Sex Gods and War Gods
Just some notes on the theme of "War Gods" and "Love Gods." Essentially this essay is just mostly extracts from essays by a few other writers on this subject; I suppose that it could also be subtitled “love gods and hate gods.” Another subtitle could simply be "Why?" Why do human beings choose genocidal and subhuman war gods of the ilk of the gods of the Bible and the Koran, when there are so many ancient love gods and goddesses to chose from? The answer to this seems to be due to the fact that the authors / inventors of the anthropomorphic fictions of the slavemaster gods of the Koran and the Bible also proposed systems of law and government (tyranny) which have been forcibly, tryannically and genocidally imposed for many centuries.
The utterly subhuman, human hating, human nature hating and genocidal war gods of the Koran and the Bible are also portrayed as gods who love the mind control victims of their professional hypnotists (i.e., the clergy), and promise them an eternity in religious paradise as a reward for adhering to their inhumane faith and restricting their true natural will. Such loving gods are these, that everyone else (the unbelievers), allegedly are to be tortured for all eternity in the fires of hell.
The Christians and Muslims essentially adhere to a diaboilically evil, genocidal, hateful and subhuman definition of "goodness;" a definition which to a humanist, would be a definition of religious evil and gross inhumanity. Adhering to such an evil definition of a god, is not a harmless, innocent, victimless thought crime. Beliefs affect attitudes and behaviours. Words are weapons. Propaganda is the first stage of real war, and "war" against non believers seems to have been a central aspect of the centuries' long history of the Islamic and Biblical faiths, and it remains so today.
I should point out that in my judgement, there really is no difference between a sex god and a love god. A love god who is not a sex god, is "not" a love god really.
Consider for example:
"Vestal Virgins and Sex Magick
Ishtar, the Great Whore of Babylon, was sometimes called the Goddess Har since she was the mother of the Harlots. These Harlots were not prostitutes as we know them, but priestesses, sorceresses, prophets, and healers. Sacred Whores were known sometimes as the Holy Virgins of Goddesses such as Ishtar, Asherah, or Aphrodite. The famous Vestal Virgins were thought to have practiced secret sex magical rites in honor of the Roman Goddess Vesta, the same as the Greek goddess Hestia -- Goddess of the Hearth, or "center of the world."
"Virgin" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A virgin was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself. Think of Athena, the maiden goddess who jumped off a cliff rather than submit to wedlock. We see a similar story in the Hebraic tradition where Lilith, unwilling to subjugate herself to Adam in the male-dominant missionary position, exiled herself from paradise in exchange for her own sovereignty.
But Holy Whores weren't man-haters. Their function was dispensing the grace of the God/Goddess through sexual worship by sharing their bodies with worthy initiates and with each other."
Gods of war and hate vs. the love gods of the ancient world.
If you think about "definitions" rather than terms such as "gods" and "devils," if we were to go back in time to the age where sex and religion were more entwined and where priests and priestesses had a sexual role, what many of our ancestors referred to as the "gods" or "love gods" would by Biblical and Islamic definition be defined as "devils," or "evil" gods, or even "sex gods," and it is the denial of erotic freedom to the slaves of the priesthood which is their central means of producing a terrified slave who lives in fear of a cruel and invisible skygod, who condemns natural human sexuality. Further, the reverence of "all" other gods and goddesses, apart from the central deities of the Koran and the Bible is forbidden by these texts, on penalty of death; thus have the love gods and goddesses of the ancient world become "devils" and the hateful war gods of the Koran and the Bible have come to be considered to be diabolical definitions of love and of goodness.
In contrast it seems to me that the vast majority of modern Neopagans simply define their gods as human loving, human nature loving and usually highly sexualised fertility deities, and they consider the Biblical and Islamic deities to be diabolical, subhuman and human nature hating. It seems to be a perfectly natural dialectical response to the evil war gods of world's major religions.
Part of the problem I think is that we live in cultures where the majority of religions are all based on the rather nasty war gods of the past aeons, so when a person defines themself as a Satanist, Wiccanist or Neopagan, in the minds of the acolytes of the Biblical and Islamic gods, such persons are generally considered to be be the acolytes of evil gods; since the religious fanatics have different definitions of good and evil to a humanist, or a person who is not an acolyute of their faith.
Gods of law and government (theoctratic dictatorship)
There is nothing sexy or attractive about the subhuman and genocidal war gods of the Koran and the Bible and yet they prevail; I think it to be partly due to a heterosexual male obsession with violence, war and the domination of female slaves; for the Biblical and Islamic gods are, after all the gods of homophobic male slavemasters and tyrants. Further the Bible and the Koran are not merely fully of religious ramblings, they are also political and legal manifestos which propose a system of theocratic tyranny and law; this seems to have given their acolytes an advantage over other gods and goddeses whose myths and legends do not really propose a system of law and government. I cannot imagine a holy war in the name of Aphrodite, Pan or Cupid; not a system of government and law.
Most modern Satanists and Neopagans seem to me to be dedicated to the pursuit of human happiness, the pursuit of pleasure, the pursuit of erotic love experiences, the love of others and the love of nature; many Islamic and Biblical faithists seem to consider such behaviour to be "ungodly" and they instead promote sexually repressed models of a "god-like" or "goddess-like" person, such as the archetypal wife and sex slave or the celibate nun or priest who devote their lives to promoting bigotry, the hatred of human nature, the indoctrination of children and the crusade against all forms of erotic freedom.
More on sex gods / goddesses
From: http://www.goddess.org/religious_sex.html ( A Brief History of Religious Sex)
“The religion of the Goddess, wherever it was practiced throughout history, has always been sex positive. The most famous of the ancient rituals is the Hieros Gamos, or Sacred marriage ritual. Records of this ceremony have been dated as far back as early Sumerian, about 5500 years ago. In this ritual the high priestess acting as avatar of The Goddess had sex with the ruler of the country to show the Goddess's acceptance him as ruler and caretaker of her people.
Nowadays the word orgy connotes something depraved and degenerate. That was not the original meaning for the word. The word "orgy" comes from the Greek word "orgia" meaning "secret worship". Since most secret worship involved sexual rituals, and Christians were opposed to anything sexual the word orgy came to have the debased meaning it has today, rather than the noble, spiritual meaning of the original word.
Many words that are used to describe extreme religious fervor are also used to describe great sex, such as passion, bliss, and ecstasy. There were many orgies throughout the year as celebrations in the religion of the Goddess. Many of these celebrations have been taken over by the Christians who removed their sexual nature. The best known is undoubtedly Christmas taken from the pagan festival of Saturnalia.
During the Bacchanalian festivals the everyday rules were turned topsy turvy. The masters waited on the servants. All sexual prohibitions were lifted. It was a time of true good will towards all men. Even dresses were exchanged with men dressing as women. Erotic dances were performed with a large erect phallus being carried around in the dancing processionals.
The custom of exchanging clothes during Saturnalia and Bacchanalia was an activity frowned upon by the Jews and Christians as it is prohibited by the Bible, Deuteronomy 22;5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy god" So much for Biblical transvestites.
