Responding To: Christian Family-Member's Psycho-Cult Ramblings
Trigger warning:
This blog contains references to religious violence against children.
I think it's important to recognize the full weight of the issues being discussed.
This blog only covers approximately the first 5 minutes
of a 25 minute voice message that
a very religious family member recently sent me.
Normally, she avoids listening or speaking about such issues.
But she was in the mood for (her one-sided end of) that discussion.
I was really curious to map out her personal values.
Although, now that I have learned so much more about her personal values, I do lament discovering how horrible those values actually are.
Her views are nearly identical to her parents' (both of them).
Her personality is also eerily similar.
It does make me wonder if maybe psychopathy and narcissism can be inherited.
I suppose I'll need four more blogs to cover it all;
averaging one blog per every 5 minutes of apologetics.
Although, that causes these blogs to be too long for a blog.
So I might end up with 10 sequential blogs.
We'll see how it goes.
For now, I have the entire first five minutes represented here.
Following each claim,
I offer my initial responses.
First, please note:
I don't plan to send her a link to this.
I shared my thoughts in text and in voice messages, in reply to the message she sent.
However, that was about a week ago.
She has not looked at those replies.
NOR will she. I know this from experience.
I'm sure that's because she "knows she's right" and I'm just a pawn of tHe DeVil. So why bother?
==
The real purpose of this blog
is to print my thoughts to a medium that I can share with others.
I really wanted to share her voice message.
There wasn't any personal stuff in that message.
I also could have shared it without disclosing her identity.
I wanted people to hear the casual and glib disregard she has for people she sees as necessarily-but-casually disposable.
I also wanted to empower every reader with the opportunity to decide if I'm fairly paraphrasing her apologetics.
Most importantly, I want to help more people understand just how dangerous Christian-religious fundamentalism is.
But it was sent via private message.
It would violate our society's taboos to share it;
- even if I didn't disclose any personal info.
-and even if I used some software to alter her voice.
I could just ASK her for permission.
She's probably give it.
But then she might go looking for it,
to find out how I'm presenting her views; and how that might reflect on her character.
Here, she would hear the more raw and blunt replies.
I think it would offend her.
I'd rather not offend her.
So you'll have to decide if you believe me or not
that she took all of these positions.
Although, if you have much experience with Christian-religious fundamentalists,
NONE of it will surprise you.
--
Here's what she said; followed (each time) with my thoughts about it:
--
1. When it comes to moral commands,
"God makes concessions."
In other words,
if we might DARE to be honest about what ancient and modern fundamentalists are saying about it,
...
He compromises on his moral ideals, whenever he feels like it will be better for a human's wellbeing to have a different-than-HIS morality to live by.
But that means:
a.) God based morality on the earthly wellbeing of earth-bound humans.
I like this idea.
However,
like everything else Christian-Fundamentalists say ...
they'll just un-say it later, and then pretend they haven't contradicted themselves.
It also means:
b.) These "concessions" are after-thoughts.
Here, "God" is micro-managing his moral-system (as part of his larger moral "plan").
The Grand Plan
which SEEMED (to HIM) like it was perfect ... turns out to be not-perfect.
This, of course, is a repeating problem for their patriarchal super-psycho deity.
It's just like with the Great Flood story.
He knew a global flood wouldn't solve the problem he was angry about (and failed to plan ahead for).
But he drowned the world anyways.
Centuries later,
once again,
he failed to rightly anticipate the needs of his people.
But this time
it was racist-favorite ethnic group.
So then he's running around trying to tweak the moral structure he GAVE them, because now he realizes they needed a different moral-structure.
It also means he lacks something.
Wisdom.
Clarity.
Confidence.
Clearly, he doesn't feel qualified to REPAIR and UPGRADE his human-ant-farm.
Thus, they kept being "a people" who regularly needed emergency accommodations for their long-standing barbarities.
In contrast,
I do not lack the needed wisdom, clarity, or confidence.
Therefor, "in his shoes", I would have "laid down the law" AND provided Angels as counselors ...
to QUICKLY re-organize their entire society
so that women were no longer so vulnerable
and men were no longer so entitled.
Although, I would have made sure of that from the start;
instead of (badly) playing catch-up (again and again; for thousands of years).
And then there would be no NEED for regular moral-comprises
as emergency,
stop-gap,
and
still extremely ineffective
society-patches.
---
Now, let's stay zoomed out;
and really look at the situation.
