Abrahamism must end!

Detaching morality from religions that have appropriated it

It takes an evil idea to make a good man commit atrocity.

I’ve known extremely kind people who subscribed to a religious faith. I’ve known extremely kind people who happened to be areligious. I have also known monsters who were areligious, and monsters who were religious. What is the lesson here?

This essay is not an attack on the followers of Abrahamic religions. Rather, this a warranted recognition of the bad elements in those religions, and thus a separation and disassociation of the good from the bad.

Your morality is bigger than your deity

One of the kindest most humble strangers I have ever met was a Muslim dishwasher in the kitchen of a cocktail bar I used to work at. He attributed his kindness to his religion, but I knew he was kind regardless.

Some of my favorite people happen to be devout Christians - awesome people overflowing with kindness, love, and humility. They too attribute their kindness to their religion, but I know that their moral compass is so fundamentally true that it does not require the threat of eternal sadistic punishment, nor the meaningless hedonistic high of heaven. They just need to attribute their morality to a higher power to make sense of things.

I’ve known similarly amazing people who happen to be areligious - who are not convinced of any religious claims - but simply choose to be good people without having to be commanded to pretend to be good by a cruel deity.

Isn’t that the only true goodness that counts - one that doesn’t require a carrot nor a stick? If a fundamentally evil person puts on a show of “being good” to elbow his way into heaven, does he really expect to fool the god he fears so much?

I have known horrible people who were atheistic, and horrible people who were devoted religionists. Some of the kindest loving people I’ve met don’t believe in a god, but rather choose to be good because that’s who they are. They aren’t entitled to a heavenly reward for being who they are; being who they are is reward enough for them and for the people around them. Similarly, I’ve met drug-addicted harlots who reverently attended church every Sunday. I’ve met actual killers-for-hire with tattoos of St. George on their steroid-pumped chests who regularly visited monasteries and humbly kowtowed in prayer. And these are the worst kind: evil people who regardless feel entitled to heavenly rewards just because they recite a few meaningless mantras here and there, despite their evil actions.

Where am I going with this?

People are good or bad regardless of their faith. Those with a faith attach their morality to their religion, attributing their kindness to their deity - because we all need to make sense of things. They imagine that, without a god enforcing its commandments on them, there would be no reason to be good - which makes their goodness fake and pretentious. But I give them more credit than that: I know they’re good regardless of what they think their drive to be good is. Their attributing of morality to religion is just a rationalization: conducting a performance of goodness out of divine coercion is not really being good. I know many (if not most) religionists are fundamentally good, so they’d still be good even if they lost their faith. And those who’d turn to evil once they lost their religion?.. They weren’t good to begin with - they were just acting, expecting to fool their god into believing they were good.

Being moral without the expectation of reward, or without the assumption that you’ll be cruelly punished otherwise, is the only morality that matters. The meaningfulness of being good is the only reward you get from being good; your moral principles, the identity, purpose, and what all that means for you.

Psychology of Abraham

I’ve always loathed the despicable story of Abraham, its ugliness, but most of all, its emperor’s-new-clothes pretentiousness that it’s somehow a story of morality, when it is clearly a story of evil.

If I’d told you that an illiterate desert-dwelling goat herder, thousands of years ago, heard voices in his head commanding him to brutally slaughter his own son to somehow “prove his faith” (more accurately, his fear) to a sadistic deity - a god demanding blind obedience out of terror - what would you think? You’d laugh in my face and brush it off as a tragicomical anecdote of ancient superstition. Yet this story - this truly mad and revolting story of Abraham that is an insult to True God - is the basis for the majority of religious people on the planet. If truly moral people take this story - and the subsequent stories it had begot - and try to rationalize them as moral, then they do this at the risk of compromising their morality; morality they already have despite their religion, morality that has always been superior to their religion.

Abrahamism mixes good ideas with evil ones, infecting the good, thus making it harder to distinguish between the good and the bad. A good person confused by an Abrahamic religion, and inspired by its atrocious stories, may commit evil assuming it’s good.

The devil always comes to you in sheep’s clothing.

The 3 Abrahamic religions

What follows is a rant on each of the three branches of Abrahamism, illustrating the bankrupt “(im)morality” they mix together with true morality, thus infecting and corrupting the good.

