Why I don't care about the church anymore

 Some years ago I was affiliated with the Coptic Orthodox Church and in our specific church there was some controversy with a priest abusing his authority. I had posted what had been done and my feelings about it and was urged to take the post down by church members, people I respected, as I was threatened with a lawsuit. So I took it down and of course nothing was done by the clergy. This incident shook me and my faith. I started questioning Christianity as a whole, the doctrines, the history, the dogma, everything I had been taught and everything I had learned. When I had opened my eyes I seen all the errors and problems, all the contradictions, literally everywhere. Because of my inflammatory post I lost a lot of followers, my book sales came to a halt and I was essentially an outcast at church. So, I stopped caring at all. The Orthodox is no different than the Catholic Church, perhaps more homophobic but their clergy operate exactly like the Roman Church. They protect each other, not the laity. So, I really couldn't care less about it.

Transactional nature of capitalism leads to mistrust and delusion, a hypothesis

 There are countless shows and podcasts seeking to understand why people delve into delusion and or the general mistrust of anyone who has any expertise in virtually anything. I have not been able to look at the literature on the psychology of this and not being an expert myself, I am not guaranteed to understand any peer reviewed paper on the subject. I want to make that known that I am not an expert, just a lay person hypothesizing about something that I have long pondered. Why are there so many people mistrustful of, say, medical experts? Those same people will take advice from a random person with absolutely no expertise speaking on a subject they are not qualified to speak on over the internet, but mistrust the people who have spent their lifetime dedicated to said subject. Why are people generally distrustful of people? 

Capitalism reduces everything to a transaction. You only do something for someone because you get something from it, generally money or something of value. This means that in every interaction every person in the back of their mind, be it consciously or unconsciously, think "What does this person want?" or perhaps "What are they seeking to gain from this interaction?" Helping someone or doing something for someone is meant to be what it is, altruistic without the intention of receiving anything in return. But capitalism says "Don't do anything for free." Therefore as capitalism speeds towards fascism the transactional nature of every encounter ramps up. Every call could be a scammer, every incident could be a false flag, etc. In my hypothesis I believe that these minor encounters lead us to doubt the intentions of more major encounters with powerful corporations, which is not unwarranted necessarily, or encounters with experts who may have an ulterior motives. Why would any expert just give us information for free? It could not possibly be because they care about what they do and they care about informing the public, it has to be ill intentions because they must be seeking to benefit. 

Capitalism strips all human interaction of its merit and turns everything into a transaction and the transactional nature of capitalism only gets worse and the worse it gets, the more you are going to see cult like mentality around virtually any subject. A general mistrust of any and all experts in virtually any field. The odd veneration of their idols who are more like the general public telling them what they want to hear. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this is the beginning of delusion and because of its implication of capitalism perhaps nobody has thought of it?

We are still hunter-gatherers

 Mentally humans are still hunter-gatherers living in a society that has far surpassed who we have been for nearly 99% of human existence. Anthropologists often note that in hunter-gatherer society there is a lot of leisure time and certain societal or cultural norms that keep people in line. In the tribes I visited while living in Ethiopia I was shocked to find that they did not have a word for work. They undoubtedly did what I would consider work, but they did not see it as work. When a group would go out gathering firewood, water, or to forage they made it a communal and fun activity. Chatting or sometimes singing songs that had been passed down for who knows how long. There was always a sense of community in everything they did.

This is not how the west works, specifically the US. It is a highly individualized society and one is expected to fend for ones self very early on with the constant threat of losing it all if anything were to go wrong. This "civilized" society is a far cry from that of our ancestors leisurely and laid back lifestyle. You may think "civilization has enabled us to live longer, and has drastically improved our lives." The only single reason people like Steven Pinker say our ancestors only lived to, say, 30, is because they include the high infant mortality rate which drastically brings overall lifespan down to around 30-35. In reality if one were to make it out of childhood, they could be expected to live about the same lifespan we do today. 

You say civilization has improved our lives? In what way? Modern healthcare has drastically reduced infant mortality rate for specific demographics in this country, that's for sure. You could argue vaccines have saved countless lives, however if we did not live in dense city settings then these diseases would not be a large scale issue and pandemics likely would not even happen at all. Has it made our lives easier? Imagine working hard and most of your value is taken by someone who doesn't work. To top that off you likely have healthcare tied to your job, so if you lose your job, you lose your insurance. If you do not find a job quickly then you will likely lose everything else too. 

Why cant we create a society that more accurately reflects that of hunter-gatherer society? Why is it that our current civilization really only benefits a handful of people while the rest of us struggle to survive? If civilization is not meant to benefit all people, then it should be burned to the ground and everyone return to the wild like our ancestors. There is no point in living detestable miserable lives like domesticated animals when we could do otherwise. In reality we are at a point where civilization is global and all is interconnected, when there is a collapse, the whole world will feel it. So either we act now to set up a more eco friendly society that benefits all, or we suffer the consequences of total collapse. Each time history repeats itself, the price goes up. And this time the price is unfathomable, collapse will be catastrophic and wide spread.

