by Acharya S

from "The Christ Conspiracy - The Greatest Story Ever Sold"

from TheArchive Website

Spanish version

German version


In our quest to ascertain the origins of Christianity and the nature of its founder, we have explored a number of themes and aspects of culture from around the globe.


We have also briefly touched upon the controversial subjects of sex and drugs, which are usually omitted or avoided in the present type of analysis. However, these subjects are in fact very important in determining the development of human culture in general and religion in specific. Indeed, they constitute yet another part of the mysteries.

For centuries, the impression given by religionists is that to be a moral person, one must not only forgo but disdain sexuality, viewing it as if it were a curse from the devil rather than a “gift from God.”


The same can be said of drugs, at least of the variety that has anything to do with altering consciousness, even if such drugs are in the form of “Godgiven” plants. Hence, the picture of a religious or righteous individual is basically someone who must have (heterosexual) sex only with one person within a sanctioned marriage, if at all; to be in a constant state of procreation; and to remain as sober as “a judge.”


To those who think life is to be enjoyed, rather than endured, this picture represents a dull, robotic state, to say the least.

The reality is that there have been times on this planet when cultures have recognized sacred sexual practices and sacramental plants not only as gifts from “God” but also paths to “God,” or “Cosmic Consciousness,” as it were. Indeed, sex and drugs have been considered from time immemorial as devices to create union with the divine, which is a major reason behind the negative spin put on them by religionists, who insist that only they, “Jesus” or some other entity can be avenues to the divine.


In actuality, it is the priest’s task to create an artificial separation between human beings and the omnipresent “God.”


However, as even “Paul” says, “an intermediary implies more than one; but God is one”; thus, the priest as intermediary is contrary not only to common sense but also to Christian doctrine, which is one of the many reasons the masses were forbidden for centuries under penalty of death to read the Bible.


These sacred sex and drugs practices have thus presented a threat to power-hungry priests and their political flunkies, because, as stated, they require no intermediary between the practitioners and the divine. If an all-powerful, dictatorial state religion was to succeed, it would need to destroy this concept of sacred sex and sacramental drugs from the human psyche and replace it with fear and guilt, such that those who had sex, for example, would be driven to cleanse themselves of their perceived sins by confession or other priest craft.


The exploitation of humanity’s weakness regarding sex in particular worked nicely for priestly conspirators, since they could rail against it, knowing very well that people would continue to have it, such that the guilty would then be forced to return repeatedly to the Church for absolution from “sins.”

Despite their best efforts, however, the various religionists could not eradicate the widespread spiritual practices utilizing sex and drugs, even under penalty of death.


In reality, they held these practices for themselves while hypocritically preaching their evils to the masses and exhorting abstinence from them. As noted, along with the knowledge of astrology, the use of sex and drugs actually has formed part of the esoteric religion or “mysteries” hidden from the masses by the brotherhoods and secret societies that create exoteric and vulgar religions for the masses.

Indeed, these “sacraments” constituted a significant part of the mysteries, as many schools and cults have used sex and drugs in their initiation rites. One such widespread sex-related rite is circumcision, albeit it is an anti-sex one. Although it is widely perceived to be a Jewish custom, circumcision dates back to at least 2300 BCE in Egypt and is also found in other parts of Africa, as well as in Fiji, Samoa, Assyria, Phoenicia, Mexico and South America, prior to the introduction of Judaism and/or Christianity.


In Egypt, it was the priests only who were circumcised, but Israel was a “priestly nation,” so all of its males were to be circumcised. In contrast to this anti-sex mutilation, however, have been a number of pro-sex, as well as pro-drug, rituals. Even though they have fervently attempted to set themselves apart from the rest, pretending to reject these concepts about sex and drugs, esoteric Judaism and Christianity have also utilized these rites and rituals.

Obviously, there is a downside to sex and drugs, as there is with virtually every human experience.


However, mature cultures and individuals have possessed the ability to utilize these powerful devices wisely, and the taboo status itself makes them dangerous, in that they no longer come with the “instruction manual” of initiation.


Also, there is an enormous difference between sacred sex and promiscuity, as well between the plant-drugs, or “entheogens” (“generating God”), and the potent extracted chemicals causing such turmoil today.



Sex and the Ancient World

Prior to its vilification, sex was venerated from the earliest times of human history, not only for erotic and spiritual or “tantric” reasons, but also because it was the act of reproduction.


As it is today, fertility was very important to the ancients. In fact, the fecundity of the earth was identified with the fertility of the human being. Thus, the rain falling upon and fertilizing the womb of Mother Earth was considered the sperm of Father Sky. In effect, sex-worship was nature-worship, and nature-worship extended to the heavens, where the stars themselves were even named for trees, as noted.


Nature was all-important to the ancients, as they realized they were not only dependent upon it but also inexorably linked to it. Jackson describes the nature-worship that developed from this perception:

The Savior-God religions, Christianity included, are based on the worship of nature. Nature may be defined as the material universe and the forces at work in the cosmos, which operate independently of man.


Among the varieties of natural religion were:

  • the worship of the earth, of trees, and other plants

  • of volcanoes, mountains, water, and wind

  • of animals

  • of stars, planets, the moon, the sun, the sky, etc.

