Christian Gaslighting. Their vs Our Views About Sin

Today,
I read a post
where a Christian fundamentalist 
tried to negate a valid criticism.

That criticism can be found here:
[link] 

He attempted this
by misrepresenting that criticism
and also by misrepresenting his own theology. 

He said this:
"Think this through. Try to see how there might not be a contradiction at all.

There are two people, both of whom are sinners.

One struggles against his tendency to sin by appealing to Christ's mercy, forgiveness, and strength so that he may overcome and manage sin.

But the other simply enjoys sin and turns against God, claiming that her sin is not sin. 

She persistently declares that the God Who convicts of sin does not exist.

All are sinners, but one turned from God because she wanted to sin.

No contradiction, and we see here, yet again, the defect in public schools, wherein logic and critical thinking are no longer taught." -------- Here, I respond:  
Problems I have with this include:

* If "sin" means to fall short of perfection in any way,
and * if it's a Supreme Being who decides what counts as "perfection" vs "not perfection",
and * if that very same hypothetical Being created us to BE imperfect,
then:
There's nothing for us to apologize to Him for.
--
If scientists eventually make a sentient a.i.,
and then make sure that a.i. has flaws,
...
those scientists would be solely to blame for those flaws
and either: a.) completely responsible (if libertarian Free Will isn't a thing), or else b.) primarily responsible (if libertarian Free Will IS a real thing) for the consequences of those flaws.

In the context of Christian-fundamentalist interpretations of the Genesis story(ies),
nobody forced any "God" to curse Adam and Eve with imperfection.

He wanted to do that.
So he did it.

Nobody forced any deity to make sure all later-created humans would be created imperfect.

Nobody forced any deity to create "Imperfection" just so that:
a.) he'd have something to posture as a victim about,
and 
as a premise for b.) emotionally blackmailing everyone (or, at least, everyone "lucky" enough to hear about it, and then lucky-guessing enough to assume it's all true), to grovel, apologize, and 'try making it up to him'
and, let's not forget,
c.) so that lucky-salvation-guessers can be "rescued" ... the fires HE SET. Meanwhile, The Supreme Arsonist's mercenaries wait outside to a.) offer condolences, b.) misplace blame, c.) seek, cultivate, and exploit irrational shame, d.) offer, then, to help RELIEVE that shame, e.) pitch HEAVY on a "divine" protection racket, and f.) sell fraudulent (and expensive; but marketed dishonestly as "free") afterlife fire insurance policies to panicking sheeple.

Nobody forced any deity to fly into a premeditated Narcissist Rage,
when things were going EXACTLY AS PLANNED, again and again. throughout the Hebrew biblical lore; also preplanning more-of-the-same on either a Jewish or a Christian "Taking Out The Trash" Day.

Nobody forced any deity to ensure all humans would be born * ignorant, * learning-impaired, and * limited to whatever is being randomly "taught" in their tiny little lives.

Nobody forced any deity to statistically guarantee 
countless many children would develop Major Personality Disorders; 
whom would then go on to sabotage even more developing minds. 

Nobody forced a deity to DESIGN human neurophysiology to be so helplessly vulnerable to countless
social-environmental,
air-quality,
water-quality,
diet,
sleep,
and other factors
...
SUCH THAT our minds can be greatly and randomly HELPED OR WARPED in EVERY FACET of our faculties;

without us being able to identity those causes nor realize when our cognitions have been greatly effected. 

Nobody forced any deity to ensure all humans would be born with physiological triggers which FORCE humans to experience "imperfect" physical and emotional states; such as hate, fear, anger, jealousy, lust, and tribal-othering reflex.

NONE of that is spirit-science.

It's all completely physical science;
which is literally the only kind of science there is.  


Nobody forced any deity to ensure Adam and Eve would eat that "forbidden" fruit in the first place; which (per the story) they ate BEFORE they possessed the moral cognition required for moral culpability, and WITHOUT being fairly warned about all the consequences.

Nobody forced any deity to be a
usually-absent parent.
Nobody forced any deity to be a
God-awful communicator;
before, during, and ever-after those (fabled) events.
Nobody forced any deity to create his own arch-enemy.
Nobody forced any deity to give that enemy the SUPER POWERS it takes to ensure SCIENCE points AWAY FROM those stories being true. 

Nobody forced any deity to act upset about peoples'
* mostly unparented choices [unguided children tend to do unguided things],
and
* entirely design-sabotaged choices.

And while we're at it, 

consider:

Willful Super-Person(S) 
literally DECIDING to do things like:

Pollute this world (soil and water), 
DURING the design and creation phases, 
with things like arsenic, lead, and harmful microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, and parasites). 

