Cannibal Gods versus Democracy: The Ambrosia Production Cycle
Paul, l Corinthians 2:14
Some Gods feed on foreskin, as some of them like it garnished with clitoris. The gods of the circumcising religions eat away erogenous body parts. And what do the victims get in return? They are compensated with stronger faith. Is there any greater reward than this?
Soft erogenous skin tissue must be ambrosia for the circumcising Gods. The mental effects of pedocircumcision strengthen the faith and religion implements pedocircumcision in return. In this way the process of production of ambrosia closes on itself. That is why circumcising societies are closed, religiously homogeneous and free from atheism.
Pedocircumcision is able to reproduce itself in religious environment. It does this via the religiousness it facilitates.
The flesh-eating Gods are not merely stern and ruthless: they are larger than pleasure. Not so with Christian God. Jesus is merciful and sympathetic: he does not demand from his followers to sacrifice any sensitive body parts and the sense of pleasure as he himself did. No doubt this together with the permission to eat pork filled the ranks of Christianity with Romans and Greeks who detested circumcision, but found the simplicity of monotheism convenient. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism that tolerated intact genitalia. The abolishment of circumcision was a clever political manoeuvre that led to the expansion of Christianity and Abrahamics.
Strangely enough, Jesus left no explicit messages about sexuality in the New Testament. Maybe this was because circumcision worked as Judaism intended. In keeping with the Judaic tradition Jesus was circumcised and hence exogenously desensitised and disposed to be obsessed with the Spirit of God. Christianity emerged from circumcising and anti-sex Judaism and it was likely that its sexual messages be censured. Maybe Jesus didn’t keep silent on sexuality but was silenced by the religious morality. Christian ascetic disposition continued through the dark ages and later because institutionalizing of Christianity made it authoritarian.
One way or another when it comes to sexual pleasure Christians still refer to the sexually reproaching Old Testament God. They are sensitive and merciful in asexual issues and harsh in sexual matters. Christian religion paradoxically combines sympathy and suffering. It evokes sympathy to suffering and disapproval to pleasures altogether. Now even kind-hearted Christians are in a constant battle with their hearts. It is not a wonder that they often lose them and the battle too.
Christianity redirects sensitivity toward spirituality like Judaism but using mainly psychological coercion. It tries to indoctrinate faith by eradicating tempting thoughts instead of by physically removing erogenous zones. Usually it instilled fear of sexuality without resorting to bodily mutilation. But with their laps too sensitive natural men are meek at heart and effeminate. The compassionate nature of Christianity worsened the discipline and they split in sects. In time they became too democratic for a monotheistic religion. Look at them now – not only have they ceased to exterminate infidels but tolerate unbelievers and shelter atheists. We may say that democracy is a weakness of faith resulting from tenderness of skin.
Christian men may envy Muslims and Jews for their promiscuity and ability to delay orgasm but they are able to satisfy themselves manually in a more gratifying way. This made Christians less dependent on God’s mercy. As a result Individualism thrived in their lands.
In other words, the sinful nature of Christians is stronger and weakens their faith. Christians’ greater freedom of self-gratification of destabilized the religious and political absolutism. The reappearance of prepuce on the historical scene allowed that of democracy.