|Scripture From Hell
In 2011 one of the very best real-life horror stories
was published. It was The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt, a splendidly
written narrative about the widespread dissemination of Epicureanism, one of the most
destructive forces ever to be unleashed upon the planet. To many consumed by the
virtues of modernism, the philosophy was not only a revelation but a
delightfully engaging one as shared through the extraordinarily celebrated
De Rerum Natura by the Roman poet Lucretius.
The religion that the Epicurean
ferociously despises is an important instrument in the hands of the
Romanist potentate, the administrater of the authoritative hegemony
even today. It is true, religion is indeed so
often mind-numbingly oppressive and horrifyingly lethal. What is the real force
of the Epicurean ideal so firmly entrenched in the mainstream psyche?
Greenblatt does a terrific job of taking a good portion of his book
to list all the things Epicureanism hath wrought.
I thought I'd make a page with all of them itemized, and include my
own response to each. Greenblatt himself elaborates on each — I
definitely invite you to delve into his work and read those also.
The items that
comprise Epicureanism, the reigning philosophy of the present age
(From The Swerve, in the chapter "The Way Things Are," pages 182-202)
Thoughts about each item
Everything is made of invisible particles.
How does the
Epicurean know this if the particles are invisible? It may be said in
antiquity they did not have the aid of observational devices we now
have, such as microscopes for us to now see them. The problem then is
that they aren't invisible after all. The Epicurean may further say the
subatomic particles are invisible, but now we're back to the first
question. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may then be cited, but then if no
one is able to know the location of the smallest particles, how can
The elementary particles of matter — "the seeds of things" — are
How can one know this if one does not exist for the length of eternity to observe
that this is the case? This claim cannot be established by the standard protocol of
scientific experimentation. It is instead a matter of faith, a theme
that will run through this analysis and one I'm certain is not new. It
is also not new that foolish thinkers dismiss claims of faith by
appealing to a science which is not science at all but faith. It also
does not mean matters of faith are untrue, it just means people
often make silly claims like this one without fully understanding its
substance, verity, or origin.
The elementary particles are infinite in number but limited in shape and
To make the claim of something being infinite is quite
audacious. Indeed no less audacious is the claim, "God is infinite," but
there is an aspect of reliable and comprehendible meaning in that
statement. We are faced with a choice, really: "Particles are infinite"
or "God is infinite." Yes, certainly we may include "Nothing is
infinite." Still, which is the most reasonable?
All particles are in motion in an infinite void.
Another claim about the nature of infinity. Also, how does the
Epicurean know they all are in motion? Are there none which are
inert? How does he/she know? And what about this: doesn't the principle
of inertia require some physical force to initiate motion? What caused
The universe has no creator or designer.
This is the typical atheist's claim, again extraordinarily audacious. It
is axiomatic: you would have to be all-seeing and all-knowing,
attributes usually associated with some kind of
beyond-the-natural being with such ability, to know that there is no
such being. But then that obviously doesn't make sense. Perhaps the
Epicurean — by getting right to it insisting "God is a fairy tale"
as omniscient as his/her statement must imply and we should agree with
Everything comes into being as a result of a swerve. (Swerve:
declinatio, inclinatio, clinamen — enough to set off a ceaseless
chain of random collisions of minute particles.)
Where in the world did the swerve come from? What scientific
experiment determined that? I'm not against science, and of
course I'm not against matters of faith, but again usually those who
make these claims do so in the name of something "scientific" and revile
those who say they believe in something like God based on faith.
The fact is, this claim is only a claim of faith. The question,
is there good reason to believe it?
The swerve is the source of free will.
There is certainly a lot to unpack here, especially when we get into the
realm of free will. This requires much further
exploration, but the idea is because particles are always in motion,
presumably randomly considering the following item, then the things we
decide may be purely up to us, we are inevitably part of the swerve.
Hmm, I wonder, can we refuse to be part of the swerve if we
want? If not, then do we really have free will according to this
Nature ceaselessly experiments.
