Religion Sucks

Well a post about religion from an atheist that states religion sucks - no surprise there. Now before the Muslims, Buddhists, and all the others get too excited let me say that it should have said "Christian Religion Sucks" so don't be issuing no jihads or stuff like that. I don't want to be blown up by some psychotic person thinking there are 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven.

Anyway, I was talking with a friend and they asked what pushed me into atheism. My usual joke about my father being Satan was lost; and countered with the notion to believe in Satan you have to believe in God. So I was kind of fucked; and instead of walking away at this point I decided to dig my own verbal grave a little deeper and say: "Well all the Christian religions have different standards yet they all supposedly at one point in history must have started with the same Bible. So instead of picking the wrong religion I'm playing it safe and not picking any. And if I get proven wrong and I have to answer to God when I die I'm going to explain that I was playing safe and didn't want to piss him off by picking some religion that meant nothing to him." To which my friend asked: "What problem do you have with us Catholics?"

And that is where this post is going - answering that question. But not just a problem with Catholics but also all the other Christian religions that are all reading the same book supposedly.

OK the Bible I'll be using as a comparison is the Authorized King James Version (AKJV). Not because it is better than all the others but it would seem most Christian religions either use it, have used it, or at least accept it. Anyone has an issue with that choice go dig up King James and tell him; I just picked it because of its universal appeal to all Christian religions.

But I'll start with the Catholic religion. A Pope? Praying to Mary? Praying to little Jesus'? Purgatory? I'll be honest with you I think the whole Catholic religion is pretty much fucked up. Whether it started that way I don't know. But if it didn't somewhere along the line it got really fucked up.

OK. The Pope. Where is he mentioned in the Bible? According to the Catholics he is mentioned in the book of Matthew:

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar–jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19)

This little bit puts Simon (also known as Peter) as the first Pope; because of the "upon this rock I will build my church" bit. But that does not necessarily say that Peter is a Pope. If you build upon something the something that you build upon is the foundation. So Jesus could have just meant "The faith that Peter had should be the foundation of the church."

So it doesn't really clear it up. So I asked a Catholic if there were any other references to a Pope in the Bible. There was two references given:

"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs." (John 21:15)

"And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." (Acts 15:6-12)

No. No. No. and one more time no. "Feed my lambs." and 'Peter rising up and the others all listening' does not mean Peter is a Pope. It just doesn't. Jesus didn't say "Feed my lambs Pope Peter." nor did he really put any emphasis on Peter being better suited to feed the lambs than the other apostles. And as for the 'Peter rose up' bit; that just means Peter was the one they were listening to. Congress listens (sometimes) when President Obama speaks but it doesn't mean they are going to call him Pope Obama and start a religion based on that.

I'm not buying the whole Pope bit one little bit.

Praying to Mary. Why? Oh that is right because the Catholics think she died a virgin. So did Mary have kids after Jesus? Sure she did. Joseph was a carpenter - he always had wood. Actually the Bible says she had kids too:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matthew 13:55-56)

"While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him." (Matthew 12:46)

Back to the Catholic friend who dismisses both sections because "it does not say Mary was the mother." Not the greatest argument seems it doesn't say Peter is Pope; but it is just accepted as that because it hints at it. And whether Mary had other kids is only a small part. The Catholic religion seems to forget the bit in the Bible which mentions not praying to the dead:

"Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God." (Leviticus 19:31)

"And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people." (Leviticus 20:6)

Both sections are supposedly God talking. And both use the term spirits. God is not talking about some alcoholic beverages here he is clearly on about dead people; and more importantly having nothing to do with them. And let us not forget that Mary was merely a woman. OK she may have been chosen to give birth to Jesus but at the end of the day she was still just a woman. And that is the 2nd commandment - at least it is if your not Catholic:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6).

So the fact of whether Mary had other kids and dead is a moot point. Because the 2nd commandment says don't bow down to to any image or likeness of anything that is Heaven or is on Earth. So Mary is out.

As a minor point the Catholic Bible actually re-wrote the 10 commandments to allow Mary and all the crucifixes in to the Catholic church.

The ten commandments of the AKJV are:

  • 01. I am the LORD thy God...Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
  • 02. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
  • 03. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
  • 04. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
  • 05. Honor thy father and thy mother.
  • 06. Thou shalt not kill.
  • 07. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
  • 08. Thou shalt not steal.
  • 09. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
  • 10. Though shalt not covet.

