The Failure of Christianity By Emma Goldman

A

and2000x

Guest
The Failure of Christianity
by Emma Goldman
First published in April, 1913, in Goldman's Mother Earth journal.

Conceptions and words that have long ago lost their original meaning continue through centuries to dominate mankind. Especially is this true if these conceptions have become a common-place, if they have been instilled in our beings from our infancy as great and irrefutable verities. The average mind is easily content with inherited and acquired things, or with the dicta of parents and teachers, because it is much easier to imitate than to create.

Our age has given birth to two intellectual giants, who have undertaken to transvalue the dead social and moral values of the past, especially those contained in Christianity. Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner have hurled blow upon blow against the portals of Christianity, because they saw in it a pernicious slave morality, the denial of life, the destroyer of all the elements that make for strength and character. True, Nietzsche has opposed the slave-morality idea inherent in Christianity in behalf of a master morality for the privileged few. But I venture to suggest that his master idea had nothing to do with the vulgarity of station, caste, or wealth. Rather did it mean the masterful in human possibilities, the masterful in man that would help him to overcome old traditions and worn-out values, so that he may learn to become the creator of new and beautiful things.

Both Nietzsche and Stirner saw in Christianity the leveler of the human race, the breaker of man's will to dare and to do. They saw in every movement built on Christian morality and ethics attempts not at the emancipation from slavery, but for the perpetuation thereof. Hence they opposed these movements with might and main.

Whether I do or do not entirely agree with these iconoclasts, I believe, with them, that Christianity is most admirably adapted to the training of slaves, to the perpetuation of a slave society; in short, to the very conditions confronting us to-day. Indeed, never could society have degenerated to its present appalling stage, if not for the assistance of Christianity. The rulers of the earth have realized long ago what potent poison inheres in the Christian religion. That is the reason they foster it; that is why they leave nothing undone to instill it into the blood of the people. They know only too well that the subtleness of the Christian teachings is a more powerful protection against rebellion and discontent than the club or the gun.

No doubt I will be told that, though religion is a poison and institutionalized Christianity the greatest enemy of progress and freedom, there is some good in Christianity "itself." What about the teachings of Christ and early Christianity, I may be asked; do they not stand for the spirit of humanity, for right and justice?

It is precisely this oft-repeated contention that induced me to choose this subject, to enable me to demonstrate that the abuses of Christianity, like the abuses of government, are conditioned in the thing itself, and are not to be charged to the representatives of the creed. Christ and his teachings are the embodiment of submission, of inertia, of the denial of life; hence responsible for the things done in their name.

I am not interested in the theological Christ. Brilliant minds like Bauer, Strauss, Renan, Thomas Paine, and others refuted that myth long ago. I am even ready to admit that the theological Christ is not half so dangerous as the ethical and social Christ. In proportion as science takes the place of blind faith, theology loses its hold. But the ethical and poetical Christ-myth has so thoroughly saturated our lives that even some of the most advanced minds find it difficult to emancipate themselves from its yoke. They have rid themselves of the letter, but have retained the spirit; yet it is the spirit which is back of all the crimes and horrors committed by orthodox Christianity. The Fathers of the Church can well afford to preach the gospel of Christ. It contains nothing dangerous to the régime of authority and wealth; it stands for self-denial and self-abnegation, for penance and regret, and is absolutely inert in the face of every indignity, every outrage imposed upon mankind.

Here I must revert to the counterfeiters of ideas and words. So many otherwise earnest haters of slavery and injustice confuse, in a most distressing manner, the teachings of Christ with the great struggles for social and economic emancipation. The two are irrevocably and forever opposed to each other. The one necessitates courage, daring, defiance, and strength. The other preaches the gospel of non-resistance, of slavish acquiescence in the will of others; it is the complete disregard of character and self-reliance, and therefore destructive of liberty and well-being.

Whoever sincerely aims at a radical change in society, whoever strives to free humanity from the scourge of dependence and misery, must turn his back on Christianity, on the old as well as the present form of the same.

