06/21/2012 – 2012 and the Uselessness of Compassion

Shinzen Young: Genuine wisdom or ironic Zen nonsense? 

“Compassion is to share the pain without sharing the suffering.” ~Shinzen Young. 

How can one who claims to be a spiritual master be so oblivious of misguided nonsense that escapes from the depths of  their brainpan? And yet, acclaimed and renowned “mindfulness” teacher Shinzen Young seems unaware of the violence of his redefinition-mangling in service of his metaphysical  perspective. In his attempt to fuse “contemplative meditation” techniques of the East with the “scientific method” of the West, Shinzen Young has been lauded for his “innovative interactive, algorithmic approach to mindfulness.” “Mindfulness” refers to the Buddhist contemplative meditation techniques (Vipassanā) where the goal is to focus on the awareness of the mind and body and achieve knowledge of the nature of reality which then I suppose makes one a “Spiritual Master.”

But why do so many “Spiritual Masters” say such ridiculous, incomprehensible bullshit? Has their “mindfulness” meditation experiences left them with so much knowledge about the nature of reality that they can even see how far removed they’ve become from every-day common sense? Run through the above quote once more:

“Compassion is to share the pain without sharing the suffering.” 

What’s the takeaway point of this sentence? Well, the unintended point made by Shinzen reveals the uselessness of compassion, which is commonly described as an emotional response within a person to the misfortune and suffering of another and wanting to do something about it to remove the other’s plight. But to create a situation where one can safely  share one’s pain without sharing the other’s suffering is like having one’s cake and eating it too. Why would anyone want to share another’s suffering “out of compassion” without getting down into the dirty, painful and equality-based business of removing the suffering for everyone? Because nobody in their “right mind” would want to. It is the human design to avoid suffering at all costs, especially if one has enough money – and it takes money – to keep physical suffering at a manageable level.

But nobody, including Shinzen, would want to actually do something about the suffering of others in this world, or literally place their feet in the shoes of someone’s suffering.  Much better to “feel bad” about the plight of human trafficking or hearing about children starving to death in the media. A brief, cheap, momentary emotional investment called “compassion” is enough for most people.

But one doesn’t really “share the pain”  of others through compassion, do they? And this is where Shinzen misses the point. He could have said something more profound by revealing the uselessness of human compassion – where one could place the total amount of that human emotion one side of an equation against the totality of human suffering on the other side and see how effective emotions really are in dealing with the human condition of suffering. Or he could have gotten down into the shit with the misfortunate  others like Mother Teresa - who despite her existential doubts spent her life amid the suffering of others [1] and could only cope with her own metaphysical doubts by linking her own spiritual suffering and the suffering of others with the “suffering of Jesus.” But that doesn’t seem to be any more effective in dealing with the removal of suffering, does it?

Spouting religious and spiritual language and meditative exercises  to deal with human problems has simply never worked. Using human emotions like compassion, pity and sympathy to deal with human problems has simply never, ever worked in stopping the condition of human suffering. What statements like these do is allow the person who comes across them to become beguiled by the implied “wisdom” imparted. But it isn’t “wisdom.” It’s just ironic Zen-Buddhist bullshit.  It’s bullshit because all statements made from the starting point of projecting a religiously philosophical perspective can only fail in providing real insight to humanity. Buddhism has been around for nearly 3000 years and it’s failed in bringing “enlightenment” to the people. It’s ironic because Shinzen obviously believes in the power of compassion without sharing another’s suffering but he simply fails to understand that such a point reveals compassion to be nothing more than an illusion. Then again,  this is quite proper since all metaphysics deal with elevating illusions into meaningless life-long obsessions – while choosing to ignore and excuse real suffering and despair with pious blandishments and feel-good flowerhat philosophies And now you know what really matters to these spiritual shysters. Forget about trying to find a way to lift the peoples of this world out of an endemic of inequality. What is most important to these gurus is within the relation of their own knowledge and information about the nature of reality to others while making a buck. I can only hope against hope that people will wake up and reject that and choose equality for all and make it happen. But first, we have to stop listening and being bewitched by the deceptive spiritual nonsense these gurus love to share so much.

Note

[1] “Now Father—since 49 or 50 this terrible sense of loss—this untold darkness—this loneliness—this continual longing for God—which gives me that pain deep down in my heart.—Darkness is such that I really do not see—neither with my mind nor with my reason.—The place of God in my soul is blank.—There is no God in me.—When the pain of longing is so great—I just long & long for God—and then it is that I feel—He does not want me—He is not there.—Heaven—souls—why these are just words—which mean nothing to me.—My very life seems so contradictory. I help souls—to go where?—Why all this? Where is the soul in my very being? God does not want me.—Sometimes—I just hear my own heart cry out—“My God” and nothing else comes.—The torture and pain I can’t explain.” Letter to Father Joseph Neuner by Mother Teresa.

