The Spiritual Siblings
See what birthing order reveals about your favorite major religion
Why can’t these religious others-from-another-mother all just get along? If you think of it in terms of psychological development, you’ll recognize classic signs of a spiritual sibling rivalry. Just look at how each of the sons of God rate in the pecking order, and how their particular inadequacies may have shaped their religious personalities.
The Jews
Firstborn religion, Judaism, is the quintessential oldest sibling. It was the original center of God’s attention, and therefore feels special, or “chosen”. It aims to please Big Daddy by dutifully obeying Dad’s word, as written in the Torah and Bible. With a deep-seated need to control situations to get their own way, Big brother Jew also tends to be righteous, and doesn’t like to share things – like Jerusalem. And in true eldest fashion, it is likely to play games of divide and conquer with siblings and political allies in order to gain a sense of superiority — and a well-funded army.
The Jesus Freaks
Christianity, born hundreds of years after Judaism, is the chameleonic middle child. Its followers want to please God, yet they are driven to test the boundaries of his love with rebellious acts of individualism – like forming subgroups and cults, experimenting with miracles like raising the dead, or letting its preachers take a few sexual liberties with students. The middle religion can also be highly competitive, trying to convert its siblings and grab the spotlight with outlandish acts – like protesting the needless death of fetuses by bombing abortion doctors, or making a big play for attention with a half-assed sketch of Jesus Christ on a piece of toast.
The Jihad
Islam is the late-in-life “baby-oops” of the family, having been founded by a Saudi Arabian orphan named Mohammed who was born about 600 years after Christians and Jews started fighting for God’s attention. With an absentee mother and a Dad who had plenty of other heirs, the Islam faith often feels weaker, unfairly treated and expects others to take responsibility – likely why its members are big on the concept of reparations. It hates hand-me-downs, so it came up with its own book of teachings (the Koran). And the social nature and unconventional temperament of most youngest siblings may explain why Islam outdid its older brothers with its month-long signature holiday of reverence and sacrifice that ends in a big, personalized celebration.
Popularity: 27% [?]
Bisexuals and Their Lust For Attention
Homosexuality appears to be there since birth, not so much choice. Homosexuality is interesting because it appears to be dominated by one's genes which cannot be erased but at the same time they can be modified through social programming, like beliefs, culture, parenting etc. So it is entirely possible to have so-called “heterosexuals” and “bisexuals” who are really just homosexuals, and their true desires have been bended and molded through social fears (closet homos), parental pressure & culture (bisexuals in a heterosexual marriage for example).
Turning to Bisexuality
But what makes bisexuality strange to me is that people don't seem to be bisexual naturally. I've known a few people when I was in elementary school where I could quite clearly tell they were gay. As childhood progressed into adulthood, they indeed turned out to be 100% gay. I've also known bisexuals who weren't bisexual at all at younger ages. Bisexuals really annoy me because they're behavior is ridiculous. Most bisexuals have been damaged, have been molested, or more commonly are just craving attention, or a combination of the three.
The damaged bisexuals are the type who haven't gone through so great of an upbringing. For example, have you ever noticed a lot of bisexual women are really fat? These types of women were probably rejected by guys and were made fun of by both guys and girls while growing up.
Normal little girls and boys, who would have grown up to marry men and women respectively and were molested, may lean on the bisexuality side. I think there are plenty of girls who have gone through this just might be more embracing to women after an experience like that. Molestation might have a similar affect on boys too, causing them to embrace men as well possibly. What it all comes down to is that molestation seriously confuses a child and damages them at the same time. Their views on sex become skewed far from what is normal.
The Attention Factor
Both of these types of bisexuality ultimately crave attention, and that really annoys me. To me, when I see a girl saying something bisexual about herself or doing something bisexual, it makes me think to myself: "wow, I wonder what happened to you growing up? Why do you want the attention so bad? You know damn well you only like guys…" It's just so immature. I guess I feel bad for them that they can't just be themselves: a heterosexual OR a homosexual. But at the same time, their behavior really annoys me.
