In Opposition to Bible/Church Burnings

[Christ Died of AIDS]

For a long time, I supported the early 90's church burnings. I've burnt a few bibles in my younger, rebellious days. I've since then come to change my stance on it. To me, it used to be the ultimate blasphemy. The grandest possible way one could say to another: "fuck everything you believe". While this is still somewhat true, I think the approach is flawed for a number of reasons.

While I'm clearly not by any means a Christian or otherwise religious person, I find it acenine to destroy their book of doctrine, even if they are in morbid abundance. For one, I believe one should at least read the bible before criticizing it (I've only read Genesis and Revelation all the way through). Two wrongs don't make a right. Sure we've had plenty of great literature/art/metal destroyed by crusaders, neo-cons, overprotective moms, but burning a bible solves nothing. Disrespecting their values, message, and let's face it -- culture does nothing to gain acceptance for our own. It should be looked down upon as an embarrassment to the metal community. Bibles are not the culprit. Anyone who is weak minded enough to become enslaved by organized religion will have been swept up by something else, if not the opiate-like embrace of the Judeo-Christian God's love and forgiveness and promise of eternal life. I watched the interview with Averse Sefira where they talk about church burnings. I'm a little disappointed. While I do find that perhaps the church got what was coming to them, it was a feudal attempt to bring about a change that will never happen. I understand that throughout the dark ages, in the churches endeavors to conquer the earth and make catholicism the dominant religion, cultures were homogenized and peoples were enslaved and mass-murdered, pursuing revenge now just furthers bitterness, hatred, and ignorance. It's just like the African-Americans that hold a grudge on ALL white people for slavery and demand reparations. I don't owe those people a fucking dime and if they ask they'll get a boot to the fucking face.

I guess all I'm saying is this: hating Christians is dumb.

[scourge]

To me, it used to be the ultimate blasphemy.

You would have to believe Yahweh exists and is paying attention to you in order to also believe the act was blasphemous rather than just burning some paper.

I guess all I'm saying is this: hating Christians is dumb.

It is in that people should be hated for substantive folly they are responsible for. I'm not sure if mere affiliation qualifies. Maybe it is more productive to hate Christianity, the idea, but develop some reasons for why the idea results in more defect than benefits. Also be prepared to enumerate some better ways as an improvement. Creation and critique is a lot more demanding than the rebellious fist shaking everyone else is doing.

[Christ Died of AIDS]

Replace the word blasphemy with rejection. Hating an entire people is ignorant. Asserting superiority is even moreso. If we took away Christianity, all the sheep/weaklings would just flock to something else. Hate the power structure, hate the monetary gain, hate the people that benefit from other's enslavement, but don't hate simpled-minded people that go to church every Sunday and work their asses off to provide for their family. They are the backbone of this country. I guess it's worth noting that I hail from USA.

[Erebus]

I can see church burnings like the act of destroying something to build something new, which I believe it's the real way of doing things: you don't build something on decaying foundation.
Maybe I'm lazy, stupid or naive, but I find it hard to understand why many people here talk of "restoring old values" or "get inspiration from heritage". These "old values" led us to the point where we are today. Screw them, look for something new. Destroy today's values, if you think that they're wrong, but don't step back and let the cycle start again. History is already plenty of this.

[Transcix]

I think it's a good point that the actual effectiveness of church burnings, in terms of getting rid of Christianity, is dubious. However I also think it's important to show protest where protest is warranted, maybe not to try and change things, but to demonstrate that they (in this case Christianity) do not have a carte-blanche to do whatever they like, but that if they try to do too much then there are many who are ready to engage in opposing efforts (non necessarily violent). I also think church burning can be a good sort of rallying cry, I mean personally it makes me very glad it has happened. But for it to escalate to a point where society is forced to crack down hard on the culprits, in this case it would achieve nothing. It obviously isn't realistic to try and burn down every single Christian church! Also there is the risk that there may be people inside the church when it burns who die, and I think this should be carefully avoided as much as possible with proper planning in advance, but it is a risk to consider.