However, the god Hermes in order to become a god of magic went into the temple of his consort Aphrodite where he wore a woman's robes and artificial breasts. In the temple he learned all the secrets of the Goddess Aphrodite which were exclusively taught to her female priestesses
One of the most famous prophets and seers of ancient time, Teiresias, was a man who was changed into a woman and served in the temples as a priestess for seven years to gain the feminine powers of insight and divination.
Anciently men's transvestism had its roots in the desire to attain female magic and powers and was common among the Pagan priests up to the time of St. Augustine who denounced the custom, saying that men who wore women's garments could never attain salvation, even if they were otherwise good Christians. So the good Catholics simply made the women's gowns into Priests robes. They looked the same, had the same function, but a "robe by any other name, does not a transvestite make."
And, of course, May Day used to have great sexual frolics around that giant phallic symbol, the May pole. The May pole represented the Gods phallus in Mother Earth. People decorated it and danced around it. .. A 16th century English Puritan writer Philip Stubes, railed against May pole dancing. ..Stubes estimated, that not one girl in three retained her virginity after taking part in May pole rituals. After dancing around the Maypole celebrants would retire to the open fields where they would have sex with anyone and everyone in the plowed fields in order to insure the fertility of the land and prosperous yield of crops. May was a month of sexual freedom throughout rural Europe up to the 16th century. Marriage bonds were suspended for the month of May, commenced again in June - hence, June weddings.
All of these ancient rituals, these orgia, involved group sex and nudity. The hang ups and inhibitions that most people have about having sex in groups or in front of other people are largely the result of Biblical attitudes. Sex, was something to be done only in private behind locked doors, and only for procreation. Those restrictive ideas come to us from the Bible, in which nudity is condemned as soon as Adam and Eve ate the apple.
Nudity is frowned on by the Judaeo-Christian god, but Greek Gods are usually depicted as nude in magnificently detailed statues. The god of the Bible is always portrayed with plenty of flowing robes on. What does he have to be ashamed of?
In pagan religion rituals, men and women had sex with their friends and neighbors. The Bible forbids such activities in no uncertain terms, Leviticus 20:10,
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Even today some states still cling to archaic Judaeo- Christian religious laws making adultery a crime.
In ancient times a priestess could be married or unmarried. She performed sexual purification rituals with all worthy men regardless of her marital status. In some cultures all women were required to serve in the temple. Herodotus, the father of history, writing about the Babylonians states,
"Babylonian custom compels every woman of the land once in her life to sit in the temple of love and have intercourse with some stranger. The men pass and make their choice. It matters not what be the sum of money; the woman will never refuse, for that were a sin, the money being by this act made sacred. After their intercourse she has made herself holy in the sight of the Goddess and goes away to her home." That is unless she decided to continue as a full time priestess. ..
One hundred and fifty years later, Quintus Curtius, the historian who accompanied Alexander the Great on his conquests, reported:
"There is none other more corrupt than this people, or none other more learned in the art of pleasure and voluptuaries. Fathers and mothers suffered their daughters to prostitute themselves to their guests for silver and husbands were not less indulgent with respect to their wives. The Babylonians plunged into drunkenness and all the disorders which follow it. The women appeared at the banquets with modesty at first, but they ended by abandoning their robes, then the rest of their garments one after another, disrobing themselves little by little of modesty until they were entirely naked. And these were not public women who abandoned themselves so; they were the most respectable matrons and their daughters."
In some cultures, as in Egypt, the upper class women were priestesses. Almost all of the Egyptian queens were High Priestesses of the Goddess, up until Cleopatra. She was the 369th in a line of which I am 537th High Priestess. Egyptologists who know how sexual the high priestesses were, just cannot believe that a queen would have sex with anyone other than her husband-- like the good Jewish Queens of the Bible. They seem to think that Cleopatra, who had sex with 100 Roman noblemen in one night was unusual. The fact is, all priestesses, queens or otherwise had sex with thousands of men.
In ancient cultures with matriarch religions, sex was considered something ennobling and uplifting. Sex could take you closer to the Gods rather than alienate you from god.
An example of this come from one of the oldest stories in existence, the Gilgamesh Epic.
This story dramatizes the ennobling, civilizing benefits of sex. Sex is portrayed as a force for good. Contrast that with the Biblical version.
In the Goddess religion sex brings one to civilization and the goddess, in the Judaeo-Christian religion sex drives one into the wilderness away from their god.
In Judaism, the sins of the individual are put on some animal which is ritualistically killed by the a priest, or sent as a scapegoat into the wilderness. In Christianity, the sins are put on the dead god Jesus, whom they believe died for all men's sins, past, present and future. (So since your sins are already all taken care of, why not enjoy yourself?) In the religion of the Goddess, the priestess takes upon herself the sins and transgressions of the man in the ritual of negation....The priestess literally takes upon herself the transgressions of the man, she intercedes on man's behalf with the Goddess, so that he can be purified. She is his guide in this life to bring him to the hereafter.
Sex is no longer just a religious issue, it is a political issue. From the mayors and councilmen of cities, legislators and governor, to the President, the politics of sex demands an outward profession of the Judaeo-Christian ethics. A politician is required to parade his wife, children, church attendance and sexual fidelity before the public as a sign of his character. In this land of the free where there is supposedly freedom of religion, we are slaves to Judaeo/Christian traditions which promote a male patriarchal order as "family values".
The sexuality of the Goddess has been feared by men from their beginning and Her sexuality is feared today. Christian fundamentalists are in dread of a sex-positive religion which will have a greater appeal then their sex-negative, ascetic doctrines. Christians fear the haunting shadows of their forgotten ancestors--those ancients who worshipped the pagan goddess and the Goddess in Her temples and groves--who still bring up images of hidden memories of her priestesses in their subconscious who speak a truth which Christians openly deny. Christians fear the obvious, that after 2000 years their dead god has not returned and the twilight of christianity has arrived--that long awaited time when the "Lady of the New Dawn" would arrive.
I have arrived. "
Dually-Gifted, Dually Respected?
What we understand as transgender (in its many different forms) has been understood quite differently at various periods of time. In the earliest ages, people who were seen to bridge the genders were quite often thought to possess wisdom that traditionally-gendered people did not, and were venerated for this. As civilizations transformed from matrilineal and communal societies into male-driven (patriarchal) societies with rigid class divisions and emphasis on property ownership, those male-driven cultures reduced the status of women... and because they were threatened by a persistent belief that those who blurred gender lines possessed some greater insight, they set out to crush gender-transgressive people most of all. Into the modern age, transfolk resurfaced, but it is a long climb back just to restore any sense of equality.
In earliest civilizations, throughout Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Northern Africa, tribes of different types venerated what they often identified as "The Great Mother." In nearly all of these traditions, MTF priestesses (often castrated or with some form of eunuching, which included a number of different body modifications of the time) presided, and the cultures were primarily communal systems which held women (venerated as a source of life) in high esteem. Matriarchal in nature, the cultures often espoused peace, but the realities of early civilization and tribal existence did not always allow for this.