The Connundrum of the Instinct to Survive

 We have one instinct; that is to survive. Yet we have one guarantee and that is that we wont. This survival instinct disables us from adequately dealing with the burden of death. So much so that I believe we have created entire, multiple, religions attempting to quell the anxiety we possess about death. The idea that we continue in some way after this life quells the anxiety we have about death but at the same time disables us from properly dealing with the fact that we will eventually no longer exist. Our drive for survival has led to multiple religious beliefs. Some posit a sort of paradise that our souls go to after death. Some posit the idea of reincarnation with the idea of escaping the cycle of birth and death. The major problem is that a "soul" is not easily definable and is yet to be proven. In fact many ideas in religion are yet unproven. They are merely attempts to satisfy our lust for survival which is apparently so strong that we cannot conceive of not existing upon our death. All the data we currently have points towards the fact that we merely cease to exist, but this is not satisfactory to billions of human beings. In their estimation there has to be something after this life. Why does there have to be anything at all? There must be a concept of life after death to contend with the overwhelming anxiety of death. There has to be something to curb mourning and loss of loved ones. Yet billions of people have become so overwhelmed with religion that we forget we live here and now and are currently on a path of self destruction. However many pay no mind to this as it does not matter since the after life is far superior to this one. How does one even know that there is an afterlife or that it is better than this current life? There is literally no way of knowing. This is something that many merely believe. Belief is not good enough, we must know as there is an element of doubt in belief. For instance you know your name, you don't say "I believe my name is..." You simply know it. We know the earth is spherical, and have for some time. To say you believe it is spherical is inviting doubt into the conversation. It is to say you are not positive, you do not know, that thing. For instance one can believe God exists, but one cannot know God exists. One can believe that we continue living after death, but one cannot in any capacity know this. It would be better for humans to process the idea of death and come to terms with its reality and work to make the here and now better, and if there is life after this one, then I guess thats a bonus. Though we should not bank on this idea as it benefits nobody.

Religion as a Cultural Expression

 One of the more fascinating aspects of the human condition is religion and or spirituality. How it came about to how it is expressed in all different cultures. Some religions have a holy book or books while some do not. Some have doctrine and dogma, others simply do not. Religion does not develop uniformly in every culture or region. For instance it is now known that early Jews were polytheistic, and with a proper study of the Old Testament one can actually see this and how it evolved into strict monotheism. But this same evolution cannot be applied to other religions as religious development is not uniform across all cultures, for instance the Hindu religion. This is why I have concluded that religion is the cultural expression of the divine. As culture evolves and changes overtime, so too does religion. We can witness a sort of culture war taking place right now in the USA and how it is effecting the overall religious nature of the citizens. There are many Christians turning their back on religion all together, there are Christians who have become more tolerant and accepting, shaping their God into a more tolerant a loving God. Then there are those traditionalists who adhere to a more vengeful God who are actively resisting this cultural shift in the societal fabric as a whole. 

I would argue this change is natural and should be embraced, but to each their own and I have no interest in forcing anyone to change anything about what it is they believe. I am, however, baffled at the idea that people revel in the idea of a vengeful and angry God who would send his creation to eternal punishment for a variety of things. We as human beings could not fathom sending our children to a lifetime of torment over virtually anything, let alone eternal torment. So I think this shift towards a more loving and accepting God is a good thing for everyone. I cannot imagine thinking an infinite being is overly concerned with what finite beings are doing with themselves. I cannot help but think that life after death is not torture, it would be reconcilliation. That itself is love, reconciling with the people we have wronged and who have wronged us. That is love. And we all know that God is love and if God is love, then there is no eternal torment. The idea of this type of justice is derived from human minds, the desire to see someone suffer for their wrongs. After the terrible events in Rwanda, they did not seek this type of justice, they sought reconcilliation. Thus showing us what true love actually is. Seeking punishment for a person who has wronged you does not make you feel better, it does not change what has already taken place and it does nothing to the person who caused the ill. But reconcilliation is a cure that benefits all.

Consider America during chattel slavery. The south vehemently preached that slavery was ordained by God and that black people were inferior, all using the Bible to support this. Unfortunate that this still exists but there are people who use the Bible to justify racism. But overall the culture changed and this is no longer deemed acceptable by the culture at large. It’s a good thing too as I cannot picture a God who thinks white people are superior just for lacking melanin.

Culture is superior to law

 In the west, long gone are the days when culture was at all relevant, except for maybe to few people who carry their culture to this land with them and practice it as such. As a whole there is little if any culture left in the west, in many ways this is good when speaking of western culture. The culture that was brought to the west by white people was nothing special, it was a self centered ethnocentric culture of domination and genocide. So as far as cultures go, good riddance to that one, though many are trying to maintain this as Christian nationalism and white supremacy, which go hand in hand. So for this piece I am going to focus on cultures I have either read about or personally experienced. Ive read of a handful of tribes and lived in Ethiopia. 

One of the major things I noticed in Ethiopia was there are not that many laws or even law enforcement to enforce the laws they do have. Initially this perplexed me as I could not see with my western eyes how a country could maintain itself without law and those who enforce it. However, being steeped in this culture for two years in Ethiopia and another 16 in my marriage I learned that it was culture that governed the behavior of people, not law and not law enforcement enforcing laws. In fact at that time I began to see how creating numerous laws and a police to enforce them actually created more problems and less freedom than say Ethiopia. 

I was able to see how so many cultures and ethnicities got along in Ethiopia so well. Although occasionally there are political tensions that spill over and create problems. As for the everyday Ethiopian, theres little problem in getting along with fellow Ethiopians of a different ethnicity or religion. 

