion.)

    Humankind is very strange. That we can be so smart, so intelligent, so kind and caring, and yet so incapable of dealing, rationally, with our fears. Me included! What a strange lot we are.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks John. But going on a tad, it’s the implications of how we respond to our fears, especially perceived threats to our nation’s and cultures, yet diametrically opposite, how we are so blind to global threats.

        My ill-educated guess is that the natural optimum size of our tribes, when we were living as hunter-gatherers, of around 150 persons, and when being sensibly fearful of the world beyond our tribal boundaries, is very “hard wired” within us.

        (Oh, can I submit that last comment for your next longest sentence in the world award?)

        Liked by 1 person

  21. Postscript: A lesson from our dogs on accepting other cultures. Asleep on the bed just now, all more or less in contact with each other, are four Dogs: Oliver, a rescue Border Collie/Labrador mix; Pedy, a Chihuahua; Hazel, a rescue Rottweiler/street dog mix; and Sweeny, a rescue Silkie mix. All together in loving harmony. United Nations take note!

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Impressive historical record on end of the world expectations John. However, there are some interresting outside sources to Christians expecting the end of the world and what it actually affected the actions of people between the alledged claims made by this Jesus character in a book and Roman empire succumbing to Christianity and barbarian hordes approximately simultaneously. Even with the staggering numbers of people expecting the end times within their own very, very special lives, throughout times, there are and have always been reprecussions of such unverified beliefs. I am a bit worried about the moderate Christians, who either ignore the fact that so many fundies are literally “crazy” about this, or who even deny that such lunacy exists. Not so long ago I was told by a Christian, that no Christians support the state of Israel because god promised the land to Jews. Despite this is the exact reason openly declared by a number of fundamentalist Christians over and over again, and in addition that it is a good thing, because it is about to bring forth the end times. That is, they are ready to actively do stuff that will lead to the end. A very dangerous propositon, especially today, when we have the means to end all life on earth.

    Already Tacitus, who wrote about the moral deprivation of the Roman society in his own time, and predicted the dangers of barbarians pouring over the borders of the Empire, said that the Christians are immoral people with all sorts of vile practices. His comments have been greatly valued, because after the fact he seemed to predict something about the fall of western Rome, and because he is beloved by Christian historians who have tried to apply him as an excuse for a somewhat contemporary source for Jesus. He, however predicted nothing. The fall came several hundred years after him to a completely different society to the one he was living in. Neither is he a contemporary source for Jesus, not even remotely, because he only describes the existance of there existing this depraved death cult called Christians – almost hundred years after the alledged life of Jesus. He really was a very perceptive and accurate in his descriptions of the contemporary Roman society and the neighbouring cultures. A good and reliable historical source on those. Thus, he did not confirm in any way that Jesus actually existed, but that the Christians were indeed a death cult.

    One of the most misunderstood and falsely blamed emperors of Rome was Nero, who was discredited by the upper classes of Romans because he stripped them of a very profitable business of benefiting economically through the constant fires in Rome. That is economic speculation and profit on the expense of the lives of the poor. Nero enforced a set of laws to make Rome a more fire safe city. The contempt his richest contemporaries based on his laws to protect the city and citizens, slaves and other populus on Christians against their immoral business, was taken by the later Christian historians at face value, because he was also known for persecuting the Christians. He simply had to be evil, and his contemporaries confirmed this. But the reason why Nero persecuted in particular the Christians, was that they were already a despised death cult, that were known to rejoise in their expectation of the end of the world. This expectation and perhaps somewhat similar willingness to help god out in the endeavour as to that of the Chrisian Zionists of our day, it is very likely that indeed it was the Christians who set Rome ablaze, as they had a set date for the end of the world. Wich just so happened to be the same date on wich Rome burned down. Nero was later accused to set Rome ablaze, but if it indeed was him, why did he bother to make laws about reconstruction to make the city such, that it could no longer burn as easily? Obviously he was no pyromaniac. I think generations of historians have falsely accused Nero, because at first the Roman aristocracy did not like him interfering in their profitable business and later because Christians specifically were not wanted to be seen as the death cult that the “fundaments” of their original religion expected of them and now fundamentalists have found from the pages of the book, like so many individual leaders of the church throughout centuries, even though the mainstream Christianity does not recognize such.

