Oh Come All Ye Faithful
Hey kids,
I was floozing around the back aisles of church yesterday morning, singing carols and all that tripe, when we started singing "Oh Come All Ye Faithful". That song has good LIAC memories for me, because there was a Christmas long ago when my friend and I had our girlfriends round for a Christmas party, and we all sang that carol. It was memorable because neither my friend nor I could sing, whilst both our girlfriends were "career"-singers who were perfectly in tune and doing harmonies that our own rubbish voices couldn't contend with.
Obviously, later on, that same girl pulled my heart out using clamps made of my own teeth.
In any case! The lyrics, dude - the fucking lyrics. It's all about LIAC! Almost everything to do with religion has so many parallels to love, and this quite innocent-looking carol purveys so much evil that it's almost a lyrical representation of Satan.
Check it:
"O come, all ye faithful,
Joyful and triumphant,
O come ye, O come ye to Bethlehem;
Come and behold him,
Born the King of angels;"
It seems innocent enough! But no - read between the lines you blinded motherfuck - it's all about joyfully setting forth towards a totally random place to behold and worship someone - and who needs to go to this place? The 'faithful'. This blind faith reference is in every twisted verse.
Look at this sick shit:
"See how the shepherds,
Summoned to his cradle,
Leaving their flocks, draw nigh to gaze;
We too will thither
Bend our joyful footsteps;"
Shepherd's summoned to his cradle, leaving their flocks to be ravaged by wolves? Already they're fucked over - and they're only shepherds! And, of course, we too will then bend our joyful footsteps!? Bend our footsteps? Sickening.
And of course, the chorus is just pathetic:
"O come, let us adore him,
O come, let us adore him,
O Come, let us adore him,
Christ the Lord."
If that isn't all about LIAC, I don't know what is.
Seriously, all religion is parallel to love - it's all about blind faith and peacefully rotting away under a comforting blanket of mutual acceptance. Safety in numbers and using social proofing as sufficient condition for complacency. What a bunch of Satanic, humanity-defiling bullshit.
If you're religious, or deeply in love, then please! - make a resolution for 2005 - stab yourself repeatedly in the face until you are dead.
Thanks,
I was floozing around the back aisles of church yesterday morning, singing carols and all that tripe, when we started singing "Oh Come All Ye Faithful". That song has good LIAC memories for me, because there was a Christmas long ago when my friend and I had our girlfriends round for a Christmas party, and we all sang that carol. It was memorable because neither my friend nor I could sing, whilst both our girlfriends were "career"-singers who were perfectly in tune and doing harmonies that our own rubbish voices couldn't contend with.
Obviously, later on, that same girl pulled my heart out using clamps made of my own teeth.
In any case! The lyrics, dude - the fucking lyrics. It's all about LIAC! Almost everything to do with religion has so many parallels to love, and this quite innocent-looking carol purveys so much evil that it's almost a lyrical representation of Satan.
Check it:
"O come, all ye faithful,
Joyful and triumphant,
O come ye, O come ye to Bethlehem;
Come and behold him,
Born the King of angels;"
It seems innocent enough! But no - read between the lines you blinded motherfuck - it's all about joyfully setting forth towards a totally random place to behold and worship someone - and who needs to go to this place? The 'faithful'. This blind faith reference is in every twisted verse.
Look at this sick shit:
"See how the shepherds,
Summoned to his cradle,
Leaving their flocks, draw nigh to gaze;
We too will thither
Bend our joyful footsteps;"
Shepherd's summoned to his cradle, leaving their flocks to be ravaged by wolves? Already they're fucked over - and they're only shepherds! And, of course, we too will then bend our joyful footsteps!? Bend our footsteps? Sickening.
And of course, the chorus is just pathetic:
"O come, let us adore him,
O come, let us adore him,
O Come, let us adore him,
Christ the Lord."
If that isn't all about LIAC, I don't know what is.
Seriously, all religion is parallel to love - it's all about blind faith and peacefully rotting away under a comforting blanket of mutual acceptance. Safety in numbers and using social proofing as sufficient condition for complacency. What a bunch of Satanic, humanity-defiling bullshit.
If you're religious, or deeply in love, then please! - make a resolution for 2005 - stab yourself repeatedly in the face until you are dead.
Thanks,
posted by Juliet is Bleeding... | 10:04 am
Learn how to spell?
It’s just my personal opinion, but to attempt a grouping of divine love in with LIAC is an indefensible stretch of the imagination, for several reasons.
First, it assumes an equality of all forms of love. This idea breaks down very quickly if you apply thought to it. For example, the love between siblings or friends is inherently different than the romantic form of love most of us imply when we rant wildly here on Love Is A Cunt. No one approaches God in a merely romantic sense. That concept is almost comical.
