The Paradox of Tolerance; Why Christianity SHOULD BE ruthlessly mocked.
[First Draft]
Today's livestream; where I read and discussed this blog.
Someone, somewhere, started a discussion-thread
where they accused all Abrahamic religions of being obviously false, and mocked believers as being impressively irrational.
In reply,
one Christian wrote:
"It’s possible for you to have your beliefs without insulting others.
The way the events of my life have played out…..the peace of mind I feel during difficult times, tell me the Lord is at work in my life.
And I don’t require your approval to validate my beliefs."
1. It is possible for a non-religious person to be intellectually critical of any religion without mocking the religion(s) (or people within those religions) which the skeptic is critical of.
2. It doesn't help us bridge the divide,
nor does it encourage believers to re-examine their beliefs,
if we mock the people themselves; like publicly saying they all have a profound lack of (or: suppression of) critical thinking.
However, these points are important as well:
[new list]
1.
Christianity itself IS an insult to everyone;
even members, but then especially everyone else.
It's not possible to *BE* an Abrahamic-religious believer (or promoter)
without:
a.) clinging to
and
b.) promoting
Today's livestream; where I read and discussed this blog.
Someone, somewhere, started a discussion-thread
where they accused all Abrahamic religions of being obviously false, and mocked believers as being impressively irrational.
In reply,
one Christian wrote:
"It’s possible for you to have your beliefs without insulting others.
The way the events of my life have played out…..the peace of mind I feel during difficult times, tell me the Lord is at work in my life.
And I don’t require your approval to validate my beliefs."
--- In reply, I offer this: It's more than a little ironic that Christians think everyone-who-isn't-a-Christian requires Christianity's approval; under penalty of death (or worse) once Daddy gets home. It's equally ironic that IF we meet Christianity with civil respect, then we're automatically dignifying a grossly insulting grift that seeks to enslave and exploit us all. However,
I think you raised some important issues here.
1. It is possible for a non-religious person to be intellectually critical of any religion without mocking the religion(s) (or people within those religions) which the skeptic is critical of.
2. It doesn't help us bridge the divide,
nor does it encourage believers to re-examine their beliefs,
if we mock the people themselves; like publicly saying they all have a profound lack of (or: suppression of) critical thinking.
However, these points are important as well:
[new list]
1.
Christianity itself IS an insult to everyone;
even members, but then especially everyone else.
It's not possible to *BE* an Abrahamic-religious believer (or promoter)
without:
a.) clinging to
and
b.) promoting
insults
about all non-members.
Before I move onto the next point, I want to clarify something about this point.
This means that another non-religious skeptic
and/or
someone in a non-moral-authoritarian religion
can afford to *OBJECT* to mocking Abrahamic-religious believers.
However, ...
An Abrahamic-religious believer cannot afford to object to that mockery. Why not? Because that would be hypocritical. Why? Because (again) religions like Christianity and Islam are (at their core) religions that openly mock (and worse, to demonize and utterly devalue) outsiders.
Now, I realize some Christians and Muslims don't realize that's what their religions are doing. But it absolutely is what they're religions are doing.
They don't see my past or current value.
They only see my potential-future value as a member of their religion
(or their "totally not a religion"; as Christianity's latest marketing gimmick lies to us about).
Please note:
Criticisms about your religion are always offered in response TO your religion, as your religion pushes and schemes itself into every disinterested-person's life.
You aren't leaving people alone.
So you've left people no good option EXCEPT to push back.
So when someone criticizes your religion,
the point they are making is NOT that you need the critic's approval or validation.
They are pointing out that your religion (either with your active or passive support) is unqualified to keep demanding that anyone needs yours.
Your religion made itself our business.
And so did you, by supporting said religion in its efforts.
So ok. Fine. You wanted our attention.
You wanted us to hear, consider, and respond.
But then someone DOES, you act all indignant; like we're butting into YOUR life.
Provoke and deflect.
Provoke and deflect.
Stop trying to GET attention you don't want.
Stop supporting sociopolitical religious movements who demand that attention.
Stop helping your religion force people into a legitimate need to RESPOND.
And stop getting defensive when they do.
Or else expect to be mocked for it.
about all non-members.
Before I move onto the next point, I want to clarify something about this point.
This means that another non-religious skeptic
and/or
someone in a non-moral-authoritarian religion
can afford to *OBJECT* to mocking Abrahamic-religious believers.