One of the character traits that western capitalism rewards is a sort of brash self centeredness. It seems as if those who get rewarded in this society must be sociopaths who care for nothing but profits. By contrast, Ethiopian culture shuns this sort of behavior. While it most certainly exists there, as with any capitalist society, its not as rampant. As an example its never looked upon favorably to talk or brag about ones self or ones accomplishments, where in the west thats exactly how you get a job, you basically have to brag about yourself and accomplishments, its how you get ahead. Now, this isnt to say people will not know about what you are doing or have done, as your family will talk you up, but for you to talk yourself up? That is frowned upon. This is just one example of many on how culture is superior to law. 

When I read about different tribes this is one of the things I seek out in the writings, about the culture and of how the culture treats those that deviate from it. How the culture keeps people from getting big heads, how the culture keeps people from behaving in a way that would disrupt the tribe, and the consequences. Shunning someone for deviating is a common practice amongst tribes until the person has suffered and appropriate amount of time. The most severe that I have read thus far is being banished from the tribe completely, which is basically a death sentence in most cases as you need a good size group in order to have a functioning tribe, depending on the tribe and region in which the tribe is located. 

What the west needs is a new culture and it will get one eventually as the United States is currently engaged in a culture war between fascists and communists/socialists/anarchists. So it may be a culture that reverts to fascism, or it may be one that actually has the interests of the people in mind. You may disagree but you should be able to see that more laws do not solve problems, they in fact create more problems and more law enforcement clearly solves nothing but again creates more problems. This idea that laws and law enforcement is meant to solve crime is an absurdity told to us by a country rapidly descending into total fascism. The police state serves their interests, not ours, especially when the supreme court ruled that police have no obligation to protect citizens. It is pretty obvious to anyone that they do not serve us, only the ruling class to protect their property.

Other examples from Ethiopian Culture

In Ethiopia there is no legal drinking age. If a 13 year old was so inclined they could get some beer and get drunk. In Ethiopia you do not see teens doing this. In my two years there I dont think I once seen any teens drinking at any point in time. So what is stopping them from doing this? Its culture that keeps them from doing this. Being a drunk in Ethiopia is culturally frowned upon as it reflects on friends and family that you are in fact a drunk. This would ostracize you from them and you would be more likely to quit drinking so that you could again be with your family and friends without the shame of ruining your life.

Also, there are no laws against Marijuana. Ive met people that smoke it, Ive met people who grow it and sell it, but its not a big deal there. Again, why arent people in droves smoking mass amounts of Marijuana every day there? Again the answer is culture. Its frowned upon to become chemically dependent and this again reflects on family and friends which may lead to ostracizing of the individual. It would again encourage someone to stop smoking, at least too much, so that they can again be with family and friends.

This being said, nobody judges you, lectures you, or arrests you for doing either of these things. Abusing drugs and alcohol is culturally unacceptable and so more often than not people simply dont do them, at least in excess.

I am also reminded of an African proverb that "A child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" which is exactly the sort of thing we are seeing in America with mass shootings and gun violence almost as a whole. Ethiopias culture is very social, one could say its a socialist culture, not a socialist society but culture. What I mean by that is its very social and everyone is helping everyone to ensure that together they all succeed. I can recall going out for coffee in Ethiopia, thinking we would grab a coffee and then go on about our day. In reality coffee is a social activity. The coffee is roasted and brewed right in front of you and you drink while socializing. I think I spent around 3 hours drinking coffee and socializing. 

I quickly found out that almost everything in Ethiopia has a social aspect to it. Even when I would go out to eat with friends and family we would be dining and socializing for hours upon hours and the restraunt would not be trying to force us out or get us to spend more money. It was expected that we would be spending many hours eating and socializing. When there I truly felt as if I belonged, even when I was generally the only white person in the room. I did not feel the need to use my cell phone, or spend time on the internet at all. I was for the first time in my life comfortable, I felt embraced by the village. In Ethiopia they say the best medicine is another person and I believe that is true. When I came back to the US I remember sinking into a deep depression as the individualism, not the individual, embraced me here. I felt alone, not like when I was in Ethiopia. 

In the US there is a law for virtually everything, and a penalty of some kind for almost every violation. I can get cited for jaywalking as if I am not smart enough to safely cross the street I need the government regulating that and punishing me for not crossing in a crosswalk when I am fully capable of looking both ways and crossing the street safely. The US is a nation of laws which has created a people incapable of doing anything themselves and there are people who rebel against this, rightfully so. We do not need more laws, we do not need more law enforcement as those equal a reduction in freedom. We need a unified culture and less laws.

The Promise of Illusion

 Most famously the Bible speaks of a time, a golden age, in which humans did not toil. They lived blissfully in the garden having no care in the world, nor fear. Likewise the ancient Egyptians speak of a time called Zep Tepi, and nearly all ancient cultures have tales of a time in which man lived blissfully without a care and nature provided all they needed. These stories, I believe, speak of an actual time, albeit allegorically, before humankind invented agriculture and civilization. One only need to look at tribal societies today to understand this fact spoken of above. Civilization promises us something we already once had, a golden age. One in which humans had no need of toil, but spent their days enjoying each other and foraging for what the Earth naturally gave them. Taking not more than they need and being satisfied with life and the world as it is.

