Morals

Jesus!  Jesus!  Je—oh, blog again?  

Well, the thing is, you can’t have morals without Jesus.  So to show how stupid Ists are, we’ll let them do their anti-Jesus thing again.  Here goes.  

Jesusian Christians say that there can be no morality without a Supreme Creator.  It is said, but not explained.  Here is an explanation.  The argument goes, a Supreme Creator wanted to create man (and after a while woman ’cause he is so smart that he realized that you needed women to have babies who would grow up into handsome men).  Therefore, he wanted to establish property rights to further the success of his rather His creation, and therefore, to damage any of these things is to be opposed to him oops I mean Him.  Thus, moral behavior—like not killing and/or stealing—is in furtherance of what He wants, while immoral behavior is against what He wants.  

(This is why modern Jesusians--people who live over 1,000 years after there never was a Second Coming and after space shuttles, but still say they are Christian--are maybe good human beings who are smarter than the modern kind of Christian [Bangists].  In fact, because they often recognize the danger of a breeding group not protecting itself, they might be effectively smarter.  Their mistake in worshiping a rabbi is very often caused by their recognition that Bangism is insane, in that a whole lot of the things the modern West [which is declining haha] does are very stupid.  Many of those things are so stupid that it makes saying a first century rabbi who rose from the dead should be worshiped seem sane by comparison.)  

Such claims are kin to the co-option of European achievement.  For example, if 1634 years pass, and Europeans eventually invent the space shuttle, it is not something that happened because of Jesus.  Rather, it likely took many more years to invent that space shuttle because people were trying to make Jesus’ book look better, and from that refused to learn about the space around the Earth.  People who said that they liked Jesus made scientific achievement happen less often and at a slower rate than it would have otherwise.  It is not only wrong, but inverse to the reality of what happened, to claim that Jesus is good for scientific achievement.  

The same goes for morality.  In order to convince people to accept the worship of the Sky Rabbi (S.R.) in the right way, many people had to be killed.  After, say, 10,000 people were killed for what was said to be worshiping Jesus wrongly, if the survivors are nice to each other, saying that niceness is because of Jesus is not just wrong, but dangerously wrong.  Saying that niceness requires Jesus is completely inverse to the truth.  

As with many other aspects of Christianity, the belief in Jesus operates well within the framework of complete inversion to the truth.  However, there is an element of truth in the fact that there is no grounding for morals in what is now called atheism.  People can want to be nice, and behave morally, without Jesus, but lacking an imperative for why it is good to respect humanity (and/or property rights) is as flawed as killing people for a prince of peace.  

What is lacking in modern styles of what is called atheism is a reason for why it is good to respect human existence and property rights.  For the forces of Jesusian Christianity to singularize that reason in worship of S.R. is part of Christianity’s Hegelian Dialectic.  It is like the illusion of Labor* v. Tory or Democrat v. Republican, where whatever is going to happen will happen, but the deceptions of control and participation make people feel that they have input.  Actually, with great difficulty for many to accept, the illusion of Jesusian Christianity is just such a system of control.  

(*Lay-bower I mean Labour, haha.  Seriously, there is a word “our” and a word “or” and those are different words said a little differently.  When you spell things O-U-R and then say it like it’s spelled O-R you are a friggin’ idjut also known as a Britard.)

Worshiping a rabbi is exactly how you are supposed to behave.  It is very difficult, very painful, for many people to contemplate this.  Like the liberals of the American 1960s who believed they were resisting the establishment (Vietnam War) by following the doings of establishment figures who paid for their success with establishment money, it is hard.  The American Republican Ronald Reagan raised taxes many times for the working population and his administration hired tens of thousands of new federal employees.  Like Jesus was lionized for things he did not actually do, though, Reagan is still lionized by many as the leader who lowered taxes and reduced the size of the federal government.  The illusion of what he was supposed to represent remains very compelling to many.  The utter inversion of what he actually accomplished is too painful an admission for many to contemplate.  

How can morality exist without a super rabbi in the sky preferring that you let the people he created live, do stuff, and have their property be left alone?  The answer is environmental correspondence.  Environmental correspondence, the unmentionable component of evolution, will be discussed more elsewhere, but with regards morals, it provides all of the necessary components of morality.  It does this without requiring that you say you subscribe to the belief in an all powerful sky rabbi who created everyone’s ancestors out of mud he’d found in the Middle East.  

