The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

The largest religious group existing today is the Christian Church.

It was after viewing this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsgeXubzhf4



I decided to comment on the religion of Christianity.

The video, made by a person who goes by the name of Zinnia Jones, discusses why Christianity is a religion not worth following, and I thought that I would comment on that.

The video outlines 6 subjects that Christianity, according to the bible, endorses or condones. These are subjects that most people will take great distance from and disagree with. I will go over these six in 6 individual paragraphs in this post.





1. Global genocide

God decides that mankind has become too evil and creates a flood to destroy almost everything.

However, as Zinnia Jones also states, it would have been completely within god's power to prevent mankind to sink into this state to which global genocide is the only solution. If that is not true, then god is not omnipotent, and every single "man of the cloth" is wrong about their perception of god. Additionally, god is supposed to be omniscient, and should therefore had seen this downfall of human condition come, and thereby prevented it.

The only logical explanations that remain, is that of a god who enjoys killing the entire world to rebuild it, or that of a god who tests the humans to see how they react without his constant interfering. When they don't do as he wants them to, he decides that killing them is the best solution.

But why a flood? Drowning is not painless, far from, it is actually one of the most unpleasant ways to die. If god wants to rebuild the world for the better, and he is omnipotent, then he could just wipe everyone from history, so they would never have existed. This would cause no harm whatsoever, and would be quite faster.

The conclusion must then be that god is somewhat sadistic and the humans worshipping him therefore somewhat masochistic.

As Zinnia says, he is definitely not worth worshipping.



2. The murder of children

The last plague over Egypt is that where god kills the first born of every Egyptian family, because the Pharaoh wouldn't let the Israelites go. However, it is stated in the Bible (Exodus 10:27), god himself hardens the Pharaohs heart so that he wouldn't let the Israelites go. This proves my point from before of a sadistic god, who enjoys killing, flaunting his power, and showing the world how powerful he is. And egocentric sadist, in modern terms. Definitely not worth worshipping.



3. Approval of slavery

Throughout the bible slavery is approved by god. He instructs humans in "obeying their masters as they would obey Christ".

This makes god completely immoral, and obviously incapable of practising normal ethics. Ethics even humans understand.

Many human laws agree with the 10 commandments (thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal), except for slavery. Entire police units today exist to prevent prostitutes from being traded, bought and sold as property. This is modern slavery. However, god seemingly approves of this. He approves that when one is bought, one is somebody else's property. This makes god's morally and ethically standards even lower than humans; and recall that these are the humans that god himself saw as too evil to continue living and therefore decided to enact global genocide.

Instead of being the good forgiving god that the church makes him about to be, he appears to be completely out of line when it comes to the lives of those who worships him. Again, quite like the sadist.



4. Imposition of hereditary guilt

According to the bible, everybody is a sinner, because of the sin of Adam and Eve.

This seems to make the assumption that guilt is hereditary. Modern genetics has taught us the heredity is in the genes. Perhaps scientists should start looking for the "sin"-gene. The reason that we are all sinners and that we pass this sin on to our children.

That everybody is a sinner, makes everybody in need of forgiveness which is, of course, given by god.

God imposes this guilt on everybody so they will all obey him in order to obtain forgiveness. He relies on the human ethics and morals, in that no one wants to be a sinner, and will as such seek his forgiveness, to ensure himself a great number of toys for his little games, which usually ends with annihilation of the participants.



5. Punishment of the innocent

God punishes Jesus instead of the whole world, each for their sins. This might seem nice of him, but not for Jesus. He is punished by god for sins that the entire world has committed!

To me, this is not fair in any way. It is not fair for Jesus, because he has to take the punishment, but neither is it in any way justice. The rest of the world then goes unpunished for all their sins. It would be the same if we each year selected one person, killed this person in some gruesome way, and then let all other prisoners free. Someone had taken their punishment.

Back to god. If Jesus takes the punishment for everybody else, this means that god doesn't care who is punished, as long as somebody is. Quite sadistic.

Three days after his death, Jesus is resurrected by god, his punishment thereby cancelled. What good did it do to punish him in the first place then? Additionally, if Jesus suffered for everyone else, this must include the sin passed on from Adam and Eve, the sin that god himself initiated. This seems just like an excuse to punish someone later on, when god felt like it.



6. Infinite punishment

If you don't believe in the Christian religion, you are sent to hell, where you are punished in eternity. If you sin, you are sent to hell, to be punished. Forever, without any chance of redemption.

This is probably the most outrageous action of god.

I could go on and on about how morally repugnant this is, but it would just be repeating Zinnia Jones. So if you haven't already, watch the video.