The myths of the various human cultures, in fact, ubiquitously reflect this connection to and reverence for nature, especially in regard to the birth process, which was obviously the single most important event in a life and which introduced the human being into the natural world.


The reproductive organs and genitalia have thus been a source of tremendous interest.


In the ancient world, phallic and yonic symbols were seen everywhere in nature:

  • a cave was a womb

  • a natural pillar was a phallus

  • mushrooms resembled both

Furthermore, many nonsexual words can be traced to roots meaning “womb,” “menses,” “vagina,” “phallus,” “penis,” or “semen.”

Sexual symbols were also reproduced abundantly in art, architecture and other cultural artifacts, including religion. In fact, it would probably not be an overstatement to say that every religion/cult has had something to do with sex, including the popular religions of today. Indeed, within organized religions such as Judaism and Christianity phallic and vulval symbols abound that are no longer properly understood by the people.


Yet, these sexual symbols hold occultic power; hence, they have been profusely incorporated into temples and cathedrals.



Judaism and Sex

Many people today perceive such symbols, concepts and practices as odd if not deviant, because they have been taught that the polytheistic cultures who overtly practiced them were “bad” and “sinful.”


The common folk have also been taught to believe that the Jews and Christians have been very moral and have had little to do with sex.


For example, it is erroneously perceived that the Old Testament heroes and patriarchs were impeccably moral individuals who never engaged in anything remotely smacking of sexual deviation and perversion.

  • First of all, during the time of biblical peoples, humans were as obsessed with sex as they are now, particularly where they were repressed.

  • Secondly, what is considered deviation or perversion has from the very beginning of humankind been dependent on cultural perspective, varying with different ages and places.

  • Furthermore, often what has been approved by general consensus has also been considered to be “right in the eyes of God/dess.”

As noted, prior to the monopolizing patriarchy there were widespread matriarchal cultures, every bit as “godly,” but with different interpretations of sexuality.

Peering between the biblical covers, we find that many of the book’s characters are in reality depicted as engaging in behaviors that would be considered by current standards to be sexual deviation. From early on in the biblical drama we encounter incest, with even Moses himself being a product of it.


Later, the righteous Lot is made drunk and then seduced by both his daughters, who bear sons from their incestuous trysts.


Rape is another prominent biblical theme, engaged in frequently by the Yahwists, whose history according to the OT (Old Testament) is based on the slaughter of other cultures and the kidnapping and rape of their young girls. In fact, a number of the “great” patriarchs and heroes have sex with “concubines,” a fancy name for these young girls kidnapped and made into prostitutes.


Of course, Solomon was the most conspicuous consumer, with 1,000 wives and concubines, not a true story but used to demonstrate the manliness of his purported progeny.


But, if having so many wives and concubines is not adultery, we wonder what is and just what one would call Abraham’s relationship with Hagar, his wife’s handmaiden, by whom he has a child, or Jacob’s various dalliances with Rachel, her sister Leah and their maids, by whom he has children.


In the story of Jacob and Rachel, in fact, are found not only sexual deviation, by Christian standards, but also drug use, in that Rachel’s “son’s mandrakes” are “sex plants” or “fertility fruits.”


In addition, adultery is practiced even by the great king David, as in the second book of Samuel. Like Noah, who got drunk and let it all hang out, we also find David exposing himself in front of a crowd. And, at Number 25:15, the Israelites even participate in an orgy.

Furthermore, although apologists have attempted to explain away its eroticism as having something to do with “the Church” and its “bridegroom,” the Song of Solomon is indeed a sexual poem, with references to female genitalia, including as a “pomegranate”:

Solomon himself impersonated the phallic god Baal-Rimmon, “Lord of the Pomegranate,” when he was united with his divine bride, the mysterious Shulamite, and drank the juice of her pomegranate.

Of the Song of Solomon, Walker further remarks:

We now understand that the whole poem is a work of sexual mysticism, modeled on traditional Sumero-Babylonian wedding songs that combined the erotic with metaphors of vegetable fertility - for this was the ultimate aim of the king’s marriage to the priestess-queen who represented the earth and its fruit.


The Song of Solomon was retained in the biblical canon only by a convoluted exegesis claiming that its lascivious double entendres represented the love of Christ for his church... In the Song of Solomon it is no patriarchal deity that makes the decision to open the enclosure, but the priestess-queen herself who says, “Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.”

The Song of Solomon, in fact, represents one of the saner perspectives of sex in the Bible.


Indeed, despite the licentiousness by biblical heroes, so neurotic is the attitude towards sex that when Onan spills “his seed,” God strikes him dead, a tale lampooned in the “Monty Python” song:

“Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.”

Apparently, Onan’s sperm was more valuable than Onan himself.


So obsessed with the spilling of the seed is YHWH that it is prescribed that,

“no man who has had a nocturnal emission shall enter the sanctuary at all until three days have elapsed. He shall wash his garments and bathe on-the-first-day...”

Thus, “wet dreams” constitute a transgression against the Lord.



The Phallic Cult

One rather bizarre biblical perspective, also held by preHebraic cultures, is “the Lord’s” peculiar obsession with the foreskin, which is viewed as the most important token of the covenant between “him” and “his chosen.”