Some Examples
I 
have had plenty of experiences with these people and their behaviors. I knew a girl in high school who was bisexual. She was also goth. Coincidence? right. She wasn’t the withdrawn & damaged goth. She was the Im-so-goth-and-its-gets-me-attention type. I also knew a guy who was bisexual who clearly did it for the rebellion. He was a total nympho who would basically take whatever he could get, but he also liked the attention. He was also a goth. He must have felt so rebellious! I also once knew a girl who was so straight it's not even funny. She was really fat though and you could tell she never got attention from any guys. She used to make jokes about having threesomes with her one boyfriend. She wouldn't ever go through with it, because her self esteem is so low that she wouldn't be able to bare the thought of her boyfriend being more turned on by somebody else. But the fact that she would go there with those jokes, that's just annoying. She was obviously craving attention from other guys, but nobody was attracted to her anyways. She was too dumb to realize that she was not even turning anybody on!
A Particularly Damaged Case
I dated a girl who had really low self esteem about her self to the point of ridiculousness. She was also bisexual. I'm not so sure about her. I know she is clearly damaged, like really damaged, but I don't know by what means. She was molested as a child, I do know that. She also never had guys hit on her and was pretty overweight. So I guess it was a combination of factors. She also hated her dad, so you could throw the rebellion of bisexuality into the mix. The point of all of this with her is that bisexuality isn't what she really wanted. She didn't do it for herself, but she did it for the rebellion and the attention that is apparently so much more soothing to her self esteem than rejection is. She’s a strange case though because she also went through a similar phase after our relationship where she only dated black guys. Again, her dad is a racist and obviously didn’t condone such behavior, and once again, she never used to be attracted to black guys what so ever. Is it not kind of strange that a few black guys show her attention, and she reprograms herself to “think” she’s suddenly attracted to black guys. It’s the same way with bisexuality.
vs. Homosexuality
Now back to homosexuality. Are they different than bisexuals? I think so. People don't "turn" homosexual because they were molested or damaged. That just means they'll end up being bisexual if anything. Just because they were molested, they are going to stop liking the gender they are naturally attracted to. Most homosexuals are already damaged to a certain degree from being ridiculed so much through their lifetime, and they usually attract negative attention anyways from the largely prejudiced public. Bisexuals on the other hand get a sort of positive attention, and that's exactly what they crave. Give them 10 or more years and they will likely retire their silly immaturity and get over their social and self esteem short-comings. Meanwhile, all of the homosexuals will still be homosexual because they know what they like.
Popularity: 14% [?]
Believe What You Want, Just Don’t Be Gullible About It!
I have to admit that what started me down the path of an becoming and Atheist is the Bible itself. The Bible forms the whole basis for Christian belief. Without credibility and validity to me, there can be no belief. From this point I ventured into doubt despite people telling me to just trust God. But in all reality, you cannot force yourself to believe in something you don't think is true, without going to drastic measures. Christians make it seem like I chose this path or something. Actually, it came quite naturally. It's the Bible that I probably dislike about religion the most.
Believe in whatever God you want. But do not trust a 2,500 year old book of folklore, that misleads the rest of your life into thinking you have to "serve" ANYBODY. Do not trust this very book that seems to heavily conflict with what is real, like science. If you have a need for a God in your life, it doesn't have to be the Christian God. Do you really trust the corrupted people who put the Testaments together in the first place? If God's word was intended to be in the Bible, his word has most surely been corrupted beyond belief at this point. Humankind is greedy, remember? Sure it's not really God's fault, it's the fault of humans. That's why you should not trust the Bible. Believe in what you want, but do not pour your very lives into the words of this untrustworthy book.
Any reasonable human being should question what they believe in on a regular basis. I know I do. Just as Thomas Jefferson said: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that are quick to point out in criticism. For instance:
- Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors.
- The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark–is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?
- The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem–a couple of days or a whole year?)
- All four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection.
- The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father.
Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
Of the various methods we've seen to "explain" these, the most common excuses are:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD–which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want…
2. "There was more there than…." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a AND b", which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a AND b." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining that they don't mind adding to verses.
3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?
4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right–I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.
5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact. Right.
6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.
Popularity: 54% [?]
Go ahead, propagate hatred against your religion, see if I care!
I'm sitting in USF's library right now trying to do homework. But my attention has been caught by 3 USF students sitting near me doing a Bible Study (from the book of Romans in the Old Testament.. if you were curious). They are probably the creepiest USF students I've seen so far here.
