Creationism as pseudo-history.

Over the course of the past few years, we have noticed that creationism has been pushed as pseudo-science, but few people consider it's danger as pseudo-history.

You see history of any kind defines a people, gives them an origin. It is the study of the past, focused on human activity and leading up to the present day. More precisely, history is the continuous, systematic narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race.

For people like the creationist, people who have history and more importantly links to a past in which Christianity wasn't in charge, is rather inconvenient, as it raises many questions about the past and the true origins of man.

According to scientists, our humble beginnings as homo sapien, started around 200,000 BP in the Paleolithic era. According to the creationist who believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old, it's claim denies the history of thousands of cultures that came and went, for example, England's beaker people, or even the migrations of the First People from Asia to the new world.

It denies the Greeks and Roman empire, the Aztec, the Incas, the Indu culture and Chinese cultures. It denies many people their history and what shaped them as a race, a creed right down to the individual.

You really want to stop someone in their tracks, you deny them their identity as a Human being. And that starts back in denying them their cultural identity. Why do you think dying cultures on this planet fight tooth and nail to preserve their roots?

It shapes them, it defines them, and makes them who they are. History takes a great part in it.

And so, for the Evangelical movement, known for their aggressive proselytizing, part of their success is by denying the identity of a person and slowly attempting to replace it with the Evangelical Christian world-view.

And Creationism, is a nice way to do it. Only acknowledge the judeo-christian pantheon and "history". Bring the "Scientific" evidence, in a Orwellian Ingsoc fashion, rewriting history when needed or denying past transgressions in the course of history (crusades anyone?) as "True Christians do not do that" (another convenient form of historical revisionism).

Such revisions are meant to make it seem that they are indeed "Good people", while encouraging the evangelical double-think, loving thy neighbor while hating their differences, claiming the truth all the while they lie consistently in order to maintain the existence of a myth, and claiming to serve a prince of peace, while getting in conflict with right about anyone who's not one of their own.

The truth isn't pretty, I will show you the ugly.

Culture jamming.

Alot of people ask me why I take WOTM's videos and corrupt them or change the meaning of them.

Well that term's got a name, it's called culture jamming.

Culture jamming is the act of transforming mass media to produce commentary about itself, using the original medium's communication method

Usually it's aimed at multi-national corporations. I modified it to aim it at cash-cow ministries like WOTM. You see, it's my way of countering their propraganda. It's not that complicated. Half the time, the preachers of these cash-cow ministries say things that anyone could manipulate in the most hilarious fashion or more importantly, can be very telling of the actual nature of the ministry being spoofed.

Just manipulating their bits, and re-arranging them and reposting them on-line, I create the means to counter their message by using their own methods against them. This saves alot of time in productivity and you can end up with a vast array of footage that can be used.

This can be applied to all their propraganda, from their booklets, tracts and videos. It's all fair in a culture war, where they try to ensnare your free mind, with their traps and deceptions.

The truth isn't pretty, I'll show you the ugly!!

Point To Ponder

Do the doctrinal beliefs of the folks at Way of the Master and those of Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church really differ all that much? Aside from their approach and delivery, both use the ten commandments to show "sinners" their shortcomings in the sight of God as well as sharing their predeterminalism.

What's the difference between the Phelps clan and the Friel clan? Who's the heretic?

Willful Misrepresentation

This entry might also have been titled "Lying."

Todd uses the ten commandments to show the "lost" that they have sinned against a holy and righteous god, will stand in judgment before him after they die and must repent and receive the forgiveness offered through Jesus Christ's shed blood on the cross of Calvary (let me know if I've misrepresented this; I think I've expressed it fairly accurately).

If Todd uses the commandments to show the unsaved their transgressions, why does he knowingly and repeatedly continue to break the ninth commandment by lying to his listening audience?

When Todd is asked of all the historical atrocities committed in the name of god by the pious, he indefinitely shifts the focus away from the reformation or the crusades and towards the Holocaust and other such contemporary examples of cruelty. He claims that the reformation and crusades weren't fought by True Christians™, but by heretics and hypocrites. Of course, if a freethinker were to use that sort of caveat against Friel, he would of course decry it as a foul.

Much to the chagrin of the WOTM staff, atheists do not feel it necessary to defend Adolph Hitler as an atheist because, in fact, he was not; Hitler was a Catholic mystic. Just take a quick glance at the photo embedded in this entry and you will notice that it is Nazi Germany-era military regalia. Now, for those of my non German-speaking readers, the script emblazoned across the top of this belt buckle reads "God With Us."

Todd Friel knows this historical fact and continues to disregard it for the spiritual benefit of his listeners. Shouldn't someone call him up and remind him what his god says about lying?

The (Opposing) View

For those of you who may be interested in reading more about views that differ from my own but don't have the time or the desire to wade through the mire that is Way of the Master, I have posted a new link in the left margin of this blog. It is relatively well-written and will give you a taste of what is being taught by WOTM. The writer's doctrinal views are incredibly similar to those of Friel, Comfort and Cameron all the way down to his concept of "grace through the law".

