I hate fundies

[denelian]

So, I have a new blog I am following - foreverinhell.blogspot.com/2009/01/me-im-not.html - written by an atheist who spends a lot of time (and seems to get a lot of rage-induced enjoyment out of) ripping apart various fundy publications and position. The particular post I linked to is her shredding a fundy who claims that atheist secretly are NOT atheists, that it is apparently impossible to not believe in god, and that atheism (and Catholicism and Mormonism and Jehovah witness-ism and probably every-fucking-church under the sun that is not his church) is secretly Satanism.

First of all, I am not any flavor of Christian. I am pagan (specifically bad-draoi), and never have been, so I often think I am missing something about Christianity (some thing that makes it make more sense, if that makes any sense).

Second... by definition, atheism is not believing in god. It is the exact opposite of religion. Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. Or Satan. Or Santa, for that matter. That is what they are. It feels like circular logic, but... the thing is, the definition of atheism is either "lack of belief in god" or "believing there is no god". And while those are not quite the same thing, they both mean that atheists do NOT secretly believe that there IS a god. Atheists are not rebelling against god, or the church, or their parents by professing that there is no god when they do, in fact, believe in god but are just trying to get back at whomever by claiming they don't. THOSE people are a different word (lots of different words, actually, depending on the person).

Third. BY DEFINITION ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR SATAN. So they canNOT be Satan-worshippers, because they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SATAN. This is one of those things that drives me FUCKING BATTY. I have been accused I do not know how many times of being a Satan worshipper, because I am pagan. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN SATAN. Therefore I cannot be worshipping Satan. Fucking get a clue.

Fourth. Satanism is NOT the same thing as devil-worshipping. Devil-worship, to the best of my researching abilities, is either a perversion of Christian rites and rituals, or an inversion of Christian rites and rituals (both are essentially the same thing and the difference seems to be the person who is writing, not any difference in what is done), either with the belief that Satan is more powerful than god and so is the appropriate one to worship, or that while Satan may not be more powerful than god he is somehow or someway more accessible and worshipping Satan has more obvious or material or just plain better perks than worshipping god. Satanism is an atheist-type religion like Buddhism. I would call it the opposite of Buddhism - where Buddhism glorifies spirituality, generosity, charity, and being good in general, Satanism glorifies all things materialistic, being selfish and bad in general. Satanists are supposed to be atheists, yes, but just as all Golden Retrievers are dogs but not all dogs are Golden Retrievers, so are all Satanists atheists but not all atheists are Satanists. (I hope that this analogy is neither confusing nor insulting, it’s just the clearest one I can come up with at the moment. I DO NOT think that atheists are dogs or dog-like).

I just don’t understand how people can believe and behave this way. Jesus was Jewish, he never converted, because he couldn’t convert because there was no Christianity until he died, yes – but he wasn’t trying to start a new religion, he was trying to reform the old one. Pretty much every form of Christianity around today (including Orthodox brands, which date from the “in nominae Christus” issue around 550AD,) is descended from Catholicism – and yet these guys run around screaming that Catholics aren’t Christian. Jesus said for everyone to love everyone else as they love him; these people are most known for how they hate everyone who isn’t just like them. Jesus said “remove the mote in thine own eye before removing the plank from thy brother’s”, meaning correct your own flaws before correcting others. He said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, meaning that ONLY those who have no sin can punish other’s for committing sin, and NO ONE is without sin. These people deliberately corrupt and degrade their own holy book, they cannot live up to their own standards (or WILL not) but expect and demand that the US government intercede and FORCE those standards on everyone else, and punish anyone who doesn’t abide by them. Except themselves, of course.

In short, people like this guy are unChristian, but demand everyone else be. And refuse to believe that there is any other option, aside from being THEIR flavor and brand of Christianity – Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism – anything and everything not in lock-step with they call lies and evil, and then they claim that EVERY already KNOWS that the bible and Jesus and etc are all completely true and anyone who thinks otherwise is the lying…

First Amendment, fucker. … there shall be no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. And I guess the First Amendment also means that this moron can babble on all day about how all atheists are somehow simultaneously Christians in denial and practicing Satanists. But it also means that I can call him retarded, illogical, mouth-breathing, ignorant, bigoted evil asshole.

Comments

[madjester.livejournal.com]

I <3 you. I agree with everything you've said here and (even as a pensive, long-time atheist) have nothing constructive to add at the moment :o)

[denelian.livejournal.com]

:) yay, i am <3ed! thank you

[denelian.livejournal.com]

btw, that icon is wonderous!

[virgilsego.livejournal.com]

Welcome to my world

[christraven.livejournal.com]

This is the reason I refer to most "Christians" as either 'Leviticans' or 'Paulites'. They tend to focus most on the sayings of those two individuals, rather than on the actual teachings of Christ.

Also, Jesus' greatest miracle was becoming a straight-haired, blue-eyed white man.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

haha straight-white-man.
not quite what you said, but... :D

Leviticus isn't/wasn't a person. i do sometimes use "Pauline" myself.

