Christian-Fundamentalism's Relationship To Racism
For now, I'll just start with a few key issues; in no particular order.
1. Atheism isn't a worldview or a values system.
It's like being a non-astrologist, or a non-Leprechaun-ist.
If someone doesn't believe in leprechauns in general,
or
if they more specifically don't believe in "The Eternal King of the Leprechauns",
this really doesn't inform their personal views and values.
2. For context, I don't identify as an "atheist".
The term "atheist" means "not a theist".
The term "theist" means "believes in a god".
The term "god" means:
whatever the invoker wants it to mean.
Therefore, the term "atheist" fails to make any meaningful distinction, because the term "god" fails to provide its own meaning.
However, ...
3. Once a god-word-invoker does clarify their meaning,
then (in that context) the term "atheist" can be contextually meaningful.
As Albert Einstein explained:
He believed in Spinoza's "god".
However,
he told Christians they should think of him as an atheist.
In fact, by description, he was an "anti-theist" when it came to the entire notion of a:
* literal,
* autonomously sentient,
* willful (aka "has personal goals motived by personal desires"),
* emotionally fragile,
* violently insecure,
*supremely entitled (at least partly via the idea that "Might Makes Right"),
* super-creator Being,
*"who" is very bad at communicating,
* blames everyone but himself for that,
* has political ambitions,
and
* has a favorite faith-based cult.
To Einstein, *all* of that = childish nonsense.
I do happen to agree with him about that.
Even the late "Bishop" John Shelby Spong agreed.
Granted, someone merely 'having' an opinion doesn't prove or disprove anything about Christianity. But my point is this: Someone can be a serious and affirmative "g/God"-invoker and yet be either a lack-theist or an anti-theist in some other context. In fact, every Christian is an "atheist" when it comes to all rival god-concepts. So you should be able to 'see yourself' in the atheists you disparage. In fact, this was Rome's point, when they identified Christians as atheists. Rome meant that those Christians were denying the existence of Rome's gods. And to be quite frank about this, Rome was right to be concerned. As Dr Kara Cooney has pointed out, the invention of monotheism has always been specifically intended as a way to amass and unify social, political, and military power, ... towards the goal of gaining sufficient support to declare and wage warfare against alleged enemies. Today, that's still primarily what monotheism is being used for in our world.
Granted, someone merely 'having' an opinion doesn't prove or disprove anything about Christianity. But my point is this: Someone can be a serious and affirmative "g/God"-invoker and yet be either a lack-theist or an anti-theist in some other context. In fact, every Christian is an "atheist" when it comes to all rival god-concepts. So you should be able to 'see yourself' in the atheists you disparage. In fact, this was Rome's point, when they identified Christians as atheists. Rome meant that those Christians were denying the existence of Rome's gods. And to be quite frank about this, Rome was right to be concerned. As Dr Kara Cooney has pointed out, the invention of monotheism has always been specifically intended as a way to amass and unify social, political, and military power, ... towards the goal of gaining sufficient support to declare and wage warfare against alleged enemies. Today, that's still primarily what monotheism is being used for in our world.
Meanwhile,
the "atheists" whom don't validate anyone's deity ...
are only making Christians upset because:
by refusing to validate a Christian's "God",
the atheist is refusing to validate
the emotional and ideological foundation of the Christian's ego.
They don't see sufficient merit in your conceptualization of "God"; nor in how you relate to that conceptualization. And thus, they don't 'factor that in' when they evaluate the nature of the larger reality and their place within it. But that's exactly the same as: how you don't see merit in certain conceptualizations of "God" and thus don't factor those into how you evaluate the larger reality and your place within it. Now, I realize persons whom identify with an Abrahamic religion may not be able to recognize all of the descriptors (the ones I listed) as being accurate to their conceptualization of "God" (ie, "emotionally fragile, "violently insecure", etc). But that's because they're not being honest with themselves. So now we turn our attention to the real focal point of the video: Does the mantra "all men are created in the image of (a)(monotheist) God" [OR the sum-total of all Christian fundamentalist ideological narratives] pull the human mind more-safely/further away from: the slippery slope of dangerously selfish othering? Does it pull us further away from 'the risk of outcome' that we might end up sacrificing the wellbeing OF (any) "others" for the sake of "our people" (whoever the person thinks of as their people) compared to the risk of such 'othering' immerging (in principal or in practice) among the freelance non-religious? I'm almost ready to address that question (and the video-host's answers) directly. But I think we need to unpack a few more things first. The very moment an author 'frames the narrative' as: their religion (or "faith") vs "atheists", I already know a shitstorm of misguided cultural warfare is about to make landfall.
To any such author, I would humbly suggest they ascend into a more reasonable presentation of issues. Instead, they could just say "we Christians (or whatever their religion is) have some pretty great ideals in our holy books. These ideals create X-specific benefit(s)". And then just talk about how (whichever) ideals, found in (whichever) texts, generate (whichever) benefits. And then maybe just add "and we really worry that anyone who doesn't hold to these ideas is putting their own mind at greater risk of not having these benefits". There is no good reason for singling out atheists. Many Theists are without ideas like "all possibly-existing people must have been created in the image of (whichever; specific) God". In fact, many Christians are without that idea. For example, Ken Ham (from "Answers In Genesis") exclusively reserves that sentiment for humans. They wouldn't apply it to other animals nor to hypothetical extraterrestrials. Thus, Ken Ham has said that if aliens ever visit Earth, don't even bother to witness to them about Jesus. Because salvation is for mankind alone. Now, I can easily see how that's just an extension of the idea that all the (other) animals of the world have no real value to "God" except for their utility. But then again, that's how Christianity's "God" feels about humans too. "He" (that literary figure and PSYOP mental technology ) merely gives humans a very bizarrely conditional way to earn their way into eternal worth AS a utility; more specifically, as an endless source of validation for his ego. Meanwhile, there is widespread disagreement among Christians about what it means to say "created in the image of God". With those disagreements comes an equally vast range of attitudes about how we 'should' see and relate to other humans. In any case, I'm not impressed by it. Someone can SAY "adopting the perspective that all people were created in the image of our God" assures a fully equal respect for all humans. But that's a disingenuous marketing gimmick; designed to foster a delusion. The matra of "all (hu)men were created in the image of God" does not really have a greatly positive effect on most Christians. I say that with history as my witness. Countless many people whom held to that idea were still absolute assholes to-and-about their fellow humans. Even today, this fact can be seen among Christian fundamentalists and moderates. Now, someone can then SAY "well, those aren't real Christians". But we can just ignore the logical fallacies baked into that, because: It's actually a topic-change. The CLAIM was about ANYONE (Christian or not) whom holds to the idea that every human was created in the image of their creator. The claim was (to paraphrase): Absolutely everyone whom adopts that idea ... is then mentally safeguarded from devolving into racist-y 'othering'; othering which could pose a danger to other humans and other sentient beings. - In other words, safeguarded from disrespecting and harming others; regardless of whether or not a "creator" would recognize those 'other's as Christians. What's most interesting about that, to me, is: By even making that argument, the Christian is taking a side on the "Euthyphro Dilemma". What makes that so interesting is: The side of that dilemma they're taking is: "good" exists independently of "God. Because if they took the OTHER side of the dilemma, where "good" is just "whatever a god "wills" (no matter the effects that may have on created-beings), then it wouldn't make any sense to just assume their deity's views about "what counts as good" would always align with human health and flourishing. - Nor always with the "justice"-interests of humans. By assuming the health and justice interests of all created-peoples is the standard of "good" that "God" must hold himself to in order to BE "good", ... the claimant is taking that side OF the Euthyphro Dilemma. And yet, just like with literally everything else Christian fundamentalists SAY which is specific to their doctrines, ... they are not actually loyal to that position. They'll abandon that position whenever it suits their rhetorical interests. And then they'll switch back to that position again whenever it suits them. For the moment, that Christian is using this side of the Euthyphro Dilemma (ironically, the position which aligns with how most "atheists" determine ethics) as a metric for figuring out which human-held attitudes, concepts, and behaviors are 'of God'. From there, that Christian is trying to fluff up and polish Christianity's public image, as: 'definitely inspired by (their) God'. They're presenting that on the basis of: This mantra ("everyone is made in the image of God") promotes values and outcomes that are: a.) good for human health and flourishing', and which b.) exemplifies perfectly equitable justice. However, they're going too far with that. Firstly, perfectly equitable justice isn't always possible. There will sometimes be situations where the rights, will, and best-interests of a sentient being will conflicts with the rights, will, and best-interests of some other sentient being. That paradox is expressed very succinctly in this meme:
The video's author is only imagining that his mantra about everyone being "created in the image of God" equips him to never put his own justified interests above someone else's. That is, of course, extra-ironic given that it's usually Politically Conservative Christians who are pretending they don't enjoy (and confidently rationalize) throwing other humans under the economic bus for their own gains. Meanwhile, he must ignore a lot of what's in Bibles, to imagine a "God" who thinks: the health and justice interests of all created-people "must be" what God always intends. Throughout bibles, that is absolutely NOT what "God's" values are goals are. Instead, "good" was very often defined by the selfish interests of their deity. And yet, that "deity" was really only the alter-ego of religious leaders (priests, elders, rulers, and parents). So then God's moral opinions were really only ever an expression of what those people (almost always men) wanted for themselves. Clueless about what was really happening there, ... his fanbase is left confused about WHY "He" made some of the decisions "He" made back then. The real answer to that is pretty damned obvious; except to people who are in a religious cult.