To better understand the mind of a fundamental, evangelical Christian literalist, visit Anathema Unbound (Jason Seipp) at "The 'ology' of Theology" and tell him Former Follier sends his greetings.

In the beginning...

There is so much that can and will be said about Mr. Friel, our illustrious WOTM Radio host, but it must all be prefaced. This entry is meant to thoroughly explain Todd's worldview so I may better explain the divisive tenets of his Christian faith.

Let me begin by saying that personal faith is something which I have no desire to combat. As a humanist, I feel like it is the right of every human to believe whatever he or she likes and to live their life accordingly. This principle does not hold when dealing with Todd and his ilk (namely Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort and their minions); they are devoted to a cause which preaches hostility, resentment of innate human nature, desire for unachievable goals and the obligation to spread their hate-filled message under the guise of concern. Those who adhere to the doctrine that is proposed by the WOTM staff are equally as frightening.

Let's think of the core beliefs of Todd's brand of Christianity (True Christianity™): The Ten Commandments. This is the set of Mosaic laws that has been the source of controversy in the courts for the last few years regarding its presence in American courthouses (among other public places). Without delving too deeply into the commandments themselves, we can plainly see that the request for them to be posted in public places is about as asinine as it would be to post excerpts from the Communist Manifesto or from the Codex Hammurabi. Actually, it would be somewhat understandable to post Hammurabi's code of ethics in courthouses because they are based on humanistic principles. The ten commandments are not.

At risk of making this entry too lengthy and difficult to read, I'd like to post and dissect the Ten Commandments as they were purportedly given to Moses (although the two sets of "the same" ten commandments that were given to Moses and the ancient Israelites are completely different between the Exodus and Deuteronomy accounts... food for thought):

First Commandment --
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Second Commandment --
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

Third Commandment --
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Fourth Commandment --
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Fifth Commandment --
Honour thy father and thy mother.

Sixth Commandment --
Thou shalt not kill.

Seventh Commandment --
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Eighth Commandment --
Thou shalt not steal.

Ninth Commandment --
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Tenth Commandment --
Thou shalt not covet.

It has been said before that trying to argue theology with a moderate or liberal Christian is "like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall" which is absolutely true. For that reason, I am glad that Todd is a strict fundamentalist (although he does take many liberties in changing the connotation of scriptural passages when confronted with biblical errors and contradictions) because you can always count on him to dig his own grave. What Todd fails to realize is that a great many thoughtful unbelievers have come to their lack of belief (quite a lengthy and painful process) by actually reading the book that he uses to try to convert "the lost"... the bible! No single book in history has caused so much controversy but not for the reasons Christians would like to believe. It is not because of the supposed truth contained within the canon but because of its undeniably fictitious nature. That's not to say there aren't some accuracies in the bible (historical, geographical and otherwise) but the inaccuracies far outweigh them.

Upon inspection of Todd's chosen "spiritual weapon" (the Decalogue or Ten Commandments), we can see that it is indeed imperfect, dull and even unreliable. It demands dogmatic belief in order to render itself effective. The problem is, humans (Americans especially) rely on situational ethics; a system where no dogmatic moral or ethical code can be enacted for numerous societal reasons. Approximately six billion humans currently inhabit this planet and you could expect that number to be exponentially lower (less than 100,000?) if all Mosaic laws were enforced. Let's take a look.

Applying humanist principles (situational ethics) to nearly all of the commandments shown above will lay bare exactly how morally bankrupt they and their adherents are:

Starting with the first commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me.) we can see that an assumption is immediately made that, not only is there only one god, but that all humans have an intimate knowledge of said god. Going back into recorded history, we know that there have been thousands of conceived deities that were feared and worshipped, many even predating the Christian god, Yahweh (YHWH). Letting alone the ancient Nordic gods and the Greek pantheon, we know that there are currently more than 30,000 Christo-centric religions! Do they all share the same god? Seems to me, the knowledge of any deity is ambiguous at best.

The second commandment (Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.) is, for all intents and purposes, an extension of the preceding commandment. Supposedly, it is morally unlawful to worship anyone but the "one, true god" but further, it is wrong to create an image of your idea of a rival deity to worship. I don't know the relevance of this commandment other than to show exactly how jealous and megalomaniacal the described god is.

Next, we are told not to use this god's name in vain (Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.). Most fundamentalist Christians, including Todd, call this the act of blasphemy. However, the operative word in the third commandment is "name". Many different questions arise once that word pops out at us: Did god name himself or allow humans to name him? What name does he ask us to revere? Is his name truly "God" or is that merely a title like bishop or duke? Regardless of what is truly considered blasphemy, Christians must realize that the same courtesies should be extended to other, differing faiths. Todd has no qualms with calling Muslims "wrong" or mocking Allah or the prophet Muhammad; he isn't above calling Hindus misguided in their faith in a "dead god". This doesn't concern Christians, though, because... well... they don't believe in those "false gods". I believe I've made my point. Besides, doesn't it strike you as odd how the words humans speak can somehow offend a deity?