Now that I have been going through Zinnia Jones' video and giving my own opinions about the subjects presented in it, I don't have much more to say.

Christianity is a religion in which you are told to feel constantly guilty for something you haven't done, let other take the responsibility for you, and if you can't do all of the above things, well, then you go to hell, to be tortured and punished forever. The Satanists might be more right here. Why not go the other way around, and worship the person who is to do the actually punishing, but is fair? Perhaps you will be spared then.

It certainly seems much more logical than worshipping a sadistic god who is playing games with his worshippers and then kill them when he decides to.

COMMENTS

-

---

xRobin3x
18:01 Jan 16 2014

Idk about 'the following' of Christianity. I agree that Christianity has some issues with me as well. why i don't 'follow' or believe in it as i once did. I won't down a person for following if they so want to. its there life. I'll live mine. :)

---

POST COMMENT

What is a habit?

A habit is pattern of behaviour or thought, that a person follows on a regular basis. However, not anything fitting this description is categorised as a habit. Is eating dinner a habit?

If you are solely comparing to the above, then yes, it is. Since it is something that is, to a certain degree, necessary for continued existence, I wouldn't categorise it as a habit, per se.

This is just to distinguish between what I will treat as habits in this post, and what I won't be considering habits.

A habit is a pattern of behaviour or thought that is either uncommon or not directly necessary for another practise, that is necessary.

To use the dinner analogy again; eating dinner is not a habit, but eating dinner in the living room (instead of the dining room) is.



Now, to the main post of habits, and to my bickering about certain people.

What I will describe first, is the annoying way that some people ferociously cling to their habits of thought. When first something is established as truth in their mind, changing that opinion is very, very hard or completely impossible.

They will typically judge their thoughts and beliefs to themselves, with thoughts such "It has always been this way", or "When I was [insert period of person's life] there was no harm to it".

An example:

Many people feed their cats milk, because cats like milk. There is just one problem with this. When cats and dogs get big enough to find their own food they stop producing the enzyme lactase, which is found in the stomach. Lactase is used to split lactose into galactose and glucose, which can be absorbed by the intestine. Lactose can't. Instead, it passes unprocessed into the digestive system cause abdominal pain, diarrhoea and vomiting. This is true for cats, dogs and people with lactose intolerance.

Lactose intolerance, in both humans and animals, is genetic. The gene coding for lactase is simply deactivated when the individual reaches the stage where breast milk is no longer necessary,

I have tried to persuade a number of people to stop feeding their pets milk, for the sake of the animal. The response I get is typically something like "I don't think that applies to [insert pet name]" or "I have always fed my cat milk, it has never been ill". I even got a "If she isn't offered milk, I don't think she will drink anything, and then she will thirst". Trust me, if a cat is thirsty and there is a bowl of water, it will drink it, even if it is used to drinking milk! That's pure survival instinct!

People refuse to give up their habits of thought, even when presented to pure scientific fact! Of course, I don't expect them to simply take my word for it; I find an example in a book, so they can read it themselves. It doesn't change a thing. They don't want to give up their conformity, to make this small change of habit, for the benefit of a living being!



My mother told me about a new kind of diet she had been presented to.

Apparently, a research team in USA had discovered that if you don't eat anything (except for yoghurt and a few pieces of fruit) in 16 hours each day, you can eat normally for the remaining 8 hours, and still lose weight. This would not be much of a discovery, if it wasn't for the fact that the scientists also found out that it doesn't hurt the metabolism or any other bodily functions.

This, I told to my girlfriend's mother. She immediately refused that this could be true. She was completely convinced that "starvation", as she called it, was in no way healthy, and that the research team was mistaken. Of course, her knowledge would be much greater than an entire team of scientist, who has devoted their carrier to research in this particular area.

She would not give up that idea. Even when presented with scientific fact.



Another thing that many Danes are prone to, due to habit of thought, is being a member of the church. In Denmark, you are charged, depending on where you live, 300 DKK (that's about $60) every month just for being a member. Now, this would not be a problem, if people what just use whatever they are paying for! And by that, I mean attend communion and such.

Even if you are not a member, you can usually still get married in a church (although some priests might not want to), and you can almost certainly be buried in the church's graveyard. So, people are not members because they use and enjoy what they pay for, nor are they members because they want to be safe.

They are members because it is a habit!

From my viewpoint, there are two reasons why people would not cancel their membership, if the above applies:



They fear god's wrath if they do.

They are addicted to the habit.

Let's examine reason 1:

If people are so afraid of the wrath of their imaginary god, then why don't they attend the church in the first place? If god is unhappy with them, they probably won't save themselves, by passively donating an amount of money to the church each month. Again, they demonstrate their reluctance to do something about their lives.