    Funny how so many fundamentalists have been totally unable to find the tolerance as presented by Jesus, or the rather blatant expectation of communist lifestyle choise, nor of giving up making more children. Wonder why people who percieve themselves as fundamentalists, are able to dig out all the crap, but not the even remotely good ideas, or just ideas that do not fit their own desires of life?

    As for calling the death cultist “crazy”, may indeed seem a bit degratory to people with actual diagnozed mental health issues, who do not want the world and most people in it to burn. However, I would not call people with actual mental health issues crazy. Because it is literally crazy to rejoise in the expectation of the world to end. That is why for most of Christendom’s history the mainstream has not been very keen to promote this side of the religion. As rational, moderate, civil and educated people of all times have been rateher aware that it is indeed crazy to rejoice in such.

    Indeed even most of the fundies do not rejoice in the expectation. They are the victims who have been scared by them having taught and indoctrinated to put their trust in this ideal of a loving god first and only secondly when that trust has been established to accept that trhough some might makes right authoritarianism, this god also has the right to destroy what it has alledgedly created.

    Like

    • Awesome comment as always, Raut.

      That is, they are ready to actively do stuff that will lead to the end.

      There is a massive movement (backed by millions of dollars in donations) through the US evangelical hoard to get the Israeli’s to start construction on the 3rd Temple. And let’s not forget what George Bush told Chirac back in 2002: “Gog and Magog are loose in the Middle East, and the biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. This confrontation is willed by God who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

      Clearly, this kind of fatalistic thinking is an appalling affront to all efforts to lift the human condition.

      Like

      • I am not half as scared about the possible Muslim terrorists, or of powerhungry Putin whose Russia lies just beyond our borders, as I am about these sort of Christian madmen, who might weild the biggest nuclear weapon arsenal in the world and might just want to help out their happless god in ending the world – Because, let’s face it, the god seems rather impotent in achieving the end times, as nothing much on that front has been reached in over 2000 years since the alledged son of this god made his promise of comeback…

        Liked by 1 person

  23. “David used the word “Crazy.” I prefer “Perverted.” As a mentally ill person myself, I find the word “crazy” to be far from adequate when describing religious nutters. The more accurate term, scientifically speaking, is “BAT-SHIT CRAZY”. Please, use the correct terminology when speaking in a derogatory way about religious nutters. Otherwise, you’ll hurt someone’s feelings. Thanks, and please, refrain from swearing while the ride’s in motion. There are kids present.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Well, that was a fun read … again!
    Unfortunate about the infighting !
    It always makes me smile when the Crispyians got at each other I grimace a bit when the non believers are at each others’ throats.

    Mind you, It could have been worse. Could have been Sabio. Eeek!

    I think if Lewis Black can get away with saying: ”I’m sorry. I can’t be kind about this. These people are stone cold fuck nuts” then we can stand a little ”Crazy”.

    And let;s be honest, do we really think the likes of James and Wally and David are not just more than a little loony tunes?

    I mean, in all honesty just what do we call people who believe Dinosaurs and humans co-existed and before Adam and Eve were naughty, the Dinos were basically Vegan?
    If this is not crazy then it is wilful ignorance and that is really really nasty because they teach it to kids!

    Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, his haircut nearly trumps Trump’s. I think a toothbrush mustache, brown uniform and clenched fists would catapult him to the forefront of GOP style race.

        Alas, he’s currently unemployed and lives in a van down by the river, anxiously waiting for Reagan’s trickle down economics to take effect.

        In fairness, later interviews revealed that he’s a fiscal conservative only—i.e., he’s pro-choice and favors relaxed drug laws&mdash. So he’s more of a libertarian than a Republican. Hence the “impassioned” speech for the treasurer’s position.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Is this for real? A batchelors degree in sociology, history, a masters degree in public administration and to top it all – a masters degree in communication! Yet, he seems like a cheap comical act. Where did he get those degrees? The degree shop at the mall? Internet, perhaps? The emotion seems at the same time phoney and deliberate, while the stomping around gives the impression, that he is indeed rather scared to be standing in front of an audience… Maybe he decided to use his fear as a fuel for his fiery message, while hiding his insecurity by agression.

