The Rant Institute

All Christians are required to do at least three things to maintain their status as a "good" Christian. The first is to never ask a question about their own religion that their religion cannot provide an answer for that only ever proves their religion is infallibly true.  The second is that, if ever they encounter a question that their religion cannot provide an answer for, they should convince themselves that either there is no answer or if there is, it simply doesn't matter because it would only prove their religion is infallibly true anyway.  And third, they must believe that, no matter what questions are asked that their religion cannot answer, it is their obedience to their religion that guarantees they will be both "saved" from eternal tortures and given all of the answers after they die.

Why would anyone ever confess to a murder they did not commit? Stranger still, why would anyone confess to a murder they could not commit, because it occurred 2000 years before they were ever born? As crazy as it may sound, people confess to crimes they did not commit more often than we might think. And confessing responsibility for the murder of an innocent man over 2000 years ago is not only common, for many around the world today, it is considered to be a requirement to being seen and accepted as a morally responsible member of the human race. But how does admitting responsibility for the murder of an innocent man 2000 years ago make a person more “moral” than defending one’s innocence of such a crime? If anything, such a “confession” would only seem to make a person morally dishonest. So why are so many billions of people around the world not only so quick to make such a confession, why do they even teach their own children of their need to do the same thing to be “saved”? And in

The same way pornography reduces women to mere objects of pleasure for men, so Religion reduces people to mere objects of pleasure for a "God." One wants women to be brainless bimbos while the other wants people the world over to be brainless "true believers" in a "God." And religion combines a hatred of flesh with a lust for salvation by requiring us all to mentally masturbate to the "gornography" of the "passion" of Christ.

Ash Wednesday is when Catholics smear ash on their forehead in the shape of a cross to remind themselves that they “are dust and unto dust they shall return.” The point of this, other than selling the Catholic brand of guilt, is to remind people that they should be ashamed of being human, made of material stuff, sinful by nature because nature itself is less than a divine ideal. And the only way to overcome this shame is to aspire to "become like God," as the serpent in the Garden of Eden said to Adam & Eve, by shuffling loose their mortal coil and becoming that ideal, by becoming completely immaterial. Ash Wednesday, like Christianity on the whole, is simply a reminder that, to Hamlet's question of "to be or not to be," the Christian should always aspire "not to be," at least not in any physical sense, for that is the only way to be just like an wholly immaterial intelligence they call God. Thanks to the great St. Augustine, who infused Catholi

My brother the Catholic Priest enjoys defending his Catholicism by equating atheism and a lack of belief in his particular brand of God with a “belief.” But is his comparison correct or in anyway accurate, and even if it is in some way, does that mean atheism is really “just a belief,” as he loves to say, and therefore no different than his own brand of Catholicism? First, notice the double-standard my brother is relying on when he insists that “atheism is just a belief.” When he does this, he is not only choosing to “believe” his comparison is accurate (which is highly debatable because it is like saying that darkness is the same as light, even though one is the absence of the other), but between the two beliefs he is simply choosing to “believe” can be compared – the orange of atheism to the apple of Catholicism – he is simply assuming the former is false and the latter is true; and all because he chooses to “believe” this is the case. But between two possible "beliefs" t

In the movie “The Matrix,” Neo is trying to free himself from an illusion, which makes the movie a perfect analogy for person trying to free themselves from a religion. Religion is a glorified system of thinking that venerates certain necessary “beliefs” as if they are absolutely true. The only reason those “true” beliefs have yet to solve all the world’s problems, those who peddle their brand of religion will assure you, is because not enough people have accepted those “beliefs” to be infallibly true. If everyone converted to Roman Catholicism tomorrow, so the thinking goes, all of the world’s problems would disappear. So why hasn't Catholicism, with all of its supernatural sacraments designed by God himself to "cure" us all, effectively "saved" our species of their sinful nature after 2000 years? Because that's just how sinful we really are! Indeed, even the death of Jesus himself couldn't help us! Just read the Book of Revelation, and you'll see w

