Category Archives: Religion

Heaven – The Selfish Mirage

As a child, I often wondered how would marriage after widow-ship fare with Heaven, if a person was supposed to remain with their spouse in the afterlife. Namely which equally legitimate spouse would be one’s eternal companion.

That, of course, was only one small question regarding this mysterious promised land of peaceful green pastures, where everyone, from infants to the elderly, would dwell until the end of time (or outside of it). Well, everyone minus most people on the planet, since the path to “salvation” is supposed to be so “narrow”, so narrow the troubled souls of the living would have to compete in arduousness in order to squeeze into the fortunate convoy.

Arguably, Hell is a much more grotesque and disturbing concept, yet in its own way, Heaven is as well. Atheism aside, if one is spiritual, the whole idea seems very unfair.

First of all, we should assume that arbitrarily, since God decides who lives or dies, he only allows some people a substantial duration of their existence (growing, maturing, becoming wiser), whilst for others that is cut short without the possibility of fully experiencing life on Earth.

Then, the status of children who die without having been christened comes into question: do they go to Heaven as well, and if not, how is this prospect not morally repugnant enough to make people doubt this religion? Some denominations, such as Orthodoxy, claim no one can enter Heaven without the ceremony in this specific rite. Recently, I’ve come across a fanatic online who didn’t deem such people worthy of a conversation on religion, regardless of their views, which is beyond medieval.

There’s something about clinging on to people who have died that seems a bit selfish, from a spiritual perspective – in terms of imagining they’re simply waiting for one’s presence, stacked on a vaporous shelf somewhere, looking down at the living they left behind.

As someone who believes in reincarnation, I find it more reasonable to think that when souls are freed from their mortal bodies they move on to different experiences and continue to grow through them. Reincarnation has long been studied and at times the search revealed cases where coincidence could only be claimed through the sheer belief that this phenomenon is impossible. The work of Dr Ian Stevenson alone is proof that this subject is anything but fiction or wishful thinking.

 

 

Will Most Christians Side With The Right Wing Again, As History Repeats Itself?

In the US at least, right-wing voices are intermingled with that of conservative Christians, all seeming to reach for the same goals, in the grand scheme of things. Of course Christians are greatly diverse, ranging from denominations and their hierarchies to individual believers.

This concern is mostly rooted in the declared support by the current administration of Christian causes, such as promoting religion (and creationism) in schools, stricter abortion laws or a halt in the progressive social engineering (the gender theory etc). While championing for these causes, Christians are being lured into supporting other policies which objectively conflict with their belief system – based on warmongering, xenophobia and corporatism. In terms of warmongering and xenophobia, this phenomenon is oddly reminiscent of the rise of the right in Europe during the 1930s and 40s, in the 20th Century. Though some claim this comparison is a crass exaggeration, there are parallels to be made.

Over the next few years it will be interesting to observe how they will react to the political shift towards isolationism and the ethnic purges envisioned by those favoured to reach power in Europe, as well as those already in power in the US.

Some reactions are positive (in terms of solidarity with the genuine underdog), such as participating in the creation of sanctuaries for immigrants who risk deportation. Indeed, many churches have joined this initiative, together with a number of synagogues and mosques.

The strong message from certain voices is not so encouraging, as many try to get people of faith to engage politically, putting all their support towards the new rise of conservatism, in a manner so uncritical one could compare it to the creation of a cult of personality.

“God will curse Trump’s opponents and their children and grandchildren”

Perhaps no type of rhetoric is more cringey and deserving of a spewing bucket than that of snake-oil-peddling Inforwars&Co, Alex Jones once claiming Trump had been touched by the Holy Ghost, on the night of his inauguration.

Christianity is, nowadays, in the positive sense, associated with humanitarianism, which stands in contrast with most reform ideas conservatives argue for.

Please pardon the minimal research and of-the-cuff nature of this post; the only certainty is that the following years will be very interesting and the true nature of many will be revealed, as individuals and collectives.

 

 

 

“Male And Female Friendships Always Turn Sexual”. Fuck Off.

A few years ago, this peculiar idea came to me, and I still stick by it – puritans and supporters of promiscuity are of the exact same mindset regarding human nature. They just choose to tackle it in  different ways.

Basically, some people – most people? – think that when a man and a woman become intellectually and emotionally close, in other words good friends, things degenerate into a sexual relationship, or the desire to have one, at least on one person’s part. The general idea is that “things get complicated” by default.

Pardon me but I think that’s complete bullshit. Not just because I have male friends, but because I find this entire concept artificial and a product of indoctrination – both religious and “progressive” simultaneously.

Hollywood doesn’t help, by always using narratives involving a man and a woman who, by the end of a film, are by default expected to become sexually involved. Apparently there’s a marketing issue involved as “successful” films have to contain a certain percentage of what everyone wants to see, which is why so many blockbusters follow a certain pattern. Unfortunately, that marketing ploy, combined with an (un)healthy dose of gossip mongering, leads to distorted perceptions in real life, whereby two people of the opposite sex who become close start looking “suspicious” to others, causing the assumption that another type of intimacy is present.

For quite a few years, I’ve been of the opinion that monogamy simply makes sense, as it raises the chances of a stronger family unit (chances, not guarantees, of course) and reduces the risk of getting an STD, which sadly is a rampant phenomenon today. Also, it’s safer to know where one is spreading their genetic material, as proven by the few (but incredibly creepy) cases of couples finding out they were actually second degree relatives. Reality beats fiction, as usual. For that same length of time, people have called me a number of names, regressive being the mildest. Debating the matter has led me to a peculiar conclusion.

People who argue that we are polygamous by nature and can’t help engaging sexually with those we are attracted to, or bond with in general, basically share the view of puritans, who think the same (but fear and reject it instead). 