Remember: everything that is good and moral already predated Abraham, and has always been independent of Abraham. The world did not wait for Abrahamism to get receive its morals. If anything, we are better off without Abraham’s vomit-inducing story.

1. Judaism

This holier-than-thou religion of entitlement, the “God’s chosen people” lucky enough to be “chosen” without having to earn it, without have to prove worthy of it… What are the odds! That the one god conveniently “chooses” you for no reason at all other than its petty racist persuasions…

Judaism… The ghastly “spare the rod spoil the child” nonsense that has psychologically destroyed billions of children, and has directly inspired atrocities (see the origins of war in child abuse). Misinterpretation or not, this is still what many Judaics and Christians go by: beating children into “discipline,” which only teaches them that might is right, so when they have the power over others, then they should abuse it. The cliché of the school bully who’s beaten at home exists for a reason.

Judaism… The religion of the busybodies who presume to have a say in people’s vices, yet the Talmud is full of “God’s chosen” who were sexual deviants, even by today’s woke standards: the pathetic Samson who paid for sex with prostitution, Lot’s daughters raping their father, the same guy who willingly offered them to a gay rape gang to save two strangers. And don’t even get me started on David. Laughable stories written by ancient desert-dwellers who had no access to internet porn.

And these Judaic heroes are supposed to be examples of morality…

Don’t you see the problem when a religious (im)moral framework convinces otherwise good people that they are “superior” just because they happened to be randomly chosen by their imagined god; chosen without an explanation as to why they merited choosing?

Judaism… The ideology of the convenient scapegoat, the denial of self-accountability, the magical forgiveness of our sins as long as we conduct arbitrary mumbo jumbo and pretentious praises of a petty god in desperate need of praising by lowly life forms.

Judaism… The ideology of victimhood supremacy, the twisted Samson tactic of killing yourself to kill your enemy. Samson, the autistic simpleton, customer of prostitutes, somehow the chosen one by a god with really low standards.

Don’t you see the problem when people consider it divine and just to cruelly play with, test, and condemn others? Adam and Eve, Abraham, Lot, Job, Moses, Noa… all these are examples of a sadistic cruel god punishing and playing with its own creations just because it deliberately made them faulty… And this is supposed to be an example of morality?

2. Christianity

Christianity… The ideology of passive submission and defeatism; of loving your enemy and depriving you of your vigilance towards him. Christianity is passive-aggressive moral exhibitionism, the last resort of the weak. Crusades weren’t an expression of Christian strength… The Crusades were a half-assed response to centuries of Muslim invasions and raids threatening European kingdoms. But while the concept of Islamic holy war (jihad) can be traced back to Islamic doctrine, no Christian holy war can be traced back to Christ who said love your enemy and turn the other cheek in passive defeatist subservience. No, Christianity isn’t warmongering; it’s the other extreme: pacificist, which is almost as bad as warmongering, given that passive pacifism invites, encourages, and perpetuates war.

Christianity… The subservient ideal of loving your enemies and turning the other cheek is every tyrant’s wet dream. Christianity is this self-righteous haughty pretentiousness that brought us socialism: “he who has two robes must give one.”

Christianity… The obligation to share your property with those who didn’t earn it. The praising of victimhood, the debilitating victim-worship mentality, the enabling of sneaky griefers and entitled beggars…

The ideal of being worthy of eternal sadistic torment simply for being skeptical of unprovable/unfalsifiable claims.

Christianity… The ideal of deserving eternal generic bliss for the “virtue” of being gullible and fortunate enough to be bred into Christianity, or at least one of the myriads of Christian denominations, thanks to the tax-exemption status of churches. Hey, at least one of those mutually exclusive denominations could be the right one. Are you sure you got the right one?

Christianity… The self-righteous moral high horse of condescending pity towards the “less fortunate then me…” me, the blessed one. The haughty pomposity of pretentious humility, the self-gratifying smugness of belittling “the poor” with condescending charity.

Christianity… The ideal of the pontificator's presumption to moralize to and talk down on lesser beings. The insult of passive-aggressive charity, the disrespectful pity, the prideful self-righteousness, the inference of moral superiority.