They remain equally foggy about why "He" makes the choices he makes today. Most Christians will admit this freely. They don't really know why their "God" makes a lot of the choices he makes. Thus, his fanbase doesn't have a consistent criteria available to them to draw from in determining what their "God" thinks about situations which are not specifically (or not consistently) addressed in their revered texts. In fact, I think we should be honest with ourselves about just how foggy that proposition is for everyone who lives in a Capitalist economic system. Thus, they must often guess about what their God thinks is "the right thing to do" in any situation where they must weigh their own interests against the interests of others. To inform those guesses, they'll usually just draw from modern cultural ethical standards. They'll read those back into bibles, so they can generate the illusion that they got those standards from a bible. But what they won't do is recall the phrase "we're all created in the image of God" and then instantly re-align themselves with a perfect human-social ethic. They can't. Because Christianity's core tenets are the exactly opposite of having great-and-equal respect for all sentient beings. Even in situations where the idea of "you matter as much as I do" is reasonably approximated and then translated into an action, ... Christians aren't really getting that guiding-principal from Bibles. Bibles, for the most part, speak contrary to the idea that all people have equal value and deserve equal respect. Just as importantly, ... whenever a believer doesn't know why their deity did-X but didn't do-Y in their bible (or in the real world), it creates a blind-spot of insight into what criteria their "God" is using; for deciding what's right and wrong. So then they might say "ok. I know that looks really bad. But I'm sure God has his reasons. I'm sure it was for a greater good that we can't comprehend". But with that being the case, they can't ever really justify saying "I know how to tell when my God wants me to do or not-do a thing based on knowing what criteria my god uses for determining right from wrong". They don't know what criteria he uses. They don't know what goes into all the necessary boxes of his "moral flow chart". If they don't know what criteria their god is using, then they just don't. And then they can't justify pretending they do. Realizing that, modern apologists have created an "out"; for when they paint themselves into this particular corner. Whenever they need to, they switch from: "God always does what's best for us. Because he must. Because he is always good." to "No matter what God does, it's automatically good simply because it's HIM doing it; even when it goes against our wellbeing, and even when it fails to comport with anything humans can identify as reasonable or just". Those fundamentalists are taking both (mutually exclusive) sides of the Euthyphro Dilemma. And they don't even realize it. Getting back to the more specific issue of what EFFECT it has had on the humans who adopted the unspecific mantra "created in the image of (that) God", ... That social experiment had thousands of years of field-tests. It repeatedly and epically failed. The mantra "all men were created in the image of their creator" has proven NOT to raise the ethical bar; not even as a statistical average. And I submit we should feel at least a little silly to have ever even considered that it could. Really think about it. If "resembles (that) God" means "having similar character traits", then the proposition is that everyone has those character traits. And if we're trying to use that to promote true quality among all people, then we must first assume all people equally demonstrate those traits. Personally, I can't think of any qualities (not even one) where all humans equally demonstrate that quality. Can you? Further, if we assume it's a reference to character traits, then: We can't be talking about "all humans". There isn't a meaningful trait that all humans demonstrate but which no other creatures demonstrate. In fact, I've known a lot of sociopaths, psychopaths, and clinical narcissists. I've also met a lot of severely mentally handicapped people. I've even stumbled across a few people who were in a coma (when I was doing medical training in a hospital). So then I have to ask: Which "godly" traits are any of those people resembling? Actually, now that I think about it, I'm just going to grant the "resembles God" idea for people who are in a coma. Christians may be onto something there.
Although, if we're honest about the actual character traits of the "Biblical God", then: We still can't be talking about "all humans", because: The only people who reason and behave like Bible-God are psychopaths and clinical narcissists. Whereas, if we're talking about a literal "looks like God", then: the claim is: We all have value because of our grand aesthetic. But this too is far too ambiguous to useful. Worse yet, the moment we try to make it specific is the moment we start generating inequality; because some people will be closer to that aesthetic than others. In any case, ... Aesthetic-spirituality and emotion-spirituality are two sides of the same coin. It's a way of romanticizing neuro-chemically-drugged highs and the stimuli which trigger those highs. Those mental states are usually caused by sensory stimuli.
As examples, it can be caused by something radiantly golden, white, pristine, symmetrical, or rhythmic. From that, we get bible writers repeatedly pushing a connection between: a.) that which is golden, white, and radiant with b.) that which is then obviously "divine"..jpg)
From that, we got various European and American religious faction's buying more easily into the later-developed idea of skin-color-based racism. Examples: 1. Mormon founders boasting of their obvious "spiritual" merits of being "white and delightsome", while decrying dark skin as "the curse of Ham". Granted, for those with eyes to see it, "black IS beautiful". But those men couldn't see that beauty; at least, not so much as they could appreciate the beauty of being light-skinned. Through those white men's eyes, the less "white and delightsome" someone was, the less "in the image of God" they were. As a result, the idea of respecting humans based on "being created in the likeness of God" became a license to judge and devalue people based on how they look. "Created in the image of God" was the ideological root of Mormon racism; because: everyone bore a likeness of "God" ... but not equally. Even those who said it was equally-so were often employing the "Animal Farm" model of equality.
So then the possible intent of the author along with the hype of Christian marketing both remain disconnected from the reality of that mantra's effect on believers. 2. Eventually, skin-color-based racism became popular among fair-skinned Christians. We do currently see that trend in steep decline. However, color-based racism still lingers (as common) among Conservative Evangelical churches. Let's not forget. The Southern Baptist Convention (co-founders of the KKK and parent organization of all American Evangelical churches) was actually founded (in part) on: skin-color, ethnic, nationalistic, political, and religion-based racisms. However, the origins of human prejudice are also partly biological. Biology is the root cause of the "moral" condemnation meant by the phrase "if it makes us puke, we must rebuke". That entire way of thinking was originally caused by the unfortunate result of un-guided biological evolution. Although, if some Christian-fundamentalist wants to object and shout "Evolution is false. Our God designed and created us 'as we are'!", then their "God" becomes automatically indicted as guilty of embedding the roots of racism in our DNA.
