ALL Christians Are Bad Faith Actors About "Grace"
[First Draft]
Under one of Randal Rauser's recent videos
[shown here:
Titled "How Bad Actors Exploit the Christian Narrative of Grace"]
Please notice the caption in the meme Randal Rauser created for that video.
With that meme, he attempts to paint the Christian offer of "salvation" as something that totally doesn't do ...
exactly what it really does.
It really and directly IS the offer to EVADE all accountability for our failings and misdeeds ... by transferring the "debt" of those thing onto an innocent scapegoat; so that he suffers for those, pays for those, and thus 'lets us off the hook' for those.
However, at the same time,
to give credit where credit is due,
...
In that same video, Randal addresses other Christians; calling upon them to be accountable to their own victims and to the larger society we all must share.
I am, of course, completely in favor of people embracing that ethic.
He also calls upon his viewers to mature into the capacity to differentiate between:
a.) people who have matured into a sincerely ethical mind
vs
b.) people who are virtue signaling with no intention of being a good person.
I love that too.
However, incorrectly, Randal conflates
a.) humans' ethical duties to each other
*with*
b.) the prescribed obligations to his DEITY relative to "grace".
In reality, these are Non-overlapping magisteria.
In other words, these are separate domains of considerations and obligations.
A Christian meets all of their salvation-essential requirements without making themselves accountable to society or individuals.
In other words, there' nothing they can "DO" to become qualified for "grace"; because the premise of "grace" is that there's nothing anyone can "DO" to earn that salvation.
Thus, whether or not a person "DOES" the "work(s)" it takes to GROW into ethical character ... is irrelevant to the offer.
That automatically means they can still do a little raping, murdering, and thieving on the side.
SOCIETY won't like that very much (well, ok, to be fair, MAGA will love it).
However,
within a Christian "grace" framework,
they're still "saved" just-so-long-as they accept (any version of) Jesus as having died (by really any definition of "died") as a full and final payment for all sins (any definition of "sins") EXCEPT FOR whatever any random sect chooses to define as "a sin against the holy spirit".
With all of that in mind,
I asked a question I already knew the answer to.
As a comment under that video, I posted this:
"So ... what is your narrative of "Grace"?
I phrase it that way because:
I'm not about to concede that there is a singular "The" Christianity for anyone to speak of.
But I am curious what it means to you.
I'm Gen X.
I grew up around old-school Catholics, mainstream Protestants, and fringe evangelicals.
As a result, for a while, I believed there "must surely be" a super-Someone approximate to those ideas.
I eventually let go of that idea.
At this point, I think "spirituality" can be a legitimate domain of exploration, discovery, and growth.
But I don't see how that could be logically attached to the idea of a literal Super-Someone who ghost-writes religious texts,
or holds "revelation"-lotteries where people who didn't even enter such a contest (ie. Saul of Tarsus) get randomly served with a "Publisher's Clearing House" pay-out of divine revelation.