One of the most reasonable arguments against the Epicurean position is
simple: Someone must direct nature. It cannot be a
something because now we're back to this thing nature. It
must be a mind and therefore a someone. Stuff does not direct
stuff. Often we here it as "Evolution did this" or "Evolution did that."
Why? How do you know?
The universe was not created for or about humans.
Who told the Epicurean this? How can he/she be so sure? It
sounds like the Epicurean is just as religiously dogmatic as the
religious dogmatists he/she reviles. What the Epicurean is really
asserting here is this: Each of us is just a meaningless blip in the
vastness of space and matter and time, nothing more. Considering the
intricate construction of the human mind, body, and yes, soul,
this is ludicrous. Christianity holds that a supernatural being formed
each of us in His image and that He created the universe as a temporal
residence just for us.
Humans are not unique.
Aren't we humans quite distinct in classification from
other life forms, with different — even much more advanced — attributes than anything else? This appears quite obvious, but again, the
materialist often responds with statements like, "Humans and daffodils
share 35% DNA," as if this means anything other than the absurdity of
trying to detract from the fact that humans are indeed quite unique in
some significant measure. But again, the main point is that we are
unique and we have been put here for a divine purpose — this
was addressed just above.
Human society began not in Golden Age of tranquility and plenty, but in
a primitive battle for survival.
No argument here, if all you are considering is man after The Fall.
Expelled from the Garden of Eden (a concept the Epicurean granted
rejects), life was full of murder, theft, deceit, and corruption. It is
this way today.
The soul dies.
And many prominent religions, most notably the Western ones, say it
doesn't. Which is which, and how do you know? Christianity asserts an
authoritative figure like Jesus says the soul does not die.
Epicurus is considered the authority that it does. Who has the best
There is no afterlife.
See just above.
Death is nothing to us.
I don't believe for a second the one who says "Doesn't matter to me when
I die. It's all good." I believe if you looked deep into the heart of an
Epicurean, you would see ravaging fear. He/she may well respond, "I will
never know because my atoms will simply be spread about wherever, I will
never know anyway." But I do think they are concerned about
that right now, and much of that is that "truth" means anything
happening now is really of no value. What difference does
anything we do or achieve make? To be honest, that kind of
person scares me.
All organized religions are superstitious delusions.
Some are, that is true. But are all?
Religions are invariably cruel.
Some definitely are, but all? The reason Epicureans
feel they are cruel, though, is they consider them to be
unnecessarily deceptive. "Why are you always browbeat with 'God' when
there isn't one? That's just mean." Add to this the ruthless
expectations of the enrobed officers, brutal! But the truth is all
behavior systems have such expectations, even Epicureanism! And
since it makes so many dogmatic claims about religion, it too
is a religion! I should add that Christianity also makes this assertion,
yet doesn't leave the hearer to the utter despair of the prospect of
incessant law enforcement proceedings. It offers real freedom from the
bondage through the shed of blood of Christ who served as the penalty
for each of our sinfulness — the very thing that brought about the
cruelty of just condemnation to begin with!
There are no angels, demons, or ghosts.
And the Epicurean has himself/herself peered into the beyond to note
these things aren't there. Another statement of faith.
The highest goal of human life is the enhancement of pleasure and the
reduction of pain.
This sounds so noble, but perfectly reasonable
for those who have joined Cain and are eternally and infinitely distant
from God's presence. In the Kingdom there are a number of items far
greater than the Epicurean's selfish desires. Those are love,
charity, peace, joy, and vibrant companionship with
the Father. These may only come from a God who pours out His mercy
and grace with His life.
The greatest obstacle to pleasure is not pain; it is delusion.
Truer words were never spoken. But the delusion is Epicureanism,
not the supernatural. A life filled with the precepts of Epicureanism
brings hopelessness, loneliness, desperation — all covered by a smug and
smiley pretense of sickening pride that valiantly tries to show the
world that the Epicurean is above it all, is smarter than everyone else,
is definitely not guilty of the worst crime of all: to believe in a
superstition. Little does he/she realize that the claims of
Epicureanism are just as superstitious as the religions they disdain,
and to refuse to acknowledge that is one of the worst delusions of all.