Granted, some Christians may actually be pulled away from various forms of racism per their understanding of what it means for everyone to be created "in the image of (or "likeness of") God". My point is: it was an irresponsibly uncareful idiom; which has done more to foster racism as it has done to lure people away from racism. Some arbitrarily isolated sayings in bibles can be interpreted in a way that promotes respect for all other people-groups. But historically, that's not usually how it worked out. Neither were those writers really trying to promote truly equal value for all people. [In fact, here's a clip from Dr Elaine Pagles [link to her wiki] explaining how the book of "Revelation" has sown violently murderous, hateful extremism among "believers" for thousands of years. [link]] Nor do today's fundamentalists and moderates really understand what it means to actually love and respect outsiders; or even each other, or even themselves. Granted, some progressive religious people have more-or-less caught up to their secular-values counterparts (secular humanists). But that's exactly why nobody should be talking about "Christianity" as-if it's one specific ideology, culture, or people-group. The video's author is pretending it's all those things; when it's really none of those things. They are also presuming to speak with authority on a.) what "a real Christian" is, b.) what various texts really mean, and c.) how those texts were meant to be applied to later-century-reader's views and values. That has led to the video's author invoking the "No True Christians" fallacy (aka: the "No Trust Scotsman" fallacy), along with: the fallacy of "scriptural univocality", and the fallacy of "the meaning is clear", and the falsehood of "the meaning is ethical". Also present is a virtual mountain of: lies of omission. Christian apologists are hoping you don't dive deep into the big-thick-book of fine-print called "The Bible". Because then potential buyers might discover a vast assortment of blatantly pro-harm aggressions towards all outsiders. Granted, at least the video's narrator does mention the countless-many morally 'insufficient' insiders. But in doing so, he dishonestly identifies those people as outsiders. Further, he dishonestly quote-mines various bible writers to create the illusion that: Bible writers, univocally, were basing their *criteria* of real-vs-fake believers based on the idea that: "real" believers prioritize and exemplify: the ethic of equitable justice, along with: honoring and protecting (as equals) the wellbeing of all people across the world. Whereas, he posits that fake-believers are the people who fail that standard. But none of that is true. In reality, 1. Bible writers were not writing univocally. They each had their own personal views and values. 2. NONE of those writers based "real vs fake" believers on those criteria. He even slipped in an extra lie. But it's a very standard and necessary lie. He is equating the believers who wrote those texts and the fellow believers whom they wrote about (in those texts) to: "Christians". Now, he realizes that's not really true. If you listen to that part of the video, he starts to say the word "Christians" and stops himself before he finishes saying that word. He doesn't want to draw critical listeners' attention to that claim. He knows he would get Fact-Checked. And that's a problem because he knows it's not true. None of the Hebrew-religious texts were Christians. And as for the "New Testament" writers, they were only in the process of gradually creating Christianity. Just as importantly, they didn't actually intend to. "Gospel" writers wrote from the perspective of trying to fix JUDAISM; not creating or revealing a replacement. Christian apologists depend on listeners to make that common mistake. They're pretending that those writers were promoting a religion that (in reality) didn't even exist yet. Paul laid the groundwork. Later writers built something even more bizarre on top of that. But those were proto or pre-cursors to the Christianities (plural) that later developed. The religions people call "Christianity" today did not exist in the 1st century. Even the character "Jesus" was not a Christian. Nor was he attempting to create Christianity. He came only for the Jews. He was trying to fix Judaism; not issue in a replacement. Those writers were part of the early stages of creating Christianity; by creatively-writing concepts into existence that (in contradiction to their intentions) future churches would build something else with. It was very similar to how ancient writers wrote fictions to create the "Hebrews" who didn't actually exist yet. But the key difference there is: The writers who were using creative fictions to write the new Hebrew religion into existence ... were doing that on purpose and creating that effect directly. Whereas, the "gospel" writers were trying to re-imagine what Judaism (an already existing religion) 'aught to be'. It wasn't yet really the same thing as what we call "Christianity". Also present in the video (shown at the beginning of this blog): The fallacy of false-dichotomy; painting the entire realm of humanity as being divided into two allegedly well-defined people-groups called "Christians" and "atheists".
They don't see sufficient merit in your conceptualization of "God"; nor in how you relate to that conceptualization. And thus, they don't 'factor that in' when they evaluate the nature of the larger reality and their place within it. But that's exactly the same as: how you don't see merit in certain conceptualizations of "God" and thus don't factor those into how you evaluate the larger reality and your place within it. Now, I realize persons whom identify with an Abrahamic religion may not be able to recognize all of the descriptors (the ones I listed) as being accurate to their conceptualization of "God" (ie, "emotionally fragile, "violently insecure", etc). But that's because they're not being honest with themselves. So now we turn our attention to the real focal point of the video: Does the mantra "all men are created in the image of (a)(monotheist) God" [OR the sum-total of all Christian fundamentalist ideological narratives] pull the human mind more-safely/further away from: the slippery slope of dangerously selfish othering? Does it pull us further away from 'the risk of outcome' that we might end up sacrificing the wellbeing OF (any) "others" for the sake of "our people" (whoever the person thinks of as their people) compared to the risk of such 'othering' immerging (in principal or in practice) among the freelance non-religious? I'm almost ready to address that question (and the video-host's answers) directly. But I think we need to unpack a few more things first. The very moment an author 'frames the narrative' as: their religion (or "faith") vs "atheists", I already know a shitstorm of misguided cultural warfare is about to make landfall.
To any such author, I would humbly suggest they ascend into a more reasonable presentation of issues. Instead, they could just say "we Christians (or whatever their religion is) have some pretty great ideals in our holy books. These ideals create X-specific benefit(s)". And then just talk about how (whichever) ideals, found in (whichever) texts, generate (whichever) benefits. And then maybe just add "and we really worry that anyone who doesn't hold to these ideas is putting their own mind at greater risk of not having these benefits". There is no good reason for singling out atheists. Many Theists are without ideas like "all possibly-existing people must have been created in the image of (whichever; specific) God". In fact, many Christians are without that idea. For example, Ken Ham (from "Answers In Genesis") exclusively reserves that sentiment for humans. They wouldn't apply it to other animals nor to hypothetical extraterrestrials. Thus, Ken Ham has said that if aliens ever visit Earth, don't even bother to witness to them about Jesus. Because salvation is for mankind alone. Now, I can easily see how that's just an extension of the idea that all the (other) animals of the world have no real value to "God" except for their utility. But then again, that's how Christianity's "God" feels about humans too. "He" (that literary figure and PSYOP mental technology ) merely gives humans a very bizarrely conditional way to earn their way into eternal worth AS a utility; more specifically, as an endless source of validation for his ego. Meanwhile, there is widespread disagreement among Christians about what it means to say "created in the image of God". With those disagreements comes an equally vast range of attitudes about how we 'should' see and relate to other humans. In any case, I'm not impressed by it. Someone can SAY "adopting the perspective that all people were created in the image of our God" assures a fully equal respect for all humans. But that's a disingenuous marketing gimmick; designed to foster a delusion. The matra of "all (hu)men were created in the image of God" does not really have a greatly positive effect on most Christians. I say that with history as my witness. Countless many people whom held to that idea were still absolute assholes to-and-about their fellow humans. Even today, this fact can be seen among Christian fundamentalists and moderates. Now, someone can then SAY "well, those aren't real Christians". But we can just ignore the logical fallacies baked into that, because: It's actually a topic-change. The CLAIM was about ANYONE (Christian or not) whom holds to the idea that every human was created in the image of their creator. The claim was (to paraphrase): Absolutely everyone whom adopts that idea ... is then mentally safeguarded from devolving into racist-y 'othering'; othering which could pose a danger to other humans and other sentient beings. - In other words, safeguarded from disrespecting and harming others; regardless of whether or not a "creator" would recognize those 'other's as Christians. What's most interesting about that, to me, is: By even making that argument, the Christian is taking a side on the "Euthyphro Dilemma". What makes that so interesting is: The side of that dilemma they're taking is: "good" exists independently of "God. Because if they took the OTHER side of the dilemma, where "good" is just "whatever a god "wills" (no matter the effects that may have on created-beings), then it wouldn't make any sense to just assume their deity's views about "what counts as good" would always align with human health and flourishing. - Nor always with the "justice"-interests of humans. By assuming the health and justice interests of all created-peoples is the standard of "good" that "God" must hold himself to in order to BE "good", ... the claimant is taking that side OF the Euthyphro Dilemma. And yet, just like with literally everything else Christian fundamentalists SAY which is specific to their doctrines, ... they are not actually loyal to that position. They'll abandon that position whenever it suits their rhetorical interests. And then they'll switch back to that position again whenever it suits them. For the moment, that Christian is using this side of the Euthyphro Dilemma (ironically, the position which aligns with how most "atheists" determine ethics) as a metric for figuring out which human-held attitudes, concepts, and behaviors are 'of God'. From there, that Christian is trying to fluff up and polish Christianity's public image, as: 'definitely inspired by (their) God'. They're presenting that on the basis of: This mantra ("everyone is made in the image of God") promotes values and outcomes that are: a.) good for human health and flourishing', and which b.) exemplifies perfectly equitable justice. However, they're going too far with that. Firstly, perfectly equitable justice isn't always possible. There will sometimes be situations where the rights, will, and best-interests of a sentient being will conflicts with the rights, will, and best-interests of some other sentient being. That paradox is expressed very succinctly in this meme:
The video's author is only imagining that his mantra about everyone being "created in the image of God" equips him to never put his own justified interests above someone else's. That is, of course, extra-ironic given that it's usually Politically Conservative Christians who are pretending they don't enjoy (and confidently rationalize) throwing other humans under the economic bus for their own gains. Meanwhile, he must ignore a lot of what's in Bibles, to imagine a "God" who thinks: the health and justice interests of all created-people "must be" what God always intends. Throughout bibles, that is absolutely NOT what "God's" values are goals are. Instead, "good" was very often defined by the selfish interests of their deity. And yet, that "deity" was really only the alter-ego of religious leaders (priests, elders, rulers, and parents). So then God's moral opinions were really only ever an expression of what those people (almost always men) wanted for themselves. Clueless about what was really happening there, ... his fanbase is left confused about WHY "He" made some of the decisions "He" made back then. The real answer to that is pretty damned obvious; except to people who are in a religious cult.