However, ...
An Abrahamic-religious believer cannot afford to object to that mockery. Why not? Because that would be hypocritical. Why? Because (again) religions like Christianity and Islam are (at their core) religions that openly mock (and worse, to demonize and utterly devalue) outsiders.
Now, I realize some Christians and Muslims don't realize that's what their religions are doing. But it absolutely is what they're religions are doing.
They don't see my past or current value.
They only see my potential-future value as a member of their religion
(or their "totally not a religion"; as Christianity's latest marketing gimmick lies to us about).
Please note:
Criticisms about your religion are always offered in response TO your religion, as your religion pushes and schemes itself into every disinterested-person's life.
You aren't leaving people alone.
So you've left people no good option EXCEPT to push back.
So when someone criticizes your religion,
the point they are making is NOT that you need the critic's approval or validation.
They are pointing out that your religion (either with your active or passive support) is unqualified to keep demanding that anyone needs yours.
Your religion made itself our business.
And so did you, by supporting said religion in its efforts.
So ok. Fine. You wanted our attention.
You wanted us to hear, consider, and respond.
But then someone DOES, you act all indignant; like we're butting into YOUR life.
Provoke and deflect.
Provoke and deflect.
Stop trying to GET attention you don't want.
Stop supporting sociopolitical religious movements who demand that attention.
Stop helping your religion force people into a legitimate need to RESPOND.
And stop getting defensive when they do.
Or else expect to be mocked for it.
2. "Mockery of religion is essential".
Why? Because: Humans giving themselves permission to laugh at *authority ...
was the beginning of humanity's emancipation.
Such mockery continues to be essential as a catalyst for continuing personal and societal maturation.
[*especially authority which:
🅰.) does not wield it's premise-of-authority by true consent of people (literally everyone) whom it presumes the "moral" right to speak with moral authority over.
If it wanted to abide by consent in how it deals with non-members, they wouldn't be relentlessly pushing for national legislation that forces non-members to surrender to Christianity's religious beliefs AS laws [same as what happens in Muslim-controlled societies].
In fact, even their 'flocks of sheep" haven't given true consent. They've just been manipulated into thinking they have.
There are many ways in which this is true. But to give just two quick examples:
If someone signing into a contract (aka "a covenant") has not fully been informed about
ALL of the fine-print,
and/or
does not fully understand:
all the words,
or the contextual meaning of the words,
or the further implications and ramification of the commitments they are signing into BEFORE they sign into it,
then:
true consent has not transpired.
Also, if a THREAT is leveraged as part (even a tiny and whispered part) of the larger effort to get someone to sign into (or: to stay into) that life-time contract, then:
Why? Because: Humans giving themselves permission to laugh at *authority ...
was the beginning of humanity's emancipation.
Such mockery continues to be essential as a catalyst for continuing personal and societal maturation.
[*especially authority which:
🅰.) does not wield it's premise-of-authority by true consent of people (literally everyone) whom it presumes the "moral" right to speak with moral authority over.
If it wanted to abide by consent in how it deals with non-members, they wouldn't be relentlessly pushing for national legislation that forces non-members to surrender to Christianity's religious beliefs AS laws [same as what happens in Muslim-controlled societies].
In fact, even their 'flocks of sheep" haven't given true consent. They've just been manipulated into thinking they have.
There are many ways in which this is true. But to give just two quick examples:
If someone signing into a contract (aka "a covenant") has not fully been informed about
ALL of the fine-print,
and/or
does not fully understand:
all the words,
or the contextual meaning of the words,
or the further implications and ramification of the commitments they are signing into BEFORE they sign into it,
then:
true consent has not transpired.
Also, if a THREAT is leveraged as part (even a tiny and whispered part) of the larger effort to get someone to sign into (or: to stay into) that life-time contract, then:
true consent is not in play.
Calling any threat "a friendly warning" does not negate this point.
In fact, this is what qualifies Christianity as a racketeering scheme.
🅱.) employs gross degrees of psychological violence as a means to capture and mold especially vulnerable and extra-malleable minds,
🅲.) Systematically generates intense SHAME
so that they'll have something so crippling to "rescue" you from.
Adding further insult to injury,
they dishonestly market that as "we liberate people from the shackles of shame".