---

In my essay ‘Why the West is NGMI [Part 1],’ I argue that Christianity has long held back classical Western ideals by diluting them with Eastern matriarchal shaming social structures. Yet, the West has infused its Western ideals into a Jewish offshoot: Christianity. This is why Christianity is so confusing and contradicting. However, by rejecting Christianity through atheism, the West has thrown out the baby with the bathwater, the Eastern influences with the Western ideals. For centuries, the West has infused its values with Christianity, so it has now rejected the values along with Christianity, instead of only rejecting Christianity. This is why we get the modern woke-socialist-nihilism and moral subjectivism, which ironically still maintain Christian influences; now mutated into socialism. Yes, socialism is the evolution of Christianity: pretentious victimhood, victim worship, victim supremacy, holier-than-thou moral exhibitionism, entitlement to other people’s property, hate of the wealthy, deification of the government.

The good Samaritan did the best PR campaign in history: two thousand years and we’re still talking about him. There’s no virtue in performing “charity” when the cameras or scrolls are rolling.

The irony is that modern socialist-atheists adhere to Christian values more than Christians themselves. The caricature of the woke “social justice warrior” is indeed someone who loves and makes excuses for his enemies who want to kill him. He denies private property, lives the hippy lifestyle in communes, and expects to be fed from the sky - not by working for it.

The modern desperate attempt at “militant Christianity” and aggressively chanting “Christ is King!” is a pitiful last resort of a society that has long abandoned its principles, and is now grasping at straws, making up things on the way. There is no strength in Christianity; only turning the other cheek in pathological tolerance and subservience.

Let us not forget how Christianity has demonized free competitive banking, which has held back Europe for centuries, thus granting to Judaism the exclusive monopolistic privilege of banking.

However, I know that most Christians today would not pathetically kowtow to their enemies in subservient compliance. Most Christians today would not destroy the businesses of people engaged in voluntary transactions with consenting adults. Most Christians today would not “give Caesar what is Caesar’s” if they had a choice. Most Christians today would not passively turn the other cheek, which would encourage more abuse against them and others. Most Christians today don’t even need Christianity to guide them morally.

Redeeming qualities of Christianity

Nothing in the entirety of Christianity is more moral than Christ pointing out children’s humility and innocence, and that we should treat children better. (Matthew 18:2-5, Mark 10:13-16). I assert that the root of all evil is child abuse, and that the only way humanity evolves past its current barbarity is through positive/peaceful parenting¹²³. Despite Jesus pointing towards this, we still get self-proclaimed hypocritical Christians insisting on the Judaic “spare the rod spoil the child” sadistic nonsense, which is nothing more than an excuse to be cruel and borderline pedophilic with their own children.

Despite the contradictions and inconsistencies in the New Testament, one can’t help but notice an element of kindness, positive humility, and detachment from petty things in Christ’s words. You can separate that from the people-pleasing, pathetic subservience, and dissociative nihilism parts of the New Testament.

3. Islam

Again with the deluded self-righteous “supremacy” of Judaism, Islam brings back the “God’s chosen” nonsense, granting a mindset of unearned and undeserved entitlement to its followers.

Islam… The ideal of a slave-owning warlord who proudly raped a 9-year old girl and wore her dresses. The promise of a carnal hedonistic afterlife full of debauchery with 72 sex slaves and servant boys, without any meaning or purpose. Men imagine an afterlife of an eternal filthy orgy with brain-dead sex slaves while their wives don’t get to be with them, or at least get their equivalent of 72 stallions (probably). The ideal of making something as despicable and barbaric as war into something “holy,” and violent territorial expansion a divine mandate.

Islam… The war-cult that proclaims “God is great!” every time they kill in war, abundantly demonstrating the intertwined nature of Islamic spiritual beliefs with earthly political violence.

Islam… The totalitarian political system masquerading as a religion, the tyranny of the caliphate dispensing communist-style sharia law to regulate and violently impose everything; from morality and family law to property rights and mafia-like Islamic banking.

