| George Orwell's Holy Bible is "++ungood" ("doubleplusungood") |
| (Quick examples of Christian doublethink include fear is admiration, faith is reason, freedom is slavery, 'god' (the terrifying unforgiving 'god' the father and sacrificial loving Jesus are equated, equivocated and "shell game pea-swapped" at will), love is terror and cruelty, truth is contradiction, harsh sentencing for unavoidable guilt is just, irresponsibility is responsible, obtaining ones highest value and then crucifying it is the seat of morality. Everything 'god' wills is good, even if it's evil.)
George Orwell's famous novel "Nineteen eighty-four" (hereafter abbreviated "1984") is a futuristic dystopian novel (written in 1948) where the protagonist Winston Smith attempts to rebel against the totalitarian controlled world in which he lives. Extreme totalitarian control is maintained in the "outer party", which is the middle tier of a three- tiered society, via an ongoing process of revisionist history writing, and the creation of "doublethink" and "newspeak". Doublethink is a process of conjoining contrary or contradictory concepts and thereby producing new synthetic meaninglessness pseudo-concepts, and "newspeak" is a means of abbreviating conjoined words to produce new words with specific meaning, thus removing any "conceptual baggage" associated with a root word's history and evolution. The purpose of this revisionist history making, doublethink and newspeak was to limit language & conceptual expression and thus stymie and frustrate quality of thought, and the goal was to eventually control the minds the members of the outer party, who, according to Orwell, are always responsible for organizing rebellion. The world dealt with in the story is a national combination of intercontinental lands called 'oceania' that is ostensibly in a constant state of war with other lands, however as the story progresses, it becomes abundantly clear that nothing can be taken for granted or believed as presented by the Ministry of Truth, who is responsible for distributing official propaganda. There are four ministries of oceania, The Ministry of Peace, which concerns itself with oceania's perpetual wars, The Ministry of Plenty, which is responsible for rationing and controlling goods and foods, The Ministry of Truth, which is responsible for re-writing history, distributing propaganda, and which controls information through political literature, the Party organization, and the telescreens, which are means of viewing and monitoring people, and finally The Ministry of Love which is the agency responsible for the identification, monitoring, arrest, and torture of dissidents. As typical of this upside down world, the names of the ministries are ironic lies, as the Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Plenty causes starvation and deprivation, the Ministry of Truth concerns itself with lying, and the Ministry of Love deals in instilling horror, terror, torture and death. There is reason to believe that George Orwell (the pen name of the English writer Eric Blair) was making, not only a scathing and sobering omen of socialism gone-bad, but in fact that the story is actually a metaphor for Christianity. A minor and casual similarity could be accidental or unconscious on the part of Orwell and we could mislead ourselves into believing that there is a connection based on flimsy evidence through confirmation bias if we were so inclined, but the preponderance of similarities suggests to me that Orwell was in fact making a criticism of Christianity in this tale of horror and mind control through reality-revision, fear and terror and a controlling body that exalted uncritical belief over rationality and facts. This is the focus of this piece and I'll leave it up to the gentle reader to make up his or her own mind on the matter. Big Brother/'god' the "holy" father: In 1984, the mysterious head of government is the omniscient, omnipotent, beloved Big Brother, or "B.B.", usually displayed on posters with the slogan "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU". However, it is never quite clear whether Big Brother truly exists, or whether he is a fictitious leader created as a focus for the love of the Party which the Thought Police and others are there to engender (it is possible that he is real, but we — and the book's characters — never know for certain).(1) The Judeo/Christian 'god' is a mysterious leader which governs the universe, is omnipotent, and omniscient, however it's not quite clear whether 'god' the father truly exists, ergo the question is therefore regarded and put forth as a matter of "party" faith. Revisionist History and denial: The Ministry of Truth, which exercises complete control over all media in Oceania, employs Winston at the Ministry's Records Department, where he doctors historical records in order to comply with the Party's version of the past. Since the events of the present constantly shape the perception of the past, the task is a never-ending one.