Atheist Penn Gillette Given a Bible

I understand that "Christianity" is, for the most part, just a very loose theme. For the most part, it's not any one codified set of concepts. Instead, for the most part, it's a "create your own adventure" kind of project. SOME few self-labeled "Christians" are generally nice people. Although, from my own experience and observation, most are not. Nor should we expect them to be, given that they draw their "waters" from a collection of books which celebrate a mystical parental psychopath. Even the "nice" Christian who impressed Penn Gellete with their kindness, ... was acting as a love-bombing groomer for a parasitic religion. He was trying to colonize that atheist's mind. That Cultist was peddling mind-altering drugs to someone he hoped was too naive to realize it. He was trying to hijack Penn's entire life. He was trying to mentally enslave Penn as a cheap and disposable resource. He was trying to conscript Penn into service; as a living weapon against humanity. This is why I find it exhausting to keep adding the disclaimer #NotAllChristians. If "Christians" didn't want to be lumped together, they wouldn't all be self-labeling together and working together. Even Randal Rauser realizes they are all part of the same "body". This is why he spends so much time trying to rehab Trinitarian Christian fundamentalists, but zero time worrying about what the Hindus, Buddhists, and Wiccans are up to. Those fundies are part of his house. Although, so are the non-Trinitarian fundies. He just doesn't realize it. These days, he's trying (and failing) to get his house in order. They aren't all the same. But they are all part of the same larger control system's social machinery. The super-progressive and kind-hearted versions, like "Reverend" Ed Trevors ... are complicit. The progressive-fundamentalist (who don't know they are fundamentalists) (such as Randal Rouser). They, too, are complicit. The bloody monster we know as "Christian Nationalism" is partly their mess. Their churches helped create and empower that fascist monster. I'm glad to see them helping to clean up their own mess. But it's a little late for "sorry". Meanwhile, they're still working against their own interests by doing P.R. work for the religious branding that the blatantly monstrous versions market themselves with. And they're still promoting the poisonous ideas that lie at the core, in all versions of "Christianity"; like: * dodging personal moral responsibilities, by ritualistically transferring those onto an innocent martyr, to USE him as an innocent scapegoat,

*gaslighting, as a form of marketing, to say that dodging responsibility for our own failings is the ultimate form of "accepting" those responsibilities, * celebrating the harming of innocent people and (other) animals for selfish advantage, and * emotional blackmail. Ie. "Jesus severely hurt himself for you. The least you could do to show how thankful you are that he severely abused himself ... is to love him. What kind of moral monster would refuse to love someone based on how badly they hurt themselves for you? Now, how do you even know that happened? Also, how can we know that it was a GOD'S idea? Rumors. But not just ANY rumors. "Divine" Rumors. If you can't trust those, what CAN you trust? Besides, "Bibles" are like beauty magazines. Like the guy said in the "Sunscrean" song, you should definitely read those publications. You should let them make you feel UGLY. That way, the men who print those pages can also sell you partial relief; RELIEF ... in the form of "forgiveness" from the very same shame they're going out of their way to seek out, create, and worsen. That's right. The Creator Of the Universe ... is willing to "Forgive" you for being exactly how he made you. It's offered only as part of a very expensive lifetime contract. - Which, of course, Christians market as "free". Also, you are expected to sign that contract without fully knowing all the fine print (nor fully understanding the parts you happen to discover) in that contract ... which is literally the size of a thick book. Christians (same as Muslims) offer their contract with a non-enforceable IOU; a "promise" to give you the rest of the cure for your moral-ugliness ... after you die. Also, how can you show you love him? Easy. Just make a lifetime of great personal sacrifices, which directly benefit the men who sit atop the system of control that "Jesus" wants you to join. In fact, he could really use some of your money right about now." This is why even a "metaphorical"-Christian like Jordan Peterson keeps moving further and further towards authoritarianism. Even when taken as metaphors for the human experience and progressive society-building, those texts and that culture are still antithetical to humanity's collective health and maturation. How so? Because they lead us astray about: * HOW humanity managed to progress, * WHO led the way, * WHY they lead the way, * and WHICH concepts and attitudes have actually been part of that progress. But, of course, Bible-themed moral-posturing is worse when taken literally. * The more literal the interpretation, * the more "authoritative" the sentiment, and * the more God-obsessed a person is each day, ... ... the worse it gets. Thus, secular societies have MUCH better societal health and flourishing (verified by carefully tracked statistics) compared to religious societies. We should expect that to settle the argument. But it doesn't. And why not? Because religion is a drug. And users can't think clearly. Thus, they keep mistaking * lies as facts, * fallacies as logic, and * Clinical narcissism as ethics. The unanimous consensus among qualified historians (including archaeologists) is that Bibles are a mix of myth and facts. Bibles reference some real people, places, and events. But most of what "the Bible" claims happened ... either: a.) did not actually ever happen. or b.) happened very differently from what bible writers claimed. Scientists across many fields agree. Bibles get the science wrong, almost every time. To suppose that any version of "the Bible" is "morally" inerrant, a reader needs to either: a.) pretend to be a sociopath or b.) actually be a sociopath. To suppose that any version of "The Bible' is factually inerrant, a reader needs to assume layer after layer of conspiracy theories about a world where: * the vast majority of elite and non-elite qualified professionals, * across many different fields of study, * all across the world, *being independently organized and *independently funded, * over the past few decades of advanced academia * most of whom are Theists, * and many of whom are Christians, * are all conspiring to hide the truth. --- Meanwhile, ... Loyal biblical literalists love facts ... except for the facts which refute their theology. Those facts "can't be facts" because the righteous mind "can't be wrong". They also love science. But only when it benefits them personally. All the other science is either worthless or (worse yet) a scheme perpetrated by The Devil to hide the truth(s) of "God". They also love logic ... but really only the fallacious kind. They also love ethics. But only when those are convenient or selfishly beneficial. They also love the principle of personal accountability. But only for everyone else. They truly love LIGHT. But whenever that's a moral metaphor, they mostly just like the kind lit by gas.