I want to believe that most Muslims today would not rape a child, would not take slaves, and would not kill unbelievers just because a schizophrenic slave-owning pedophile warlord said so. Most Islamic countries today do punish pedophilia, and they would punish Mohamed for his sick urges, had he lived today. This is encouraging. It means that most Muslims today are way more moral than the pathetic disgusting false prophet Mohamed they erroneously think they need to guide their morality. Most Muslims today have already been moral without their religion, and they don’t even realise this.

Implications of Abrahamism

In case I wasn’t clear enough, I loathe the story of Abraham. It is everything that’s wrong with the world. Abrahamism is the distortion of morality and virtue. I believe it has inspired the mind-bending distorted morality found in the Abrahamic religions.

Abraham is a testament to false attribution: as if hearing voices is proof of god instead of insanity, gullibility, and worshipping a demonstrably evil deity, instead of just being terrified of it.

When three of the largest religions are based on a schizophrenic who heard voices in his head to slaughter his son to appease a cruel sadistic tyrannical god that never existed - and that’s considered virtuous - then we have a problem. And I wonder how many of the world’s evils were inspired by such a distorted perception of virtue, morality, and fairness justice.

Moral people would be scared shitless of the god of Abraham; not consider it loving and virtuous. Homer’s epics describe similarly cruel gods, but there is an crucial difference: those gods are recognized as flawed and morally bankrupt, and the honors given to them by humans were just reluctant appeasements to try to pacify monsters.

Ancients understood that their imagined gods were petty and vindictive, with human flaws, jealousies, and insecurities. They acknowledged this because their moral compass was good: they understood that if all human suffering was the work of the gods, then those gods cannot be virtuous and loving. That’s harsh truth.

But it takes Abrahamism to distort that morality, and present a cruel sadist like Yahweh as the epitome of virtue and morality. With such twisted perception of morality, it is no wonder that we get the confusing and self-contradictory belief systems of Judaism, Christianity and Islam: in one passage they praise love and acceptance, and in the next, they instruct petty expansionist war and sadistic torture of “unbelievers” - all in the name of good.

Abrahamism is moral confusion. Abrahamism is evil masquerading as good; dangerous ideas hiding between generic common-sense morals.

---

It all started when ancient goat herders took seriously a schizophrenic who heard voices in his head commanding him to slit the throat of his own son. With such vomit-inducing ideals at heart, it is no wonder that the world is as it is. Let’s get rid of centralized Abrahamic religions. Let’s detach them from the good values they have appropriated. Let’s disassociate the good from their broader religious framework, which contains the insanity. Separate the good apples from the bad. Those good values were present long before Abraham had his psychotic episode. We don’t need Abraham. Let him be remembered as the psycho he was, a tragicomical story to laugh at.

“But other religions!”

Yes, evil people have always existed in religions outside of Abrahamism. Any group in a position of power will become corrupt, and will thus evoke the religious sentiments of their people to motivate violence; faith is easily manipulable. But Buddhism, for example, does not incite holy war and violent expansionism like Islam does, nor does it command the non-consensual mutilation of infants’ genitals as a sick twisted manifestation of pederasty, like Judaism does.

There have been wars attributed to Buddhism, but no motivation towards war can be traced back to fundamental Buddhist teachings. This is not the case with Islam. Even Christ vaguely says “I came not to send peace, but a sword,” which can be conveniently interpreted by anyone to mean anything.

Non-Abrahamics have committed evil, but not inspired by their religion. If they attributed their evil to their religion, it was because they needed a cause for their useful-idiot pawns to rally behind. But it’s Abrahamism that directly incites specific evil actions, from stoning and mutilation to torture, war, and genocide. With non-Abrahamism, it’s evil dishonestly committed in the name of non-evil. With Abrahamism, it’s evil honestly committed in the name of evil.

Evil committed in the name of Abrahamism can be traced back to Abrahamic inspiration, having been incited and even commanded by Abrahamic “holy” texts.

Evil committed in the name of non-Abrahamic religions was not committed BECAUSE of their religion; people committing evil in the name of religions that don’t preach that type of evil means they were evil despite their religion.

However, in the case of Abrahamism, it takes an evil religion to make good people do evil, and Abrahamism has made good people commit evil for thousand of years.

