Christian-Virtue-Boasting As Propoganda

 




Aloe Vera said

Usually, they call themselves "Christian". And I feel perfectly comfortable saying this as having been raised dogmatically Christian and breaking away from it.

• 1d
• Love
• Reply
• Edited

138

John Harris

You stated "calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one no difference than calling your self a dog. Where is the life to back it up? Very simple look at the fruit in one's life. Does it resemble the fruit of The Holy Spirit. You have to know where the person is at in their Christian growth. You either are putting of the lust of this world for the love of Christ or not. It is that simple. The Christian life is based on two principles love for God and love for people. You should see this in the Christian life as evidence.

• 19h
• Like
• Reply

4

James Apperson

John Harris

The range (and degrees) of personality traits that Christians call "the fruits of the spirit" ...

are the same for Christians as for Hindus, Muslims, Deists, Wiccans, agonistic atheists, anti-theists, etc..

If it was true that an all-powerful force [of perfect love] was active in a very exclusive and powerful way ...

within people of an exclusively true

* "faith"-narrative,

* faith-culture,

or

* theistic "relationship"-paradigm...

then:

There would be a statistically significant [and thus, easily verified] correlation of people in those systems being

* the most loving,

* the most ethical,

* the most responsible,

* the most fact-checking,

* the most logical,

* the healthiest,

etc...

compared to literally all other faith-relevant demographics.

So it's not as if we 'just don't know'.

We do know.

We do know the claim is untrue. 

And we surely all understand (don't we?) how unfair it is

to denigrate all other faith-relevant sociodemographics

as:

being comparatively and significantly handicapped in their respective character virtues.

What you are pitching as something pretty (# marketing)

is socially divisive propaganda.

It's designed to prop up one particular (but still nebulous) religious domain

as morally superior to all other people-groups and worldviews.

[I have more to say about this. There are some other mental 'slight of hand' gimmicks in what you said. But that will have to wait until I have more time]

[link] 

----------
[Continuing] 
"You either are putting of the lust of this world for the love of Christ or not. It is that simple. "
--
Reply:
 No. It's not that simple. 

1. Your use of the term "lust" is designed to subconsciously trigger sexual disgust and shame.

 Using words in that way ... 
 is part of cult mental programming.

It's designed to weaponize people's emotional, psychosocial, and psychosexual vulnerabilities against them. 
 
Your religious culture installed irrational shame into your consciousness about 
natural human sexuality. 

And to make extra certain nobody could help you realize how insidiously manipulative that is, ...
They also trained you to demonize the word and concept of "natural".  

So then if someone says "lust is natural", you will then say "Yep. And that's the problem. Because the natural mind is at odds with the spiritual mind". 

Meanwhile, you'll completely overlook the ironic hypocrisy of how:
your own God-theory credits your own "God" for making humans feel ... all the things your "God" doesn't want us to feel. 

Here, I'll let this guy [who is NOT an "atheist"] explain it to you:

2. You used that gimmick as a way to make people feel shame and loathing ... about:
a.) everyone who isn't a Christian ...
and also about
b.) literally every thought, feeling, and behavior your religion doesn't like. 

 3. You are simultaneously demonizing a 'love for this world' 
and also bragging about your [and your deity's] 'love for this world'.

Now, I'm sure you can come up with two different MEANINGS for the phrase "love for this world".

In doing so, you can resolve the contradiction.

But this is exactly my point. 

A phrase like "lust for this world" demonizes anyone for having an intense LOVE for this world.

It goes far beyond all sexual meaning of "lust".

It's [being used as] a broad term for:
 an intimate embrace of "everything and every person "of the world". 

The only way to resolve the contradiction of saying "God loves the world" and "God hates the world" is to make it mean:

* "God loves some of the people, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors we see in the domain of humans"

"... but God despises some OTHER people, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that we see in the domain of humans". 

Each of those clarifiers is meaningless until we come up with specific lists of things your deity loves, and another list of things he hates.

But that means:
 it really is NOT "that simple".
But your cult needs to MARKET their weaponized rhetoric as "simple".
And why?
 So that people won't LOOK CLOSER to find out what you MEAN. 

Your cult doesn't want any outsiders looking closely enough to find SPECIFICITY because:
 The SPECIFICS of your worldview are really really fucked up. 

The surface of your pre-packaged all-or-nothing, black-and-white, worldview 
sparkles with glittery appeals to virtue. 
But "the devil is in the details".

4.  "The Christian life is based on two principles love for God and love for people. You should see this in the Christian life as evidence."
--
If you think someone deserves "Hell", then you do NOT actually love them.