EmperorofIceCream EmperorofIceCream

Believe in my God or I'll Kill You

Believe in my God or I'll Kill You

YOU, yes you, Motherfucker

In all of the woolly-minded, hand-wringing, bleeding heart nonsense I've read to date about the nature of religion on JU; in all of the if-only-we-could-be-reasonable-about-this-and-and-just-worship-god-in-our-own-way bullshit that goes on in here, never once have I seen the least sign that any of you people understand what religion actually does.

Let me make it simple for you. It divides. It divides the righteous from the unrighteous, the right from the wrong, the saint from the sinner, the holy from the unholy. The righteous, the right, the saint, and the holy are all saved. The unrighteous, the wrong and the unholy, are all damned.

Whatever the approach of any particular religion to morality, salvation, sin, death, hell and heaven; no matter how sophisticated is the teleology, the eschatology, and the apologetics employed by any given religion, that is what they do. They divide. Christ said 'I came not to bring peace but a sword'. Not reconciliation but division.

Since the nature of religion is to divide, and the nature of proselytizing apocalyptic religions (such as both Christianity and Islam) is to make those divisions as clear, as precise, as intelligible as possible, they breed fanatics not in despite of the virtues they teach but because of them. Because in each case, while the virtues preached may be similar in terms of the actions which are meant to express them (give to the poor, don't commit adultery), they are fundamentally opposed in their basic assumptions. One assumes that Allah rules the universe, the other assumes that the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition does. And both faiths regard the other as a heresy.

Where there are heretics the true believers of either confession will search them out and kill them in order to be true to their God, themselves, and their fellow believers. There is no possibility of reconciliation between confessions of faith whose most ardent confessors regard the other as a heretic. And the only possible outcome of sustained contact between them is bloody conflict, precisely because what they value most, in both cases, teaches them that in order to be true to what they value they must kill each other.

Criticizing a religion, any religion, for teaching the faithful to kill, for encouraging that killing, is (as I've said elsewhere) as useful as complaining that rain is wet, as constructive as complaining because dogs have the capability to bark.

Religions are not evil when they advocate the killing of heretics - whatever the particular religion involved - they are virtuous in that they stamp out a threat to true belief, and promise appropriate rewards for those carrying on the killing.

Any form of thought that cannot include the Other within itself is predisposed toward the violent destruction of any opposing form of thought precisely because it is structured so as not to include the Other.

And whining about it will make no difference, will not prevent those eager for martyrdom because they are good religionists from pursuing that martyrdom. Believe in my God or I'll kill you, Motherfucker.

Don't bitch about religion because it doesn't live up to the values it embodies. Bitch about religion because it does.
15,786 views 37 replies
Reply #26 Top
~bravo~


*bows* (as they used to say in VP).
Reply #27 Top
I have long said that religion's primary goal is not to unify but to divide. It's an 'us and them' mentality.


Here is my response to that mentality. Link
Reply #28 Top


The Crusades. Religious fighting in Ireland and Africa , in the Middle East. The killing of ( American Indians) if they didn't "convert".

I was in a store one day when a woman came up to the counter clerk and told her to come to her church - after all, THEY were the only ones who were going to Heaven!

God is always on THEIR side, not YOURS. Question is : does God take sides?

Belive in God and Jesus if you want to. Do it from your home, without the Religious fanatics.

Reply #29 Top


Oh, BTW, the woman in the store who told the counter clerk that only her church was going to Heaven?

She said it like she was inviting her to a Tupperware party.
Reply #30 Top


Oh, BTW, the woman in the store who told the counter clerk that only her church was going to Heaven?

She said it like she was inviting her to a Tupperware party.
Reply #32 Top
To liveletlive:

Of course God takes sides. He takes the side of whoever truly believes in him, in order to promote that conflict which is of the essence of religion. If you're fool enough to believe that God is on 'your' side, that's your problem, not God's.

As to the double click... I do that, too.
Reply #33 Top
But you will note, please, that it took an Emperor, who personifies the power of the sword held in the hand of the State, to promulgate such civility. And that in itself tells me that the rude violence of religion can only be contained and controlled by a violence greater still - the legitimate and authorized violence of the State


A reasonable and logical point. Except, Asoka converted to Budhhism after successfully building his empire. The cynical may see that as dang convenient. The lesson most Buddhists take from this is that, as a consequence of the killing and intolerance he embraced in becoming Emperor he turned to Buddhism and chose to use the power he held to promote tolerance and mindfulness. In short, ultimately to give up (some of) the power he had "earned" in order to promote/allow/defend a kind of religious tolerance. But your point is still well-taken -- it takes state authority to get that edict scrawled on a stone block. And that edict is what some would call an "unenforceable mandate" these days -- as we've discovered in the PC wars of the last few decades, it is damn difficult (if not outrightly inadviseable) to legislate "tolerance." As your article points out, the state (and religions) are founded (in part) on intolerance.