There is no evil greater than that which corrupts the good. And it takes an Abrahamic faith for that to happen; the evil committed in the name of good.

---

Yes, people of every other ideology - or of no ideology at all - have commit atrocities too. But in none of those cases did an evil ideology make a good person commit an evil act. And if those people attribute their evil to an ideology that does not clearly preach evil, then they are just looking for excuses.

Evil people do evil regardless. It takes an evil ideology to make a good person do evil.

“But not all!”

Yes, thankfully, most Abrahamics don’t even know the evils preached by their own religion. To them, their religion represents the epitome of virtue; it’s a reference point of their morality. When you confront them with these evil passages, they conduct all kinds of Olympic-level mental gymnastics to rationalize them, and to be selective in which passages they take verbatim, and which figuratively. This is a good sign: it means these people are fundamentally good, and that they do recognize evil; otherwise they wouldn’t try to defend the undefendable. They subconsciously feel the need to reject the blatant evil parts of their religion.

Do all people who ascribe to an evil ideology commit evil? Not at all. But they are vulnerable to it. There is always a chance to ignite otherwise peaceful people (e.g. the Charlie Hebdo shooting, and every act of violence committed by disturbed people who were just a simply religiously inspired trigger away from madness).

There are countless good people under these ideologies. Yet their beliefs make them susceptible to falling for them, for doing outright evil in the name of good; all it takes is the right catalyst to convince them.

A note about Christianity and Islam

I hypothesize that Christianity and Islam were deliberate Judaic constructs to demonize banking (turn it into a sin), and thus grant the Judaics exclusive monopoly over it. Banking, with its counterfeiting potential, and the immense power inherent in it, is what gave Judaics an unfair advantage over the centuries - let’s be real here. This is a hypothesis; treat it as such.

Detach your morals from you religion

Abrahamism is the phenomenon whereby religions appropriate and assume ownership of morals that predated it.

Abrahamism distorts humanity’s perception of ethos. Abrahamism dilutes the morals over which it presumes to claim exclusive ownership, by using the truly atrocious parts of its religions’ doctrines. Abrahamism makes crooked the moral compass of good people, as it throws both moral and immoral proclamations into the ethical melting pot of its followers.

No wonder the Abrahamics are confused; tormented by the cognitive dissonance of their moral inconsistencies. No wonder moral hypocrisy and double standards are the norm with Abrahamics. They are generally good people who would make excuses for the heinous barbarity in their “holy” texts, yet they wouldn’t actually commit that barbarity themselves. They prove to be better and more moral than the false deities and prophets they were told to worship.

There are moral religionists, and there immoral religionists. There are moral atheists, and there are immoral atheists. The fact that many religionists will deny the morality of those who doesn’t ascribe to their own particular brand of religion goes to show that religion is not a guarantee of goodness. And non-religion is not a guarantee of immorality either.

If anything, choosing to be moral without the fear or eternal sadistic torture (or the expectation of meaningless debauchery in the afterlife as reward) makes moral behavior actually meaningful.

If behaving morally requires the threat of torture or the reward of meaningless carnal pleasures in an afterlife, then it’s not really morality; it is but a hypocritical performance. Morality occurs even without rewards, even when behaving morally will be punished.

Therefore, we do not need religion for morality; especially not Abrahamic religions.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are morality-warping, gaslighting, ethically distorting ideologies. They take the undeniably evil and present it as good. They imagine a sadistic deity - and truly horrible “prophets” to represent it - and then have the gall to deem “immoral” the skeptics of such morally deficient ideas.

---

If I were a god, I’d want to test my creations to see who would truly be moral and worthy, and who would only pretend to be moral just to avoid punishment, or to gain hedonistic rewards for it. I’d want to know who would be moral regardless of sticks and carrots; if they’d be good even if they knew that morality earned no reward, and immorality merited no punishment. So, I’d create obviously ridiculous belief systems and moral frameworks by which arbitrary “moral principles” would supposedly be rewarded, and their denial would be supposedly punished. I’d then see who would fall fail this test. This would separate the truly moral from the non-moral.

