Article

CUT Doctrine More Complicated, Absurd than Christianity

1394l.jpg

Every time I reflect back on the absurdities I used to believe as a minister of The Summit Lighthouse and Church Universal & Triumphant (CUT), I am reminded that the Christian religion is by no means any more coherent. Just more popular and a lot less complicated. With popularity has come a watering down of its tenets. And most Christians don’t know their own scripture as well as most atheists. They carry their bibles like talismans, but seldom read them. Few believers acknowledge either the contradictions or the anachronisms of the Bible, preferring to focus on the comforting aspects while ignoring the sinister, or the parts that are just plain implausible.

As Bill Maher pointed out in Religulous, the Christian narrative stretches all credibility:

What if there was a religion, in which an all-powerful god from outer space decided to send his unborn son on a suicide mission to planet Earth? So this space-god impregnates a human female in some mystical, not-quite-physical fashion, and she gives birth to a baby who is both a human being and a divine incarnation, simultaneously the space god’s spawn and the space god himself. (Oh, space god also has a third manifestation, one that’s totally invisible.) So space-god junior is born on Earth destined to be killed, even though he’s a space god and therefore immortal.

(For more, check out Maher’s companion site, disbeliefnet.com.)

Before Maher, countless others have recognized the bankruptcy of the myth behind the dominant western Abrahamic religion. But Marquis de Sade has always stood out for his eloquence. Few have mocked religious literalism as effectively, even today. As Joseph Campbell has documented, there was (or should have been) a transition after the Bronze-age where myths were transformed from the literal to the metaphorical. The problems with myths arise when people forget they’re stories about archetypes, not real events.

Here’s a potent reminder in the voice of Madame Delbéne, from Sade’s Juliette:

And what a host of further absurdities we have here!  It’s no longer a mountain climbing madman’s tablets that rattle out the rules to me; this time the God in question proclaims himself through a much nobler envoy: Mary’s meeching bastard is entitled to a very different kind of respect than that claimed by the abandoned son of Jochebed.  So let’s peer closely at this sinister little cheat; what’s he up to, what does he contrive to demonstrate his God’s truth to me, what are his credentials, his methods?  Capers and droll antics, suppers with sluts, fraudulent cures, puns, jests and duperies.  "I am the son of God," bleats this stammering little boor, incapable as he is of uttering one coherent phrase about his father, of penning a line to describe him; yes, "I am the son of God," and better still: "I’m God," that’s what I’m to believe simply because the drivel emanates from him.  The rascal’s hanged up there on a cross, does it matter? His followers desert him, it makes no difference at all: there he is, and no one else: God of the universe, nailed. 

Where did he take form? Why, in a Jewess’ womb. His birthplace? In a stable. How does he gain my belief in him? By abjectness, poverty, and imposture, he has no other means to win me over. And if I waver, if I fail of belief?  Woe unto me!  Eternal tortures are my destiny. There’s a God, I’ve omitted nothing from the portrait and in it there’s not one feature that stirs the soul or appeals to the heart. Oh, matchless contradiction! ’tis upon the ancient law the new one is grounded, and nevertheless the new supersedes, sets at nought the old: What then is the basis of the new? This Christ, is he the lawgiver we’re to hearken to? All by himself, he alone is going to give me an understanding of the God who’s dispatched him here; but if it was to Moses’ interest to preach to me about the God whence his power derives, think of how eager must be the Nazarene to tell me about the God from whom he descends!  Surely, the more modern lawgiver must be better informed than the earlier one: Moses was at best able to chat familiarly with his master, but Christ is God’s blood offspring.  Moses, content to ascribe natural causes to miracles, convinces his people that lightning blazes forth for the chosen only; the cleverer Jesus accomplishes the miracle himself; and if both do indeed merit their contemporaries’ profound scorn, it has nevertheless to be admitted that the latter of the two was, through his superior insolence, the more justified in claiming the esteem of men; and the posterity that judges them by assigning a ghetto to the Jews shall definitely be obliged to grant the other a priority on the gallows.

So, Juliette, it is apparent, is it not, the vicious circle into which men fall as soon as they begin to rave about this rubbish: religion proves its prophet, the prophet his religion.