 And then,
 "design" humans (and other animals) to NOT be able to see, smell, or otherwise detect those dangers. 

Even worse yet,
deciding to withhold knowledge that such dangers even EXIST. 

Nor are humans given remedies for any such poisons. 

Nor are human bodies built to recover from most such dangers.
 
Consider a "Father" 
whom would litter their children's yard 
with countless death traps. 

Small and large carnivorous predators,

droughts,

pestilence,

famines,

earthquakes,

tsunamis,

tornados,

hurricanes,

volcanic eruptions,

lightning as a cause of forest fires, 

etc..

Likewise, they decided to make MUCH of Earth's land infertile (deserts, mountains, rocky terrain, frozen lands, and large areas where there just isn't good enough soil to grow community-sustaining crops).

Likewise, designing us to be ignorant about the essential details of nutrition. 
 
And yet, designing our bodies and minds to WORK BADLY and die quicker when we do not GET all essential nutrition.

But then ALSO deciding to JUDGE everyone for their impaired responses to his cryptic rumors. 

-And deciding everyone has to "pass the test" before they die; making the game extra-unfair because we won't all get the same amount of time, nor the same amount of helping clues, nor the same amounts of interference. 

Likewise, deciding to make MOST of Earth's water to be undrinkable.

Likewise, deciding to make bodies of fresh water 
an active part of an UNSTABLE global water-cycle, tied to globally unstable weather and climate. 

Bodies of fresh water evaporate without being replenished. 
Crops die.
Animals die.
Disease, thirst, and famine overtake the region.

Terrified religious-minds argue about WHO did WHAT to make the spooky supernatural forces so angry.

They seek magical causes and solutions.
This prevents them from seeking real causes and solutions.

This critically delays potential real-world solutions, like digging wells and organizing migration;
until there's nobody left to blame. 

Likewise, to create humans as:
entirely vulnerable to the mind-altering effects of severe childhood neglect, and severe abuse;
such that:
 monstrous people 
turn random children into clinical sociopaths, psychopaths, clinical Narcissists, and religious fundamentalists; 
 -which then programs those children to become the next generation of monster-adults;
whom then go out into the world to re-program even more people to be monsters. 

 Additionally, other survivors may develop complex PTSD which differently sabotages their cognitive functions, social health, and their individual potential for spirituality. 
 
Likewise, deciding to make the human mind utterly vulnerable to being ideologically programmed without consent;
DESPITE that very same "God" planning to judge everyone for their ideologies. 
 
Hypothetical-God also decided that a small percent of people would be born intersex.

That, in-and-of-itself isn't "bad".
But when such a person is born to a culture of a  black-and-white sexual identity paradigm, 
it can be devastatingly confusing and painful. 

They also decided a fairly high percentage of people would naturally grow into their sexuality as gay, bi, or trans. 
-But the very same Creator(s) also see those people as extra-broken (morally speaking)? 

Hell, even if a "real God" was perfectly fine with trans people, 
why have anyone born into (or psychosocially develop into) a body they'd never feel 'right' in?

And even if they are perfectly fine with gays,..
why "inspire" religions which demonize them?

And if those religions have it wrong, 
why not show up and TELL THEM they misunderstood?


 
 Religious minds certainly aren't going to listen to critics (not even qualified scholars or scientists) telling them they have it wrong; no matter what they're wrong about. 

This is why there are so many rival religious factions; all believing they are "spirit led".  


Consider, too, some SPECIFIC ~dangerous states~ which very damaged people can sometimes enter into. 

Per Abrahamic-God-Theory, 
"God" allegedly wrote an entire Bible where they fail to even address and define various types of sexual predators as a problem.

Those books 
failed to educate,
and failed to advise standards; 
except to provide very very bad examples to follow.  

"Consent, as a concept? 
I, the God of Abraham, never heard of it.
But let me tell you that shellfish is an abomination". 

Whereas, that very same "God" decided NOBODY would ever feel a need to fuck a Pencil Sharpener.

Fuckin' why? 

Why be so selective about the forms human dysfunctions would and would not take?

If a "Creator" "intelligently designed" humanity's world and circumstance, 
then:
 they also had to design the details of whatever "fallen state" humans would fall into. 

 Thus, they'd have to pre-plan for making sure certain herbivores turn into carnivores, 

certain microorganisms ALSO instantly develop taste for devouring people, 

certain plants and mushrooms suddenly turn deadly, 

random bodies of water (and pieces of land) are spontaneously poisoned with carefully "designed" heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, etc.. 