This promise is and always was an illusion. Civilization will not bring about any golden age and the idea that capitalism tells us that we can live a wealthy life if we work hard enough is just as much of an illusion as what civilization tells us. Instead civilization has preceded to create a dystopian nightmare in which the Earth and all its inhabitants are ravaged for another illusion, profit. There is barely any place in which civilization has not completely ruined with the sole intent to create profit. Humans squander their lives toiling away to achieve a life that they will never gain. We labor our lives away in the hopes of reaching this illusion of a golden age. We are promised retirement in our old age, but at what cost? Labor has taken its toll by that point and we are essentially used up and unable to enjoy our lives as we are merely moments away from death. 

While our tribal brothers and sisters are living in their own golden age, one without toil or worry, we toil and worry to try and achieve ours that will never come. We are mere cogs in the machine of civilization which only releases us from its bonds when it decrees we are used up and no longer useful to the machine. It tells us that this is our “golden years” and to enjoy retirement. Enjoy what at 65+ when we have used up our youth toiling away for the techno-industrial system? By then our bodies are weary, bruised and beaten from a life of unrelenting toil, stress, and anxiety. 

The promise civilization has made has cost us our lives. It is an illusion no human can achieve.

Why For Proft Ruins Everything

 In a society that prioritizes profit over all things, how on earth can we know what reality actually is? We are in a gulf of never ending products, each trying its best to prove they care about us when in reality they only care about selling something to us. Something created at low cost and sold for well more than what it is actually worth. How can we know someone is being sincere when the motive is profit. Can we know that the person selling us a medicine is being sincere? No, they know we have a problem and created a solution to it in order to make a profit from us. For profit anything ruins everything. It devalues reality and life in general as it reduces everything to a transaction. Our life, in this system, is a series of transactions in which everyone, nearly everyone, is trying to extract some profit from us. The nature of this rubs off onto humans, who then view everything as transactional. So even our actions are calculated responses based on what a person or people can provide for us. Is it profitable for us to be around someone who is depressed? If we can gain anything from this then the answer is yes, if we cannot then we don’t. 

This is why a for profit system ruins everything. It teaches humans to look at everything in terms of how we can profit, reducing literally all interactions to transactions. Even when we date we are looking for something to gain from the interaction, making it a transaction. “If I buy her dinner and something nice, maybe she will fuck me.” Thereby dating becomes transactional. A person may think “Can this person provide a nice life for me? Are they financially stable enough to take care of me so I don’t have to work?” Thereby dating has become transactional, not interactional. This reduction is part of domestication of the human animal in which we have been reduced to living off the very system that is destroying all life on this planet. Without it we would be totally free, with it we are mere cogs in a death machine. However, we are domesticated and cannot live without it, its sort of a symbiotic relationship. We proved labor power, it provides us with the bare minimum, but strips from us our foundational human nature to live off of nature alone. 

Removing a for profit system would certainly be a step up in the human condition under capital, but it would not be a means to an end.

The Crises

 Humans will go to their extinction singing the praises of the very system that is killing them. Despite all the evidence for human caused climate change humans still seem content on living in their delusion that everything is alright. Humans are going about business as usual when in reality we are seeing the effects of climate change first hand and need to be acting to stave off any further damage. But alas, human concern themselves with trivial things and argue about inconsequential nonsense instead of acting. Civilization, namely capitalism, caused the crisis we are seeing today, its clear as day. Yet humans seem to think that civilization, again namely capitalism, is the greatest system ever invented. Its as if we are praising the noose we are about to be hung with. We are praising the gun we are pressing against our head ready to fire. It is sheer nonsense, the height of absurdity. A critique of capitalism here is not enough, as civilization gave rise to capitalism and therefore it is civilization that bears all the blame. 

In our 200,000 years of existence almost all of it was spent living in harmony with nature. We hardly left a mark on nature. and in the last 6,000 years or so we have damaged nature beyond repair and seem content on going to our graves continuing to do so. The handful of people responsible for the bulk of the damage have convinced us that it is we who are the problem and so we should recycle or drive electric cars. When in truth it is they who are the culprits. The masters of civilization are also the archetects of our demise. We need to face reality, accept the truth, and act expediently to stave off anymore damage. As a pessimist I don't see this happening, nothing short of a collapse.

Apocalypticism

 For over 2,000 years Christians have been saying, to some degree, that the end of the world is just around the corner. It seems to accelerate when global tensions arise, but never really subsides. I know in my experience many Christians welcome this, and there are some evangelicals working to bring about the end of the world. Scary enough some of these very people are in high levels of the government, actively working on bringing about the return of Christ and the end of the world. There is a Netflix special about a group called “The Family International” working in high government positions doing this very thing, the special I believe is called The Family and is worth watching.

My question is, why? Why are so many Christians hell bent on bringing about the end of the world? I think its simple. Subconsciously they know something is fundamentally wrong with the way things are, i.e. civilization, and are seeking an escape from it. Christianity offers this escape. The end comes and those chosen few get to spend eternity outside of this rotten civilization. That is my fundamental take on this issue. I think if Christians could be shown primitivism it would help quell these feelings a bit and maybe give them a more constructive outlook rather than such a destructive and self serving one. 

The Game

 Civilization is like a game you're forced to play at gunpoint. You cannot win and they gaslight you if you ask any questions. And they are constantly trying to convince you this is the greatest game ever. The sad fact is that most people do not realize that they are playing the game against their will. Since birth we are conditioned to the game and expected to play, in fact we are not given a choice to not play the game. We have no choice, but the illusion of choice is there. We are told that failure is not the design of the game but some fault of our own. When we see other people in dire circumstances it is immediately assumed it is because of their own poor decision making, not the system, that is the cause. Others will say it is the fault of capitalism, which is working as intended. That is partially correct as a critique of capitalism is good, but it is not enough. We must look at the civilization itself as opposed to whatever "ism" is running things. 