Everywhere and always, since its very inception, Christianity has turned the earth into a vale of tears; always it has made of life a weak, diseased thing, always it has instilled fear in man, turning him into a dual being, whose life energies are spent in the struggle between body and soul. In decrying the body as something evil, the flesh as the tempter to everything that is sinful, man has mutilated his being in the vain attempt to keep his soul pure, while his body rotted away from the injuries and tortures inflicted upon it.

The Christian religion and morality extols the glory of the Hereafter, and therefore remains indifferent to the horrors of the earth. Indeed, the idea of self-denial and of all that makes for pain and sorrow is its test of human worth, its passport to the entry into heaven.

The poor are to own heaven, and the rich will go to hell. That may account for the desperate efforts of the rich to make hay while the sun shines, to get as much out of the earth as they can: to wallow in wealth and superfluity, to tighten their iron hold on the blessed slaves, to rob them of their birthright, to degrade and outrage them every minute of the day. Who can blame the rich if they revenge themselves on the poor, for now is their time, and the merciful Christian God alone knows how ably and completely the rich are doing it.

And the poor? They cling to the promise of the Christian heaven, as the home for old age, the sanitarium for crippled bodies and weak minds. They endure and submit, they suffer and wait, until every bit of self-respect has been knocked out of them, until their bodies become emaciated and withered, and their spirit broken from the wait, the weary endless wait for the Christian heaven.



Christ made his appearance as the leader of the people, the redeemer of the Jews from Roman dominion; but the moment he began his work, he proved that he had no interest in the earth, in the pressing immediate needs of the poor and the disinherited of his time. What he preached was a sentimental mysticism, obscure and confused ideas lacking originality and vigor.

When the Jews, according to the gospels, withdrew from Jesus, when they turned him over to the cross, they may have been bitterly disappointed in him who promised them so much and gave them so little. He promised joy and bliss in another world, while the people were starving, suffering, and enduring before his very eyes.

It may also be that the sympathy of the Romans, especially of Pilate, was given Christ because they regarded him as perfectly harmless to their power and sway. The philosopher Pilate may have considered Christ's "eternal truths" as pretty anaemic and lifeless, compared with the array of strength and force they attempted to combat. The Romans, strong and unflinching as they were, must have laughed in their sleeves over the man who talked repentance and patience, instead of calling to arms against the despoilers and oppressors of his people.

The public career of Christ begins with the edict, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

Why repent, why regret, in the face of something that was supposed to bring deliverance? Had not the people suffered and endured enough; had they not earned their right to deliverance by their suffering? Take the Sermon on the Mount, for instance. What is it but a eulogy on submission to fate, to the inevitability of things?

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Heaven must be an awfully dull place if the poor in spirit live there. How can anything creative, anything vital, useful and beautiful come from the poor in spirit? The idea conveyed in the Sermon on the Mount is the greatest indictment against the teachings of Christ, because it sees in the poverty of mind and body a virtue, and because it seeks to maintain this virtue by reward and punishment. Every intelligent being realizes that our worst curse is the poverty of the spirit; that it is productive of all evil and misery, of all the injustice and crimes in the world. Every one knows that nothing good ever came or can come of the poor in spirit; surely never liberty, justice, or equality.

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

What a preposterous notion! What incentive to slavery, inactivity, and parasitism! Besides, it is not true that the meek can inherit anything. Just because humanity has been meek, the earth has been stolen from it.

Meekness has been the whip, which capitalism and governments have used to force man into dependency, into his slave position. The most faithful servants of the State, of wealth, of special privilege, could not preach a more convenient gospel than did Christ, the "redeemer" of the people.

"Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled."

But did not Christ exclude the possibility of righteousness when he said, "The poor ye have always with you"? But, then, Christ was great on dicta, no matter if they were utterly opposed to each other. This is nowhere demonstrated so strikingly as in his command, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

The interpreters claim that Christ had to make these concessions to the powers of his time. If that be true, this single compromise was sufficient to prove, down to this very day, a most ruthless weapon in the hands of the oppressor, a fearful lash and relentless tax-gatherer, to the impoverishment, the enslavement, and degradation of the very people for whom Christ is supposed to have died. And when we are assured that "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled," are we told the how? How? Christ never takes the trouble to explain that. Righteousness does not come from the stars, nor because Christ willed it so. Righteousness grows out of liberty, of social and economic opportunity and equality. But how can the meek, the poor in spirit, ever establish such a state of affairs?

