Literally Against Life
The policies which are supported in human societies when it's time for them to decay out are literally against life. That is from where the term "antilife" comes. It isn't some cheesy scary "Ooh then the antagonist is wearing a ghost mask and he has a weapon!" fantasy. It isn't the derivation of Jesusianism, i.e., "Ooh he says he supports the character in red pajamas who's against Jesus!" It's drawn from the fact that bad things are literally against life. Antilife. Like the way that antimatter and matter don't mix well. Those things often get culturally blended with reaffirmations of other universalist nonsense, like, "The rabbi likes the family and this was against the family so it's bad and you should do what the rabbi wants!" However, that kind of stuff makes it a little easier for other bad stuff to happen. Adopting the cultural mantle of a supporter of the recognized bad character ("Satanism") makes it easier, more likely, for bad people to do bad things because there is a cultural understanding, bolstered by a lot of people, of that story. If you want to help along the kiddy-touchers and financial swindlers, you advocate for being on the side of Good Fictional Character because it makes it easy for them to autoconceptualize (think of themselves) that way, i.e. to rationalize what they do as "on the side of Bad Fictional Character." That is why the behavior of groups of people who say something like, "We support Good Character!" is making it much more likely that filthy people don't just have some pitiful masturbatory fantasy, but that they see themselves as having a place in the world from which to actually do those filthy things.
Oh So Happy
One of the frequently seen antilife things--recurrent when human societies decay--is antisexual behavior. The elevation of hamasexual partnerships to the level of sexual ones is performed. Just like things stinking and viral counts going up, the occurrence of what is called here "gay" lifestyles is antilife.
Why? Well, consider the massive, super-massive, ultimate importance to meiotic organisms of sexual coupling, i.e. woman and man mating. That interaction can produce new humans. Appropriately, meaningfully, sexual desire, the orgasm, feelings of unity and partnership, fulfillment, etc. are there, and they are thus the most important things meotic humans can ever do. If they don't, 150 years pass and they're gone. In 10,000 years it's all dust (10,000 years sounds really big, but think how tiny it is compared to how long stars live, or then galaxies, etc.).
Conjoined with this is the process of human development. When a baby appears, when a baby grows, it is constantly observing what other humans do around it, and that observation is vital to the development of that human. This is why sterile reproduction-style pairings are helpful to the perpetuation of the meiotic species. If a couple of 60-year-olds, or a couple of 30-year-olds where she has some weird disease and can never get pregnant, or a couple of healthy 20-year-olds where she has an I.U.D. and then they break up before it expires, are good relationships: it is a way to make sure babies, whose brains are programmed to learn through observation of humans and copying thereof (monkey see monkey do) can know what they should be doing to further the species.
The drive for advocates of "gay" things to "educate" children is this, as is the defensive hostility of some reproduction-benefitting arrangements. Advocacy for "childfree" stuff, for gay marriage, etc., are support for antilife things. Maybe they're fun, maybe they're pleasurable, whatever; however, they are against life--not only that they don't produce offspring, but that they imitate the satisfaction of the productive and fostering aspects of mating pairs, evincing a malicious attempt to not just not produce, but to lessen the production of others. This is why people "don't like" gay things; this is why some Muslim policy is to throw home-oh-seck-shoe-ulls off buildings, as a defense of living populations against an attack on that population's viability. The eager happiness of homoerotic representers to influence child education and perception is this. Some people would never, the vast majority of males would violently resist, but if two men presenting as a happy couple influence developing brains, the proportion of growing children who get the message "this is a way to be good" it can affect them.