05/26/2012 – Is the Mind the most powerful thing in the Universe?

“Uhn.. if I could just think… a bit… harder… somethin’s bound to happen!”

Your thoughts create your reality.

Your mind is more powerful than you know.

Are you worried about something right now?

Are you feeling unsure about something these days?

God invites you to change your thinking.

Miracles seldom occur in the lives of those who do not consider them possible.

There could be a miracle waiting for you this minute.

Please make room for it in your thinking. Thanks.

Love, Your Friend….

Neale Donald Walsch

Wow. The mind has been given a lot of credit by philosophers, metaphysicians, science and religion. Not only does the miraculous mind receive credit for moving things in the universe, it has been touted as creating the universe! That sounds nice but seriously, can we really define consciousness in any other terms other than a vampirous abstraction, or as  generative and consuming energetic of substance –  like a flame devouring and evaporating a candle of wax?  But the majestic brilliance of the flickering light lasts only for a moment until it vanishes into the darkness, rubbed out from existence and from memories. But such metaphors must sound too cruel for people like Walsch when referring to something so God-like as the mind, until one realizes that  there is a difference between “God” and “God-like.” I suppose the biggest difference is that “God” is a mind-created fable and  truth-claim about a unseeable object while the mind is something we are all very intimate with, especially its oppressive, deceptive and ingratiating nature which ceaselessly drives us to erect such titanic monumental altars to worship it.  The mind has seemingly deserved all the praise that we have given it, what with all the wonderful things in the world that the mind has given us, like depleted uranium, plastic soup oceans and genetically modified vegetables (and wasn’t the world clamoring for more depleted uranium, plastic in the oceans and genetically modified food?)

If one would find any benefit to blame whoever was responsible for lifting up such a bully to eminence, we could mention the Brahmanas and the ancient Greeks. The Advaita – the orthodox philosophical school of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), claims that Brahman is “knowledge” and everything in the visible world, “eternal spiritual body which is full of bliss!”  He is the Supreme Person! A Consciousness of Absolute Truth! The principle Upanishads claim that Brahman is the infinite consciousness. And how did we come to know of this infinite consciousness? From the words handed down from Vedic literature. You know, from stories. But the Vedas will be the first to admit, the Brahman that can be talked about is not the true Brahman.  Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

The Greeks had their stories as well, but I’m not talking about their superhero gods like Hercules, Aphrodite and Apollo. Their conception of the mind as God was just as abstractly absolute as anything  the Brahmanas cooked up. Anaxagoras conceived of a cosmology of where there was nothing but a formless, cosmic soup that existed at the beginning , until a cosmic mind he called, nous placed everything in order.  As Donnie Darko would say, “Deus Ex Machina! Our Lord and savior.” Anaxagoras never said where is “mind” came from, but you gotta admit, it makes for a great story and it even influenced the great Plato and the Neoplatonists, who also conceived a transcendent cosmic mind as being and thought from which all things emanated. The enemies of the Neoplatonists were the Gnostics, who claimed that the physical creation was the inferior and flawed work of an evil creator and a growing post-Judean sect called Christians who worshipped a crucified man as the Son of God, the Logos, the creative principle made flesh.

And to this day, there are people who believe that the mind within our holy brains, is the most powerful thing in the universe. Good ol’ New Age. Way to keep the cosmic consciousness home fires burning. From this we gather stories about how the human mind, the “greatest force in the universe,” is evolving into achieving “higher consciousness” and increasing our vibration to the point of becoming one with the cosmic consciousness.  Which is all well and good, but goddamn, where does the love-in end, Neale Donald Walsch? Why do you ask us to “make room in our minds for miracles,” for God’s sake? I understand that some of the books you’ve presented appear rich in wisdom and profound statements and that  you made a fortune with them, but did you ever ask yourself whether the alleged contact with “God” could in any way be verified? Did you ever consider that the words you assumed that came from “God” were actually formed within  a secret compartment  within your mind that in no way was connected to any Divine source? From judging the above quote, I reckon not, because it sounds like you are serious when you suggest that “making room” ” in your thinking for a miraculous intervention from “God.” Somehow, according to the schematic of  Walsch,  ”God” is quite limited – and can only act on the human scene through the thoughts of human beings, but only if we engage in wishful, magical thinking. Again, like Eckhart Tolle, Barbara Hand Clow, Esther Hicks  and many, many others who present consciousness as the most powerful force in the universe, they present claims as truths and don’t seem to realize the difference. To tell people to make room in their thinking for a miracle is capitulation of one’s self-direction. Thus Walsch’s claims are not credible and people need to check themselves for the lack of development of their common sense if they buy into this garbage. And that so many people do buy into this trash should make one question whether consciousness is all that “powerful” after all.

