A Case For The Anti-Christ

By on June 14, 2010 in News 58

Now a lot of people like to talk about Christianity like they know what they’re talking about. I hear people talking about Jesus’s love for the world, who then apologize for the assholes who apparently “messed up” Jesus’ gospel and turned into something he never would have approved of. You hear it from soccer moms to gay priests, generally liberal, you yourself may have thought Jesus got a bad rap and try to justify all the war, crime and pestilence carried out in his name; that Jesus was basically a good guy. But I wonder, fictional character or real life man, what would Jesus think about the world he left behind 2000 years ago? Because his story has certainly left an impact on world society as a whole – that’s one thing we can all agree on. It’s almost baffling if you try to contemplate it all – of course people have been trying to understand religion since we invented it in the first place. It’s such a curious cycle, this fame monster.

But if I may be so bold as to officially suggest for consideration that Jesus willfully and deliberately created an evil religion. I submit for review exhibit “a”; Matthew 10:34.

“Do not think I came to bring peace upon the
earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword.”

Apologists pretend Mt. 10:34 is out of context, but if you read the rest of the paragraph it is clear Jesus intends for people to follow him. And those who do not will be suffered upon IN his name BY his followers, here on earth.

Christianity says that by the power invested in it by itself it hereby declares you a sinner, so now you have a disease, you are the disease. And the only way to cure yourself of the disease is to become a brain-washed monkey in the name of Jesus and then drop dead. That’s it. That’s Christianity stripped down to the core.

Now if a person or organization did the same thing to your physical body, that is; poison your body and then gave you the promise of a cure only if you became their slave, they would be rightfully sent to jail. But because Christianity does that to your mind and soul, which is less tangible, they’re able to get away with it for 2000 years. Nice little racket, huh?

Having said that, I now propose for official consideration that an Anti-Christ would be earth’s salvation. Not just an atheist, or a Buddhist but an honest to God Anti-Chirst. Socking, isn’t it?

I officially propose that instead of following Men or Gods to create peace, we instead ignore those who would tell us how to do our own thing. Far from creating chaos, those in positions of (spiritual or material) authority, no longer in control of our daily welfare, for which they have no real vested interest in anyway (we’d actually be doing them a favor), would allow people to interact with each other in a more relaxed state; with slack, as it were.

Non-violent resistance seems like an appropriate measure to take; I say; quit your job, stop paying taxes, let the black market provide. Self-employment, trade, independent agriculture, whatever the job; someone will do it – even volunteer trash men… believe me, there are worse jobs. Case in point, I was watching Pat Robertson today talk about how to deal with Iran. It was… illuminating, to say the least. Hopefully the President doesn’t take such ironic actions against a country whose only crime was getting pissed off at us for interfering with their lives in the first place.

So yes, I believe this IS a Christian nation and the time IS at hand. And I propose a Church of the Anti-Christ. We do not suggest humanity is ‘perfect’ as we are, but this Church proposes Man holds the keys to our own salvation.

THE GAME OF YOU.

*But first I must sprinkle you with fairy dust*

, ,

  • Leapfrog

    where's the fairy dust? i'm curious to read on a bit more

    • Talmadge613

      Here's the link to the “Bible” as it were.

      http://tiny.cc/t9v0e

    • Rain

      Don't deny the credit fairy…

  • sounds familiar

    what an original idea. a sort of anti-christ who would, in terms of his stance on christian morality would be beyond good and evil. i like the fact that you recognise that although we are all human, all too human, we should try to look towards ourselves and initiate a twilight of the idols. perhaps our work towards our liberation from pre-existing constraints on our thought and the development of our understanding could take the form of some sort of happy science? we'd call it a “joyous science” perhaps, or “gleeful science”, or even “gay science”…

    • Talmadge613

      Yes. It DOES sound familiar. Like someone took a lot of valid, yet separate, ideals and integrated them into a holistic set of principles. Furthermore, why do people think “original” ideas are so much better than ideas that have STOOD the test of time, eh?

      And you can call IT what YOU want. Our bible is very much in the developmental stage and conceptual contributions are very much welcome. I like 'gay science' very proactive and provocative.

