Entry XVIX--Routine

9 AM: HEY False alarm. Not really awake, just needed to take a piss. Within 4.2 seconds of the flush, my face hits the pillow and I'm out almost instantly.

12:23 PM: Wake for real this time, after another jaunt to the bathroom. Brush my teeth while I boil water for a cup of wake-up tea, the first of several cups I'll down during the day. Never was grown up enough to enjoy the taste of coffee, so tea provides necessary caffeine.

12:45 PM: With a cup of steaming tea by my side, time to start writing. Can't waste a minute with the deadline ever looming. To make it easier for me to start in the morning, to sort of rev up the creative engine, I leave off in the middle of a sentence when I quit writing the previous night.

That way, I only have to complete half a sentence when I start the next morning and that usually gets me into the flow of things. It's psychologically comforting to only have to write half a sentence instead of a whole one.

If I'm still blocked after completing that sentence, then I have to go back and read what I've already written. That awakens the editor ka within me, and it's not too long before I'm writing fresh material.

But today, that's not an issue, not feeling blocked, but refreshed after a good night's sleep and motivated to write for the better part of the next sixteen hours.

Jesus, will you listen to me? Would have bet my advance that I would've never ever become so straitlaced, so by the book, so clockwork...

...so disciplined.

Since it's early, allow myself a moment to project forward and speculate whether or not I'll retain this restraint once the book is fini...

Hard to say. Hard to say if I'll even need the discipline once the book is done.

That's it for the self-indulgence, I've got a sentence to complete.

Here's what I have so far. When I get to (...), that's where I left off and have to complete before I can proceed.

There was an account of a recently found child that had been kidnapped from his family and held against his will for two years by a drooling pervert.

And through a series of circumstances, the child was fortunately recovered and returned to his parents. His mother called the return of her absconded son "a present from heaven" The suggestion being .that God or some angels intervened and returned her son.

But why...

...did God make her wait two years until she saw her son?

One year wasn't enough for her to appreciate him?

Three must be too many?

Why is God automatically given credit for her son's return? Why isn't God blamed for allowing him to be kidnapped in the first place?

This story of the kidnapping and the mother's reaction is but a microcosm of the general condition of the dichotomy of 'the evil that men do' and 'the glory of God.'

That is at it should be, Christians argue, for God is perfection and the human condition is an imperfect temporary shell for the soul.

But where is God's responsibility for creating the sinners and the sin?

More significantly, why do Christians never confront that issue.

Why? Because it ruins their little game, that's why.

This essay is going to explore a lot of those 'little games' that Christianity plays.

This essay is about the credit Christianity gets but does not deserve. This essay is about the way Christianity is held up as superior to all other religions.

This is part of that essay I haven't decided on the title yet. That may be because I haven't fully grasped the theme, it's a tad elusive to me right now. I know what I want to say in this essay, but I have yet to establish the explicit theme in my mind.

And that's where it has to be before it can be entered into a word document.

At present am favoring "Cornering the Market on Christ" Originally, it was "The Bu$iness of Christianity" I prefer the subtly of the new title, it's more original. Don't want to be too obvious, most readers (or should I say people who won't read the book) will think I'm beating them over the head with the book's anti-christian stance to begin with.

There are some theories that suggest that there was a grand conspiracy plotted over 2000 years ago by some secret society of cloak hooded despots influencing and altering events from behind the scenes to install Christianity as the new religion that would replace the crumbling Roman Empire and paganism.

There's even the UFO theory, that both Christ and mother Mary were genetically engineered in order to manipulate the myth of the Messiah, and after his crucifixion at the hand of the pagan Romans and the Jews (maybe), Christianity was the ultimate martyr religion.

REFERENCE CHRISTIAN CONSPIRACY, HOW SOME MAINTAIN IT IS THE PRODUCT OF A SECRET SOCIETY OR ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS WHO HAVE LONG PRETENDED TO BE GODS IN ORDER TO CONTROL THE MASSES
CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A CONSPIRACY, IT BEGAN, AS EXPLORED IN THE PREVIOUS ESSAY, AS AN ORGANIC MOVEMENT, IT WAS LATER APPROPRIATED BY OPPORTUNISTIC POWER MONGERS WHO SAW IT TO BE A PARTICULARLY

One aim of this essay is to establish the difference between christianity and the other major religions of the world.