Observant readers may point out that Sade is also taking the Christian myth literally. Of course he must, because that is where the damage has been done. For instance, the "virgin birth." If the "virgin birth" were to be taken metaphorically, it never would have had any implications about human sexuality. It would touch on initiation, renewal and the creative powers of the mother archetype. Instead of making it about Mary’s intact hymen, we might view the story as a metaphor for life evolving from inanimate matter, among other interpretations.

Sade and others have rightly realized that in both Eden and the manger, human sexuality and its corollary knowledge–have been needlessly turned into something shameful. Perhaps sexuality should be looked at as being sacred–but in the sense that it is transformative and numinous–not divine. The fundamentally human (animal) sexual act has been forced by all three Abrahamic religions into the shadows–subject to endless control and condemnation. It has been made profane by its association with "original sin." This patriarchal dogma has labeled women and their bodies as sources of "temptation" for which they are made to feel shame and scorn. This diabolical attitude is one of the worst consequences of scriptural literalism that humanists ardently strive to reverse.

Had The Summit Lighthouse or CUT been the dominant religion for the past two thousand years, Sade and others might have been talking about the absurdity and self-referential nature of messages from ‘Godfre Ray King,’ ‘El Morya,’ ‘Saint Germain,’ or ‘Sanat Kumara.’ He might have barbecued the hubristic nonsense of their countless claimed incarnations throughout ancient, modern and ‘galactic’ history. CUT’s melding of eastern reincarnation beliefs with Christian piety and puritanism just adds another level of complexity to one of the grand myths of our civilization. Discussion of specific "past lives" of living persons was used as a powerful tool of manipulation by the ‘messsengers.’ It also became a broad brush to paint a convenient history for their invented teachings.

The bit-player cartoon personalities introduced by Blavatsky would have been nobodies–sheer impostors–if not for the efforts of her successors such as Annie Besant, Henry Steele Olcott and others to attach them to famous characters from actual human history. The tic-tac-toe theology of Christianity "Jesus died for our sins, we’re going to heaven" was elevated to full three-dimensional chess: "Hundreds of masters, each with hundreds of interlocking embodiments. We are all a part of a shared ‘cosmic’ history, and we can make our ascension, too!"

It’s the ultimate soap opera. Subsuming artistic and political personalities–indeed the greatest and worst people of all time–and epic historical conflicts into the legend makes it stupefyingly complex. It’s impenetrable to any attempts at moral clarity. It’s impossible to verify the stories since some parts came from history and other parts from folklore or "revelation." Because it’s an admixture, it ceases to be history and can only be classified as theology. It’s therefore completely immune to rational challenge. It’s easier for believers to say to outsiders "Don’t mess with my faith," and retreat behind the opaqueness and faux-grandeur of it all.

Ascended master believers haven’t faced the implications of their literalism either. Sadly for them it’s no more about true understanding than it has been for Christians. It’s about clinging to a unifying and satisfying mythology to provide significance. ‘Saint Germain’ looms so much larger than life as a "sponsor of America," with ‘Godfre Ray King’ as its first president George Washington, and ‘El Morya’ takes on the martyr’s mystique as the stoic defender of Catholic authority Thomas More. The problem with even supposedly ‘great’ historical figures: they often have serious flaws. For example, few devotees of ‘El Morya’ have the courage to face the reality that More was a strict authoritarian who had people imprisoned, tortured and burned at the stake for questioning the church during the Reformation. Cherry picking doesn’t just happen with scripture, it also happens feverishly when belief systems glom on to historical personalities.

Let’s see what happens when we stop the cherry picking and look at the whole story: Since Thomas More in his position of Lord Chancellor employed the rack and ordered people burned alive, he was ironically more of a sadist than Sade. Though ‘he’ could be loving at times, ‘Morya’s’ usually dour and severe demeanor in his so-called dictations made him CUT’s disciplinarian. If anything inspired fear in CUT believers, it was the fierce and unforgiving eyes of spiritual church "founder" and chief sadist ‘El Morya.’ It turns out this was for a very good historical reason: Thomas "More-ya" was an actual torturer, and he tortured actual heretics. Sade’s worst crimes were his sacrilegious writings–for which he was imprisoned without trial–and his reported abuse of prostitutes. And though he wrote extensively about torture and murder, he never killed or practiced actual torture to any significant degree. It’s funny how More can actively torture his way to religious heroism, while the incendiary but non-violent author Sade is reviled. We need not live with such upside-down distorted judgments any longer.