      • Tuna Ghost

        I think you may have missed a joke there, buddy. “The Gay Science” is a writing by Neitzche which contains the whole “God is dead and we killed him” bit (which is actually a rather moving scene, I must admit).

      • sounds familiar

        I'm not especially against what is being proposed. I guess the point of my post is that you need to read Nietzsche. He even wrote a book called the Antichrist, proposing pretty much what you're saying now. He's also an extremely profound thinker. Better struggling with his texts than coming up with some nonsense on your own.

        • Talmadge613

          “Better struggling with his texts than coming up with some nonsense on your own.”

          “Think for yourself”… it's not just a catch phrase anymore. And I'm sure there's plenty of people who think Nietzsche was full of nonsense. The very fact people are comparing what I'm doing to: LaVey, Nietzsche, Crowley et. al. can only be a sign I'll die insane… and famous. THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT DISINFO!!

          • Tuna Ghost

            I don't recall anyone comparing you to Crowley besides yourself, which sort of proves that you've really got no idea what any of these writers are like. Care to explain how you've “reinterpreted” any of these authors, which I find curious given that you've apparently never read any of them? Your article is like their writings only in that you've stripped away everything of worth from them and left nothing but trite, self-involved bullshit that every american teenager at some point conceives of. Nothing wrong with that, I'd wager everyone here did something similar at one point, but defending it as anything other than crap is not going to get you anywhere.

          • sounds familiar

            Yes, think for yourself, absolutely. But starting from where? Are you the first person to begin thinking about the conditions of your existence, the nature of our social structures, what it means to be human, etc.? Why proceed completely regardless of the opportunities available to develop your ability to think about such things? Previous authors are a challenge for you, and a part of thinking for yourself. And, frankly, the stuff you've come up with is exactly what we'd expect from someone who hasn't read the great thinkers of the past. It repeats very old arguments in a less nuanced and oversimplified form.

            I'm not insulting you. I don't think you're stupid or incapable of making a good contribution. But if you want to contribute to an ongoing debate which has lasted hundreds of years you should listen to some of the previous participants! And certainly take Nietzsche with a pinch of salt. A lot of what he said really is seductive nonsense. Read also Marx, Foucault, and the Situationist International.

    • dumbsaint

      Thus spake sounds familiar.

  • justagirl

    LOL! “but first, let me show you what a gullible retard you are”.

  • http://www.myspace.com/mettaya Mettaya

    I could never see any 'evil' about the idea of the Antichrist. If you're buying into Revelation, then the AC is a necessary, even welcome, person, and if you consider Christianity to be the 'true' Church of Satan, as I do – simple reverse psychology – then the 'anti' Christ would actually be the person who brings about salvation. Or in other words, the person claiming (and likely seeming to be) the 'Christ' is probably the Antichrist – think about it, what more evil force is there on this planet than the Vatican, who claim to be the very Mouthpiece of God? Does the Devil not know the Bible like the back of his hand?

    We need a holistic view of The Infinite, as much as our perception can allow – we must replace Rhetoric with Experience. Have you spoken to 'God', if I may call Him by such a rude name? It really isn't that hard. As a matter of fact, the Creator is always speaking to us, always getting involved, placing signs for those with eyes to follow. “There is a LIVING GOD who will speak directly fucking to you.” – Bill Hicks

    There is also the Mettaya/Maitreya concept, that instead of a 'messiah' there is a Mettaya, not 'the one and only son of God returned to earth' but simply a human who can suss out the Divine in a manner that can be interpreted by the masses as to bring out massive scale change in human society – taken further, simply put, why wait until the next life, or wait for a savior, when your Salvation has been 'in the palm of your hand' this whole time? “WE are the ones we have been waiting for.”

    Instead of 'a' savior, why not a million? Or a billion? Or 8? Imagine a world where everyone saw themselves as a Son of God, and took care of their fellows and what surrounds them in a manner befitting such a being; I believe we have the opportunity to create that world. Right where you're sitting now. This isn't the End of anything but the world pretty much all of us hate for one reason or another – a Door opens, and the End of one 'room' is the Beginning of another. It's an Interesting time to be alive, for sure.

  • Aghast

    Swing and a miss…

    • Talmadge613

      My balls itch

  • E. Spengler

    “Now a lot of people like to talk about Christianity like they know what they’re talking about.”