(1) Even though the Old Testament is quite clear and available for anyone to read who has an interest in doing so, Christians seem to be in total denial that the character known as 'god' the father, aka "Yahweh", is described as a petty and evil being (whose name is "Jealous", Exodus 34:14) that leads via instilling fear and terror, hence "fear of 'god'. Christians often depict this 'god' as being "omni-benevolent" or "all good", or the equivalent claim that "god is love". It's quite clear that the terrifying wrathful 'god' the father in the bible in no way resembles a 'god' of love. The three slogans of the Party on display everywhere in 1984, are: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH I'll get back to addressing each of these in turn. The overwhelming preponderance of Christian doublethink. 1. 'god' the father equals 'god' Jesus: The Christian Trinity is composed of 'god' the father, 'god' the son and the holy ghost. They are supposed to be one being, yet three separate people. Jesus is said to be 'god, 'god' the father is said to be 'god', there is said to be one 'god', and yet Jesus is not his father, nor did he impregnate his mother who in turn gave birth to him. Nowhere in the Christian bible are there any passages where the character Jesus is supposed to have literally said, "Hey, look at me, I'm 'god'". The council at Nicaea voted on "Jesus' divinity", i.e. they declared by vote that Jesus is 'god', even though allegedly Jesus had 33 some odd number of years to be clear on the matter, and yet he didn't within theory. Jesus was a sacrificial lamb according to the book of John as well as Hebrews 9. At Gethsemane, Jesus begged at least three times for 'god' the father to take his cup (of wrath) from him, but it wasn't to be. Jesus was forced into choosing between his own torture and death (called "The Passion of the Christ) and that of letting everyone else on earth go to hell/face spiritual death instead, whereas 'god' the father is the fellow in the bible that can't manage to forgive people for not being born impossibly perfect, ergo the 'necessity' of Jesus' crucifixion. 'god' the father needs SOMEBODY'S blood to pay the atonement for "sins" of the guilty, and the blood of an innocent bystander (Jesus) suits him just fine within theory. It's clear from the Gethsemane scenes in the gospels and it's literally spelled out in Acts 4 that 'god' the father is the one that planned out and put into action the plans to torture and kill innocent Jesus. To equate the sacrificial lamb with the axe/executioner; to confuse the terrorist with the innocent person told by this terrorist to jump off the building to save other people is one of the most blatant & egregious cases of doublethink I can think of. Jesus is said to be the one 'god', yet he is supposed to be the sacrifice that "saves" people from the wrath of 'god' (the father). The compassionate selfless sacrifice of 'god' "saves" you from the unforgiving blood-demanding wrath of 'god'? This is clearly a doublethink situation. This "shell game" of good 'god'/bad 'god' is often muddled in biblical text. Jesus said that he will raise this temple in three days and its insinuated that in retrospect, its obvious that Jesus was referring to himself, yet Jesus didn't raise himself in three days or in any amount of days according to the texts; 'god' the father did. Jesus is supposed to have gone to hell to pay the sin debt, aka atonement according to the western orthodoxy and to "fight the devil and defeat death/the devil" according to Eastern Orthodoxy. Just after being crucified, Jesus is said to have went to "prison" to preach to the spirits of the dead according to 1 Peter. In any and all accounts external to Luke, Jesus spent time in hell or some underworld 'till he returned to be resurrected on earth before ascending to heaven as a material body, yet according to Luke, Jesus told the "good thief" that was being crucified along side of him that he will be with Jesus in paradise the very same day. (Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.") Either Luke's Jesus didn't go to any underworld after dying or 'god' the father is being equated with Jesus yet again. One might say that Jesus & 'god' the father are used as a 'good cop/bad cop' routine to gain your compliance. 2. Freedom is slavery: A. Paul in Romans 6 said that everyone is either a slave to sin or a slave to 'god' (with no third option) and that we are bought slaves that should bring our thoughts into captivity. Romans 6 makes clear that humans really have no freedom, that we are necessarily slaves, yet we are set "free" with Jesus' shed innocent blood. Another case of doublethink and the second of the three party slogans in 1984, "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY". 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (New World Translation) "What! Do YOU not know that the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit within YOU, which YOU have from God? Also, YOU do not belong to yourselves, for YOU were bought with a price. By all means, glorify God in the body of YOU people." 