Is it immature (or wrong) to mock Christianity?

 

In reply to the claim that" "ridiculous" is a state only feared by children and an insult only employed by children". --- [First draft. Incomplete. Butt-loads of typos] Hi Rumford.

Thanks for sharing some of your thoughts. Addressing each, I offer this: Claim 1: It's a trait of maturity to be: perfectly at-peace and willing to sometimes volunteer ourselves to be ridiculous. My thoughts about that: I'm not confidently sure what you mean. But if you mean that it's a mature thing if our ego can handle ridicule, and thus for us to be willing to say or do something that will risk ridicule, if the words or (other) actions are something we believe is right to say/do, ... then: I agree. Claim 2: Only a very immature person would say someone else's behaviors are "ridiculous". This part I am sure I understood correctly. And I must honestly disagree. Please understand. I can agree that mere disagreement is not good cause to say something is "ridiculous". But I must insist that there are times when the problem (whichever thing is being said/done) is much worse than merely something we disagree with. In fact, this is one of the few things that the literary-Character "Jesus" and I fully agree about. That writer preferred words like "fool", "swine", and "dogs". But the idea is the same. Sometimes a given attitude, utterance, or action warrants being ascribed some 'adjective' that conveys the idea of childish or "indefensible". In fact, when you used the expression "employed by children", that's the same as saying "childish" or "foolishly immature"; which is the same as saying "ridiculous. Because those are all expressions of ridicule. It's just going to seem justified (and sometimes it really is justified) when we're talking about an attitude or behavior we extremely disagree with' on both rational and personal-character grounds. Moving forward from there, when it comes to the ridicule being aimed at religious, authoritarian, gaslighting, extortionists, I think the late Christopher Hitchens had it right. "“Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things…one of the beginnings of the human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority, its indispensable” It's imply not adequate, as a response to abuse, to say "I recognize what you're saying/doing as abuse of non-consenting people. It's not enough to merely point out that: Christian and Islamic "evangelizing" and indoctrinating are (always) an attempt to: a.) hunt and target extra-vulnerable people and then b.) abuse those people into an overly laid-low emotional state, but then playing head-games about that TOO by calling it "humbling them" (at the white-knight narcissist's feet) and c.) use backdoor psych-hacks to jack around with people's cognitive faculties (including lying, gaslighting, and playing mental slight-of-hand games) as a means to: d.) conscript those vulnerable people into a mind-control cult (posing as "totally not a cult"), as a means to: e.) foster (and capitalize on) a deep rut of learned-helplessness (partly by convincing people that a "God" designed them to be forever-unqualified to govern and own their own lives. And, this, that it would be "morally wrong" to even attempt to do so) as a means to: f.) create a durable shackle of child-state dependence, as a means to: g.) sheep-ify people into being long-term exploitable for the sake of "rescuers" money, power, and ego-feeding(vampire-ing), as a means to: h.) perpetuate an artificial social ecosystem wherein predators can easily blend-in and 'again access' under the pre-made "one size fits all" cloak of righteousness, with high levels of trust they neither earn nor are worthy to be granted), and as a means to: I.) inject political ideologies that ultimately turn those sheep into easily-manipulatable "single issue voters ("for Jesus!"", in order to: j.) help religious-system-architects hijack the political machinery of entire nations (ie. "Project 2025"), so that they can: k.) keep trying to climb back ON TOP OF THE WORLD (same thing they do every night, Pinky), so they can L.) create a permanent Hunger Games Dystopia (literally across the entire world) where "the called and the chosen" solely occupy the wealthy district, while everyone else struggles and begs beneath them, so that: M.) "His Will Be Done", (noting that "He" is merely a hand-crafted puppet-God for con-artists to USE as a means to artificially inflate the power and weight of their own collective voice OVER everyone else's). where they N.) re-institute "blasphemy" laws, heresy trials, witch hunts, etc, while they: O.) Violently oppress every people-group "The Lord" doesn't approve of, because P.) an Authoritarian State can only rise to power and hold power if they designate official State-Enemies and convince enough people that "those people need to die", so that those Totalitarians can always be THANKED by the slave-class for "protecting them" from "the enemy", ... Q through Z will be discussed after I take a break from this. In fact, maybe it's time for another live-stream. Anywho, my point was: merely "respectfully objecting" to A-Z is: insufficient. And anyone who thinks that's what "adults" OWE THEM and "would surely give them" ... is mistaken. Christians are ALL (every one of them) complicit members of a global network of mafia families. Think of me as "The Demolition Man". You'll have to "ice" me to shut me up. And that's the only way you're ever going to make my stop saying "Fuck you".

Responding to Christianity with RESPECTFUL disagreement ... would only serve to DIGNIFY Christianity as: a set of propositions and behaviors which warrant respect. It doesn't. And we shouldn't "humble" ourselves to the extreme of disrespecting ourselves (and every child-victim they hold for ransom).