They remain equally foggy about why "He" makes the choices he makes today. Most Christians will admit this freely. They don't really know why their "God" makes a lot of the choices he makes. Thus, his fanbase doesn't have a consistent criteria available to them to draw from in determining what their "God" thinks about situations which are not specifically (or not consistently) addressed in their revered texts. In fact, I think we should be honest with ourselves about just how foggy that proposition is for everyone who lives in a Capitalist economic system. Thus, they must often guess about what their God thinks is "the right thing to do" in any situation where they must weigh their own interests against the interests of others. To inform those guesses, they'll usually just draw from modern cultural ethical standards. They'll read those back into bibles, so they can generate the illusion that they got those standards from a bible. But what they won't do is recall the phrase "we're all created in the image of God" and then instantly re-align themselves with a perfect human-social ethic. They can't. Because Christianity's core tenets are the exactly opposite of having great-and-equal respect for all sentient beings. Even in situations where the idea of "you matter as much as I do" is reasonably approximated and then translated into an action, ... Christians aren't really getting that guiding-principal from Bibles. Bibles, for the most part, speak contrary to the idea that all people have equal value and deserve equal respect. Just as importantly, ... whenever a believer doesn't know why their deity did-X but didn't do-Y in their bible (or in the real world), it creates a blind-spot of insight into what criteria their "God" is using; for deciding what's right and wrong. So then they might say "ok. I know that looks really bad. But I'm sure God has his reasons. I'm sure it was for a greater good that we can't comprehend". But with that being the case, they can't ever really justify saying "I know how to tell when my God wants me to do or not-do a thing based on knowing what criteria my god uses for determining right from wrong". They don't know what criteria he uses. They don't know what goes into all the necessary boxes of his "moral flow chart". If they don't know what criteria their god is using, then they just don't. And then they can't justify pretending they do. Realizing that, modern apologists have created an "out"; for when they paint themselves into this particular corner. Whenever they need to, they switch from: "God always does what's best for us. Because he must. Because he is always good." to "No matter what God does, it's automatically good simply because it's HIM doing it; even when it goes against our wellbeing, and even when it fails to comport with anything humans can identify as reasonable or just". Those fundamentalists are taking both (mutually exclusive) sides of the Euthyphro Dilemma. And they don't even realize it. Getting back to the more specific issue of what EFFECT it has had on the humans who adopted the unspecific mantra "created in the image of (that) God", ... That social experiment had thousands of years of field-tests. It repeatedly and epically failed. The mantra "all men were created in the image of their creator" has proven NOT to raise the ethical bar; not even as a statistical average. And I submit we should feel at least a little silly to have ever even considered that it could. Really think about it. If "resembles (that) God" means "having similar character traits", then the proposition is that everyone has those character traits. And if we're trying to use that to promote true quality among all people, then we must first assume all people equally demonstrate those traits. Personally, I can't think of any qualities (not even one) where all humans equally demonstrate that quality. Can you? Further, if we assume it's a reference to character traits, then: We can't be talking about "all humans". There isn't a meaningful trait that all humans demonstrate but which no other creatures demonstrate. In fact, I've known a lot of sociopaths, psychopaths, and clinical narcissists. I've also met a lot of severely mentally handicapped people. I've even stumbled across a few people who were in a coma (when I was doing medical training in a hospital). So then I have to ask: Which "godly" traits are any of those people resembling? Actually, now that I think about it, I'm just going to grant the "resembles God" idea for people who are in a coma. Christians may be onto something there.
Although, if we're honest about the actual character traits of the "Biblical God", then: We still can't be talking about "all humans", because: The only people who reason and behave like Bible-God are psychopaths and clinical narcissists. Whereas, if we're talking about a literal "looks like God", then: the claim is: We all have value because of our grand aesthetic. But this too is far too ambiguous to useful. Worse yet, the moment we try to make it specific is the moment we start generating inequality; because some people will be closer to that aesthetic than others. In any case, ... Aesthetic-spirituality and emotion-spirituality are two sides of the same coin. It's a way of romanticizing neuro-chemically-drugged highs and the stimuli which trigger those highs. Those mental states are usually caused by sensory stimuli.
As examples, it can be caused by something radiantly golden, white, pristine, symmetrical, or rhythmic. From that, we get bible writers repeatedly pushing a connection between: a.) that which is golden, white, and radiant with b.) that which is then obviously "divine".
.jpg)
From that, we got various European and American religious faction's buying more easily into the later-developed idea of skin-color-based racism. Examples: 1. Mormon founders boasting of their obvious "spiritual" merits of being "white and delightsome", while decrying dark skin as "the curse of Ham". Granted, for those with eyes to see it, "black IS beautiful". But those men couldn't see that beauty; at least, not so much as they could appreciate the beauty of being light-skinned. Through those white men's eyes, the less "white and delightsome" someone was, the less "in the image of God" they were. As a result, the idea of respecting humans based on "being created in the likeness of God" became a license to judge and devalue people based on how they look. "Created in the image of God" was the ideological root of Mormon racism; because: everyone bore a likeness of "God" ... but not equally. Even those who said it was equally-so were often employing the "Animal Farm" model of equality.
So then the possible intent of the author along with the hype of Christian marketing both remain disconnected from the reality of that mantra's effect on believers. 2. Eventually, skin-color-based racism became popular among fair-skinned Christians. We do currently see that trend in steep decline. However, color-based racism still lingers (as common) among Conservative Evangelical churches. Let's not forget. The Southern Baptist Convention (co-founders of the KKK and parent organization of all American Evangelical churches) was actually founded (in part) on: skin-color, ethnic, nationalistic, political, and religion-based racisms. However, the origins of human prejudice are also partly biological. Biology is the root cause of the "moral" condemnation meant by the phrase "if it makes us puke, we must rebuke". That entire way of thinking was originally caused by the unfortunate result of un-guided biological evolution. Although, if some Christian-fundamentalist wants to object and shout "Evolution is false. Our God designed and created us 'as we are'!", then their "God" becomes automatically indicted as guilty of embedding the roots of racism in our DNA.
Granted, some Christians may actually be pulled away from various forms of racism per their understanding of what it means for everyone to be created "in the image of (or "likeness of") God". My point is: it was an irresponsibly uncareful idiom; which has done more to foster racism as it has done to lure people away from racism. Some arbitrarily isolated sayings in bibles can be interpreted in a way that promotes respect for all other people-groups. But historically, that's not usually how it worked out. Neither were those writers really trying to promote truly equal value for all people. [In fact, here's a clip from Dr Elaine Pagles [link to her wiki] explaining how the book of "Revelation" has sown violently murderous, hateful extremism among "believers" for thousands of years. [link]] Nor do today's fundamentalists and moderates really understand what it means to actually love and respect outsiders; or even each other, or even themselves. Granted, some progressive religious people have more-or-less caught up to their secular-values counterparts (secular humanists). But that's exactly why nobody should be talking about "Christianity" as-if it's one specific ideology, culture, or people-group. The video's author is pretending it's all those things; when it's really none of those things. They are also presuming to speak with authority on a.) what "a real Christian" is, b.) what various texts really mean, and c.) how those texts were meant to be applied to later-century-reader's views and values. That has led to the video's author invoking the "No True Christians" fallacy (aka: the "No Trust Scotsman" fallacy), along with: the fallacy of "scriptural univocality", and the fallacy of "the meaning is clear", and the falsehood of "the meaning is ethical". Also present is a virtual mountain of: lies of omission. Christian apologists are hoping you don't dive deep into the big-thick-book of fine-print called "The Bible". Because then potential buyers might discover a vast assortment of blatantly pro-harm aggressions towards all outsiders. Granted, at least the video's narrator does mention the countless-many morally 'insufficient' insiders. But in doing so, he dishonestly identifies those people as outsiders. Further, he dishonestly quote-mines various bible writers to create the illusion that: Bible writers, univocally, were basing their *criteria* of real-vs-fake believers based on the idea that: "real" believers prioritize and exemplify: the ethic of equitable justice, along with: honoring and protecting (as equals) the wellbeing of all people across the world. Whereas, he posits that fake-believers are the people who fail that standard. But none of that is true. In reality, 1. Bible writers were not writing univocally. They each had their own personal views and values. 2. NONE of those writers based "real vs fake" believers on those criteria. He even slipped in an extra lie. But it's a very standard and necessary lie. He is equating the believers who wrote those texts and the fellow believers whom they wrote about (in those texts) to: "Christians". Now, he realizes that's not really true. If you listen to that part of the video, he starts to say the word "Christians" and stops himself before he finishes saying that word. He doesn't want to draw critical listeners' attention to that claim. He knows he would get Fact-Checked. And that's a problem because he knows it's not true. None of the Hebrew-religious texts were Christians. And as for the "New Testament" writers, they were only in the process of gradually creating Christianity. Just as importantly, they didn't actually intend to. "Gospel" writers wrote from the perspective of trying to fix JUDAISM; not creating or revealing a replacement. Christian apologists depend on listeners to make that common mistake. They're pretending that those writers were promoting a religion that (in reality) didn't even exist yet. Paul laid the groundwork. Later writers built something even more bizarre on top of that. But those were proto or pre-cursors to the Christianities (plural) that later developed. The religions people call "Christianity" today did not exist in the 1st century. Even the character "Jesus" was not a Christian. Nor was he attempting to create Christianity. He came only for the Jews. He was trying to fix Judaism; not issue in a replacement. Those writers were part of the early stages of creating Christianity; by creatively-writing concepts into existence that (in contradiction to their intentions) future churches would build something else with. It was very similar to how ancient writers wrote fictions to create the "Hebrews" who didn't actually exist yet. But the key difference there is: The writers who were using creative fictions to write the new Hebrew religion into existence ... were doing that on purpose and creating that effect directly. Whereas, the "gospel" writers were trying to re-imagine what Judaism (an already existing religion) 'aught to be'. It wasn't yet really the same thing as what we call "Christianity". Also present in the video (shown at the beginning of this blog): The fallacy of false-dichotomy; painting the entire realm of humanity as being divided into two allegedly well-defined people-groups called "Christians" and "atheists".