Reason 2:

They are addicted to the habit, and don't won't it to stop, because they are too lazy, don't know how to do or use different excuses to themselves all the time. Not knowing how to do, is pretty much the same as being lazy, because the information is readily available on the Internet. All one has to do is find it. Or actually, type the words into Google.

If you are a member of the church, and don't enjoy their services, you have absolutely NO RIGHT, to complain about paying taxes!



Some habits are good; some habits are bad and some habits are straight-out self-destructive. Complaining about paying too much in taxes, and then paying a voluntary tax each and every month for something you don't even use, THAT is self-destructive, excruciatingly hypocritical and just stupid.

COMMENTS

-

---

margareet
04:37 Jan 12 2014

Very well said!

---

POST COMMENT

Hypocrisy: The act of pretending to be what one is not, or pretending to have certain values, feelings, virtues, beliefs, opinions and/or standards, that one does not have.



I have encountered many hypocrites recently, and that is what has led me to this post.

If there is something I can't stand, it is hypocrisy. I have come to realise that many of the posts I have posted this last (almost) year, has been influenced by the hypocrisy of others. It is one of the most deceiving tools a human can use, and as such, it is quite harmful to others.

Not only is it the act of lying about your beliefs and opinions, but also your feelings. It is not hard to see how easily this act hurts and deceives others, no matter if it was intended or not.



It is important to distinguish between ignoring or pretending to feel something, and actual hypocrisy. The first can be something you do for a short period of time, but hypocrisy is a continuous lie to the world. To pretend something for a long period of years, for personal gain, typically in form of money, love, sex, attention or compassion.

What I think is the worst of these, is compassion and attention.

Some people will pretend to feel pain in some form, every time the don't get enough attention. This way, others will come rushing to them, comforting them ad spending time with them.

This is actually a form of emotional raping. To use someone's feelings for a personal gain, with little or no thought of how they feel to this.



Almost worse is it when the victims don't realise they are being manipulated this way. I have experienced this as well, and it can actually be so annoying that I have to walk away from the scene.

I can't tell them that they are being used, because they don't see it, and the refuse to see it. When someone close to you is manipulating you this way, it is very hard to see how they can be so mean as to exploit your feelings this most devious way.

This means, that should you try to explain it to the victim, they will even stand up and defend the hypocrite!



To justify it a little, and to refrain from making the hypocrites seem too cruel, they can't always help it. Some hypocrites are not as they are on purpose. They are just used to something, and if it disappears, it is quite easy to drive the human mind to something like engaging in hypocrisy.



An example could be a beautiful woman, who grows older, and suddenly finds herself not quite as beautiful as she once were. She doesn't get all the attention from men that she used to. This annoys her, and tears her apart. She starts feeling lonely, empty and without purpose.

So she suddenly starts feeling an immense, and chronic, pain in her back. This seems to happen every time she has talked to someone, and they walk away to talk to someone else. She pretends to have this feeling of pain, whenever she realises that she is not what she used to, and it probably won't come back.

This example can be modified to suit almost every situation that involves a hypocrite.



I don't like hypocrites, and I hate hypocrisy. It is one of the worst weapons humans use against each other, in their little games of self-esteem. They will do anything to feel good about themselves, even if it means ruining the lives of those they love. Or sometimes, pretend to love. When a hypercritical mother emotionally abuses her daughter in this way, the life of this daughter can actually be severely traumatised, because she never felt any real love from her mother.



If hypocrites could get out of their petty little head, and start thinking about other than themselves for just a moment, they might see how amazing the world can be, without feeling loved all the time.

And if people in general would open their eyes for a moment, they would see how often they are being used by hypocrites.



Hypocrites are weak people, who don't want to see the world as it is. They want it to be nice and lovey-dovey all the time. The world can be cruel and unforgiving, but most of the time, it is actually quite good. So, to all the hypocrites reading this:



Life is good, no matter how rare you may experience it. You just have to look for those little moments that appear all the time, and stop raping other peoples emotions. If you can't, then you deserve to live alone, because everybody else is too good for you.

One thing I hate, and I mean truly disgust, is people who think they are open-minded but are not.

The only thing I can imagine could be worse, is such people who, beside being "oh so open-minded" also are severely hypocritical.

This puts me in a peculiar situation, because the world is apparently filled with such people.

Hopefully, you are not one of these people.



As usual, I will start by defining the concepts I will be treating, starting in this paragraph with open-mindedness.

People who claim they are open-minded, often mean that they are open to discuss topics that might be considered taboo by some or many people.