But in doing so, don't want to appear to be endorsing any other religion in the slightest, as the only consistent anti-christian stance is one that encompasses opposition to both the essential exoteric and esoteric facets of all major religions, or really, all religions, at least any of those that can be identified as systems of control.

And let's face it, that's going to be most of them. Who are we kidding here?

Anyway, the examination of the differences between christianity and the other big religions should segue smoothly into an exploration of the tactics used by the church in order to promote Christianity and ensure its appeal even to those who might otherwise reject it (for example, because they grew up in a culture in which christianity is a minority religion).

And it was intolerance that motored early Christianity's power drive in Rome, once Christianity had been legalized by Emperor Galerius in 311 C.E., then more famously recognized by Emperor Constantine.It was those early, hopped-up on Jesus fanatical early Christians who schooled Constantine's son Constantius II. Once their indoctrinated child-king took the throne, Christianity cast aside the veneer of cooperation and began to wage a campaign to stamp out all competition, including targeting the most powerful pagan religions of Ancient Rome. And evne more telling, other Christian faiths.

In the beginning, Christianity was a collection of heresies, varying philoosophies and beliefs as to what Christianity should be, but emerging from the morass of these conflicting faiths, (including Gnosticism) came Catholicism, which meant 'universal' The Catholic Church sought to stamp out all opposing denominations of Christianity, labeling them all 'heretical.'

In order to understand how Christianity was able to supplant Paganism we must go back to the time of Constantine. Prior to the time of Constantine, the Christians had simply pleaded for tolerance for their religion, but once they had won recognition they set themselves up on a Crusade to drive all other religious beliefs away...

...including any other 'heretical' Christian sects that staked any kind of claim in those early first centuries of Christianity. Constantine found Christianity's 'deathbed confession' option that justified his committing any sin any time with the guarantee of spiritual absolution.

Constantine was subsequently influenced by the Catholic bishops to issue a decree outlawing all Christian sects other than the Catholicism.

The first priority of the famed Council of Nicea, established in the year 325 in Constantine's imperial palace, was to investigate the 'problem' of heretical Arianism, which held that Christ was merely a creation of God, and not actually of the same 'substance' of God.

Of course, without any objective way to determine the validity of these purely subjective (not to mention completely mythical) claims, the Council came to the preordainedconclusion that God and Christ were one and the same. They were not about to acquiesce to the theological tenets of a heretic such as Arius (the creator of Arianism).

Catholic Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire in 392 when Theodosius I passed legislation prohibiting the practice of pagan religions.



Then there’s the possibility that Christianity was partially the spawn of Jesus’ family’s ego trip. Not surprisingly, many of Jesus' immediate relatives were early Christians, including his mother, the blessed virgin Mary herself. Two of Jesus' brothers/half-brothers/cousins (depending on which denomination one follows) were also Christians; a dude named Jude (not the famed apostle) and James the Just.

It is not too difficult to imagine that the kin of Christ would want to grab onto the reflected glory of the man believed to be the son of God by a small cult of disciples. Sharing the same blood as the Prince of Peace was quite a claim, at least in the eyes of the few believers, and it could be argued that they promoted the idea that Christ was to be worshipped in order to better their own lot in life.

Cynical as it sounds, it has to be considered as a possiblity. Or perhaps Mary and Christ's other relatives genuinely believed he was the son of God. Either way, this demonstrates how Christianity really began as a grass-roots religion and Christ's death did not have any monumental impact on the culture at large at the time.

In other words, the Crucifixion of Christ is a much more significant even now than it ever was at the time it actually occured, over two thousand years ago. If the ancient Romans had the ability to make motion pictures, there would not have been a blockbuster film about the Passion of Christ in the first few hundred years after his death.

My intent here is to describe the macrocosm of how Christianity took over, just as the essay on Psychology addressed the microscosmic takeover by Christianity, how it was indoctrinated into the minds of the followers. This is how Christianity took over from the outside, the external.

Made the right choice juxtaposing this essay with the one on psychology/mind control.

The Catholic Church exemplified 'cornering the market' with its sure and steady rise to a stranglehold over Christianity, in part, by claiming to trace its roots from the Twelve Apostles, Catholic bishops being their successors. Likewise, the Pope is seen as the theological heir to St. Peter, leader of the Apostles.

The Catholic claim was truly without merit; the Pope and bishops were only viewed as successors to the original Apostles because the Catholic Church had directed the interpretation of the Apostles to fit their agenda.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Church took over as the dominant force in Europe.