What are the reasons that morality is often believed to require a demiurge?  Because the demiurge’s wishes supply the missing variable for the moral equation.  Feeling that is why the modern Jesusian is in a way much smarter than many Bangist atheists/agnostics; what the modern Jesusian should think on is that adopting a presented belief in order to be against another belief made by the same faction is being deceived; manipulated just as you are supposed to be.  Since the demiurge (God; Yahweh; the Supreme Creator; the Sky Rabbi; S.R.) wished for there to be people, hurting people and killing people—damaging the demiurge’s creation—are against the demiurge, therefore wrong.  One can posit that the demiurge believes in western-style property rights, but one can also posit that the demiurge believes in giving money to Organization X, Cause Y, or Person Z, or, say, beginning immigration to Europe (inception of Christianity), or vastly increasing it there or to Usica (developing Christianity).  This is how the advocates of useful idiots worshiping a rabbi (S.R.) achieved what they have achieved.  As with older Jesusian Christianity and the scientific achievement of people whose distant ancestors were exclusively from Europe, most of them said S.R. was connected to what they had done.  

Although S.R. was not responsible for the things to which he is oft connected, this type of silly juxtaposition (Hegelian Dialectic) is successful in the fact that the media-manipulated populace sees only two options: Jesus or Science.  Because they can tell that one option is wrong, they conclude that the other option must be right.  This has led many people to conclude that morals do not require S.R., just a detached sense of goodness, and many others to conclude that morals require S.R.  

Neither is the case.  As in the offered examples, the “choice” of Lay-bower/Labor v. Tory, Democrat v. Republican, etc. is itself a concealment and a deception.  It is often very painful, perhaps impossible, for Jesusian Christians to understand that they are “useful idiots.”  They have been tricked into the stupidity of saying that an invisible rabbi in the sky is great, but only say they believe that because they are participating in a dialectic that was created to guide them to where they have gone.  Similarly, Bangist Christians can understand that S.R. is an extremely stupid fantasy about an invisible omnipotent deity in the shape of a person who always watches you from up in the sky, but they are generally utterly unable to understand the things that their preferred stories lack.  While saying that you believe in S.R. is incredibly stupid, the ignorance of the Bangist Christian is also monumental.  

(Jesusian Christians “say” that they believe in S.R., but privately don’t.  That is why they have to work on their faith, maintain their faith, practice their faith, have regular crises of faith, etc.  Given that they have brains configured to work using evidence, and always go into other rooms inside by traveling through doorways rather than walking through walls, getting them to subscribe to believing things without evidence—“faith”—cannot be done.  However, Christians are great at pretending.  They very politely claim to other Jesusians, and very passionately claim to everyone else, that they really believe in absurd things.)  

The media’s oft-disavowed “liberal bias” tricks many people into thinking Tory/Republican must be correct as a counterpoint to the absurdities of liberal policy.  In fact, though, those fooled into believing they chose for themselves the deceptive embrace of either side of the illusion have been tricked.  The conservative as well as the liberal sides of the dichotomy are bad, and both can blame the other side for failures.  

(Think of how “Tory” is not spelled "Toury.”  Recall also how “Tory” is pronounced, yet how “Labour” is spelled and pronounced.  The way the British spell/speak their German-derived language adds vowels when it is not appropriate, and the way that Noah Webster went against that is like the way Martin Luther went against the rampant obscenities of the Catholic Church selling indulgences.)  

In, say, ^CE400, liberals were saying “a few of those poor non-Europeans should come into Europe really fast like right now!”  Conservatives then were saying, “They should come in, but a little slower.”  In, say, ^CE2020, liberals were saying “even more of those poor non-Europeans should come into Europe and Usica really fast like right now!”  Conservatives then were saying, “They should come in, but a little slower.”  The process of a society decaying is quite predictable, even if it takes what Earthlings often see as a long time.  

Such a choice in political parties as outlined above—the choice of either side in the illusion—is usually supportable by evidence that the other side is associated with a bad thing.  The media generally provides evidence that this or that person on one side has misbehaved in order to reassure people on the “other” side that they make decisions based on evidence.  This or that organization or individual will behave badly in some way that can be used to prove that a hypocrisy has been discovered through evidence.  