Is God "The Greater Ed McMahon"? In any case, as of yet, I've never heard a version of "Christian Grace" articulated which made good rational or ethical sense. "Grace" is translated from a word that means "un-deserved kindness". It really is abusive to build anything on the premise that humans are all un-deserving to be loved, or to feel good about who they are, or to be not-violently destroyed, or to be not-tortured, or to be not thrown away like trash forever. And yet, Christianity builds upon those abusive disrespects. With those disrespects, they offer people a way to BECOME worthy of the breathing, sentience, dignity, and love they don't deserve. On what condition? "If only" the targeted-person will align themselves with a "totally not a cult". How? By submitting to random fallible men's moral-authority over their lives. Why? Just because some baselessly and arbitrarily trusted man (or woman) (in any random Christian sect) claims (with false-facts, logically fallacies, and emotional manipulations as their "evidence") that they represent a "perfect" (which, to them, means "might makes right") super-Being. Meanwhile, it's unavoidable that trusting any ancient story-tellers, writers, book-selectors, translators, publishers, proselytizers, and apologists ...automatically means we are elevating ALL of those men to the status of "God". How so? By treating their words as the words of our "God". It honestly astounds me that anyone ever needs to have this pointed out to them. By allowing ANY man tell to you what your "God" thinks, that means you are allowing that man to function as that "God" over your life. Surely it's easy to see how that entire premise is grossly dangerous and irresponsible. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No man should be given that much power. No man should be even be TOLERATED who attempts to grab for that much power over vulnerable other humans. Even when a self-proclaimed "messenger" has the best of intentions, ... it's in our collective best interests to always treat that as a threat against us all. It's a complex viral memetic. It's highly socially contagious. It will always, inevitably, spread and MUTATE throughout human social systems; adapting to the social environments and individual host-minds that it infects. Now, because every society IS sick, (because so many individuals are profoundly immature and unwell), the adaptive mutations will necessarily conform to those paradigms. Even such a simple and clean message as "God is Love", or "Love will save the world", or "be loving", will take on MEANING specific to the minds of the people who "make it their own". This is actually what made the early Catholic "Saints" so dangerous. Because "love" was understood in the context of their existing cultural and ideological framework. So then the most "loving" thing to do for everyone was to hunt, torture, and kill "heretics", to help make society safer and more spiritually "well". The spread of viral memetics, when predicated on "authority", will inevitably pose an ever-worsening danger to everyone in that society. Why? Because using "authority" as a moral or ideological premise expressly negates every individual's sense of being qualified and free ... to apply their own rationality and ethics to their evaluation OF whatever they're being told. [In other words, to think for themselves] Effectively, this allows each-next asshole to force-dump ideas into the next person's head. That causes the viral memetic to 'accumulate' fragments of random people's failings, as it migrates from head-to-head, and from society-to-society. As a result, it naturally takes on "meanings" which specifically comport to random people's failings. And because it comes with an OBLIGATION to ALIGN oneself' to those failings, anyone who "buys into it" ... won't feel free to filter out any obvious bullshit. The entire premise of "authority" is an attempt to coerce and manipulate members of that society to "surrender" and to "conform". It's a mind-jacking gimmick which says "questioning what these men say ... is tantamount to questioning your GOD. And HOW DARE YOU question your GOD?!" This, in turn, effectively convinces extra-malleable minds into thinking it would be wrong to question what they're being told. That, in turn, creates opportunities for predators to gather, control, and exploit other humans on the premise that "I speak for God". It also poses a danger to everyone in other societies; because we live in a globally interconnected network of human social systems. Cancer doesn't stay in one place forever. We are all part of one larger, living, breathing WHOLE of "the human body"; integral to the one larger living breathing WHOLE of our global ecosystem. Everything that harms one person will always ripple into harming others. It is an act of "idolatry" every time someone submits to any man (or woman's) authority over them AS "the voice and authority of our God". Now, I don't actually care that literally ALL Christians are committing idolatry. They are violating their own core principals by surrendering to the "authority" of what other MEN have said; even in regards to things said in a "Bible"; and also to whatever modern apologists SAY is "the correct way to interpret" those texts. But it is grossly unwise and irresponsible, because of the dangers that creates. Randal Rauser keeps making the ridiculous mistake of thinking that THE ROOT CAUSE of how God-Awful Conservative-Christian apologists are ... is due to them merely "misunderstanding" what Jesus said-and-meant. So he thinks he can fix that very very sick religious culture and 'get God's house in order', by attempting to educate those men. But he's wrong. He's wrong to think he can rehabilitate those apologists via educating, reasoning, and appealing to human virtues. He can't, because the root cause of their dysfunctions isn't lack-of-exposure to facts, reasoning, and ethics. The roots of it are: a.) personality b.) the pure physics which generated and cemented their permanent personalities, and c.) the underlying MISTAKE of widespread VALIDATION and ACCEPTANCE of the "God's messenger" PREMISE.
