Another Habitual Gas Lighting Christian Propogandist In a Stoicism Group

 Jose De Jesus Gonzalez

When an American and an Australian talk about "thongs",

without either of them defining what they mean,
they are not having the same conversation.

The same goes for a Stoic and a Christian each making a post about "God".

As Carl Sagan pointed out in this 30-second video clip
(starting at time index 4:12) ...


In all cases,
it's either:
a.) lazy and careless
or
b.) willfully deceptive

to employ the term "God" without a clarified meaning,
wherever the context doesn't provide a specific meaning.


---

Christian fundamentalists
love to avoid specifying what they mean by "God"
in this group; 

[until later in the comments, when they start making hell-threats against all non-Believers (including: against all Stoics). Because they know the Admin won't notice, the Mods are mostly Christians, and the atheist won't actually report it]
 
Why?
So they can take advantage of a common "fallacy of equivocation" when most members will just assume "God" means roughly the same thing to Stoics as it does to Christians.

But it's not just atheists who notice that.

And it's not just atheists who object. 

Muslims, wiccans, Hindus, Deists, and all well-enough-educated Stoic-pantheists 
ALSO object.

Christians just assumes they are all "atheists" because they just assume only atheists have a problem with Christians persistently trying to make their social territory. 


When a bible verse, or a cross, or prayer, or "salvation", other non-stoic concepts are part OF the post which invokes "God",

the meaning is clear to everyone;
not merely to other Christians.

It's not the same thing as when a Stoic mentions "God".

Granted, sometimes a critic (which is sometimes an atheist, or deist, or a pagan) will misunderstand a Stoic's meaning.

But that's mostly the Stoic's fault.

They shouldn't be using a loaded term in mixed company; unless they're going to clarify their meaning. 

Why?

1. Because the entire purpose of communication is to be understood.
 To do otherwise
would be illogical;
and thus:
 non-virtuous. 

Also: 

2. Christians will seize upon those moments;
to crouch under it,
as a deceptively vague banner;
 to fake a God-union with Stoics under,
as something to unite as "victims" under the imagined antagonism of atheists. 

Why?

In order to help make all non-God-invokers feel like outcasts,
 and
to help silence them,
and
to curry favor with admins,
 with an illusory "us" to band against a hated "them".

That way,
Christians can more-often get away with posting pro-Christian propaganda in groups like this ... where it does not belong.

Keep shaming the critics, with unjustified taboos against criticizing your (and other) harmful (and blatantly anti-Stoic) cults.

Keep pretending the critics keep bringing it up out of the blue. 

Keep TRYING to create a false impression of a Christian/Stoic Union of "God"-ists.

And
keep pretending that
 critics telling Christians to stop promoting Bible-God in a Stoicism group 
is somehow tantamount to them objecting to STOIC's "God";
 when you know damned well that it's not.

 That way, you can perpetuate the lie
that anti-religion critics, or any-Yahweh critics
are actually also anti-Stoic-God critics. 

Again, I got news for you.

The Stoic/pantheists are on the same side as the atheists, deists, and Jung, and Spinoza, and Einstein, etc... 
when it comes to "God". 

They TOO reject all literal-God versions of Christianity, and find the concept of the Christian "God" to be anti-logical and anti-virtuous. 

Stoicism doesn't believe in a literal personal, self-aware Super-Person (or union of Super-Persons) with an agenda, and an authorized books of "revealed" Divine Commands. 

There's also no literal Heaven or Hell.

The Stoics don't even agree with the Christians about what the Logos is 
nor about what our life priorities or values should be. 
And the Stoics ARE the authority about that, because it was from THEM that the early Christians plagiarized and then changed what the "logos" is. 

A specifically non-personal, pantheistic idea of "God"
does indeed belong as a promoted-concept in a Stoicism group.

And if someone wants to *specify* such a meaning, ...

the one thing all atheists will agree with about that is:
It has *nothing* to do with religion.

Pantheistic and other abstract metaphors for basic concepts ....
are not "a religion".
The "God" they mention
is not a god of religion.

Even deists manage to abstain from religion. 
-and they share *most* of the same objections that atheists have.

Your attempt to create a false line between a character (imagined from out of your own personal bigotry) of the "loner" and "disruptive" atheists
who keep bothering some imaginary and harmonious collective of all God-word-invokers ...

is utterly disingenuous, 
willfully orchestrated propaganda.