Basically, Catholicism teaches you that the thing you should hate most about yourself is your ability to doubt the divine infallibility of the Catholic Church, regardless of how truly fallible the Catholic Church repeatedly demonatrates itself to be. (That Church also wants you to believe that you can only be good enough to be loved by God if you first believe you murdered God, and will be cast into hell if you refuse to "believe" you did.) In fact, never before in the history of the world has one institution amassed such power by hypnotizing its followers with claims of "infallibility" when it preaches on faith and morals, while being so fallible in putting the morals it preaches into practice. Indeed, by far the most infallible statement that can be said to be true of the Catholic Church is that it stands as a shining example of just how profitable it can be to convince the world to "do what we say, not what we do" (because if you don't, God is gonna

What matters most to the "believer" is NOT trying to empathize with others, but forcing others to accept that the "believers" beliefs are more true than anyone else's beliefs, and therefore must be accepted as the ONLY beliefs that are true, which means that all other beliefs are simply false. They do this, of course, becasue they fear hell, even though they tell themselves they really "love" the God who is saving them from hell by insisting their "beliefs" are more right than everyone else's beliefs. Heaven, as a result, will be full of people who are all convinced that they were right, who will all use the fact that they are in heaven to prove they were right to each other, and hell will be filled with people who are happy as hell they no longer have to deal with such spiritual supremacists.

A truth is true even when no one believes it, while a lie is only "true" to the degree you’re willing to believe it is true, even if it ain't. Since everyhing works as part of God's plan, including genocide and child rape, lies too serve God's divine will. How do they do that? Lies serve as a true test of one's loyalty to God. How ironic it is that God created the entire universe, along with our own particular version of intellgence, and all just to test if we “believe” enough in his Church to save ourselves from eternal torments, regardless of whether that Church is correct or not. And nothing serves in this test more than errors and lies. Indeed, errors and lies play a far more important role in God's plan/test than any truth ever could. This is because a lie is ONLY empowered by people’s willingness to “believe” it is "the truth," while what is true is immune to people’s beliefs about whether it is true or false. People believed for centurie

Below is a picture of Mary floating out of a cloud in Conyers, Georgia, circa 1990s. For countless numbers of people who rushed down to a farmhouse in Conyers during the 1990s as if it were a Catholic Woodstock concert, and all to catch a glimpse of this floating Madonna, this image was proof positive that all of their hope in God (which was really just a hope that God would save them from all of the fears such people had of hell, the devil, and the coming apocalypse) was not in vain.  However much "believers" pretend their "faith" in their God is "to believe in things without evidence" (or despite the evidence), such "believers" are always looking for evidence in anything they can find. And because they are so desperate to find any shred of evidence supporting their "beliefs," despite pretending they do not need such evidence, they are forced to determine why their own flawed and fallible perceptions of things like Mary floating in the

why does every human being have a moral obligation to question the claims made by the Catholic Church? Because if we do not, we allow ourselves to become like drug addicts, addicted to the idea that the hope they sell will save us from the fears they teach us to believe and not to question. but a dependence upon hope is always proportional to that which we are taught to fear - and what could be scarier than eternal hell? and when we fear eternal hell as the just punishment for daring to doubt the claims of the Catholic Church, free will is completely nullified. To be free requires a willingness to question our fears, as such, and that includes the willingness to question beliefs that teach us to be so afraid we need the Catholic Church to save us.

Religion does NOT teach morality. It only instils fear of retribution. That's NOT morality. It is obedience through mental terrorism.

Peter Pan is a story about a child that never wants to grow up. In J. D. Salinger’s book, The Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield is suffering from a similar problem. And both are simply exhibiting what it is to be a Christian – stuck in a permanent state of childhood. The Catholic Church denies this is true, of course, because it could never sell its snake oil if ever it told those it was selling such snake oil that it was pure snake oil. But we can see the contradiction plainly enough if we are willing to “put the ways of childhood behind” us and think like men. In one of his more well-known passages of Scripture about spiritual maturity, St Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:11, “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.” The problem is that Christianity, by requiring a dependence upon a Church and a Bible and a belief in a “God” father, thus requires its faithful flock to talk