"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven."

The reward in heaven is the perpetual bait, a bait that has caught man in an iron net, a strait-jacket which does not let him expand or grow. All pioneers of truth have been, and still are, reviled; they have been, and still are, persecuted. But did they ask humanity to pay the price? Did they seek to bribe mankind to accept their ideas? They knew too well that he who accepts a truth because of the bribe, will soon barter it away to a higher bidder.

Good and bad, punishment and reward, sin and penance, heaven and hell, as the moving spirit of the Christ-gospel have been the stumbling-block in the world's work. It contains everything in the way of orders and commands, but entirely lacks the very things we need most.

The worker who knows the cause of his misery, who understands the make-up of our iniquitous social and industrial system can do more for himself and his kind than Christ and the followers of Christ have ever done for humanity; certainly more than meek patience, ignorance, and submission have done.

How much more ennobling, how much more beneficial is the extreme individualism of Stirner and Nietzsche than the sick-room atmosphere of the Christian faith. If they repudiate altruism as an evil, it is because of the example contained in Christianity, which set a premium on parasitism and inertia, gave birth to all manner of social disorders that are to be cured with the preachment of love and sympathy.

Proud and self-reliant characters prefer hatred to such sickening artificial love. Not because of any reward does a free spirit take his stand for a great truth, nor has such a one ever been deterred because of fear of punishment.

"Think not that I come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Precisely. Christ was a reformer, ever ready to patch up, to fulfill, to carry on the old order of things; never to destroy and rebuild. That may account for the fellow-feeling all reformers have for him.

Indeed, the whole history of the State, Capitalism, and the Church proves that they have perpetuated themselves because of the idea "I come not to destroy the law." This is the key to authority and oppression. Naturally so, for did not Christ praise poverty as a virtue; did he not propagate non-resistance to evil? Why should not poverty and evil continue to rule the world?

Much as I am opposed to every religion, much as I think them an imposition upon, and crime against, reason and progress, I yet feel that no other religion had done so much harm or has helped so much in the enslavement of man as the religion of Christ.

Witness Christ before his accusers. What lack of dignity, what lack of faith in himself and in his own ideas! So weak and helpless was this "Savior of Men" that he must needs the whole human family to pay for him, unto all eternity, because he "hath died for them." Redemption through the Cross is worse than damnation, because of the terrible burden it imposes upon humanity, because of the effect it has on the human soul, fettering and paralyzing it with the weight of the burden exacted through the death of Christ.

Thousands of martyrs have perished, yet few, if any, of them have proved so helpless as the great Christian God. Thousands have gone to their death with greater fortitude, with more courage, with deeper faith in their ideas than the Nazarene. Nor did they expect eternal gratitude from their fellow-men because of what they endured for them.

Compared with Socrates and Bruno, with the great martyrs of Russia, with the Chicago Anarchists, Francisco Ferrer, and unnumbered others, Christ cuts a poor figure indeed. Compared with the delicate, frail Spiridonova who underwent the most terrible tortures, the most horrible indignities, without losing faith in herself or her cause, Jesus is a veritable nonentity. They stood their ground and faced their executioners with unflinching determination, and though they, too, died for the people, they asked nothing in return for their great sacrifice.

Verily, we need redemption from the slavery, the deadening weakness, and humiliating dependency of Christian morality.

The teachings of Christ and of his followers have failed because they lacked the vitality to lift the burdens from the shoulders of the race; they have failed because the very essence of that doctrine is contrary to the spirit of life, exposed to the manifestations of nature, to the strength and beauty of passion.