Your condensed points (as I now understand them) are that:

1) the most basic function of religion is to divide, that division functionally and necessarily producing violence. And 2) since such division is functional and therefore necessary, complaining about it as if there were some warm and fuzzy middle ground where we can all get together and be rational about religion is egregious nonsense, providing neither critique, nor insight, nor any meaningful contribution to any dialogue concerning religion.


First of all, "most basic function" part reads a bit like "essentialize" to me, but I'll let that pass for the moment. The central question of your first point (for me) is that you can't really unify without also dividing. So, for all the "warm fuzzies" and "what can't we all just get along" of unity, there is always already a divisive and therefore violent aspect of that unity. And one that we pay precious little attention to or, at best, only coomplain about and dismiss (second point). I guess I am more comfortable acknowledging what you are pointing to as "one of the central and often unacknowledged functions of" religion rather than "the most basic" (and therefore essential) function.

From an agonistic view of the world, it makes sense that all things are viewed as products of struggle, competition, and violence. But I submit that this is a perspective. Like all theories, perspectives, and models, it emphasizes some aspects of lived experience over others. In as much as you are arguing that such an agonistic perspective reveals important phenomena (or aspects of phenomena) that we ignore at our peril (and ignore all too often) in "polite" discussions about religion, I can agree with you. In as much as you are (or might be) arguing that agon is all that matters, I don't think I can. Maybe you'll see that as incredibly naive of me -- and maybe I am. My fear is that an agonistic perspective might be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy, especially if it is asserted as "the most basic" perspective of all. And especially if it is mobilized in a meta-agonistic way against any other perspective, concluding that all other perspectives provide "neither critique, nor insight, nor any meaningful contribution to any dialogue concerning religion."

Reply #34 Top
To Bungy32:

From an agonistic view of the world, it makes sense that all things are viewed as products of struggle, competition, and violence. But I submit that this is a perspective.


yes it is. But its a perspective that takes into account what religions have generally done. That is, slaughter their opponents at every available opportunity.

I guess I am more comfortable acknowledging what you are pointing to as "one of the central and often unacknowledged functions of" religion rather than "the most basic" (and therefore essential) function.


It doesn't really matter what you call it so long as you agree that it does what I said it does - which is to create division and conflict.

My fear is that an agonistic perspective might be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy, especially if it is asserted as "the most basic" perspective of all. And especially if it is mobilized in a meta-agonistic way against any other perspective, concluding that all other perspectives provide "neither critique, nor insight, nor any meaningful contribution to any dialogue concerning religion."


The agon of religion has always produced violence. And since not prophesy but history tells us so you may lay your fear of self fulfilling prophecies to rest. And all religions are already meta-agons since they reject all other religions as being untrue and are therefore necessarily already involved in the struggle you fear. If a thing has occurred countless times in the past, is occurring now, then there's little point in fearing that it might occur again. Count on it as a certainty, instead.

And my problem is not with the violence that religion produces, but with pious fools who say it's 'bad' religionists that kill. Its such wishful thinking that can provide no critique, no insight, no contribution to any dialogue concerning religion, not the contention that religion necessarily produces violence and that this violence is one of religion's virtues - when viewed from the inside.
Reply #35 Top
So my good friend, either do not read the bible(and keep quiet , don't pass comments on it) or read and understand the bible in it's entirety. HALF KNOWLEDGE IS THE WORST KNOWLEDGE.


olikara:
I wonder whether anyone, anywhere, truly "understands" the bible. It's very subjective.
There are those who claim to, of course, but my problem with it is that a hundred different people can read the same translation of the same bible and get a hundred different messages out of it.
That's why Christianity is divided into so many different denominatons, every damn one of them thinking they've got it right, while everyone else is wrong. Well, I have news for them: we can't ALL be right, but we CAN all be wrong. It makes me mad to hear people debate something of which no one really has a total grasp.

What pisses me off most of all are the people (like my wife's aunt, for example) who call themselves "Christians" because they go to a "Christian" church.
Well, I attend a Baptist church....where we worship Jesus Christ. It's not the same church as my wife's aunt, of course, so...does that mean I'm NOT a Christian? That my church isn't a Christian church, even though we worship Jesus?
I believe in the Divine nature of Jesus, that He was THE Christ. I believe that He is coming back eventually to take those who follow Him to Heaven.
I believe, then, that that makes me a Christian, does it not? Just like every other faith which believes in Jesus Christ, be they Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Nazarenes, Pentacostals....the list goes on. And on.
We're all Christians, no matter what our denomination, as long as we believe in Christ and his true nature.

Sorry, I don't want to hijack the post. Just blowing off some steam here; spent the weekend with the in-laws.
Reply #36 Top
Hey EmperorofIceCream, have you read Krishnamurti's "Freedom from the Known"?