An article posted on CatholicExchange. com (at https://catholicexchange.com/gods-punishment-is-just-restorative-and-medicinal/) claims that gods punishment is just, restorative, and medicinal. But is it?  And if there is no God, then what do "believers" who are convinced their illusion of such a thing is real therefore think when they are told that "punishment is just, restorative, and medicinal"? If there is no God, in other words, then who is it that is doling out the "punishments" that they think are so "just, restorative, and medicinal"? Answer: those doling out their "God's" punishments are those who "believe" their God wants, indeed requires them, to dole out such punishments in his divine stead.    The exerts illustrate what can be likened to a sense of hypnosis for those who choose to "believe" their fantasy of "God" is more "true" and real than reality itself. Consider the following

Point out to my brother that his “belief” that Catholicism is “infallibly” true is simply a “belief” that could be false, and he will reflexively tell you that your “belief” that his belief is just a belief that could be false is, in fact, also just your belief that could likewise be false. This is untrue, of course, but he doesn't care about that. A "belief" by its very nature may be true or may be false. Recognizing this is not a "belief," it is a demonstrable basis of logic. It is like him claiming that his “belief” that 2 + 2 = 5 is no different than my “belief” that 2 + 2 does not equal 5, it equals 4. It is not simply my "belief" that his math is wrong, it is a demonstrable basis of mathamatics. In this way, his belief convinces him that he is infallible, because what he believes in (the Catholic Church) is infallible, and therefore his “beliefs” can never be wrong, and are always superior to any other "belief," especially those grounde

“We see things not as they are but as we are.” This quote, which comes from Anias Nin, sums up how and why Catholic priests see it as a virtue to convince mothers and fathers that their children are natural born sinners. Why? Well, if you accuse a person of being a trouble maker, then as soon as the person protests to being called a “trouble maker” they only prove they are a trouble maker. And if a Catholic priest accuses a person of being a natural born sinner who’s greatest sin is their refusal to “believe” and accept that the Catholic Church’s (baseless) accusation of this claim is (infallibly) correct (despite there being no actual evidence to support such an accusation other than the priest’s own “conviction” that it is true, and the Church's claim to be "infallible"), then as soon as the person protests the validity of that accusation they only prove to that priest they are guilty as charged. Accuse a Catholic priest of being a pedophile who refuses to admit they ra

The following example illustrates how Christianity affects the way people reason, even into harming their own child out of a "belief" that they are actually helping that child. More simply, it illustrates how religion teaches mothers to be cruel out of a belief they are really being kind.  My sister is a Catholic. Being so, she dutifully taught her children they were born sinners, just as our own parents had done with us. Realizing that this "belief" was a charge made against me as an infant for which there was no direct evidence to support it, I once asked her why she thought it was a good thing to teach her children that they were born sinners. Why, I pressed her, did she think her children were better off believing they were born flawed and prone to sin rather than that they were born flawless and prone to being good? After all, don’t we behave according to the things we believe about ourselves, the way the ugly duckling thought it could not fly because it beli

It is simply a miracle of denial that Christians claim secular culture is robbing children of their innocence, since it is the Christian "belief" that children are born sinners that actualy does this. Naturally, Christians deny this is true, becaue they cannot stand the thought that they are guilty of accusing their own children of being disobedient murders (like Adam and Eve, and of killing Christ via their "sins"). Ironically, it is because Christians claim to be born sinners in need of a savior that they actually "believe" they are spiritually better than everyone else who thinks otherwise. Like denying that they rob children of their innocence by simply assuming they are all stained with original sin, so the Christian likewise denies that they think they are better than everyone else simply becaue they believe they are sinners who have been saved by the bloody execution of Jesus. If they do not think they are "improved" by believing this, and