Clear thought and enlightenment have never been more out of reach than they are from those whose minds have been poisoned with the tall-tales of the incorporeal "Great White Brotherhood" and its counterpart of both embodied and disembodied "fallen ones." This self-serving morass of revisionist conjecture and pure fantasy doesn’t just do violence to history: By mixing stolen human personas with imaginary beings who are still "alive" in the spirit world, it also casts the present in a distorted light. Through deliberate satisfaction of the believers’ appetite with this diet of ephemeral falsehoods, the natural human drives to question authority, demand empirical accuracy, and pursue self-awareness are quashed–replaced with a blissfully ignorant certainty. Like Christianity, the "masters" movements also seek to justify hypocrisy, unearned authority, and support conservative political ideologies which have attempted and still strive–even in their temporary defeat–to prevent long-overdue personal liberation and planetary healing.


Comments (17 comments)

Myriam Koepcke / November 24th, 2008, 8:07 pm / #1

What would you suggest?

Peter / November 25th, 2008, 3:05 pm / #2

In the future you might not get away with labelling religions as “absurd” any more, if the UN has its way :

UNITED NATIONS – Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being used to limit freedom of speech.

Combating Defamation of Religions passed 85-50 with 42 abstentions in a key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the plenary later in the year.

But while the draft’s sponsors say it and earlier similar measures are aimed at preventing violence against worshippers regardless of religion, religious tolerance advocates warn the resolutions are being accumulated for a more sinister goal.

“It provides international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, and there are a number of people who are in prison today because they have been accused of committing blasphemy,” said Bennett Graham, international program director with the Becket Fund, a think tank aimed at promoting religious liberty.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

Religion hereby gets granted an exception from critizism that presupposes that religions
are puveyors of “universal” truth.
Nothing gets granted this right in a democratic society, and the absurdity of this presupposition becomes obvious in the face of several hundred or thousand universal “truths”, and by the fact that as a consequence any “truth ” that peddled as religion, no matter how vile and violent it might be, can claim to be respected.
That fact that mostly Islamist nations supported this law, speaks volumes, as a violent religion like islam under those circumstances is immune from any furthre scutiny as to its premises.

By the same token – even the Fascists could claim to be a “voelkisch” religion, based on the “truth” that only a “volk” that respects its genetic “purity” can claim the right to exist and to conquer other impure nations.

The utter idiocy of that decision by the UN just helps to further diminish any residue of respect that this instution once might have commanded.

BlackSun / November 25th, 2008, 3:13 pm / #3

Peter,

You are right to fear the anti-blasphemy laws. I’m very concerned also. The good news is that any country with a constitutional right to free-speech would never agree to or sign such a convention.

The countries of the OIC who are backing this already either are theocracies or border on it. They’re just doing this to stalemate the UN and keep from being accused of human rights violations. Eventually, world opinion will hopefully turn against them and they will be forced to see the hypocrisy of their position.

I agree the UN is becoming toothless. They won’t challenge Darfur genocide, and they pass nonsense like this which legitimized gross rights violations. What’s needed is a solid world constitution for human rights. But with the OIC involved, we can kiss that dream goodbye for now.

Black Sun Journal » CUT Leaders Deny 1990 Nuclear War Prediction / November 25th, 2008, 5:10 pm / #4

[…] And you all maybe thought I was exaggerating when I talked about CUT’s worship of historical personalities (previous article). The way they conflate God, government, and history is scary. […]

Alan / November 27th, 2008, 4:53 am / #5

It’s nice to have someone like you, from within the CUT fold, coming out to criticize it and Christianity, etc. But no amount of common sense will show a religiously brainwashed person the light. Attempts to illustrate simple contradictions in the bible don’t make sense, people just point to John 3:16 and tell you how much God loves us. Either that or they say you’re interpreting it wrong (as if you can interpret the gang rape in Judges 19 in some positive light?). Sadly, they are thinking the same thing about us… “I just don’t understand why he doesn’t see how God LOVES US!! John 3:16 says it so clearly!”

The problem is that people like you make the best ministers. No explanation utilizing common sense about biblical anachronisms or contradictions would have made sense to you when you were a minister for CUT. It’s like Malcolm X: he was a fantastic pimp, drug dealer, hustler, etc… and when he found Allah he was a fantastic brain washer for the Nation of Islam. :)

Anyways, keep on writing, dude, and I’ll keep reading!

