Sunday, 15 November 2015

Christian Morality

What is the Bible’s view of sex?  Is belief in a creator reasonable? 
The first question is the heading on the front of the pamphlet, which reads THE WATCHTOWER ANNOUNCES JEHOVAH'S KINGDOM and on the top right-hand corner reads NOVEMBER 1, 2011.  There is a picture between the writing on the front cover of the pamphlet.  It shows two well-dressed people.  On the left is a woman holding an umbrella, a man is on the right.  If we turn the page, we inevitably get to the contents.  The top of the page reads:
3.  Does the answer matter?
4.  Ten questions about sex unanswered
8.  Why live by the bible’s standards?
Then further, down the page we see the following words:

10.  The Bible changes lives

12.  Did you know?

13.  Keys to family happiness

-cultivate spirituality as a couple

16.  Learn from God’s word

-how do God’s laws benefit us?

21.  Draw close to God-fulfilling our obligation to God

29.  Our readers ask…

30.  For young people rescued- from a fiery furnace!


18.  How can fathers stay close to their sons?

22.  When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?

-what the clay documents really show.

On the next page (3) is a painting of a woman with her arms folded on the right-hand side, there is writing on the bottom third of the page but that is irrelevant for the time being.  Towards the right of the woman, we see the headline “Does the answer matter?” reads:

I was ten years old when I began going out with boys.  At first, we would hold hands and kiss.  Soon, though, we were touching intimate body parts and experimenting with various sexual activities.

It started well enough but when we get to the part where is says: “experimenting with sexual activities”; the language is clearly written very carefully as its function is to entice a great number of people to Christian morality, as we shall soon see.  What an odd phrase to use, “sexual activities”, it appears to me the writers of this pamphlet were very weary indeed of what to write, every word is vitally important, this is also true of a propagandist.  Language is as important as the rampant lying, misinformation and subversion of the truth to a propagandist.  However, getting back to the pamphlet itself, it is the writing underneath this so-called story where the keen observer sees the simplicity of the language, and is easily able to detect what sort of audience it is aimed at:

Would it surprise you to learn that Sarah was brought up in a religiously devout household?  Her parents tried to raise her to live by the Bible’s moral standards.

Earlier I spoke briefly of propaganda but not in reference to the pamphlet itself.  Now I do speak of propaganda in direct reference to this pamphlet.  For the first time in the pamphlet we hear words such as “religiously devout” and the “Bible’s moral standards”, so by their reckoning, if you are brought up by the Bible’s moral standards there is no reason for you to sleep with multiple partners or have an interest in sex at a young age.  The propaganda I speak of is clear for all to see.  Let us take a brief look at “the Bible’s moral standards”.  I do not wish to quote from the Bible or any other source save for the pamphlet itself but allow me to make some references to the Bible.  Noah’s Floods and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, are not doubt some of the most famous passages in the whole of the Old Testament.  Noah’s Flood is a flood to end all floods; a flood to end all life, it is one of the gravest crimes committed in the whole of the Bible, if not the greatest, for it is harder to imagine a graver crime in practically wiping out the whole of humanity.  The most disturbing aspect of this holocaust is the person or indeed, the divine being responsible for such a heinous act is God himself.  It puts every serial killer combined to great shame; it puts every crime of Hitler, Stalin and Mao as minor offences, they are unable to compete with utter destruction of human and indeed animal life God is responsible for.  All this and we are told are “the Bible’s moral standards”.  Another contention for one of the most ghastly crimes in the Old Testament is the barbaric destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and again who is responsible for this monstrous crime?  Why, God, of course.  So if God was to rule the earth, as these people believe he will, the people of New York had better behave themselves for if just one individual acts in such a way that God believes is unacceptable, will he then raise New York to the ground?  Would the Supreme Being be justified in killing every man, woman and child because a single individual or a small number of individuals have acted contrary to God’s laws?  Again, these are “the Bible’s moral standards”.

So the combination of simplistic language and propaganda in the pamphlet are handy tools for the writers of this booklet to use.  It targets a specific vulnerable group, and that is the key.  For somebody that is both educated and cultural, such things they would laugh off, and that is the intention.  In this way, they function the same way as the tabloid press do in Britain: to teach people how to think.  It is difficult to teach people how to think when they already have the capacity to think for themselves.  Just like the bully who is able to dominate and bully his wife, he must choose his victim carefully.

The pamphlet gets more interesting as we turn over the page, and the headline at the top of the page reads:


I will not go all through ten questions for that would be tedious indeed, so I will just pick two or three questions and discuss them afterwards:

Does the Bible approve of a man and woman living together if they are not already married?

Answer: the Bible clearly states, “God will judge fornicators”.  The Greek word fornification, porneia, broadly refers to the misuse of sexual organs of those who are not married to each other.  Therefore, it would be wrong in God’s eyes for a couple to live together even if they intended to get married later.

Even if a couple are deeply in love, God still requires they marry before enjoying sex.  God created us with the capacity to love.  God’s primary quality is love.  Therefore, he has good reason for insisting that sex be enjoyed only by married couples.
Is it wrong to have an abortion?

Answer: life is sacred to god, and he views an embryo as a distinct, living being.  God stated that a person be called to account for injuring an unborn child.  So, in his eyes, killing an unborn child is murder. 
Does God Approve of Homosexuality?

Answer: the Bible clearly condemns fornication, which includes homosexual relations.  While the Bible is definite about the disapproval of that lifestyle, we also know that “God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten son, in order that anyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life”

Even though they do not condone homosexual relations, true Christians show kindness to all people.  God wants us to honour men of all sorts.  Therefore, genuine Christians are not homophobic.

There are many points to be made here.  I may have used the device William Blake uses in attacking Swedenborg, but a better discussion and analysis is required here.  I kept to my promise and only quoted three questions out of ten, along with their answers.  However, I must add the three questions and answers are sufficient.  It is only sensible that I address the former questions then onto the latter, this prevents any confusion.  Just a brief reminder then, question 3, asked the following: “Does the Bible approve of a man and a woman living together if they are not legally married?”