        This reminds me of what I hear would be the most scariest Halloween costume: An insecure white man…

        Like

    • I mean, in all honesty just what do we call people who believe Dinosaurs and humans co-existed and before Adam and Eve were naughty, the Dinos were basically Vegan?

      Well, we can call them Republicans 😉

      Like

      • Republicans: White, ultra-conservative, christian, tax-evading, climate change denying, poor people hating, bigoted, racist, fuckin’ shit-heads. There ya’ go. A quick, technically correct description of Republicans. $Amen$

        Liked by 2 people

      • Are all Republicans really this “bat-shit crazy”? Is the entire gigant of a party consisted of people who uniformally deny climate change, evolution and other science facts? They are not all racists and a good number of them must be relatively poor. Is their common factor tax-evasion? Is that good enough reason for anybody who has accepted evolution as a fact to support a party that often enough tries to push into shcools nonsense like “intelligent” design? Is there no opposition within this very big political party against such dangerous anti-science nonsense? Or is it the Tea-Party movement, that has overtaken the Republican party, by the votes of ignoramuses?

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think the better question should be, can you find a Republican who will say in public they believe Creationism is nonsense, evolution is a fact, and man-made climate change is real.

        I will hand it to the American’s here, though… It is truly exceptional to have a major political party whose members race to out-dumbing each other.

        Like

      • “Are all Republicans really this “bat-shit crazy”? Is the entire gigant of a party consisted of people who uniformally deny climate change, evolution and other science facts?” Just the ones with the most money and political power.

        Like

      • “Or is it the Tea-Party movement, that has overtaken the Republican party, by the votes of ignoramuses?” Yep. The Tea Party hates one thing above all else, Democracy. They pretty much help force John Boehner to resign his position as House Speaker because he refused to hold democracy hostage over the Tea Party’s demands to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. And Boehner is about as conservative politically as they come. One can’t be any sort of a Republican without the craving to never pay a taxes, however. This is working very well for them. The working classes and working poor pay taxes; Republicans pay for yachts and winter homes in Phoenix.

        Like

  25. Pingback: What’s the Matter With America? | Woodgate's View

  26. John,

    I’m attempting to catch up on reading your naked ape blog.

    Lots of good stuff, as usual. Your blog entries are always rewarding and entertaining to read – – BUT – –
    I thing the best thing about your blog is that it generates the best “Comments” section on the blogosphere.
    Thanks !

    Liked by 1 person

      • John,

        I’m doing quite well for someone who has orbited the sun 81 times, plus almost half another year on this damp dirt-ball we call home.

        Thanks for asking !

        My wife, Connie, and I have been enjoying the interesting conjunctions in the pre-dawn sky with our little telescope. We go out into the countryside to do more serious observations because we have less than half the sky to observe here at home from our front patio “observatory”. Trees, hills, and a nearby street light limit us rather severely, but we have a fair look at the ecliptic in the early morning hours.

        Liked by 1 person

  27. You know those cheeky bar signs that have “FREE BEER” in big letters, then with small letters underneath “tomorrow”? They should make one for these evangelicals.
    “IT IS THE END OF DAYS…tomorrow”

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Reblogged this on Mass Delusions a.k.a. Magical & Religious Woo-Bullshit Thinking and commented:
    I just found another blog post to reblog. This time written by The Brazilian atheist John Zande, a very skillful anti-theist debater and blogger.

    In this blog post John Zande analyzes Christianity from a death cult perspective. His post is full of valuable facts and data put together, by him, in a very praiseworthy way.

    Maybe he should have analyzed also the concept of Christian martyrdom.Therefore I’m now going to add some facts about that aspect.

    To start with, two links that mighjt be of interest:

    1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs ; and

    2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsi_(Christianity) .

