Skip to main content

 Religion in a nutshell:

 "My God is real because I choose to "believe" that he is real, and you're god is fiction because I also choose to "believe" it is a fiction, and when a person puts these two "beliefs" together, they become - at least to the person choosing to "believe" these two ideas - infallible "fact."  And for the person choosing to believe their "beliefs" are infallible facts, they will say "if you don't accept my "beliefs" about your "beliefs" then I will interpret that as an outright attack on my religious freedoms, because my "beliefs" require me to force you to behave in ways acceptable to the God I choose to believe is real. 

I will also call you a heretic and a blasphemer and feel perfectly justified in torturing and even killing you for NOT rejecting your own ideas and beliefs out of a preferred dependence upon MY beliefs, the same way my God tortures and kills those who failed to believe in him in the past. And doing this is justified because my God treated those who did not believe in him the same way in a book I choose to believe is sacred, even if you don't believe it is. In fact, NOT believing my book is sacred is justification for my punishment of you, as my book clearly says I should, and must, to save myself from being punished by my God for failing to punish you for your lack of faith in my God and my sacred book. 

Put more simply, your refusal to accept my "sacred" book as being written by the God I choose to believe is real will be seen as an attack on both my God and myself as a "believer" in my God. And because I view your refusal to renounce your beliefs in your ideas of God or what books you call "sacred,"as an attack on me and my (beliefs about my) God, so I am as justified in killing you as my God is justified in killing anyone who doesn't believe in Him. 

 And because I choose to "believe" my God is perfectly moral in choosing to kill everyone on the planet, and also perfectly moral in choosing to torture anyone he wants to after they die, that means I can believe I am as morally justified in doing the same thing in his stead to you while you are alive, and all because my "beliefs" in my God make me just as moral as my God is, and your refusal to accept my beliefs in my brand of God makes you so immoral - for refusing to accept the God I believe in and reject the one that you believe in - that my God wants me to earn my salvation by slaying his enemies for him." 

 And when you tell a "true"believer that this is what their religion boils down to, they deny this is "true" and then tell you you are going to hell if you don't accept that they are telling you the "truth."


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Christianity is More Unnatural Than Homosexuality

I grew up in a family that is about as homophobic as Phil Robertson and the Westboro Baptists, only they're not quite as boisterous about it; at least not in public anyway. They have also conveniently convinced themselves  that their homophobia is really just their unique Christian ability to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" (even though these very same Christians adamantly refuse to accept that people can "hate Christianity, but love the Christian").  The sexual superiority complex necessarily relied on by such Christians is, of course, blanketed beneath the lambs wool of the Christian humility of serving "God." They interpret their fear of those who are different, in other words, as simply proof of their intimate knowledge and love of God. And the only thing such Christians are more sure about than that their own personal version of "God" exists, is that such a "God" would never want people to be homosexual - no matter how ma...
Post a Comment
Read more
  The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter even by a millimeter the way people look at reality, then you can change it.” James Baldwin   
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Are Republicans Pro Life?

Most people don't realize that the Supreme Court has been in the hands of the Republican party since at least 1970! In fact, even in the landmark case of Roe v Wade that legalized abortion, SCOTUS was inhabited by 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and the vote was 7 to 2. One of the reasons is that the Republican Party has absolutely ZERO desire to win on the abortion issue. And that's because abortion gives the GOP a clear focal point with potentially unlimited organizing power. And it's an even simpler message to sell than religion, since we are "pro-life." (if that was true, however, they wouldn't be actively trying to repeal healthcare for up to 30 million Americans, nor would they be so pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro welfare cuts, pro- social security cuts, pro- drone strikes, etc). The Republican party officially became "pro-life" in 1976, thanks to Jesse Helms (R-NC). The only reason no serious challenge was brought within the pa...
Post a Comment
Read more