Over the centuries, the Catholic Church was able to spread throughout the land by employng many tactics, but none was ever so successful as fear. Fear of physical reprisal from the Church, yes, but the fear of eternal reprisal in the afterlife was even more persuasive. As much of life was a daily hardship and very miserable for the vast majority of people, the afterlife was usually all they had to live for.

Nothing conjures fear quite like the traditional Christian concept of Hell. It can be successfully argued that fear of Hell is the primary motivation for the majority of Christians, particularly born-agains.

But this tool was not widely utilized until the onset of the Dark Ages, appropriately enough.

Rather than originating from 'holy scripture', the Christian concept of Hell that still dominates to day derived from Greek mythology (the afterlife Tartarus; in fact the New Testament makes specific reference to Tartarus) and from Zoroastrianism (the apocalyptic 'final judgment').

Manipulating a person's fear of death by fear of Hell proved to be a most effective means of Christian mind control for over a millennium.

If the sincerity of Christians can ever be doubted, it is among those who claim that they belive in Christ and are Christians because they love God/Christ and want to worship Him/Them and gain Heaven, when actually the dirty little secret of many is that they avoid the perils of Hell.

But Hell was viewed differently, and perhaps a bit ironically, by early Christians. For them, Hell was essentially the same as Heaven, it too was inhabited by God; the fires were the passion of God's love, and whether that love was experienced as love or anguish was contingent on whether God had judged one as blessed or a sinner.

The irony is that the view as God as the architect of both Heaven and Hell is one that modern day Christians would be well to heed.

But of course, they don't, viewing Hell as completely separate from God, as if God wasn't ultimately responsible for its creation. In other words, if God is truly all-powerful as his syncophants claim, God could level Hell with but a single thought. So obviously, God allows Hell to remain, as a dungeon for disobedient souls.

Modern Hell of course, is full of great lakes of fire and snarling demons, or in some interpretations, dark isolation.

Regardless, since Christianity began to ruthlessly expand, the religion's vision of Hell has generally been cast as distinct as Judaism's Sheol (which originated from Sumerian mythology, just as Christianity later borrowed from Greek myths). Sheol was a place that both the righteous and the wicked resided, literally under the ground, where the inhabitants had to eat dirt to survive. Not too apetizing a situation, literally and figuratively.

Christianity learned their religion could be far more appealing...and controlling if it posited Heaven and Hell as two completely distinct realms. One good, the other bad. It could not be any simpler for the faithful to grasp.

By determining those actions that will or will not land one's soul in Heaven allowed, the church was able to effectively control the actions of any of its flock.

Many cruel kings had enslaved millions over the years preceeding Christianity, but it wasn't until Christianity that the human soul was truly enslaved.

The soul remains enslaved even when it is fortunate enough to ascend to that promised paradise of Christianity, a.k.a, Heaven.

Reflecting the more grassroots, humble origins of Christianity, Heaven was actually the more dominant concept before the fear of Hell became front and center, however, even in early Christian writings, it was made clear that only those who were 'deemed worthy' would attain a place in Heaven, thus laying the foundation for manipulating the lure of Heaven to control the behavior of Christians on Earth.

Heaven is a powerful means by which Christianity maintains its psychological hold onto its adherents, which relates to the previous essay. Yet Heaven is also an effective marketing tool by which Christianity gains thousands, if not millions, more daily across the globe.

And much like conceptualizations of Hell, the particulars of Heaven can all be subjectively devised by any religious leader or church or bible tailored to control the particular individual or group of people in question. In other words, what visions of Heaven work in the jungles of Borneo won't necessarily play on the mean streets of Detroit, Michigan.

As Christianity grew larger, violence was deemed necessary to exact control over the ever increasing number of adherents




THE HOLY INQUISITIONS
If ever a venture was misnamed, it was the Inquisition; a strong-arm attempt to distinguish

The Inquisition originated when the dominant church (what was to become the Catholic Church) sought to cease the theological differences between their doctrines (specifically the Apostolic Succession, which holds that Catholic bishops are the spiritual heirs to the original 12 Apostles of Christ, thus one can only be a 'true Christian' by adhering to these apostolic teachings).

That some of the apostles warned against 'false teachers' of Christianity, as did the book of Revelations, sufficient justification was provided to the early church to condemn as heretics those theologians disputing Catholic doctrine (Gnosticism being the most prominent of those competing denominations).