I guess all I'm saying is this: hating Christians is dumb.

It doesn't have to be a matter of hate, it can be a matter of taking action against something perceived as a negative, unhealthy force.

[Christ Died of AIDS]

I guess all I'm saying is this: hating Christians is dumb.

It doesn't have to be a matter of hate, it can be a matter of taking action against something perceived as a negative, unhealthy force.

Rest assured, this sentiment has preemptively backed any conceivable act of prejudice ever done in one form or another. Even Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor.

I can see church burnings like the act of destroying something to build something new, which I believe it's the real way of doing things: you don't build something on decaying foundation.
Maybe I'm lazy, stupid or naive, but I find it hard to understand why many people here talk of "restoring old values" or "get inspiration from heritage". These "old values" led us to the point where we are today. Screw them, look for something new. Destroy today's values, if you think that they're wrong, but don't step back and let the cycle start again. History is already plenty of this.

Perhaps I've softened over the years, but people in action are always more useful than people that do nothing. Churches in my community have organized cookouts, sporting events, fundraisers and the like. You want to change the world? Help your community. You have to engage them first, and not with a 5-gallon bucket of kerosene. Hessians could learn a thing or two from churches.

[hoodwink]

if one is to regard Varg's statements in Until the Light Takes Us as accurate explanations for the Norwegian church burnings, I can't really say his justification is without merit.

[Grim Morrison]

As I see it, the main reason to not burn churches or take other violent measures against christianity is because throughout history such measures have never succeeded in tearing down this religion. It only brings the sheep together and achieves the opposite - they believe their crap even more fervently and holy causes, martyrdom etc. arise. That is the only reason - it's self-defeating. We need to overcome the Semitic religions through means more directed towards enlightening (or endarkening) them.

[Nimbostratus]

As I see it, the main reason to not burn churches or take other violent measures against christianity is because throughout history such measures have never succeeded in tearing down this religion. It only brings the sheep together and achieves the opposite - they believe their crap even more fervently and holy causes, martyrdom etc. arise. That is the only reason - it's self-defeating. We need to overcome the Semitic religions through means more directed towards enlightening (or endarkening) them.

More effective: purge Christianity from the "sheep". That way you keep smart christians, unless someone wants to convert them through church and bible burnings and black-metal style incoherent statements.

[Umbrage]

As I see it, the main reason to not burn churches or take other violent measures against christianity is because throughout history such measures have never succeeded in tearing down this religion. It only brings the sheep together and achieves the opposite - they believe their crap even more fervently and holy causes, martyrdom etc. arise. That is the only reason - it's self-defeating. We need to overcome the Semitic religions through means more directed towards enlightening (or endarkening) them.

Could you give me some examples where you think that violent measures against christianity failed? Because as I see it the history books are filled with religious conflict that always either had religious/political/social change as an outcome or were the result of religious/political/social change. I'm thinking about events such as the beeldenstorm, kristallnacht and the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan. If you're talking about atheists versus christians, well maybe the atheists simply fail at achieving anything anyway because they cling to humanism more than any religion tends to. Certainly food for thought isn't it?

[cthulhu666]

More effective: purge Christianity from the "sheep". That way you keep smart christians, unless someone wants to convert them through church and bible burnings and black-metal style incoherent statements.

More importantly: How do you suggest that the "sheep" be purged from Christianity.

The way I see it if one were to enlighten or "endarken" (lol grim morrison) the intelligent Christians, said people would renounce Christianity (and hopefully religion all together) and only the true sheep of Christianity would remain. Those who won't listen to reason due to narrow-minded thinking and stubbornness. The intelligent ones will realize there are better ways to truly improve themselves/their community.

For example, there was a carnival recently in my town, same time every year "sponsored" by my local Catholic school/church. The sheep will think "Ohhh wow how nice, what a wonderful thing for our small town!" Intelligent people will know that the only "sponsoring" the church has done is let them use their property, while in agreement that the church keeps about 90% of the profit.