This one makes me smile a bit.
It reminds me of how America's political "Conservatives" keep forgetting Nordic countries exist; every time they want to:
their church's own non-extremists (aka "the lukewarm"),
women (as lesser to men),
and children as moldable clay without rights to self-determination.
That's not even close to the entire list.
More importantly,
many Christians are still doing those things.
And that's because:
Bibles really do set those examples.
--
If some specific believer
reads some specific book, chapter and verse,
and comes away with a personal ethic that MATCHES that same ethic that humanity got from the SECULAR enlightenment,
then that's just peachy.
Usually, to get a GOOD ideal from a biblical passage, the reader has to mispresent what it says.
One example:
Revelation 7:9
The Great Multitude in White Robes
Now, if you directly ask a Christian "do you think Christians are better than anyone else?", they'll say "of course not".
However,
the transition of person(s)
from:
not-best
to:
best
means they do think the people who make that transition are becoming a better people.
And yet,
if you read that article,
you'll see that he recognizes that Christianity HAS, in fact, often been a violently destructive and bigoted colonizing machine.
So when exactly are the Christian people-group the "Best"?
Always?
Or only when they finesse their way into an ideal balance of respect and disrespect for others?
That web-page author does tell us what the ideal balance between respect and disrespect should be.
This is how he sorts it out:
The colonizing machine called "Christianity" should be changing only however much needs to change in those cultures
to bring them into full compliance with fundamentalist Christianity;
-no more than that,
-no less than that.
So then foreign cultures should be encouraged to keep their traditional clothing styles. Unless that clothing is offensively showing too much skin.
And they should be allowed to keep their architecture. Except the stuff that honors other gods or rival views and values.
And they should be allowed to keep their native language. Except converted into using it the way Christianity uses words.
And they should be allowed to keep some of their decorative marriage customs. But then converted to a Christian-compatible version of marriage concepts and practices.
They can keep any 'ways of thinking' that are already the same as Christianity; like how it's bad to steal unless you're the government. [BTW, Christianity will now become part of your government, as it gradually replaces non-Christians in that government.]
Those people cannot keep any ways of thinking and living that are incompatible with Christianity.
Thus, any such art and literature should be considered "worldly"; and (in some cases) "demonic",
Thank God for selectively-kindled bonfires.
Hence, a "new birth" and a "new creation" of culture.
It will look and feel similar to how those cultures used to, but the the offensive parts will be stripped away;
gutted from those cultures.
And Christian-best-ness will be added in their place.
.jpg)
- Although, not by direct force.
Instead,
via:
* the psychological violence of Christian doctrine,
and
* the gradual hijacking of political systems, mass-media and social media,
and
* cognitive manipulation via:
Bite Model cult-tactics
and the clinical Narcissist's unwritten handbook.
[Don't skip the chapter about Love-Bombing. It's essential.]
-All while the Christian master-race "lovingly instructs" all new sheep on how they should be;
on the premise of Christian moral superiority and "authority".
As natives are converted,
they'll cooperate 'of their own volition';
so as not to anger the "lovingly" violent God of Christianity.
To help support their cultural war of "peaceful" attrition,
Christian fundamentalists quote "“every tribe, every tongue, every people, every nation.”
let's not pretend
a more modern and evolved form of colonizing validates the larger and complex criminal grift that is the true core of traditional Christianity.
--
Evangelizing Christianity
always was
and still is
a racketeering scheme.
"Submit! (to us)
Or else we won't be able to protect you from what our boss (that we invented) will do to you if you don't submit".
It's also a psychologically violent MLM (Multi-Level Marketing scheme) that sells fraudulent afterlife fire insurance.
Those churches and those books
do a lot of harm.
.jfif)
The available motivators for that are obvious.
It helps Christianity thrive and spread
if they can perpetuate a social market of ignorant panic-shoppers to panic-buy their mentally-enslaving bullshit.
Their leaders know something that only a few sheep are clued in about.
The healthier a society is,
the less literal-"God"-inclined that society will be.
[link]
Fundamentalist-religious mafias cannot thrive in a healthy and mature society.
So they make great efforts to prevent any entrenched society from maturing and healing.
To justify that behavior,
they point out something they're actually correct about:
Intense and prolonged suffering
often drives people into Christianity.
Therefor, they reason:
Suffering is good.
And more suffering is more good.
But if we really want to be decent human beings,
then we need to understand the basics of what it means to be a decent human being.
Rationalizing, worsening, and/or exploiting rampant suffering ...
is not how we mature into decent human beings.
Sabotaging children's education isn't either.
and manipulating people into toxic ideas of "love",
...
You're holding victims back from maturing into a healthy understanding of love.
You're also putting young people in great danger. Because:
If they think that's what a healthy relationship looks like,
then they'll be compromised in their ability to recognize abuse
when they end up dating or marrying.
It may even cause a church-community to put pressure on abused young adults to stay with their abusers.
In fact, that happens quite often.
--
Your "God" is a culturally-created, mentally constructed Narcissist.
Your churches are the actual and collective narcissist which speaks THROUGH that fabricate puppet-king.
Their preachers, apologists, missionaries, and child-indoctrinators are actually their "flying monkeys".
--
Telling people to seat their identity and worth within the hands of that conceptualized "Father"
...
is a very very bad idea.
I don't get my value from the ways in which I resemble your "God".
I get my true value from:
the ways in which
I differ from monsters.
And even if you don't realize it,
so do you.
a.) oversimplify,
b.) false-dichotomize,
and
c.) demonize:
"the" rival economic model (the imaginary economic model they interchangeably call "socialism", "communism", and "Marxism").
vs
the perfection of:
free-market capitalism
(because: Fuck the environment. And fuck the poor. And fuck the losers who can't afford to buy bottled-air after all the trees are gone)
combined
with generous annual welfare for Billion-dollar corporations.
Moving forward from there, ... I think we need to dwell on this point for a moment. Bibles are not univocal. So then, even if a specific block of texts either: a.) meant to convey a very helpful ideal or b.) is misunderstood to convey a very helpful ideal [in this case, a sentiment which pulls 'submissive readers' more safely way from the risk of consequential "othering"] ... We'd still have a serious problem to contend with. Because: Other blocks of texts within the same collection pull countless-many 'submissive readers' even harder into the sort of "othering" that devalues the lives of people outside of their own religious-cultural demographic. More importantly, Christianity is based on the core ideal that non-Christians are all worthless EXCEPT for their 'potential worth' as prospective future Christians. I realize this isn't clearly obvious from INSIDE OF fundamentalist (and moderate) Christianity. But it's very clearly obvious from the outside looking in. Christianity doesn't merely 'allow for' racism. It doesn't even just incentive racism. It actually IS racism. By racism, we're talking about: The "othering" of any people-group(s) based on: 1. artificial criteria, and 2. misinformed criteria, where (more importantly) 3. the lives and wellbeing of those "others" becomes less respected and less valued than the lives of people inside the evaluator's own people group. Christianity IS racism.