---

I am not saying that every atheist is moral, and that every religionist is immoral. I am certain that moral among the religionists would still be moral, even if they lost their faith in their religion. They would be moral regardless of reward and punishments. They just don’t know it.

How I know? Because I was once religious. And when I got over my atheist rage, I felt a burden lifted: that I could possess moral clarity without the moral inconsistencies of Abrahamism. For example, the inconsistency of a “loving god” who literally plays with and tortures the creations which it claims to love; a deity that claims to be “love” yet instructs its followers to “kill unbelievers wherever they find them” and “peal off their fingernails” for not being gullible enough to buy a pedophile warlord’s unprovable bullshit.

Abrahamic religions claim exclusive ownership of morality. Yet, if a Christian can be a good person, and an atheist can be a good person, and a Muslim can be a good person, then I fail to see how religion plays any role whatsoever in being good - meaningfully good. All that religion accomplishes is make evil people pretend to be good out of fear of punishment or fear of death.

This is why we can’t have a civil society based on incentive; the only way we know to regulate society is threat.

You don’t need religion to galvanize your morals - although I understand it’s easier to consolidate your belief systems behind the power of an omnipotent deity, and the collective identity that comes with it. But you don’t need it just because it’s convenient.

The danger of relinquishing your morality to a distorted moral framework like Abrahamism is that of voiding your morality altogether. It would be preferable to let go of religion. It’s more meaningful to hold moral principles without the dictates of a sadistic deity.

Let go of religion, if you will, but not before solidifying your moral framework without requiring a religious base; otherwise you’ll find yourself in the limbo of purposelessness, unmotivated, self-loathing, without an identity, and without dignity nor will.

For some, collective and even individual identity are powerful motivations to ascribe to a religion; but is there greater identity than adhering to moral principles without the expectation of external rewards and punishments? Is there a truer identity than that which comes from true ethos, uncorrupted from despicable Abrahamic stories? ...Morality that is internalized, instead of simply performing to fool the god you claim to worship?

The bottom line

Good people outside of Abrahamic faiths are free from the bad influences of Abrahamism. Evil people without Abrahamic influences are evil regardless, so they aren’t part of this analysis. My issue is with good people who have their moral compass skewed and misaligned by Abrahamism: the blending of the good with the totally insane.

The problem with Abraham is that it’s easy for a good man who adheres to an Abrahamic faith to confuse evil with good. If you gaslight a good man to believe that the insane story of Abraham was somehow an illustration of divine morality and virtue, then you can see how distorted one’s perception of morality and virtue can get.

Everything good that happened under Abrahamism occurred not because of Abrahamism, but despite it. However, many evils committed under Abrahamism were done because Abrahamism by people who would otherwise be good.

You don’t need religion to be moral; quite the opposite. For morals to be meaningful, they must be adhered to without a divine carrot or stick, otherwise they are pretentious performances of morality.

Keeping religion

Want to keep your religion as a galvanization and personification of your morals, or as a reference point to your cultural and ethical identity? Fine. Understandable. Keep it. But know that your moral framework is superior to your religion. The proof of this is around you: people without your religion maintain the same moral framework as you, without having to be threatened with a sadistic hell, nor bribed with a hedonistic heaven. And I bet you’d still be moral too, even if you lost your faith.

If you believe you’d be immoral if you hadn’t believed in a god, you prove my point.

Keep your religion, but understand that your religion is not a prerequisite to your morality. Detaching your morals from your religion is the only way to keep your cultural and personal identity, and claim your self-ownership as an individual, and as a free solidary society.

Separate the brilliance of Christ’s teachings from the god of Abraham’s cruelty.

Separate the loving verses of the Koran from the despicable flaws of Mohamed.

Separate God from church, morals from religion.

Your morals are independent of your religion, and not exclusive to it.

PS: if you think it’s moral and just for me to be tormented eternally for writing this essay, you prove precisely the whole point of this essay. Also, if you rage-quit this essay over a passage you didn’t like, I hope you treat religious texts by the same standard.

---

Thank you for reading. I appreciate your time. All my work here is free.

Like, comment, share, or subscribe for free… or not. It’s all the same.

---

1. https://thepeacefulparent.com/

2. https://www.peacefulparent.com/

3. https://peacefulparenting.com/