I have left out direct quotes from the Bible, which I believe are unnecessary here.  “God will judge fornicators”, is the answer to the question.  A “fornicator” will be judged, it is clear what the Bible’s view on this issue, or people say God’s view?  Sex outside marriage is forbidden under any circumstances, “even if they intend to get married later”.  It appears, to me, in the 21st century, only a select few could take these things seriously.  What runs through the Bible and other religious texts are such examples as these: that people are told how to live their lives by somebody or something that has never had any proof of existence.  These people live by what they call the moral code of the Bible.  So if a man or a woman had led a life where they have had numerous sexual partners, and never married, and are content with their lives, then all is well and good.  However, if such people turn to the Bible for guidance, suddenly they have to be told by their divine creator, no, not their mother or father, but God, that such actions are forbidden.  Of the Ten Commandments, we are told murder is wrong, unless you are God of course.  Therefore, some person that has murdered many people, during a break of his murderous activity he decides to read the Bible, he sees that murder is wrong, so he stops it.  Because preachers of the Bible would have it, we are all immoral so we need the Bible to teach us to be ethical and moral.  Firstly, it would help if would help if the Bible is ethical and moral, which is clearly is not.  There is no question people are against government interfering into their own lives but for them it is perfectly acceptable to be told by an imaginary being.  For it begs the question, how can one think for themselves when they need the Bible to tell them everything what to do and what not to do?  This is why Christianity is such a handy tool for governments of different varieties.  If  a number of individuals need a book to tell them how to live their life, how to be moral, what is good and bad then it would be necessary to go to church and forget about the brutality of your own government; just pray and see what God brings for tomorrow.  Religion is a government’s dream

Going back to question 3, the pamphlet-in the second paragraph says the following:

God created us with the capacity to love.  God’s primary quality is love.  Therefore, he has good reason for insisting that sex be enjoyed only by married couples.

So we are told in this pamphlet it was God who created us; as if it was factually proven, it is quite extraordinary really.  If it was very clear that God did in fact, create man it would be a very queer thing to do.  Because or at least as everyone should know, that humans evolved from their ancestors so it is quite inconceivable God created man.  In fact, one could argue Charles Darwin’s studies prove the non-existence of God but I refute that.  For nobody can prove something that does not exist.  If I say a giant monster exists in the form of Darwin’s beard, nobody could prove its inexistence; it would be impossible to prove.  However, one thing is clear: God did not create man, for how could he when human existence evolved from other animals?  Unless of course, firstly he created bacteria, jellyfish, dinosaurs, mammals and so on.  Even so, it is clear man and indeed woman were not created, but evolved, that they were created is a myth fabricated by many people.  Some of this nonsense is taught in schools; it should not be.  Imagine, if schools taught that Martin Luther king Junior was a white man who preached violence at every given opportunity?  No, I do not think anybody can, but people would start to believe it. 

In continuing the answer to question 3 of the pamphlet, the first part of the sentence reads, as we have seen, “it was God who created us”, but the second part of the sentence is even more astonishing, “with the capacity to love”.

In 1945, when Hitler shot himself, did the surviving Jews of the death chambers in Auschwitz, Belsen, Treblinka, Dachau, Buchenwald, Mauthausen and sachsenhausen, refer to Hitler as love?  If people were saying, “Hitler is love”, the response may be quite predictable, especially in places such as New York and Tel-Aviv.  There is a difference, two differences actually, between God and Hitler’s crimes.  God’s crimes are not factually documented, and would surprise many, myself included, if God did such a thing, let alone exist.  Hitler’s crimes are factually documented; such horrors happened.  The second point with God is there were no survivors to tell their story of the horrors, even though it is a fictional story.  Of Hitler’s victims, many lived to tell the world what they endured which makes any denial of the death and torture camps as obscene as saying “God created us with the capacity to love”.

“God’s primary quality is love”, is the next line of the pamphlet in response to question three.  This goes a lot further than just saying “God has the capacity to love”, Hitler has the capacity to love, or rather did, one may say that and even get away with it but to say Hitler’s primary quality is love, the person uttering such nonsense could and should not be taken seriously again.  To say God’s primary quality is love is to say this Supreme Being’s biggest and best quality is love.  Yet people reading the Bible believe this to be the case.  Imagine an A-level student studying Othello, the tragedy written by William Shakespeare, countless times other characters in the play often refer to the villain in the drama as “honest”, yet he is anything but honest.  He is a perpetual liar, a murderer and much else besides.  He even murders his own wife, Aemilia, and his outrageous lies prompt Othello to murder his wife, Desdemona, then finally take his own life.  Would the student believe Iago to be honest because the other characters in the play say he is honest?  If she or he did, and made reference to it in their exam, essay or presentation, they may find themselves disappointed with their marks.  However, for those with religious convictions who forever study the Bible and appear to read little else, they will always say absurdities like “God’s primary quality is love”, despite the actions of the Supreme Being, which clearly contradict this foolish analysis.

Let us turn to question six.  The question was “Is it wrong to have an abortion?”  The answer we get is laughable but we must proceed.  For a brief reminder then, the first sentence of the answer is:

Life is sacred to God, and he views even an embryo as a distinct, living being.

I would first like to tackle the first part of the sentence, “life is sacred to God”, I think the attentive reader knows where this is going.  We have gone from “God has the capacity to love” to “life to God is sacred”, it clearly is not.  Each of these statements are incorrect.  On the other hand it could be argued there is some merit in the last statement for it does not say all life to God is sacred, just life, so perhaps he picks and chooses, but that too is also incorrect because in God’s holocaust he targeted all life forms : men, children, women, animals, the elderly and so on, so life to God is not sacred; nothing could be further from the truth. These are simple arguments even a child could grasp and argue.  The astonishing thing is the followers of Jehovah are not a dozen people, a few hundred, tens of thousands, or even several hundred million but well over in excess of one billion people follow the Christian faith.  True, many have been truly brainwashed and no amount of education and enlightenment can change that, in fact many are well extremely educated.  I challenge any individual to find a book that is more genocidal than the Old Testament, nobody will be able to live up to the challenge because no such book exists, and no book could exist.  Murder, mass murder, sodomy, rape, pillage, incest, and the abuse of every kind are common themes in the Bible.

            “And he views even an embryo as a distinct living being”; this, of course, concludes the second part of the sentence.  God, oh the almighty God, views and embryo as a living being, how many, one may wonder, embryos were there during the great holocaust, did anyone count? Clearly not.  However, what about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?  Did anyone count the embryo’s there God had destroyed?  Yet, despite this, our glorious creator, see an embryo as a distinct living being, well there is nothing extraordinary in that statement for God does the same as the embryo as he does to a born child, their murder on his say so, clearly means nothing to him.  Of course here we are talking about abortion, women must not, so we are told, have abortions, because embryos are akin to living beings.  So therefore, a woman, a young girl or whoever decides to have an abortion is a murderer.  They have murdered their unborn child.  Well in fact, they have not; the person carrying out the abortion is clearly the murderer, so by the Bible’s standards, all these doctors carrying out these abortions are murderers. Clearly, the girl is complicit in the murder.  Abortion is an issue, which has been raging many years, and there is no doubt it will be raging in years to come.  However, the very idea that an embryo is akin to is a living person is just an argument peddled by political and intellectual thugs in order to win the debate.  The argument will clearly not be won when people claiming those who carry out abortions are murderers.  If people are of the opinion, and many are, that those things, which are bad for you ought to be banned, then surely the Bible ought to be at the top of the agenda.