For strategic marketing purposes, ... They seek to distract outsiders away from noticing the glaringly obvious implications of treating an exclusive people-group as a RACE, ... and, worse yet, as a *Master Race, in an ideologically-defined social and cosmic *hierarchy, who seeks the institution of a literal kingdom, which prescribes "as necessary" the "final solution" of the literal and violent killing and casual disposal (tossing people away like trash forever; soon to be forgotten) of: everyone who "when the time comes" isn't a member in good standing within their exclusive people-group.
Many such Christians plan to let their "God" take out the trash. However, many others gleefully look for ways to bring about a literal end of the world; expecting to be raptured up into God's super-stealthy, golden, cube-castle, spaceship before they themselves die. -- They shout, to get our attention, about the LOVE and ACCEPTANCE they all have (or, at least, imagine having) for EACH OTHER; the people inside of their exclusively-valuable people-group. "We are good to each other". "We accept each other". Now, setting side that fact that they don't really live up to the hype they shower upon themselves, ... What should any of that be worth to outsiders? For example, I'm not impressed by the "brotherly love and acceptance" shared between KKK members. I don't give a shit about how respectful they are about each other. The same holds true for any other religious people-group. I feel the same every time I read in the Hebrew religious texts. According to the Hebrew-religious texts, only their exclusive nationalist, ideological, and ethical people-group deserved to even exist. I don't care how well you pretend to respect each other. It's your profound lack of respectfully positive value-uation for outsiders that disqualifies you from lecturing outsiders about safeguarding themselves against the slippery slopes of 'othering'. -- On entirely ugly, artificial, and misinformed grounds, ... fundamentalist-Christianity (Protestants, Catholics, and quasi-independents) along with their "moderates", posit that: The lives and wellbeing of people within their own people-group have greater value (in fact, infinitely greater value) than everyone outside of their people-group; EXCEPT for the "potential value" of anyone who isn't a Christian "if only" any given outsider has a good enough "heart" (moral character) that they'd eventually graduate INTO that value; by becoming a Christian. -- It starts with the idea that "Without God, I am nothing".
By that, they mean: "Without this kind of relationship with this very specific and exclusively-true God, a person is nothing". They're talking about the absolute WORTH of the person. They're using that as: the only true foundation for the worth of EVERY person. As such, it includes our worth-iness of love, and respect, and even our worth-iness to even exist; let alone to exist in good health.
Now, go back and study the entire history of Christianity and in relationship to violence.
I don't just mean direct physical violence.
Although, there's been no shortage of that.
Psychological violence counts the same.
Injuries which result from colonizing counts the same.
Christianity is built upon a multi-layered foundation of destructive othering.
For starters,
they 'othered' everyone they accused of wrong-think.
Now, they can SAY it's the same thing "atheists" do. However,
1. Christians supposed to be setting the highest example.
So then,
we aught not indulge
the clever distraction of Whataboutism.
2. I've never heard an "atheist" say Christians deserve "eternal damnation" for wrong-think.
Even the few historic non-theist dictators
who killed a bunch of religious people
weren't doing that "in the name of atheism",
nor "because of atheism".
Mafias have simply never tolerated rival mafias operating independently on their own turf.
Christian-fundamentalist churches are mafias.
More specifically,
they are organized criminal syndicates
which can only thrive in turfs where they are privileged;
above all other citizens
and above all other criminal syndicates.
Sometimes a mafia forms without a theistic-premise.
When that happens, a mafia's leaders must decide if they can make good use of locally failed theistic-mafias.
Even then, those few non-theistic mafias didn't kill anyone for wrong-think.
Their policy was 'think what you want. But if you actively take a stand against us, expect swift reprisal'.
Now, I don't approve of any mafia.
I don't approve of killing people to win a turf war.
But my point is:
I remain unimpressed when modern religious-mafia-apologists pose as beacons of virtue.
Let us not forget
when Christianity othered the mental ill as being "spiritually ill".
And then they blamed those poor souls for "bringing that upon themselves" for not being "spiritual" enough.
They've also 'othered':
people of sexually liberated (mutually consensual) interests and practices,
people of sexually autonomous identities,
non-God-invokers,
all rival religions,
rival sects within their own religiosphere,
Moving forward from there, ... I think we need to dwell on this point for a moment. Bibles are not univocal. So then, even if a specific block of texts either: a.) meant to convey a very helpful ideal or b.) is misunderstood to convey a very helpful ideal [in this case, a sentiment which pulls 'submissive readers' more safely way from the risk of consequential "othering"] ... We'd still have a serious problem to contend with. Because: Other blocks of texts within the same collection pull countless-many 'submissive readers' even harder into the sort of "othering" that devalues the lives of people outside of their own religious-cultural demographic. More importantly, Christianity is based on the core ideal that non-Christians are all worthless EXCEPT for their 'potential worth' as prospective future Christians. I realize this isn't clearly obvious from INSIDE OF fundamentalist (and moderate) Christianity. But it's very clearly obvious from the outside looking in. Christianity doesn't merely 'allow for' racism. It doesn't even just incentive racism. It actually IS racism. By racism, we're talking about: The "othering" of any people-group(s) based on: 1. artificial criteria, and 2. misinformed criteria, where (more importantly) 3. the lives and wellbeing of those "others" becomes less respected and less valued than the lives of people inside the evaluator's own people group. Christianity IS racism.
For strategic marketing purposes, ... They seek to distract outsiders away from noticing the glaringly obvious implications of treating an exclusive people-group as a RACE, ... and, worse yet, as a *Master Race, in an ideologically-defined social and cosmic *hierarchy, who seeks the institution of a literal kingdom, which prescribes "as necessary" the "final solution" of the literal and violent killing and casual disposal (tossing people away like trash forever; soon to be forgotten) of: everyone who "when the time comes" isn't a member in good standing within their exclusive people-group.
Many such Christians plan to let their "God" take out the trash. However, many others gleefully look for ways to bring about a literal end of the world; expecting to be raptured up into God's super-stealthy, golden, cube-castle, spaceship before they themselves die. -- They shout, to get our attention, about the LOVE and ACCEPTANCE they all have (or, at least, imagine having) for EACH OTHER; the people inside of their exclusively-valuable people-group. "We are good to each other". "We accept each other". Now, setting side that fact that they don't really live up to the hype they shower upon themselves, ... What should any of that be worth to outsiders? For example, I'm not impressed by the "brotherly love and acceptance" shared between KKK members. I don't give a shit about how respectful they are about each other. The same holds true for any other religious people-group. I feel the same every time I read in the Hebrew religious texts. According to the Hebrew-religious texts, only their exclusive nationalist, ideological, and ethical people-group deserved to even exist. I don't care how well you pretend to respect each other. It's your profound lack of respectfully positive value-uation for outsiders that disqualifies you from lecturing outsiders about safeguarding themselves against the slippery slopes of 'othering'. -- On entirely ugly, artificial, and misinformed grounds, ... fundamentalist-Christianity (Protestants, Catholics, and quasi-independents) along with their "moderates", posit that: The lives and wellbeing of people within their own people-group have greater value (in fact, infinitely greater value) than everyone outside of their people-group; EXCEPT for the "potential value" of anyone who isn't a Christian "if only" any given outsider has a good enough "heart" (moral character) that they'd eventually graduate INTO that value; by becoming a Christian. -- It starts with the idea that "Without God, I am nothing".
By that, they mean: "Without this kind of relationship with this very specific and exclusively-true God, a person is nothing". They're talking about the absolute WORTH of the person. They're using that as: the only true foundation for the worth of EVERY person. As such, it includes our worth-iness of love, and respect, and even our worth-iness to even exist; let alone to exist in good health.
Now, go back and study the entire history of Christianity and in relationship to violence.
I don't just mean direct physical violence.
Although, there's been no shortage of that.
Psychological violence counts the same.
Injuries which result from colonizing counts the same.
Christianity is built upon a multi-layered foundation of destructive othering.
For starters,
they 'othered' everyone they accused of wrong-think.
Now, they can SAY it's the same thing "atheists" do. However,
1. Christians supposed to be setting the highest example.
So then,
we aught not indulge
the clever distraction of Whataboutism.
2. I've never heard an "atheist" say Christians deserve "eternal damnation" for wrong-think.
Even the few historic non-theist dictators
who killed a bunch of religious people
weren't doing that "in the name of atheism",
nor "because of atheism".
Mafias have simply never tolerated rival mafias operating independently on their own turf.
Christian-fundamentalist churches are mafias.
More specifically,
they are organized criminal syndicates
which can only thrive in turfs where they are privileged;
above all other citizens
and above all other criminal syndicates.
Sometimes a mafia forms without a theistic-premise.
When that happens, a mafia's leaders must decide if they can make good use of locally failed theistic-mafias.