2 Corinthians 10:5 "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" (Can you say "thoughtpolice"?) Romans 6:22 (NAB) "But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life." Romans 6:16 (NAB) "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?" "...you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God..."; in Pauline Christianity, we are necessarily slaves to sin or slaves to 'god', and yet Jesus is supposed to "set us free" from sin. This is clearly a "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY" doublethink situation. B. In Genesis 3, Adam & Eve were warned to not eat the magic fruit, lest they would "surely die that day". Eve exercised free will and chose to not be a slave to 'god's' will and thereby caused "the fall" from grace for all mankind and thus damning mankind to a fate of being sent to hell/eternal damnation/spiritual death. Again, we see a case of "Freedom is slavery" (to sin), as sin is defined as not slavishly following the will of 'god'. To exercise free will is to be a "slave to sin" and to not exercise free will is to be a slave to 'god'. There is no freewill allowed in heaven. One is either a slave to the will of 'god', or one is condemned and falls from grace, which will lead to captivity and bondage before one is destroyed. (2 Peter 2:4 " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." Jude 6: "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.") Within the model of Christianity, "Freedom is slavery" and slavery is considered salvation. 3. WAR IS PEACE Christians constantly seem to consider themselves at war with the rest of the world. Perhaps not as literally as Muslims, but at war nonetheless. Modern examples have been given the buzz word titles "the culture war", the "war on Christmas", the attack by the "secular progressives", (which means that the secular progressives are fighting for no one being in charge of the other, but rather to refrain from government sanctioned and therefore government endorsed religious influence). Supposed prophesy that is said to apply to Jesus calls (him) the "prince of peace", and others in the gospels referred to him by that title, yet Jesus in Matthew 10 said... Matthew: 10:34-36 "THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO SEND PEACE ON EARTH : I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." And... Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." The 'god' of omni-benevolent love and "turn the other cheek" spreads messages of hate. That’s about as "doublethink" as you can get IMO. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH : 1 Corinthians 1:19 "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Luke 10:21 "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Jesus gives thanks to 'god' that only the unwise and imprudent will listen to him.) Adam and Eve gaining knowledge of good and evil made moral choice possible because morality requires moral choice and moral choice requires knowledge of good and evil, yet it is this very action that is deemed "Original Sin" by Western orthodoxy and caused the flawed progeny of sinful Adam to "inherit" a sinful nature according to Eastern Orthodoxy. Once again, freedom implies an option that doesn't involve strictly following the will of 'god' and is therefore "evil" since the Christian standard for moral goodness is the will of 'god' (even if this 'god' wishes to kill first born, even babies, just to terrorize people). It would have been better, we are told, if Adam & Eve remained ignorant and dumb animal-like instead of "like us" (the gods or the immortals) "knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:22). This dumb animal-like state was "perfection" as perfection is defined as being a perfectly willing slave to the will of 'god'. It was only after A&E exercised free will and became capable of moral choice did they become what is considered to be "fallen" from 'god's' graces. They allowed "evil to enter the world" as "evil" is described as that which goes against the will of 'god'. In this model, freedom is evil, but in standard doublethink form, 'freedom is slavery'. Paul states that people should follow the authorities blindly because these authoritarians are in power by the grace of 'god', and to question this authority is to question the will of 'god' and anyone who does so will be punished by a "revenger", "for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." This is an obvious advancement of statism by the founder of the Christian church. Romans 13:1-4 1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." 2 "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." 