05/04/2012 – 2012 My Reply to “Franklin Beenz”

Franklin Beenz (if that’s his real name) is upset that I don’t give a fuck whether he properly investigates the Desteni Material or not. Something is stuck in Franklin’s craw and I don’t know why he insists on posting his disappointment about… why I don’t give a fuck whether he properly investigates the Desteni Material or not. The reason why I don’t give a fuck is because I’ve already investigated it, compared it to what I already knew and understood, participated fully on the various forums, visited and lived with them for years and still find the material (and the people behind it) trustworthy, impeccable and free from bullshit. So Franklin, how is it my responsibility to “prove” anything to you? You apparently know how to type, have access to the internet and seemingly have a working knowledge in English. If you can’t be bothered to research this yourself, then fuck off. Simple. Surprised I had to say that, a bit.

Now for you out there who may think I’m being too harsh on Franklin, here’s his last comment to me, submitted for your approval. He was asking my “source” responsible for the story I related in the FAQ. I told him the source was from a thread in the old Open Forum – which is archived to be viewed through permission only.

The source is from a ‘thread’ – and so that’s that, it’s true because it’s from a thread and you ‘simply don’t care’ that the words, message in that ‘thread’ should make actual and factual sense, be logical for any of your fellow human beings. So while traditional religions offer the word of god, you offer a thread and it matters not that either traditional religious beliefs nor your thread should actually make sense to your fellow humans.

The words and the message in the thread make perfect sense to me, Franklin, although according to your sensibilities it may seem like we’re pissing on logic and rationality… but I find it amusing that you would drag the Gods of the traditional religions into your bosom. Aren’t you a well-conditioned automaton?

Thanks for this little demonstration on how selflessness and equality operate in ones life if one puts into practice the teaching you are selflessly sharing and promoting here.

You’re welcome, but Franklin, I would never dream of taking your own responsibility away from you (unlike the Gods of your traditional religions). And I would never stand in your way of understanding equality and self-honesty if you sincerely asked, instead of spiking your inquiries with hater-aid.

Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if everyone arrogantly and selfish-centeredly ‘simply didn’t care’ that their religious beliefs/teachings, philosophies of life, ideologies, value systems, etc ,that they were promoting and sharing with their fellow human beings, actually and factually contained logic and actually made sense?

Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if people didn’t pretend to understand more than they actually did, and considered different ideas without the need to always place one’s own precious perspective above all others, without deceptive forked-tongued blandishments and deceitful dissembling? But that would be asking too much from you, eh Franklin?

It would be and remain a world demonstrating ‘the fucked-up nature of human beings and the world we’re bent on destroying’.

Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with my words you pasted above. There’s too much of the Desteni Material to go through to make such sweeping conclusions, Franklin.  There are thousands of documents and videos. It’s deep, gnarly and sometimes scary stuff. And you’re not going to understand a lot of it. I’ve walked this for almost 5 fucking years and I barely grasp it. So, those are the main reasons why I don’t give a fuck whether you get the message or not. Because it’s your responsibility to get it, not mine. It’s all there waiting for you. You know it’s there. But if you’re like all the other haters, then get over yourself, stop posting on my blog, go back to your Traditional Gods and fuck off. And thanks for reading.

3/28/2012- 2012: Spirituality as Energetic Mind Enslavement

Freedom of Belief: Narratives of Mental Enslavement

The ancient Greek philosophers that lived before Socrates (d. 399 BCE) tried to devise cosmologies that offered a more naturalistic explanation of how the world worked, as they found the religious and mystical explanations lacking. They sought a unifying principle which they believed to consist of a singular substance from whence all things were made. Thales believed that water was the principle. Others believed it was fire or air.  To the modern mind, such theories, in light of what we believe we now today,  are laughable and quaint, but these speculations actually formed the beginning of the scientific process. We are intrigued at how the element of spinning stories to explain the visible world is essentially all philosophy and religion has ever done. Buddha found “enlightenment” under the bodhi tree. Adam and Eve at the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Jesus as the Son of God, died and came back to life. The earth is flat.  I think, therefore I am. Human beings are inherently good. Man is born with Free Will. There are supernatural powers that control reality and human destiny. And so on. But it is important to realize that these narratives, while they are quite handy in providing cover for our fears, when it comes to religious beliefs, they can never escape what they are: constructions of human consciousness in response to fear of the unknown.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many expressions of supernatural belief? How about that first person who convinced another that they saw a “god” or some spiritual event actually happened? What has to happen to someone for them to believe in something that they don’t understand? Let me give you an example of what I mean.