Another inescapable problem inherent to GATHERING new members via "cause c" is: It's not even informed consent. It's literally never informed consent. Importantly, this (further) negates the claimed-validity of their "covenant" (aka "contract"). Also, why does a "God" need us to jump through irrational religious hoops? Just so he can "forgive" us for the consequences of the flaws he chose to "curse" us with in the first place? ---------------------
In reply, a Christian offered this:
"Let's see if this will be helpful to you concerning Grace. " --
[My reply]
I appreciate that someone is taking the time to respond. Great. Let's get into it. :)
--------------------------------------- This Christian continues: "Has your parents or grandparents or close relative or friend ever given you something that you didn't earn? " -- [My reply] Possibly. ------------------------------------ This Christian continues: "Or if your a parent have you done something for your children that they didn't earn?" -- [My reply] Yes. -------------------------------- This Christian continues: "Well that would be grace." -- [My reply] My concerns about defining "grace" that way: It's dishonest. Neither the Christian-text writers NOR modern Christians are ACTUALLY defining it that way in the context of their doctrines. Modern Christians are only dishonestly marketing it that way. It's not REALLY what they believe. It's not REALLY what their churches teach. They just need to "get you in the door" under a false premise. Let's look closer: Ancient "koine" Greek had words which just meant "a kind act". But the men who wrote about "grace" (in Christian biblical texts) chose not to use any of those words. Instead, they chose to use a word that meant doing something nice for someone they don't "deserve". It didn't mean "unearned". Although, let's be more precise. What you're claiming is that the unspecified "kindness" is: "irrelevant to being unearned". The term "unearned" is different. It carries the subtle implication that "this SHOULD be earned, but the gift-offering-person decided to let you have it anyways". Those are two different concepts. They shouldn't be used interchangeably. However, the real meaning of "grace" is actually worse. It means "not deserved". It means the recipient of a kindness is un-worthy of that kindness. Here is what those writers were conveying: "This is exactly the kind of thing which someone is either worthy or unworthy of.
In this case, the people being offered this kindness ... are not worthy of this kindness. Just as importantly, we want to make sure everyone KNOWS they are unworthy of this kindness. They're worthy or "due" for something either much-lesser or far-worse". But we're letting them have this gift anyways. We just figure if you let worthless people know how unworthy they are to HAVE this gift, maybe they'll appreciate that gift even more. That's why people are being told that ALL of their virtues are like "filthy rags"; absolutely worthless in the eyes of "God". We wouldn't want anyone walking around on this Earth feeling GOOD about "who they are". Because then they might start to feel WORTHY to just EXIST; or (worse yet) to receive LOVE. We wouldn't want them to start saying CRAZY shit to each other like:
THAT would be a problem because:
If anyone feels like they
* DESERVE to exist,
or
*DESERVE to be not-violently-killed,
or
*DESERVE to be not-thrown-away-like-trash-forever,
or
*DESERVE to be loved,
then:
It would be hard for us to market those things as forms of kindness which they do NOT deserve.
Well, except for proper-Christians.
We DO want THEM to feel GOOD about "who they are".
That's part of the offer made by Christianity.
We're trying to make sure there's no other way anyone can feel very good about themselves.
"Come join us. It's the ONLY WAY to BECOME worthy to exist and be loved".
Yes, I'm aware that most Christians will say "we already love everyone.
We teach that all humans are worthy to be loved.
We teach that our God wants everyone to know they are worthy to be loved.
We value and love all humans greatly; as we are commanded to".
However, that entire spiel is dishonest.
In truth, whatever a theist believes their God PLANS to do TO everyone who is NOT "saved", ... IS the value their God ascribes to them as a person.
What the Christian really means (or, at least, what they are supposed to mean by it) is this:
They see everyone's future-potential value
as a future-potential Christian.
That means they do NOT see your value of my value "as we are"; but rather, only "as we could be"; if only we graduate INTO that value by joining their "totally not a religion".
And why does their GOD limit our value to that?
Because the entire reason he ever made tiny-people in the first place is because OUR value would be based on our utility as social support for his ego.
We are, all of us, otherwise casually disposable.
And thus, Christians believe it's the only possible premise for glorious and eternal value.