Never can Christianity, under whatever mask it may appear -- be it New Liberalism, Spiritualism, Christian Science, New Thought, or a thousand and one other forms of hysteria and neurasthenia -- bring us relief from the terrible pressure of conditions, the weight of poverty, the horrors of our iniquitous system. Christianity is the conspiracy of ignorance against reason, of darkness against light, of submission and slavery against independence and freedom; of the denial of strength and beauty, against the affirmation of the joy and glory of life.
 
Love this one

A link probably would have sufficed. And a short quote.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/failureofchristianity.html

At any rate, that shouldn't be taken to diminish my appreciation for your having posted this article. Is there anything you'd like to add to it? Perhaps you should throw in a comment or two for the peanut gallery. They generally don't get it.

I admit the temptation to say the article speaks well enough. But I also need to add a part of Goldman's context which might be of help to those who don't generally read her work.
Anarchism is the great liberator of man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is the arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social harmony. To accomplish that unity, Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society.

Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails. Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.

Property, the dominion of man's needs, the denial of the right to satisfy his needs. Time was when property claimed a divine right, when it came to man with the same refrain, even as religion, "Sacrifice! Abnegate! Submit!" The spirit of Anarchism has lifted man from his prostrate position. He now stands erect, with his face toward the light. He has learned to see the insatiable, devouring, devastating nature of property, and he is preparing to strike the monster dead . . . .

. . . . Just as religion has fettered the human mind, and as property, or the monopoly of things, has subdued and stifled man's needs, so has the State enslaved his spirit, dictating every phase of conduct. "All government in essence," says Emerson, "is tyranny." It matters not whether it is government by divine right or majority rule. In every instance its aim is the absolute subordination of the individual.
The above is from "Anarchism: What it really stands for", by Emma Goldman, and may be found here.

My own commentary is hopefully forthcoming, but sleep is a necessity. It's been a hell of a weekend.
 
The goal of chrisitanity is not to become slaves. For instance "The truth will set you free" and "I will no longer call you slaves because you are my friends".

Indeed, never could society have degenerated to its present appalling stage, if not for the assistance of Christianity. The rulers of the earth have realized long ago what potent poison inheres in the Christian religion. That is the reason they foster it; that is why they leave nothing undone to instill it into the blood of the people. They know only too well that the subtleness of the Christian teachings is a more powerful protection against rebellion and discontent than the club or the gun.
This is untrue. Some of the most hideous people have been anti-christian such as Stalin, Hitler, and Nero. Neitzshe degenerated into instanity.

Everywhere and always, since its very inception, Christianity has turned the earth into a vale of tears; always it has made of life a weak, diseased thing, always it has instilled fear in man, turning him into a dual being, whose life energies are spent in the struggle between body and soul. In decrying the body as something evil, the flesh as the tempter to everything that is sinful, man has mutilated his being in the vain attempt to keep his soul pure, while his body rotted away from the injuries and tortures inflicted upon it.
I think only very hardlined puritans would decry the human body as evil. Is this some sort of exercise commercial though?

The poor are to own heaven, and the rich will go to hell. That may account for the desperate efforts of the rich to make hay while the sun shines, to get as much out of the earth as they can: to wallow in wealth and superfluity, to tighten their iron hold on the blessed slaves, to rob them of their birthright, to degrade and outrage them every minute of the day. Who can blame the rich if they revenge themselves on the poor, for now is their time, and the merciful Christian God alone knows how ably and completely the rich are doing it.
Wait a minute... So the rich know that they are going to hell and therefore spend on their time trying to get there faster. Or is it more likely that they would know there destination and do something about it.

The interpreters claim that Christ had to make these concessions to the powers of his time. If that be true, this single compromise was sufficient to prove, down to this very day, a most ruthless weapon in the hands of the oppressor, a fearful lash and relentless tax-gatherer, to the impoverishment, the enslavement, and degradation of the very people for whom Christ is supposed to have died. And when we are assured that "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled," are we told the how? How? Christ never takes the trouble to explain that. Righteousness does not come from the stars, nor because Christ willed it so. Righteousness grows out of liberty, of social and economic opportunity and equality. But how can the meek, the poor in spirit, ever establish such a state of affairs?
I think Malthus ideas on population did more damage than any line in the bible. The position that Jesus took in the bible is logical considering that God is more important than the poor but there are plenty of other lines expounding on helping the poor. And because it is believed that we have God within us, by helping the poor, we help God.