The "God" of Abraham, 
per that religious lore, 
made sure to include ALL of this in his "grand plan".

Eating the "forbidden fruit" would only result in:
 whatever it was "intelligently designed" to do. 

Abrahamic-religious people just haven't really finished 'thinking it through'. 

Naturalism can explain this.

Personal-God theisms can't;
 at least, not rationally.


So then Christians will say "His ways are a mystery. It's not for US to question Him".

But these are the same people who keep saying they DO understand him and that it's all perfectly rational.

They insist on having it both ways.
And they're hoping we won't notice. 

They're also gaslighting us,
when they say something like "HOW DARE YOU find fault with GOD?".

 Nobody is finding fault with a "God".

Instead, critics are merely assessing the merits (and demerits)
of: 
 fallible humans' claims about "God".

Meanwhile, 
this is EXACTLY what Christians claim that people ARE qualified to do. Because otherwise, Christians couldn't justify saying "Hinduism's God-claims fail to withstand scrutiny.". 

Nor could they justify saying "but Christianity's God-claims DO withstand scrutiny" if they claim humans aren't qualified to critically evaluate those claims. 

Gods or no gods.

ALL CHRISTIANS claim that ALL HUMANS are qualified to assess the merits and probabilities of literally any/all claims about "God". 

They also REFUTE this. Because their religion trains them to contradict themselves about literally everything specific to their religion. 
 But we can just ignore that for now.

We are qualified to assess.

They have assessed.

I have assessed.

During those assessments,
I discovered that all the "moral"-Authoritarian, "personal God"-theories are chaotic and duplicitous.

Worse yet, they are authoritarian PSYOPS.

They are being used to hijack vulnerable lives by hijacking vulnerable minds. 

They must invoke double-standards;
to decide their religion is correct while others are wrong.

They must also speak contrary to human virtues ... in order to justify a conceptualized "God" which thinks, speaks, and acts in violation of human virtue.

That, by the way, is something the early Stoics refused to agree with. 

The early Stoics realized:

 The only way for "Source" to be "good" 
is if "Source" did not willfully DO
and neither does it willfully choose to ALLOW  
the things that "biblical" religions claim their own God(s) have willfully done.

Here, I have not even taken the time to list 
all the evil things
bibles claim their "God" intentionally chose to do. 
  

Nor have I taken the time to list all the arguments they use to justify those evils as "good".
 Although, here are some of most common arguments they use for that: 

 1. Might Makes Right. 

 2. "Nobody at all
 is qualified to assess the merits of our God-claims"
[silent disclaimer: except for people who agree with us] 

 3. [which naturally flows from #2]
Make ugly assumptions about all critics;
in order to delegitimize them,
in order to make their challenges unworthy to consider. 

4. Distract critics with irrelevant commentary.
This is why religious fundamentalists are constantly going off-topic, but act as-if they don't realize they keep going off-topic. 

5. Creatively imagine hypothetical scenarios for why "God" made certain choices. But then pretend those extremely unlikely (and often debunked) hypotheticals are the "facts". 

6. Look for ways to misrepresent the challenges,
 and to attack the critic as a person.

The purpose of that is:
 
Nullify the perceived weight of any critics commentaries; just in case an influence-able person might be watching. 
  
7. Gaslight, as a way to create a mind-fog;
wherein the apologist can dance around and evade being held to any standard.  

They're also hoping to undermine the critics well-earned confidence
in their own mental faculties and character. 
 





For them, it a dominance-focused, colonizing contest of egos.

The true identity of their "God" is (secretly; but still obviously) their own ego.

It MUST win.

It's entitled to win.

Nothing matters more to them. 

They aren't here (nor anywhere) for a civil and equitable sharing and discovery of ideas.

Religious programming has bonded with their poorly managed egos. 

But I can still make the points. 

And anyone who isn't a mentally caged (f)lying monkey ... for a politically-weaponized cult of Narcissism ...

is invited to consider these points.
 
I was tempted to end this reply here.

However,
I think it would be a good idea to examine the specific ugly demonization that Christians heaped upon the woman he was talking to/about.
  
To recap, he said
"(A Christian) struggles against his tendency to sin ..."

Notice all the concepts he packs into the word "sin".
To be fair, nobody could list all the possible thoughts, feelings, and actions that any random-version of Christianity would count as a "sin". 

 The various versions of Christianity can't agree about what that list is. 

They can't even agree about what "sin" is, except to offer generic catchphrases like "misses the mark". 
 
Every Christian is left struggling against whatever their specific church (or some random apologist, or a parent) said counts as "sin".