In fact, the word “circumcision” is used nearly 100 times in the Bible, and one must wonder at this obsession, as well as at the idea that either the Lord so screwed up in creating man that man needs to fix his handiwork, or the Lord finds this piece of flesh so significant as to base his most solemn vows upon it, thus revealing a homoerotic fetish.


So obsessed are the biblical peoples with the foreskin that in exchange for the hand of his daughter, Saul demands the foreskins of 100 dead Philistines from David, who enthusiastically indulges the request by bringing Saul 200 foreskins.

The act of circumcision is all the more strange when its origins are not made clear.


Among other reasons, including purportedly serving to make men more docile and socially acceptable, circumcision was said to be done in imitation of the female’s menstrual blood,

“being performed on boys at the age when girls first ‘bled,’ and even being described among some peoples as ‘man’s menstruation.’”

Another ritual used to create such “femaleness” was castration, necessary for a man to,

“assume religious authority among the priestesses of the Goddess.”

As Walker explains,

“All mythologies suggest that, before men understood their reproductive role, they tried to ‘make women’ of themselves in the hope of achieving womanlike fertility.”

This phenomenon was widespread enough among the Semites to warrant address by “the Lord,” as was penile amputation, such that those who had been thus mutilated, evidently either naturally or artificially, were to be excluded from God’s elect:

“He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord

(Deut. 23:1).

Yet, at Isaiah 56:45, the “infallible” Lord again contradicts himself and says that eunuchs who keep his sabbath and hold fast his covenant will be given a,

“monument and a name better than sons and daughters... an everlasting name which shall not be cut off.”

Obviously, all this biblical talk about circumcision, foreskins and testicles, as well as “members,” “loins,” “thighs,” “stones,” “secret parts” and “private parts,” is a reflection of the true nature of the patriarchal religions.


As Potter says, circumcision is, in fact,

“a barbaric custom of primitive phallic religion.”

He also states:

There were undoubtedly phallic elements in Yahwehism up to the time of the prophets and later, some of which were adopted from Canaanite religion and some of which were original in it, but the central meaning which the name Yahweh had for Moses was evidently something like The Living God of Life. That included naturally a certain sponsorship of sexual relations, as numerous Old Testament passages indicate.

Indeed, within the patriarchal religions the phallus has been an object of worship, although this fact has been hidden for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are its basic homosexual or homoerotic implications.


In fact, the male genitals were so sacred to the Israelites that if, in defense of her husband, a woman grabbed the “private parts” of his enemy, she would have her hand cut off (Deut. 25:1112).


So important were the male genitalia that solemn oaths were sworn by them, as is reflected at Genesis 24:9, where Abraham’s servant swears an oath by,

“putting his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master.”

The terms “thigh” and “hollow of thigh” used a number of times in the OT are actually euphemisms for “penis,” and the putting of one’s hand “under the thigh” and swearing an oath is a secret society “handshake”: Israelite who was swearing an oath would customarily solemnize it by grasping the penis of the man to whom he was making the affirmation... Before the death of Israel (Jacob), he called his son Joseph to his deathbed, and as Joseph grasped his father’s penis, Israel made his son promise that he would take his remains out of Egypt...

[Gen. 47:2931]

Regarding this practice, Walker elaborates:

Patriarchal Semites worshipped their own genitals, and swore binding oaths by placing a hand on each other’s private parts, a habit still common among the Arabs. Words like testament, testify, and testimony still attest to the oaths sworn on the testicles.

Walker also explains another biblical phallic euphemism and custom:

Biblical writers called the penis a “sinew that shrank,” lying “upon the hollow of the thigh.” This was the sinew that Jacob lost in his duel with “a man who was a god.”...

The garbled story of Jacob and the godman was inserted chiefly to support the Jews’ taboo on eating a penis (Genesis 32:32), formerly a habit of sacred kings upon their accession to the throne.


The genitals of the defeated antagonist were eaten by the victor, to pass the phallic spirit from one “god” to the next.

Furthermore, the “pillars” and “groves” of the biblical peoples were in fact lingams, or phalluses, and yonis, or vulvas, and the “household idols” of the patriarchs and heroes were smaller phallic symbols.


For example, at Genesis 28:10 and 35:14 Jacob himself is represented as engaging in the very ancient practice of anointing the sacred “pillars,” or phallic symbols, which was quite common in Israel.



Hebrew Homosexuality

In addition to these episodes of fetishism and homoeroticism is the peculiar story in the first book of Samuel about the great king David and his enemy Saul’s son Jonathan, who apparently falls in love with David:

And Jonathan stripped himself of his robe that was upon him and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle... And Saul spoke to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David. But Jonathan Saul’s son delighted much in David...

Jonathan and David are then depicted kissing each other and weeping together.


Later, it is not David who is killed but Jonathan, after whose death David moans,

“I am very distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

The biblical passages certainly seem to be expressing something homoerotic.


Of course, these scriptures must be overlooked by moralists, because the general biblical impression of homosexuality is extremely negative. Yet, we also discover that Israelites do in fact engage in “harlotry” with boys and that “male cult prostitutes” (“sodomites”) are used even during Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12) and remain in use centuries later when Josiah goes after them.


The Hebrew word for these male cult or temple prostitutes, “qadesh,” is the same as “qadash,” which means holy, sacred and consecrated. Obviously, the preYahwist Semites had a very different opinion of these “sodomites.”