God stated that a person would be called to account for injuring an unborn child.  Therefore, in his eyes, killing an unborn child is murder. 

Therefore, “God stated that a person would be called to account for injuring an unborn child”.  If we are to be really clear about this it is very unlikely God said anything of the kind but let us pretend for the rest of the essay that God does exist and everything he says in the Bible is factual.  At this point, it must be said the Supreme Being himself has not been held to account for injuring all those unborn children, I think the word hypocrisy comes into play here.  To be fair to God he did not injure all those unborn children, he just drowned all those women carrying their unborn children and thus murdering their unborn child.  So who will judge God for his grave crimes?  A question not likely to be answered anytime soon.  However, the next point must be made.  Under no circumstances must a woman never have an abortion?  Just take several examples.  Suppose a woman is pregnant, her partner is a violent man who is abusive to women, he is an alcoholic who abuses children; the pregnant woman is a prostitute who lives on drugs and alcohol.  Does God believe such people should raise children in this environment?  Alternatively, take another case; a woman is pregnant who has always maintained she will torture her child slowly, first as a baby, then an infant, and so on.  That does not matter where God is concerned because according to him a female, under no circumstances, should never have an abortion. 

I would now like to move on to the final question.  This, I believe, is the most interesting of the three.  The question is brief and simple.  “Does God approve of homosexuality?” Again, I would like to look at the first sentence of the answer, which reads, “the Bible condemns fornification”, which includes homosexual relations.  I do not think you could have a clearer answer than the one given.  As we saw, only married couples, that are a man and a woman, are able to have sex in God’s world so homosexuals are not permitted the same rights as everybody else.  Thus, enter almighty God the bigot.  One of the biggest problems with the Bible and modern interpretation is that it was written hundreds of years ago, that is clear enough.  People who read the Bible religiously still believe the things God said is still relevant in today’s society.  In the mid-1960s, homosexuality (for men) was illegal in Britain; ten years later, it was not.  It is clear as the years pass people become more civilised and enlightened, as do entire nations.  Slavery was once deemed acceptable; now it is not.  Up until the early 1990s, it was legal for a man to rape his wife in the United States; now it is not.  During the First World War deserters in Britain were shot; now they are not, it goes on and on, nothing stays the same for too long.  Perhaps Saudi Arabia is the exception.  Everything changes, just like evolution, the changes are gradual but they are changes nonetheless.  I am sure if Jehovah were to write his updated version of the Bible, tomorrow he would have far more enlightened views on many issues.  People who take the Bible in its entirety literally are very dangerous people indeed. 

While the Bible is definite about God’s disapproval of that lifestyle, we also know that God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

When I read this answer, quoted above, I thought perhaps I was reading the answer to another question by mistake.  This could be translated as ‘God loved the world so much so therefore he was not homophobic’, because the people who wrote the pamphlet know full well that the people reading it may be homosexual themselves, therefore they have to add this extra bit of nonsense which has nothing to do with the question raised so they do not scare people off completely.  Clearly, as the years pass by people become more civilised and to oppose homosexuality is seen as an anathema in many western countries.  So extreme caution is required in tackling this sensitive area.  It is very clear then that the Bible disapproves of homosexuality.  Yet with the Bible, disapproving of such things is still seen by many as a beacon of enlightenment.  The question needs to be asked: what right does anybody have to tell others what to do as long as they are not bringing harm to anybody?  Perhaps, and this argument has often been made, the rest of society do not wish to endure their vile lifestyle choice, and pass on their disease.  God loved the world so much but there is nothing in the Bible that says he loves homosexuals.  He loved the world, so we are told, but not homosexuals.  The very fact that there are many practising Christians who themselves are homosexuals shows how ludicrous and backwards the Bible’s view on sexuality really is.  For this raises the question: what indeed is a Christian?  Somebody who picks and chooses from the Bible, clearly.

On page eight of the pamphlet we are asked a question which they answer for us.  The question posed is:

Then under this heading in smaller writing, the pamphlet reads:
Is the Bible’s view regarding sex old-fashioned and needlessly restrictive? No.

A straight answer to a straight question then but such issues have already been raised in the essay, the Bible’s view regarding sex is old-fashioned otherwise they would not have posed the question in the first place.  For how many Christians in the world have only had sex after marriage, and only with their husband or wife.   The question does not need answering but another important point must be made here: that many Christians believe the promiscuous or fornicating-types are destroying the values of the family and are spreading their vile pestilence to generation upon generation.  For again we come along to that idea that the Bible teaches people how to act morally and decently because clearly people are not moral until they have read the Bible.  A counter-argument to this is that people have good morals and principles without ever needing to read the Bible for guidance or for similar reasons.  I would argue the very opposite that the Bible teaches morality.  It teaches immorality, as is clear when we read it.  If I were literally to name the crimes committed in the Old Testament, this essay would no longer be an essay but double the size of War and Peace and would be unpublishable.  Thus far I have offered two basic arguments for God’s criminality and immorality in the Bible; just two.  For indeed I could have set out to write an academic essay, quoting the Old Testament here, there and everywhere.  However, the point is immorality is everywhere in the Old testament so it does not teach people to be moral but immoral.  As we have seen, the Bible forbids abortion and thus facing young girls and indeed older women into having unwanted babies.  Forcing a woman to have a baby he does not want or her partner does not want is not only immoral; it is outright dangerous.  Then there is the treatment of homosexuals, lest we forget these are issues I have not raised; they were raised in the pamphlet.  In addition, we see there are still more examples to come.  Of course, one of the great menaces we have in society is faith schools.  This amounts to nothing but brainwashing.  It thwarts independent thought, tells children the world is six thousand years-old and the most disgraceful aspect of faith schools is the fear of the Devil.  If, little boy, you do not believe, then the Devil will deal with you; this is child abuse, just like much of the Bible glorifies and justifies child abuse.  Is there any wonder why child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church is so endemic?  There are sections in the Old Testament that indeed glorify child abuse on such an horrific scale that it is no surprise that child abuse is so endemic for people who practise the religion.

In addition, on page eight of the pamphlet is a list, which they say the Bible’s view of sex helps us to avoid these things, they are:

  • sexually transmitted diseases
  • out of wedlock pregnancies
  • the painful consequences of broken marriages
  • a guilty conscience
  • the degradation of being used by others

I would like to look at each of these briefly, if I may.  (1). sexually transmitted diseases; so if we are to follow the Bible’s code of ethics, we reduce our chances of having sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), do we?  Well, in a word, no.  There is an assumption that somebody who has casual sex with a large number of people are at a higher risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases, this could be argued for and against with equal credibility but let us take just one example: the adult entertainment industry.  The people who perform in these movies no doubt have sex with many people but very few get STDs, because, largely, they are protected, they are tested and the process is very methodical.  On the other hand, a prostitute who stands on the street corner is far more likely to catch some STDs, because precaution is not a prerequisite.  Therefore, things are not as black and white as the Bible paints it.