"God" either bases his moral priorities on people's wellbeing
or
he doesn't.
If he does, then:
we now have a STANDARD OF MEASURE
to assess his wisdom and power with.
And then he fails;
miserably.
Whereas,
if he does NOT base his morality on human well-being,
then
(in that case)
Christian-fundamentalists
should stop weaving apologetics on a
moral-PREMISE
that isn't really his moral-premise.
And then they should also stop using positive adjectives which (according to every dictionary in print) don't apply.
Maybe he always does what is "good"
(more specifically: "The best possible thing")
for his own sake.
But clearly not for ours.
There is clearly a conflict of interests
between:
whatever that "God" wants
vs
what humans need.
That "God" often resolves that conflict
with a heartfelt
"Fuck the humans. I come first" moral-priority.
["All things for his glory".]
Granted, many of his favorite Boot-Lickers approve of that.
"Yea! Fuck US! And the snake we rode in on!"
But it's easy to see how that undermines the market-appeal of those religions.
-----------
2. "God doesn't condone the actions that he explicitly permits".
--
Actually, that's exactly what that means.
Granted, it's all just ancient myth anyways.
No such Super-Being ever existed.
Maybe DEISTS have it right?
Maybe pantheists?
Maybe Stoics?
I dunno.
All I know for sure is:
Abrahamic Religious authoritarians
do NOT have it right.
But we can still rationally review the stories
and rationally scrutinize the claims of modern Jesus-Cultists.
In the context OF those stories
and
the context of modern Christian-interpretations:
That "God" is absolutely condoning everything he chooses to accommodate;
- EVEN if he silently doesn't really enjoy seeing whichever thing he is choosing to condone.
If I see a man punching a woman in the head repeatedly,
and interrupt them only to say "either put on some boxing gloves or start pulling your punches",
I am "condoning" the assault.
I'm just not "condoning" the full measure of impact.
If some apologist then tries to make EXCUSES for me, to say "James wasn't really condoning the assault. He was just making concessions for it",
you'd have to be insane (or really slow in the head) to think that's a reasonable and honest evaluation of that situation.
------------
3.
"God doesn't ever want anyone to get a divorce".
Ancient men were "horrific" in how casually they divorced their women.
over petty reasons like accidentally burning the man's dinner on a Friday night.
These were AMONG the 100% of divorces that GOD NEVER thinks is morally right to get.
So then ... he also thinks it's 100% morally wrong to get a divorce for SERIOUS REASONS too.
Severe abuse and other dire threats to a married-person's health, or to their children's health
= still not "moral" reason to split up.
BUT ...
He decided to allow SOME of the divorces that it's ALWAYS wrong to get, because:
God disagreed with God.
He disagreed with himself
about what the "right" thing to do is
in certain situations.
So then he allowed the TRIVIAL consideration of Human-wellbeing
to be the TIE BREAKER;
but only for two situations.
All other serious reasons for divorce would still be FORBIDDEN;
because:
It pleases GOD to see victims locked-in to lifetime abuse.
Why?
Apparently, he wants to market himself as the person who INVENTED the concept of "marriage";
even though he didn't.
And so:
he needs that society
(and surrounding -societies)
to see a LOW divorce-rate.
Why?
So that (on paper) "marriage" LOOKS LIKE a brilliant idea.
How?
By giving onlookers the false impression that most people who stay together ARE PROOF that marriage "works".
That way, HE
(or, at least, the people who invented that GOD) will look brilliant.
He just arbitrarily feels conflicted about two specific situations:
1. "Unbelieving mate".
and
2. Sexually cheating.
Marital rape, severe domestic violence, child-abuse, etc?
These are forms of
HUMAN SACRIFICE
which "please the Lord".
"Go on,
beat the kids!
Go on.
Beat the kids!
How can you have any spiritual MEAT
if you don't eat your pudding?!"
It doesn't have to make sense.
All and all
you're just another brick in the wall.
-----
4.
"We/You need to "take into account"
WHEN that was all happening."
She continues, ...
Back then,
people had different needs
based on era-specific situations.
Their GOD was taking all of that into special consideration.
---
So what happens if your underage child
keeps eating too much food
or
tends to drink too much alcohol?
According to my Christian relative,
"our modern brains" forget that life often
NEEDED to be disposable back then.
To illustrate this point:
She says "we modern humans never feel bad for the guy who is sitting in prison due to stealing a car.".
Now, I actually DO feel bad for such a guy, because (libertarian) Free Will isn't a thing.