3 "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same" 4 "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Note that the above is an example of doublethink as "good" and "evil" are understood as being respectively aligned with or not aligned with the will of 'god', so the statement is really meaningless and tautologous if we accept the premises. In other words, everything 'god' wills is "good", the powers that be are in power by the grace of 'god', ergo everything the "state" wants is "good" and you'll only run into trouble from the state if you practice "evil" i.e. go against the wishes of 'god' and state. "Faith" means to remain faithful to a cause or idea, which may be justifiable or not justifiable via external means. However religious faith is a call to believe uncritically as to question is regarded as heresy. Religious faith is to be convinced, even without justification, that ones convictions are justified. To maintain religious faith is to confuse being convinced with having reason to be convinced. Religious faith is not a means of reasoning or weighing of the facts, it is a means of remaining convinced IN SPITE of any alleged reasons or facts to the contrary. Religious faith is therefore a form of IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH doublethink. It’s to call a form of refusing to think an intellectual position. It’s a pseudo-intellectual position held that is not actually any intellectual position at all. It’s a position of "I'm convinced and you can't change my mind no matter what" because to be open to contrary facts is to potentially lose ones faith. Sexual Repression: The Party imposes anti-eroticism on its members (sponsoring the Junior Anti-Sex-League, etc.), since sexual attachments might diminish exclusive loyalty to the Party. In the novel, Julia describes party fanaticism as "sex gone sour;" Winston, aside from during his affair with Julia, suffers from an ankle inflammation, alluding to Oedipus Rex and symbolizing an unhealthy repression of the sex drive. Orwell supposed that the sufficient mental energy for prolonged worship requires the repression of a vital instinct, such as the sex instinct. This possibly alludes to the restrictions on sexuality imposed by authorities (civil, political, religious or otherwise, such as in the German National- socialist regime), be it consciously or by selective pressures on doctrine.(1) Pauline Christianity propounds sexual repression. 1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." 1 Corinthians 7:6-9 6. "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Emmanuel Goldstein/Satan The Brotherhood/Fallen angles or demons In 1984, Emmanuel Goldstein, (..."Emmanuel", which being interpreted is, 'God with us', Matthew 1:23), is said to be The Party's great nemesis (and therefore the nemesis of Big Brother) who was a one time member of the Inner Party. He is supposed to be the head of The Brotherhood (a collection of likewise dissidents) and to have written a book of decent against The Party and how oceania is run. The history of Satan in Judeo/Christian "history" aka the Old Testament is hodge-podge and contradictory, but the over all gist is that "he" was an angel in heaven who turned against 'god' the father and the way he ran things. He took a third of heaven's angels with him as he "fell from grace" and as a nemesis, works in opposition to 'god' the father's will. There is a "Satanic Bible" but comparing this to Goldstein's book would perhaps be a bit of a stretch. The sur-name "Emmanuel" is an interesting allusion and its not clear if Orwell was hinting that Goldstein is a 'savior' or a hidden facet of Big Brother. Nationalism and religious faith: Positive nationalism This is apparent in the novel, in the Oceanians’ undying love for Big Brother, whose physical existence is doubtful. Negative nationalism This is apparent in the novel, in the Oceanians’ undying hatred for Goldstein, whose physical existence is doubtful. "Positive" religious faith: Christians have an undying love for the doublethink expressed 'god'/"magic" Jesus, whose physical existence(s) are doubtful. "Negative" religious faith: Christians have an undying hatred for Satan/ "the devil", whose physical existence is doubtful. It's apparent that both Goldstein and Satan are perhaps unnecessary foils with severely limited powers, and perhaps they have no powers outside the influence of the "almighty" Big Brother and 'god' respectively, (if they even exist within the contexts of the stories). Morality: The standard for Christian morality is the claimed will of 'god', which means that it's not based on anyone's innate sense or reasoning or common sense about what is right or what is wrong, but rather what is declared to be the will of 'god' by those who assume the authority of declaring such, and said declaration is often doctrinaire in nature. This often leads to what seems to be absurdities. In Exodus, for instance, 'god' the father told Moses to give the Pharaoh an ultimatum and then 'god' the father hardened the Pharaoh's heart so that he would not comply with this ultimatum. Exodus 9:12 "And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses." The only reason 'god' the father would need to harden the Pharaoh's heart is if the Pharaoh were inclined to BELIEVE & FEAR that what Moses was telling him was in fact true, i.e. that Moses' 'god' was causing plagues. Hardening the heart of the Pharaoh's heart gave 'god' the opportunity to instill fear and terror in the Egyptian people by killing their first born, even the babies and the first born of their cattle, and to instill fear and terror is the reason eventually given as to why 'god' the father would do this. What