(2). Out of wedlock pregnancies.  It is even more unacceptable, according to the Bible if you fall pregnant outside marriage but later get married to that very same person.  This appears to me to be a very extremist view on the matter.  These strict guidelines are nothing but out-dated views on the family. 

(3). the painful consequences of broken marriages.  This goes back to the idea that we have no morality or any idea of morality until we read the Bible or at least become familiar with views expressed in it.  A marriage is not a contract where you must remain married until you cease to exist.  How many people are utterly miserable in their marriages?  How many start to loathe each other after so many years of marriage?  How many marriages do not work because the couple find themselves to have evolved so much that parting is the only option? Very many people indeed and no amount can keep such unhappy people together.  It is not just a case of two people getting married then going on to read the Bible, being a far less likely chance of a broken marriage or divorce, this is another myth peddled by so-called moralists. 

(4)  A guilty conscience.  This does not even require a response so we must move on.

 (5)  The degradation of being used by others.  The Bible does not reduce or limit somebody being used by others.  This morality, the Bible claims to peddle, is not only an obscenity but also a total fraud.  You could compare it to the state, on one occasion giving all its citizens lots of extra money because they are so benign, benevolent, altruistic and so on, and in the next instance they are blowing up hospitals, schools and shops, with people in them.  For clearly, the two contradict each other: the contradictions in the Old Testament are so clear and evident that it is hard to believe so many people take it seriously. 

On the same page (8), is a photograph of what appears to be a couple, arguing about something or other, under the picture in clear blue writing, reads the following:

Those who ignore the Bible’s standards often cause emotional pain

Do they?  This is what is called bully tactics.  You will suffer if you do not follow the Bible’s standards, I thought the very opposite would be the case.  It is akin to a threat: if you do not follow our values, or rather God’s values, you will be subject to emotional pain.  What is wholly despicable here is their target audience.  They wish to target the most vulnerable group so their intent is to hit all the right notes.  I am of course referring to the pamphlet and not the Bible itself.  It seems perfectly plausible that somebody who wishes to practise or believe then surely they would do so on their own terms.  If an individual wishes to be a Muslim or has thoughts about being a Muslim, the person, quite clearly, would read the Quran, not leaflets containing simplistic language to induce individuals to join them in their moral depravity.  The quote above is nothing more than a subtle threat.  It, like other comments we have seen, have the impression that they are expressing facts; it is astonishing how they do this.  In that way they work like a public relations or propaganda machine, and of course, none of them are factual at all.  

Towards the bottom of page, eight the pamphlet continues in the same vein:

What, though, if you are not currently living by the Bible’s moral standards?  Is it possible for you to change your lifestyle?  Will God hold your past conduct against you?

Morality and the Bible are oxymorons.  These three questions quoted above are as foolish as each other.  Let us tackle the first one: “what though, if you are not living by the Bible’s standards?”  Dreadful privation.  What standards are these?  To raise entire communities to the ground, killing everyone?  To rape, to abuse, to pillage, to murder?  What the question should ask is ‘what though, if you are not living by the Bible’s criminal standards?’  However, the primary reason why this question is being asked is that the writers of the pamphlet know that everybody reading it would not have done all the things that are required of them.  Therefore, they, like a playground bully, terrorise the younger children, have them exactly where they want them.  For they know they will be reading the pamphlet for a reason.  Be it out of depression, desperation, a sense of hopelessness about the world or whatever, they wish to keep every door open to ensnare them.  In addition, ensnare them they do. 

Consider this fact: some who made up the first-century Christian congregation were fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals.  They chose to change their lifestyles and reaped significant benefits. 

They speak as if the “fornicator”, the “adulterer” and “homosexual” were criminals.  I am aware these issues have already been discussed in this essay but I would like to elaborate on homosexuality.  To change ones lifestyle from a fornicator to a married man or woman is possible and may even be desirable, and of course, the same can be said of adultery.  However, on the issue of homosexuality, this is where the Bible fails to grasp even the basic issue concerning this.  It is as if the homosexual has been naughty and must stop all this naughtiness and act, as the Bible wishes them to act.  It is inconceivable to him that a man may find another man sexually attractive or indeed for a woman to find a member of the same sex attractive.  For they must “change their lifestyle and reap the benefits”.  Indeed.  How can homosexuals reap the benefits by marrying the opposite sex when they only find their own sex physically attractive?  Like many other issues in the Bible, it sees things only in black and white.  It fails to grasp the problems it concerns itself with.  That they have a total disregard for homosexual relationships, and if we read what the Bible has to say about them it is not quite the God of love, decency and morality we are often told of, in fact such passages are utterly disgraceful, and people who agree with such descriptions ought to be ashamed of themselves. 

On page sixteen, again we are asked a number of questions with answers, this time there are only five questions, not ten, as we saw before.  I will just select two questions and answers from the five:

1.  Why should we obey God?

It is only right to obey God-he created us.  Even Jesus always obeyed God.  God’s laws give us a way to prove we love him.

All of Jehovah God’s laws are good for us.  They teach us the best way of life now and teach us how we can gain everlasting rewards in the future. 

2. How do God’s laws benefit our health?

God’s law against drunkenness protects us from disease and accidents.  Over drinking, is foolish and leads to foolish conduct.  Jehovah allows us to drink alcohol but only in moderation. 

Therefore, the first question asking us why we should obey God is interesting, but the answer is even more interesting.  I first would like to tackle the first part of the answer and then inevitably go onto the second part.  I would like to address all three sentences in their entirety: “it is only right to obey God-he created us.  Even Jesus obeyed God.  God’s laws give us a way to prove that we love him”.

Therefore, it is only right to obey God because he created us.  Here is another example where a statement is painted as a fact and there is nothing factual about this statement; for the argument has already been had about God and creation-we came to the conclusion that it was not possible for the supreme being to have created us, but that is beside the point here.  That we must obey him is what I am concerned with at this point.  Even if God did create us, does that mean we have to obey him?  This is the talk of totalitarianism.  Imagine the scene: God is the divine ruler of the world, he is the head patriarch of every country on earth, and you have no option but to obey him.  You must obey your master because, after all, you are only a human being.  What a docile bunch are these Christians?  Imagine if a President or Prime Minister could brainwash one billion people in obeying everything he said?  For it is usually a he.  If such a thing happened, we would be living in an Orwellian world of hell.  For if God commanded us to kill non-believers, would we?  If God ordered us to torture our children, would we?  If God told us to commit terrorist attacks: blowing up schools, bombing villages, raping, and pillaging whole communities, would we?  The answer to that question, or rather those questions, remain unanswered, but it is time such slaves of this faith started asking themselves such questions, and what lengths they would go to to obey Jehovah. 