Ironically, the term “sodomite” was used by detractors to describe phallus-worshippers, i.e., the patriarchy.



Semitic Bestiality

In addition to the phallus-worship, biblical peoples engaged in bestiality, such a temptation evidently a serious problem, since the Lord had to condemn it several times over a period of hundreds of years, demonstrating an ongoing habit of the “chosen” shepherd tribes.


In other words, that this perversion was common is obvious from the fervid exhortations against it.


As Akerley says in The X-Rated Bible:

It is axiomatic that one can gain true insight into how prevalent a deviant sexual practice is in a given culture as well as how threatening it is to that culture by the degree of severity of the laws which exist against it.


Judging by the fact that the Hebrew law decreed death for zoophilia, forbidden intimacies with animals were commonplace indeed among the Israelites.


Judaism and Women

The problem with the sheep-loving and lingam-worshipping desert tribes was their extreme hatred of women, who have been slandered with the accusation of being sinful, sexual creatures who corrupt otherwise sinless men.


Biblical misogyny is reflected in the stories of Lot and of the Levite in Judges, for example, where men are so important that, in order to protect them from bisexual mobs, Lot and the Levite throw out their women: in the case of Lot, his virgin daughters; and in the case of the “good” Levite priest, his sex slave, or “concubine,” although his host initially offered the mob his own virgin daughter.


The Levite’s concubine, of course, is gang-raped and left for dead. Her “compassionate” master finds her on the doorstep, yells at her to get up and, when he discovers she is dead, sheds no tear but immediately cuts her body into 12 pieces and sends the parts to the various tribes.


Now, this story must be taken literally, according to bible literalists, so we must conclude that the Levite did indeed engage this appalling behavior, which would be considered a heinous crime in today’s society but is perfectly okay for one of God’s ancient priests!

Furthermore, while exalting the male genitalia, the OT repeatedly portrays women as having defiling menstrual cycles, during which they must be isolated. Prior to this misogyny, however, the menstrual blood was considered sacred because women were viewed as the creators of life; in fact, as noted, the wine and cup of the Holy Grail were originally Pagan symbols of the blood and womb of the woman.


Of course, the degradation of the woman accompanied the vilification of the Goddess, and the biblical attack on the Goddess and female sexuality was tireless:

The religion of Astoreth, Asherah or Anath and Her Baal - and the accompanying female sexual autonomy - were the enemies. No method was considered too violent to bring about the desired goals.

With this violence came horrendous, oppressive laws against women, who basically became property. Raping virgins was the preferred biblical way to acquire such property, but if the rape victim was already married or betrothed, she was killed.


The oppression of women, of course, had much to do with men wishing to be certain of paternity, which evidently was, as Stone says, the,

“reason that the Levite priests devised the concept of sexual ‘morality’: premarital virginity for women, marital fidelity for women, in other words total control over the knowledge of paternity.”

Things did not improve much for the status of women with the introduction of the “new superstition” of Christianity, which continued the assault on women and which refined sexual repression.



Christianity and Sex

Because of such fervent repression, Christianity is perceived as having nothing whatsoever to do with sex.


In reality, rather than the picture of peaceful, celibate devotees commonly portrayed, early Christians themselves were viewed as sexual deviants and perverts.


That this perception was a problem is verified not only in the writings of the Church fathers but in the canonical Letter of Jude, in which the author is concerned with the impression given by men who were “blemishes” on Christian “love feasts”:

For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ... just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.


Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh... These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves...

Walker explains the meaning and origin of these mysterious Christian “love feasts”:

Agape or “love feast” was a rite of primitive Christianity, adapted from pagan sexual worship. Another name for the agape was synesaktism, that is, the imitation of Shaktism, which meant the Tantric kind of love feast involving sexual exchange of male and female fluids and a sense of transcendent unity drawn there-from.


Early church fathers of the more orthodox strain described this kind of worship and inveighed against it. Some time before the seventh century, the agape was declared a heresy and was suppressed.

Some of the Gnostic Christian sects utilized ancient sex rituals considered vulgar by the orthodox Christian cultists and used by them to discredit Gnosticism.


A number of these practices were in fact open to honest charges of lewdness, vulgarity and perversion, but the orthodox Christian movement certainly has not been devoid of such behavior, nor have been the adherents of any ideology known to mankind. Over the centuries many perversions have gone on behind monastery walls and church doors, including the ongoing abuse of young boys and girls, sexually assaulted or raped by “celibate” priests.


This abominable behavior is actually a result of sexual repression, which produces obsession and sickness.

Furthermore, while the inhabitants pretended to be celibate, Christian nunneries were turned into whorehouses that serviced monks, among others. In fact, it was an apparently common practice for the compromised nuns’ babies to be tossed into ponds near the nunneries or buried in basements.


As Blavatsky relates:

Luther speaks of a fishpond at Rome, situated near a convent of nuns, which, having been cleared out by order of Pope Gregory, disclosed, at the bottom, over six thousand infant skulls; and of a nunnery at Neinburg, in Austria, whose foundations, when searched, disclosed the same relics of celibacy and chastity!

While it may be argued that Luther was biased, apparently other such sites were discovered in Blavatsky’s time in Austria and Poland.

