How The Unwise And Unethical Nature Of Religious Language Disproves Their Own Premise
Whenever I hear secular philosophers using overly complex language,I recognize that they're being both practical and elitist.
They're being practical, in the sense of employing a sort of "shorthand", so that complex ideas are being expressed in few words.
This helps expedite the dialogue.
They're also being elitist, via that same use of language;
ensuring that outsiders are 'awed' by the advanced language,
and at the same time ... kept out of (otherwise devalued in) the conversations they don't understand.
But there is something more ... insidious about such behaviors
when theologians do it.
I say that because, as I see it, we should be much more critical of that behavior when self-identified "messengers of God" attempt to densely pack layers of complexity into language.
It's bad enough for such "messengers" to presume that
a best-possible-of-everything-possible BEING ...
would find them to be ... ~uniquely worthy~ (worthy in ways that most people are not)
of personally receiving life-essential truths.
Why would such a BEING rely on:
the random odds and random results
of random messengers interpreting,
and then badly relaying these "messages" to
randomly-receiving recipients,
in a sea of competing voices,
and without good evidence that such messages are from a "GOD"?
Only the messenger's ego can "know" the answer to that.
And how did these "messengers" receive these messages, which they claim are supposed to be spread (via rumors) to everyone else?
In some cases, this is alleged to have happened directly from that Being's mouth to their ears (or mind).
What makes them so worthy, in ways you and I are not?
Again,
only their ego knows.
And yet, in most causes, "the message" (the specifics of which no two messengers fully agree about) is communicated only through:
rumors about those direct communications.
They heard form a guy,
who read it in a book
translated by some other guys,
who disagreed with some other guys
who translated it all differently
in different versions,
from stuff written by some other guys,
who heard it all from some guys,
who heard from countless other guys in the rumor-chain
which
some-guys,
sometimes,
some-where
allegedly heard directly from a "God".
All along the chain,
each guy decided
for himself (and, he hoped, for everyone else) which bits
and which understandings
are "true".
But how could they know?
By confirmation from a super-BEING
...
as a feeling in their heart;
the very thing
which they simultaneously decry
as "wicked" and unreliable.
Meanwhile,
countless many of those guys
greatly do
(as they always have)
disagreed with each other
about which specific books, chapters, and verses are part of the "true" Divine-Rumors-Collection.
They also disagree with each other
about what it all means
and how it should be applied to our lives.
Granted, there are a few basics that all fundamentalists agree about.
And by no mere coincidence,
those happen to be the worst things about those books.
But if you ask any of them, ...
they will "humbly" explain:
Their essential thoughts and feelings about it all
are infallible.
How so?
Because those have been guided or otherwise "revealed" by an infallible "Spirit" which is "Holy".
-Thus,
they remain righteously insulated against
any troubling degree of:
* challenge (because they "know" they are right),
* accountability (because they don't accept ownership and responsibility for
those thoughts, feelings, and pronouncements; because (again) they imagine "The Holy Spirit" imparted those),
and
* growth (because loyalty to the narrative includes a personal oath not to seriously question it; under penalty of death (or worse)).
--
Meanwhile,
getting back to the original point of this.
All of it
is unethical
and unwise
in many ways.
But rather than getting into all the ways it's unethical and unwise, ...
Here,
we are focused on how their use of language is unethical and unwise.
It's dysfunctional (works against the intended function)
for anyone with an alleged "perfect message" from (any) "perfect Being", ...
to densely pack layers of complexity and nuance
into cryptic and ambiguous religious language.
Why?
Because doing so is reckless (at best)
or wantonly destructive (at worst).
How?
Because this does worse than risk or invite misunderstanding;
amongst both the clever and the simple.
It assures misunderstanding for countless many.
Quite effectively,
it keeps whatever is the intended meaning...
out of the hands of those whom (through no fault of their own) cannot grasp it in those forms;
- many of whom
will incorrectly think they have sufficiently grasped it.
- Only too late
to realize they haven't;
as their very soul slips through their fingers (and through the cracks of a very flawed "plan");
- crashing into a fiery pit
of eternally discarded garbage.
Or so we are told.
But it's inexcusable,
for "messengers of God".
It disproves the base-claim,
when someone uses language that way
to relay "perfect messages"
to everyone
from a "perfect Being".
--
--
Sometimes, being extraordinarily clever or elitist
is the point of it.
As such,
men may sometimes reserve that behavior for themselves and their peers.
But it must never be reserved for a "perfect Being" who is alleged to be relaying a message for everyone on Earth.
Working against one's own stated interests
in not a mark of perfection.
Such a thing is always a flaw.
And,
in any case where our lives hang in the balance,
it's a fatal flaw.
In truth,
"messengers from God" are all working against your health and your rights.
Yes, all of them.
Neither a morally-good "God"
nor a functionally-good human
would use the "Divine Authority" ploy
to leverage for control over your headspace, journey, or identity.
But the worst versions of that
usually come from Abrahamic religious fundamentalists.
They are groomers and Flying Monkeys (some knowingly; some unwittingly)
for an abusive cult;
on behalf of an imaginary super-Narcissist.
If you're in a relationship with any version of "The God of Abraham",
you are in an abusive relationship.
Their word games
are part of a larger system of gaslighting.
who honestly thinks they are "nothing without God".
Recognize
it's the same psychology
as an abused girl
who feels like nothing without the validation of a father or a boyfriend.
Comments
Post a Comment