Alan

BlackSun / November 27th, 2008, 10:39 am / #6

Alan,

But no amount of common sense will show a religiously brainwashed person the light. Attempts to illustrate simple contradictions in the bible don’t make sense, people just point to John 3:16 and tell you how much God loves us. Either that or they say you’re interpreting it wrong

With religion, it’s all interpretation. And how you interpret scripture is tied up with what you wish to believe. Which is why cherry-picking is universal, both with scripture and “heroic” personalities. It’s like falling in love. You pick the good and ignore the bad.

Thanks for the compliment. I do think that critical thinking can be learned. Maybe “accepted” is a better word. Contradictions pile up. The brain files them away as a by-product of the cognitive dissonance (required to maintain faith in the absence of evidence, or in spite of counter evidence). Then when something happens in life that causes a person to be open to questioning, all the stored contradictions come flooding out.

It’s a matter of a person’s life path. Self-determination is life’s most advanced course. It’s so much easier to just accept what you’ve been told. I’m writing for the benefit of people who just might be ready to start that journey. You never know when someone’s going to hear a last-straw million-plus-one contradiction that will make them finally say, “That’s ridiculous.”

becky lipinski / November 28th, 2008, 12:14 am / #7

I’ll never forget my first glimmering –at about age 6 or 7–that the Christian bible might not be so “holy.” It was the story of Abraham sacrificing Issac that started my wheels turning. If God was all-knowing , why did he need Abraham to prove his devotion? He would certainly have been aware of that devotion already, I reasoned–and since he was aware of it, his demand for such a sacrifice could only be construed as cruel and even sadistic. It wasn’t long before I began to realize that the Judeo-Christian god was a human construct. Man wasn’t made in the image of God (tongues and toe-nails and all); rather, God was made in the image of man.

BlackSun / November 28th, 2008, 7:29 am / #8

Becky,

Man wasn’t made in the image of God (tongues and toe-nails and all); rather, God was made in the image of man.

Good points. God being created in the image of man is one of my favorite ironies. The other is the reversal of consciousness-matter priority.

It’s a fundamental tenet of New Thought/New Age philosophy that thought/speech controls matter. You hear that all the time with “The Law of Attraction” and other such nonsense. My parents used to talk about “fohat” as some sort of sound-based creative force. It’s also why they got so upset about rock music because they imagined that sound could change matter, in the case of rock music for the worse (never mind the lack of explanation of what damage was being done and for how that might work). Other new agers claim that only a consciousness (God) could create the matter universe.

We cannot comment on creation stories, since we will never know those answers. Which makes the whole thing ripe for endless speculation. Regardless of how it got here, in the universe we observe, matter creates consciousness. Our brains are but one example of a “thinking machine.” We will doubtless see the rise of “strong AI” in the next several decades, which upon demonstrating human-level cognitive performance, should permanently put to rest lingering questions about mind-body dualism: we are our brains.

Human “specialness” is under attack from all sides–and it’s a good thing. DNA shows us that we are closely related to other animals and are in fact animals. Soon, machines will duplicate cognition. This will make it clear that we are not qualitatively different from animals or advanced machines. Let’s hope that the retreat from human specialness gives rise to a little more humility and a drive for knowledge and creativity as the only source for creating true meaning in life.

Alan / November 30th, 2008, 11:15 pm / #9

Black Sun,

Not only does our DNA show we’re related to animals, but we’re also related to bananas (and trees, etc). Everything living, wow!

Thanks for the compliment. I do think that critical thinking can be learned. Maybe “accepted” is a better word. Contradictions pile up. The brain files them away as a by-product of the cognitive dissonance (required to maintain faith in the absence of evidence, or in spite of counter evidence). Then when something happens in life that causes a person to be open to questioning, all the stored contradictions come flooding out.

I guess I feel the same way, that some day it will will just “click” for someone and they’ll be thinking back, with a new outlook, to all the things skeptics brought to their attention.

P.S. I love your site’s color scheme, and the live-preview is wicked. But shouldn’t you upgrade your WordPress? ;)

BlackSun / December 1st, 2008, 9:25 am / #10

Alan,

Yes the WordPress is old, but I have an administrator, and he says that upgrading will break certain plug-ins. I’m not much of a web jockey, so I have to take his word for it.