Thousands of martyrs have perished, yet few, if any, of them have proved so helpless as the great Christian God. Thousands have gone to their death with greater fortitude, with more courage, with deeper faith in their ideas than the Nazarene. Nor did they expect eternal gratitude from their fellow-men because of what they endured for them.
"Believing utterly in one's self is a hysterical and superstitious belief like believing in Joanna Southcote: the man who has it has 'Hanwell' written on his face as plain as it is written on that omnibus." (Chesterton Orthodoxy)

How much more ennobling, how much more beneficial is the extreme individualism of Stirner and Nietzsche than the sick-room atmosphere of the Christian faith. If they repudiate altruism as an evil, it is because of the example contained in Christianity, which set a premium on parasitism and inertia, gave birth to all manner of social disorders that are to be cured with the preachment of love and sympathy.
"The worship of will is the negation of will. To admire mere choice is to refuse to choose. If Mr. Bernard Shaw comes up to me and says, "Will something," that is tantamount to saying, "I do not mind what you will," and that is tantamount to saying, "I have no will in the matter." You cannot admire will in general, because the essence of will is that it is particular. A brilliant anarchist like Mr. John Davidson feels an irritation against ordinary morality, and therefore he invokes will -- will to anything. He only wants humanity to want something. But humanity does want something. It wants ordinary morality. He rebels against the law and tells us to will something or anything. But we have willed something. We have willed the law against which he rebels.

All the will-worshippers, from Nietzsche to Mr. Davidson, are really quite empty of volition. They cannot will, they can hardly wish. And if any one wants a proof of this, it can be found quite easily. It can be found in this fact: that they always talk of will as something that expands and breaks out. But it is quite the opposite. Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense every act is an act of self-sacrifice. When you choose anything, you reject everything else. That objection, which men of this school used to make to the act of marriage, is really an objection to every act. Every act is an irrevocable selection exclusion. Just as when you marry one woman you give up all the others, so when you take one course of action you give up all the other courses. If you become King of England, you give up the post of Beadle in Brompton. If you go to Rome, you sacrifice a rich suggestive life in Wimbledon. It is the existence of this negative or limiting side of will that makes most of the talk of the anarchic will-worshippers little better than nonsense. "(Chesterton Orthodoxy)
 
Okinrus

The goal of chrisitanity is not to become slaves. For instance "The truth will set you free" and "I will no longer call you slaves because you are my friends".
It's a lovely sentiment, is it not? Did you happen to read any of the passage I supplied for context?
Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails. Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began.
I'd say Goldman nailed it. Regardless of what you think Christianity offered, offers, or is supposed to offer, Goldman has the most part of religions pegged with the above. To deny the despotism of Christianity as it is and has been practiced is tantamount to denial of the existence of history, which is a metaphysical point worth undertaking at some time, but the denial of history would also entail the denial of the Christian myth that so many like to treat as if it was real history.
Some of the most hideous people have been anti-christian such as Stalin, Hitler, and Nero.
Nobody blames Christianity solely. Diversity indicates that there must be all manner of confusion. But when we shine the light on Christianity, its failures, hatreds, and violations are very starkly contrasted against the shadows of myth and hope. Christianity has many bright promises about it, but in addition to its elected doctrinal limitations which quash much of the idea's potential, there's also the matter of its violent, supremacist, hateful history.
Neitzshe degenerated into instanity.
Human beings do that sometimes. Even Christians. David Koresh? How about that idiot in Equatorial Guinea who has been proclaimed God by the state radio? J.Z. Knight may have been a con artist, but at least she didn't rape children in the name of Jesus Christ. At least she didn't burn nonbelievers at the stake or drown them in a perverse test of holiness; and she didn't start a holy war against anybody.
I think only very hardlined puritans would decry the human body as evil.
Funny you should mention that.