Monopoly, originally called the landlord game, was developed to show just how awful capitalism really is, and anyone who has played it can attest to the game being unfair, but rarely apply that to our own current condition. However we can opt out of monopoly or any other game, be it before the game starts or during the game at some point. But notice if you quit the game the other players get upset, maybe even taunt you to stay and play. So its sort of self regulating in that the other players keep other players playing, like in life other people keep others playing the game of civilization. If someone decides they don't want to play and go live wild and free, they are ridiculed, mocked, and looked down on in most instances. Much like "civilized" people look down upon so called primitive people. It is almost as if "civilized" people came upon wild people, realized they could not convince them that civilization was better and so forced them into the game or just killed them outright. 

This is the pathology of the disease we call civilization. Most of us are so domesticated that we cannot allow others to live free and wild. We find it odd or disgusting to think that someone would want to live in the wild apart from civilization. We glamorize the ecocidal nature of civilization, its penchant for killing those who cannot keep up or those who do not want to play the game but are stuck playing anyways. We glorify what humankind has accomplished without realizing that the march of progress is actually a march to our death. The great toll that the march of progress has done to the planet and all its inhabitants is something we conveniently ignore. Yet we keep patting ourselves on the back for all the supposed good we have done in the wake of our destruction.

On Delusion

 Prehistoric primitive humans likely had no need for delusion, they likely and almost undoubtedly just accepted the reality around them. That death is a natural part of life. They had no need of surplus and accepted what nature gave them as food, took nothing more and nothing less. This isnt to say they didnt have some worldview we might consider somewhat delusional, like animism. Its pretty much accepted that early primitive humans were animistic, the idea that all is imbued with spirit. This idea may seem absurd to us in the light of our current delusions and misinterpretation of reality, but is it that insane? Daoism and Zen Buddhism have these ideas, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. If you think about it, its quite logical compared to what many believe in today. But why are delusions rampant? Why is it that people do not seem to have a firm grasp of reality and in many cases knowingly reject reality for delusion?

I think civilization is so unnatural that humans seek out delusions in an attempt to explain their horrible reality created by civilization. That we are reduced to mere gears in a never ending and all consuming machine that labels itself "progress" and there seems to be no escape bears the question, why wouldnt humans create delusions to escape this newly created "civilized" reality? It seems human beings need delusion just to survive, just to avoid the sad reality that this forward progress is actually a progress towards species suicide, and potentially eco-suicide. 

There is comfort in delusion. There is comfort because it gives us something to look forward to outside of this death machine. There is comfort because some of these delusions attempt to explain this reality and how it is either our fault or someone elses fault we are not able to live some lavish life. There is comfort in the idea that there is some master plan and someone pulling the strings of this said plan. If someone is in control, then there is a meaning for this mindless march of alleged progress. That delusional meaning gives us the ability to carry on, slaving for this civilization that reduces all of us to domesticated animals on a miserable slaughterhouse farm. 

There is a need for many for these delusions, but for some we are beyond these delusions, we see them for what they are. We have no need of delusions and the dogmatism that accompanies them.

Hiatus

 I have been on hiatus for about 5 years or so. In that time I have learned and grown significantly. I have shed delusions and moved past dogmatic ideals and just, am. My blog will be reflecting this new self from this point forward.

The End of Man

 In Genesis we read how man came to know the truth, the knowledge of good and evil and was thus thrown from the garden or paradise to live a life of toil and hardship. I see this as an allegory for man discovering, whatever the reason, agriculture. Which inevitably led to civilization. Since then it has been a downward trajectory for human kind masked in the guise of "progress". Primitive hunter gatherers had a relatively easy and stress free life of relaxation and at times gathering, and rarely hunting to survive. While early agriculturalists led a life of hardship and toil, and were significantly less healthy than hunter gatherer counterparts. Agriculture led to civilization, which led to large scale conflict and this so called progress was only to further civilization itself. Math and geometry were developed as a means to build better agriculture. Military was developed to defend the surplus food and those that managed it. Growing technology is like slowly building your own prison in which you live and are now helpless to escape because you know no other way. This is domestication. Animals who are domesticated often have a much smaller brain than their wild counterparts, likewise modern human brains are 20% smaller than our ancestors from 20,000 years ago. Our dependence on technology is killing us, it is not making anything better. Look around, the rich are getting richer and the poor are growing poorer. The system isnt even bearable to live in. A small medical bill could bankrupt the average American. Just to get higher education one must drown themselves in debt from which they will never escape.

The end of man or humans themselves, to be more specific, is the modern techno-industrial system.

Christians convert more people to atheism than to Christianity

I know this title may seem a bit far fetched, the idea that Christians turn more people to atheism or agnosticism sounds absurd, but hear me out. The main friction Christians have with the rational world is with science and namely evolution. This seems to be what creates more tension between Christians and scientists, or anyone that believes in evolution, than anything else. So I will attempt to show why this battle tends to create more atheism than it does create new Christians.

We as a people, Christian or non-Christian, need to be open to new ideas and information, if we are not we doom ourselves to being simple minded and backwards, unable to progress as a human being both mentally and spiritually. When scientists present us with data, we need to accept it. Of course we first need to be critical of what they present to ensure that what they present is true, thats how science works. But we should not immediately reject any new ideas because it supposedly conflicts with our religious convictions.