Heretics were persecuted and some executed. The Catholic Church literally killing off the competition. Instead of encouraging an open discourse on spirituality and tne nature of 'God', the Church chose complete intolerance, with the intent of consolidating its power. Sharing the keys to Heaven did not follow the Catholic Church's agenda.

But for a thousand years, heresy was only dealt with on a random basis by the Church, but in the 12th Century, local bishops conspired with religious oriented governments to prosecute heresey more systematically via local authorities cracking down on local heretics (particularly Catharism, a mix of Catholicism and Gnosticism). In other words, the Inquisitions were judicial procedures--such as tributnals--conducted in the name of God, to weed out heretics, with no regard for the notion of separation of church and state.

Much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church, these initial inquisitions did not prove effective and by 1230 the Papal Inquisition was launched. Now things were about to get serious.

The Church set the slanted rules for Inquisition trials; if a lawyer lost the case for his defendant, the lawyer would be barred from practice; thus not many lawyers were lining up to defend accused heretics.

Those convicted would be imprisoned; unrepetant heretics (meaning those who chose to continue thinking for themselves) might be burned at the stake.

Of course, the Church did not get their fingertips singed; such executions were always carried out by secular officials. The Church merely gave their blessing for the torch to be dropped into the kindling by the feet of the condemned.

The Dominican Order provided the majority of the clergy utilized to carry out the Inquisition in Southern Europe. The Dominicans were the perfect choice; renowned for their anti-heresy and utterly altruistic motives.

The Dominicans were also quite adept at another skill/offered another endearing quality...torture. EXAMPLES

Although torture by inquisitors was "legalized" by the unfortunately named Pope Innocent IV in 1252, it's reasonable to assume that torture was utilized before it was officially sanctioned by the Vatican.

Some contend that the torture inflicted by the Dominicans was tame compared to the same punishments doled out in secular courts, but there is no denying that the Inquisitions and the threat of torture was instrumental in repressing heresy on any kind of widespread scale.

Naturally, the Church was not content to merely dominate Europe. Running simultaneous to the Inquisitions were the Crusades, waged for nearly 200 years (1095-1291), to defend Constantinople from the Turks, and as an aside, recapturing the "Holy Land", Jerusalem, from Muslim rule.

On July 15, 1099 thousands of Jews and Muslims were slaughtered by Christian Armies in their invasion and sack of Jerusalem.

This attempted genocide of competing faiths might be considered a 'low point' in the history of Christianity, if we would not have found it repeated in this very century with the War on Terror.

The Catholic Church and many powerful evangelical churches supported the War on Terror in both overt and cover fasion, a topic that will be explored further in an upcoming essay.

In other words, no matter what the millennium, choosing Islam as their enemy has proven to be very beneficial for Western powers

Though the Church was far from the only guilty faction in the Crusades, the centuries of bloodshed ultimately backfired on a Church seeking to consolidate its power, as the Crusaders are generally credited for opening up Europe to the Islamic and Asian cultures and influences more rapidly than would have transpired otherwise and ultimately paved the way for the Renaissance.

The age of Reason transformed the Old World and created the New World, and with the rise of Science and Darwinism, Christianity increasingly was on the defensive during this time; it had to change; move forward or die.

And move forward Christianity has throughout the rolling centuries. Always opportunistic, always maintaining that key attribute of adapting. As reason, the industrial age and capitalism replaced Christianity, the religion was able to offer itself as an antidote to the mind and soul-numbing attributes associated with rampant materialism.

But rather than find a valid alternative to the conformity of the modern age (such as becoming vegetarian, a political acitivist or exploring alternative/quantum spirituality), most people just lazily turn back to that old standby, Christianity. They grew up with it, were indoctrinated in it to one degree or another and it is still endorsed by institutional America (the media, government, et al).

Paradoxically (and there are just so, so many paradoxes when it comes to Christianity), Christianity has also associated the antithesis of capitalism, Marxism with godlessness and thus ensured that anyone seeking to be a 'good American' would not identify themselves as atheist or even an agnostic. God/Christ 'watch over' America and her allies, for they are waging the 'good fight' for democracy and free enterprise, not totalitarianism.

In this way, Christianity portrayed itself as a comrade of freedom and in the process, associated freethinking with socialist dictatorships.

Effectively manipulating this ideological platform, Christianity began to utilize more sophisticated techniques in the post-modern ironic deconstructionist age we find ourselves in since the 1960's or thereabouts.