Even then, those few non-theistic mafias didn't kill anyone for wrong-think.
Their policy was 'think what you want. But if you actively take a stand against us, expect swift reprisal'.
Now, I don't approve of any mafia.
I don't approve of killing people to win a turf war.
But my point is:
I remain unimpressed when modern religious-mafia-apologists pose as beacons of virtue.
Let us not forget
when Christianity othered the mental ill as being "spiritually ill".
And then they blamed those poor souls for "bringing that upon themselves" for not being "spiritual" enough.
They've also 'othered':
people of sexually liberated (mutually consensual) interests and practices,
people of sexually autonomous identities,
non-God-invokers,
all rival religions,
rival sects within their own religiosphere,
their church's own non-extremists (aka "the lukewarm"),
women (as lesser to men),
and children as moldable clay without rights to self-determination.
That's not even close to the entire list.
More importantly,
many Christians are still doing those things.
And that's because:
Bibles really do set those examples.
--
If some specific believer
reads some specific book, chapter and verse,
and comes away with a personal ethic that MATCHES that same ethic that humanity got from the SECULAR enlightenment,
then that's just peachy.
Usually, to get a GOOD ideal from a biblical passage, the reader has to mispresent what it says.
One example:
Revelation 7:9
The Great Multitude in White Robes
Notice how "the great multitude" is a great multitude of people in an exclusive people-group.
Notice also how "white robes" is another appeal to aesthetic morality;
the very same moral premise promoted by the phrase "created in God's image".
"After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands."
If you Google the phrase " “every tribe, every tongue, every people, every nation.”,...
you'll get an entire page of results
from Christian authors
quoting that passage out of context.
They're trying to falsely create the impression that Bible writers were promoting great and equal respect for all people across all cultures.
Some even go so far as to cite that quote as a call against racism.
But you might notice something else about those pages.
They quote from Revelation 7:9.
But instead of telling you which book, chapter, and verse they're quoting from, they immediately try to distract you with other citations and commentaries.
In fact, here's a good example of that dishonest marketing:
[link]
To quote from that page,
"The Bible does not advocate a “one size fits all” Christian culture but rather a diversity that describes the Kingdom of God as the wonderful unity of people from “every tribe, every tongue, every people, every nation.”
Notice the word "from".
It means "from out of".
The writer of that web article is quoting a passage from Revelation.
He's trying to paint that as promoting multicultural respect.
But it's not.
That verse was about extracting people from the cultures they got wrongly absorbed into.
The writer's people had recently been absorbed INTO foreign demographics;
because of being conquered and scattered.
That greatly distressed him.
So he imagined a future where God would pull those people back OUT and then re-assimilate them into the only valuable and legitimate people-group.
-the only legitimate heir-group.
-the only legitimate "sons" of his God.
In the webpage I linked us to,
the author has quote-mined his bible.
The writer of Revelation meant the OPPOSITE of what that Christian was trying to make it mean.
The author of Revelation was talking about where people are coming from, in his "vision".
He's not saying they will
nor that they should
remain diverse.
In fact, in that "vision", those people have already began to shed their diversity.
Thus, they are all in one place, wearing the same clothes, and worshiping the same god.
Here's another quote from that same page:
"Sharing the Good News of Jesus’ salvation does not require the obliteration of a culture, but should lead to its redemption."
Notice:
that Christian is talking the "redemption" of CULTURES;
via
a war of cultural attrition
where the culture is converted into having "redeeming" qualities.
And how?
By first converting enough of that culture's members
into having redeeming qualities.
And to make it extra-offensive, they don't mean superficial qualities. We can leave those intact.
It's the meaningful qualities that need to be deleted and replaced with Christian exceptionalism.
That writer continues:
"When the Gospel of Jesus is received by a social group, change invariably happens. Jesus himself described this transformation as “everlasting life,” “rivers of living water,” “new birth.”
It's about people and culture becoming best."
Now, if you directly ask a Christian "do you think Christians are better than anyone else?", they'll say "of course not".
However,
the transition of person(s)
from:
not-best
to:
best
means they do think the people who make that transition are becoming a better people.
And yet,
if you read that article,
you'll see that he recognizes that Christianity HAS, in fact, often been a violently destructive and bigoted colonizing machine.
So when exactly are the Christian people-group the "Best"?
Always?
Or only when they finesse their way into an ideal balance of respect and disrespect for others?
That web-page author does tell us what the ideal balance between respect and disrespect should be.
This is how he sorts it out:
The colonizing machine called "Christianity" should be changing only however much needs to change in those cultures
to bring them into full compliance with fundamentalist Christianity;
-no more than that,
-no less than that.
So then foreign cultures should be encouraged to keep their traditional clothing styles. Unless that clothing is offensively showing too much skin.
And they should be allowed to keep their architecture. Except the stuff that honors other gods or rival views and values.
And they should be allowed to keep their native language. Except converted into using it the way Christianity uses words.
And they should be allowed to keep some of their decorative marriage customs. But then converted to a Christian-compatible version of marriage concepts and practices.
They can keep any 'ways of thinking' that are already the same as Christianity; like how it's bad to steal unless you're the government. [BTW, Christianity will now become part of your government, as it gradually replaces non-Christians in that government.]
Those people cannot keep any ways of thinking and living that are incompatible with Christianity.
Thus, any such art and literature should be considered "worldly"; and (in some cases) "demonic",
Thank God for selectively-kindled bonfires.
Hence, a "new birth" and a "new creation" of culture.
It will look and feel similar to how those cultures used to, but the the offensive parts will be stripped away;
gutted from those cultures.
And Christian-best-ness will be added in their place.
.jpg)
Instead,
via:
* the psychological violence of Christian doctrine,
and
* the gradual hijacking of political systems, mass-media and social media,
and
* cognitive manipulation via:
Bite Model cult-tactics
and the clinical Narcissist's unwritten handbook.
[Don't skip the chapter about Love-Bombing. It's essential.]
-All while the Christian master-race "lovingly instructs" all new sheep on how they should be;
on the premise of Christian moral superiority and "authority".
As natives are converted,
they'll cooperate 'of their own volition';
so as not to anger the "lovingly" violent God of Christianity.
To help support their cultural war of "peaceful" attrition,
Christian fundamentalists quote "“every tribe, every tongue, every people, every nation.”
But they usually won't to tell you which book and verse they got it from.
They're worried someone might to look it up, read the context, and realize it's not promoting respect for other people.
Revelations 7:9 is talking about the idea of people coming FROM/OUT OF other cultures and INTO the one true and supreme people-group.
[theologically and culturally repaired Jews; not the later-invented Christians]
In fact, Revelation is a polemic written against Rome.
It's a Jewish militant's dream of revenge and vindication against their cultural enemies.
Rome DID earn that hate. But let's not pretend that book is some sort of Christian call for multiculturalism.
Let's also not pretend that colonizing cultural attrition is really the same as respecting other cultures.
let's not pretend
a more modern and evolved form of colonizing validates the larger and complex criminal grift that is the true core of traditional Christianity.
--
Evangelizing Christianity
always was
and still is
a racketeering scheme.
"Submit! (to us)
Or else we won't be able to protect you from what our boss (that we invented) will do to you if you don't submit".
It's also a psychologically violent MLM (Multi-Level Marketing scheme) that sells fraudulent afterlife fire insurance.
Those churches and those books
do a lot of harm.
The available motivators for that are obvious.
It helps Christianity thrive and spread
if they can perpetuate a social market of ignorant panic-shoppers to panic-buy their mentally-enslaving bullshit.
Their leaders know something that only a few sheep are clued in about.
The healthier a society is,
the less literal-"God"-inclined that society will be.
[link]
Fundamentalist-religious mafias cannot thrive in a healthy and mature society.
So they make great efforts to prevent any entrenched society from maturing and healing.
To justify that behavior,
they point out something they're actually correct about:
Intense and prolonged suffering
often drives people into Christianity.
Therefor, they reason:
Suffering is good.
And more suffering is more good.
But if we really want to be decent human beings,
then we need to understand the basics of what it means to be a decent human being.
Rationalizing, worsening, and/or exploiting rampant suffering ...
is not how we mature into decent human beings.
Sabotaging children's education isn't either.
Furthermore,
people do NOT need to be told "true VALUE" comes from the ways in which you resemble the Magic Dad In The Sky;
- especially not if we care about animal rights.
People should NOT have the seat (or 'locus') of their identity and worth displaced outside of themselves; creating a dependence on being validated by a super-parent (and validated by those whom gather and speak "in his name").
People do NOT need to be taught to base their sense of identity and worth
on the validation of a parental figure.