    What makes the author believe he is any different?

    • Talmadge613

      If you think that is counter-productive, then ask yourself: Do you trust someone who says you should ignore people who would tell you to do your own thing? How do you even 'rebel' against such a figure?

    • Neo2012

      I agree! The funny thing is how the boneheads who claim they know the scriptures, the author of this article included, have never read the scriptures in the original language it was written in.

      Which has to be done in order to understand them due to the fact that there are entirely way too many mis-translations of the original text that change the entire meanings.

      Hence, the reason the translated scriptures tend to be contradictive. I suggest using a translator/concordance in studying the scriptures. That is the only way one can comprehend the true writtings. For example: The hebrew word Sheol, was mis-translated by the Greeks many, many years ago into the word Hades, which means Hell. Sheol means grave. Not an everlasting fire pit. This is just one example, the Holy Bible that we know is full of them.

  • http://www.myspace.com/mettaya Mettaya

    I could never see any 'evil' about the idea of the Antichrist. If you're buying into Revelation, then the AC is a necessary, even welcome, person, and if you consider Christianity to be the 'true' Church of Satan, as I do – simple reverse psychology – then the 'anti' Christ would actually be the person who brings about salvation. Or in other words, the person claiming (and likely seeming to be) the 'Christ' is probably the Antichrist – think about it, what more evil force is there on this planet than the Vatican, who claim to be the very Mouthpiece of God? Does the Devil not know the Bible like the back of his hand?

    We need a holistic view of The Infinite, as much as our perception can allow – we must replace Rhetoric with Experience. Have you spoken to 'God', if I may call Him by such a rude name? It really isn't that hard. As a matter of fact, the Creator is always speaking to us, always getting involved, placing signs for those with eyes to follow. “There is a LIVING GOD who will speak directly fucking to you.” – Bill Hicks

    There is also the Mettaya/Maitreya concept, that instead of a 'messiah' there is a Mettaya, not 'the one and only son of God returned to earth' but simply a human who can suss out the Divine in a manner that can be interpreted by the masses as to bring out massive scale change in human society – taken further, simply put, why wait until the next life, or wait for a savior, when your Salvation has been 'in the palm of your hand' this whole time? “WE are the ones we have been waiting for.”

    Instead of 'a' savior, why not a million? Or a billion? Or 8? Imagine a world where everyone saw themselves as a Son of God, and took care of their fellows and what surrounds them in a manner befitting such a being; I believe we have the opportunity to create that world. Right where you're sitting now. This isn't the End of anything but the world pretty much all of us hate for one reason or another – a Door opens, and the End of one 'room' is the Beginning of another. It's an Interesting time to be alive, for sure.

  • Aghast

    Swing and a miss…

  • E. Spengler

    “Now a lot of people like to talk about Christianity like they know what they’re talking about.”

    What makes the author believe he is any different?

  • Tuna Ghost

    Mmm, Disinfo and Christianity, just what I wanted this morning. I love it when people with apparently no education in this sort of thing make sweeping general statements that have no relation to the reality of the situation. Wait, did I say “love”? Sorry! I meant ” it makes me want to pull my hair out”.

    “Apologists pretend Mt. 10:34 is out of context, but if you read the rest of the paragraph it is clear Jesus intends for people to follow him. And those who do not will be suffered upon IN his name BY his followers, here on earth.”

    I very much doubt you can back that up with scripture. Yes, according to the text Christ is apparently out to start some strife, but you can't make a case for that being “evil”. He's out to establish a new order, according to the story anyway, so naturally it may get a bit messy. There's no mention of earthly retribution by his followers, as you suggest.

    “Christianity says that by the power invested in it by itself it hereby declares you a sinner, so now you have a disease, you are the disease. And the only way to cure yourself of the disease is to become a brain-washed monkey in the name of Jesus and then drop dead. That’s it. That’s Christianity stripped down to the core.”