They sound so sure of themselves, judging people as a whole. Saying that God created Hitler for a reason, that he created a tribe of Barbarians who go around and rape and pillage others, for a reason. They are arguing whether or not Romans should be taken within a historical context or not. One is arguing that if the Bible is to be taken within a historical context, then it makes God seem weaker (and thus he chooses not to take it historically for that reason). The other is arguing that since man wrote the books of the Bible, that they live in their own historically subjective time, and that you need to understand history to understand certain messages in Romans. This I agree with, but what I don't get is why are they arguing over this in the first place? Why should Bible interpretation be so damn ambiguous? How come some choose to take the meaning literally, others take it symbolically, others take it historically etc. It seems to me they do whatever's convenient to them, like student 1, who seems to have a complex of his God being viewed as "weak", and so he chooses to believe that his word is universally independent from time and history. He believes whatever is convenient for him. How fucking convenient is that?
I suppose what annoys me three the most is that earlier, before they started their Bible study, they were studying for their Racism in America class. They were going over topics and disagreeing with just about everything. They were saying that even the term "hate crime" itself is stupid. They were saying things like gays should not be allowed to get married, and if they ARE allowed to have civil unions, then straight people should have that right as well for tax benefits. One of them states that calling a crime a black-hate crime is racist towards white people. He said it should not matter what the white guy's motive is for committing a crime against the said black person, whether it's because he's black, or because he didn't like the way he smiled, that it should be considered as just "a crime".
Complete bullshit. And then, one of them trailed off about how he called his friend on the phone to see where they were parked at, because they were leaving soon, and he wanted their parking spot. His friend told him where, and apparently when he pulled in the parking lot and drove to the spot. When he arrived as his friend was pulling out, somebody girl was already sitting there waiting to pull into the spot. So this jackass pulled AROUND this person, and then drove right into his friend's parking spot and parked. When he got out the girl started bitching him out and he was making it seem like SHE was the asshole and he told her that he was "technically waiting longer" than she was for the parking spot, because he already called his friend a few minutes before. Then he compared the whole situation to if he pre-ordered an Xbox, and Walmart had one left, just because that girl just showed up and has been waiting in line, he still gets the last Xbox.
Talk about comparing apples to oranges..
Then the conversation trailed off and they started talking about how they like doing acid, and one starting talking about shrooms.
So yeah, these Christians creeped me the fuck out with their shit morals, and their Christian obsessions, and their hypocrisy. How do you go around judging anything and everything like they do? What a bunch of arrogant dickheads. What pisses me off the most is that whatever I would have or could have said to them, they would just argue with me until they're blue in the face. They seemed like the type. That and I don't believe in pushing your beliefs on others against their will. So why fucking bother? They choose to be the way they are, and their religion is just their outlet of justifying their means.
I just got a really bad feeling about them. Fucking creepy they were.. gave me the willies!
Popularity: 88% [?]
Construct Your Own Reality
The human mind can be a strange thing sometimes. I must remind myself that we possess a strange ability to lie to ourselves until we eventually believe our own lies. We have an ability to create our own reality at times, especially in trying times or in fearful times. Unfortunately death is one of humankind's greatest fears, in my opinion, and so it seems obvious to me that humankind will naturally lie to itself until it is thoroughly convinced that death is not the end. This is evident when looking at the natural progression of religions throughout the world, where two separate and isolated cultures will most likely evolve their own religions. It’s human nature, according to psychologists.
Our philosophy of "I think, therefore I am", sends us on an ego trip that has us thinking humans are the center of the universe, and that we are actually important in this world. Well, we aren't. In the long run, mankind itself means nothing in this universe. We are just an infinitesimal speck of dirt in the eye of time, and we'll be washed away in the blink of an eye! Most people are uncomfortable with this idea, but hey, reality bites.
I think a lot of people lie to themselves about God. They really do want to believe, but I get the feeling that most of them deep down don’t truly believe in God. Life on earth is supposed to be so much more miserable than it is in heaven for all eternity. So why in the world are people still so scared to die? It seems to me that a true Christian who believed in God would look forward to heaven, and so if somebody holds a gun to their head, they would gladly await the gunshot, that is, if they truly believed in what they say they do. To a Christian I must ask: Would you really put your trust in God and risk your life for what he promises?
I guess some people have a greater fear of the unknown, than they do of death, and therefore want to figure the unknown out. These people want to understand the truth, not just understand the truth that we make up. Those people are called “Atheists”. And I just so happen to be one of them.
Popularity: 19% [?]