A colleague of mine was explaining to me why he was a Christian. The story he shared centered on this point; that there was a person he knew that had some sort of medical problem and he prayed about and was miraculously healed. “What else could it be,” he asked me. The unspoken answer that obviously formed in his mind was that it had to be “God.”

“Can’t you see,” I replied, “that all you did was create a story to explain something you don’t understand?”

“You must be a free-thinker.” (I’ve been called this many times in my life). He continued,” I respect your beliefs, why don’t you respect mine?”

In other words, he is asking me to believe that what he believes in is actually true. But I wasn’t claiming that he made the story up. “Your mind just created an answer. You can’t prove God healed your friend.” [1]

“You can’t prove God didn’t,” he replied.

“Then explain why God healed your friend and not the thousands who died today?” Because, wait for it… it was God’s will. See how wonderfully the different narratives dovetail into each other to form a perfect circle of logic of theology? Unless this person can find it within himself to break out of this mental fun house of crucified gods and miracles, he will be trapped within this for the rest of his life.

I bet some are asking, “But what’s the harm in believing in religion and its stories? Isn’t it a basic human right to freely express one’s religious belief?”

Take a look at the wars that are occurring now in this world. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict (which is part of the larger Arab – Israeli conflict) which has its roots in the desperate religious competition between Muslims and Jews. In Nigeria there are murders galore being committed by religious fanatics representing Christianity and Islam. The Lord’s Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony has been running religious war in the central Africa for over 20 years, killing, torturing, raping all in the name of Kony’s twisted Christian theology. In Yemen a civil war is being fought between Islamic Sunni and Shi’a sects and both sides are not above recruiting child soldiers to fight each other.

I could go on and on. These religious atrocities are occurring in modern times, never mind the voluminous catalog of vaguely ignorant fears the Unexplained conjured up in centuries past. Needless to say, humanity has not benefited from the religious narratives in any way.

Sai Baba is quoted to have said, “ The mind carries the divine principle (the light of love) and conveys it to all who contacts it.” From what I’ve seen in this world, the mind is a repository of unimaginable cruelty where the “light of love” only exists as a denial of the horrors that befall most people on this planet on a daily basis, almost of it committed by competing economic, political and religious systems.  Sai Baba may have actually believed his slogan of the light and love principle of the mind, but the fact remains  that all he could do was provide a nice-sounding story for his followers.

Isn’t religion the most subtle form of brainwashing? Isn’t spirituality the most subtle form of Mind Enslavement?

Now, what does this have to do with the notion that people have the “right” to choose and express their religious beliefs?

Note

[1] Reminds me of the story of Diagoras of Melos, the notorious Greek atheist who allegedly threw a wooden statue of Hercules into a fire and commanded it to either miraculously save itself or perform his 13th Labor and boil his pot of turnips. For this, a price was laid upon his head by the city fathers of Athens, causing Diagoras to skip town. But the story I want to tell comes from the Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero:  Diagoras was being lectured by a friend who tried to convince him of the existence of the gods by showing him the many votive pictures lovingly rendered by those who were saved from storms at sea by “dint of vows to the gods.” Diagoras replied, “Where are the pictures of those who had been shipwrecked and drowned at sea?”

2012 R.I.P. God

2012 R.I.P. God. Marlen Vargas Del Razo’s meditations on the Death of God.

2011/12/31 – 2011 in review for your Process:Self-Honesty Blog

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 27,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 10 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

 

[Edit] Total views for this blog in 2011 was 29,950, up from 2010′s total views of 6,270. Nice. 2012 will be even more numerical…

 

Top Five Posts that were viewed in 2011:

1) Manipulated by the Politics of Hope

2) The Secrets of Lucifer,Part 1

3) The Shame of India’s Child Labor

4) China’s Ghost Towns

5) Amy Winehouse’s Death Predicted by Desteni in 2007

 

My personal favorite  Top Five post for 2011:

1) C.S. Lewis and the Cosmic Sadist

2) Transitory Capitalism

3) The Cult of the Deprogrammer: Rick Ross

4) The Necessity of a Global Government

5)Practical Living Without Money?

 

Click here to see the complete report.

2011/06/05 – Thom Darc’s Sadistic Christian Theology “Prefers a World of Suffering”

Thom Darc wants you to suffer. Why?

 Perhaps there is no other Desteni hater that is more fascinating than Thom Darc. What makes Darc particularly interesting is that he is a living example of how twisted and hateful one can become through the acceptance of a belief system that claims to offer understanding and love. The belief system in question is the Christian belief system, under which Darc makes a startling claim that we shall get to later, but makes perfect sense within the “logic” of Christian fundamentalism.

Understand, people like Thom Darc will always claim to offer an unbiased, well-thought-out reasoning for their position. Yet, if you give them enough rope, they will expose themselves to be neither unbiased, well-reasoned or anything other than what Jesus once claimed they truly are; ravenous wolves under sheep’s clothing.