Even Jesus obeyed God, so we are told.  If we may, for a moment, come back to reality and approach this part of the answer with facts and not with frivolous nonsense then we can say there is some enlightenment to speak of.  There is no concrete evidence to even suggest Jesus existed but let us, for the time being, pretend he did.  If Jesus obeyed God then all those docile slaves of religion must do.  For some people will go through any measure to control, manipulate, brainwash and indoctrinate people, and the pamphlet is certainly very truthful in what passages it selects from the Bible.  The reasoning is simple: if the writers’ of this pamphlet cannot get all those misguided creatures to agree, they will always go one-step further.  On this occasion, they have used the Jesus card.  If Jesus obeyed God, yes even the mighty Jesus, then surely the readers of this pamphlet ought to.  It is the tactics of a thug.  What queer thing propaganda of this sort is?  For it sometimes appears that because such things are utterly ludicrous and existence is really a distant dream or nightmare, depending on your perspective.  For imagine a world without religion?  It is quite inconceivable for the present, and no sensible person can say religion can be outlawed. 

I should now like to focus on the second part of the answer in the second paragraph; here is a reminder of the two sentences:

All of Jehovah’s God’s laws are good for us.  They teach us the best way of life now and show how we can gain everlasting rewards in the future.

Again, this is the logic of a totalitarian ruler.  All of God’s laws are good for you.  As we have seen in this pamphlet before it is written as though it is fact and must not be debated or even questioned.  Just to recap some of God’s laws we have seen in this pamphlet then.  God’s justification in forcing women not to have abortions is totally perverse.  It is perverse in a number of ways.  If a young girl is raped, well too bad for her because if she falls pregnant she must not terminate her unborn baby because this is the law of Jehovah.  The Supreme Being wants to force young women to give birth and destroy their education, because according to him, all life forms are sacred, that, of course, is nonsense, Noah’s Flood tells us that much.  This law clearly is not good for us.  Let us look at another one of his laws: the intolerance of homosexuality. Jehovah’s laws are good for us, we are told, preventing people who may love each other from being together because God is a hateful God who clearly cannot accept anything different from heterosexual marriages.  If a brute started shouting and raging on a public platform on the immorality of homosexuality, and it is against God’s laws and so forth-he would be seen as roguish thug, peddling his hate and contempt.  For it is queer things indeed how people are so interested how other people live their lives, and if they do not live by the standards the Bible preaches then something must be wrong.  Considering how the Old Testament is full of hate, violence, vengeance, destruction and unbearable abuse, it is utter hypocrisy to accept people to live by their moral standards.  Here then are just two of God’s laws, and both of them just show how backwards and perverse they really are.  Therefore, such laws, so we are told “teach us the best way of life”.  It is this word ‘teach’ that perhaps should be replaced, for God does not teach anything; he is nothing but a totalitarian monster.  He forces his barbaric laws on all of us.  Does he teach us love?  He certainly did not love the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, let alone teach them to love.  Does he teach the homosexual to love?  certainly not.  Perhaps he loves the attacker who has raped a young girl and if this same girl decides she wants an abortion, then she is disobeying her almighty creator.  How dare she even consider terminating the child?  These are the laws of an immoral monster, and it has to be said we have not yet touched the surface.

That concludes this pamphlet.  However, I would now like to draw the reader’s attention to another pamphlet; I only want to look at a few sections here.

This pamphlet is again printed or rather dated November 2011.  Above the date, reads in large writing:

In the middle of the front cover we have all sorts of wonderful things happening, so much is happening that it would take many pages to explain which is why I shall refrain from doing so.  Then at the right-hand side at the bottom of the page, reads in coloured writing:


The pamphlet is an emphatic improvement from the previous one.  I will not go into details but the pamphlet discusses DNA, evolution, global warming/climate change and art.  These are the things, which we ought to be concerned about but that are a discussion for another time.  I would only like to look at pages 17-19.  It is concerned with the world of the arts, or as the pamphlet calls it “Entertainment”.  Towards the top of the page in bright green writing, reads:

Where can I find

Good entertainment?

Then beneath this headline is smaller writing:

If you are a Christian, you are selective about your entertainment.  You don’t settle for what others say you should watch, read, or listen to, why not?  Because much of today’s entertainment glorifies illicit sex, violence and spiritualism-things you need to avoid.  Nevertheless, there is good entertainment out there.  Let us see how you can find it.

Then towards the left hand-side at the bottom of the page in blue writing, we see the following:

Ask yourself,

Do the movies I watch make it easier-or harder-for me to obey God’s commands regarding sex, violence, and spiritualism?

This is split up into three sections.  The first section deals with movies, the second with books, and the third is music.  This page (17) starts with movies.  I will now quote “good entertainment” from the page, and as in the previous pamphlet, tackle the issues one at a time.  So, page 17, on movies, it says:

What to avoid.  Many movies promote values that are contrary to the Bible’s standards.  Some feature graphic sex and violence, while others include supernatural themes.  Nevertheless, the Bible says: “put them all away from you, wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk”.  Furthermore, God condemns any acts that are associated with spiritualism.

How to be selective.  “If the trailer doesn’t seem appropriate, I won’t watch the movie-Jerrine.

“I never take someone’s recommendation unless I know for a fact that the person has the same values as I have”-Caitlyn.

“To help me know more about the content, I use an internet site that reports the levels of sex, violence and profanity in each move”- Natasha.

TIP look for films that are less likely to contain objectionable material.  “I thoroughly enjoy period pieces-movies based on classical literature”, says a teen named Masma.

I first wish to tackle the small piece I quoted earlier, also on page 17.  Here is a quick reminder of the quote:

Do the movies I watch make it easier- or harder-for me to obey God’s commands regarding sex, violence and spiritualism?

It is extraordinary what levels people will go to to “obey God’s commands”.  First, let us be clear that film or “the movies” did not exist when the Bible was written or indeed published so it does not comment on these things.  So in this section of the pamphlet we do really come to what is labelled Christian Morality, what this indicates is something very bizarre and even extreme.  A true Christian will not even view a film if it contains sex, violence or blasphemy; this coerces one into asking the inevitable question: why watch the movie in the first place?  They do claim movies are entertainment, but only on God’s terms.  So it must be concluded that Christians do not watch movies for artistic or entertainment purposes but for reasons of propaganda.  “I must not watch violence, sex or blasphemy”.  Can such people think for themselves?  Clearly not.   For if they are unsure whether to watch something they can always consult their little pamphlet, nothing to do with their own values about sex or violence because they do not have any values; all their views and beliefs are in the Bible, this takes away a person’s freedom, humanity and individuality, they cease to become a living organism; they become a slave to their ill-conceived morality.

