Posted on 09/22/2009 4:55:44 PM PDT by LGardenier
A theomachist is one who works against God; hates God in fact. Theomachism is the political belief and practice of hating or destroying God. Unlike atheists who merely deny the existence of God, perhaps the most disgusting set of ideas known to the world is the active hatred of God. Not new to history it has become a major part of the ideological landscape in the last century with the rise of materialism and positivist science. Those who practice this detestable belief do so under the cover of other political ideals which are compatible with their belief.
(Excerpt) Read more at dsreif.blogspot.com ...
I have never understood atheists. They hate what they do not believe exist. Seems like a lot of wasted effort.
That’s because “if there was a God”...he’d be telling them not to be liars, thieves, murderers and perverts.
atheism boils down to 3 things: sex, more sex and damn you if I can’t get any more sex.
>> I have never understood atheists.
Atheism, like Christianity, boils down to faith.
An atheist can no more “prove” that God does *not* exist, than a Christian can “prove” (in the humanistic, legal, or mathematical sense) that He does exist.
All of us must decide where to place our faith.
Frankly, I admire atheists for the strength of their faith. They believe there is no God in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary! That takes quite a bit of faith. If only it could be turned into faith in God...
As for me, I’m not gonna believe some fiction that an atheist says I should believe — I’m going to believe in my own lyin’ eyes! I see the presence of the Almighty God everywhere. So, it’s much EASIER to believe in God and His son Jesus than NOT to believe.
Really?
So that would make Andromache, wife of Hector, the "man-hater"? Colorful! Reminds me of the former chief of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, "Wilma Mankiller."
Wow click on the link and scroll down to ‘Green is for Islam’....it’s coming.
It is not always a wasted effort. Look at Russian Revolution of 1917. Bolsheviks actively and aggressively fought religion because they understood all too well that religion (and the Church) can defeat them. To that end they killed many priests and made exercise of religious choices very hard, impossible or in some cases - illegal. There were no priests in the army, for example (but you could talk to a commissar at any time :-)
Eventually they succeeded and - here is the real goal - the leaders of Communists became gods themselves. They received prayers ("letters to Comrade Stalin") and gifts (sacrifices); they enjoyed God-like powers of life and death; and they were beyond the reach of a common man. Members of Politburo stepped into shoes of angels. Belief in Stalin by 1940 reached, if not exceeded, belief in God in, say, 1900.
So the work that Communists did at that time was far from being wasted. But this was a massive, organized undertaking. I can't say why (or if) modern atheists hate or not hate a deity. But if I were to guess, Christianity (as an example) promotes many behaviors that are alien, if not contrary, to wishes and actions of a large number of people (a.k.a. criminals) - things like "do not kill, do not steal" ... and people who actively reject these notions are also likely to hate and denigrate the source of them.
The Anti Christian forces grow larger every day. The world view of many is that they hate anything that would require personal responsibility.
“Andromache, wife of Hector, the “man-hater”?”
Very good, TC! :)
The truly bizarre thing is how the roots to socialism, and even atheism, are based in the “Judeo-Christian” mythology (using the term in a respectful way). For example, socialists, and even atheists have incorporated early Biblical ideas into their philosophy.
Their idea is to replace God with the concept of “man”, that Thomas Hobbes called “Leviathan”, that mankind *as a whole* “replicates” the actions of God, according to God’s actions in the Pentateuch.
To start at the beginning, which from mankind’s point of view is the Garden of Eden, the socialist-atheist version is called “The State of Nature”, first elucidated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who created the “Theory of Natural Man”. Had man just not bitten into the fruit of the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil, everything would have been fine and wonderful. Man would be just another happy animal.
And thus socialism, and particularly environmentalism, has this as their ultimate goal: to utterly reject the “knowledge of good and evil”, and thus return to The State of Nature, or Eden.
This explains much about their abject immorality, and moral relativism. One of the first experiments of communism was traditionally “free love”, which always lasted about as long as you might imagine, given venereal disease and the utter defiance of human biology.
It is taken to such an extreme that neo-socialists have a great fear and distrust of those who assert morality, or even ethics. Bill Clinton would not allow a person not perverted or corrupt anywhere near him.
But other lessons from the Book of Genesis, are also examined in an effort to replicate them. For example, Nimrod is looked at very favorably, because by building the Tower of Babel, he sought to challenge the supremacy of God. Something perfectly understandable to Al Gore, who thinks himself godlike in his ability to control the weather.
Yet the parallels are not taken too far, because an essential element of socialism is that their greatest enemy is history. History does not exist in The State of Nature, and history, uncorrupted, closely equals the knowledge of good and evil. Much of the historical record is in effect *remembering* good and evil.
For this reason, socialist thinkers, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, imagined mankind as being split between the ignorant masses, the great majority, being led by a minority socialist elites, those that “get it”. The purpose of such elites is to cajole the masses into socialism, then keep them there in perpetuity, by whatever means necessary.
Since history, even anecdotal tales or stories, cannot be completely extinguished, the job of the elites is to corrupt them as needed to their agenda. And in illustration of this, Emerson took the Biblical tale of Nebuchadnezzar, and twisted it around, making Nebuchadnezzar the hero.
Nebuchadnezzar rejects nature, and seeks to artificially control it, and by doing so is driven mad. But finally he “goes green”, his sanity is restored, and he recovers his natural power to control nature.
Daniel is not even mentioned, his purpose unimportant to “the lesson”.
This elitism was a very attractive feature to many socialists, caught as they were between pretending a superiority complex, while trapped in the throes of an inferiority complex.
One of the great proponents of this elitism was George Fitzhugh, who in his book “Cannibals All!: Or, Slaves Without Masters”, who truly expressed the heights of proto-socialism. His theory was that the elites, who should be the “Masters”, only exist in a ratio of one for every 10 “Slaves”. Not just a defense of the institution of slavery, he said that slavery was so good, that nine out of every ten people should be slaves.
Of course he, and it was assumed the readers of his book, would think of themselves as “Masters”, because they agreed with him. And he went on at length how the “Slaves” should be very grateful to the “Masters” for doing the “hard work” of ruling over them.
Doesn’t that sound a lot like the leadership of the Democrat party?
Yet it all goes back to a heretical reading of the Bible. And much of atheism embraces this, while totally unaware that what they want out of life is just a terribly corrupted and arrogant version of that which they hate.
God will never be mocked. If I recall correctly, Stalin asked: “How many divisions does the Pope have?” mockingly, of course. The Church is still here, and who thinks of Stalin anymore. Tyrants come and go, but Jesus Christ is unchanging.
Tanks, I’m on the ball with my classical roots!
But is that right, Man-Hater? It doesn’t make much sense in the Homeric context: she was crazy about Hector, and later settled down with ... somebody in the Aeneid.
You forgot about abortion! Wait, never mind....
atheists aren’t exactly at the forefront of the pro-life movement yet they somehow claim they are moral.
“But is that right, Man-Hater? It doesn’t make much sense in the Homeric context: she was crazy about Hector, and later settled down with ... somebody in the Aeneid.”
You can make the name mean that, though as you say, she was hardly a hater of men...lots of them. :)
I like Andromache.
Jesus said “He who is not for me is against me”. So, atheists, theomachists, those who never muster up enough give-a-$%#^ to even bother thinking about it - they’re all the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.