Thom Darc’s video response to a Desteni member proves my assertion. Indeed, it is the reason my assertion can be made with clarity, for it exposes what is the heart of the Christian Delusion that Thom Darc the Wolf, believes in and defends at all cost – for what he is defending is the price he has paid in this self-investment within a belief that he has become. By becoming that which he must defend, Thom Darc is fighting a battle of self-validation. And instead of answering questions with someone that can go after him, Darc believes picking on newbies is a great way test his mettle.

Thus the belief must always be defended because of what is at stake – the belief that what Thom Darc believes in must be “correct.” And yet, Thom Darc is forced into a perilous corner in defense of his beliefs, hopelessly trapping himself within Christian Delusional Thinking that contributes to the awful condition the world is in by accepting, defending and excusing the physical abuse as part of “God’s Plan.” In this, the Christian belief that the status quo  (and everything else existence) is directed by “God.” There is even a saying that reflects this delusion that you can buy as wristband at my local Walgreens which states, “Let Go and Let God.”

So what does Thom Darc have to offer in reality? Basically nothing, but his claims that his beliefs are superior to Desteni. Darc’s personal War Against Desteni only focuses on a few points. Darc rejects the Destonian position that thoughts, feelings and emotions are harmful to the human being, preferring to see them as a ‘valuable resource” for humanity. You know, that “valuable resource” directly responsible for war, poverty, inequality and everything else that makes this human condition so miserable an existence for most humans in this world. This reflects the typical limits of Thom Darc’s flawed system of “logic,” as we shall soon see, and it is why Desteni does not trust anything that is presented from a religious or spiritual position.

In his original “Desteni Fabrications” video, Darc claims that people become interested in Desteni because they see Desteni providing a way to focus their energies in changing a world that looks terrible. Darc indicates that he wanted to respond to my own Desteni AntiHate video response of his Fabrications video, but Darc preferred to respond to another Desteni member, viewed no doubt as “easier pickins,” rather than respond to my question asking why his beloved Christian religious tradition failed to provide an answer to correct the problems of this world. Darc’s refusal to openly and directly respond to my question shows the bankruptcy of his beliefs. He chose not to respond to my question because there is no response that would satisfy him or anyone else. So instead, Darc will turn his focus towards a newer Destoniani in hopes of scoring a few easy points. But that will not do, because I will never let Darc off the hook.

Actually, Thom Darc has no choice but to avoid my question, because I directed it at Christianity’s weakest spot: the void of relevance and moral force that exists at its center, which has replicated into and within the heart of Thom Darc and other Christian fundamentalists, whose faith blinds them to the simple truth – that the creation and direction of Christianity was a project made by men, full of the thoughts, emotions and feelings such as deceit and lust for power that Thom Darc champions as humanity’s “valuable resource.” This valuable resource is that which uses Christian “faith” as a dynamic social control, shepherding people into modes of thinking that blocks out inconvenient truths.

Thom Darc pretends to know, just like other members of the Desteni Cult Haters Cult, pretends to “know” and “understand” what Desteni is all about – without any understanding at all. The best all he can do is provide cover for his self-perpetuated and discredited belief systems by attacking the messengers who disagree with them without prejudice.  They have no choice but to respond like Thom Darc, because they have so heavily invested everything of who they are within those beliefs, regardless if it is Bible-thumpin’ Christianity like Darc’s, the flowerhat metaphysics of “0rdo Aurora Templii,” the anti-conspiracy-investigation-cult-conspiracy of “MUERTOS” or the banal woman-hating ‘freedom of speech” rants made by Tanja Hilton: essentially these are different facets of the same thing - a mental diversion from what really matters in this world, which is bringing about the end of abuse in this world. It isn’t enough that they disregard the evil in the world with their childishly entertaining diversions, they also have to take it upon themselves to act like as arbiters of morality. The irony of that position the Anti Desteni Haters’ Cult scarcely needs mentioning!

To put a finer point on this, I declare that I am devoting the rest of my life on this effort of ending abuse. Thom Darc will spend the rest of his justifying the abuse. Thom Darc has firmly stated where he stands in relation to the problems of a world that suffers. In his video “Re AntiHate Desteni Fabrications, Darc admits his preference:

“… I don’t wish to live in a world of non-suffering. I prefer a world that has suffering and pleasure and hatred and love and peace and war, life and death.”

Let that sink in for a few moments before continuing. Thom Darc’s sadistic preference for you and me is that for all of us to live within his Manichean dualism, is totally in line with the tradition of Christian fundamentalism!