It's dishonest because:
They are distracting you away from the fact that:
In most cases,
they intentionally cause that shame in the first place.
In other words,
they built those shame shackles.
And then they mentally clasp those onto their victims.
Granted, some few people arrive pre-shackled.
But then it becomes the Christian's goal to take advantage of that; by purchasing you from your owner (the ghost of those whom pre-captured and still torture your ego).
From there, they are moving you into a different set of shackles; as the means-by-which you "give thanks" and "stay free" of the shackles they freed you from.
Worse yet,
quite often,
a lot of the shame isn't even based on anything the target should feel bad about;
-such as:
* imaginary crimes of hurting an imaginary Being's feelings about a list of completely arbitrary pet-peeves; such as "coveting" (wanting something similar to what you notice someone else already has; which, in many cases, is actually a GOOD thing).
or
* a sin-curse they allege you inherited from two mythical ancestors,
or
* the mere fact of you being imperfect.
- You awful sinner!
🅳.) serves as a socially and politically inequitable platform;
where:
self-appointed, pseudo-humble, "chosen" people ...
claim (for themselves) (and then mutually endorse for each other) that their voice (of views, and values, and dictates) must carry more weight than anyone else's because they (presume to) speak by an unquestionable moral authority,
🅴.) employs backdoor psychological hacks to generate the illusion of supernatural experience, as a way to cause member's minds to generate the illusion of "confirmation" that they are truly on the exclusively "true" faith-path.
If a Super-Being is providing any such experience, then:
They are just "meeting you where you're at".
(If we humor the claims without humoring the "special pleading" religious people attach to those experiences), ...
Super-Being(s) are
doing the same for:
people in other religions,
and
even sometimes for people who have no religious doctrines or affiliations whatsoever.
It is not good evidence that your religious narratives are factually true.
Nor is it good evidence that the Super-Being(s) care about those religious narratives.
Calling any threat "a friendly warning" does not negate this point.
In fact, this is what qualifies Christianity as a racketeering scheme.
🅱.) employs gross degrees of psychological violence as a means to capture and mold especially vulnerable and extra-malleable minds,
🅲.) Systematically generates intense SHAME
so that they'll have something so crippling to "rescue" you from.
Adding further insult to injury,
they dishonestly market that as "we liberate people from the shackles of shame".
It's dishonest because:
They are distracting you away from the fact that:
In most cases,
they intentionally cause that shame in the first place.
In other words,
they built those shame shackles.
And then they mentally clasp those onto their victims.
Granted, some few people arrive pre-shackled.
But then it becomes the Christian's goal to take advantage of that; by purchasing you from your owner (the ghost of those whom pre-captured and still torture your ego).
From there, they are moving you into a different set of shackles; as the means-by-which you "give thanks" and "stay free" of the shackles they freed you from.
Worse yet,
quite often,
a lot of the shame isn't even based on anything the target should feel bad about;
-such as:
* imaginary crimes of hurting an imaginary Being's feelings about a list of completely arbitrary pet-peeves; such as "coveting" (wanting something similar to what you notice someone else already has; which, in many cases, is actually a GOOD thing).
or
* a sin-curse they allege you inherited from two mythical ancestors,
or
* the mere fact of you being imperfect.
- You awful sinner!
🅳.) serves as a socially and politically inequitable platform;
where:
self-appointed, pseudo-humble, "chosen" people ...
claim (for themselves) (and then mutually endorse for each other) that their voice (of views, and values, and dictates) must carry more weight than anyone else's because they (presume to) speak by an unquestionable moral authority,
🅴.) employs backdoor psychological hacks to generate the illusion of supernatural experience, as a way to cause member's minds to generate the illusion of "confirmation" that they are truly on the exclusively "true" faith-path.
If a Super-Being is providing any such experience, then:
They are just "meeting you where you're at".
(If we humor the claims without humoring the "special pleading" religious people attach to those experiences), ...
Super-Being(s) are
doing the same for:
people in other religions,
and
even sometimes for people who have no religious doctrines or affiliations whatsoever.
It is not good evidence that your religious narratives are factually true.
Nor is it good evidence that the Super-Being(s) care about those religious narratives.
🅵.) claims false "dibs" on natural and spiritual experiences of members; hoping you don't realize you could have those same experiences without any involvement with (whichever) religion,
🅶.) attempts to mentally enslave (as many people as possible),
🅷.) preys upon the most vulnerable members of every society,
🅸.) infiltrated governments as a means to further entrench their positions as a colonizing force.