[thedolphingirl.livejournal.com]

Man, the fundamental people I've talked to in the past have always been nutters.

However, I was easily able to tolerate them when they stopped trying to pronounce their fate at every turn and force it on others.

Sort of reminds me today: When we were trail walking, someone had scraped "JESUS" into the dirt trail.

My family and I scraped it out. We're not anti-Christian, but we've found a lot of unsettling Christian tendencies lately, namely, the posting of "JESUS" signs all over the telephone poles, huge crosses in their back yard that light up at night, and people sitting in front of huge crosses to play music on street corners on a few occasions.

We're... pretty sick of it. It's too creepy and cult-like, you know? I can't imagine the reaction I'd get if I started posting huge Stars of David everywhere and wrote "MOSES." Not that Moses is really comparable to Jesus; he wasn't the messiah of Judaism, but since he's the father of Judaism I figure that's the closest relation possible in Judaism.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

i think David might be a close approximation to Jesus in some ways, or Job is some other ways. both, in their various but different ways, were supposed to exlemplify(sp?) Judaism.
funnily, most of the actual athiest i know (as opposed to either agnostics or people who really just don't care) are Jewish. also funnily, most of the PAGANS i know were either Jewish or catholic - its about a 40/60 split there.
i just realized how many jewish people i know. i never really thought about it before...

in a lot of ways, i think Jews have it even harder than pagans do, when it comes to christian propaganda. first there is the thing that many jews look jewish, so they are easily singled out. then there is the whole christianity is desended from judaism and if they loved G-D like they say they do they would convert, so christians put a looooooot more presure on jews. and the who "war on christmas" bullshit.

but, i promise, *I* will nevernevernevernever hold your religion against you in any way. and if you ever come to Ohio, look me up - my exroom mate is jewish who kept kosher, so i know where all the resteraunts that have kosher stuff are. including a MEXICAN resteraunt that has kosher dishes!

[thedolphingirl.livejournal.com]

Well, the Messiah isn't supposed to exemplify Judaism (in the Jewish concept). S/He is just supposed to bring all Jews back to Israel when the world is ready for it.

Christians tend to interpret this as Armageddon (i.e., the crazy ones I deal with frequently). Judaism simply interprets this - apparently - as a new age of world peace, where anyone righteous no matter their religion would theoretically be welcome as long as they adhered to the Noachide laws (which admittedly have a huge bias towards Jewish thought and belief - no polytheistic worshiping or idolatry). Though from what I've read even "bad" people can only get locked out of Heaven/the new age/whatever can only be gone for up to a year, so it sounds like everyone gets there in the end (coincidentally, this is the belief of most Muslims, apparently - we have a lot in common for two groups that fight so much). If you look up the Noachide laws, though, get it from a Jewish source - a lot of "Noachide groups" which seem to actually be Messianic Jewish fronts stick up their interpretation of it, which is quite different.

Now, Orthodox/Fundamentalist Jews tend to be of the belief there is an afterlife, but many believe this new age would simply be for the people living in that time. Orthodox Jews - at least rabbinic authorities - will tell you it's iron-clad. Conservative, some Orthodox, and liberal groups think it's just the time and people who are there at the time. Frankly, a lot of this afterlife stuff in Judaism came under Roman rule just a bit before Jesus and I tend to think it's a lot of BS.

My mom's Roman Catholic. It's why I have to convert. I'm much more fluent in Judaism now, but I understand Christianity pretty well too, which is probably why I'm no longer identifying as Christian. Forget how they behave towards non-Christians and try to make their law part of state law and all the other stuff I can dislike the more extreme Christianity for -- I see the theology of Christianity as flawed, Jesus and the Trinity aside. There's no responsibility in it. I'm forgiven if I repent. I'm forgiven if I accept Jesus Christ as my savior. I can do anything, and be forgiven by someone other than whom I transgressed against.

In Judaism, that's not how it works. Period. If you kill someone, you will never be completely forgiven because they cannot grant it to you. You must be forgiven by the specific person you transgressed against in order to be forgiven. Transgressions against G-d? Forgiven through a process called Teshuvah (then if you abstain from sinning twice, you're forgiven). You're completely responsible to fix up your own mess. Paul twisted this around to mean that no one could get through life without being damned, but in truth, humans aren't meant to get through life without ever missing the mark in Jewish theology.

Man. That was a long speech. Christian theology really does bug me, I'll admit.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

i think, then, i don't understand what the Messiah was actually for. but i am not, and never have been, either Christian or Jewish, so i always come at it from the outside.

that said... i really like how you see Judaism as opposed to Christianity, and you just articulated one of my big problems with Christianity much better than i ever did. where can i find these Noachide laws? are they in the Torah/OT, or somewhere else?

[thedolphingirl.livejournal.com]

From A History of the Jewish Experience:

1) The establishment of justice (e.g., a government which makes and enforces laws to protect its people).

2) The prohibition of blasphemy (polytheistic thought).

3) No idolatry.