As with evolution, Christians tend to think that it is incompatible with scripture. As an evolutionist and a Christian I reject this. I once took this stance that the two were irreconcilable. But over time as I began to realize that science had a point about evolution and it was backed by hard evidence, I understood too that I was not a scientist, I had to accept the reality of evolution. So, what of my faith? Should I abandon it because it conflicts with scientific fact? It was at this point that I realized that it was not scripture that evolution was in conflict with, it was my literal interpretation that was conflicting. As new evidence arose to prove evolution true, I understood that my view of scripture must also change. The creation story in Genesis is not a literal one, it is metaphorical. (detailing that could produce an entire book about the metaphorical meaning so I will spare you). One must also understand the audience Moses was speaking to, former slaves who were almost entirely uneducated and illiterate. He had to present a simple explanation almost like he was talking to kids, hence the reference to the jews as "children."

Moses was not interested in giving a detailed scientific explanation as to how the world came into being, he was giving them a simplistic story that was easy to understand, but not literal. Had Stephen Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson, and perhaps Bill Nye, been those amongst the Israelites, he probably would have began with "billions of years ago..." But he didn't do that for the specific reason that the Israelites would not be able to grasp this idea, it would be foreign to them and they were already hostile towards Moses and very untrustworthy of him. He was forced to make a simple explanation.

How do Christians create atheists? Well, when a hardline Christian with a literal view of the bible and no understanding of science debates with a scientist, he goes against all evidence presented, ignores it and then says "well the bible says so its true." This willful rejection of scientific fact and all the research and knowledge of a plethora of scientists who have studied this for years tells them that Christians are dumb people who reject evidence and fact, and denounce all use of reason. Why on earth would that scientist ever want to become a Christian? This tells him or her that Christianity does not hold reason or fact in high regard, and if they reject fact for fiction then none of it must be true. This does not make Christianity appealing to a single one of them.

My advice is to stop rejecting science and leave science to the scientists just as you expect scientists to leave theology to the theologians. Nobody is saying that science proves God does not exist, in fact there are many scientists who do believe in both God and evolution, they see God in creation and it is entirely possible that God used a discoverable way in which to create all things. The big bang most likely happened and this was most likely the method with which God created all things. It is still a miracle that we can all marvel at regardless of how all came into being.

My logic is this, all matter must have an origin. That matter could not have come into being by any materialistic or natural means because we simply do not observe matter creating itself today. If I see a computer or television it is rational for me to say "who made that?" That is logical, and I assert it is also logical for all matter. It is irrational to think matter can come into existence of its own will, matter is inanimate, it just cannot self exist. Some would say, well, then who created God? But this is not a fair question because in asking this we either bring God, an infinite being, to the level of matter or elevate matter to the level of God. It would be like asking where does infinity end. God, by His very nature, has always existed. This is a very difficult concept for finite beings to grasp because our nature is to be born, grow old, and die. We cannot conceive of anything other than that because it is beyond the scope of our understanding. That is, at least, my thinking on the matter.

Christianity was meant to be classless

"Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need." Acts 4:32-35

This is a passage in scripture that is almost completely ignored by all Christian denominations. In fact I would wager that most people who identify as Christians are completely unaware of this passage or what it even means. Its quite simple, early Christians gave their wealth to the church and it was distributed equally among the people. This did a few things, it eliminated class within the church putting everyone on equal footing, and made sure that all were united as one. They were either all poor or all rich, and maybe there were many in between. But the point is they were all of one class. 

Why is that so important? Because when you have classes, a rich and a poor, the rich tend to think of themselves as better or in the Christian context, chosen by God. After all their riches must come from God, that meaning they are appointed. This often leads to the rich then running the church and leaving the poor and middle class out of the decision making. It can often mean leaving the priests out of the decision making as well, since it is the rich that contribute most and therefore pay the salary of the priest. Therefore the priest is put in a position of being under the rule of the rich within the church.

What I have witnessed in many churches is Christian adopting the right wing republican or libertarian view that poor people are poor by their own choosing. They have not worked hard enough and do not deserve any sort of help. This also adds to the idea that they, by virtue of being rich, are somehow better or chosen and therefore are entitled to lord over everyone else. The feeling is that they are rich, therefore they are better decision makers, better thinkers, better people, and or are chosen by God.

The trouble with this is obvious. It creates classes within the church and gives all power to the rich. Christianity was founded by poor people for poor people. Christ did not exactly have positive things to say about wealth and or rich people. This is why it was a requirement in the early church to give up your wealth for the greater good of all the people within that church, to make everyone equal. Yet we see inequality within every church. In nearly every church you will see someone driving to church in a car on its last leg and at the very same church others will be driving expensive luxury cars that are worth more than what that poor person makes in a single year, or two. You will almost always see people who have no worry of medical insurance and those going without medical insurance in that very same church.

This passage in Acts shows graphically that the early church sought to eliminate that by creating a classless society in which all were equal. What changed this and when I do not know but I am sure it happened over a period of time. Slowly but surely the Christian church became a church governed by rich people, for rich people and the poor slowly shut out.

Ask yourself, would anyone in your church be willing to give up their wealth for the good of all people within that church? Would you personally be willing to give over all your wealth for the greater good of all the people within your church? We must ask these questions because it is obvious that every denomination has strayed from the early church and its intent on creating equality within the church. 