This is the point which Thom Darc has to admit that he defends suffering because he has accepted, without question, his received teaching of what “God” is, and ultimately, “God’s Plan for Humanity” includes suffering, rape, torture, war, every single thing in Creation. Thom Darc has painted himself into a corner with his unconsciously sadistic theology, as it is based on the Christian conception of Deity as the “God of Suffering.” Not a “God” for the sufferers, you see, but as a “God” who doles out punishment and suffering, just like in the case of Job, where “God” punishes and causes Job to suffer for no other reason than to win a celestial bar bet with Satan. Such is the sense of “justice” when it wielded by the Mighty Jehovah.

I repeat: what Thom Darc has stated so boldly as a “Christian” is that he “prefers a world of suffering,” which unwittingly encapsulates fully the essence of religious thought throughout the centuries. Holy Wars, Crusades and jihad are still being waged across the Earth over ostensively religious rationales. And although Thom Darc doesn’t realize it, he also unwittingly provided the correct answer to my question I urged him to answer and that he sought to avoid by turning towards what he considered a lesser adversary – the question being: why has Thom Darc’s Christianity failed to provide for a better humanity for the world? Thom Darc claims that suffering exists because such activity is the most obvious way to praise the “God of Suffering.” Thom Darc’s logic is simple: if suffering exists, it is because of “God’s” will, and that human beings are saddled with emotions and thoughts that contributed to that suffering, well, that’s off-limits to discuss, as well, for according to Thom Darc’s logic, anything that looks like criticism of “God” must always be refuted.

Within such a cosmic sadism which Darc proclaims as his theology, there is no need to create a “Satan” to contend with “God,” for “God” has all the points covered when it comes to “good and evil.” Thom Darc and the sadistic Christianity that he represents, which is, in effect, ALL of Christianity, claims that a world wracked by evil is preferable to one where evil does not exist. This aspect of “God’s” demonic nature that resides at the core of Christianity has been dealt with before in the DesteniProductions You Tube video, Hiding the “Demonic” Behind “God” – and it is very gratifying to have my views validated by such a Christian like Thom Darc. For the demonic is that which must destroy all things, which is the purpose of sadism and torture, to destroy the human form through sinister malevolence. Such is the God of all Theologies that do not seek to stop the evil in this world, but rather leave it to celestial hands to sort out. Personal responsibility to others, as Darc’s putative master, “Jesus” directed, is avoided out of crass selfishness, for one wonders if Thom Darc would hold such views if he led a life of the worst of the sufferers in this world. One wonders if Thom Darc only speaks such shit because of his relative privileged position?

I could go on and on and on, but know that Thom Darc has declared himself to be a part of the problem, and he has shouted to the world where his allegiance resides: firmly in the camp of the Abusers of this World. Has he lost himself forever?  Only time will tell, for there are many mansions in the house of Christian Fabrications. Thom Darc’s Christian Fabrications are not so far removed from a similar Christian delusion exhibited by another false prophet of Christianity, Harold Camping, whose followers went on record bragging about how many people would suffer and die during Camping’s hilarious “prediction” that the world would commence with the Apocalypse on May 21, 2011. When that dream died on May 22, those same followers were “stunned” at the nonevent. Their precious and fervently-believed-mind-possessions could not work out what went wrong. Did the thought arise within their minds that maybe, just maybe, that every word in the Bible isn’t necessarily true? Nope. Instead, their unfortunate minds could only grasp that the “date” was wrong, not the edifice of the delusion. So now they’ve given themselves another opportunity to ravage their delusions on October 21, 2011. Ought to be fun. But in the meantime, remember one thing: that to Thom Darc’s way of thinking, suffering is your duty to “God” Almighty. It is a perverse and twisted line of reasoning, and yet, very easy to see why Christianity has failed to live up to its promise when people like Thom Darc speak in its name.

2011/05/21 – Proclamations of Apocalypse!

Today is May 21, 2011 – and for some people, this day marks a most auspicious event – the biblical Day of Judgment. You’ve all heard reports of the followers Harold Camping, who has decided that his interpretation of the End of Days is imminent and correct, selling and giving away their life’s savings and traveling across the country proclaiming that End is Here. There was a similar swell of excitement apocalyptic judgment in the 18th century America led by William Miller. Thousands upon thousands believed his calculations of the end of the world on October 22,  1843, to be true, and they acted accordingly, selling all they had. They stopped working. They gleefully mocked others that they would be left behind while the believers would be carried up to Heaven wearing gleaming white robes. You can imagine their disappointment when none of it came to pass. That crushing disappointment is known as the Great Disappointment, and the 21st Century version will be no less catastrophic for the believers of Camping.

Most will depart from Camping and many will be mocked for having acted so foolishly. Some will claim that the event happened in Heaven or was an invisible, “spiritual” event. Some will go back to the drawing board and try to find the error that misled them. They will never see that the error was in the belief in apocalyptic Christianity itself, They will never see that it was belief itself that was the error.

