I was thinking about 'evil' cults and noticed Christianity condemns humanity not for betraying itself, but for being itself.
Christianity has a sufficiently solid grasp of what a human is, and it immediately condemns that human for its humanity. It says being human isn't good enough. Christianity is a religion for those who hate mortals and mortals who hate themselves.
As before, Humanism is Antihumanism. More generally, Satanism, lie worship, is anti-being-ism. Satan "rebelled" against Reality and wanted to overthrow Reality to replace it with, presumably, non-Reality.
Morality: humans have "good" traits and "dark" traits.
Engineering: sometimes mass and friction is bad, sometimes it's good. It's an engineering constraint.
Accounting: either a man is worth interacting with, or he isn't.
Fundamentally, Christianity says man is not good enough, unless you obey the Christian preacher. As per the abusive relationship stereotype. It's emotional blackmail. However, in practice - in engineering - you find you can't obey the Christian preacher. This is of course by design, again as per the abusive stereotype. This in turn means that even with Christianity, you're not good enough. Which reveals that that [unless] was fake all along. Christ believes you are irredeemable. (They even admit this around the back at times.)
By the way, [redeem] means to buy back. What kind of person can be bought and sold? A slave. Christianity is one step from being explicitly a slave religion. Nietzsche was right.
Which makes sense. Egalitarianism. If one person is a slave, that must mean everyone ever is a slave.
Worse. According to Yeshua, you need to be bought back. Who were you sold to? You get one guess - it was Satan, of course.
"I'm going to make everyone a slave. Free will, yo. Then I'm going to sell them all to evil incarnate (who I made myself). That's just what being the Form of the Good means."
It's true in a sense. Christianity is a religion for folk who have been sold to Satan. As the Book claims. 2000 years and nobody noticed that even if it's not a "fairy tale" the person who wrote it must simply be lying? Pathetic. The word of "THE LORD" rebels against logic itself. The Logos opposes the Bible.
The "LORD" of the Bible says to feed and clothe criminals, never to defend yourself, to always obey your preacher and never think for yourself, and always submit to Caesar even if the Caesar is unholy as compared to the ridiculously weaksauce standards demanded by the Book.
I wonder what the real identity of this character is. It's a real mystery. Nobody could ever figure out this puzzle.
5 comments:
It's gaslighting.
>The "LORD" of the Bible says to feed and clothe criminals, never to defend yourself
No. We have figured it out at Jim's place. Basically, in the real world cooperation / defection signals are unclear. Someone pulls a defecting on you, but maybe that is because he thinks you are the defector. Someone demands your shirt because his shirt was stolen and thinks you are wearing it. So you cooperate - ONCE. Offer the shirt and a cloak which no thief ever would do. This convinces the other guy you are not the thief. One extra mile. Not one thousand, not infinite. Just one.
>By the way, [redeem] means to buy back.
It also means to buy off, release, pay ransom for. At least redemptio in Latin works like that. So it is more like releasing, freeing people from sin.
As far as I can tell, sin basically means addiction. Compulsive behaviour. Paul: doing the bad stuff I do not want to do and not doing the good stuff I want to do.
Christianity is complex. A Jewish layer, on top of it a Greek layer, on top of that a Germanic layer.
The first adaptation that made hominids different from other apes was the ability to throw rocks. This increased cooperative behaviour because defectors could be stoned to death by "the masses". This led to the evolution of social intelligence. Unfortunately this also created egalitarianism, and a tribal hivemind. Also, cooperation only within the group, not with the outgroup. The hivemind alone guarantees tribal conflict. (The sperg superpower is being immune to the hivemind.)
So no, people are not good enough.
>Basically, in the real world cooperation / defection signals are unclear.
On purpose. Anyone claiming they're unclear by inherent nature is a Progressive.
>Someone pulls a defecting on you, but maybe that is because he thinks you are the defector.
Tit for two tats. Ask. "Hey man, did you do that on purpose? Why?"
If they're doing something you don't like to your property, then it's defection.
>Someone demands your shirt because his shirt was stolen and thinks you are wearing it. So you cooperate - ONCE.
I dunno if you know this, but you're supposed to ask before wearing someone else's clothing. It shouldn't be a surprise. This already has legibility rules.
The tit for tat model finds it's best to have a small population of tit for one-tatters. In other words, folk who, like me, can tell immediately if it's intentional or not.
If you're taking someone shirts, it's obviously intentional defection. A normal person does the tit for two tats thing: "...are you wearing my shirt? Can I have that back?" Then I explain that in fact I have a copy of the same shirt. If I know him personally, then I offer to help him find his shirt, because that's neighbourly.
There's no need to jump directly to Christian cheek-turning. Unless you're a leftist and want to encourage crime, of course. If he's a stranger he's obviously just trying to steal my shirt, and I'ma execute him so he doesn't do it to anyone else.
>pay ransom for
Ah, so Yeshua allowed Satan to take humanity hostage. Because that's just what omnicompetent omnibenevolence does.
>Christianity is complex.
Yes.
The issues are simple.
Thus, Christianity is trying to lie to you.
>Unfortunately this also created egalitarianism, and a tribal hivemind.
More that fridges didn't exist and meat was wealth. If you didn't share it would just rot. The folk you shared it with could then be used as zerg-rush cannon fodder, so it paid back in the medium-long run.
However, instead of being encoded as rational, logically-justified culture, it was hard-wired as feelings. When the environment changed, the feelings did not. In a hunter tribe, sharing is a virtue. In a monetary-industrial economy, sharing is a sin except maybe for trained professionals.
In the proper long run, validating zerg-rush tactics was an awful idea.
>On purpose. Anyone claiming they're unclear by inherent nature is a Progressive.
It is more like peasants are really stupid. I have noticed this. Buddhists do not obsessively proselytize. If they think you do not belong there, they will give strong hints to go away. It is sort of an elite university. That mostly because it is not a political religion.
Christianity on the other hand is a political religion whose goal is that even the dumbest peasants should get along with each other somehow.
I have seen how peasants work. They get into a mutual escalation of first tiny then ever growing defections where it is impossible to say which party culpable, because it begins with small slights they both find culturally acceptable. Just a jest, man. And then it increasingly escalations into trading insults, then blows. Or they negotiate prices, then argue about prices angrily, accuse each other of extortion, call each other a thief, and then finally feel justified to take the others property.
Post a Comment