Understanding the nature of things generates deep wonder.
More quite true
words. But this only makes sense in terms of worshipping a God who made
it all to enjoy. Otherwise what kind of wonder may one have at random
atoms zipping all about smashing into each other unless there is some
divine rhyme and reason to it all?
I don't think for a second that I'm the first to address these issues. Indeed
much of Greenblatt's work is to elucidate the ways people through the ages have
confronted the precepts of Epicureanism and struggled to answer them. The
fields of ecclesia, academia, and beyond are strewn with the minds so many who
have failed. I myself risk the same thing — a reader may come upon this site
with no real communion with God or knowledge of Scripture, and is unwittingly
seduced by the creed that has already captivated billions of people through
It is the conclusive assertion of this author that this pervasive
and entrenched mentality was propelled into the mainstream psyche as
a deliberative initiative of the legacy of the first human
sacrificer, the ecclesiastical branch of which is the Roman Catholic
Church. Rome does a brilliant job of convincing its devotees that
the Institution is about upholding the mantle of this thing "God,"
but it actually does the opposite. It drives people away with a
story and spectacle arranged to give them just enough warm fuzzies
to keep the coffers full, but actually keeps them in a state of
oppressive darkness relegating "God" to the world of fairy tales,
ultimately enslaving them in a prison of hopelessness and
What is most sorrowful is just as much as an individual rejects the
God Who Is Very Real, he/she stubbornly refuses to take at least a
modest amount of time and energy to think carefully about the claims
he/she makes about these things. If you press an Epicurean on these
things you'll eventually get stares, bewilderment, and aggravation
along with a smattering of equally senseless remarks that get more
absurd as you converse. Indeed, ultimately it is most sorrowful
because they strive so hard to keep their calcified pride intact to
remain so far from The One Who Is Full Joy.
It is even more distressing to see him/her turn from loathing a
religious body like the Roman Catholic Church for its priest
scandals and refusal to allow women priests or lighten up on
abortion and homosexuality, to defending it for its renowned charity
work or some other notorious endearing feature — much because
they know some Catholics (or has himself/herself been one!) and
sympathize with it, especially in light of the established truth
that Rome is merely the current manifestation of Cain's legacy set
in motion to codify human sacrifice practices through law violation
provocations and law enforcement responses. The fiercely buttressed
disquisition that is Epicurean thought is a tremendously effective
tool in keeping the reprobate in the fold.
This is the World System at work, and the more distant an individual is from
Christ and the Kingdom, the more appeal Epicureanism has as an
alternative. It does indeed require a small step toward Him, 180
degrees in the other direction. Jesus was and is a real Person
in real reality, and He spoke with the most authority anyone ever spoke
on the planet putting people like Epicurus and Lucretius to shame.
This is quite easy to see, most prominently in the
fifth chapter of John's gospel. When one believes on Him, he/she has life. You may like the
idea of slavering for all-pleasure-all-the-time and
no-pain-none-of-the-time, but without the One Who Made You, you
might as well just be dead.
Sadly some Epicureans are perfectly happy with that.
"Very truly I tell you,
whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life
and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. Very
truly I tell you, a time is coming and has not come when the dead
will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.
For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son
also to have life in Himself. And He has given Him authority to
judge because He is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a
time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice
and come out - those who have done what is good will rise to live,
and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. By
Myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and My judgment is
just, for I seek not to please Myself but Him who sent Me."
- John 5:24-30
| Site Map
More about the Catholicist Nation
The Legitimate Reason the Epicurean May
Loathe Religious Activity
Why Jesus is the Only
What a Vibrantly
Joyous Community of Believers Looks Like
Epiphany About the
Irrational | Economic
This page was originally posted by David Beck at
yourownjesus.net on February 25,