Interesting how money was used within proclamations of apocalypse. When the belief in the coming end-of-the-world was is its strongest, people throw away their major concern: money. It’s like money has become the necessity of life – and only belief in Jesus’ return can free people from the belief of the necessity of money. The connection between money and religious is fascinating because there is a tacit recognition that belief in the power of money, for most of us, is far stronger than belief in God because we can see the effect money (or the lack of it) has on our lives, Money is actually the True God of this world, and for the people who foolishly threw their money away in a fit of religious excitement, will find out how their unwavering belief “in things unseen,” devastated their lives. They will blame Camping, but they must realize that there is no Jesus coming back to bring his followers to Heaven, Maybe another 2000 years of failed prophecy will convince them.

2011/04/04 – The Prodigal Son Revisited

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is recorded in telling a parable of the Prodigal Son.

The parable of the Return of the Prodigal Son is one of the most well-known stories in the Christian Gospels. The outward story is that of repentance and forgiveness, but under careful examination, it is the story of manipulation, resentment foolishness and favoritism. We will show that this is a lousy parable, and probably was completely edited and reworked over by anonymous authors who wanted a specific point to emerge from it. This parable only appears in the Gospel of Luke, written in Koine Greek, the Lingua Franca of that part of the world at that time and probably edited from a Greek perspective as well.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son

11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.

Regarding Middle Eastern practices about inheritance, the son’s request is shocking and extremely bad taste. For inheritance traditionally is granted after the father’s death. In essence, the son wishes his father to die ahead of his appointed hour. Jesus for some reason, is asking a lot from his audience in the beginning of this parable, in that the son is so self-absorbed and greedy and without consideration to actually work to accumulate his own money, that he is wishing the death of his father so he may live high on the hog today.

The Father’s response is unfathomable. The expected outcome would be a royal ass-kicking and possibly death for subjecting a wealthy patriarchal figure (and the community!) to such scandalous dishonor. Yet, inexplicably, the Father gives the youngest son the money, and this act is even more inexplicable, since the Law of Moses, which we assume these good Jews followed, indicated the proper steps regarding inheritance: the firstborn son was to inherit twice as much as any other heir,* so the father is potentially risking to destroy the family structure (and breaking Mosaic Law!)  in order to satisfy a selfish boy’s desire who in any other case would have either been banished, beaten or slain.

13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

Of course, swine was a detestable and unclean animal in the Semitic culture at that time. Jesus is illustrating how “low” the son descended into poverty, that he felt himself less than the pigs.

17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

Motivated by a dream of a good, hearty meal, the son decides being a servant in his father’s house was much better than his current condition. The great wealth that was squandered is only vaguely considered but it appears that no responsibility has been taken for that. He scandalized his father, cheated his oldest brother and spent everything he had. But since he is the son of the patriarch, he could expect some leniency, especially after father gave him his inheritance!

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

This scene has been interpreted as a Christian symbol of God’s grace, compassion and forgiveness, yet, there is something missing. There is no intermediary. There is no death on the cross. There is no middleman between the Father and the Son. Which is interesting, as this parable of Jesus undercuts the need for a “savior.” In any case, the father is wholly supportive to the son. We have here a family dynamic where the father, probably after a chain of similar events, shields his youngest son from consequences, depriving the son future personal growth and maturity that only can be gained through walking through the entirety of his mistakes. So is the father directing his son appropriately here?

21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

We do not have the interior dialogue or thoughts behind these seemingly contrite words from the youngest son, so we will let them stand and assume that they relate a genuine feeling of regret. However, we can also be aware of the possibility of young man’s manipulative nature as well.

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

The response of the father is completely mind-boggling. Yet, the experience of the younger son who had everything and then lost it all contains a faint resonance of the story of Job, who was a faithful and prosperous man of God who also lost everything due to some kind of cosmic bar bet between Satan and Yahweh. At the end of the story, Job is returned to his former glory several times over.

“For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and now he is found.” This has been interpreted as a symbolic gesture of the mercy and grace of God, who rejoices when any lost soul destroyed or lost in the world returns to him. There is a curious juxtaposition at work here where the son, by asking for his inheritance while his father was still alive, was actually sending an insulting message to everyone that his father was “dead,” yet the father was the one who expressed joy that his “dead” son was “alive” again. Is Jesus being ironic here, or is this parable the garbled remnants of an authentic message?