Those of you thinking thinking that fund raising for a school/church isn't that terrible of a thing...well it is. Teaching young kids that their religion is the only relevant religion is the "RIGHT" religion is fucking stupid and wrong.

Which brings me to my real point....

Educate......AND THEN burn the fuckers down. ^_^

[Silas_Dement]

I think it's a good point that the actual effectiveness of church burnings, in terms of getting rid of Christianity, is dubious. However I also think it's important to show protest where protest is warranted, maybe not to try and change things, but to demonstrate that they (in this case Christianity) do not have a carte-blanche to do whatever they like, but that if they try to do too much then there are many who are ready to engage in opposing efforts (non necessarily violent). I also think church burning can be a good sort of rallying cry, I mean personally it makes me very glad it has happened. But for it to escalate to a point where society is forced to crack down hard on the culprits, in this case it would achieve nothing. It obviously isn't realistic to try and burn down every single Christian church! Also there is the risk that there may be people inside the church when it burns who die, and I think this should be carefully avoided as much as possible with proper planning in advance, but it is a risk to consider.

I guess all I'm saying is this: hating Christians is dumb.

It doesn't have to be a matter of hate, it can be a matter of taking action against something perceived as a negative, unhealthy force.

A church burned is a church rebuilt. It's even more odious in its reincarnation, actually, since Christians will convince themselves that god's will demands their presence. That's actually a perfect example of how Christians are pusillanimous and effete, and at the same time patronizing and lofty. They're arrogant, but have no pride. What could possibly be wrong with hating Christians? All good and natural people must necessarily hate them. The only problem is that we can't hate our families. But we can disassociate ourselves from them, and also from all Christians, wherever our path crosses theirs. We can, and should, cast them out. What else can be done? We know great ordeal and torment won't kill Christians. Christians die from being ignored. What's simpler, to try to purge what we find dysgenic from a society that has in large part been founded on those very ideas? or to start a new society and exclude everything unwholesome.

[Nimbostratus]

More effective: purge Christianity from the "sheep". That way you keep smart christians, unless someone wants to convert them through church and bible burnings and black-metal style incoherent statements.

More importantly: How do you suggest that the "sheep" be purged from Christianity.

If you see things in the big context, we plain to purge the "sheep" (more accurately: drones) from everything. Specifically, within Christianity is to wipe out fundamentalism, while bringing esoteric Christianity (ala Meister Eckhart) to the front.

The way I see it if one were to enlighten or "endarken" (lol grim morrison) the intelligent Christians, said people would renounce Christianity (and hopefully religion all together) and only the true sheep of Christianity would remain. Those who won't listen to reason due to narrow-minded thinking and stubbornness. The intelligent ones will realize there are better ways to truly improve themselves/their community.

Don't let God delusion to delude you.

For example, there was a carnival recently in my town, same time every year "sponsored" by my local Catholic school/church. The sheep will think "Ohhh wow how nice, what a wonderful thing for our small town!" Intelligent people will know that the only "sponsoring" the church has done is let them use their property, while in agreement that the church keeps about 90% of the profit.

Those of you thinking thinking that fund raising for a school/church isn't that terrible of a thing...well it is. Teaching young kids that their religion is the only relevant religion is the "RIGHT" religion is fucking stupid and wrong.

I was in catholic schools for seven years and I know the idiocy level they can reach. Fortunately, I've been able to know smarter Catholics these last years, and I truly support their propagation. You would be surprised if you take the time to read and to investigate about those Catholics that are critical towards the institution, and critical towards a fundamental interpretation of the scriptures... this is to say, there're Catholics who believe that their religion is not the only "RIGHT" religion. But of course, this is not the image shown by mainstream atheism and the black-metal liberal community, which have a cartoon-like impression of ALL the Christians.

[cthulhu666]

Don't let God delusion to delude you.

eh?