Despite its antisex attitude and pretensions, Christianity incorporated many sexual images, including the ancient and ubiquitous lingam symbol, evident in the church steeple, and the yoni or womb, symbolized by the church nave. From the earliest times, in fact, temples and churches themselves served as wombs, into which the priest, with his phallus-shaped hat would enter, beseeching the Deity for fertility and fecundity.


As Allegro says:

The temple was designed with a large measure of uniformity over the whole of the Near East now recognizable as a microcosm of the womb. It was divided into three parts: the Porch, representing the lower end of the vagina up to the hymen, or Veil; the Hall, or vagina itself; and the inner sanctum, or Holy of Holies, the uterus.


The priest, dressed as a penis, anointed with various saps and resins as representing the divine semen, enters through the doors of the Porch, the “labia” of the womb, past the Veil or “hymen” and so into the Hall.

However, like Judaism, patriarchal Christianity was primarily a phallic cult.


Walker describes the pervasiveness of the phallus in Christianity:

A hint of the broad extent of phallic Christianity in England appeared after World War II when Professor Geoffrey Webb, of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, investigated a bomb-damaged altar of an old church and found a large stone phallus within it. Further researches showed that the altars of approximately 90% of English churches built before 138 had hidden stone phalli.

The phallus was also called “perron” or “Big Peter” and represented, as we have seen, St. Peter, the “Rock” or stone lingam, of which the Christians were also anointers.


As Walker says,

“Christian phallus worship went on undiminished into the Middle Ages and beyond.”

Along with the phallus-obsession came the issue of circumcision, as well as castration, popular in the widespread cult of Attis/Cybele during Paul’s time and given the green light by “Jesus,” who is made to say of castration,

“He who is able to receive this, let him receive it”.

(Mt. 19:12)

In fact, a number of Paul’s teachings revolved around the mutilation of the male genitalia.


As Walker relates:

Paul hinted that he was one of the “new creatures” in Christ, neither circumcised nor uncircumcised. A man would have to be one or the other, unless he altogether lacked a penis...


He scorned the “natural” (unmutilated) man for his lack of spirituality:

“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him” (1 Corinthians 2:14)...

Paul wrote to the Galatians:

“I would they were even cut off which trouble you” (Galatians 5:12).

The word rendered “cut off” also meant “castrated.”

Indeed, over the millennia, many people have taken such exhortations to heart, believing that their mutilation would gain them special powers and favors in heaven.


In Russia has existed for hundreds of years a cult called the Skoptsi, who in frenzied rituals brutally cut off their genitalia, including testes, penises and breasts. This mutilation predates Christianity in Russia but has been found within Christianity for centuries, justified by scriptures, and these Skoptsi are not an aberration, as castration was common among the early Christians, including some of the Christian fathers.


As Akerley relates:

Contemporaneous with Origen was a sect which was so enthusiastically addicted to the practice that, in addition to requiring castration of all its members, they also castrated any guest who was rash enough to stay under their roof. The sect, known as Valesians, performed their castrations with a hot piece of metal, referring to the act appropriately as a “baptism of fire.”...


The tonsure of the early priests of Christianity is a recognized symbol of castration and the skirted cassock worn by priests is, at least in part, an imitation of the many religions competing with early Christianity which required that their priests don female attire only after they were castrated.

So enthusiastically did Origen embrace such concepts that he castrated himself, much to the admiration of several Christian proponents:

Origen was highly praised for having castrated himself. Justin’s Apologia said proudly that Roman surgeons were besieged by faithful Christian men requesting the operation.


Tertullian declared,

“The kingdom of heaven is thrown open to eunuchs.”

 Justin advised that Christian boys be emasculated before puberty, so their virtue was permanently protected. Three Christians who tried to burn Diocletian’s palace were described as eunuchs.

Eusebius, however, called Origen’s self-castration a “headstrong act” and said that Origen had taken Christ’s comments about,

“eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” in “an absurdly literal sense” and that Origen was “eager both to fulfill the Savior's words and at the same time to rule out any suspicion of vile imputations on the part of unbelievers.”

Eusebius’s comment about the castration serving to “rule out any suspicion of vile imputations” surely refers to sexual activity, possibly homosexual, imputations that over the centuries frequently were slung between competing sects, both Christian and Pagan.

At the same time as they were emulating women through castration, the Christians, like their predecessor Jews, were trying to destroy the Goddess:

...Bible revisions tended to erase earlier deities, especially female ones. After the centuries of choosing and revising canonical books, nearly every trace of female divinity had been eliminated from Christian literature.

As stated, however, temples and churches themselves represented the vulva and womb, and Christianity was not devoid of feminine symbolism, even though it tried to suppress it, except where it benefited the Christian hierarchy occultically.


For example, one of the most common feminine symbols is the mandorla or vesica piscis, an almond-shaped symbol representing the female genitalia and used to frame images of Jesus, the Virgin Mary and assorted other Christian saints. Likewise the rosary is an ancient symbol of the Goddess, the Queen of Heaven, as roses represent female genitalia.


In addition, female figures displaying oversized yonis were common on churches and cathedrals throughout Europe but were later obliterated by prudish church officials.


In reality, behind the scenes of the patriarchal cults, feminine symbolism is common, but it does not express an admiration for female humans; rather, Christian female symbolism is an attempt to usurp the supernatural powers of the “Goddess,” or female aspect of creation. In fact, so obsessed was the patriarchy to “destroy the works of the female” that it declared an all-out war on them, the results of which were as tragic as they were absurd, as hundreds of thousands of “wise women” were tortured and murdered in the centuries that followed.


Walker relates another result of this warfare:

Suppression and concealment of the female sexuality is always a primary goal of patriarchy. Christian Europe even officially denied the existence of a clitoris and forgot the words for it, which is why the ancient Greek term is still in use.


The church taught that women should not feel sexual pleasure, so the female organ of sexual pleasure became unmentionable.


The Sacred Prostitute/Harlot

Prior to the demise of the matriarchal cultures and degradation of sexuality thus brought about by the patriarchy, priestesses of the Goddess frequently were teachers of love and sex; hence, they were given the moniker “sacred prostitutes.”


Ancient cultures often believed that the way to "God" was through the Woman, and they also knew that sexual repression was a social time-bomb, such that they considered sexual expression an initiation into not only the mysteries but also society itself.


Echoing this wisdom, St. Thomas Aquinas said,

“Take away prostitutes from the world, and you will fill it with sodomy.”

For such essential duties, sacred harlots were considered holy women, the role, as we have seen, of Mary Magdalene.


As Walker relates:

Ancient harlots often commanded high social status and were revered for their learning. As embodiments of the Queen of Heaven, in Palestine called Qadeshet, the Great Whore, the harlots were honored like queens at centers of learning in Greece and Asia Minor. Some even became queens.


The empress Theodora, wife of Justinian, began her career as a temple harlot. St. Helena, mother of Constantine, was a harlot before she became an empress-saint... Temple prostitutes were revered as healers of the sick. Their very secretions were supposed to have medical virtue.

Like their Jewish predecessors, the Christians denigrated this sacred sex practice, turning the Goddess’s priestesses into “whores.”


As Walker further states:

Because whores occupied a significant position in paganism, Christians vilified their profession. Churchmen didn’t want to stamp out prostitution altogether, only amputate its spiritual meanings.

In reality, some of the most exalted biblical women were sacred harlots. Indeed, the lineage of Jesus himself is traced to these priestesses and holy women:

The four female ancestors of Jesus who are enumerated in the genealogies of Matthew are not only non-Hebrew, they are all four forms of the harlot. Thamar plays the whore with Judah to become the first female ancestor of Jesus, or the Lion of Judah. Rahab of Jericho is frankly designated the harlot, and she is the second female ancestor. Ruth, the Moabitess, whose history is so tenderly told, is the third.


The fourth is Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite, the prostitute of David.

The degradation of the sacred harlot and prostitution has taken a tremendous toll on the status of women over the centuries, reducing them to servants, baby-machines and sex slaves.


For example, Walker states:

Outside the Judeo-Christian tradition, prostitution often became a fully legitimate lifestyle. Black Africans never fully accepted missionaries’ views on the matter.


White men’s laws deprived African women of their property and their monopoly of farming, trading, and crafts by which they supported their children. African women suffered a devastating loss of self-respect, for in their society a woman without her own income was regarded with contempt.

While many people think that the world has become more moral with the repression of sex, this notion is simply not true.


Walker also relates the general end product of the denigration of sex and women:

A change in the attitude toward rape was one of the contrasts between the ancient world and the medieval one in western Europe. The Romans and Saxons punished rapists by death.


Normans cut off a rapist’s testicles and gouged his eyes out. The gypsies’ Oriental heritage demanded the death penalty for the rapist. Hindu law said a rapist must be killed, even if his victim was of the lowest caste, an Untouchable; and his soul should “never be pardoned.”


The Byzantine Code decreed that rapists must die and their property must be given to the victim, even if she was no better than a slave woman. Christian laws changed the picture.


Serfs’ wives, sisters, or daughters were always sexually available to their overlords under the new regime. Peasant brides were raped by the baron before being turned over to their bridegrooms -  probably to be raped again.


The Church made it illegal for any wife to refuse sexual intercourse unless it was a holy day when marital sex was prohibited. Therefore, marital rape was encouraged...


From the Inquisition’s torturers, who usually raped their victims first, to Victorian doctors who attacked female genitals with leeches, many kinds of rape could be traced to what has been called “virulent woman-hatred in fundamentalist Christianity.”

Recent studies show that most rapists were professed members of a religious sect and learned to regard sex as evil, in the traditional Christian manner.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, the idea of a sacred marriage originated in prepatriarchal, Pagan cultures and was anathema to the early Christian fathers, who abhorred matrimony.

The destruction of the “works of the female” also had the effect of propelling the world into centuries of bloodlust and warfare.


As Walker further states:

[War is a] primary patriarchal contribution to culture, almost entirely absent from the matriarchal societies of the Neolithic and early Bronze Ages. Even when Goddess-worshipping was beginning to give way to cults of aggressive gods, for a long time the appearance of the Goddess imposed peace on all hostile groups...


Patriarchal gods tended to be warlike from their inception - including, or even particularly, the Judeo-Christian God. Stanton observed that the Old Testament’s account of God’s nature, purpose, and activities on behalf of his Chosen People boils down to “a long painful record of war, corruption, rapine, and lust.”...


But Christianity was never a pacifist religion... All-male Christianity was disseminated by violence.

The result of this degradation of the female includes the destruction of the planet itself, the Great Mother Earth.


As Walker also relates:

... the Middle East [is] a true Waste Land: the great desert which eastern mystics attributed to Islam’s renunciation of the fertile Great Mother. Western pagans also maintained that if the Mother should be offended or neglected, she might curse the land with the same desperate barrenness that could be seen in Arabia Deserta and Northern Africa.


Christianity and Homosexuality

As Aquinas said regarding the prohibition of prostitution, the repression of sex and the hatred of women have indeed led to one of the behaviors most outwardly despised by Judaism and Christianity:

“sodomy,” or homosexuality.

In reality, in many places in the ancient world homosexuality was not considered a sin but was practiced for a variety of reasons. The Christian world, of course, has never been devoid of homosexuality, and Christianity’s early representatives were compelled to address it, as in the Epistle of Barnabas.


In Barnabas, the writer explains the “Laws of Diet” as laid down by Moses, including the following:

Among other things, [Moses] also says, you are not to eat of the hare [Lev. 11:6], by which he means you are not to debauch young boys, or become like those who do; because the hare grows a fresh orifice in its backside every year, and has as many of these holes as the years of its life.

This paragraph is enlightening indeed, in that we discover not only that the debauching of young boys was a problem with the Christians but also that hares grow numerous orifices in their “backsides!” It is also interesting that this “dietary law” apparently does not prohibit the debauching of older men.

Eusebius relates a passage from the works of Christian father Tatian concerning the Cynic philosopher Crescens that gives further insight into the climate of the day:

“Crescens, for instance, who made his lair in the great city, went beyond everyone in his offences against boys...”

The use of the term “everyone” is curious, in that it indicates that the writer himself and his compatriots were included in this category, rather than being outsiders.


The statement also appears to express that this type of debauchery was common and socially acceptable, such that Crescens was evidently to be reviled not for his homosexuality itself but for his excessiveness.

As noted, the early Christians had some intriguing secret initiation rites, as also evidenced by the fragment of a letter purporting to be from Clement of Alexandria to one Theodore.


In this letter, Clement repudiates the Gnostic-Christian sect of the Carpocratians and outlines secret scriptures that evidently had been originally in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10, and contained,

“an account of the raising of a young man from the dead, a rite of initiation, and a brief excerpt of an encounter between Jesus and three women.”

In response to Theodore’s questions, Clement relates the contents of this “Secret Gospel of Mark” as follows:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, “Son of David, have mercy on me.”


But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightaway a great cry was heard from the tomb.


And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich.


And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

In response to Theodore’s questions, Clement further relates:

After these words follows the text, “And James and John come to him,” and all that section. But “naked man with naked man,” and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

The suggestion is, of course, that Christ and his followers were alleged to have engaged in homosexual rites.


As Akerley says,

“In the secret gospel, Christ emerges as a teacher and practitioner of forbidden occult practices with strong erotic overtones.”

However we wish to interpret this data, it would not be untruthful to assert that a measurable amount of homosexuality has gone on behind the doors of monasteries and churches from the beginning.

In fact, considering how much emphasis is placed on the male in patriarchal religion such as Christianity, in which monks are “married to the Church” and passionate lovers of Christ, it is ironic that homosexuality is overtly considered a terrible crime, with,

“those who have intercourse with males” being viewed as “blasphemers” who cannot enter into the “kingdom of heaven.”

Because of the vicious mentality towards homosexuality, which is purported to originate with the Deity “himself,” homosexuals were driven to become monastics, in order to “purify” themselves of their overwhelming, “sinful” desires.


This penitential sequestration has led to monasteries full of repressed homosexuals attempting to contain their urges but frequently failing, which is understandable considering the temptation all around.


In other words, monasteries have served as “communal closets.”


In fact, this practice was common enough to warrant prohibition in the Secret Instructions of the Society of Jesus, i.e., the Jesuits:

If two of ourselves have sinned carnally, he who first avows it will be retained in the Society; and the other will be expelled; but he who remains permanent, will be after such mortification and bad treatment, of sorrow, and by his impatience, and if we have occasion for his expulsion, it will be necessary for the future of it that it be done directly.

The orthodox Christian position towards homosexuality has been that it is a seductive temptation to be resisted at all costs, an interesting attitude, because homosexuality would in truth only be tempting to those who are initially inclined thus.


Furthermore, a number of the Christian historicizers and conspirators also had serious problems with sex and women, such that it would not be farfetched to suggest they were homosexuals, repressed, closeted or otherwise, like the purported secret, rich, closeted homosexual fraternity of today called “Gamma Mu.”


One can find clues as to the homosexuality within their Christian brotherhood scattered here and there in the various writings of the early Church fathers, in secret gospels and allegedly in at least one unexpurgated canonical gospel, as noted. In any case, it can be argued with 100 percent certainty that monastic brotherhoods have often been the site of homosexual activity.

One of the most notorious of the “closeted” Christian homosexuals was in fact King James I, the patron of the King James Bible, which is so highly esteemed by evangelical Christians.


As related by Otto Scott, King James,

“was a known homosexual who murdered his young lovers and victimized countless heretics and women. His cruelty was justified by his ‘divine right’ of kings.”

Carpenter sums up the attitude and destructiveness caused by the repression and vilification of sexuality, asking:

How was it that the Jews, under the influence of Josiah and the Hebrew prophets, turned their faces away from sex and strenuously opposed the Syrian cults?


How was it that this reaction extended into Christianity and became even more definite in the Christian Church - that monks went by thousands into the deserts of the Thebaid, and that the early Fathers and Christian apologists could not find terms foul enough to hurl at Woman as the symbol (to them) of nothing but sex-corruption and delusion?


How was it that this contempt of the body and degradation of sex-things went far into the Middle Ages of Europe, and ultimately created an organized system of hypocrisy, and concealment and suppression of sex-instincts, which, acting as a cover to a vile commercial Prostitution and as a breading ground for horrible Disease, has lasted on even to the edge of the present day?

He continues, contrasting this pathology with the predecessor Pagan world:

When one compares a healthy Pagan ritual - say of Apollos or Dionysus - including its rude and crude sacrifices if you like, but also including its wholehearted spontaneity and dedication to the common life and welfare - with the morbid self-introspection of the Christian and the eternally recurring question “What shall I do to be saved?” - the comparison is not favorable to the latter.


Judaism, Christianity and Drugs

Also abhorrent to so-called moralists is the notion of “recreational” or “spiritual” drug use, even though the history of such drug use dates back many thousands of years, with numerous cultures utilizing herbs, plants and fungi for a variety of reasons, including medicinal and religious purposes.


In fact, countless cultures have possessed sacred plants, herbs, fungi or other entheogenic “drugs” that allowed for divination and communion. Such sacred plant-drugs included the mysterious “Soma,” which was personified as a teaching-god in the Indian text the Rig Vega, as well as Haoma, the Persian version of the teacher-plant.


Opium, hashish and cannabis also have a long history of use within religious worship and spiritual practices.


For example, on Sumerian tablets dating from about 5000 BCE are references to a “joy plant,” believed to be the poppy, from which opium is derived.

The Chinese recorded the use of cannabis, hemp or marijuana as early as the 3rd millennium BCE, and cannabis use in India began at least 4,000 years ago. Furthermore, the magi and spiritual “physicians,” or “Therapeuts,” were wandering drug-peddlers and members of the fraternity network, in which drugs were used for initiation and divination. Indeed, there has been plenty of drug use in the Levant and Middle East, including by biblical peoples.

Although some historians are reluctant to attribute drug use to Semitic peoples, the Old Testament abounds with references to the cultivation and administration of medicinal herbs.


There is, for example, a provocative inventory of favored plants in the Old Testament Song of Solomon (4:1314)... While many of the apparent references to drugs in the Old Testament remain open to question, there is little doubt that an incident recorded in Genesis refers to Noah’s drunkenness from alcohol.

Alcohol, of course, is a potent drug, but is not frowned upon in Christianity because it is truly drugging and stupefying, whereas entheogens, including the “magic mushroom,” have the ability to increase awareness and acuity.


In fact, there have been many mushroom cults, going back at least as far as Sumeria, and, according to Allegro, et al., much of the world’s sacred literature incorporated the mushroom in an esoteric manner. Indeed, it has been posited that the biblical “manna from heaven” actually refers to a psychedelic mushroom, a notion implying that Moses and his crew were on one very long, strange trip in their 40 years of wandering in the desert and living off manna.


Regardless of whether or not manna is the magic mushroom, the mushroom cults have been real and influential in history.


Moreover, Maxwell claims that the priests of Israel were known to use mushrooms:

Many people are unaware that this kind of hallucinogenic mushroom-taking by the high priest of Israel was, in point of fact, a very integral part of the old Hebrew theology and the old Hebrew tradition... [it] still is used in the Middle East today.

In fact, the high priest of Israel wore a mushroom headdress, as do officials of the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day, reflecting the esoteric veneration of this sacred fungus.


Thus, drug use did not end with the advent of Christianity. Like the Eastern Orthodox headdress, the ubiquitous architectural dome is also a reflection of the mushroom cult. In addition, in a ruined church in Plaincourault, France, is a Christian fresco dating to the 13th century that depicts the Edenic tree of knowledge as a stem with amanita muscaria mushrooms branching off it.


Furthermore, drug use was rampant all over Christian Europe, and even Pope Leo XIII used a “coca leaf and red wine concoction.”

As Baigent and Leigh say:

... there is little dispute today that drugs - psychedelic and of other kinds - were used to at least some extent among the religions, cults, sects and mysteries schools of the ancient Middle East - as indeed they were, and continue to be, across the world. It is certainly not inconceivable that such substances were known to, and perhaps employed by, 1st century Judaism and early Christianity.

In fact, Allegro’s suggestion that “Jesus” was a mushroom god is not implausible, considering how widespread was the pre-Christian Jesus/Salvation cult and how other cultures depict their particular entheogens as “teachers” and “gods.”


However, this mushroom identification would represent merely one aspect of the Jesus myth and Christ conspiracy, which, as we have seen incorporated virtually everything at hand, including sex and drugs, widely perceived in pre-Yahwist, pre-Christian cultures as being “godly.”