"The Hypocrisy of Puritanism," by Emma Goldman:
Europe can at least boast of a bold art and literature which delve deeply into the social and sexual problems of our time, exercising a severe critique of all our shams. As with a surgeon's knife every Puritanic carcass is dissected, and the way thus cleared for man's liberation from the dead weights of the past. But with Puritanism as the constant check upon American life, neither truth nor sincerity is possible. Nothing but gloom and mediocrity to dictate human conduct, curtail natural expression, and stifle our best impulses. Puritanism in this the twentieth century is as much the enemy of freedom and beauty as it was when it landed on Plymouth Rock. It repudiates, as something vile and sinful, our deepest feelings; but being absolutely ignorant as to the real functions of human emotions, Puritanism is itself the creator of the most unspeakable vices.
And the Puritan spirit is alive and well today. We call it "born-again Christianity".
So the rich know that they are going to hell and therefore spend on their time trying to get there faster. Or is it more likely that they would know there destination and do something about it.
I'll deviate from Goldman for a moment and turn to Jack Cady, one of the better authors of the American twentieth century:
This was the bind: They believed they were predestined, but they also began to get rich. Predestination depended on being under the thumb of a harsh God who didn't let common people get away with anything, leave alone allowing them to become rich. Through the seventeenth century, the sneaky notion began to arrive that God had either lost control, or no longer cared.

We read their records, which are plentiful, and see them trying to solve the contradiction between predestination and wealth. Failing to solve it, they turned to their preachers.

Any sensible person, it would seem, would say something like, "Well, if I'm predestined, there ain't a whale of a lot anybody can do about it, os I might as well go out and have a good time." Calvinism, as interpreted by American preachers, held a different notion. The preachers kindly explained that while nothing was definite in the way of salvation, a communicant could discover indicators.

First, the preachers argued, a person predestined for Heaven would exhibit behavior reflecting the fact. The person would be awfully, awfully good, and would do exactly as the preacher commanded. Second, if a person was predestined for Heaven, God would surely give some indications in the person's life in this world. In early Massachusetts, this nice bit of casuistry came to mean that wealth could be taken as an indication of God's favor. For that reason, our early people worked terribly hard. As they worked hard, they gradually became richer than man was ever supposed to be.

Preoccupation would sometimes become total. It got so silly and intense that a man might be overjoyed if his cow calved twins, because that was a double indication of God's favor. If the cow dropped only one calf, and that calf stillborn, the man would know despair. Such an event signaled perdition.

It would be a mistake, though, to scoff at those old Puritans. They knew they were in a war, but the war they believed they were in was not the one developing. They believed the enemy was Satan, who occasionally was assisted by depredations of Satan's children, the Indian tribes. The coming war was a war of ideas, but Puritans, stuck as they were with the idea of Original Sin, could not understand that . . . . (pp. 40-41)
Lastly ...
But humanity does want something. It wants ordinary morality
Humanity ought to try discovering what that ordinary morality is instead of torturing itself with spiteful surrogates. Methadone is generally worse for you than heroin.


Notes:
- Cady, Jack. The American Writer: Shaping a Nation's Mind. New York: St. Martin's, 1999. pp. 40 - 41
- Goldman, Emma. Anarchism: What it really stands for. See - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html
- Goldman, Emma. The Hypocrisy of Puritanism. See - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/puritanism.html
 
hmmmm

No doubt I will be told that, though religion is a poison and institutionalized Christianity the greatest enemy of progress and freedom

Why the greatest enemy? Come on, man creates his own barriers¡Ksome choose routine other choose love, others look for a link to some mystic/higher entity, why this fuzz on Christianity mainly?

it stands for self-denial and self-abnegation, for penance and regret, and is absolutely inert in the face of every indignity, every outrage imposed upon mankind

sheesh this sounds like a stereotype. give me more evidence.

And the poor? They cling to the promise of the Christian heaven, as the home for old age, the sanitarium for crippled bodies and weak minds.

If you are a wicked poor then what could you expect? Heaven? Besides, it doesnt work that way. how do you know so much about divine judgment?

Nope. Not all Christians interpret the scriptures to their benefit, neither is the bible a book to be taken literally: generalizations about a religious group is as ignorant as the nature of the assumption.