Thus, one Christian might struggle against the fact that they are gay.
Another gay Christian might not; because their church doesn't list that as a sin. 

Really, the only things Christians share a broad consensus about, when it comes to things they regard as wrong ... are the cherry-picked moral sensibilities they grabbed from secular moral progress. 
-Which, of course, they pretend they got from their deity. 

Next, he said "... by appealing to Christ's mercy,"

Mercy?

Withholding violent retribution. 

It never occurs to religious fundamentalists that VIOLENCE cannot ever be justified 
if the person committing the violence 
has enough knowledge, wisdom, and power 
to ensure viable non-violent solutions 

In that Christian's chosen hypothetical, 
a Christian is struggling against any randomly specific desire or personal limitation, 
in hopes Jesus won't violently abuse that groveling peasant.

[However,
they won't call "abuse", because their deity is exempt from all standards (making literally ALL adjectives meaningless),
on the basis of arbitrary sycophantly, supported by the belief that Might Makes Right].

Jesus won't violently assault, kill, or torture them, 
if he is satisfied with how much they struggled against their alleged failings;

failings
which
that alleged deity
gave them in the first place. 

Next, he said:
..."[while struggling and groveling, a Christian is begging ALSO for] Jesus [to grant] forgiveness, and strength..."

Earlier in this blog, I've already carefully explained why "forgiveness" is nonsensical in the context of personal-God theology. 

If Christian fundamentalist theology were true, 
"God" would owe all humans an apology. 

He should be asking for our forgiveness.

In order for us
to avoid enabling your hypothetical-God's destructive behaviors,
we should withhold that forgiveness, except by process of "Restorative Justice".

For that, "He" would need to make himself available and accountable for that process;
and never goes back to his bad behaviors. 

It's irrational, in the context of Christian-fundamentalist theology, for humans to beg a creator-deity
[a "God" they only heard about via unsubstantiated rumors]
 to FORGIVE US for the imperfections he cursed us with. 

Next, that Christian-religious fundamentalist said
"... so that [the Christian] may overcome and manage sin."

In reply, I offer this:

"Overcome" means there's nothing left to "manage". 

I really have to wonder how many arguments could be pre-emptively avoided, if churches read excerpts from dictionaries.

Since "The Holy Spirit" is so clueless when it comes to equipping the "indwelled" to communicate their message past language barriers, 
Christians really should spend more time learning about what their own words mean. 

Next, that Christian-religious fundamentalist said:

"But (everyone who isn't properly a Christian) simply enjoys sin."

My reply:

Fuck you. 
And I really mean that.
You need to go fuck yourself. 

Where do you get off 
telling everyone else what they really think and how they really feel?

As I've already proven, 
you can't even keep track of your own thoughts. 
How are you going to account for anyone else's?

If someone tells you they don't PERCIEVE that your conceptualized ENTITY exists in reality,
then you'd do well 
to take them at their word.

The same applies to anyone who claims to have a DIFFERENT list than your list of "good vs bad vs situational" things humans should (ideally) not indulge. 

The same applies to anyone who bases THEIR list of such things ... on compassion, personal accountability, and a fully rational desire to help humans attain fully equitable and safe societies. 

If you say "we should base those lists, INSTEAD, on what my Super-Ghost directed interpretation is
of what my totally-not-religion-book says", 
then people are rightly going to laugh at you. Because your being intentionally dumb.

Next,
the intentionally dumb religious fundamentalist said:

[Thus, everyone who isn't a proper Christian] turns against God, claiming that [their] sin is not sin."
 
Seriously, somewhere deep inside of you, ...
there isn't a nagging sensation that maybe you're being ridiculous?

No?
Well, that's a shame.

It's exactly like how the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists, Islamic Jihadists, Westboro Baptists, etc, 
all think "everyone who isn't in my One True Belief System is turning against God, claiming that [their] sin is not sin. "

But here's how that works in the real world:

Any way of "reasoning", speaking, and behaving 
which you can recognize as irrational and consequential when rival religious factions engage in it, ...
is hypocritical for yours to feel good and confident about. 

Next, that religious hypocrite said:

"She
[the woman this attack is personally aimed at] persistently declares that the God Who convicts of sin does not exist."


My reply:

You are gaslighting 
to pretend,
and to insist we're all in secret agreement with the lie,
that there is only one alleged "God" who is alleged to "convict people of sin".

There are billions of rival (mutually exclusive) alleged "Gods" who are alleged to "convict people of sin". 

Any random JW's "God",
for example.
is not the same "God"
as any random Catholic's "God".

Other people's "Gods"
are each a different "God"
than the one you have experienced. 