Both views are based on the exacerbation of the animal side of human nature. Both are based on the idea that acknowledging someone’s attractiveness is a bolted impetus to act on that observation and one remains by default at that level, without managing to rise above it (naturally, not by forcing the mind) and form beautiful, long-lasting bonds. And that emotional bonds eventually lead to such thoughts.

Religious folks are brought up with the neurosis of remaining pure, both physically and mentally, to the point of fearing interaction with other people, for no other reason than fearing their own reaction to them.

Progressives, at the opposite pole, think there is no harm in interacting sexually with as many  people as one pleases, at random, though medical statistics have shown that to lead to a rise in STDs  and abortions, and potentially mess up people emotionally as well.

Reality, of course, is very different than the foundation of these views.

One can form intellectual and spiritual bonds with anyone, transcending barriers such as sex, age, race or whatever you can come up with. Provided that those bonds are genuine and not predatory, of course (I’m referring to the age aspect when minors are involved).

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think the popularisation of this concept – that we are little more than animals – is yet another attempt to drive people apart or make them fear a deep connection to each other.

I agree, as any sensible individual would, that the family is being massively targeted nowadays and ideological groups create needles acrimony.

But I believe it doesn’t stop there. I believe the ultimate goal is to isolate every individual from others, at all cost, and that this needless fear of bonding is part of it.

 

Religion And Creativity

Some say religion, as a spiritual matter which does not interfere with most other aspects of a person’s life, is relatively harmless if one does not engage in proselytism and bigotry. There is at least one instance, to my knowledge, of it interfering with someone’s vocation, when said vocation is artistic and involves creativity, which is based on free thought.

Below I will detail a few qualms I personally dealt with as a writer, for years on end, back when I considered myself a Christian (though never a practicing one).

Unless it glorifies God, all art is supposed to be pointless

Writing for the love of it is therefore a fruitless endeavour one only wastes time on, unless their purpose is to convey a message which is in accordance with religious teachings. Which basically invalidates everything related to purely human experience, including the dubious and sinful, from religion’s point of view. Logically, it would put writings which are intended as morally neutral in the same category. Investing one’s limited days on Earth, energy and emotion into something vacuous would therefore be a waste of time.

One is told they are either “of God” or “of the world” and should not become attached to anything the world offers, as it is a distraction from salvation. In this context you can end up asking yourself if writing is really worth it, if it may well be in vain.

The energy flow and writer’s block

Being stuck in a restrictive paradigm means filtering every thought through your value system, automatically, without even being conscious of it. This leads to strong internal conflict as you’re actually repressing and censoring yourself. For a person who naturally thrives on the creative act, that can be soul-destroying.

Writer’s block, I suspect, might be directly related to this process of limiting or stopping the transcendental flow of energy and the connection to the collective subconscious, which allows access to ancestral wisdom. Dismissing intuition; stopping budding thoughts and hypotheses about the world can only lead to stagnation, which is an unnatural state for the creative mind.

We often hear of  artistically prolific people using substances which stimulate the mind, making it race, to the point of achieving revelations (non-religious ones) about this confusing human experience. More often than not, when expressed, their findings ring true to many others; they are relatable as they strike a chord inside their very core. They gain access to timelessness, to values and ideas far beyond the preconceptions every human being is brought up with.

Filtering thoughts through the tight net of religious permissions means slowing the mind, missing the mark, being constantly thrown off course and never reaching those higher states, unless they can be associated with religious origins. The mind wastes away trying to reconcile the natural and the artificial in order to excel; it’s basically like living with a disease which halts development. One’s path is littered with minutiae, with the imaginary guilt of having violated the ultimate law.

We can plainly see that in the SJW generation as well, as it treats ideologies much like religious dogmas. Every minutia becomes an issue and reality itself is reduced to a source of constant discontent.

 Adult humour and adult themes in general

Though the whole message of a book might not be to actually promote principles contrary to religious teachings, even the inclusion of down-to-earth situations with a neutral attitude can seem “problematic” (I have developed an allergy to that word since SJWs have started using it so frequently, but it is appropriate here).

As someone who employs humour and humorous contexts as often as possible, I’ve found myself coming up with some which were hilarious yet involved sex outside of marriage, adultery, prostitution etc, with no condemnation whatsoever or negative consequences arising from those situations. Which is when I started asking myself – am I promoting this? Am I contributing to the minimisation of the negative effects these aspects have? If I published this, would it be able  to impact someone negatively, even in the slightest?

This is the level of needless guilt someone can experience because of indoctrination, instead of reveling in the fact that they have an open mind (and heart) and refuse to condemn others for behaviours society regards as transgressions. It’s not promotion of said lifestyle choices but merely describing facts of life. Whitewashing life is not possible. We are all prone to error; I know from experience that the little wisdom I have acquired is a result of making mistakes and analysing them in hindsight.

Language

As are risks and mistakes, profanity is also part of life; obstinately choosing a “clean” vocabulary deprives characters of their individuality, of their spontaneity. Letting the energy flow, engaging with the situations they are facing, makes language flow as well, in a multitude of directions.

When you allow that, they take on a life of their own, so to speak, independently of your views and standards of optimal behaviour. Or language.

Proselytism and propaganda

It’s only natural for writers to approach narratives which are close to their hearts and values. And it can be amazing as long as characters are allowed to be individuals with fully developed personalities and not just automatons or loudspeakers for a certain point of view – which religion can certainly cause.

The risk of pedantic, preachy dialogues, I fear, is directly proportional to the level of indoctrination in a certain direction (not necessarily religious, of course). And it’s then that it becomes transparent and feels artificial, and obviously appeals less to others.

There is definitely more to say on this subject, yet these are some important points, hopefully useful as well.