Diagnosis and Prescription

There are many problems facing the Coptic church today, many indeed. However the people seem unable or unwilling to address these problems and instead choose to bury their head in the sand. What is worse is if someone, especially a non-Egyptian, points these out, they are essentially shunned for speaking it. Here I will diagnose the problems first, then prescribe each problem a remedy. I will lay out the problems and how they can be solved since everyone seems clueless that they exist and or how to fix them.

1. Clericalism
Clericalism is rampant in the church. The priesthood is often, but not always, treated like an exclusive mens club. These men will come to the aid of one another regardless if he is in the wrong or not, rather than approaching a situation in an unbiased manner. Clergy will immediately defend one another against the people, even when the evidence overwhelmingly shows that clergy has done something wrong. This is especially a problem in the Coptic Church as when a priest does wrong he is simply moved to another church and the issue not addressed. The people allow this so the clergy continue to do it. Many seem to have this idea that speaking out against clergy is wrong. That is the furthest from the truth. In the 4th century St Cyril the Great, one of my favorite saints, incorrectly tried to canonize Ammonius who attempted to murder the prefect Orestes and was killed as a result of this attempt. The people rose up against St Cyril in defiance, and they were correct. St Cyril, the pillar of faith, was forced to reverse his decision.

Prescription - The people need to hold clergy accountable for their actions. This does not mean people need to constantly attack clergy, but if a clergyman is corrupt then his actions need to be made public, especially since we cannot count on the leadership of the church to defrock these priests, we know they will be protected and simply moved to another church. Perhaps starting a registry in which clergy can be rated according to personal experiences from people who have interacted with them, a website that people can check. This will force honesty from the clergy who abuse their position of power and hopefully keep corrupt people from becoming clergy in the first place. The leadership needs to understand that these positions attract mentally unstable power hungry people not interested in actually serving the people but only serving themselves. Those clergy need to be punished swiftly and severely, not coddled.


2. Ethnocentricism
The church suffers from a good dose of ethnocentricism, which makes evangelizing nearly impossible. Many expect catechumens to not only learn and accept an entirely new religion, but an entirely new culture and language. Neither of these are essential for salvation. However catechumens often feel left out or set aside, especially in churches where they refuse to use english. This often borders on racism, which I have seen a fair share of from people within the church who come to this country a persecuted people and then look down on black americans, another persecuted people. This is entirely unacceptable but is also rampant within the church. Many of these congregants seem to only be coming because it is their culture and not for salvation. So they see it as maintaining their culture and not as a means of healing the soul.

Prescription - When you come to any country the liturgy should be done in the language of that country. The people themselves need to use only that language to as not to alienate the people who come seeking Christ. Do not expect people to adopt your culture, but you should adopt theirs and adapt it to Orthodoxy. Copts seem to immigrate to countries with no plan whatsoever pertaining to the culture of the land they are immigrating to. This gives people the idea that Copts view their culture and language as superior to the land they immigrated to, which turns people off. Adapt to the surrounding culture in which you live so as to make it an easier transition for people converting.

3. Protestantism
The church has a serious problem with this. Many are attempting to adopt many aspects of protestantism into the church. Either knowingly or unknowingly destroying the church. I have written 11 books on the subject with the backing of Anba Youssef of the SUS Diocese in America. Sadly nobody has listened and the influx of protestantism into the church has continued. It has started with simply singing their songs, but take a look at what many of these people post on facebook and you can see that they are delving into protestant teaching. Not just C.S. Lewis, but frauds like Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer. Many seem to see no difference between Orthodoxy and protestantism and consider all 40,000 denominations to be Christian. This is dangerous as it equates protestantism to Orthodoxy, telling people they can get the same result without being Orthodox, which is untrue.

Prescription - Stop singing protestant songs. Stop seeking protestants for theological advice. Start delving into the rich history of your own faith. There are countless writings from Orthodox Christians that far exceed what any protestant could produce. The early writings of the church, especially the commentaries on scripture, are invaluable, use them. Sadly many Copts have no idea when it comes to early church writings and are content settling for superficial teachings and teachings that focus on pulling emotional strings. Listen to those that spent time as a protestant and converted, stop thinking you know it all and listen to those that actually do know. You are destroying the church so be humble for once and listen to what people are saying who are against it.

There are a number of other problems facing the church, I felt these are the most important and if these are fixed the others will eventually work themselves out. You may be surprised that I did not include islam on this list. Islam is merely a physical danger and in no way presents a theological danger to the church. As Tertullian said the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church, we should not be worried about physical persecution. Our numbers grew in the early church when we were physically persecuted. The danger came when people became complacent and theological errors entered into the church, fracturing it. Incorrect theology poses a far greater danger then someones ability to persecute another.

Defining What is Christian

How do we define a Christian and why is that important? It would seem that the definition of Christian is ambiguous, having been watered down my countless denominations that continually redefine Christian theology. Why is this important? It is important to define what a Christian is because if we do not then anyone can call themselves a Christian and be misled or mislead others into incorrect teachings. It is important to define what a Christian or Christianity is so that people can know the truth. If we accept anyones profession that they are a Christian without having first investigated then we will be held accountable.