Roman historian Plutarch depicts "The Great Mother" as an Intersex deity from whom the two sexes had not yet split. Trans-gendered depictions of The Great Mother and Her priestesses are found in ancient artifacts back to the earliest civilizations in Mesopotamia, Assyria, Babylonia and Akkad. Some historians portray MTF priestesses as being recognized as something sacred, while others portray them as undergoing castration in order to subvert matrilineal rule and wrest religious direction from the control of women. David F. Greenberg, however, concludes that records of trans priestesses do date back "to the late Paleolithic (if not earlier)," suggesting that the advent of transgender priestesses was not simply a later reaction to feminine leadership and veneration. In some regions, particularily the oldest European customs, it even appears that some form of gender transgression was almost considered one's religious duty, at times (i.e. certain revelries).
From love gods to War Gods
It seems that many of the gods and goddesses of the ancient world were rather nice, human loving and human nature loving gods, and that "worship" was understood in an erotic sense; sex was a sacred act, rather than a "sin." Rather than listening to the endless rantings and ravings of some celibate or monogamous religious fanatic condemning erotic human nature and filling the hypnotic victims with an eternal fear of the tortures of hell; the punishment of his god for those who followed their erotic nature; in contrast, going to see a priest or a priestess in a temple in ancient times was more of an erotic experience.
With the Biblical and Islamic faiths, the idea of having a priestess was simply abhorrent to the authors of the texts, and perhaps this may be due to the erotic function of the priestesses of the ancient world. What use would a priestess be in a temple where there was no sexual rites taking place? What use indeed.
1 Timothy 2:12: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man." 1 Corinthians 14: 34 "women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission."
It seems that the war gods of the Koran and the Bible did serve some practical political purposes throughout history, however. For example let us say that you are a tyrant who wishes to expand your empire; you really don't want your population to be happy and sexually content; really what you need is an army of violent mind controlled slaves who live in fear of eternal punishment from a genocidal psychopath of a war god. If your population are unhappy on earth, and they are promised an eternal reward where they get to spend all eternity as slaves of your psychopathic war god, then no matter how miserable they are on earth, they always have the afterlife to look forward to, and of course death in battle is not a problem as they will be received and welcomed in eternity as martyrs of your psychopathic god; wheras a person who is happy in a life devoted to the pursuit of pleasure is probably less likely to want to die in battle for you.
Slave Religions. Slavemaster gods.
Essentially a typical slave master wants "obedience;" he can be unconcerned with the happiness of his slaves, and mostly concerned with his own happiness. Rather than fighting his own battles, he can get his army of slaves to fight on his own behalf, and rather than working for a living he can get his slaves to do all the work; essentially what he demands is total obedience, and this is very much like the psychopathic war gods of the Bible and the Koran. Just obey the priesthood and the authority of the tyrant and you will be eternally rewarded for having to have lived such a miserable life on earth or having been willing to kill and to be killed in warfare for your theocratic dictator.
It seems to me that Judaeo-Islamic religion (as Islam seems to be essentially a 7th century form of Judaism which developed in the Arabian region, with an Arab slave-trader and warlord as prophet, instead of Moses) had it's origins in a mentality which is certainly Paternalistic in the most malevolent sense (i.e., male supremacist), and which seeks to promote the mentality of a rather nasty slave master; it seems to represent the mind of a male warlord of the ancient world who suppresses the erotic freedom of others and insists upon the institution of slavery.
The male slave master has the freedom to do what he wishes with his slaves, and the slaves themselves have many rules and regulations imposed upon them regarding how they should and should not behave. It was apparently commonplace in the centuries long history of the Islamic - African slave trade for males slaves to be castrated and to even hav e their tongues cut out; they were expected to simply be obedient labour slaves and not to have sex with the female slaves who were after all the exclusive property of the slave master. In common with the Biblical religion, this is basically a "slave religion," and of course holy war can be engaged on other tribes and nations for the purpose of capturing slaves, and the justification for this is that their enemies worshiped different gods, but I doubt very much if from a slave traders' point of view, that this would the real motive. War is generally always fought for economic reasons, with religion as a motivating factor. In both the texts of the Koran and the Bible we can find the perfect justification for holy war, with economic benefits for the warlords; non believers can be tortured, killed or enslaved, and their lands and possessions can be forefeited in the name of "God."
Thus it is not really that the war gods of the Bible and the Koran are anti-sex, they are in fact pro-sex slavery; it is just that they are opposed to human sexual freedom; their gods simply have a slavemasters attitude to sex, and this is entirely unsurprising since both of these texts were derived from primitive slave societies. They don't want their citizens whom they rule over to be sexually free amongst each other; rather they wish to have faithful and monogamous sex slaves who keep themselves only for the master who has purchased them and who is free to do what he wants with them.
As long as the major gods of the world are "war gods" and not "sex gods" there will always be war; it is inevitable.
"The Vatican has censured a nun and emeritus professor of Christian ethics at Yale University for her book on sexuality, calling it "unacceptable" and a "grave harm" to Christians.
Leading theologian Sister Margaret Farley's book, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, aims to present a religious rationale for acceptance and support for same-sex relationships, male and female masturbation, and divorce and remarriage. But the Vatican warns that the book is "not consistent with Catholic theology," which considers homosexual sex "acts of grave depravity" and "contrary to natural law," according to the official statement."
"Some key arguments:
Sister Farley: “Masturbation… usually does not raise any moral questions at all. … It is surely the case that many women… have found great good in self-pleasuring."
Church: "...masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action..."
Sister Farley: “My own view… is that same-sex relationships and activities can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities."
Church: "This opinion is not acceptable. ...homosexual acts [are] acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."
Sister Farley: “My own position is that a marriage commitment is subject to release on the same ultimate grounds that any extremely serious, nearly unconditional, permanent commitment may cease to bind."
Church: This opinion is in contradiction to Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage
So what we have in the Biblical faith is a desexualisation of the female, and despite the existence of Christian priestesses (i.e., nuns), who actually go through a marriage ceremony with their fictional Christi, there is simply no such thing as a "priestess" of love in the religion of the Biblical god.
In order to understand the sexually repressive nature of Christianity, consider the following text. The following is excerpts from the writings of Luigi Cascioli, who is the Italian author of "The Fable of Christ" and who has taken out law suits against the Roman Church, however Luigi's first language is obviously not English so I have taken liberty of making various minor alterations to the grammar, formatting and sentence construction of the text. The original text can be read on: http://www.luigicascioli.eu/traduzioni/en_argomenti_sesso_cristianesimo.htm
"So that one can fully understand the obscurantism and obtuseness of Christian morals, here are some passages of the moral code regarding sexual relationships:
1) No sin is committed if the married couple have sexual intercourse without feeling
pleasure. (casuistry) It was following this precept that women, in order not to commit the sin of lust which they would have to confess, (it is probable that there are still some today), during sexual intercourse recited: “ I am not doing it for my pleasure but to give God a son
2) “.If during sexual intercourse either the husband or wife passionately desires the other, he or she commits mortal sin. (S. Geronimo – theologian).