People should not be instilled with self-loathing about their physical self and natural desires.
People should not be manipulated into thinking they are sin-cursed from a fictional "first two humans".
People should not be manipulated into thinking they are sin-stained by past mistakes; just so your predatory religion can sell them a lifetime and expensive subscription to an imaginary stain-lifter.
People should not be manipulated into thinking they are guilty of "wrongs" that aren't actually wrongs either;
like lust and coveting.
People should not be told they owe their creator a groveling apology and a moral "debt" for how that creator chose to make them.
If a creator-Being made me imperfect, then he owes me an apology and a moral debt for the consequences of that decision;
-not the other way around.
People should not be compared to the mostly-nebulous and otherwise-impossible standard of "perfection", just so they can be be found 'lacking', just so you can sell them some relief.
That means:
Children and young adults
should be kept away from Bibles
for the same exact reason
they should be kept away from "Beauty Magazines".
People should not be beaten down into self-loathing just so some predatory, white-knight religion can then sell them relief from the same loathing that religion caused in the first place.
Instead, people need to be nurtured into compassion; for others and for themselves.
They need to be helped into maturation.
- So they can fully appreciate
the ethic of personal responsibility;
- instead of being taught to evade accountability via mentally transferring our moral debts onto an innocent scapegoat.
Nor should people then be GAS LIT by telling them that:
evading accountability for their failings and misdeeds
count as "accepting responsibility".
Inversely,
that same cult-of-Narcissism
teaches people:
actually accepting responsibility should be seen as "dodging responsibility".
From there, your apologists build onto that gaslighting;
by accusing disinterested-persons and critics of:
refusing to JOIN your religion "for the real reason" of:
wanting to evade accountability for our failings and misdeeds.
The worst of you even take that gaslighting a step further, by describing your religion as "totally not a religion";
as if they don't own a dictionary.
That's so they can market their ideological product as "totally not" the thing it actually is;
because of the bad that rep that religion (and religion in general) actually has earned.
Anyone clear-headed enough to cut easily through that gas-lit fog
will easily realize:
IF they really wanted to avoid accountability for their own failings and misdeeds, ... they would become a Christian. Because that's what it's for.
- a permanently clean slate, no matter what you've done. And all you have to do is "accept the offer" for Jesus to transfer your moral debts onto him.
Anyone who wants to "keep on sinning and getting away with it" would become a Christian.
Whereas, anyone who realizes how stupidly irresponsible, weirdly cult-religious, and blatantly irrational that proposition is ... would remain SECULAR and thus embrace personal responsibility.
--
People also need to be taught the functional necessity of both:
social equality and social equity.
Instead, your cult manufactures and distributes counterfeit badges of moral authority;
along with a soap-box upon which to stand and posture.
With that comes a grossly unequal, "superior" social dichotomy,
where the speaker presumes their voice aught to carry infinitely more weight;
as the voice of everyone's "God".
People need to be helped into the understanding that they can "die to their former selves", be "born anew" (as adults), and EARN a clean slate,
by:
1. owning their failings
and
working to BECOME someone who either:
a.) no longer has those failings
or
b.) no longer lets those failings hurt others.
- And then
people do NOT need to be told "true VALUE" comes from the ways in which you resemble the Magic Dad In The Sky;
- especially not if we care about animal rights.
People should NOT have the seat (or 'locus') of their identity and worth displaced outside of themselves; creating a dependence on being validated by a super-parent (and validated by those whom gather and speak "in his name").
People do NOT need to be taught to base their sense of identity and worth
on the validation of a parental figure.
People should not be instilled with self-loathing about their physical self and natural desires.
People should not be manipulated into thinking they are sin-cursed from a fictional "first two humans".
People should not be manipulated into thinking they are sin-stained by past mistakes; just so your predatory religion can sell them a lifetime and expensive subscription to an imaginary stain-lifter.
People should not be manipulated into thinking they are guilty of "wrongs" that aren't actually wrongs either;
like lust and coveting.
People should not be told they owe their creator a groveling apology and a moral "debt" for how that creator chose to make them.
If a creator-Being made me imperfect, then he owes me an apology and a moral debt for the consequences of that decision;
-not the other way around.
People should not be compared to the mostly-nebulous and otherwise-impossible standard of "perfection", just so they can be be found 'lacking', just so you can sell them some relief.
That means:
Children and young adults
should be kept away from Bibles
for the same exact reason
they should be kept away from "Beauty Magazines".
People should not be beaten down into self-loathing just so some predatory, white-knight religion can then sell them relief from the same loathing that religion caused in the first place.
Instead, people need to be nurtured into compassion; for others and for themselves.
They need to be helped into maturation.
- So they can fully appreciate
the ethic of personal responsibility;
- instead of being taught to evade accountability via mentally transferring our moral debts onto an innocent scapegoat.
Nor should people then be GAS LIT by telling them that:
evading accountability for their failings and misdeeds
count as "accepting responsibility".
Inversely,
that same cult-of-Narcissism
teaches people:
actually accepting responsibility should be seen as "dodging responsibility".
From there, your apologists build onto that gaslighting;
by accusing disinterested-persons and critics of:
refusing to JOIN your religion "for the real reason" of:
wanting to evade accountability for our failings and misdeeds.
The worst of you even take that gaslighting a step further, by describing your religion as "totally not a religion";
as if they don't own a dictionary.
That's so they can market their ideological product as "totally not" the thing it actually is;
because of the bad that rep that religion (and religion in general) actually has earned.
Anyone clear-headed enough to cut easily through that gas-lit fog
will easily realize:
IF they really wanted to avoid accountability for their own failings and misdeeds, ... they would become a Christian. Because that's what it's for.
- a permanently clean slate, no matter what you've done. And all you have to do is "accept the offer" for Jesus to transfer your moral debts onto him.
Anyone who wants to "keep on sinning and getting away with it" would become a Christian.
Whereas, anyone who realizes how stupidly irresponsible, weirdly cult-religious, and blatantly irrational that proposition is ... would remain SECULAR and thus embrace personal responsibility.
--
People also need to be taught the functional necessity of both:
social equality and social equity.
Instead, your cult manufactures and distributes counterfeit badges of moral authority;
along with a soap-box upon which to stand and posture.
With that comes a grossly unequal, "superior" social dichotomy,
where the speaker presumes their voice aught to carry infinitely more weight;
as the voice of everyone's "God".
People need to be helped into the understanding that they can "die to their former selves", be "born anew" (as adults), and EARN a clean slate,
by:
1. owning their failings
and
working to BECOME someone who either:
a.) no longer has those failings
or
b.) no longer lets those failings hurt others.
- And then
2. Making themselves available to "restorative justice" for the injuries they previously caused.
--
People need to be educated into understanding:
We are each an integral part of a larger living breathing whole;
a whole which includes all life on Earth and all energetic happenings within the universe.
Find joy, and clarity, and peace in that reality.
Stop dreaming of a day when you can ESCAPE a reality you could have made a healthy peace with.
Stop demonizing everyone who has made peace with it.
Stop supporting religious and political organizations that DIVIDE people in the name of "unity".
Stop posturing as everyone's would-be liberators
from various forms of loathing your capturers created in the first place.
By coercing people,
--
People need to be educated into understanding:
We are each an integral part of a larger living breathing whole;
a whole which includes all life on Earth and all energetic happenings within the universe.
Find joy, and clarity, and peace in that reality.
Stop dreaming of a day when you can ESCAPE a reality you could have made a healthy peace with.
Stop demonizing everyone who has made peace with it.
Stop supporting religious and political organizations that DIVIDE people in the name of "unity".
Stop posturing as everyone's would-be liberators
from various forms of loathing your capturers created in the first place.
By coercing people,
and manipulating people into toxic ideas of "love",
...
You're holding victims back from maturing into a healthy understanding of love.
You're also putting young people in great danger. Because:
If they think that's what a healthy relationship looks like,
then they'll be compromised in their ability to recognize abuse
when they end up dating or marrying.
It may even cause a church-community to put pressure on abused young adults to stay with their abusers.
In fact, that happens quite often.
--
Your "God" is a culturally-created, mentally constructed Narcissist.
Your churches are the actual and collective narcissist which speaks THROUGH that fabricate puppet-king.
Their preachers, apologists, missionaries, and child-indoctrinators are actually their "flying monkeys".
--
Telling people to seat their identity and worth within the hands of that conceptualized "Father"
...
is a very very bad idea.
I don't get my value from the ways in which I resemble your "God".
I get my true value from:
the ways in which
I differ from monsters.
And even if you don't realize it,
so do you.
Comments
Post a Comment