Secondly, it assumes that religious or spiritual people are stupid, substandard thinkers. Which is a prejudice, and not a concrete fact. In truth, religious people are probably no different than atheists or humanists. Atheists, after all, demonstrate “blind faith” in an idea which they cannot possibly know for certain, an idea they cannot scientifically prove or rationally defend: that God does not exist. Cast off religious ideas and religious people if you wish. Fine. But whatever you have left - whether it is belief in mankind or only in yourself - requires “blind faith” in something you can’t really know for certain.
Thirdly, since you found yourself in a presumably Christian church singing a Christian hymn, it should be noted that the kind of love most valued in Christian circles (at least in theory) is an essentially selfless love, which sets it apart from human love. All love between human beings (at least in my observation) is essentially selfish, and self-serving. Divine love as understood in Christianity is sacrificial and completely foreign to human nature. It’s a whole other category. Theologically speaking, a Christian would say that mankind is incapable of demonstrating selfless, divine love without a direct intervention of God. Direct intervention of God is the essence of the Christmas and Easter stories. If this concept distresses you, why go to church at all?
The one way a Divine relationship might be compared to a human one is the fact that people have unintelligent, unrealistic expectations of both that end up leaving them disappointed. Which results in hurt and anger. Which leads to fear. Which leads to the opposite of love.
Philophobia (fear of love or falling in love) and theophobia (fear of God or religious people) may be connected if a person is simply afraid of ALL forms of love. That sort of fear wouldn’t make him a high-minded thinker or philosopher. It would make him a prisoner. To himself.
~ Witt
Much obliged, Ms. Tragik. And yes, Zaza, usually I'd tell you to not let the door smash your brains in on the way out, but somehow, having an illiterate fifteen-year-old reading this site makes me glow.
And Witt:
1. Not assuming equality of love, in fact. Just drawing the similarly of the blind faith and mutual reassurance components in both love of a woman and love of god.
2. I'm not sure how drawing this parallel assumes that religious people are stupid or substandard. In fact, I think it's just that you've assumed that I think that people following any blind faith rule are stupid or substandard. I don't think that. I'm not stupid or substandard, yet have a blind faith in various things - without being religious or in love (as you touched on). I do think that "mainstream" religions are bad things (for so many thousands of reasons, that don't need to be brought up on LIAC I hope!), though.
3. I'm not sure on this one. I think that the Christian religion does try and pass itself off as selfless, but it's almost futile for it to do so amongst a species which is - by the very definitions of ourselves and the word - selfish. In fact, one of the reasons why I think religion is so appealing is precisely that one can set oneself up as near-transcendental to your brother mortals. It's also why I don't like it. By the by, I only found myself in church because my family is religious. And yes, I do want them to stab themselves to death (metaphorically speaking, o'course).
4. The last few bits you wrote, I agree with completely, natch.
I think you had good points, all of them. Unfortunately, my original post was the work of a lazy fuckwit and I didn't qualify a lot of what I said properly. Rush job. Glad you picked it apart.
*stab himself in the face repeatedly*
(laughs deliriously)
God I love this site.
It's COMPLETELY fallacious to say that atheism requires blind faith.
Believing in unicorns, dragons and god are all analagous. There is simply no verifiable evidence for any of these things. NOT believing in something is NOT something that requires any faith whatsoever.
May I suggest you read this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345409469/qid=1104295314/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-7441756-6426867
It might help you gain a basic grounding in logic.
Anonymous (coward):
You're right. I don't believe in the wind anymore. After all, I can't see it.
If you are making an appeal to science, you cannot say there is no God unless you know the origin of the universe, how it works, and how it is sustained. In other words, from the standpoint of scientific PROOF, you cannot say "there is no God" without actually being god-like. Agnosticism makes sense sometimes for the thinker's mind. Atheism doesn't.
Cunt. Come back here and give me your email address so I can warp your mind.
I'm not a coward, I'm just too lazy to register on the n-thousandth site.
And the wind is a TERRIBLE example, but you knew that. I can think of a lot more 'dubious' forces than that to have me question. But that's your job...
The bottom line, however, remains the same. I DON'T need an absolute knowledge of everything since time began to disprove everything. Your argument only works if you also hold to the fact that unicorns, giant blue flying space shoes, money trees and invisible dragons also exist because I can't prove their non-existence.
So, to the hard logical side. You're correct. I CAN'T say "There is no god". But I can say "There is absolutely no evidence of a god, or anything like it, and believing in one is as lunatic as believing in any other human-mythical construct". So 99.9999% is good enough for me.
Of course, though, this is the exact point. If there WAS evidence, it would undermine the whole "blind faith" requirement of most religions... Funny that...