    That's a rather glib interpretation of the concept of original sin, which has its origins in Pauline epistels–that would be Paul “Hey-Let's-Divorce-Jesus-From-His-Earthly-And-Jewish-Roots-And-Totally-Make-Him-A-God-Oh-And-By-The-Way-Women-Are-Bad” of Damscus, noted for affecting Church Doctrine perhaps more than Jesus himself. Some Christians don't even believe in that doctrine, although personally as a non-christian the notion that we're all bastards is not one I have a big problem with.

    I do have a problem, however, with people with obviously little to no education and an axe to grind “stripping Christiany to it's roots”, and it's funny how they all arrive at “it's just someone telling you what to do!” Maybe if the author allowed someone to tell him what to do, perhaps in regard to practicing how to write a decent arguement, he wouldn't come across as a complete tool.

    That said, this is essentially watered-down Satanism, yeah? Except as concieved by a 17 year old?

    “Now a lot of people like to talk about Christianity like they know what they’re talking about.”

    Adorable. Absolutely adorable.

    • justagirl

      OMG! you have hair?

      • Tuna Ghost

        not anymore, unfortunately

    • GoodDoktorBad

      Still discussing opinions as if they were facts? As usual, your opinion is unapparent, other than what you think of the author's education and age in comparison to your own imitation of a “complete tool”.

      “Maybe if the author allowed someone to tell him what to do”. Like you perhaps? You may have something to contribute if we could only sift through the arrogant barbs you spew.
      As a point of opinion, I'd say that to survive in a room where your head fills all the space, everyone else must leave the room. At least, we can leave because our heads fit through the door.
      If you are an example of what institutional education puts out, no wonder no one seems to have a clue.
      Your head is so far up your own ass, even roses smell like shit……

      • Tuna Ghost

        This is why it's not a good idea to have “opinions” on things that have easily verifiable facts behind them, because you end up looking like an idiot when you could have, with just a few minutes on Google, learned why one's opinions aren't worth jack shit unless they are informed. It's amazing to me that people think they have a right for their opinions to be taken seriously when they obviously haven't done any research or taken any time to learn anything about the subject beyond how they feel about it. Why exactly do you think he deserves to be taken seriously, Herr Doktor? Why do you think his opinion deserves to heard at all? What has he done to earn that from any of us?

        As usual, you've resorted to personal attacks because you can't come up with anything else besides “those are just, like, my OPINIONS, man”. Well, guess what. Opinions, if they are on verifiable information, can be wrong or stupid.

        • GoodDoktorBad

          What you call “easily verifiable facts” are not facts at all. I'd guess that 90+% of what might be considered “verifiable facts” are based on subjective and biased observations, every one -second hand….
          every one -debateable, every one with respect to one view. No, the truth is a much larger arena. My point is you seem to speak in so many absolute terms, as if your thoughts are the final word. Let me assure you, no one has the final word.

          I just don't like the way you snear at people whom you seem to often view as inferior in some way. The points the article makes are irrelevent to me. I don't care if they are absolutely correct, I'm just glad somebody is thinking, even if its stupid thinking in some ways, sometimes. No one gets it ALL correct, and if some one did, who would really know? An “education” doesn't guarantee what you are taught isn't false or misguided. At best it may give you the tools to find “truth” on your own…..the road to wisdom is paved with mistakes…..
          Let the “adorable” “17 year old” have his psuedo-satan thoughts without some one like yourself dropping stones on there head from atop their ivory towers made of egg shells and candy glass……

          • Tuna Ghost

            “What you call “easily verifiable facts” are not facts at all. I'd guess that 90+% of what might be considered “verifiable facts” are based on subjective and biased observations, every one -second hand….
            every one -debateable, every one with respect to one view.”

            This is, simply, not the case. Perhaps big-T Truth is a larger arena, but “facts” and “truth” are not synonymous. In the rather muddied field of history and biblical studies, one could argue that the facts regarding what happened two thousand years ago are hard to come by; but what isn't hard to come by is what the vast majority of scholars think. It's there, and if you really give a shit about what you're writing about then there is no excuse not to take the goddam two seconds it takes to go online and research. God forbid you actually read a book or anything.

            As for the rest, and I hope this is the only time I have to write this: putting your opinions into the public arena means other people get to tell you what they think of them. This is not a bad thing. This is what will make you better at research, and better at writing. Ray Bradbury had a line in Fahrenheit 451 about having one's blunt ignorance bashed down into a fine point, into a tool that can actually get something done. Should we just leave the author to their ignorance? Will that do anything good for him/her?