4) No adultery or incest (some groups interpret this - particularly the Messianic group - as ALL the sexual laws, but I don't... That's a lot of laws, and really, I think they only do that to reject homosexuality in all circumstances rather than just required by Torah or other law. I, personally, think that over time the original meaning in Leviticus became misconstrued - there are a few theories, and the one I tend to believe is that it is actually referring to pedophilia -- a man who is a man because he is a bar-mitzvah (13) and a man who is a man because he is 20 and old enough for the military (20). There are a few other theories, but since they didn't have a word for "adolescent" I think it's a definite possibility stemming from the Greek practice of men teaching boys to be men -- a lot of Jewish laws are merely rejection of Greek and other polytheistic law, so I certainly don't see why not).

5) Murder (Noachide laws from Noachide groups - much like Messianic Judaism - will include abortion; in truth Jews tend to be pro-choice and believe when the mother's life is in danger an abortion is required - the baby's life is secondary until it's head is out, or over half it's body if it's born the wrong way).

6) No robbery.

7) Of eating a limb torn from a living animal (Judaism for a long time has been anti-animal-cruelty).

The Noachide laws came from the idea that since other people didn't agree to adhere to Jewish law on Mount Sinai, and that the Torah was just for Jews, that people from elsewhere should just generally have to be good people and were under no obligation to follow the full set of laws depicted by the Torah or the Talmud. The idea that everyone could be damned for following rules they never agreed to struck Jewish thought as unfair and ridiculous.

I personally think some of the Noachide laws also probably don't really apply in all circumstances (I don't see how being polytheistic or the type to worship idols makes one a bad person if they never agreed there was only one God). Also, the description of idolatry includes things that were culturally misunderstood at the time as being idols, but weren't -- the rosary, for instance, and statues of Buddha.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

these are it? there aren't any more?
they do cover the basics, though, don't think. i'm going to try and find that book; i agree with a lot about 4, not specifically as applied to this law, but specifically that a lot of what i HAVE learned about the history is that many things were a blatant rejection of Rome and Roman ways, and so your interpretation makes a lot of sense to me, given those thoughts.
thank you so much for taking the time to type all that out! i will definitly find the book you are quoting. its probably fascinating.

[(Anonymous)]

The Christian tendencies you are so worried about aren't directed so much at you as they are a defense of conservatism and Christian teaching. From their perspective it seems that people on the far liberal side of things have lost their minds or at least their common sense.

Plus, if you are not aware of what islam teaches about gays (kill them) or non-muslims (convert, die or pay extortion to muslims) then spend some time at jihadwatch.org and jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch and find out what islam's scripture says and see current news stories that how THOSE beliefs play out in real life around the world.

Christians seem like a threat until you see what the real menace is going to be for all of us non-muslims. We are truly in this together and though it's not easy we need to resist the actual tyranny of religion that is the political side of islam now while we can still do that with words. Soon enough it will be with weapons. :-(

Or muslims may just keep reproducing at the pace they have been going and outnumber the shrinking population in all the countries they have migrated to. Then they only need vote in shariah law and non-muslims are screwed. Gays won't matter because they could be killed whenever they are found. :-(((((

[denelian.livejournal.com]

fuckin' seriously? the lunatic fringe, yes. the majority? no. i've read the Quo'ran. t doesn't say what you say it says. and i'm hard pressed to see the difference between Christin fundys killing my gay friends ad Mulim fundys killing my gay friends. or me, for my pagan beliefs.

[thedolphingirl.livejournal.com]

Seriously. Don't you hate these people that post their crap anonymously because they know what BS it is? I just ignore 'em.

I had PLENTY of Muslim friends in HS. They were never even half as creepy as many of the Christians out here (and as a progressive person, I will tell you: the reason the Christians out here are crazy are because they act completely cult-like, far-conservative, sticking-stuff-all-over-their-car insane, forcing their beliefs down the throats of others, etc., etc.). Of course, I don't know anyone beyond a general conservative practice of Sunni or Shi'ite Islam.

And the Christians were the ones beating the crap out of the GLBT club sign up table, too :(

I'm pretty sure ANY semitic extremist is prone to hating homosexuals or anyone of a non-clear-and-cut heterosexual variety. (I believe people who are just personally fundamentalist just tend to look away at worse and think people should just leave them alone at best).

I don't mind liberal-through-fundamentalist Christianity as long as they can, well, NOT act creepy.

How is sticking huge light-up crosses in your yard and posting Jesus all over street lamps, telephone poles, and national forests supposed to teach and uphold Christian concepts, anyway? Was this poster just another nutter?

[denelian.livejournal.com]

i think that that IS the definition of fundy, of whatever flavor.

[thedolphingirl.livejournal.com]

The technical definition is simply to take something as literal and unchangeable, e.g. Orthodox Jews that are both observant and theological secure in the belief that their books are completely unchanged, no mistakes, and written by G-d.

The difference is, someone who is THAT type of fundamental isn't necessarily an idiot that tries to enforce it on others.