As individuality has flourished to an unprecedented degree during this time, this has resulted in increased alienation, and Christianity has sought to fill the void by portraying Christ as a 'buddy deity.'

Simultaneous to the Renaissance was the Protestant Reformation, which served to ensure Christianity's perpetuation beyond the confines of the Papacy, which frankly was going to be for everyone with an Old World expanding and a new one on the horizon.

Whereas the Catholic Church distributed faith by use of symbolism, ritual and hoarding biblical knowledge, the Protestants made the Bible accessible to the masses (aided by the innovation of movable type).

Instead of allegiance to an all too mortal pope, Protestantism offered their flock a more direct link to Jesus Christ himself. Less sexual hypocrisy than the Catholic Church was also an appealing attribute.

Catholicism is associated with ethnic groups that tend to be more emotional and with tendencies towards substance abuse, i.e., the Italians and Irish respectively, while Protestants are generally more reserved, or uptight frankly, and that is more indicative of the cultures of England and Germany, where Protestantism had its greatest appeal. Emotional expressions, passion and drinking are more accepted among Catholics, while a more sober austere work ethic and various stages of denial define Protestants

The Protestant religion was more suitable for the revolutionary New World in America, as the Vatican was forever far too entrenched in the Old World to dominate the brash new republic. This, despite the irony of the Catholic French aiding the Colonies against the British Empire.

MORMONISM
No, this particularly odd strain of Christianity has not slipped past the notice of the author. Mormonism, though a 'modern' religion (originating in the 1800's), ironically, seems to advocate old fashioned values, certainly in its complete rejection of the substance abuse and sex and violence of the culture at large, and abuses afflicting many Christians of other denominations.

But not Mormons. The religion appeals to those who like the do-gooder suburban family squeaky clean blonde-hair and blue eyes existence. While there are only 13 million Mormons worldwide, that is still 13 million people who might otherwise not be Christians if Mormonism did not exist. Cornering the market...

THE HIPPIE ROOTS OF THE MODERN 'BORN AGAIN' CULTURE

The phenomenon known as the "Jesus Movement" was the Christian manifestation of the hippie counterculture in the late 1960's into the 1970's, and is attributed by some sources as laying the foundation for the post-modern Evangelical born-again movement that has subsequently gained political ascendancy in the U.S.

The contradictions of Christianity being linked with right-wing conservatism instead of its proper alignment with left-wing socialism will be a central exploration in the following essay on Christian Fallacies.

Despite the increasing influence of Christianity in the US and the world at large in our present culture, it is true that since the Enlightenment, and as the revolutions saw the replacement of Christianity with democratic governments and central banking, the Church was no longer in a position to contain progress, as it did for the previously millennium, it was forced to reinvent itself as an 'alternative' to the alienating stresses and strains that accompany modern society. (As if life in medieval, feudal Europe was a breeze...)

For millions of those who fail to make interpersonal connections with others (even their spouses in some cases), a 'personal relationship' with Christ is offered to the believer.

That's a personal relationship, as opposed to all those unfilling 'impersonal relationships' most people tend to spend a lot of time on...

Naturally, this 'relationship' between Christ and the worshipful is completely subjective, there is no objective means to verify if a person is actually engaged in a relationship with one Jesus Christ.

You just to have...faith that a whole bunch of Christians are actually in a personal relationship with a prophet/alleged deity who died some two thousand years ago.


Corresponding to the notion that Christianity no longer dictates (or rather, suffocates) progress, but now posits itself as the 'underdog' (a laughable notion). This technique was excessively exploited around the turn of the millennium, as Christianity cast itself as 'on the attack' from a liberal, secular immoral post-60's culture run amuck.

You heard correct, the most dominant religion on the face of the planet was threatened with extinction by a TV show and a couple of rock bands...

As we have explored and shall ex;ore, Christianity would have more in common with the 60's counterculture than it would ever acknowledge.

But ever the contradictory entity, Christianity has offered itself as an alternative to the sex'n'drugs'n'rock'n'roll scene, as well as (and more significantly) polarized to feminism and women's progress in general, as previously explored in this book.








DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM AND HINDUISM, THE APPEAL IT OFFERED IN THOSE DIFFERENCES PAST AND PRESENT
ISLAM, PRESENTLY, (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT) IS PORTRAYED AS A RELIGION OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM; I.E., TERRORISM

CHRISTIANITY & CORPORATE AMERICA
conspiring?