The easiest way is to contrast everything against the sacrament of sacraments, the Eucharist. In the Orthodox Church this sacrament is considered to be the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, not as in the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation, but a mystical or spiritual transformation, not a transformation of substance. It is not considered symbolic at all in Orthodoxy. It is not considered symbolic by Christ in the Gospel of St John either, He says: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

Christ does not say that this is symbolic in any way, He is literal, in fact when the people were grumbling He reiterated that He was being literal. This caused many to desert Christ, so why didn't He explain that He was only speaking symbolically? To further prove this point, when Christ instituted the Eucharist in Mt 26:26 He said: “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Notice that Christ does not once say that this is a symbol but that this is My Body and this is My Blood. He then refers to this as His blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins. This is literal, not symbolic in any way.

Christ says in John 6:53 that: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." This again is clear in that we must partake of the Eucharist, which Christ instituted and said is His Body and His Blood. Christ says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we will have no life in us, meaning we cannot receive salvation unless we partake of the Eucharist.

So it stands to reason, whomever rejects the Eucharist rejects Christ and in turn rejects their own salvation. This we cannot consider to be Christian. Any denomination that either rejects the Eucharist or teaches that it is merely symbolic cannot be considered Christian. For any Orthodox to suggest that one who rejects the Eucharist is Christian is heresy because they are stating that a person who rejects Christ is in some way a Christian. This is in no way a condemnation of the people who may believe this as most probably do it out of ignorance. It is important for Orthodoxy to strictly define what it means to be Christian, and this is one way of doing that.

Why the Apostles were not liars

There seems to be a lot of denial when it comes to Christ and Christianity these days and more often than not the Apostles and their accounts are portrayed as unreliable and fanciful tales of magic. If one did not stop and think critically this would seem to be the case. How could someone be brutally tortured, crucified and then raise themselves from the dead? Where is the evidence for such a claim? I will tell you, it is in the lives of the Apostles and disciples of Christ. If anyone knew that the resurrection, and other claims in scripture, were false, it would be them. So why is this important and how does it prove anything? Generally speaking when some religious person makes outrageous claims they do it for a purpose and that purpose is power, money, women, fame, or any of the trappings that come with the ability to manipulate people. But this is not the case when it comes to the Apostles nor the disciples. Many of them were martyred for their faith and all of them lived very poor and meager lives, hardly reminiscent of cult leaders.

If anyone had a reason to steal the body of Christ it would have been the Apostles, this would have given weight to their claims and the claims of Christ. So that means they would have been living a lie, but for what reason? They gained nothing. Every Apostles, aside from St John, was either tortured then martyred or just martyred. I could see maybe one Apostle doing this and being so delusional to think that his lie was real and being martyred for it, but 11 of them? Surely one of them would have broke and admitted this to save his own skin. What of St John the Apostle? Why wouldn't he admit that this was a lie to save himself from being exiled an old man to the obscure island of Patmos? St Peter, who seemed to have been a weak in faith at times, was crucified upside down at his own request. Now why didn't he break and admit this was a lie? After all it was him who denied Christ three times out of fear for his life, if anyone were to break it would have been him, but he didn't.

It makes little to no sense for a group of people to maintain a lie like this for no reason. None of them gained anything. They were constantly persecuted and ridiculed. They were poor and ended up dying miserable deaths. Unless all of them were totally insane I see no purpose for them to lie. The probability of all of them being insane has to be off the charts, and then you would have to explain how these insane and unstable people were convincing educated and uneducated, rich and poor of their claims. The only logical conclusion is that the Apostles were not lying about the things they saw, that these things were not some fanciful musings of an insane person, but reality.

One also has to understand that Christ did these things in full view of the public, for all to see and hear. If the Gospel writers were lying surely someone would have come forward to discredit them, but even the jews did not deny that Christ did something, calling Him a "sorcerer" (Sanhedrin 43a). They aren't denying the existence of Christ or that He indeed did miracles or some kind. If Christ did not exist certainly the jews would not admit to His existence. If Christ and or his followers were lying about His "miracles" certainly the jews would have made no reference to it, but they instead try to explain it as being sorcery.

We know from several sources outside scripture that Christ existed historically, I don't even think people cognizant of the facts would deny this. What is in question is, was He who He and His followers claimed? There is enough evidence to suggest that Christ was who He and His followers claimed He was. This is not indisputable evidence, it is inferential evidence that one could base their conclusions upon.

It defies logic that the Apostles would have knowingly upheld a lie and not buckled under the pressure of persecution and a life of poverty. It also defies logic to say Christ did not exist at all and that all the stories are made up. If Christ did not exist surely the jews wouldn't admit to it and if Christ did nothing that could be considered a miracle then why would the jews attempt to explain it away as sorcery. To say there is no evidence is to state a falsehood, there is evidence. It is inferential evidence, not undeniable truth. But one could easily take these facts and base their faith on it as the foundation of their faith. There is truth there. It is not as if there is nothing to base faith on, there clearly is, this however is the choice one must make based on what we know.

Inequality in the Church

One thing I think that bothers me most, aside from the growing influx of protestantism into the church, is inequality. I cannot speak for every church as I have not been to every church. I know there are churches where the congregant are relatively poor and ones where the congregants are relatively rich, and some that are in the middle. From what I have seen there is inequality to some degree within most of the churches. There are people who have and do not have worry and there are those that do not have anything but worry because they are lacking. This is not how it was originally meant to be.

In Acts 4 we read in verse 32 that "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need." If we are apostolic then why do we not do this, not necessarily exactly this but something akin to this? Why are there people within our own church lacking while others have abundance? At what point did we get away from this and why? These are questions I am not sure I have or can find the answer to. But one thing is certain this is a problem that I do not think many people want to address.