After World War I, Adolf Hitler decided he needed a scapegoat, so he blamed all of Germany’s problems on the Jews. By doing so, he was simply following in the footsteps of the Christian God, who blamed all of the sins of humanity on the humanity that God was said to have “intelligently designed” to commit such sins. God also then freely choose to be so angry at said humanity for said sins that he decided he must first water board them all from the planet, and then mutilate his own son for His own divine failure to create a line of human robots that could be bribed with heaven or threatened with hell to always "obey." Obey what, you ask? No one knows, since he didn't give Moses his "ten commandments" until hundreds of thousands of years later, after he had divided everyone with different languages for daring to work together, and then showed up as Jesus to modify all of his own divine rules in a way that no one can agree on. (and this, the CHristian insists, is a

My brother believes he has "free will." HE also believes he must only use that free will to convince everyone that they must only use their own free will to serve his Catholic Church as the infallible voice of God or be cast into a furnace for forever for daring to use their "free will" as they freely will. And anyone who uses their "free will" to exercise their own reason to disagree with his conclusion (commands)? Oh, well, they're basically a blithering idiot who deserves no less than eternal torture for daring to use their "free will" to come to any other conclusion than the one that he reached - obey or be tortured for all eternity! Brilliant!

My brother insists that his “faith” in his Catholicism is “all about reason.” But if that is true, then his definition of “reason” is different than my own. Reason leads me to ask questions that expose something as false, while for him, reason only leads him to rationalize why his Catholicism must be true. Asking questions is how the owner of Home Depot decided that Bernie Madoff was selling lies that were too good to be true. If, because he wanted to "believe" that Madoff would make him richer than God, the owner of Home Depot only wanted to ask those questions that would serve to confirm his "belief" that Madoff was telling the truth, he would only be using a kind of "reason" that is but a puppet on the string of a confirmation bias for a belief. Asking questions that are unchained from such a confirmation bias and a need to "believe" is the only defense we have agaisnt charlatanism. My brother made a decision that Catholicism was infallibly &

In 1888, a postcard depicted a now famous image that was two faces in one. Depending upon how you look at it, the image on the postcard reflects either a young woman or an old hag. Known today as “my wife and my mother-in-law,” the postcard illustrates how different people can look at the same thing and see two very different images. This ability to use our creativity to interpret different images in different ways is known as “pareidolia,” and serves as the basis of the Rorschach inkblot test, in which inkblots are interpreted in different ways. My brother is a Catholic priest. And because he is, he has devoted his life to denying this reality when it comes to his own Catholicism. He admits that people can and do have the ability to see different images while looking at the same thing, of course, whether it be a postcard from 1888 or cloud formations or even his Catholicism. But for him, there is only one "correct" way to look at his Catholicism, and all other ways of lookin

the only people who would ever think it was "wise" to teach children they could be sent to hell are people who are in hell already.

For Christianity, there is no greater evil in the world than empathy for our fellow man. Sure, Christian like to “believe” that their brand of religion helps them to be more empathetic, but all it really does is make them more narcissistic about saving themselves from the fires of hell, a hell prepared for them by their loving god. The “believer” cares nothing for anyone as much as they seek to keep their own chestnuts from roasting on God’s eternal camp fire. Because of this, Christians would just as soon murder the whole world if that’s what God commands them to do just so they can party on forever with the “god” who prefers watching his son tortured and mutilated rather than simply turning the other cheek over Adam and Eve having an afternoon snack.

Christianity is the incredibly evil and incurably idiotic belief that you can only think of yourself as "good" if - and ONLY if - you are willing to believe you are "bad." That is, you are only "loveable" if you accept you contributed to the the murder of an innocent man, 2000 years before you were ever born, who had to die because of how unlovable you are, even as an infant. So unlovable are infants due to being stained with "original sin," they deserve to be thrown into a furnace for all eternity if they are not properly cleansed of this stain before they die. Ironically, Christians are all upset at the idea that an infant that is so deserving of eternal punishments, thanks to their special brand of "God," might be aborted by the mother for any reason whatsoever. For the Catholic priest, Christianity is not "faith" but an undeniable fact, that the whole world must quake at the knees to behold, guilty as the world is of murd