          • GoodDoktorBad

            You use the word scholar like your defending your brethren. Good for you. Stay in your snobbish little click where everyone else is a fool to condescend to. While the rest of us search for answers on our own, you can just pick the brains of scholars. A consensus of idiots often without the guts to stand alone or think for themselves. Propping up there egos with diplomas, certificates, kudos and quotes from other scholarly
            idiots who often have no more of a clue than the laymen.
            Fooling yourself into thinking that you are doing a service to someone, when all you do is feed your own ego with your percieved ignorance of others.
            Talk about ignorant snobbery………….not adorable!
            ” blunt ignorance bashed down into a fine point”. An you have defined your role as the hammer……..how adorable…….

          • Tuna Ghost

            Scholar
            –noun
            1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.
            2. a student; pupil.
            3. a student who has been awarded a scholarship

            You got somethin' against book-learnin', doktor? Of course you don't. You just use words like “scholar” without knowing their meaning, which is a fairly common crime. It does appear that you have an ax to grind against anyone who cares enough about a given subject to study it to a given level, which is frankly bewildering.

            I noticed you didn't actually answer any of my questions, though. As much fun as our chats are, doktor, I doubt we can go much further unless you're willing to tackle those questions.

  • Athena

    I can give you hundreds of reasons why following the 10 commandments will keep you out of trouble and lead to an honorable, pleasant life. Our society is built on them, give or take. With or without any espoused religion. What you preach is anarchy and foolish. You must be young or not very educated.

  • yourmother

    this sucked.

  • Athena

    I can give you hundreds of reasons why following the 10 commandments will keep you out of trouble and lead to an honorable, pleasant life. Our society is built on them, give or take. With or without any espoused religion. What you preach is anarchy and foolish. You must be young or not very educated.

  • yourmother

    this sucked.

  • APR

    Look up Luke 19:27

  • APR

    Look up Luke 19:27

  • GoodDoktorBad

    Still discussing opinions as if they were facts? As usual, your opinion is unapparent, other than what you think of the author's education and age in comparison to your own imitation of a “complete tool”.

    “Maybe if the author allowed someone to tell him what to do”. Like you perhaps? You may have something to contribute if we could only sift through the arrogant barbs you spew.
    As a point of opinion, I'd say that to survive in a room where your head fills all the space, everyone else must leave the room. At least, we can leave because our heads fit through the door.
    If you are an example of what institutional education puts out, no wonder no one seems to have a clue.
    Your head is so far up your own ass, even roses smell like shit……

  • The House of Madness

    There is nothing new or original in the article “A Case For The Anti-Christ”. In fact, it is quite poorly written, for the most part. One thing most people overlook is the fact the Bible makes no mention of a singular Anti-Christ arising. The term is often associated with the book of Revelation (not Revelations), although it doesn't appear there at all. The term is found in four places in the Bible: 1 John 2:18-19; 1 John 2:22-23; 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7. The last verse is probably the best one for understanding what John was talking about when spoke of this anti christ:
    “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” So it would seem from 2John that ANY person who denied that Jesus came in the flesh was AN antichrist, not THE antichrist. In fact, no where in Bible is there any direct mention of AN anti christ. The term seems more descriptive of a general mental attitude than of an individual. Any attempt to “find” the anti-christ in Revelation is interpretative at best. In any case, it matters very little to me in the big scheme of things. I believe in Christ and Anti-Christ about as strongly as I believe in The Brothers Grimm.

  • E.B. Wolf

    I hate to break this to you; but someone has beat you to this idea by more than forty years.
    His name was Anton LaVey.
    Disinfo has a great interview with him in The Book of Lies.

    • Talmadge613

      For the love of God. Are you implying Anton LaVey did something original? Are you suggesting because someone did something before me there's no room for reinterpretation? I'm surprised no one brought up Crowley. You know, I like to draw too. By your tone I shouldn't bother with that either because DaVinci made the Mona Lisa. Fucking lemming. Maybe the lot of you missed the gist of the phrase “Think for yourself.” I WILL NOT capitulate to history just because it's “been done.”