It can be made to seem abundantly clear to the faithful that one party is definitely better than another party because Party Q has been proven to support Activity R.  Since everyone knows that Activity R is bad (“R” for “reprehensible”), Party S can seem good by comparison.  This has been done often with Jesus, just as with Marx.  The things said by neither posited entity are actually good, but the things proven that their opponents have done are definitely very bad.  

Say that you are kidnapped by two men.  One kidnapper is mean, and he will punish you by cutting off two of your fingers.  The other one will only cut off one of your toes.  Which is better?  Neither is good for you, of course, but there are endless debates possible about the things you can do with fingers versus toes.  Becoming trapped in that illusion—that one kidnapper is definitely better than the other—misses the point.  Neither kidnapper is good for you.  

Consider again what is missing from the more currently mainstream conception of morality: a reason that doing good things is good and doing bad things is bad.  The ridiculous supposition that S.R. is required is justifiable by the fooled but not correct, just like it is something you can alternately prove that members of this or that political party have been naughty.  The modern claim that a non-ownership society directed by experts has not already been described by Plato, but is a new type of marvelous thing attributable to Marx, is this same type of trick.  Similarly, the claim that research into the existential status of matter and energy is a new type of marvelous thing attributable to a patent clerk is this same type of process.  

Very extensive cultural investment has been made, at various times, in both of these subjects, and the deception with Jesus is similar.  Like Einstein and Marx, the philosophy of Jesus can be used to offer an alternative to bad things that are obviously wrong.  For example, there may be a factory in which workers are paid 1/10000 of what the president makes.  The workers have to work hard almost every day and die regularly risking their lives to produce the factory’s products, while the president works 1/100 days farting into the cushions of his deluxe office chair.  Telling the story of this type of situation to explain why someone should become a communist can hold much emotional appeal.  

In the same way, Jesus has been chosen by many.  An utterly impartial approach to the world, severing from the explanation the relationship between an environment and a type of thing grown to live in that environment, presents a case so flawed that Jesus as an opponent to that seems like S.R.-worship represents a good thing.  

The predictable results of such dialectics have created many Christian atrocities, such as those called Communist.  In each case, the people doing the horrible things did not believe that they were being horrible, but rather that they were being nice.  Because, after all, overwhelming evidence proves that Factory Bloke A is very bad and so is Atheist B.  

However, Factory Bloke A and Atheist B only exist because of the establishment of the dialectic.  It is true—very, very true—that the bloke/faction has done Horrible Thing X or is stupid for Reason Y.  This does not, though, mean that the infernal dialectic does not exist, nor that it was not created in order to make people think they were choosing their preferences rationally.  The farce of choosing between Wrong A and Wrong B always causes the house to win.  Adopting one side of the dialectic—becoming a proud assembly line worker where everyone is a number, or becoming a Jesusian—accomplishes good things for the house, but not for the genetic group so afflicted.  

Many well-meaning Marxists and Jesusians have been created through deceptions like these.  While many factory owners have done many terrible things, and many atheists have done many terrible things, neither of these actions proves that an invisible rabbi lives in the sky or that property should be taken from people.  This can seem obvious, but remember that Marx and Jesus have obtained many followers this way—by exemplifying the opposition to badness.  

Marx has been proven incredibly, mountainously, colossally wrong.  The Soviet Union produced low living standards for a long time, decades of utterly absent scientific achievement, and Nikita Khrushchev was very wrong and the U.S. was not buried by the U.S.S.R.  Similarly, the Bible itself and the culture of Christianity have also been proven incredibly, mountainously, colossally wrong.  S.R. never has made or ever will make a second coming to Earth, Earth’s sun Sol is just one of many stars in one particular galaxy not the center of everything, and people who act against the fictional desires of the fictional character God regularly achieve great sustained successes and great sustained pleasures.  

However, Marxists can always point to something a boss has done wrong, and Christians can always point to something a non-Christian has done wrong.  People enchanted by either philosophy can always appear to have evidence that their philosophy is correct.  Just as revolutionaries can always point to something their country has done wrong, Christians can always point to something that has been done wrong by anti-Christians—but never to something that makes S.R. real.  

Followers of S.R./Marx may always see themselves as responding to evidence, as do modern Bangist Christians (liberals).  The absence of an atheistic proof for why there should be morals is one of these incomplete supports on which Jesusianism rests.