Thus, for them,
it's the only legitimate foundation for pride. Although, for marketing purposes, they would prefer we not call that "pride"; since they're trying to demonize pride. They'd prefer we call it ... being "righteous". -- Now, let's look even closer at "the offer". This "kindness" (in the form of an un-signed I.O.U.) is based entirely on unsubstantiated rumors from random, fallible, and mostly-anonymous men in the iron age. For all we know, those men were serial P3DOs, slave-traders, and serial killers. We know *fuckall about them. [* Apart from whatever a criminal-minds profiler, a qualified psychiatrist, or anyone well-informed about Major Personality Disorders might realize about them. Link Bible Scholar, Dr Jennifer Bird agreeing about this point] We really don't even know they personally "believed" in anything they said. In fact, we don't even really know they SAID anything later-writers CLAIM they said.
It's also predicated on the baseless claim that whichever specific "messenger" is relaying that offer ... "just so happens to be" in "the one true sect" of "the one true religion" which is also "totally not a religion".
This is a necessary part of the offer, because it doesn't COUNT if it's being made by a false-version of "the one true totally-not-a-religion".
[This video correctly illustrates the framework of that "kindness"]
It's not really about us.
It's about manipulating sheeple into maximum praise/worship for the benefit of the White Knight's need to be praised.
Meanwhile, Christians are targeting people who are UTTERLY CLUELESS about what it means to have a fully mature, self-sufficient, and Zen EGO.
Or, even better yet, to move entirely beyond the illusion of ego.
Those levels of maturity utterly expose Christian-conceptualization of "God" as the most anti-Stoic, desperately needy, co-dependent, and violently insecure character in all of fiction.
As it stands, let's be honest about that character's "nature" as described in your religion's theological narrative.
He had to make sure us little people lead cursed lives in a cursed world, ... so that he'd have something to "rescue" us from.
That way, we'd extra-appreciate the "promise" that he'll rescue us from it someday.
Whereas, if you only make fully healthy people in a fully healthy paradise, they won't appreciate those gifts AS MUCH AS they would if you first orchestrate unspeakable horrors, falsely blame humans for it, and then offer to "save" them from it.
"Saved" from anything else?
Yep.
From what the threat of what the Supreme-Gift-Giver will DO TO THEM ...
IF they don't accept "the kind offer".
In other words, God is an arsonist who is using those fires as something to "save" people from, so that he can be extra-thanked for the "rescue". He's also running a literal "Protection Racket"; where his THUGS are offering "protection" FROM what he'll DO to us if we don't surrender to those THUGS as an "authority" over every meaningful facet of our lives. -All of whom "just so happen" to personally benefit from our unconditional surrender to THEM; - which is being disingenuously framed as an unconditional surrender to the Creator Of The Universe.
The whole damn thing is a grift. Now, I can appreciate that a modern evangelizing Christian-fundamentalist wants to soft-sell it. It's bad marketing to sell something with a slogan like "it's more than you filthy and grossly-imperfect failures deserve". It's also bad marketing to call it "extortion". So they MARKET it as "none of that". But then they DESCRIBE it as "exactly that". It's necessitated and organized gaslighting. And even progressive-fundamentalists like Randal Rauser are fully guilty of it. A religious-mafia, operating their own version of The Grift, successfully conned him. They took advantage of his desire to be re-united with lost loved ones, and for himself to 'cheat death'. I myself appreciate the appeal of those things. So please understand. I'm not sitting in moral judgement for him having the same desires I have. I'm merely pointing out that one of those mafia families are successfully exploiting the most reasonable and beautiful parts of his own mind ... to their collective advantage. That's why their marketing offices came up with "Let's just focus on the "kindness" part of it, and then change "unworthy" to something like "no effort necessary". Although, that too is a lie; even within the context of the narrative. Because it actually DOES take a LOT of "work" to STUDY, and THINK, and PRAY, and ATTEND ... towards the OUTCOME of ending up "a saved Christian". If you do not "DO" those "works", you will NOT end up in that alleged state-of-grace. Again, #Marketting. It's not even "free". It's FANTASTICALLY EXPENSIVE; when we really COUNT all the personal sacrifices a person will be required to make; and then (over time) all the sacrifices they'll be further manipulated into making. Again, #Marketting. Nothing is "as it appears to