3) The fondling preceding sexual intercourse is to be considered venial sin if it is limited to simple caresses and becomes mortal sin if the mouth and genitals are kissed especially when the tongue is inserted. (Debreyne – Theologian)
4) Husband and wife should not have sexual intercourse more than four times a month. (Sanchez – theologian).
5) It is not considered a sin if a couple has sexual intercourse during the day and it is repeated the following night. (Sant’Alfonso de Ligueri – theologian).
6) It is not considered a sin if the husband or wife withdraws from coitus before emitting
semen. (This was because it was believed that the woman produced semen too). (Sanchez – Theologian)
7) As the man weakens before the woman it is considered a sin if the woman expects to have sexual intercourse twice running. (Zacchia – theologian).
8) In sexual foreplay it is considered venial sin if the penis is inserted into the woman’s mouth or the man inserts a finger into the woman’s anus. (Ecclesiastical code).
9) A man who measures the length of his own penis commits a serious mortal sin. (Monsabrè – theologian).
10) Female masturbation is considered venial sin if done on the external part of the vagina
and mortal sin if the fingers or any other object are inserted into the vagina. (Debrayne – theologian).
11) As lying on the back is not natural, the woman must have sexual intercourse turning her back to the man otherwise she will commit a sin. (casuistry).
12) When a woman claims to have been raped by the devil, a careful examination of her vagina and anus must be carried out in order to assess the effects. (To get an idea of how the inquisitors carried out these examinations on the nuns in convents when they claimed to have been raped by the devil, we can read some reports made by witnesses: “ The vice of the inquisitors was evident in scandalously obscene ceremonies””(Margaret Murray). “The curiosity of the judges was insatiable, they wanted to know everything about the sexual intercourse the nuns had had with the devil in very fine detail “ (Henry Lea), which is still done today in the confessional), and Jacques Fines, a reporter of the time, wrote that he had seen the inquisitors themselves raping the nuns during their controls. (Practically the inquisitors used their penises instead of their fingers).
13) So that coitus should not be considered a sin, the semen has to be deposited inside the vagina beyond the lips of the uterus. (Zacchia – theologian).
14) In order to eliminate the frigidness which was the result of the lack of erection of the penis, Sanchez believed it was necessary to hold three mass, other theologians believed that it was preferable to resort to exorcism or to the practice of the communion.
15) Anal intercourse is not considered mortal sin if the semen is deposited in the vagina. (Sanchez – theologian).
16) Seminarists or young priests only commit venial sin if they reach ejaculation through simple caresses. (Diagonali).
17) Contrarily to the involuntary pollution which does not generate guilt, masturbation must be considered a serious sin because it can be considered adultery, incest or rape, depending on who the person is thinking about at the time. Masturbation becomes a horrible sacrilege if the object of desire is the Virgin Mary. (Sanchez – theologian).
The fact that priests admit that one can masturbate in front of the image of the Virgin Mary is enough for us to understand what levels of perversion Christian morals can reach!
The observance of these precepts, imposed through the confessional, brought Christians so near to suffocation that, in order to avoid revolt, the church was forced to permit carnival feasts so that the people could let out their repression. "All men need to enjoy themselves at least once a year in order to let out their natural instincts that can only be held in to a certain point. They are like wine barrels which would blow up one did not take the lid off from time to time in order to relieve the pressure. Men would blow up too if the only thing that can boil inside them is devotion to God (From a letter sent by Father Tillot to the faculty of theology in 1444 to the faculty of theology in Paris.)". These orgiastic feasts accepted by the church to allow its followers to let off steam caused by their sexual repression went on until 1700 often assuming a desecrating or profaning nature especially when they were held inside the churches. “Apart from the population, priests belonging to the poor clergy also took part in the celebrations. The priests usually arrived when the feast had already begun singing and dancing to obscene verses and mostly dressed in women’s clothes. Religious ceremonies were parodied by offering sausages instead of the consecrated host and burning old shoes instead of incense. They drank without reserve and mixed among the crowd burping and vomiting, showing their resentment to the ecclesiastical repression by making fun of eroticism and acting scenes of coitus or masturbation, and there were priests who mounted other priests disguised as nuns. As on these occasions everything was permitted; the priests sacrilegiously excited themselves in slow ecclesiastic dances, which they found even more exciting if accompanied by slow funeral marches. These feasts were real uproars, where in a very explicit manner the people reacted against the repression of Christian morals by exalting Satan. “These feasts permitted by the church were not a concession due to mere tolerance, but they were wanted and encouraged to give a calculated liberation to human fermentation (from “JOURNAL POUR TOUS” of 7/02/1863)."
The sexual repression which was mitigated in this way in the external religious world by organising collective orgies caused problems in the convents where no physical outlets were allowed and, so the nuns and priests tried to satisfy their sexual desires by imagining having sexual intercourse with spiritual partners: the nuns with Jesus Christ and the priests with the Virgin Mary. These penitents who were called “mystics” according to the religious nomenclature, committing themselves to a firm belief, to respect and observe a moral which bases spiritual perfection on the denial of every pleasure of the flesh in the strictest possible way. They were no other than than deluded fanatics unable to repress those natural laws which demand reproduction through the outlet of sexual instincts.
The drama they lived, which came from perpetual sexual abstinence together with continual torture inflicted on their own bodies as punishment for being the source of lust (torture that made them real masochists), created in them a state of mental alienation which was thought of as “ ecstasy” by the church, though psychoanalysts call this state “ hallucinations coming from psychic disorders due to sexual repression”.
Doctor Caufeinon states that “ dissatisfaction of sexual desire is one of the main causes of hysteria” and on the subject of convent life he adds “If claustral life favours this mental disorder it is not only due to sexual abstinence but also to the constant prayer the nuns are subjected to, to the contemplative life and the nervous excitement from the continual fear of the terrible punishment that divine justice reserves for their sins.
The psychologists Dupré and Logre amply explain that “ecstasy” was only a form of mystical neurosis due to imagination deliriums and Doctor Murisier shows how "The priests and nuns love and attachment to God, Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary is of an extremely sexual nature" in his book called “The diseases of religious sentiments”.
James Leuba, who is a specialist in religious psychology, clearly accuses the church of being a creator of madmen when he states: "The orgasms the saints reach when mating with divinities , being only imaginary, leave them in a perpetual state of sexual insatisfaction which is the cause of the neurotic delirium called “ecstasy."
That the hysteria caused by sexual repression is an inheritance from the monasteries is confirmed by a popular saying: “You only need one devil to satisfy the depravation of a village, but you need more than a thousand to satisfy the depravation of a convent”.
The stricter the rules imposed on a community, the more perversion will spread among its people, and so in a mixture of the scent of flowers and sulphur, the people start having collective orgies, which the church, attributing them to the works of the devil, will cleverly try to exorcise instead of entrusting them to psychiatry.