Alcoholics Anonymous using Christianity as a crutch to replace alcoholism and substance abuse. Conspiracy theory.

QUESTIONING LIBERAL BELIEF
Cornering the market insofar as appealing to liberals and progressives who still believe due to family commitments/obligations, intellectual immaturity (unwilling to accept that christianity is a falsehood) and a sense of misdirected spirituality.

The issue of the 'true' nature of spirituality (true spirituality seems to be an oxymoron from a humanistic perspective) will be addressed in an upcoming essay.

Also, there is the growing movement of liberal christianity; liberal is relative, they're borderline socialist.

In a certain context, they are more sincere than their right-wing evangelical counerparts, because, as will be discussed in another upcoming essay, Christ was a commie.

Only after finishing does it occur that a business definition of the concept of 'cornering the market' should be included in the intro of the essay since it is named as such; cornering the market is an illegal attempt to buy up enough of a particular commodity to allow the price to be manipulated. It is also possible to make even more money by buying futures contracts on the commodity, and selling them at a profit after inflating the price.




4:20 PM; Found this quote on the Internet during a break. Try to work it in:

You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. James 4:4

Hell, I could even see it opening the book.


6 PM On the web locate a website on Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and read learn that her son, William Murray, became a born again, evangelical Christian after he reached the abyss as an alcoholic, firing off a gun in public or some such nonsense.
He'd be a perfect example for the section on christianity being used as a crutch to replace alcoholism/drug addiction.

7PM
AFTER DINNER MUSINGS:
POSSIBLE TRIP TO THE GROCERY
I take a break from explicitly writing just to muse...come up with ideas. Tonight it's going to be done on the road, need to hit up the supermarket for sustenance.

Sure, got enough money now where could have it delivered, but could use the exercise and need some air to clear my head. Haven't been outside in days.

Cutting it so close to the deadline, really hate to waste any time, but this is a necessity, I misspoke a moment ago. It's not need, I have to get out.

If it means I get an hour less of sleep tonight, so be it.

Throw on a jacket to brace against the early evening chill, and am out the door with 10 minutes.

Once I'm over the Stockton hill and onto the relatively flat stretch of Bush, the ideas flow freely.

And after I pass the one address on Bush that most evangelicals would hate even more than mine, the Nob Hill Revue, which is a gay strip club where all kinds of shocking nastiness goes on, the existence of which probably would break eleven commandments if that many existed.

And it occurs to me that the intolerant christian attitude opposing gays and lesbians is not unlike my attitude towards atheists. christians want gays and lesbians to just abandon their homosexuality, not proffer it as some kind of alternative to heterosexuality.

And that's my opinion about atheism, that it is often offered as some kind of alternative to religion, especially of the type Madalyn Murray O'Hair seemed to advocate. Obviously made that rather abstract connection cause of the web research was just doing.

And that is going to the subject of another sub-essay in the Fallacies: "Why I am not an atheist"; a twist on the O'Hair speech "Why I am an atheist"

She sought to engage Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, as an opponent, thus legitimizing it.

The recurrent theme of this book is to abandon Christianity; this book merely provides the reasons for doing so, it is not to be taken as a "call to arms" in opposition to the religion.

Additionally, some of the arguments in this book provide sufficient intellectual ammunition to allow one to extract her/himself from a negative situation brought on by Christian influence (for example, enabling a young person to muster the courage to stand up to an oppressive fundamentalist family).

But this book and the philosophical ideas contained within are not to be regarded as any sort of 'alternative' to Christianity. Replacing Christianity is not evolving from Christianity.

If Christianity would ever be 'replaced', it may be in the realm of spirituality, where the possibilities suggested by quantum physics are a more plausible approach to understanding the nature of existence and consciousness as opposed to reliance on the holy trinity and intelligent design.

Another sign that I'm in a rarified state of creative consciousness these days; wrap up that thought on atheism just as I enter the grocery, more eager than ever to get this out of the way and get back home to write out those reflections.

Have gotten so efficient these days, it's scary. Doesn't seem a second is wasted in a day, am living fully in the moment and making the most out of every moment.

Wondering if there's any chance in heaven I'll be able to maintain this mentality after the book's finished.

Not going to dwell on that, however, 'cause it's a negative counterproductive thought that is doing nothing to furthering the completion of Bye Bull.





WORK ON THERE IS NO GOD, ANYWHERE

SLEEP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------