The fourth commandment (Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.) is something that has been hotly debated in many Christian circles. While most believers agree that it is important to set aside one day a week to reflect on spiritual matters (following the example god set during the first week in recorded history, the creation week), many disagree as to the extent of "remembrance" that is necessary in order to keep this law. Literalists will tell you that absolutely no work should be done on the sabbath (to include cooking meals? I guess fasting is in order.) while others may insist that working for profit is what is prohibited. Regardless of the implications of this law, it is unfeasible in modern culture. We rely on countless private citizens to keep society moving forward while believers take a day to worship: law enforcement officials, soldiers, medical professionals... even clergymen, if you want to get technical. Are you starting to see why its so frightening to many of us to have these "laws" posted at federal courthouses? Does our legal system really enforce these first four commandments? What if it did?

Commandment number five (Honour thy father and thy mother.) seems benign enough and could even be mistaken for a humanistic principle. It is not. As I stated earlier, these commandments are absolutely dogmatic and leave no room for personal value judgments; they are black and white. God wants all children (even through adulthood, we can assume) to honor their parents without any qualifiers. It is not extreme or unreasonable to suppose that many people who have found themselves parents have not been deserving of respect from their children. Kids all over the world are beaten, tortured and even raped (god should be proud) by their parents. Are children to respect and honor these monsters? According to the bible, yes. Absolute moral bankruptcy.

The sixth and most well-known commandment (Thou shalt not kill.) is one of the only humanistic principles in the entire list. It's just a shame that god breaks his own law, the one with the most dire of societal consequences, numerous times throughout the bible. Not only does he commit the act, he also condones the killing of others and even commands it. Again, there are no qualifiers in this law. It plainly states that you should not take another life. Christian Americans who are pro death penalty seem to have swept this commandment under the rug in favor of "an eye for an eye".

Next we are commanded not to "commit adultery". While I know that Christians would like to claim that this commandment supports celibacy before marriage, we have biblical examples to the contrary. It seems god wasn't too concerned about adultery in the Old Testament (he used it in order to populate the earth) due to the fact that he sets up a supplementary law for any man who decided to rape a woman. He had to go to the hassle of either marrying her, paying her father or having her stoned. Todd likes to use the "Old Covenant/Ceremonial Law vs. New Covenant/Reformed Law" argument to get rid of this pesky problem. I find it difficult to believe that god replaced more than 600 Old Testament laws but decided that ten were good enough to keep from the cutting room floor. Also, when does god recognize the marriage between two (heterosexual) people? When the vows are exchanged? When the wedding certificate is signed? When the marriage is consummated? It seems we still have way too much control over this supreme being.

I have no reservations with the eighth commandment (Thou shalt not steal.); who would? But for Christians to claim that this is a direct edict from their god is absurd. It's common sense! It's what we teach our children at the earliest age: The Golden Rule. Does god really have to tell us not to steal in the same breath that he tells us not to take another human life? It seems to be one of the pettier laws, to tell you the truth.

The ninth commandment (Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.) is naturally dogmatic in nature when situational ethics are better suited. The act of lying is not intrinsically wrong but the intent may be. Conversely, the intent may also be noble. If upon taking in a battered (and fried?) woman into your home, would you 'fess up if her attacker asked you if you were harboring her? Telling the truth in this situation would not only endanger her but would also jeopardize the safety of yourself and anyone else in the residence. Is lying wrong? It depends. Whether it is or isn't, god can't make that call; you can.

The last commandment (Thou shalt not covet.) is absolutely ludicrous. Why shouldn't you want something nice that someone else has? Isn't desire a good motivating factor? The more I think of this supposed god-inspired law, I am more and more convinced that it was kind of a last-minute entry so the ancient Israelites would have a nice, round number of laws for aesthetic purposes. I mean, the Nine Commandments just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Todd actually uses these ten laws to show callers and people he witnesses to in public that they are imperfect beings and have transgressed against an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-perfect god and that they need to repent and beg forgiveness to avoid being damned to hell by this being (who is in all other contexts referred to as loving and gracious). The more you hear him go through the list, the more comical it is which is fitting considering he used to be a professional comedian. Well, it would be funny if it weren't so frightening, I suppose.

I am going to end this (very long) entry here and post again very soon and show the false analogy Todd makes in equating god's justice with man's judicial system. He uses it so often and with so much fervor that you can't help but be taken in by it. I can show very simply how he is playing a game of semantics and drawing false parallels to achieve his ultimate goal. It's sad that I have to do this; more people should be able to see the lies on their own. But for each person he proselytizes to that gets suckered in, there is a freethinker waiting in the wings to bolster my "faith" in mankind.