You're just playing make-believe that yours must always be the only one people are ever talking about whenever they say the word "God", or "Christian", or "Bible". 

Meanwhile, people in rival Christian factions
do NOT secretly "know" yours is real.

They aren't rebelling against "the real God". 

They are simply mistaken about "God". 
And so are you.

Neither are agnostic theists, deists, pantheists, spiritual stoicists, Native American spiritualists, etc.. "rejecting" the real "God". 

The reason it feels like they are rejecting "the one true God", is because the "God you know" ... is a partitioned part of your own mind.

It's where your ego speaks behind a ridiculous "God"-mask. 

When people refuse to BOW and SURRENDER to your own super-ego, 
it feels personal. 
 And I know that because you keep taking it personally. 

Your religion,
in combined effort with other religious-mafia families ...
finds many ways
to MAKE itself into everyone's problem. 

If you don't enjoy stumbling into spaces where rightly concerned citizens of Earth are discussing that problem, 
then stop going into those spaces. 

Next, he said:

"All are sinners,"

My reply:

 You said this stupid thing already.
We don't need to hear it being played on a loop. 

Next, he said:

 "but one [the woman being currently targeted with this attack] turned from God"

My reply:

 Again.
Your "God" isn't the only God-Con game in town.

You're just choosing to assume she personally believed your specific conceptualization of  "God" (which literally isn't even possible. Because no two humans have ever even mentioned the same "God")
and then betrayed a personal commitment to that "God".

Even if we broaden the claim to a specific sect's general framework for defining 
"God", ...

It is,
statistically,
very highly probable, 
that the God-Con mafia she had personal experiences with ...
is only connected via informal network to yours. 

Granted, her points apply to ALL fundamentalist and moderate versions of Christianity. 
However, 
she wasn't singling yours out. 

Just as importantly, 
literally nobody ever gives true CONSENT to ANY of those "relationships". 
You didn't either. 

Thus, nobody ever withdraws consent.
They just wake up one day; realizing they never actually gave consent, and that they've been invasively violated, exploited, and weaponized by a criminal syndicate. 

You're just a random thug,
wandering around on behalf of a random religious mafia family, 
TRYING to bully private citizens into re-joining randomly-any of the associated families in the network. 

For you, it's all about your ego.

But for the power players holding those chains, 
it's about all the ways those families will gain social, political and economic power by conquering more minds. 

Next, he wrote:

"... because she wanted to sin."

In reality, 
the only "moral law" she wanted the freedom to ignore ... was the cult "law" which says nobody is allowed to have a healthy love for others nor for themselves.  

She directly explained this in the video you are simultaneously responding to and ignoring. 

And you're still ignoring the fact (as she pointed out) that the whole marketing gimmick of Christian fundamentalist mafias is the offer to be OFF THE HOOK for anything shitty ever thought, felt, said, or done,
for all members; except for whatever your church decides counts as "a sin against the Holy Spirit". 

 So if she thought "sin" is a real thing 
AND "wanted to sin", then she would have stayed identifying as a "Christian" so she could keep sinning for free. 

What you're doing is called "gaslighting". 

Meanwhile, think about how aggressively stupid your belief system is about it. 

"There are totally not rules, that everyone better follow or else.

And also we're just kidding because Jesus freed us from laws-based morality and relationship frameworks.

Except, also we're dead serious.
You can't be a real Christian if you violate some of these totally-not-rules for our totally-not-a-religion.

But you better ask our One True totally-not-a-sect about our unique list of moral-law requirements. Because it won't be the same as what other churches have.

We'd hate to see you end up in Hell forever just because you didn't know the rules.

But we also want members to claim the exact list was written on everyone's heart; even though we obviously don't really believe that either." 

Next, he said:

"No contradiction," 

My reply:

Literally everything you've said about "God" and human relationships to "God" ... 
is contradicted by
a.) facts,
b.) logical reasoning, 
c.) basic human decency, 

and then also
d.) contradicted by something else you've said. 

Lastly, he said
"... and we see here, yet again, the defect in public schools, wherein logic and critical thinking are no longer taught."

That was the moment 
I realized you aren't ONLY a clinical narcissist.

 You're also clinical psychopath.

Because only a psychopath would talk down to any non-believer so aggressively, and so publicly;
knowingly RISKING that you'll "stumble" any observer
AWAY from your "God"
and thus into the "Hell" you believe in,
...
deciding you're totally cool with that. 

Because what matters more
TO YOU is the vindication of your ego;
which you somehow convinced yourself could be accomplished 
by making a total ass of yourself in a virtually crowded space.