The ten commandments of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Bible used by Catholics are:

  • 01. I, the LORD, am your God...You shall not have other gods besides me.
  • 02. You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain.
  • 03. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
  • 04. Honor your father and your mother.
  • 05. You shall not kill.
  • 06. You shall not commit adultery.
  • 07. You shall not steal.
  • 08. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  • 09. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
  • 10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house.

Because they fucked around and basically took the 2nd commandment out; they had to add one at the end. So instead of it just saying do not covet the Catholic church broke it into 2 and mention the neighbor's wife and the neighbor's house. So even the basis of Christianity, the ten commandments cannot be agreed on between Christian religions.

And finally Purgatory the last stop for Catholics before Heaven and Hell. And it gets mentioned in the Bible? No. My Catholic friend pointed me to 1st Corinthians for the biblical explanation of Purgatory:

"If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." (1st Corinthians 3:15)

Which really doesn't say squat about Purgatory. But it is deemed, by the Catholics, that it means Purgatory is a place we go to in order to have some of our sins cleansed from us. But that is just one verse taken out of context. Read 1st Corinthians 3:10-15 and it shows that it is on about Paul building the Corinthian church and another building upon his work. Not a thing to do with sins being forgiven because the local priest was paid to say a mass.

And that is it for the Catholics. There is a ton more wrong with the Catholics, as I see it, but the points mentioned are the ones that stick out for me.

Next the Jehovah Witnesses. What is wrong with them? Disfellowship and not accepting blood; and the oh so famous prophecies of Armageddon. That is the two points that stick out for me. I'm not even going to mention their founder, Charles Russell, being buried in a pyramid right near a Freemason lodge.

Disfellowship. The Jehovah Witnesses disfellowship (read as kick someone out) when they don't follow the rules. The Watchtower magazine describes disfellowshipping as:

""disfellowshiping" is what Jehovah's Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer.... a simple "Hello" to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?" (Watchtower 1981 September 15 pp.22,25)

Which is where in the Bible? Absolutely nowhere. Actually Jesus himself says the exact opposite; in the book of Matthew:

"And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." (Matthew 9:10-12)

Jesus comes to Earth to save mankind and is about as holy as you can get; and sits and eats with sinners because they are the ones that need saving. Makes sense really. If you want to convert everyone to Christianity why worry about those that already believe; concentrate on the ones that do not believe.

And how do Jehovah Witnesses decide who is good and bad when they knock on a door early on a Saturday morning? How do they know the person behind that door is not an 'unrepentent wrongdoer'? They don't. They preach that they want to spread the true message of God/Jehovah and that is why they go banging on peoples doors; but when one of their own flock slips up instead of helping them back on to the right path they turn their backs.  Sounds very elitist if you ask me. But Charles Russell cannot be blamed because the Jehovah Witnesses didn't start disfellowshipping people until 1952; which seems odd considering the Jehovah Witness religion was founded in the 1870s. But I suppose someone thought seems the Catholics had excommunication they better get something like it started to keep the riff-raff out.

But what if the disfellowshipped person is a family member? Not to worry the Jehovah Witnesses have that covered. In the appendix of the Jehovah Witness book entitled "Keep Yourselves In God's Love" it says:

"What if a relative is disfellowshipped? In such a case, the close bond between family members can pose a real test of loyalty. How should we treat a disfellowshipped relative? We cannot here cover every situation that may arise, but let us focus on two basic ones.

In some instances, the disfellowshipped family member may still be living in the same home as part of the immediate household. Since his being disfellowshipped does not sever the family ties, normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue. Yet, by his course, the individual has chosen to break the spiritual bond between him and his believing family. So loyal family members can no longer havespiritual fellowship with him. For example, if the disfellowshipped one is present, he would not participate when the family gets together to study the Bible. However, if the disfellowshipped one is a minor child, the parents are still responsible to instruct and discipline him. Hence, loving parents may arrange to conduct a Bible study with the child.* -Proverbs 6:20-22; 29:17.

In other cases, the disfellowshipped relative may be living outside the immediate family circle and home. Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum. Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative not living at home. Rather, loyalty to Jehovah and his organization moves. them to uphold the Scriptural arrangement of disfellowshipping. Their loyal course has the best interests of the wrongdoer at heart and may help him to benefit from the discipline received.* -Hebrews 12:11."

So shun your family. Maybe read the 5th commandment if it is your mother or father - just in case. The biggest bit in all that bullshit that got me is the bit which reads:

"Loyal Christian family members do not look for excuses to have dealings with a disfellowshipped relative not living at home. Rather, loyalty to Jehovah and his organization moves."