A Catholic priest is basically a Nazi for God, and their jobs is to indoctrinate innocencent of children into seeing their own innocnece as pure evil so they will become addicted to the lies of the Catholic Church. The Catholic priest dedicates their life to convincing innocent children that their "belief" that they are perfectl innocent is the greatest sin against God possible, and all so those children will become addicted to Catholicsm.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something,” wrote Upton Sinclair, “when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” My brother is a Catholic priest, which means his salary depends on him being right about his religion more than understanding anyone who has a different perspective about his religion. Making matters worse, my brother has convinced himself that he and his religion are exactly the same thing. That means that any attempt to address any of the problems related to his religion, from inherent contradictions of killing the innocent as a form of “justice” to crucifixions and witch burnings and the threat of hell as forms of “love,” are therefore felt by him as personal attacks upon himself and his own moral fiber. His job, as a result, is to defend his own spiritual ego before every considering how his brand of religion is anything other than the infallible truth of love he needs and desires. For him, misunderstanding anyone else's perspective on his religio

What makes Christianity so evil is the fact that is does such a miraculous job at hiding just how truly evil and blasphemous toward all truth it really is. It is like a shephed that leads people to engage in slaughter as a form of worship of a bloodlustful God who venerates slaughter, which is why we are forcefed images of a crucified Christ.

Christianity is a form of mental illness, and those who suffer from it believe they are required to teach their children they are "intelligently designed" sinners responsible for murder and destined for the fires of hell unless they believe they are indeed sinners responsible for murder and destined for hell. And why must those children believe this? So that those who teach them to believe this can save themselves from hell, obviously! Teaching children they are born sinners is intended to foster a spiritual depence upon "God," which really means a dependence upon a priestly class of eunuchs - who were likewise taught as children to "believe" they are sinners responsible for murder and destined for hell - to tell them how to think, live, and behave in order to be "saved" from the hell all children so rightly deserve just for being born.

My brother is a Catholic priest. This means he has devoted his life to teaching children they are going to hell if they don’t obey his Catholic Church, while he washes his hands of any damage such a lie does to any of the children he teaches to believe his lie. Why does he do this? Because he was convinced that if he doesn’t spend his entire life selling this lie, which he has been sold since he was circumcised, he’d end up in hell. So, to save his own ass from the fires of hell, he sells his brand of lies and pretends his circumcision turned him into a eunuch.

Christianity is a form of mental illness in which the victim (i.e., the "believer") conflates their own Narcissism for altruism (i.e. their own desire to be saved from hell with trying to save others from the hell that only the "believer" believes is real). The "believer" also "believes" they have been chosen by their "God" to receive a sacred and special " divine knowledge" directly from that same God, who has also chosen NOT to share that same "revealed" knowledge with anyone else. This "divine knowledge" comes in the form of realizing things that others cannot discern for themselves without the lens of "faith" that operates as a secret decoder ring. The Catholic "faith" is the decoder ring, according to my brother the Catholic priest, that said "God" then insists that he (my brother) must use to try to "save" people from the "hell" the "believer"

Christiaity and Capitalism combined produce a system of finacial judgement in which the rich deserve their heaven and the poor deserve their hell.

Catholic priests worship the mind-rape of children so they can feel like God has revealed to them and them alone how they have access to a "special" knowledge that god makes imperfect sinful infants in order to addict those born sinners to a church that protects and aids and abets pedophiles. yeah, that makes as much sense as executing an innocent man rather than the devil. The Catholic Church is pure evil.

The catholic priest teaches children to assume they are murderers of Christ simply by joining the human race. They have not a single shred of evidence to support this charge, mind you, but they want children to believe they are born guilty anyway. At least part of their motivation was that getting each child to believe such a thing provides them with a job selling the snake-oil that can be used to "cure" such a sin-virus. Although the priest swears the vaccine he administers through the syringe of their holy “sacraments” is made miraculously by God himself, the sinful nature of the child requires not only circumcision, but a battery of other sacraments as well, and a weekly dose of chemo-therapy in the form of flesh and blood disguised as bread wine. There is also a course of mandatory confessions to the priest who revels in the fantasy that, by hearing the sins of others, they are anything but a voyeur. The point of these confessions, according to the priest, is to alleviate