Why repent, why regret, in the face of something that was supposed to bring deliverance? Had not the people suffered and endured enough; had they not earned their right to deliverance by their suffering?

Because people arent always walking based on their principles (i.e. what I define as sin) People suffer yup but dont they also making mistakes?

Take the Sermon on the Mount, for instance. What is it but a eulogy on submission to fate, to the inevitability of things?

Man makes mistakes. Mention one that hasnt in order to invalidate my theory.

How much more ennobling, how much more beneficial is the extreme individualism of Stirner and Nietzsche than the sick-room atmosphere of the Christian faith.

Heh. Yeah man can be independent. But to a certain extent.

Ill tell you, being a Christian, what my definition of faith is:

Love God beyond anything.

Dont hurt.

Treat the others as you would like to be treated.

Say thanks.

Try to love.

Dont be a conformist, ask.

Be truth to yourself and to persons.

Recognize and respect the difference.

About Christ: a good man. I guess he should have stated things clearly but maybe is in the task of questioning that a person begins to understand his/her feelings.

The Bible: I cant interpret it. Nor I trust any man that does that, we are humans. But, I could learn something for it maybe, based on the already mentioned principles.

About Church: I respect it to an extent. Man misinterprets.

Anyhow, I dont follow these principles too often and calling myself christian wont get me into heaven.

This girl seems to be lacking lots of definitions and make subjective assertions without logical evidence. She generalizes too much, she assumes the audience shares her point of view.

Never can Christianity, under whatever mask it may appear -- be it New Liberalism, Spiritualism, Christian Science, New Thought, or a thousand and one other forms of hysteria and neurasthenia -- bring us relief from the terrible pressure of conditions, the weight of poverty, the horrors of our iniquitous system.

Oh yeah? It doesnt bring any relief? Check on some thirld world countries and their attachment to religion, whatever its kind. Check on their tools of survival and tell me if believing in god is a help or not.

Christianity is the conspiracy of ignorance against reason, of darkness against light, of submission and slavery against independence and freedom; of the denial of strength and beauty, against the affirmation of the joy and glory of life.¡¨

What wouldnt be ignorance I ask?

Science itself is based on the high degree of predictability of phenomena and you can only but predict if the sun will shine tomorrow, you cannot say it with total certainty.

We believe in many things blindly. It is ignorant but it brings hope to some people. Give me one sign of total certainty I can also share. Just one.

Anarchism is the great liberator of man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is the arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social harmony. To accomplish that unity, Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society.

Man has carried many chains in time. But Christianity is not the only one. Anarchism is against institutions. Why then has man always been inclined to join groups? To believe in superior entities? Wouldnt anarchism go against the nature of man then?

:m:
 
Last edited:
The above is from "Anarchism: What it really stands for", by Emma Goldman, and may be found here.

I am not an anarchist or a liberal, but I respect her work all the same, for she brings elements together in perfect clarity, even if the ideas are unoriginal.

Why the greatest enemy? Come on, man creates his own barriers¡Ksome choose routine other choose love, others look for a link to some mystic/higher entity, why this fuzz on Christianity mainly?

A poor evasion technique. Just give em the old 'equally bad' punch.

If you are a wicked poor then what could you expect? Heaven? Besides, it doesnt work that way. how do you know so much about divine judgment?

It basically tells the weak and feeble to simply give up material life. I don't blame them, considering anyone who buys Christian trash is weak of mind and worthless to themselves and others.
Christ=Fatalism


Nope. Not all Christians interpret the scriptures to their benefit, neither is the bible a book to be taken literally: generalizations about a religious group is as ignorant as the nature of the assumption.

There are unified themes that can be tied down in any interpretation of a religious doctrine.

The Bible: I cant interpret it. Nor I trust any man that does that, we are humans. But, I could learn something for it maybe, based on the already mentioned principles.

Thus Christianity reverts back into the pagan mode of thought: an infinite amount of interpretations of the same deity. The only problem is that these sects find it reasonable to fight eachother over their own 'truth'.
 
Back
Top