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

The eldest son is as incredulous as any Middle Eastern scion of a wealthy family, and he alone in this entire parable is reacting in an understandable way. He is hard-working while the younger brother is a loafer. He is loyal while his younger brother is out for himself. He is obedient while his younger brother humiliates his father by asking for his inheritance before the proper time. He is dependable, as he never went missing or never left town to pursue any other desire he may have held. We can all feel his pain and confusion for being punished for following the rules, and we can also see the emergence of jealousy, resentment and anger. We can be assured that the father has never made such a fuss over the eldest. The younger son is proudly beaming at the turn of events – preparing for a feast in his honor, dressed in robes, given a ring which is a sign of authority. It’s as if he’s being rewarded for fucking up. He may even manipulate his foolish father into giving him part of his elder brother’s share. He surely seems to have his father wrapped around his finger.

31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’*

“Everything I have is yours,” is meant to mollify the son, but the son has already stated he feels like a slave within their relationship, so those words must ring hollow in the eldest son’s ears. Besides, it was customary for the eldest to receive the biggest portion of the inheritance anyway, so his father effusiveness could be seen as an underwhelming, perfunctory response. The father does not show an equal regard for his eldest son’s loyalty. Although noted, his reply to doesn’t come across as earnest or concerned as he does for his younger son return.

The father repeats himself about the joy of finding his dead son “alive” again. We all can feel for the father who has feared the worse for his youngest and is rightfully expressing relief on his safe return. However, we do not have the response of the eldest son in this parable. He must feel as humiliated as his father as the feast takes place and his wastrel of a brother being held up in glory as the center of the celebration! We can see him glower, stew and boil with rage, harboring deathly thoughts of vengeance at both his brother and his father. Maybe the eldest will slay the younger like Cain did to Abel. Maybe the eldest will throw his arms up in the air and leave the family to pursue his own goals. For his considerable duty to his father seems strangely undervalued by his father. The family dynamic, undoubtedly dysfunctional before this event, must surely erode even further.

Leaving aside the fact that the parable of the Prodigal Son would have been largely unintelligible to the Middle Eastern audience of Jesus (which betrays a layer of composition by Greek editors who reworked, edited and changed the original New Testament documents), we can see a Job-like story arc of gain, loss, suffering, repentance and gain, and this has been the traditional exegesis by Christian theologians. A closer reading reveals something else. An overly indulgent father who seemingly favors the younger son, the inconsiderate,  self-absorbed and manipulative younger son who disgraces his father and wastes his fortune that he created and gave to his son, and a dutiful older brother who’s steady, hard work and loyalty go unrewarded. If we can pull the dynamic apart a little further, we can guess what happens next: the younger son gets more of his fathers’ money, the blind, outrageous indulgence of the father continues and the eldest son toils away grudgingly, a condition that will likely explode one day in violence and fratricide. There is too much left unsaid. Has the Prodigal Son truly repented? Why does the father indulges his youngest son and dismisses the effort of his eldest?

In other words, why doesn’t the Father treat them equally?

* Deuteronomy 21:17

* * Luke 15:11-32 (New International Version, ©2011)

2011/03/17 – Glenn Beck: Earthquake a Message from God?

Glenn Beck: Apocalypse? Grins and Shrugs.

You know… I don’t like piling on celebrity goobers and their ridiculous thought processes about the Japan earthquake, but I have to mention the latest pile of poo extruding from the lips of right-wing radio show host and Fox News infotainment host, Glenn Beck who claimed that the earthquake that leveled northeastern Japan may have been the result of mankind not behaving nicely.

“I’m not saying God is, you know, causing earthquakes. Well — I’m not saying that either.

“What God does is God’s business, I have no idea. But I’ll tell you this: whether you call it Gaia or whether you call it Jesus — there’s a message being sent. And that is, ‘Hey, you know that stuff we’re doing? Not really working out real well. Maybe we should stop doing some of it.”

Never mind that earthquakes are a naturally occurring process that has happened since the planet became physically solid, Beck for some reason (higher ratings = $$$) ascribes a paranoid, theological reason behind it. God is so unhappy, is such a spite, human-like crybaby, He has to destroy a part of his creation because the people there didn’t do the right things for Him. To me, it’s nothing but religious lunacy, but the sad thing is that many equally psychotic and paranoid people in America agree with him, which is the only (frightening) explanation why Beck is still on the air. Who knows if Beck actually believes what he says. The point is that anyone can ascribe any reason to anything at all. If one needs a reason, it’s because one is fearful of not having control. However, what Beck shows is that within the story of Japan Earthquake, there is indeed a blank  slate, a tabula rasa, that one can conjure up a “reason” or “message” to stick on it. Here’s mine: the earthquake has shown us that the physical reality, and not the spiritual, has the final say on what is created and destroyed, remains and removed. You need a God, look to the Earth. It cannot be that happy with humanity, either. But at least it’s real. So let’s step up and deal with her with integrity and respect, or else, she’ll step first.