be", in Christianity. There is always a very significant difference between what Christianity says in its marketing campaign ... vs what's really going on there. However, let's continue with the "explanation" offered by the Christian "C.E. JUICE FLEMING Jr II" -- He went on to say: "Well God is a Holy God" -- [My reply] This really just means "I worship a conceptualized entity which I INSIST must be exempted from all scrutiny". "It's perfect; because I say it is. And I say it is, because someone else told me it's ok to say it is". It's really just a way of saying your alter-EGO (the thing you call "God") will strongly object to all challenges; based on the idea that only 'bad people' would risk offending your alter-ego ... by scrutinizing anything about it. That might work on low-wattage thinkers. But it has no effect on me. So let's just move on. ----------------------- This Christian continues: " and He gave everyone Grace even though He didn't have to. God didn't have anyone jump through any hoops to receive His grace. That would be works. " -- [My reply] I address this already, earlier in this reply. ------------------------ This Christian continues: "Also He didn't curse People" -- [My reply]
In this context, to "curse" humanity means: create them with FLAWS. Worse yet, CONDEMN US for the unavoidable results OF those flaws. Worse yet. watches without protecting us FROM the consequences OF the flaws he intentionally made sure people would have. -- Think about it. Within the context of Christian theology, ... We are all born FLAWED, because that's how God made us. He made us that way by making sure Adam and Eve could only procreate flaws descendants. Adam and Eve became incapable of procreating UN-FLAWED descendants ... because they became flawed. They became flawed because they ate a peice of fruit which corrupted them. They hate that piece of fruit because they were tempted to eat it. They were tempted to eat it because they were DESIGNED by their CREATOR to WANT something they weren't supposed to want. This is key to how "God" (in that story) set them up to fail. He also made sure they did not even UNDERSTAND the difference between right and wrong until AFTER they ate it. That means they were damned for something they did BEFORE they became morally culpable. This too helped "God" ensure they WOULD eat from it. Because he made sure they wouldn't "know" any morally "better". Also, they only even had the OPPORTUNITY to eat it because that same "God" placed it right in the middle of the garden where they lived. In this contest, to "curse" means to sabotage people with a handicaps which will cause significant forms of limitations, dysfunctions, and sufferings. Also, Christianity does NOT presume to "free us" from the Mosaic Covenant? And your bible does NOT describe that covenant as a curse? Maybe you should discuss this with other Christians. Because I know for fact they're going to say YOU misunderstood the entire "setting of the stage" that establishes what we're being freed from. Here I am again; explaining Christianity to Christians. He went on to say: "that's just part of the penalty of breaking His word\law. " -- [My reply] What word? What law? By that logic, you can pre-exempt everyone from the penalty ... merely by NOT telling them about it. After all, it's not disobedience to break a rule the person doesn't even know about. You can't really even say you mean "the moral laws written on our hearts". Because then you'd be describing fading and running ink; a very IMPERFECT thing for a BEING TO write moral laws with. After all, if you limit that list to ONLY things that everyone who isn't a criminally-insane psychopath agrees is "wrong" (like "torturing babies for fun"), then you will have narrowed down that list so much that NONE OF US live in violation of it; -which would mean there's nothing to "forgive" us for. Whereas, if you include a long list of things people generally do NOT share agreement about being "morally wrong", then: That's the "fading and running ink" which only an inept and irresponsibly "God" would use, to write moral laws onto our hearts with. Plus, even the very claim that a "God" did this ... means he ALSO wrote those moral-laws on the very same "hearts" bible-writers said NOT TO TRUST. Damned if we do. Damned if don't. -literally. That's called a "double bind". It's something clinical Narcissists do to people, to ensure the Narcissist gets to FAULT YOU no matter what you do. Meanwhile, there's no available reason ... for anyone to FEEL or THINK they need to be "forgiven" for stuff ancient cultists merely CLAIMED (their) "God" doesn't like. Nor should any human feel like they owe God an apology (or "restitution"; aka "payment"; aka "ransom") for the inevitable behavioral RESULTS of being "created with imperfections" (aka "cursed" with imperfections). Logically and ethically, you can't afford to say it's about "obedience". Because you can't have it both ways. 1. "Obedience" means there are rules to follow, as a condition for "grace" (aka "salvation"). 