Many movies promote values that are contrary to the Bible’s standards

This misses the point entirely.  Showing a film about abortion often shows two sides of the argument, but the Christians who base their very fabric of their life on so-called morality are not even interested in the argument itself.  As far as they are concerned God’s commands are final, I must point out I am not basing these arguments on the Bible but on the pamphlet itself.  Four months, three weeks and two days, often abbreviated as 4-3-2 is a Romanian film and deals with the very sensitive issue of abortion during the Nicolae Ceausescu regime.  Abortion was virtually banned during the dictatorship of Ceausescu, under Decree 770.  From in 1974 until his death in 1989, the film shows what extreme measures a young girl has to go through in order to have an (illegal) abortion, not performed by a professional but by a complete stranger who the girl has never met before.  The characters in the film often talk about the lengthy prison sentences if caught.  It shows the young girl in a tremendous amount of pain during the abortion.  The film shows the harsh conditions under a ruthless dictatorship and the harsh conditions in Romania at that time.  However, the film does not “promote values that are contrary to the Bible’s standards”.  Is human suffering immune to such people who call themselves followers of this faith?  Nevertheless, the film won awards, and was considered by many to be the most outstanding film of that year (2007).  A pity for Christian ill-conceived morality then.

Some feature graphic sex and violence, while others include supernatural themes.  However, the Bible says: Put them away from you, wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk.  Furthermore, God condemns any acts that are associated with spiritualism.

It suffices to say that Christians put morality over culture.  I want to look at what is referred to as “graphic sex” or “violence”.  First of all, graphic sex.

From Iran, there have emerged some very exceptional filmmakers; this is exceptional in itself.  It is exceptional because such people are extremely limited in what they able to do in a film, the same as God’s laws in reference to sex and violence.  Nevertheless, the catastrophic thing is that many potential film directors in Iran will never be heard, their films will never be seen and their views never heard.  This is because they are unable to make their films like their western counterparts.  There will be no tears lost by the Christians because they would never view these films in the first place for it is not in line with their values.  What people fail to grasp is that film, and the arts in general, is very different to reality.  The followers of this faith are unable to appreciate art, any art.  It is as if they, like a child, ask if they may be permitted to watch a particular film and because it contains “graphic sex” are unable to do so.  It may be the greatest piece of art created in the history of the world, and they may know it, but they will never be able to watch it because they do not believe in art, only in God’s selected morality.

Some truly outstanding films contain “graphic violence” and many deal with issues all of us should be concerned with.  One of the most outstanding achievements in post-war cinema is Dekalog, a series of ten short films, as the title suggests.  One of the films is called a short film about killing, it depicts a young man, 21, who kills, this murder is not only graphically violent; it also is extremely realistic.  Later in the film, the man is on death row, and is later hanged; we see this.  It is, as one may expect, another graphically violent scene.  Few people, after seeing this film, would not think and ponder the issues in the work; for pieces of art such as this is designed to provoke thought.  Now, violence is never glorified in the film.  To be executed for violently murdering somebody, like the violent act itself, can never be justified.  Perhaps it would have been justified if the killer was awarded medals for his crime but that clearly is not the case.  Without the two scenes I highlighted the film would be worthless.  Based on these two scenes then Christian moralists would be unable to watch it, which is a big shame indeed, because Christians and secularists would not be able to debate the emotive issues of the film.  Gandhi himself, a Hindu, had similar views about film back in the 1940s and even before that, he believed a woman’s garment should not be too short in film, but like the later Tolstoy, who corresponded with the young Gandhi, are what I would label religious lunatics.  Gandhi saw everything in the eyes of God and morality, and therefore was a philistine when it came to art.  Free people, or rather, relatively free people, should be thankful the world is not run by Bishops, Priests and Popes; for if they were the consequences would be catastrophic. 

So “wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech and obscene talk” are forbidden for a good Christian to view in a film.  Ingmar Bergman, described by many as the greatest film director to have lived, and Liv Ullmann, who appeared in many of his films, and was once his wife simply referred to his as “the genius”.  Bergman not only directed some of the most beautiful films a human being can ever behold, he also wrote them.  I refer to Bergman for a simple reason: many of his films discuss the issues of faith and atheism.  All of Bergman’s masterpieces, and there are many of them, would be unviewable to the Christian, who puts abject morality before art.  These faithful followers of Jehovah are missing out in seeing films like the seventh seal; Persona, Wild Strawberries, the Silence, The Virgin Spring, Sawdust and Tinsel, and so on.  Bergman himself was an atheist but his father was a clergyman.  Some of this atheism is depicted in those wonderful films of his.  There must be literally thousands of films containing “wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech and obscene talk”.  Even moving away from film, take your average wretched soap opera, you find practically in every episode, all the negative tempers quoted above.  It is quite laughable considering such things: a devout member of this slave morality watching a film, must analyse and observe every nuance, every action, every word, every tone, all in the effort to see if they are permitted to even watch it.  If such people worked in this comical way, it would be a long time before they saw a film, or do much else, so it appears

If the trailer does not seem appropriate, I will not watch the movie.

Again, this is a queer statement to make.  Appropriate by whose standards?  Clearly not their own.  People develop with principles, views and belief systems in a whole variety of different ways.  Our views are often based on our experiences, the books we may read; what our parents have taught our friends and us; perhaps what newspaper we read and much else besides.  However, for a Christian none of this really applies to them.  For the Bible steals all of the values they may have had but now they have converted to Christianity they have ceased to be an individual who cherishes freedom because they no longer have a free mind; they are no longer able to make decisions, their whole mind is like a mechanical robot, in order to watch a particular film they must consult their ill-conceived morality.  This is akin to an actor forgetting his or her lines.  The director says “It will be fine, improvise, darling, improvise! However, the actor in question is unable to improvise because that would mean being spontaneous and not referring to somebody or something what has told them what to say.  With a Sun-god worshipper, it is different of course.  They are not being told what to say, but what to think.  It is as if their brains have been removed, and some villain from a distasteful movie, are controlling their minds.  He tells them what they can watch, what they must not watch, and programs their brain for this to happen.  This is what the Bible does.  It poisons the brain with nothing but this wretched ill-conceived morality.

I never take someone’s recommendation unless I know that the person has the same values as I have.

