Christian Fundamentalist Gets Butt-hurt And Then Lashes Out

integrity in religion is not integrity if you believe someone is watching you all the time

 

Those were the words someone posted in an anti-Bible discussion group.

In other words, 

The irony is not lost on me 
that it was C.S. Lewis who said this; after he joined a "mere" religion which is predicated on the idea that 'integrity is what we do because someone is always watching'.

Although, I suppose I should expect such Orwellian rhetoric from such an Orwellian religion. 



In reply, one Christian fundamentalist wrote: 

"But if you are not held accountable for your deeds.... After you die, what was the purpose of your journey here???? Yes GOD is watching you and when you meet GOD, for you are going to go, you will be asked everything.... Like a judge in a court..... But that one, there is no coming back.... You are going to paradise if you were a good person or hell if otherwise."
- Leo Cocker
  
-----------------------
 
My reply:

Christian-God-theory doesn't say we are held accountable for our deeds.

It says we are held accountable only for what we believe.
--
More specifically, they say we are obligated to believe:

A homeless, unemployed Jewish carpenter in the iron age (who heard the voice of "God in his head, and who really really liked to drink wine) ...
* was perfect,
* died as a "human sacrifice" to appease a wrathful deity
* (who is angry about how he made us),
and then
* came back to life.

And what evidence do we HAVE for any of that?

Rumors.
That's all.
Just rumors.

Rumors that it happened.

Rumors that we're supposed to care.

Rumors that we're supposed to believe it.

Rumors that we'll be subject to extreme violence at the hands of a "God" if we don't believe it happened.

Rumors of heaven-bribes, to help further motivate us.

Rumors; coming only from random fallible humans who want to take control over our lives, by taking control over our sense of identity and worth, ...
and who "just so happen" to benefit (financially; and for their own comfort, power and egos) for every mind they conquer "in his name".

 In reply, 
Leo Cocker wrote: 
 "Brother..... I am not condemning you for choice to be your own god, and I am happy for you if you even want to have sex with you dog or cat...... Not judging you at all..... But if you negate yourself from GOD, why attack others for holding onto GOD?"

 

In reply, 
James Apperson (me; yours truly) offered this: 

I honestly LOL'd when you said that part about cats and dogs.

It's like Trump saying "They're eating the cats. They're eating the dogs!" 
 

-Except, in this case,
a propogandist nutter is saying "They're sexing the cats. They're sexing the dogs!". 

Seriously, it really says a lot about our society,
to have so many living symptoms of our society's severity of un-wellness. 

Moving forward, ...

Now, 
in context, I understand that you're defining "God" as "moral authority", and also as "the person whom provides identity and value" to my own existence, identity, and journey.

I can easily admit to this.

The fact that you speak as if that's a bad thing ... is something I find mildly amusing and yet (at the same time) also quietly tragic.

Meanwhile, I don't have any pets.

However, it is fascinating to me that you have such a confidently warped view of everyone who isn't a sheep being herded by authoritarian sheep-herders.

Now, either you think it's perfectly FINE for anyone who wants to have sexy-time with dogs and cats, OR you are, in fact, "judging me" for what you imagine everyone outside of your religion must be like.

In either case, I never said I was "negating myself from God".

Your religion doesn't have dibs or a monopoly on "God".

Being personally incompatible with your religion is a separate matter entirely, from whether or not there is a "God", or what my relationship to that entity might be.

However, let's be clear about this.

I didn't attack you.

You attacked me, *after* attacking all non-believers and all differently-believers.

I merely find that interesting, sad, and funny.

Meanwhile,
if challenges to your religious rhetoric feel so personal, ... then stop going into skeptical public spaces and talking smack about skeptics.

Picking fights and then acting like a victim when people gently and rationally push back ... is ridiculous. 
 That means it's "due for ridicule";
in fact, far worse ridicule than you've yet received. 
 
Now, so far, I've only dropped the mic on you.

Keep it up; and see if the house isn't next. 

-----------
In reply, 
that same religious fundamentalist said these things:

1. " not really..... I am not saying that at all.... "
-- [My reply] 

You didn't say any of the words I directly quoted you saying?

Or do you mean you didn't really mean any of it?

----------------------------
2. "You need to go back and read it with clarity plis"
-- [My reply] 

I did; from the very start, and then all the way through.

You won't be able to successfully gaslight me about this.
----------------------------

3. "....all I said and tried to share with you, was that, when these kinds of topics"
-- [My reply] 

Which kind?
Describe the "kind".
------------------------------

4. "are thrown at people's faces"
-- [My reply] 

Like a pie
thrown at a clown's face?

Nobody aimed at you.
You came into this space, looking for any humble pies being served.
You found one, picked it up, smashed yourself in the face with it, and then complained. 



----------------------------
5. "... Clearly your aim is not to reason and enter an intellectual marriage or dialogue"
-- [My reply] 

I agree about the "marriage" part of that.
But the rest of what you said there is just projection and gaslighting.

-------------------------------

6. ".... You are not interested in honest exploration or discussion."
--- [My reply] 

Try me.

Give me something serious and reasonable to consider.
Because so far, ... you haven't.
------------------------------

7, ... You simply want to control the parameters of the discussion"
-- [My reply] 

That nonsense really doesn't dignify a response.

---------------------------------

8. "control the medium of exchange"
-- [My reply] 

Would you like to switch to using smoke-signals?

Or, perhaps, Interpretative dance?

Are you challenging me to a Dance-Off?

--------------------------------
9. :and automatically use your predefined agenda"
-- [My reply] 

To be fair, it would be pretty silly to enter any discussion or debate without one.

----------------------------- [My reply] 

10. "to result victory"
-- [My reply] 

I do enjoy victories.

But I would never characterize these forum-debates as being anything so ... grandiose.

It's just quick little mental exercises; in-between real-world activities.
--------------------------------
11. "in initiating such a lousy Question and answer session."
-- [My reply] 

I understand.
It's not enjoyable for you.
But we still hope you'll stop at the giftshop on your way out.

---------------------------------
12, "That is how you are all trained. "
-- [My reply] 

That's fair.
We do tend to come across as-if we have formal training in debunking bullshit.
But in reality, it's just not that hard to do.
------------------------------------

13. "On one hand pretend and act as anarchists",
-- [My reply] 

I haven't seen that there. But then again, I don't pay a lot of attention to what happens in Facebook groups.
Also, I'm not really sure why you think that's relevant here.
-----------------------------------
14. "when in fact you are true conformists ..."
-- [My reply] 

Coming from a Christian, that's quite a compliment.

Thanks 🙂