[Transcix]

I guess all I'm saying is this: hating Christians is dumb.

It doesn't have to be a matter of hate, it can be a matter of taking action against something perceived as a negative, unhealthy force.

Rest assured, this sentiment has preemptively backed any conceivable act of prejudice ever done in one form or another. Even Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's always the case.

I can see church burnings like the act of destroying something to build something new, which I believe it's the real way of doing things: you don't build something on decaying foundation.
Maybe I'm lazy, stupid or naive, but I find it hard to understand why many people here talk of "restoring old values" or "get inspiration from heritage". These "old values" led us to the point where we are today. Screw them, look for something new. Destroy today's values, if you think that they're wrong, but don't step back and let the cycle start again. History is already plenty of this.

Perhaps I've softened over the years, but people in action are always more useful than people that do nothing. Churches in my community have organized cookouts, sporting events, fundraisers and the like. You want to change the world? Help your community. You have to engage them first, and not with a 5-gallon bucket of kerosene. Hessians could learn a thing or two from churches.

Some, such as certain varieties of anarchists for example, would argue that the present 'system' cannot be 'saved' and that the faster it gets torn down the faster something better can be rebuilt in its ashes, so in that context tearing the old system down would be seen as a healthy, benevolent action.

I think it's a good point that the actual effectiveness of church burnings, in terms of getting rid of Christianity, is dubious. However I also think it's important to show protest where protest is warranted, maybe not to try and change things, but to demonstrate that they (in this case Christianity) do not have a carte-blanche to do whatever they like, but that if they try to do too much then there are many who are ready to engage in opposing efforts (non necessarily violent). I also think church burning can be a good sort of rallying cry, I mean personally it makes me very glad it has happened. But for it to escalate to a point where society is forced to crack down hard on the culprits, in this case it would achieve nothing. It obviously isn't realistic to try and burn down every single Christian church! Also there is the risk that there may be people inside the church when it burns who die, and I think this should be carefully avoided as much as possible with proper planning in advance, but it is a risk to consider.

I guess all I'm saying is this: hating Christians is dumb.

It doesn't have to be a matter of hate, it can be a matter of taking action against something perceived as a negative, unhealthy force.

A church burned is a church rebuilt. It's even more odious in its reincarnation, actually, since Christians will convince themselves that god's will demands their presence. That's actually a perfect example of how Christians are pusillanimous and effete, and at the same time patronizing and lofty. They're arrogant, but have no pride. What could possibly be wrong with hating Christians? All good and natural people must necessarily hate them. The only problem is that we can't hate our families. But we can disassociate ourselves from them, and also from all Christians, wherever our path crosses theirs. We can, and should, cast them out. What else can be done? We know great ordeal and torment won't kill Christians. Christians die from being ignored. What's simpler, to try to purge what we find dysgenic from a society that has in large part been founded on those very ideas? or to start a new society and exclude everything unwholesome.

You too seem to associate the notion of church-burning with hate. I think it's important to distinguish between hate and anger--in my view anger in some forms can be a spiritually viable impulse, whereas hate is unhealthy. So what does burning down a church accomplish? Well, maybe you could look at it the other way, in the sense of what negative consequences it has... in my view it's true a church burned is a church rebuilt but the mass appeal of Christianity is born not of the direct antagonisms against Christianity we see in the world today but rather of the poverty of modern civilization--financial poverty, war, hunger, bad education, corrupt politics, etc--which by fostering ignorance and negative emotions in the masses in effect fosters despair in the masses and drives them towards right-hand-path religions offering faith as anti-thesis to despair. In my view as long as there is mass poverty there will be mass religion, regardless of how many churches are burnt down, and all that a church-burning really is is a non-sequitur, a fleeting moment of revolted experience. Dare I say a symbol. And if you could imagine on a cool, calm night the flames finally rising upon a church's last spire, flickering incandescently across the heavy air, could you think of a moment more beautiful than that?--and who can truly put a price on beauty?