Dear Christians, You Are The True "Mono" Of Your Theism

 ​ @RyanPauly 

On any given matter of insight into history, scholars will have a range of arguments that run from strained speculation to (in some matters) virtually inarguable. This is true even when there is unanimous agreement on an issue. They'll still have a tier list of best-to-worst arguments. In any case, reaching consensus means the data to support the majority view is ... very substantial. I'm glad you and I both understand this. Moving foward, I'm fine with citing some of the arguments I was most impressed by. To cite a few: 1. References, in the affirmative, to other gods existing.  

Those texts don't say that those (nor all) other gods are false gods.

2. Yahweh loses a battle with another god. 3. Yaheh has a dad-God over him. 4. ALL references to Yahweh begin to appear in the record only after various other gods have been phased out. 5. Some of the gods previously phased out had some very specific stories, idioms, names, and attributes ... which were later used for Yahweh. 6. We know for fact that polytheistic religions far predate all forms of monotheism. They also predate all formes of Yahwistic religions. 7. The "Biblical" Hebrews were originally Canaanites. The society the pre-Hebrews broke away from was entirely polythistic. 8. In fact, that's where the name "El" comes from. It was the name of their entire patheon of gods. Later, it was the name of a god which far predates Yahweh. Later, that name, along with verious attribute, became pieces of El's god-lore reporposed for the proto-Hebrew patriarchal deity. They broke away and then began to create a tribal religious identity for themselves. Elements of prior god-lores were still floating around and proved useful when Yahweh was being developed. However, there is something far more important to understand here. Let's understand the true context for our conversation. I should remind you of a brief comment-section interaction you and I had a few months back. You were appealing to skeptics/atheists that they should be un-"satisfied" absent diligent investigation into the matters you stream and upload about. Granted, I completely disagree with that. It's like a Hindu or a Viking-religionist saying the same thing. There really is absolutely zero (none; zilch; nodda; not any) objectively good (let alone morally imperative) reason that any humans (nor all adult humans with an IQ north of 80) have ever had ... to assume an Omni-Property Being is playing a Hide Stakes Game Of and Seek ... with their lives; - let alone as a test to separate "wheat from chaff" nor "sheep from goats", ... as metaphors for differentiating morally sufficient trash-people from morally insufficient trash-people. In truth, the real reason the early architects of your matrix decided to include the presupposition that we're all unworthy of "Father's love" (or even the air we breathe) ... is because they were building a very abusive Spouse/Father-puppet. In the real world, all young abuser-minded men quickly realize they need to limit their special-victim hunting.
They need to focus on young women/girls who have a weak, empty, or loathing sense of "self". That's what breeds a deeply felt and misguided sense of romantic obliation. It's also what breeds helpless dependency. It's impossible to lure, capture, and hold a woman who knows WHO she is and what she's worth. In other words, they realize:

What are the real world consequences to young people's emerging social psychology? Countless many (I'd bet: MOST. But we don't have access to that data) (So we'll just sick with: very many) young people in churches like yours end up pairing off as abuser/victim couples. They end up raising children to think "this is what love looks like" and "this is the natural order as God intended".

Understand this. When we have converations or debates about your "totally not a cult", poltically weaponized, people-destroying, apogetic bullshit, we are not having these conversations in a vacuum. All around us, there is a real world, full of real people. We are NEVER **only* discussing matters of theology. You + whoever are always simultanously competing for which of you TWO HUMANS 1. You vs 2. That other person ... gets to call dibs on that 2nd/other person's life-journey, value, and personal identity. You are a "colonizer of minds"; treating other people's entirety-of-self as territory to claim, dominate, and repurpose ... for a KING who (even IF any arguments for DEISM might be correct) ... is not really "Him".

What you call "God" is just the collective Super-Ego of the men who plant those flags. Meanwhile, CURIOSITY is a very meager mark of intelligence. Even cats have it. Whereas it's utterly irrelevant to moral character. In any case, I've yet to stumble across an anti-religious skeptic who wasn't oozing curiosity from their very bones. We exist in a world where there is so much to discover. Nobody could realistically hope to satisfy every curiosity. Instead, we rely on the demanding physics of our psychology, as shaped by our individual life experiences, to determine our interests and potentials for discovery. Now, most people end up being dropped nose-first into the chaotic soup of cultural religiosities. Thus, there, we swim. - At least, for a while. While there, we discover, learn, and grow, mostly into directions and shapes we never could have anticipated. In any case, it's not really a sign of moral character to be curious about such things. Neither are we rightly incriminated if we experience no such curiosities. Neither has anyone chosen to lack (nor is anyone otherwise guilty of lacking) character virtues if we ultimately find either: * all such projects, or * your own quasi-specific religious project ... to be unimpressive. With all that said, I have spent tens of thousands of hours investigating all such matters. And yet, I was absolutely wrong in my youth ... to think I was morally obligated to give such things serious consideration. It took many years to realize how wasteful all forms of "personal God" theology are. It would be the same if I'd grown up in a world where billions of people compete over who correctly understands, knows, and pleases the Eternal King of the Leprechauns. Yes. I realize gold, rainbows, and short Irishmen can't make themselves. But more importantly, I'm honestly embarrassed over how long it took me to realize how manipulative that apologetic really is. How many years must a man chase after the gold at the end of rainbows, "Lest The King Be Angered", before a man realizes that entire global competition is a PSY OP for competing control-and-exploit systems that children are conditioned into?