Trains Without an Eye
Trains without an eye advocates are doing similar things. Exploiting the orgasm to make no babies already seems just fine to humans who like orgasms on their own. What the "gay" advocates did is build upon this, and now the trains without an eye advocates are trying to do what modern "gay" things did which is to use society to establish feelings of unity and partnership, fulfillment, etc. These are things which life developed to foster and perpetuate human production of babies, but which antilife can exploit. As referenced previously, such behavior is not at all new. Men of that sort have for a very long time costumed and acted differently in attempts to purloin social regard for female humans. This great sexism is disguised so assiduously that such men will ally with--and even themselves believe--that they are supporting women's rights while actually trying to apply those rights to themselves.
Healthy men of course don't try to grandstand by showing that they are better at whatever sports the women are doing. By the same token, healthy men keep women in that population safe from savage acts. Sadly, decaying societies tend to not include these types of borders; one of the reasons Jesusianism can be recognized is that Christianity's universalism is essentially an anti-border philosophy. Arguing that people can transcend borders by desiring it is anti-matter--antilife. Saviorianity is literally anti-matter; it's named that way.
Rubric
Characterizing things as good or bad in a way that makes sense--in a way that is completely and in every way justified because it uses evidence--provides an opportunity for non-Chriastians to do what Jesusians do: redress valid concerns about Bangism being terrible and not making any sense. However, this can be done without any of the nonsense (that some would call "ridiculous crap") about invisible friends living in the sky and related crud found in traditional Christianity. More simply put, it offers a better way to categorize information--for the thinking being to think rather than to have faith.
The hard thing for Bangists to get is that their way of seeing the world is at least just as stupid and spotty as traditional Jesusianism. Mathematically, the idea that it is random for living things on Earth to have developed to fit perfectly with Earth is not just extremely unlikely, but impossible (more later--stay tuned). Different forms of Christianity are just different sorts of faith-based, ridiculous, hypocritical matter-denial expressed by beings made of matter. This is why Jesusians don't lovingly go firsthand-teach lions at the zoo about how Jesus made them, or massage the best hand lotion onto male tigers' balls while singing tender hymnals about the love of Jesus--or if you only think about humans, why they don't donate all their money to soup kitchens and work there all day. After all, even though it is unpleasant for many to consider, Christ was just like Lenin in the way the rabbi spoke about personal ownership rather than social ownership. The creation of the false dichotomies between single-man-worship and homoeroticism, and between that same holy commune and communism was extremely effective--people, even now, tend to think those things are opposed, just because they are so sure Jesus was speaking in metaphor, the Bible was absolutely doth protesting too much, and it just happened that way with the rabbi taking off everything (nowadays showing not nudity but taking off merely everything but a loincloth) and writhing around for a time while everyone watches because of circumstances.
How long does an all powerful being twist around in none/minimal clothing? Answer: as long as it damn well wants to. Christ's omnipotence plus "His" Passion reveals that he wanted to do that, and once you realize that the character was all powerful but suffered without much/any clothing in front of a group for hours, you know something about that man. Of course men who refuse to get married their whole lives and devote themselves to that male character are going to have a very high rate of male child sexual abuse. If you don't see how an omnipotent being could make it so that he saved everyone by having some pancakes in private with all his clothes on, you are not only possessed of minimal mental abilities, but a blasphemer. The Jesus described in over a thousand years of Jesusian Christianity had total power, which means he could have saved everyone by backing his truck up a foot, putting his truck in drive, brushing at his shoulder, or just he could have made them all saved to begin with. There is no way that an all powerful being would need to strip down to nothing/loincloth and suffer in order to do anything at all, but if someone has a penchant for making up untrue things about how much suffering there was, you have a story about a passion.
Traditional Christians don't walk onto the highway while praying so that they will be with Jesus faster, because they don't actually believe the stuff they say they believe. Similarly, modern Christians don't donate all their money to Amnesty International and move into Black neighborhoods because they don't actually believe what they say they believe. By their actions you shall know them. Part of the motivation for squawking about gay rights, minority rights, etc. is that people feel inside how hypocritical it is that they insist on things they don't actually believe, so they think making noise about it will help. Hymnals from a traditional Christian church do the same.
Comments
Post a Comment