Among the infinity of cases reported in the chronicles, let us cite for example, in order to demonstrate the obscurantism there is in the Christian faith, the report signed by four bishops who were present during exorcisms at the convent of Auxonne: "The nuns vomited terrible words of blasphemy during the mess and the rituals carried out to free them from the devil. Their bodies were marked in a certain supernatural nature by the demons."
"The nuns assumed supernatural positions during exorcism such as keeping their balance on the point of their stomachs in an arch-like position, or bending over so far that their head touched the tip of their toes etc. etc."
And again…….”In the convent of Nazaret in Cologne, the nuns lay down on the floor as if they had a man on top of them, making coital movements”.
"In the convent of Louviere in Belgium, the collective orgies were performed in an alternation of ecstasy, where the nuns called to Christ on their knees, and nervous attacks where they showed their bare bottoms to the devil, imploring him to possess them."
At this point, after having briefly considered this psychic delirium in which the church refused any responsibility deriving from its imposition of sexual abstinenc,e declaring the situation “ the work of the devil,” let us take a look at other shameful facts where epileptic attacks were transformed into sanctified ecstasy
Saint Margherita Maria Alacoque made a vow of chastity at the age of four, entered into a convent at eight and had her first ecstatic contact with Jesus, “her fiancé” at fifteen.
1) "When I was in front of Jesus I melted like a candle in the
amorous contact I had with him."
2) "I was of such a delicate nature that even the slightest dirt made me sick. Jesus scolded me sternly for this weakness and reacted against it so strongly that one day I cleaned the floor where a patient had vomited with my tongue. Jesus made me feel so much delight from my action that I would have like to have been able to do it every day.." This is clearly "Masochism from hysterical delirium."
3) "Once when I had shown a certain reluctance in looking after a patient with dysentery, Jesus scolded me very sternly so, in order to make amends, I filled my mouth with her excrements, I would have swallowed them if the rules had not prohibited eating between meals." Ditto.
4) One day Jesus lay on top of me and when I protested he replied: “Let me use you for my pleasure because
there is a right time for everything. Now I want you to be the object of my love, given up to my will, without resistance from you, so that I can get pleasure from you” This is clearly physically experienced coitus through imagination.
The repetition of acts of masochism alternating with ecstasy where Maria Alacoque carnally lived her sexual encounters with Jesus who she called her fiancé, were so frequent that she was, according to the psychologists, a true case of hysterical erotomania. The church, which took advantage of human gullibility and ignorance, set up the apostolate of the sacred heart based on the statements of a woman suffering from nymphomania whose ecstatic revelations were no other than cataleptic attacks caused by sexual repression.
The Madonna appeared to Margherita Alcoque as she did to several mystical saints:
5) "The holy virgin often appeared to me caressing me and promising me her protection."
This intervention of the Madonna in amorous relationships between the saints and Jesus is justified by the fact that they needed the consent of the mother of he who they loved in such a clandestine way through their ecstasy. The amorous relationship, having a sexual and therefore sinful nature, gave the a guilt complex they wanted to get rid of in order to get pleasure from their mating, not only by gaining approval from their lover’s mother but also by making it public with their biographies.
The fact that the biographies were their catharsis, that is the liberation from their sense of guilt, is shown by the fact that they used them as a kind of liberating confession where they described their orgasms in great detail, enough to make them real treatise of pornography.
Saint Mary of Incarnation, after having encouraged Jesus, her husband to have sex with her using words that have little to do with spirituality: "So, my adored lover, when shall we mate??" This is what her biography tells us of how she felt in the hysteria of her ecstasy. "In my rapture I thought I had arms inside me which I stretched out to embrace the man I desired so much."
Saint Guyon, ascetic and penitent, wrote that in an ecstasy Jesus had taken her to a cedar wood where there was a room with two beds and that she had asked him who the other bed was for, he ad replied: "One is for you my wife, and the other is for my mother," and then referring to the sexual pleasure that she reached during her ecstasy, she wrote: "I possessed Jesus not in a spiritual way through thought but in a more tangible way that I could really feel the participation of the body." When she came back to reality so to speak, as she believed that the body was responsible for her sins she inflicted atrocious torture upon it: "To mortify my body I licked the most disgusting spittle……I put stones in my shoes……I had my teeth pulled out even if they were healthy"
From the biography of Saint Angela from Foligno: "During the ecstasy it was as if I were possessed by an instrument which penetrated me and tore my flesh…….I was so full of love and satisfied with an unbelievable fullness…….my limbs broke and crushed while I languished and pined for love………when I recovered from my rapture I felt so light and satisfied I could even have loved the devil himself (wonderful description of the quiet that follows an orgasm!)"
Saint Angela from Foligno knew very well that the pleasure she felt during (religious) ecstasy was of a sexual nature that she declared herself to be a victim of a “vice that I dare not mention”, the vice of lust from which she tried to free herself by putting “red hot coals on her vagina to take her desire away”.
Saint Rose of Lima in order to know sexual pleasure in a freer way without a guilt complex punished her body before the ecstasy in a way which makes one shudder: “Although the confessor told her not to exaggerate she inflicted even fifty thousand lashes of the whip to her body in four days…”
Saint Giovanna of the angels who was the mother superior in a convent of Ursuline nuns, transmitted hysteria to the whole community with her repeated ecstasy. From a chronicle of the time: “All the nuns in the convent of the Ursulines of Loudun, where the mother superior was Mother Giovanna of the angels, started screaming, dribbling and undressing, showing their total nakedness”. A certain Robbins, a reporter of the time who was present at one of these collective fits, in his description of the facts he underlined one in particular, "Sister Clare fell down to the ground in a trance and continued masturbating shouting: “ fuck me, fuck me…….”, until she took a crucifix and made use of it in such a way that my decency prohibits me to refer."
A certain confessor called Surin was engaged by the bishop’s court to practice exorcism in the convent but he was soon involved in the orgies and he wrote "My tongue tasted God as when I drink muscatel wine or I eat apricots, (No explanation is necessary as to where this man looked for God with his tongue!)"
Father Surin was substituted by another exorcist priest called Ressés, who resisting every temptation, succeeded in freeing the convent from demons. The mother superior’s abortion was made a proof of successful exorcism who, according to him aborted her child after he had freed her from the devil with holy water.
As she declared to have been healed by Saint Joseph who had appeared to her during exorcism, the church took advantage of this and succeeded in turning the Louden monastery’s orgies into an edifying phenomenon and called it a miracle.
The bandages and rags used by Giovanna of the angels to treat her wounds caused by flagellation, transformed into blessed bandages, were used to treat the sick who started coming to the convent in organised pilgrimage. Now considered a healing saint, Giovanna of the angels started touring France to heal the sick and she became so famous that even Cardinal Richelieu invited her to come to him to relieve the great pain his haemorrhoids caused him. In a chronicle of the time it is reported that even Anna of Austria was among the celebrities who were “cured” by her. Anna was suffering from a complicated childbirth, apparently she felt very relieved after touching the edge of Giovanna’s blouse. So the church, by cleverly using the art of mystification, succeeded once again in transforming hysteria caused by sexual repression into sanctity.( read “The Fable of Christ”).