Could use a theme update also, it’s been almost 2 years. But that would cost money…

Maybe I’ll open a cafepress store and sell some BSJ swag to pay for it. Then again, that would take time…

AmenASHandF / December 2nd, 2008, 2:31 am / #11

Alan hello,
good points! Though Malcolm X did wake up, saw the light & left the Nation of Islam. Seeing it for what it was. Yes, I do look up to Malcolms X’s history ; as a black boy who had to learn to survive in these so called United States, his father murdered by the KKK- tide to the rail road track-mutilated by the train that passed over him, his 8 other siblings all divided up after this vile horendous crime against his family just because they were dark skined human beings & his mother ending up in a mental institution spaced out staring at the corner wall the rest of her life…Malcolm X was a great man because he was honost at the end. That to me is what makes a human being honorable, awesome & great.
His strength to survive & evolve into what he did at the end makes him a hero to me & many others. His intentions as he entered T.N.I, was for a greater purpose and I understood his hate for the white man aswell as his need to show & prove the white mans very mistaken concepts, supiority complex & very mistaken intelectual interpretations on many things. His journey & story is a tremendous one to reflect anyone’s own life’s imperfection’s & search for truth.
I hold him dear & with tremenous respect for what he stood for, contributing in the clearance needed for true freedom for those of “color” & banishing misconceptions associated with the color of ones flesh or ethnicity.
In Memory of Malcolm X, his mother & father, his siblings, his son who killed his own grandmother starting a fire in the home & his daughter who was committed because of her plan to murder the leader of T.N.I. ( the incidences w/ his two children happened in the 90’s).
Respectfuly,
Ms.Amen A. Sigala / Happy & Free

AmenASHandF / December 2nd, 2008, 2:54 am / #12

P.S. I accidently omited something very important after…tremendous respect for what he…endured as a boy…and…to…before many others.

Nancy Couick / December 3rd, 2008, 7:19 pm / #13

Jonathan Kirsch has some excellent books out on the birth of our biblical religion and of the position and power of women within that pagan-based religion that I think you might enjoy. Check out www/jonathankirsch.com for further information. His book “Harlot on the Side of the Road, the Forbidden Tales of the Bible” is an eye-opener, and he’s also done some recent works which may be quite informative. He was a journalist for the LA Times and is an excellent writer. I’ ve enjoyed his analysis of Moses, and he has a new book out entitled “A History of the End of the World” about Revelations, which should prove to be interesting.

The ‘Harlot’ book goes into the stories in the bible that ministers regularly avoid, about sex, violence, and women in the bible. A recommended read…..

Anonymous / December 14th, 2008, 3:45 pm / #14

You might be interested in Tony Bushby’s books about the Origin of Christianity, the Origin of the Old Testament, and the Origin of the Book of Revelation:

1. The Bible Fraud

2. The Secret in the Bible

3. The Crucifixion of Truth

Bushby apparently had access to some of the best kept secrets of the Vatican and the Mystery Schools. The url is http://www.thebiblefraud.com

Alex / January 4th, 2009, 5:17 am / #15

Thanks for this everyone, second time I've seen that pic of Thomas More today – there is obviously deep connections here. I'm following a thread from patrick geddes, annie besant, utopia (Mr More), krishnamurti, aryan (iranian) etc.

Channel4 in the UK, naively in my opinion, broadcast a "christmas message" from Mr Ahmadinejad in opposition to the queen's traditional 3pm tv/radio speech on dec 25 (why not – but just think for a second before you do the obvious left-wing crowdpleaser-thing). Its just all about race, isn't it – aryan/semitic/christian/hindu/mason – who has the bigger balls? (don't look now but they're all the same size and shape). To paraphrase Orwell, we're all right, but some people are more right than others.

BlackSun / January 4th, 2009, 5:31 am / #16

Alex, A'jad's message was disgusting. You hear the same certainty in his voice, the same sickly-sweet condescension we used to hear in the "dictations." Why would the BBC, a secular government organ participate in that charade? Someone needs to lose their job.

mark / October 22nd, 2011, 6:46 pm / #17

I came across this site while doing research. Interesting stuff. The story of the Prophet family and Church is interesting to say the least. What I have noticed though is that people claiming atheism have alot of issues with the organizational religion rather than the concept of God. I have big issues with the organizational aspect of religion and came to the conclusion that the concept of God is not an issue. I think John Trudell explained it best when he said "there are two perceptions of reality. The religious perception of reality and the spiritual perception of reality."

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.