Maybe after reading that the Jehovah Witnesses can read 1st Timothy:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1st Timothy 5:8)

I understand the loyalty to Jehovah if you are a Jehovah Witness. But they say to turn your back on your family for the Jehovah Witness organization? Seriously what the fuck sort of religion tells you to choose an organization over your own family? Perhaps one that would let a family member die rather than give blood.

My second, personal, problem with the Jehovah Witnesses. Not giving, or receiving, blood. We don't live in the dark ages anymore; all blood is tested to keep out disease. OK the occasional disease might slip through the net. But they don't stop using toilet seats because of the disease on them. Any biblical reference to the no blood? Well, actually, for a change there is; sort of:

"Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." (Leviticus 17:12)

Well that is the bit the Jehovah Witnesses use. Admittedly it does say that you should not eat blood - so no vampires in the Jehovah Witnesses - but it doesn't really say that you cannot have a blood transfusion. Even reading the verses all around that verse never mention transfusion just the eating of blood.

But the weird bit of this is that Jehovah Witnesses can do dialysis.

"And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust." (Leviticus 17:13)

That, to me, says if blood leaves a body it should be covered with dust. Dialysis does have the blood leave the body; it is then cleaned and put back in the body. So why is that different from a blood transfusion? It isn't. Just that the Jehovah Witnesses have an alternative to blood transfusions; as of yet they have no alternative to dialysis. Let us not forget that Jehovah Witnesses not accepting blood transfusions didn't start until 1945. When something comes along to replace dialysis I'm sure the Jehovah Witnesses will outlaw that too.

How many times have the Jehovah Witnesses predicted Armageddon? Quite a few. Not a happy bunch of people really. 1914 was the first prediction which came and went. Then 1915,then 1918, 1920, 1925, 1932, 1941, and finally 1975. At that point it appears that they just gave up trying to predict the end of the world. Either that or they finally read the Bible:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:35-36)

I couldn't resist mentioning Charles Russell; the founder of The Jehovah Witnesses. Charles Russell, who founded the Watchtower Society (Jehovah Witnesses), was of the Russell bloodline, which also founded the infamous Skull and Bones Society at Yale University; and Charles Russell himself was a 32nd degree (or 33rd degree depending on source) Freemason.

Talking of Freemasons is a great opportunity to switch attention to the Mormon religion. The Mormons are obviously very special as for them the Bible is not the end; they have The Book Of Mormon which many non-Mormons refer to jokingly as The Bible: Part 2.

Which is the first problem really. Why let Armageddon and then eternal bliss be the end; when you can add so much more? Actually the Book Of Mormon doesn't really add to the end it merely screws around with the history of the Bible. The Book Of Mormon covers 2600 BC to 421 AD; and is allegedly the writings of various prophets. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormons, was told where to find a collection of ancient writings - which make up the book. Smith was 17 at the time; and was given this information from an angel of God called Moroni. Before anyone else thinks it I already checked. There is no connection between Moroni and the modern day use of moron.

Joseph Smith is considered by the Mormons as a prophet; up there with Moses and Elijah. But in reality Joseph Smith was a really dodgy character. It was him that introduced polygamy to the Mormon church. Why did he do this? So he could have 34 wives. Seriously, what was this guy thinking? His wives at time of marriage ranged from 14 years old to 56 years old. And Joseph Smith did it under the guise of populating the Earth; which was supposedly a revelation from God himself:

"But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds." (Doctorine & Covenants 132:55)

"And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." (Doctorine & Covenants 132:62-63)

Well then. God said it to Joseph Smith so it must be true. Maybe God thought about what he said in the Bible:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1st Corinthians 7:2)

Actually there are a ton of references to monogamy:

  • 1st Corinthians 7:1-40
  • Deuteronomy 17:17
  • 1st Timothy 3:1-16
  • Mark 10:7-8
  • Matthew 19:9
  • Leviticus 18:18

To name but a few. But God forgot all those references just to let Joseph Smith get his end away with 34 wives; and try and populate the world with millions of Mormons.

To be fair, most of the Mormon church does not agree with this practice.

That is just 3 of the supposedly 'Christian' religions. And then each of those 3 have their own splinters; so it is no wonder that Christianity is failing. It is failing because mankind has gone through and bastardized the Bible to meet different standards.

Don't consider this a rant against religion; or a persuasive tactic to say that all religion is wrong - it is merely my opinion on Christian religion. If they want to fix Christianity they should all band together, find the earliest Bible, and all use the same Bible and all follow the same rules.

As Lotto, in the movie 8 Mile, said: "I'll end this with a fuck you but have a nice day." Which kind of sums up my opinion of Christianity, It is not my cup of tea but each to his own and all that happy horse shit.


Post a Comment