  • E.B. Wolf

    I hate to break this to you; but someone has beat you to this idea by more than forty years.
    His name was Anton LaVey.
    Disinfo has a great interview with him in The Book of Lies.

  • Clod

    The author's idea isn't original, far from it, it has been around for hundreds of years, and even appeared within popular culture. Some made a quasi-religion out of this idea, in other cases, it never went beyond cloaked conformism for immature, easy to control 'non-conformists' with a moral superiority complex. Also, the members of the 'I think for myself-crowd' usually all think exactly alike, as the replies to this article indicate as well. They're no strangers to the cult like behaviour they denounce. Frankly, all of this is revoltingly unintelligent. And the anti-christian sentiment expressed in this article doesn't give us a balanced view of this religion or its history, it's just pure, misplaced hatred, based on a flawed perception of christianity and the Church.
    Life is complex, you can't lock the world out, we're all influenced by it. And in an organized society, even a tribal, or an anarchist one, there will always be people who lead, and people who follow, the needs of society demand it.

    • Talmadge613

      “the members of the 'I think for myself-crowd' usually all think exactly alike”

      What's your point? are you saying it is impossible for people to come to the same conclusions INDEPENDENTLY? Because if THINK about it… it is not only probable, but entirely inevitable that those who value their individuality would believe in some form of anarchy. To suggest it is merely another form of conformity sounds like conspiracy theorist logic. Finding patterns in chaos and attributing it to something tangible.
      And you talk about superiority complexes like you aren't the most judgmental person here “Frankly, all of this is revoltingly unintelligent.” REALLY!? Tell us more, PROFESSOR! I suppose it's possible the crusades, inquisition, rape of south america and the nut jobs who post pictures of aborted fetuses in public were and are acting on a flawed perception of what Christianity represents. But does that change the fact those things were done in the name of JESUS? No. It doesn't. So I rant. Furthermore; go fuck yourself… just kidding. That's a TOOL reference, by the way. But I suppose liking a popular band just makes me a conformist. RIGHT?!

      • Tuna Ghost

        Wow kid you are just all over the place. Why not read some Neitzche? He's available at your local library and it may help you better articulate some of your ideas, which will, I promise you, get you taken much more seriously. Why not start with “The Gay Science”? It's got some famous bits in it.

  • Clod

    The author's idea isn't original, far from it, it has been around for hundreds of years, and even appeared within popular culture. Some made a quasi-religion out of this idea, in other cases, it never went beyond cloaked conformism for immature, easy to control 'non-conformists' with a moral superiority complex. Also, the members of the 'I think for myself-crowd' usually all think exactly alike, as the replies to this article indicate as well. They're no strangers to the cult like behaviour they denounce. Frankly, all of this is revoltingly unintelligent. And the anti-christian sentiment expressed in this article doesn't give us a balanced view of this religion or its history, it's just pure, misplaced hatred, based on a flawed perception of christianity and the Church.
    Life is complex, you can't lock the world out, we're all influenced by it. And in an organized society, even a tribal, or an anarchist one, there will always be people who lead, and people who follow, the needs of society demand it.

  • Tuna Ghost

    not anymore, unfortunately

  • Tuna Ghost

    This is why it's not a good idea to have “opinions” on things that have easily verifiable facts behind them, because you end up looking like an idiot when you could have, with just a few minutes on Google, learned why one's opinions aren't worth jack shit unless they are informed. It's amazing to me that people think they have a right for their opinions to be taken seriously when they obviously haven't done any research or taken any time to learn anything about the subject beyond how they feel about it. Why exactly do you think he deserves to be taken seriously, Herr Doktor? Why do you think his opinion deserves to heard at all? What has he done to earn that from any of us?

    As usual, you've resorted to personal attacks because you can't come up with anything else besides “those are just, like, my OPINIONS, man”. Well, guess what. Opinions, if they are on verifiable information, can be wrong or stupid.

  • Anon.

    The amount of stupidity in this article is astounding.

  • Anon.

    The amount of stupidity in this article is astounding.