She means the same values as the Bible has.  These people in any case appear to be simple-minded fools.  What this is saying in other words is unless the person who has recommended the “movie” to me is a Christian then I will not take that person’s recommendation.  What has values have to do with watching a film?  Nothing.  This, again, is the issue of seeing things in black and white, as the Bible clearly does.  Because a film may contain violence, sex or blasphemy, they must not view it.  What they fail to understand is that the depiction of violence in film often holds a mirror up to violence in the real world and not simply glorifies it; if they took the time to watch the films they would find that out for themselves.  In the film Dogville a woman is subjected to the most hideous physical and sexual violence, the physical violence in the film is not shown; it challenges the norms surrounding the issues in the film.  If anything, such films can change the way we perceive things, how we behave and examine our actions we otherwise would not have examined.  It helps to create a better society.  Such films are not made for showing gratuitous violence.  The primary point is that in order to come to the conclusions the film must be viewed in the first place.  The reason Christians do not watch such things is because it is not permitted in the Bible, or at least would not if God decided to grace us with his presence and write a second edition of the Bible.

To help me know more about content, I use an internet site that reports the level of sex, violence and profanity in each movie.

This statement above is exactly what I have been arguing in this section of the essay: that these so- called moralists have no views and thoughts of their own, concerning the issue we have been discussing.  Something we have not discussed is profanity.  Ken Russell’s film, the Devils, was a highly controversial film when it was first released.  In one scene, nuns are inserting crucifixes in their vaginas.  Viridiana, a film directed by the Spanish visionary, Luis Bunuel, won the Palme d’or at Cannes in 1961.  It was also denounced by the Vatican and by the Spanish Government on grounds of blasphemy and obscenity.  Films such as these still provoke controversy amongst Christians all over the world.  Luis Bunuel, Ingmar Bergman and the director of Dekalog, Krzysztof Kieslowski, are three directors with outstanding reputations, but unfortunately, Christians preaching ill-conceived morality will never see their films.  Instead, they will have to content themselves with watching children’s movies, cartoons and not much else besides.  Can these people continue in the same vein indefinitely?  There is no logic to this in any conceivable way.  So how does the Christian studying film do in this situation?  Not to watch films they are required to watch and fail their degree.  This is the mind of a person who has no sense.  They are willing to destroy their education, lose all their friends, family, and career, all in the name of the moral standards they speak of.

If we turn the page we inevitably reach page 18, and we now turn our attention to books.  On the right-hand side, we see the following:

A lot of books and movies are off-limits if judged by Bible standards.  Nevertheless, when I find a story that does not conflict with these same standards, I enjoy it that much more.

Then towards the bottom of the page on the left-hand side, we see the following sentence:
Do the books I read entertain me with the conduct God approves of?

Now, like the previous section, I want to quote some writing on this page; I will select some passages:

What to avoid similar to movies, many books promote values that are contrary to God’s standards.  For example, some are sexually graphic or have spiritualistic themes.  However, the Bible says: “let fornification and uncleanness of every sort of greediness not be even mentioned among you”

How to be selective.  “When looking for a good book, I read the book cover and browse through the chapters.  If I see anything objectionable, I don’t buy it”-Marie.

As I grew up and began thinking for myself, I realised the importance of listening to my conscience.  If I determined that a book was bad, I would stop reading it.  I realised it didn’t harmonise with God’s thinking”-Corinne.

TIP: Broaden your taste.  “I find that I can get much more engrossed in classical literature than modern fiction”, says Laura, 17.  “The wording, the character development, and the plots-they’re just fantastic!”

I would first like to analyse the first statement in the top right-hand corner of page 17, I will repeat it for clarity.  “A lot of books and movies are off-limits if judged by Bible standards.  But when I find a story that does not conflict with these standards, I enjoy it that much more”.

Again, my argument has been made for me.  “A lot of books and movies are off-limits if judged by the Bible standards”.  Not his own standards, because he does not have any, all his standards, he would claim to have, are just the standards of the Bible.  If this person had standards he would say “my standards” and not “Bible standards”, this is just repetition of what we have seen before.  This would be like somebody who bases hers or his standards on somebody else’s; they just merely copy everything their friend likes, dislikes, reads, watches, listens to, eats, and so on.  For clearly those Christian robots, have no imagination, no creativity and little value for culture.  He goes on to say, in the quote above, “When I find a story that does not conflict with those standards, I enjoy it”.  These standards are not his, because he is bereft of any.  How can anybody enjoy reading a book just because it contains what a person believes to be “Christian morality”?  He may enjoy reading King Lear, but will never read it. 

I would now like to turn to the single sentence towards the bottom of page 17, but I must repeat it: Do the books that I read entertain me with conduct God approves of?

This sentence above is bordering on the ridiculous.  If a book entertains you-well perhaps entertain is the wrong word to use here-what does it matter that God disapproves of it? Soon we will be told God is forcing them to like particular books and not others.  God unquestionably disapprove of the Iliad and the Odyssey, quite possibly the greatest books ever written.  All the plays of Shakespeare except a few of his light comedies would also be forbidden; the works of Blake would also, Christopher Marlowe, Philip Roth, John Steinbeck, Dickens, Ibsen, Zola, Balzac, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides,  Strindberg, Hesiod, Ovid, Anthony Burgess, James Joyce, Harold Pinter, Norman Mailer, Edward Bond, Byron, Dante, Virgil, Dostoyevsky, Cervantes, the list goes on and on.  It has to be conceded, the system Jehovah has devised is an impressive one.  God does not even have to scroll through books to decide what to read and not what to read; he has his “morals” to go by.  Judging that the Old Testament is the most genocidal book ever written, judging by God’s standards, no Christian should be permitted to read it.  This is clear.  For Jehovah is the ultimate hypocrite and he has over one billion people worship him. 

Similar to movies, many books promote values that are contrary to Bible standards...But the Bible says: “let fornicators and uncleanness of every sort or greediness not be even mentioned among you”.

It says “many books promote values that are contrary to Bible standards”, this is interesting.  Take the play, Romeo and Juliet as an example.  There is clearly violence in the play, warring families filled with hatred and so forth.  However, the play does not “promote values that are contrary to the Bible’s standards”, on the contrary.  Because of the terrible consequences of the play, culminating in the deaths of the two lovers, the houses of the Montagues and Capulets are able to live in peace, as are the other citizens of Verona.  What the Bible is doing here is thwarting progress.  It is like the brainwashed millions in Britain, not because of religion but the tabloid press and this is the only place many get their “news” from.  Therefore, the tabloid is able to lie, deceive, manipulate the truth, present misinformation, disinformation, and generally say what they like without scrutiny.  It is the only source of (mis)information for lots of these people so they are living in a fictitious fantasy world, and have little or no idea what the world is composed of.  Comparisons can be made with Christians.  Christians are not permitted to see sex, violence and so forth.  They are only able to see what God allows, and by reading such plays as Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth, you are able to learn, move on and progress.  However, if you are prevented from seeing such things, that stifles progress-because how are these people supposed to learn from these things and create a better life for all of us for future generations?

