The Gayness of Christianity III
Continued from The Gayness of Christianity II, which is from The Gayness of Christianity continued.
Why did Christianity consider it good to get rid of all images of, and all stories about, women, families, mothers, and all that? Simple answer: because it was gay. There could be some guy who wants to get rid of all statues/paintings, and that is not gay; not an issue. What identifies Christianity as gay is that Christianity did not make all statues/paintings illegal, but made go away others and replaced them with statues/paintings of a man in barely any clothing. The masterminds of the conquest of Europe did want people to look at and have representations of people—so long as those representations were of this barely-clad man. Think of how 1950s porn is different from 2020 porn. The significance of replacing a representation of a pretty woman in a dress with a representation of a man in a scrap of a loincloth should be considered. Currently, naked people can often be seen very, very much more often than over a thousand years ago, and the near-exposure of the pained man needs to be considered in that light.
The Christian principle is the individual principle, which is “seek pleasure and don’t worry about why you can feel anything including pleasure.” At first, that’s doesn’t sound at all what Christianity is about, but what do you expect will be nice about Heaven? Having painful sores, or instead having the pleasure of having no sores? Being with your family and loved ones? Or, being with a special man? Quoting S.R.:
"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
S.R. was the first antifa; an express anti-nationalist. He was conceived of as the perfect way to break up Europe; change its feelings about immigration, and bring in “refugees.” When the Bible says that God is against what is currently called homosexuality, that is overcompensation. Like the way that monotheism is thought to be a progression from polytheism but is actually completely fricking dumb, it is not true.
Any kind of theism is incredibly stupid. Monotheism is stupid. Duotheism is stupid. Tritheism is stupid. Quadritheism is stupid. And so on. The frequently seen Christian habit of saying, essentially, “A stupid thing is not stupid because it is replacing an even stupider thing” is, besides being incorrect, stupid. Saying that, “It was good to mass murder them because they were even dumber than we are” is wrong. That is what stories of paganism are: an attempt to make Christianity look good by comparison.
With sad irony, many people descended from the European victims of Christianity have adopted this kind of behavior to defend Christianity. There is never any proof, nor is there ever going to be any proof, that there is an invisible rabbi in the sky who gives a shit about anything. Or one who never does. Or one who only cares on Mondays, or Tuesdays, or Wednesdays, or one wearing always a green hat, or a blue hat, or a fuchsia hat, or any other hat. Basically, there will never be proof of an invisible rabbi who created the world.
However, many of those people—descendants of the European victims of enforced rabbi-worship—have used the imaginary or very real behavior of the opponents of Christianity to justify Christianity. They have said, as the Christians did about their imagined pagans, essentially, “Christianity is true because this anti-Christian person or organization did Bad Thing X.” This is utterly irrelevant. It does not matter at all. It is not proof that there is an invisible all powerful rabbi up in the sky (or within or whatever).
Think of reminding people about naughty capitalists in order to get the focus off the Red Terror: those bad things that happened are true, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not an invisible rabbi lives up in the sky. They are not proof that there is such a rabbi. Even more so, if you make up the stories about what hypothetical naughty capitalists did, it might just make it seem that you were responsible for the Red Terror!
The idea that when people used to talk about what they did in light of a situation in a story where everyone has heard that story, using a metaphor involving, in comparison to a situation, for illustrative purposes, and so on and so forth, they were worshiping gods in which/whom they actually believed is not true. It implies that people were always just as stupid as Christianity wanted them to become. However, people were not that stupid. They didn’t believe in invisible sky characters about which they talked, and it was a brand new thing when Christianity made up the idea that you had to believe in nonsense when it took Europe.
Should the income tax rate for people who earn Amount X/year be 38.6% or 42.3% and the income tax rate for people who earn Amount Y/year be 23.6% or 24.2%? Even having the argument concedes the ridiculous notion that tax rates should be dependent on how much income a person earns. That is why myths of paganism existing were popularized: to make the incredible stupidity of saying you believe in an S.R. seem not stupid but an improvement. When humans teach their children “humans used to believe in a lot of gods before they improved to believe in one god” it is incorrect. This kind of behavior also implies that humans have survived via progressing to more unification. (Doctor, heal thyself. It wasn’t because of that liberal school the kid became liberal—you did it yourself.)
People who chopped down trees, who watched trees grow and change over the decades, did not worship trees. “Animism” is not a predecessor to paganism. Saying it was is the same kind of bullshit—implying that people were before the Christian invasions just as stupid as Christianity wanted them to be.
The men who devoted themselves exclusively to an underclad single man writhing passionately on a cross had to promise they would never marry a woman, never date a woman, etc. It is completely no surprise that those men (who were fine spending their entire life never doing it with a woman) have a reputation of orgasmic interest in young boys.
The gayness of Christianity can be seen not just in the Christian story of the Passion. This can also be seen in the evolution of stories about what became called paganism, i.e. the imposition of ostracism and even the death penalty for telling stories about the previous god characters, who as aforementioned were a mix of women and men, often had families told about in their stories, etc. The sense that something is wrong felt by someone with genes, thus desire to perpetuate genes, matches.
Think of a young teenage male. If he is encouraged to be interested in Aphrodite, that is one thing. Instead, if he is encouraged to be interested in a man having public displays of suffering, that is another thing. If a developing male is interested in an attractive female who wears a variety of becoming outfits and loved to have sex, that is one thing. Contra that, if a developing male is interested in a barely clothed man twisting around in pain, that is completely something else. Which one do you think is better for creating a male citizen of a human society that is going to reproduce itself?
As with the other good parts of people saying they’re Christian, the social cohesion is Christianity claiming credit for things which it actually harmed. For example, when people used observation to figure things out and invented things, after the Christian conquest those people liking Jesus was given credit for that. In fact, though, the notion of an invisible rabbi watching from the sky, and the Christian insistence on deduction (non-evidentiary belief) being good (how strong is your faith?), is actually in direct contrast to empiricism (doing things based on observation).
Comments
Post a Comment