is made clear by this story is that 'god' the father didn't want the Pharaoh to believe and be terrified BEFORE 'god' the father had a chance to kill babies, hence him hardening the Pharaoh's heart so he would not believe Moses. For Christians to argue that for 'god' the father to needlessly kill babies is morally good is absurd and doublethink in action. So is Paul's "sociopathic" apologetic about this in Romans 9:11-22. A synopsis of which can be said to be "'god' can do anything he wants, even kill babies and everything he wills is good". Christians necessarily believe that it's morally good for the innocent to be tortured and killed in order to profit the guilty. Phrased more specifically and in context… Christians necessarily believe that it's morally good for the innocent (Jesus) to be tortured and killed (the Passion of the Christ) in order to profit (go to heaven instead of hell/eternal damnation/spiritual death) the guilty (sinners). They think its morally good because it was the will of 'god' the father as expressed in the gospel's Gethsemane scenes where Jesus is begging for the "cup" to be taken from him, but nonetheless Jesus will follow the will of 'god', not his own. For such immorality to be deemed the accepted moral standard is an example of "blackwhite" doublethink. More doublethink: Likewise, "Fear of 'god" is deemed to be soulful reverence and admiration, when OT scripture makes clear that fear of 'god' means fear of 'god'. Psalm 2 (KJV) 11 "Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling." 12 "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment." One doesn't "tremble" in admiration, nor does one rationally respond to a threat of being destroyed in a wrathful fit with admiration, and one certainly doesn't call this an example of "love". Faith/evidence The book of Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." It isn't evidence of what is believed in at all. Its belief in lieu of (or even in spite of contrary) evidence and facts. The author (many suggest it was Paul) is suggesting that merely believing in something can make it ACTUALLY true and real. Of course, this is absurd "crazy-talk". Irresponsibility is responsible: If it is just for "sinners" to be sent to hell/suffer eternal torment/die a spiritual death, then it's an injustice to use the shed blood of the innocent to "atone", i.e. pay off the sentencing judge so that you evade this deserved fate. To exploit the death of an innocent person to evade paying ones "just" sentencing is an act of not taking responsibility for ones own actions. Yet Christians often suggest that "getting right with 'god'" is an act of taking responsibility for ones actions. Truth is contradiction: In a literal sense, truth is that which is consistent and non-contradictory. Something is true only to the extent that it is not false, (only to the extent that it doesn't have any inconsistencies or contradictions). Where the term truth is applied to the allegedly existent, "true" means that which objectively exists, the real and actual because there are no true existential paradoxes. There are no existent four-cornered triangles for instance because that involves a contradiction, an inherent falsehood. "(Doublethink), when applied to a Party member, means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink." ~ George Orwell; 1984 Appendix. Christians often speak in contradictory terms and deem this "Truth". When the skeptic makes note of said examples of doublethink noted previously in this piece, or makes note of a contradiction in alleged facts, the Christian will often note that the skeptic doesn't have a "regenerate mind" and that non-believers are "depraved" in their thinking as Paul wrote. When this occurs (and I've seen it often) then this is a prime example of what Orwell noted above, to actually think that black is white, to "know" that black is white, and to forget that one as ever known the contrary. Conclusion: Christianity is unquestionably fueled by fear of death, whether specifically in the Eastern Orthodox or in the "western" idea of "everlasting life", one evades "spiritual death" (whether or not it involves hell-torture) by exploiting the torture and death of an innocent person named Jesus. "The Resurrection" only serves the purpose of showing that "the debt has been paid", as it makes no difference if Jesus is a spirit in heaven or a material body in heaven. Christianity necessarily involves the denial that the torture and death of innocent Jesus is undeserved and unjust, and the Christian is usually more than happy to make this denial because it profits them to do so. By doing this, they evade what terrifies them most. When a Christian "thought-blocks" this moral truth, he is in essence a Christian version of Winston Smith in Orwell's 1984, and when being "cured" in the dreaded torture room, Room 101 by the Ministry of Love and when the rat cage is being placed on his head, he screams out "Do it to Jesus!" LOGOS (1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four All bible references are from the King James Version, unless otherwise noted. |
 |