Saint Teresa of Avila is certainly one of the best representatives of this world of repressed nymphomania who throng in Christian paradise. She could be a classical example in sexology books as a demonstration of the brain damage cased by sexual repression.
From her autobiography: "My illness had become so serious that I was always near to fainting, I felt a fire which burnt inside me……my tongue was in shreds from biting it. "While Christ spoke to me I contemplated the extraordinary beauty of his humanity…..I felt such strong pleasure that is not possible to feel in other moments of life. During ecstasy the body stops moving, breathing becomes slower and weaker, you only sigh and pleasure comes in waves….(great description of an orgasm!)" "In ecstasy an angel appeared to me in its bodily form and it was beautiful; I saw a long arrow in his hand; it was gold and the tip was on fire. The angel stabbed me with the arrow through to my bowels and when he pulled it out it left me burning with love for God……..the pain the arrow wound left was so acute that I could only sigh faintly, but this indescribable torment gave me such sweet delight at the same time that it was not bodily sufferance even if the body took part completely."
"I was on the verge of mental disorder which made me live in continual excitement which I did not dare to interrupt by asking for holy water so as not to upset the other nuns who could have realised the cause and origin (evident sense of guilt)." "Our lord, my husband, gave such excess of pleasure to make me say no more except that all my senses were enraptured… (Ditto)"
These passages come from the autobiographies of women on the verge of madness due to sexual repression which the church converted into edifying examples but they are actually the most evident proof of the falseness of Christian moral. The human being needs sex as it needs food. A prolonged abstinence, like hunger causes mental derangement which brings man to behave dangerously for himself and others. A lot of vice and perversion to be found in society is due to taboo which obstacle the normal path of nature. When nature is contrasted, sooner or later it will react even more violently than the repression working against it.
In a society where sex is considered a physical need and not the source of vice and sin, all perversion would be reduced to almost nothing as would rape and murder which are often caused by hatred towards the woman who is seen by man as being responsible for the anguish caused by repression. Sex , in a society without taboo can create an atmosphere of relaxation and harmony but
in a world of frustration only leads to hatred and rancour.
Would he who is in agony, remembering how he suffered during a life of repression be tempted to curse whoever was the cause?Let us reject, while still in time, whoever obstacles our sexual enjoyment (at the same time respecting other peoples point of view and freedom) and always remember that everything we do not do now will be lost forever, that we will regret it sooner or later and that it is only a delay in reaching that experience which we need to understand and improve ourselves.
To believe that by renouncing the pleasures of the flesh we will deserve a reward after death is simply an absurdity invented by Christianity through plagiarism, an imperialism based on false morals.
and consider also:
"Cardinal Peter D’Ailly spoke of the early Roman nunneries as places of immorality, and said that “taking the veil” was simply another mode of becoming a public prostitute."
"During the Council of Constance, three popes, and sometimes four, were every morning cursing each other and calling their opponents antichrists, demons, adulterers, sodomists, enemies of God and man. One of these Popes, John XXIII (1410-1415) "was accused by 37 witnesses (mostly bishops and priests) of fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy, simony, theft and murder! It was proved by a legion of witnesses that he had seduced and violated 300 nuns. His own secretary, Niem, said that he had at Boulougne, kept a harem, where not less than 200 girls had been the victims of his lubricity. Altogether the Council charged him with 54 crimes of the worst kind."
In 1259, (Pope) Alexander IV did not hesitate to declare that the people, instead of being reformed, were absolutely corrupted by the ministers who represented God on earth. Louis XV would amuse himself by causing the arrest of all ecclesiastics caught frequenting brothels. It never took long to secure several hundred. At one time in Spain the number of bastard children of the priests almost equaled the number of children of the laity!
Popes themselves furnished the examples for others to follow. Sergius III's bastard son sat in the pontifical chair, while John XII turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel. So notorious was his profligacy that women were deterred from going near the holy palace for fear of his promiscuous and unbridled lust. Pope John XXIII was condemned for notorious incest, adultery, defilement and homicide. He confessed to having violated over two hundred maidens, including a number of nuns. After being deposed, he became Dean of the Sacred College! A hundred years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury made an endeavor to curb the licentiousness of a certain bishop whose mistress had confessed that she had borne him five children. The bishop admitted his guilt to the archbishop, but claimed immunity on the ground that the acts had taken place in the confessional! St. Brice, in the diocese of Tours, was the father of a child born unseasonably to a nun.
Cesare Lombroso, reviewing the history and causes of immorality among the celibate priesthood, in his Crime: Its Causes and Remedies, says:
"In other cities, the right to commit fornication with impunity for a lifetime could be obtained by the payment of a quarter cask of wine to the bishop's officer, who drew this privilege from the canon De Dilectissimis in the decretals of the Pope."
The Supreme Council of the Spanish Inquisition ruled that solicitation either before or after confession was no crime. Years of debate were required to determine whether a priest was guilty of violating his vows if he secured a girl for another priest's sexual pleasure.
Yet, despite the devious and subtle methods permitted in the confessional to commit adultery, many scandals were reported to the Church tribunal. Typical was the case of Hilario Caone, of Besançon, an uncurbed profligate who confessed that he had solicited with success some forty women while performing his duties in the Church of San Francisco de Paula of Seville. Fernando de Valdes confessed having solicited with successful results seven single and three married women and one pregnant woman while in confession! He openly boasted of his sexual conquests and made no secret of his illicit affairs with his female penitents while dispensing absolution!
Abbé Mallet, Canon of Cambria, seduced three Jewish girls and then procured their confinement in convents under the pretext that he was laboring for their conversion! One of the girls went insane as the result of her suffering. Although the Abbé was condemned for his acts of seduction, Church officials defended his conduct on the ground that any offense of religious proselytism was justified. This permitted the worst criminals to wear the cloaks of the martyrs of faith. Abbé Mallet, Canon of Cambria, seduced Jewish girls under the pretext that he was laboring for their conversion. Church officials defended his conduct on the ground that any offense in the cause of religious proselytism was justified
Priestly solicitation in the confessional became so brazen and shameless that Pope Pius IV issued a bull in 1561 to investigate and punish all confessors guilty of soliciting women during the act of confession.
Lea records a case which attracted a great deal of attention in his time. Antoine Mingrat, a priest of Saint Aupe, created scandal by his amours. He was attracted by a young married woman named Marie Gerin and he made a brutal but unsuccessful attack on her virtue. This made it necessary for him to dispose of her. He choked her to death in the parsonage and dragged the body three-quarters of a mile to another town, where he cut off the legs and threw the fragments into the river. He was simply transferred to Saint Quentin and allowed to continue his nefarious work without suffering the slightest punishment.