2. That would mean salvation is based on the WORK (aka "works") it takes to OBEY. Because "obey" means we are told to DO something. Meanwhile, none of us have ACTUALLY been told by a "God" to DO anything, nor to even THINK anything. It's just random assholes; who sweat, shed, and poop like the rest of us, saying: "I heard from a guy, who heard from a guy who heard from some guys, ... who had private conservation with the Creator Of The Universe. From what I heard, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Also, we better do whatever "God" said in those private conversations ... or else he will violently fuck our shit up". Nor can you afford to say it's about a fallen "state". Because that TOO blames us for something we a.) don't actually know-to-be-true, and b.) couldn't rationally be blamed for, even if it were true. Both of those foundations for "grace" require irrational and unfair ideological commitments. ---------------------- This Christian continues: "Another homely illustration." -- [My reply] I mean, at least you realize all of that is really ugly. There's that, at least. ---------------------------------- This Christian continues: "When a person breaks into your house and steals stuff from you and they are caught. What do you want to happen? Well for one you would want your things back and then have them arrested and put in jail." --- [My reply] I agree that I'd want my stuff back. -Unless it's stuff I don't need as much as they need it; -like medical supplies or food. In that case, IF they still need it, I want them to keep some of it. They never had to steal any in the first place. I would have just shared it with them. If it's stuff they don't need, then yea. I'd want it back. If it's stuff I really need, that yea. I'd want that back too. But to be honest, that's only because I live in a capitalist system; where the quality of my life depends on the acquisition of THINGS that cost money, wherein my ability to make that money is severely limited. Ideally, I'd rather live in a society like this (where your question becomes moot):
The Christian continues: "Well the law gives you the authority to do this. " -- [My reply] Ok. ------------------------------------- This Christian continues: "And it's up to you to get it enforced." -- [My reply] Ok. ------------------------------------- This Christian continues: "The curse if you will would be the breaking of the law and the consequences would be the enforcement and penalty of it. In order for it to go into action it has to be broken or a trespassing of that law." -- [My reply] Ok. Let's clarify a few fact first. 1. I factually know which Country and States I'm in. 2. I have complete access to the written laws of the territories in-which I live or otherwise visit. 3. Those laws are written to be incredibly precise. 4. Those laws, for the most part, are so consistently based on PRINICPALS that I am fully informed about ... that I'm usually able to correctly guess about what laws are "on the books". 5. Those laws are all based on the PREMISE that "one person's rights must end at the boundary of where another person's rights begin; and vise versa." 6. Those rights are based on the idea that "every person in a society wants some protection against other people who might want to threaten the good health, function, and enjoyment of their own lived experience". 7. Biblical laws are nothing like any of that. It's all just poorly preserved records of: radically inconsistent, ancient cult's efforts to create in-group "identity markers", boundary maintenance, and to wield exploitative control over terrified sheeple. -------------- This Christian continues: "You should also, get a good understanding of the Holiness of God and what's attached to it." --- [My reply] Lay it on me. But first, let's be clear about this. There is not ANY objectively rational or moral reason that ANYONE has to ASK a Christian or even LISTEN to a Christian ... give any version of a sale-pitch (aka "message"). I'm listening because I asked. I asked because I was curious to see what people would say. Listening to any of it ... is not something anyone owes to you, nor to a "God", nor to themselves. It's mostly an attempt to get Christians to think more honestly and deeply about the grift they've been duped into. Also, it's always fun to see what religious people creatively come up with. ---------------------- This Christian continues: "Justice is one of those attachments. " -- [My reply] You can say that. But I think we both know that word loses all meaning within a Christian context, except as an appeal to authority. Whatever your deity thinks, says, or does is "just" only on that basis of "because he says it is". And he gets to "say so" because he's powerful enough to insist; under penalty of violence.
Comments
Post a Comment