From there, they precede to sabotage Civil Liberties and social service safety nets,
because their religion thrives off of opportunities to "rescue" people who are badly suffering and struggling to survive,
🅹.) attempts to divide people (as many people are they can) from the larger living breathing whole of humanity.
This is why "Western" governments love Christianity. Because it's so useful as a tool to keep people divided, ignorant, and slave-minded; and thus more easily controllable and exploitable.
🅺.) inevitably and (thus) continually create social infrastructures where predators can-and-do gain special trust and access to $@xually assault vulnerable women and children; and where those predators are afforded some measure of protection against exposure and prosecution,
🅻.) Systematically perpetuate a conceptualized Super-Parent who is also a Malignant Clinical Narcissist and a Psychopath.
🅼.) Pimp themselves out to that archetypal character in trade for social power over others as "His" flying monkeys;
which results in:
[🅽.) Setting young adults up to fall into abusive domestic relationships, when:
They get married too young;
making lifetime commitments they aren't equipped yet to give TRUE consent for.
Worse yet, IF (a very probably "if") one of them happens to manifest post-marriage as an abusive personality ... the victim will then be ILL-EQUIPPED to realize the situation they are in.
They may realize it eventually, despite how their church-culture LEGTIMIZES the Father's abuse (and thus, as an example-set, ALL such abuse) "as love".
Worse yet, in most cases, they'll be actively pressured by their religious community to keep themselves shackled into it.
Through those tactics and others,
🅶.) attempts to mentally enslave (as many people as possible),
🅷.) preys upon the most vulnerable members of every society,
🅸.) infiltrated governments as a means to further entrench their positions as a colonizing force.
From there, they precede to sabotage Civil Liberties and social service safety nets,
because their religion thrives off of opportunities to "rescue" people who are badly suffering and struggling to survive,
🅹.) attempts to divide people (as many people are they can) from the larger living breathing whole of humanity.
This is why "Western" governments love Christianity. Because it's so useful as a tool to keep people divided, ignorant, and slave-minded; and thus more easily controllable and exploitable.
🅺.) inevitably and (thus) continually create social infrastructures where predators can-and-do gain special trust and access to $@xually assault vulnerable women and children; and where those predators are afforded some measure of protection against exposure and prosecution,
🅻.) Systematically perpetuate a conceptualized Super-Parent who is also a Malignant Clinical Narcissist and a Psychopath.
🅼.) Pimp themselves out to that archetypal character in trade for social power over others as "His" flying monkeys;
which results in:
[🅽.) Setting young adults up to fall into abusive domestic relationships, when:They get married too young;
making lifetime commitments they aren't equipped yet to give TRUE consent for.
Worse yet, IF (a very probably "if") one of them happens to manifest post-marriage as an abusive personality ... the victim will then be ILL-EQUIPPED to realize the situation they are in.
They may realize it eventually, despite how their church-culture LEGTIMIZES the Father's abuse (and thus, as an example-set, ALL such abuse) "as love".
Worse yet, in most cases, they'll be actively pressured by their religious community to keep themselves shackled into it.
such religions impede the maturation and utilization of every afflicted person's rational and ethical faculties.
[🅾.) - 🆉.) will be covered in a later blog. Although, I have covered these in previous blogs],
In doing so, they undermine the good health and function of entire societies;
and thus, our species as a whole.
In doing so, they are a clear and present danger
to literally everyone.
So when they say something to the effect of "don't call us out for it; because that's mean and rude", what they mean is "we are entitled to ruin lives. Because we're doing it for our GOD who "has a right" to do "whatever he pleases" and promises to rescue us from the ruin we cause in his name".
.jfif)
[🅾.) - 🆉.) will be covered in a later blog. Although, I have covered these in previous blogs],
In doing so, they undermine the good health and function of entire societies;
and thus, our species as a whole.
In doing so, they are a clear and present danger
to literally everyone.
So when they say something to the effect of "don't call us out for it; because that's mean and rude", what they mean is "we are entitled to ruin lives. Because we're doing it for our GOD who "has a right" to do "whatever he pleases" and promises to rescue us from the ruin we cause in his name".
Comments
Post a Comment