    Today we shake our heads when we see or hear about Muslim suicide bombers killing themselves at the same time as they kill innocent people (often seen as religious enemies, non-believers, wrongdoers, apostates etc).

    Since the suicide bomber does this evil act in the name of Allah, he or she is promised, by an imam or cleric, to get/have instant access to all the enjoyments in Paradise immediately after his/her death.

    But we must not forget that also Christians have practiced martyrdom by killing people belonging to other religions (maybe especially Islam).

    By defending Christian religion and values and/or attacking those who refused to see Jesus as the Christ hypostasis of the God Trinity you could become a martyr, if you died (was killed) while trying to do this.

    Here is another good article about Christian martyrs: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/christian_martyrdom_when_did_christians_stop_trying_to_die_for_god.html .

    A quote from this article: “[…,] even Christian authorities have abandoned the prohibition against voluntary martyrdom. The diaries of medieval crusaders clearly indicate that they viewed themselves as martyrs, and Pope Urban II offered the fallen complete absolution and immediate passage to heaven. (The status of crusaders as voluntary martyrs is somewhat controversial, because they may have viewed themselves as draftees in a defensive war.)

    Let me summarize like this: The concept of “Lying for Jesus” is still today rather well-known. But the idea of “Dying for Jesus” seems to have fallen into oblivion. So it’s about time to resuscitate that notion to show there are more reasons than the ones cited by John Zande to call Christianity a death cult religion. (I myself even consider the Christian Communion to be a cannibalistic ritual.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’ve seen many Mr. Deity video’s, but damn, he should do more serious ones like this. It’s brilliant.

      “After 3,000 years is there anything any theologian can tell us about [their] God that isn’t opinion or something shepherds didn’t know 3,000 years ago?”

      ”To talk of God, talk of his existence and what he may or may not want is an entirely knowledge-free activity, and an expression of nothng but knowledge and want.”

      Great stuff. Thanks for posting this Mick.

      Like

      • I thought so too, Peter. He indicates it’s the first one in a series. . . I’m ‘signing up’!! Thanks, Michael! 🙂

        Like

  29. If you love at all, children, wife, and others, God is a part of you, Gay, straight, atheist, or otherwise. simple as that. Nothing complicated. Too many Christians and others make it way, way too complicated. There is no hate in God, just in us. Don’t think I know? I know very well.

    Like

  30. I’m not trying to convert you or anyone else, if that were the case I would try to convert my son-in-law, who happens to be one of the best fathers I know and their
    Christian father not so great. In fact after the divorce my daughter mentioned that she prayed for a good father for her kids, God sent her an Atheist. Good man, good heart, great father.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @ Tony – I see what you did there. . 😉

      Just keep in mind, your daughter probably prayed for the Christian husband she got the first time ’round . . .

      Like

  31. Great post, John.

    Christianity, all of it, is a relentless death cult, so greedy in its morbid obsession with inflicting suffering that it extends it into eternity.

    Eastern religions at least allow a possibility of successive reincarnations and eventual nothingness, but Christianity revels in subjecting humans to endless pain forever and ever. For the glory of God.

    This cult makes people worship the crucified, mutilated body of its designated representative — a narcissistic and cruel, second rate charlatan / ‘spiritual teacher,’ fictional or not — and pretend to eat his flesh and drink his blood. This was as bizarre and incomprehensible — in the “Are we really supposed to believe it?” way — when I was 7 as it is now, so many years later.

    The thesis of your book totally makes sense, I must say.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. How about the Apocalypse taking place tomorrow morning at 06.00 hours GMT?

    I was told so in a revelation, consisting of a man-to-man dialogue with Jesus. So I’m pretty sure, even though Jesus Himself once missed the date according to Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1.

    But at the same time I promise to do my very best by praying to Jesus to postpone the Apocalypse further. He’s – as always – listening to our prayers. Especially mine.

    I beg your pardon, Mr. Zande? What did you say, sir? Was it something about me suffering from religious grandiosity delusions?

    Why are you denigrating me in that way? It’s not kind of you.

    But never mind, I’ll ask Jesus to forgive you. So don’t worry, be happy.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s