However, I would like to include in my definition, that it is not only about discussing topics, it is also about accepting these concepts, and people who have some relation to the concepts.

To make things more clear, let's take an example:

My mother believes that she is rather open-minded. Growing up in the 60's and 70's, she apparently believes that is how it is.

However, she is not.

Now, this does not mean that I hate my mother. I don't. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

What I detest , is the "wanna-be open-mindedness" she possesses. So, I just stick from subjects that require open-mindedness.

Back to the example:

My mother have never sat down and talked about sex with me, even though she believes that she is open-minded. She simply doesn't have the courage to have that discussion. This results in me not being very comfortable talking about sex with anyone, besides my beloved girlfriend, with whom I then feel I need to talk excessively about sex, with.

One day, my mother found out something, that shocked her. Sex with animals is not illegal in Denmark, where we live, as long as the animal is not harmed in any way.

She was completely astounded by the fact that this, as she called it, hole in the law was not fixed, making it illegal. That is not open-minded. I refused to engage in further conversation about that topic, since I don't think it should be prohibited. As long as the animal is not harmed in any way, I don't see any problem with it.

However, this is the point that I wanted to get to. She believes she is open-minded, except when it comes to something that is "weird".

If that is your point of view, then you are not open-minded!



Hypocrisy. My favourite subject, when it comes to disgusting human habits. I don't want to go through a long definition here; it takes too long to get me of my soapbox. If you want a definition, I have made a (if I have to say myself) quite decent post on the subject here.



Combining hypocrisy with the belief that you are open-minded, makes for an explosive cocktail.

It is as the hypocrisy really let's the person shape her open-mindedness to her liking, and avoiding any thoughts that this might be wrong. After all, there is nothing wrong with being open-minded, is there?

When you are only open-minded about certain things that you don't find offensive, yes, then there is something wrong about it. Very wrong indeed.

I am no psychologist, but I can't imagine that it is healthy for anyone to walk around believing they are open-minded, only to prove that, when push comes to shove, they are anything but! It must be self-destructive in untold ways, and I think it could also damage ones social skills.



So, as a final word in this post, I don't think I will want to describe anyone as open-minded any more, nor will I hear anyone describe themselves as such, until they have truly proven to be open-minded!

COMMENTS

-

---

Slain
14:40 Jan 09 2014

This reminds me of a little thing I said a few years ago,



"It is interesting how closed-minded I am about people needing to be open-minded."



:: chuckles::



I agree completely, it is a volatile practice to go around believing and claiming to be open minded, if you will greet any unwelcome topic with friction, when your stance suggests that you would not. It's like setting a trap and getting caught in it when it's set off.



No one likes the outcome.

---

POST COMMENT

I have noticed an increasing tendency for people to assume the expertise of someone else, because they see that someone as a person who "should" have more knowledge about a certain subject or item.

This tendency is quite annoying, since the person or group does not necessarily have this expertise, that is suddenly required of them.

A good example is a computer.

My mother assumes that my brother and I have some kind of expertise on computers, because we are younger than her, and we therefore should somehow be more attuned to it.

Granted, one needs not have much knowledge about computers to exceed my mother, but that is beside the point.

One day, I confronted her with her assumption, while I was helping her attach an image to an email. I said that I don't have this expertise that she sometimes requires from me, and I am not that interested in computers, as a matter of fact. I study biochemistry, not computers.

She then kept excusing, telling me how bad her own computer skills are and such. She even said that it was much easier to just ask me, than to try herself.

I then had to tell her, that the way I figured out how to attach an image to an email was by trying. Then she just kept going on the same track about it being foolish for us both to figure out how to do it, when I already had.



I am also sometimes expected to have other sorts of knowledge, just because I belong to a certain group; and this, is exactly my point.

Why should belonging to a group give you some kind of knowledge or skill?

When I was younger, I was a swimmer. A quite good one too. But that didn't get me any knowledge about swimming, beside my own training. I wouldn't know who was competing for Denmark in the Olympic Games, or the world championship.

Now, I am a student, but that doesn't mean that I know everything about the university, not even the Faculty of Science, where I attend my classes. When a scientist from the University of Copenhagen appears on TV, I am, according to have some knowledge about him or his work. How should I?! I have enough to do with all the books I have to read, and the assignments I have to do. I don't have time to seek out this information.

Which again, emphasises my point. I don't get the knowledge automatically. I have too seek it out if I want to.



Expertise comes with practise. Practise makes perfect. It is not something you have, just because you belong to a group. I don't know much about computers, televisions and DVD recorders, just because I am under 50 (way under 50).



Get your own expertise!