Physics literally made him steal that car.
If we want a society where it's really RARE for people to commit such crimes, then we need to STOP treating such things as the result of mind-magic and start restructuring the PHYSICS of society.
Granted, we MUST take actions to arrest and rehabilitate such criminals.
However,
our "make them suffer" ideal
actually perpetuates criminal cycles.
Most people (of Earth) haven't figured out yet
that Authoritarians
have led us astray in their archaic notions about criminal causes and solutions.
As a result,
we aren't yet providing real solutions.
What else isn't she considering?
Compassion and empathy.
So yea. Actually, I do feel bad for everyone sitting in prison.
I find her near-total lack of empathy and compassion
frightening.
But I find her near-total lack of understanding the real world's history and physics
to be even more concerning.
Because even a psychopath who understands reality well-enough ... will reason and behave better than someone who doesn't.
As for what we SHOULD be doing with modern criminals?
Anyone who has done anything bad ENOUGH to be locked in a tiny cage and denied basic human needs for many years (or decades) ... should
INSTEAD be:
rehabilitated in humane conditions (whenever possible),
or else
studied for science in humane conditions,
or else
kept locked up in humane conditions,
or else
given the OPTION of euthanasia; as humanely as possible (something like fentanyl OD); only after certain qualifying conditions are met.
Each of these options
should be carried out
with ONLY however much restriction and control
as it takes to keep society, staff, and themselves safe.
Obviously, some criminals will require more extreme restrictions than others.
But that should be based on their known-behaviors and assessed-psychology;
not on how angry someone else is.
--
In most countries,
we humans are absolutely SICK MONSTERS
for treating prisoners the way we do.
--
Now, where was I?
Oh yes.
My Christian relative was in the middle of
Son-of-Man-splaining
why CHILDREN
(with eating and drinking disorders)
needed to be stoned to death by their parents.
And why we shouldn't feel bad for them,
in the same way we don't (or: shouldn't)
feel bad for abusing today's "drains on society".
Next, she explains how "the reason" you, me, and her would NOT stone our children to death for having an eating disorder,
or the disease of alcoholism,
or being caught shoplifting,
is because:
we finally have better options.
But let's be clear about all of this.
First, our ever-improving options
are afforded by modern societal UPGRADES.
Those upgrades
are upgrades
that her "God" was always either:
too incompetent
or
too non-existent
to propose
(or: to demand).
She's also wrong about those people's options.
They DID have better options.
They had various forms of discipline.
They had jails.
They had forced labor for repaying debts.
They had "indentured servitude".
They also had the even-worse version of slavery.
And if living in very small and remote villages created a greater need for cheap-and-swift "justice",
then either:
do a non-murder version of that
or
stop having small and remote villages.
They just really enjoyed the murder-option.
So some of them enshrined that into law.
She has IMAGINED a BCE-World
where the only-or-best option
available to anyone anywhere
was to immediately and brutally kill
anyone
whose behaviors threatened
anyone's inventory-supply-reserves.
From there, she argues:
If you allow your neighbor, or a stranger, or your own child LIVE to see another day,
they might do something again.
They might unfairly cost someone(anyone) a LOSS of food or other supplies.
They might impede some innocent-people's chances of surviving in those harsh and barren lands.
--
Meanwhile, who "designed" that part of the world
to be so barren and harsh?
Who "designed" humans to be so vulnerable to eating disorders, alcoholism, and impulse-control-deficits?
Who "designed" humans to also be so needy and desperate for ample stockpiles of supplies?
Who enabled the inadequacies of that society
which left those people RUTTED into situations where PSYCHOPATHY was often (seen as) a good-or-best available option?
According to Christians, their "God" did all of that.
And yet, somehow, that's our mess.
And GOD can't think of a way to make a better society, until WE (eventually, gradually) figure out ways to make a better society.
That's always when his most vocal fans
(always lagging behind everyone else;
as progressives DRAG them (kicking and screaming) into the future)
step in to takes the credit; on his behalf.
But before we could GET that far, ...
There was a "very special time"
for a "very special people".
Picture it.
Imagine someone actually thinking, speaking, and then acting out those "moral" values.
"Dammit, honey.
Our pudgy brat of a DAUGHTER got into the cookies again.
I can tell.
I know we had more than this.
And I can see some crumbs near her straw-pile bed.
Surely, the Lord wants us to bury her up to her waist, or strap her to a post, and then stone her to death tonight.