When looking for a good book, I read the book cover and browse through the chapters.  If I see anything objectionable, I do not buy it.

This has nothing to do with morality; it has everything to do with cultural depravity:

“Midway this way of life we’re bound upon
 I wake to find myself in a dark wood,
Where the right road was wholly lost and gone”.

This is the first canto from Dante’s Divine Comedy, No doubt, one of the most beautiful pieces of literature ever composed.  However, that does not matter to those ill-conceived Christian moralists.  They will never read Dante’s Divine Comedy.  “If I see anything objectionable”; so clearly such people care nothing for the beauty of literature, from the stunning lyric poetry in Shakespeare; to the imagery of Homer; the realism in Chekhov; for the creative brilliance in Don Quixote, and so on,  a Christian would object to the murder, or rather murders in Dostoevsky's  crime and Punishment, despite it being in contention for the greatest novel ever written.  They would be forbidden from reading Sophocles’ Oedipus, despite it being one of the great tragedies; Aristotle thought so, in fact he saw it as the perfect tragedy.   Amongst other things the hero of the tragedy Georges out his own eyes, and one of the themes-incest-is prevalent in the Old Testament. There are hypocrites and hypocrites.  Gorging out one’s eyes would be “objectionable” to the good Christian.  Imagine those wretched faith schools and their reading lists.  Such reading lists would consist of pop-up books and romance novels that no serious person would read anyway, and if they did, they would keep quiet about it. 

As I grew up and began thinking for myself, I realised the importance of listening to my conscience.  If I determined that a book was bad, I would stop reading it.  I realized that it did not harmonise with god’s thoughts.

“Thinking for oneself” is clearly incorrectly applied here.  As the quote above plainly states, this individual began thinking for themselves when...well that is not the case.  What they meant to say is:

“I began to be indoctrinated and brainwashed by the Bible and was no longer able to think for myself.  The beliefs I had were no longer what I believed in; the principles I had no longer applied and so forth.  My thoughts and opinions can be found in the Bible because I no longer remain as an individual; indeed, I am no longer an individual who exercises her freedom.  I am a Christian and therefore have no real values.  I just believe I do.  For how can I possibly have values when I just agree with what the Bible says?”

To this person a bad book is not a bad book because it is badly written or anything like that, it is a bad book in their eyes because “it didn’t harmonize with God’s thinking”, not with this person’s thinking but with God’s!  What a queer thing it would be for many people to base their values not on their own beliefs but on somebody else’s.  What would we say about such a person or persons?  These people would be known as a collective, not as individuals, because they are not representing their own mind.  However, on the other hand, these ardent followers of Christianity seriously believe they have values, and that is the remarkable thing about it. 

I would now like to discuss the next page (18), which is the final page I want to look at, and that will conclude the essay.  The heading is music; again, I will pick out several passages and tackle them as I have done throughout:

What to avoid.  Similar to movies and books, much music today is morally degrading…”much of today’s music encourages behaviour that is against Bible’s standards”, says 21-year-old Leigh.

How to be selective.  “I ask myself”, if I were to let adult Christians scroll through my music list, would I be embarrassed by what they would find?  That helps to give me some perspective on the kind of music I should be listening to”.

I will, naturally, start with the first statement: “much music today is morally degrading”.  They are clearly referring to popular music.  Music is different from “movies” and books in terms of Christian so-called morality because most of the music, or perhaps all of it which contains explicit language, violent lyrics, inciting hatred, glorifying “fornification” and so on is often the worse sort of music, in other words, of the lowest quality.  Even to refer to it as music, is, in my view, incorrect, but that is beside the point.  For the music could be Handel or Bach, and still, if this music contained material Christians, and indeed their mighty God fell out of favour with, they would never listen to it.  What if they hear this subcultural, popular, car crash music in public, a car, a shop, or even in somebody’s home; are they going to walk out?

Much of today’s music encourages behaviour that is against Bible standards

Again, it is Bible’s standards and not the person’s own standards.  The key word in the quote above is “encourages”.  What behaviour, we are not told, but we can surmise.  Again, what kind of person sits down to listen to some music, whatever music that may be, based solely on the Bible’s standards?  We need not answer that question.  For they do not listen to it because they like it or not but whether it sticks to certain standards.  This behaviour is even more ridiculous and far-fetched than their watching films and listening to music antics.  The primary reason why they are not able to encounter such things is that these brainwashed sun-god worshippers may be influenced with something other than the Bible.  Any alternative view is squashed immediately.  If the Bible or Jehovah were a government they would be the worst government in history, the most brutal, oppressive, repulsive, clearly the media would be state controlled and it be a Fascist state; a sort of Fascism the world has never seen before.  Even minor criticism would be squashed and rooted out, and how would critics be silenced?  Imprisoned, tortured, murdered?  It would even surpass Orwell’s Big Brother.  I am now referring to the re-writing of history, literature, the dictionary at the Ministry of truth.  The Government, or rather the dictatorship of Jehovah, would be similar to Pol Pot’s. Year Zero” would be necessary, so they would say, and wish for everybody to forget everything.  Schools would only teach the Bible’s morality and nothing else.  Entire nations would be brainwashed; nobody would be permitted to leave borders, for fear of outside influence.  Only Christians would exist, not individuals. 

I ask myself, if I were to let adult Christians scroll through my music list, would I be embarrassed by what they find.  That helps give me some perspective on the kind of music I should be listening to.

This appears to be a statement from someone who has been totally brainwashed.  “This is the kind of music I should be listening to”.  Music, the most exquisite of all the art forms, in it it stirs every emotion, every passion, it brings different tempers, different moods, such is the power of music; it embraces all of humanity, it is something most people appreciate, and of course, it is universal.  Tell that to the slave morality, they inevitably will blink, and your words will not register with their thoughts, they talk, or rather prattle on about how “God is love” and how he loves us all.  They will insist on referring to the Bible’s standards, at least what they think is the Bible’s standards.  This is beyond folly. 

To end this essay it must be made clear the art of brainwashing is a very great skill indeed, because recovery from this form of indoctrination can take years, and that is only when they realise their folly.  The future of human existence is in grave danger and that danger will persist until religion, not just Christianity, but all the religions of the sun-god worshippers, is outlawed in its current form.  Religion needs to be re-visited, re-examined, and most of all needs updating.  I am not calling for the total outlaw of religion but just in their current form, for if religion continues to dominate public life, rational, reasonable, logical and enlightened human beings have a fight on their hands, our hands dare I say.

February 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment