Re: When a religious fundamentalist (in a religion modeled on clinical Narcissism) gaslights that we are being unfair to them.
I made the claim that no one has any objectively rational reason to "seek (any)(literal) deity";
nor to listen
nor to otherwise begin
looking into the claims of (any version of) Christianity.
To refute that claim,
a fundamentalist offered this:
Romans 1:18 (onward). The alleged reason for all whom claim non-belief in a Christian Fundamentalist "God".
(click link to review)
He only quoted verses 18-24.
But the rest of it (as quoted; per the link) provides further clarification.
----
So there it is.
According to them, ...
We all
already know
there is a literal "God",
and
only ~exactly one~ of those.
We all
~also~ know:
It's the "God" of (fundamentalist) Christianity.
[Note: The more specific and necessary sub-faction has not been identified;
- probably because:
We all, already, secretly know which sect's more specific expression of "God" is ~the real one~]
-------
According to them, ...
Somehow,
Intelligent Design is obvious to everyone.
We all perceive it.
Moreover,
somehow, Intelligent Design attests to it being:
the (fundamentalist) Christian "God" who designed it.
[Although, of course,
that would mean non-believers and differently-believers don't even EXIST.
Such people should be called "believers who pretend not to believe"; not "unbelievers";
because:
words
have
meanings.
Maybe "Paul" didn't have a great grasp on how words work.
It's a shame there wasn't a "Spirit" that could gift his tongue (and hands) super-abilities for the sake of "testifying".
But we have far greater education built in to our society.
So I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of communication.
However, putting that aside, ...]
The accusation (against literally everyone outside of his religious camp) continues:
According to them, ...
We all
already know ~all the things he claims we know~ about his specific "God".
- before hearing even word-one from a bible or a Christian.
People who deny all that ...
only just deny it because:
They are choosing to be:
Disgusting, evil, and dishonest fools.
(even all the Christians in rival sects)
-making themselves worthy of a violent death,
eternal discard,
and then eternal (literal) torture;
-which means we actually have:
infinitely negative worth (which is, actually, infinitely worse than just being worthless),...
in the opinions of Christian-religious fundamentalists;
- whom accept zero responsibility for:
the severe abusiveness of those pronouncements,
because:
They hide behind their "God", as an unquestionable, perfect moral authority;
- which grants THEM unquestionable, perfect moral authority;
- whom only AWFUL people would question or criticize;
- which (by no coincidence) is exactly the narrative-perspective/social-framework/relationship-dynamic of clinical narcissists.
Apparently, clinical Narcissism is (quite literally):
Divine;
-but only when it's happening in the name of the true "God"(mask).
So then (according to them):
the process of ~looking into~ various sects of Christianity
until we find the right one,
is really just a matter of seeking to:
Confirm a universal Bias;
- as such seekers seek
to find the true sect (of the true religion) that accurately conveys those self-evident truths;
the true nature, and will of the only true "God";
- making Bibles and sermons entirely redundant/superfluous ... except for confirming:
what no one needs any confirmation about.
-So Sayeth The Lord; according to the unquestionable, perfect moral authority ... of random fallible humans
representing "The One And Only Truth!" ...
of any random, mutually exclusive sect,
of any Abrahamic religion.
-------------------
Now, of course, I had a problem with ALL of that bullshit.
So I called it out;
for what it is.
In reply,
(random fundamentalist) countered with:
"(You) ended up denouncing Paul with a statement that was unfounded.".
---
In (random fundamentalist's) mind, ...
I was being terribly unfair
to accuse Paul (and thus: accuse him too)
of being WRONG to think:
a.) there's only one perceptual paradigm.
[Again, that is an
* immature
and
* egocentric
assumption
for Paul (and this other fundamentalist) to be making.
Please note:
Egocentrism is automatically immature.
It doesn't come in any other flavor.
It's also incorrect. And THAT is a fact; not an opinion.
They are absolutely wrong about this.]
and (they also claimed)
b.) everyone divides into two groups:
people who admit it
and people who deny it.
and (they also claimed)
c.) people who deny it, are denying for somewhat specific and very horrible reasons.
-------------------
(random religious fundamentalist) thinks "Paul" not only:
got it right(!)
but also:
I secretly know he got it right.
(random religious fundamentalist) claims:
ARE
and
are ~choosing to be~.
Link. For Darkmatter2525's cartoon about his way of thinking.
---
My response to that all (besides the notes I included with the above review)
is addressed to the fundamentalist I was having this discussion with:
---------------
I appreciate you letting me know what I said that seems unfair, unsupported, and personally biased.
But here's the thing about that:
What justifies Paul (and by extension: you; as someone expressing Paul's view as your own)
making such aggressive generalizations
and character assassinations
about:
ME
and
all adults in the world
and
for all time (at least, until your "God" gets around to violently killing and/or torturing us)
... whom don't perceive (allegedly: pretending not to perceive) the existence of his deity?
What justifies it?
Because some cultist scribblings from the Iron Age said so?
Bible is true
because bible says bible is true?
Bible is wise
because bible says anyone who disagrees is unwise?
Circular reasoning
is divine?
You're just
asserting
that we all clearly see it; proven by nature, and by physics;
- when, in actual fact, we don't.
Your ENTIRE argument boils down to:
"I don't have to prove I'm right, because you already know I'm right. Everyone in the world secretly knows I'm right. And the only people who deny it are just being dishonest and wicked."
And you think we all "know it" because:
nature (on a macro and micro scale)
already proved it to us.
However, ...
Such observations AT MOST would lead to a generic deism
(for people who perceive nature as the handiwork of a deity or godlike force) ...
which is not-at-all interchangeable with your idea of a "God" ... but which he (and you) are equivocating as the same thing.
It's not the same thing.
------------
So here we are;
with you (not me)
making those aggressive generalizations and character assassinations; as called upon by long-dead-Paul to do so.
So here I am;
a current target (among countless many)
for that radically unfair set of assumptions about:
what I really see, but am pretending not to.
And
what my real and horrible motivations are
for pretending I don't see what Paul and you see.
I then objected to all of that.
To-which you replied:
I am being UNFAIR to Paul *(and by extension, unfair to you)
to merely NOTICE and POINT OUT
that Paul (and you) are making:
unfounded assumptions about all adults who don't profess the existence of your "God".
----
Let's be clear about this.
I am being fair.
My DEFENSE of ME is well-founded.
Because:
I am me.
-----------
I would know what I see, and what I don't see.
Paul wouldn't.
Neither would you.
-----------
I would know what I think and what I don't think.
Paul wouldn't.
Neither would you.
-----------
I would know (better than anyone else) HOW I think and how I don't think.
But Paul wouldn't.
And neither would you.
-----------
I would know what I feel and what I don't feel.
Paul wouldn't.
Neither would you.
-----------
I would also know how much (ironically wasteful) years and energies I spent ***EARNESTLY*** trying to sort out all the religiousphere's claims (especially Christianity's claims) about gods.
[something literally no one has any objectively rational reason to even start looking into. But I was brainwashed into Christian theism, as a child. So I had no choice but to sort it all out.]
But Paul wouldn't be qualified to speak to any of that.
And neither would you.
------------
I also know how I live.
But Paul wouldn't.
And neither would you.
I don't drink, do drugs, gamble, etc.
I'm not even sexually active.
I live the most boring vanilla life of anyone I've ever known.
And thus:
My REASONS for not still playing Hide and Seek with rumored gods, ... have absolutely nothing to do with unchecked selfishness, or hedonism, or carnal perversions.
If my life were EXACTLY the way I wish it was ...
there still wouldn't be much for fundamentalists (or their "God") to judge... except that I still wouldn't be ~on my knees~ at your (unqualified) feet;
- groveling like a starving slave,
and a dependent CHILD, ...
so that you could tell me
WHO I AM,
and WHY I AM,
and WHO I can love,
and HOW I can love,
and HOW I must think, and feel, and speek,
and what all my concerns should be,
and what my life priorities should be,
and what determines my WORTH,
and where a good portion of my MONEY should go,
and how I should vote,
and how:
to hear from YOU is to hear from my GOD,
and thus
to QUESTION YOU is to question my GOD,
and
to DOUBT you is to doubt my GOD,
and
to REFUTE you is to refute my GOD!
-and is thus:
proof that I am evil.
-and is thus:
the justification for decrying my CHARACTER,
and devaluing me (as a person) as an otherwise-worthless nobody that your alleged BOSS is going to violently hurt;
- if I don't "change my tune" and submit to him ... by submitting to you.
-so that it justifies your camp of COLONIZERS
running a sick con game;
which is:
literally a Protection Racket.
-----------
So if you want to say the clinical explanation of "Adolescent Egocentrism" either doesn't apply or can't be reasonably gleaned, ...
then how that does even have any meaningful impact on the point being made?
If it's not Adolescent Egocentrism, then it still:
immature
egocentrism;
-by definition.
How is that any better?
It's still:
Religious people assuming that everyone else in the world ...
sees the same world around them (nature, physics, people), and ~interprets that world~ the same as you, ...
under the objectively baseless assumption (your assumption; not mine) that:
YOUR cognitive frame of references is UNIVERSAL
and anyone pretending it's not is just lying (either to themselves, or everyone else, or both) about what they see
and refusing to admit those character-ugly reasons why they are all denying it.
It's exactly like how religious fundamentalists (such as Paul, and yourself) don't understand that "No Two People Have Ever Read The Same Book".
So you sit in judgmental condemnation of everyone that has "seen what you've seen" and "heard what you've heard", and then say we just refuse to admit;
-even making wild and radically unkind assumptions about the REASONS they won't just ~admit it~.
And that accusation you're making ... isn't even limited to people professing non-belief.
It also applies to literally everyone in a mutually exclusive sect of Christianity, and every other kind of THEIST in the world whose idea of "God" is different than yours.
And if anyone merely notices you doing that, and then points out how poorly reasoned and shitty that is ...
then you (YOU!) feel attacked.
You feel they are being so so unfair to you.
And that really is the point where any civility they've been extending to you ...
should really start to wane.
I won't pretend not to realize when significant social abuse is transpiring.
There really should be healthy boundaries
identified and enforced.
But since fundies can't BE fundies without being abusive, and immature, and egocentric,
because it's core to their religion, ...
That creates a catch 22; where the only way secular persons, and healthier-versions of religious persons (yes. those exist)
can have these conversations with fundamentalists
is to expect it and tolerate it.
But then we have to ask ourselves ...
"to what end"?
It's not as if you can be reasoned with.
Meanwhile, the best excuse you have for that is linked here.
-not that I can be sure you're brain damaged.
But there's a statistically meaningful correlation between your religion and brain damage. And you act like it.
-not that I can be sure you're a clinical Narcissist either.
-But your religion is modeled on it. And it has taught you to reason and interact (socially) as one.
It is also the very definition of "antisocial behavior".
It is antithetical to healthy human social systems.
But fundamentalists like posing as someone reasonable (initially);
- so that people can get suckered into their web of narcissistic head-games;
- which really all boils down to:
evasion of personal accountability,
and relentlessly leveraging for entitled, privileged, exploitative
social dominance.
THAT is what all of your religious bullshit is really about.
All the conversations you ever have about it
are merely a utility, to support those ambitions.
In this context,
we are not the villains here.
You are.
But because I honestly believe ~you can't help it~,
I do not extend any hate to you for it.
Instead,
you have my compassion
and my pity.
If I could heal your brain and your soul (not meant in a religious sense of the word),
I would.
But because I cannot, ...
we find ourselves
at an impasse.
We can go no further.
You could, however, invite me to dance; at least for one more song.
But you should expect me to decline.
Comments
Post a Comment