A brothel called the "Abbey" was instituted in the papal city of Avignon under the patronage of Queen Joanna of Naples. It was regulated by strict rules after the model of religious houses, and none but good Christians were admitted. Jews and Infidels were not permitted to enter; so sacred an institution was not to be "corrupted" or "contaminated." To maintain its strictly religious air, it was closed on Good Friday and Easter. Its women were housed in cloister-like buildings, adjoining the churches, which are still commonly spoken of as "abbeys." What a commentary on religion as a means of moral uplift, when the prostitute can ply her trade but not when it interferes with her religious duties!
Pope Julius II instituted a similar brothel in Rome, and the foundation prospered under the patronage of Leo X and Clement VII. Part of the proceeds were devoted to providing for the comfort of the Holy Sisters of the Order of St. Mary Magdalene. By the time of the Reformation it was estimated that there were more than 100,000 prostitutes in London, mainly supported by ecclesiastics. [*40]
When brothels were forbidden in the City of London, prostitution was carried on close to the palaces of the high bishops, who not only had jurisdiction over but profited substantially from them. So notorious were these enterprises that the women inmates were called "Winchester Geese." In Shakespeare's Henry VI, Humphrey, Duke of Gloster, reproached the Bishop of Winchester with "Thou that giv'st whores indulgences to sin." In 1321, Edward II approved the sale of a lupinar to a cardinal who evidently considered it a profitable investment for sacerdotal funds. In Antwerp, even today, it is stated on excellent authority, the prostitutes of the regular brothels proceed in a body on certain feast days to the churches, carrying candles which they dedicate to the Holy Virgin, fervently praying to her for the success of their affairs.
In Eastern Islam, where there are more males than females, the young girls who remain unmarried and offer themselves to men are looked upon as public benefactors.
Sacred prostitution was incumbent upon all women and existed throughout Europe, Asia and Northern Africa. Religious prostitutes were called "servants of God," and even as late as the second century sacred prostitution was still an honorable practice for women of good birth who felt the "call" to live the "divine life under the influence of divine inspiration."
In India and elsewhere, women who failed to bear children by their husbands visited the temples to perform fertility "rites." They remained overnight at the temples, where they were visited by priests who impersonated the terrible god. They returned home the following day, firmly convinced that a miracle had occurred -- that the god had condescended to cohabit with them and that they would have a child.
The Eskimo women think themselves happy if one of their "holy" men cohabits with them.
In Phoenician temples, women prostituted themselves for hire in the belief that they thereby won the favor of the divinity. Among the Amorites it was a law that "she who was about to marry should sit in fornication seven days by the gate." In Lydia all girls were obliged to act as prostitutes before marriage.
Cutting off the hair of girls who become nuns probably had its origin in the custom which prevailed in Byblos, where the surrender of a woman's virginity
to a "stranger" could be atoned for by shaving off her hair. When girls become Catholic nuns, they are mystically married to the Divine Bridegroom.
At the memorial shrine of Al-Uzza at Mecca, it is the practice for women to offer themselves to the holy pilgrims. Children born of such unions are looked on as divinely blessed.
Among the Yezidis, a semi-Christian sect in Armenia, the priests who travel in itinerant groups select a "wife," if only for a day or two, at each place they stop at. The women who are chosen consider themselves lucky, because they are then regarded as having become holy.
Among the Ewe-speaking people of the Slave Coast, the business of the priestess of the god to whom she is dedicated is that of prostitution. The best-looking girls between the ages of ten and twelve are put in an institution where they remain for three years, learning the chants and dances peculiar to the worship of the gods and submitting themselves to the priests and the inmates of the male seminaries. Children born of such unions belong to the gods. In India, dancing girls are attached to a great many temples. They feel honored when the priests in charge select them for sexual enjoyment. Among the Veddas, if an adult female cannot get anyone to marry her, she may be dedicated to a free life in the name of Yellamma, who is their patron deity. Among many Semitic tribes, girls were "consecrated" to a goddess of prostitution such as Ishtar.
Religious Festivals and Sexual Promiscuity
Many of the religious festivals today are survivals of the belief, based upon sympathetic magic, that unrestrained sexual indulgence at harvest time increases the fertility of the land. During the yam festival, in Ashanti, the chief religious function of the year, the sexual behavior of the people is unrestrained. Sexual relations are freely indulged in by all attending, and no man is allowed to have intercourse with his wife. In Morocco and North Africa, the most solemn religious feasts are made occasions for sexual license and prostitution. During early Christian times, May Day was notoriously the occasion for sexual license.
Alphonse de Liguori declared that in some parts of Italy the celebration in honor of the Holy Virgin was utterly profane. He warned the participants to stay away from the sanctuaries during the festivals, "for on such occasions," he said, "the Devil gains more profit than the Blessed Virgin derives honor from it." In the same kind of celebration among the Portuguese of Brazil, the women celebrants have an orgiastic dance in which they sing: "Eu cago Fogo! Donna Maria quer lamber."
Among the North American Indians, sexual promiscuity was part of almost every religious ritual. Young women vied for the honor of having relations with the chief of the tribe. The Patagonians believe that drought and famine can be relieved by having their women offer themselves to the first strangers they meet. The prevalence of this custom to appease the anger of the gods has been definitely established by anthropological authorities. It was probably because of this belief that David's wives were to be given to his neighbors for sexual enjoyment in order to atone for his many crimes. Nakedness and the exposure of the female body has also been considered pleasing to the gods. According to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the Manichaeans regarded rain as the effect of amatory excitement on the part of the Deity.
Among the Peruvians, festival celebrations are part of the religious ceremony. After severe fasts and abstinence, men and women are assembled naked and at a given signal run a race and every man cohabits with the woman he catches.
In Central America, among the Pipeles, on the night that seeds are planted, certain persons are especially appointed to perform the sexual act at the exact moment the seed is deposited in the ground. Children born of these unions are regarded as possessing divine gifts and are accounted great prophets.
John XII was Pope from 955 to 964. On 963, Holy Roman Emperor Otto I summoned a council, levelling charges that John had ordained a deacon in a stable, consecrated a 10-year-old boy as bishop of Todi, converted the Lateran Palace into a brothel, raped female pilgrims in St. Peter's, stolen church offerings, drank toasts to the devil, and invoked the aid of Jove, Venus, and other pagan gods when playing dice. He was deposed, but returned as pope when Otto left Rome, maiming and mutilating all who had opposed him. On 964, he was apparently beaten by the husband of a woman with which he was having an affair, dying three days later without receiving confession or the sacraments
Biblical Moral Philosophy.
"Moral philosophy" essentially asks the question of "What is good and evil?" Unfortunately a Biblical faithist generally takes the view that the Biblical definition of their deity is the definition of "absolute goodness;" this of course affects their attitudes and behaviour, and from a humanist perspective, the definition of the Biblical deity is clearly that of a psychopathic and genocial bigot. Thus unfortunately when the Biblical faithist uses the terms "good and evil" these terms have a completely different definition to that of the average humanist.
The prophesied coming of a theocratic and genocidal "King of Kings."