  • Talmadge613

    For the love of God. Are you implying Anton LaVey did something original? Are you suggesting because someone did something before me there's no room for reinterpretation? I'm surprised no one brought up Crowley. You know, I like to draw too. By your tone I shouldn't bother with that either because DaVinci made the Mona Lisa. Fucking lemming. Maybe the lot of you missed the gist of the phrase “Think for yourself.” I WILL NOT capitulate to history just because it's “been done.”

  • Talmadge613

    “Better struggling with his texts than coming up with some nonsense on your own.”

    “Think for yourself”… it's not just a catch phrase anymore. And I'm sure there's plenty of people who think Nietzsche was full of nonsense. The very fact people are comparing what I'm doing to: LaVey, Nietzsche, Crowley et. al. can only be a sign I'll die insane… and famous. THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT DISINFO!!

  • GoodDoktorBad

    What you call “easily verifiable facts” are not facts at all. I'd guess that 90+% of what might be considered “verifiable facts” are based on subjective and biased observations, every one -second hand….
    every one -debateable, every one with respect to one view. No, the truth is a much larger arena. My point is you seem to speak in so many absolute terms, as if your thoughts are the final word. Let me assure you, no one has the final word.

    I just don't like the way you snear at people whom you seem to often view as inferior in some way. The points the article makes are irrelevent to me. I don't care if they are absolutely correct, I'm just glad somebody is thinking, even if its stupid thinking in some ways, sometimes. No one gets it ALL correct, and if some one did, who would really know? An “education” doesn't guarantee what you are taught isn't false or misguided. At best it may give you the tools to find “truth” on your own…..the road to wisdom is paved with mistakes…..
    Let the “adorable” “17 year old” have his psuedo-satan thoughts without some one like yourself dropping stones on there head from atop their ivory towers made of egg shells and candy glass……

  • Neo2012

    I agree! The funny thing is how the boneheads who claim they know the scriptures, the author of this article included, have never read the scriptures in the original language it was written in.

    Which has to be done in order to understand them due to the fact that there are entirely way too many mis-translations of the original text that change the entire meanings.

    Hence, the reason the translated scriptures tend to be contradictive. I suggest using a translator/concordance in studying the scriptures. That is the only way one can comprehend the true writtings. For example: The hebrew word Sheol, was mis-translated by the Greeks many, many years ago into the word Hades, which means Hell. Sheol means grave. Not an everlasting fire pit. This is just one example, the Holy Bible that we know is full of them.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Scholar
    –noun
    1. a learned or erudite person, esp. one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.
    2. a student; pupil.
    3. a student who has been awarded a scholarship

    You got somethin' against book-learnin', doktor? Of course you don't. You just use words like “scholar” without knowing their meaning, which is a fairly common crime. It does appear that you have an ax to grind against anyone who cares enough about a given subject to study it to a given level, which is frankly bewildering.

    I noticed you didn't actually answer any of my questions, though. As much fun as our chats are, doktor, I doubt we can go much further unless you're willing to tackle those questions.

  • laberinto24

    As hilarious as this article was….the comments section is even better. Thnx for the entertainment interwebz!

  • laberinto24

    As hilarious as this article was….the comments section is even better. Thnx for the entertainment interwebz!

  • jeeeeeeeeeebus

    It’s amazing to me how comfortable people get in their made up complexities. Does this shit make you feel special? I hope so, because it does absolutely nothing for me. Its pretty obvious the billion chrostians in the world were led astray by the antichrist to begin with. The Catholic disinformation campaign I find tho be the most insideous. Any one who takes the word of something positive, self liberating, and warning of the spiritual and historical ways we fuck each other over throughout time, and is used to create what organized religion is today……HELLO?…thats is the fucking antichrist. And its bastardized and corrupted every religion that came before and after it to boot, even yours.

  • jeeeeeeeeeebus

    It’s amazing to me how comfortable people get in their made up complexities. Does this shit make you feel special? I hope so, because it does absolutely nothing for me. Its pretty obvious the billion chrostians in the world were led astray by the antichrist to begin with. The Catholic disinformation campaign I find tho be the most insideous. Any one who takes the word of something positive, self liberating, and warning of the spiritual and historical ways we fuck each other over throughout time, and is used to create what organized religion is today……HELLO?…thats is the fucking antichrist. And its bastardized and corrupted every religion that came before and after it to boot, even yours.