We can't risk that she might further deplete our winter-storage reserves.
Fortunately, she's only 9 years old. So we should have no trouble immobilizing her.
It won't be nearly as much works as when we had to kill our ADULT (12year old) daughter last season for eating a fig from the neighbor's tree.
JUST COINCIDENTALLY,
right after we killed the older sister
is when her little sister started over-eating.
It's a real shame no middle-aged men purchased the older sister as his subhuman wife-property before we had to put her down like a rabid dog.
We could have really used a sack of coins."
-------
5.
She continues, by presuming that
everyone with an eating disorder
and
every alcoholic
is "a drain on society".
--
My thoughts about that?
FFS
"I just can't even" with these people.
I don't care WHEN you lived.
I don't care what culture you lived in.
If you think it's ok to murder children (or anyone)
as a form of inventory-control,
Or just to ensure the most peaceful cities and remote villages?
Then you shouldn't be allowed to have any kids.
Meanwhile, ...
Let's ignore how those problems begin.
Let's ignore how it's often a family or a society
that is a drain on the PERSON.
That person gradually crumbles under the weight of abuse, neglect, loneliness, or some other pain they can't carry alone.
Let's ignore how that starts off innocent enough; with some comfort foods, or a glass of spirits.
Let's also ignore the Christian-Narrative which credits their GOD as the person who knowingly designed humans to be so PRONE to accidental addictions,
and
so ill-equipped to handle the stresses of a life;
a life
with terms, and conditions
nobody volunteered for.
Let's also ignore how many people with such bad habits have ENOUGH of their own money that they are not a drain on anyone.
Let's also ignore how even ANCIENT people ALWAYS had better options than brutally murdering troubled children;
- CHILDREN that those "people of God" disabled in the first place.
So the real criminals were the parents and the society.
Those same parents
and that same society
murdered children;
CHILDREN
whose troubled behaviors are the direct RESULT of the parent-and-society's dysfunctions.
So then:
The people who CAUSE the problem
blame their own victims.
And then they use that as an excuse to then KILL their victims;
while themselves pretending to BE the victims.
Let's also ignore how the poorest people are disproportionately BORN POOR
and BORN struggling
because of systemic classism and racisms ...
which are the inevitable results of how humans are wired;
-which Christians say is how their "God" designed us.
It's also due to the way "Biblical" Jews and Christians carried ugly bigotries forward throughout the world
(for thousands of years)
FROM their "holy books".
All along,
humans were born into ignorance.
They crumbling under the weight of so much pain;
due to the harsh physics of our shared environments.
-Which, again, Christians credit their "God" for designing.
--
--
I'm sorry.
But these "people of faith" say such evil and stupid things.
Same now
as it was back then.
Some of them are bat shit crazy.
And the rest are just pretending to be . 
--------------------
6. "God laid down lots of LAWS
for their own protection"
--
He (that conceptualized super-Dad; baselessly alleged to exist in real life)
takes no responsibility for the results of his design-choices.
And now he takes none for his society-design choices either.
He gets involved.
He "lays down the law".
But he can't forge a BETTER SOCIETY,
so that
they can make much BETTER LAWS work?
#WorstKingEver.
----
7. Confidently explains false-facts that she mistakes as real-facts.
She tells me that their prohibitions against wearing mixed fibers, eating shellfish, etc...
were never part of the Mosaic Law Covenant.
In fact, she says,
they were never part of Hebrew laws at all.
NOR were any of their laws given "under penalty of death".
It's was like the Pirate's Code.
It's more of a suggestion, really.
It was from a list of warnings
based entirely/only on health and safety concerns.
Shellfish and pork were deadly back then; even if you cooked and ate them right away.
She went on to explain:
Mixed fibers?
Maybe they emit undetectable energy-vibrations.
Mixing those vibrations might have been bad for us. But we probably built up an immunity or something.
Whatever the reason, it was just for health and safety.
And parents don't always explain the dangerous to their kids, because:
'good kids' don't need to understand relevant physical reality.
All we really need is blind obedience to authority. That's where real human virtue and thriving comes from.
As for why "God" didn't provide a list (with pictures and descriptions, for identification-purposes) of every dangerous plant, mushroom, insect, and water-hole in the world
so that we could rely on OBEDIENCE for maximizing human health?
/shrug.
It's wrong to question God.
Again, Christians "take a stand" on WHY God "does what he does".
But they don't STAND by that stand. Because "who can know the mind of God"?
Comments
Post a Comment