The idea of a fictional Messiah who will return to earth, wage a genocidal war against all non believers and impose himself as the theocratic (god government) dictator of dictators (i.e., a king of kings) of humankind would be a humanistic definition of a person who was absolutely evil, and yet, according to a recent poll, almost half the US adult population believe that this will happen and thus one must presume that they would consider this kind of genocidal behaviour to be "good."
As Nietzsche argued:
"So long as the priest, that professional denier, calumniator and poisoner of life, is accepted as a higher variety of man, there can be no answer to the question, What is truth? Truth has already been stood on its head....Wherever the influence of theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the concepts “true” and “false” are forced to change places"
And of course one could substitute the terms "good and evil" for "true and false;" whatever an acolyte of the Biblical god considers to be evil or good, these definitions would probably be almost the opposite of a humanist's defintion of such terms.
When we consider the executionable offences of the 613 laws of Moses, these include blasphemy, heresy, idolatry, the worship of competing tribal deities, harlotry, homosexuality and working on the Sabbath; all very serious criminal offences under the primitive Law of this tribe of Bronze Age Egyptian slaves; all offences which I am personally, unashamedly guilty of myself.
Women who are found not to be virgins when they are given in marriage are also to be executed, as are women who are rape victims and who did not cry out during the rape (or even if they did cry out but nobody heard them). It is completely bizarre that a modern educated literate person of the 21st century would choose to revere the barbaric war gods of the Bible and the Koran when there are so many other much nicer deities; but of course most Biblical and Islamic faithists do not "choose" their faith; most are hypnotised and indoctrinated in childhood; and the fear of eternal hell for rejecting the evil gods of the Bible often stays with them throughout their entire adult life. Another factor of course is that the Jesus and Mohammad businesses are multi-billion dollar industries, and thus the professional hypnotists (i.e., the clergy) have a vested interest in maintaining and expanding their salvation business.
A worthy "god" or "goddess" would have to be extremely sexy and erotic to be worthy of devotion, but the Biblical and Islamic religions have turned this view upside down.
These are not very sexy images, of these representatives and promoters of genocidal war gods. I don't feel in the least bit aroused or erotic; I just feel sad looking at them. I certainly would consider having to spend eternity with such persons to be a horrific idea.
The traditional image of a god or goddess, prior to the prevailence of Islamic and Christianity was of a rather "sexy" god, not a sexually repressed bigot of a god. A god or goddess should be sexy, otherwise they are simply not "divine (godlike / goddess-like)."
Modern Satanism (adversarialism).
while the term "the satan" in biblical Hebrew simply means "enemy" or "adversary," in Islam and Christianity it has come to mean "enemy deity;" i.e., the enemy deity of the evil gods of the Bible and the Koran. Since the gods of the Bible and the Koran are diabolically evil, subhuman and genocidal gods, then clearly it would seem to me that any decent human loving person would surely wish to define themselves as the enemies of these rather nasty gods. Thus when I define myself as a Satanist; I (and indeed most other Satanists) are merely identifying themselves as an "enemy deity" to the hateful Biblical and Islamic gods and their utterly anti-human laws and teachings.
If the Islamic and Christian definition of Satan exists (i.e., an enemy deity or deities), I expect that She would be pleased that we attempt to personify Her and take up her War against the evil gods of the Bible and the Koran. Perhaps She will reward us with 72 sacred sluts in the afterlife? :-)
On a more serious note however, a lifetime spent as a psychonaut, having used a variety of shamanic psychoactives over almost 4 decades, it is my personal perspective that there are intelligences in other parallel dimensions, some of whom are of the ilk of the rather nasty war gods of the Koran and the Bible, and thus it is not that I reject the existence of such subhuman gods; I merely take a position of personified opposition.
The Universe as a computer generated reality simulation.
If the simulated reality hypothesis is correct (which I suspect it is), then there are two central purposes of virtual reality worlds; the major purpose appears to be erotic and romantic interaction with others and VR (Virtual Reality) erotic exploration; however there is also another purpose, and this is war gaming. If these two purposes are a reflection of the purposes of the programmers of our universe simulation, the implications of this are rather disturbing, since it may well be that "war, violence, cruelty, tyranny and slavery" may well be a major purpose for sadistic and malevolent beings in other dimensions.
Neopagan Revivalism. The Rebellion of the Angels.
The modern Neopagan revival movement, often called the "New Age" movement essentially seems to be a reaction and rebellion against Christianity; probably only a tinyminority of Neopagans are materialists / atheists; it is essentially rebellion of those who are "spiritualists" against the evil and genocidal war gods of the Bible and the Koran. The main modern mentor of Neopaganism is not Jesus but Aleister Crowley. It is not about atheism, it is simply a rebellion against the hateful war gods of a more primitive and savage age.
Unfortunately since the religious fanatics of the war gods of the Bible and the Koran are entirely militant; it is unlikely that they will be eradicated without war itself. The other alternative is the slow process of Westernising the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic world, the secularisation of government and education, and the propaganda war against these hateful religions, but we seem to be a long way from completion in this respect. The enemies of love and human freedom exist on both sides of the Islamic and Christian divide, but at least in the West a process of secularisation is taking place.
In the war between Islam and the West, this is not "purely" a war between Christians and Muslims; it is also a war between the secular (non religious) West and Christianity and Islam. There can only be one ultimate victor.
Rivers of blood shall flow.
"So long as the priest, that professional denier, calumniator and poisoner of life, is accepted as a higher variety of man, there can be no answer to the question, What is truth? Truth has already been stood on its head when the obvious attorney of mere emptiness is mistaken for its representative....
Upon this theological instinct I make war: I find the tracks of it everywhere. Whoever has theological blood in his veins is shifty and dishonourable in all things. The pathetic thing that grows out of this condition is called faith: in other words, closing one’s eyes upon one’s self once for all, to avoid suffering the sight of incurable falsehood. People erect a concept of morality, of virtue, of holiness upon this false view of all things; they ground good conscience upon faulty vision; they argue that no other sort of vision has value any more, once they have made theirs sacrosanct with the names of “God,” “salvation” and “eternity.” I unearth this theological instinct in all directions: it is the most widespread and the most subterranean form of falsehood to be found on earth. Whatever a theologian regards as true must be false: there you have almost a criterion of truth. His profound instinct of self-preservation stands against truth ever coming into honour in any way, or even getting stated. Wherever the influence
of theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the concepts “true” and “false” are forced to change places: whatever is most damaging to life is there called “true,” and whatever exalts it, intensifies it, approves it, justifies it and makes it triumphant is there called “false.”...
" Nietzche. "The Antichrist."http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm
Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men,
"They shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire." 17:16-17
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
the unbelieving, .....shall be cast into the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
"There is a Magical operation of maximum importance: the Initiation of a New Aeon. When it becomes necessary to utter a Word, the whole Planet must be bathed in blood. Before man is ready to accept the Law of Thelema, the Great War must be fought. This Bloody Sacrifice is the critical point of the World-Ceremony of the Proclamation of Horus, the Crowned and conquering Child, as Lord of the Aeon."