Second Environmental Correspondence
Jesus is so great because every good thing you have ever done was a gift from Jesus. Like, remember that big good thing that happened last year? Jesus! That bad thing that happened? The enemy of Jesus. (He said so himself, and we can trust him in spite of him being completely evil.) So if you don’t love Jesus, you suck. And also if—oh. Ists! Okay, moving on:
We have discussed how cells are programmed to die. This is called apoptosis. So are collections of collections of cells—human societies. That is why Decay keeps trying to break them down. Decay are a component of the environment, and the pretense of independence is part of why they make their illusions that way--because illusions of independence are very effective for what they do (causing decay; the breakdown of societies).
Why do people get old? After enough decades, why do the things in their body start to get brittle and caramelized? Why do women become infertile and men less phallically functional? Why are human beings—supposedly either the most magnificent of Jesus’ creations or the most effective vessels for spreading genes; pick one if you don't care about being wrong but wanna be popular in 21st century Earth—programmed to get less effective at spreading genes for many years, then die? Wouldn’t a woman who looked attractive to men until she was 130 and who had the ability to have children that long be better? Wouldn’t a man who lived, oh, 200 years, and looked fresh for most of that, be at least twice better at being tempted by all kinds of sins, or doing it with more hotties and maybe having more kids? It is easy to think of a lot of examples of people who would do lots better at survival of the fittest competitions compared to a person who lives, oh, 70 years, most of them un-sexy. Than a woman who begins to have her period at 13, doesn't look good at 39, and then has menopause at 46 and lives until 82? That’s more than half the time unable. Than a man who begins to generate semen at 12 and then looks really old and unattractive at 53 or 42 or whatever, and doesn’t pick up any fertile chicks from then until he dies at 85? Or 73? (And sometimes babies die in, like, childbirth or when they’re really young, when they’ve had like zero chance to be tempted and show how good they are for Jesus by resisting temptations!) Wouldn’t a person who lived, oh, 400 years, or 1000 years, or even just 124 years, and stayed suitable for reproducing for lots longer be a whole lot better at resisting sin/spreading genes? It costs a lot of calories to cause a human infant to grow up to a reproduction-capable human, and it would have been a great advantage to have humans reproducing for longer and being young for relatively shorter. However, humans are made to produce a better environment, not to produce better humans.
Whether Jesusian or Bangist, Christianity is wrong. Those are fantasies, anthropomorphic fantasies, about things seen being designed for Earthlings, which they are clearly not. Why would Jesus design something and test it for sin for 50 years, 80 years, or sometimes no years? Why would a selfish gene design things that spent the vast majority of their time not reproducing and which were guaranteed to die? Why did Jesus make mortal childhood leukemia? Randomus at least says that is random, but there is no way at all to explain why Jesus would have made that (even if he really needed to talk to that infant, why didn't he do it before the kid was born to suffer/die after 1000 times of that same situation?).
The problem with this is similar to that of why apoptosis occurs also within microscopic multicellular populations. Old people die so that young people can take their space. And their stuff. Variations on a theme. This happens because people are not instruments of spreading alleles or of appreciating Jesus’ creations (or His apple; hang on while the Christians murder a few thousand people to figure out all that goodness). The human insistence on individual sin or individual gene-duplication/expression is truly an insistence on individuality; of being saved/liberated from the environmental cycle. It is stupid, wrong of course, but for here we note how selfish it is.
Anyway. In truth, death happens because of environmental correspondence. Some popular stories say that everything happening around you happened because a special invisible sky rabbi made those things happen, or because a special invisible set of random principles made those things happen, but that is BS either way. Both of these sets of stories are failing to take into account how the environment in which things live is incredibly connected to those things. It is those things, or rather, better put, those things are components of it. So we are all just little bits of Sol (which is just a little bit of the Milky Way, which is just a little bit of something bigger, etc.).
You want evidence? Already you have it. But get some anyway. Go to the hospital (make sure no nurses catch you or they will call people with tasers, hard sticks, or guns to make you leave). While you are at the hospital, don't touch anything, get against the wall, and you will be able to see evidence that will disprove either popular version of Christianity.
First, for Jesus-based Christianity, watch 10 people die. They will usually be unconscious. Notice how many of those people are then floated up to a magical sky paradise where they are cradled by a loving man who gave them cancer or whatever because he loved them so much.
Stay at the hospital a long time. Watch 100 people die. Then 1000. 10,000, 1 million, 1 trillion, as many as you need. See how not a single one got taken up to a magical sky paradise to be cradled by a loving man?
Next, look at the chart to find out how many years old those people were (again, make sure no nurses catch you or they will call people with tasers/sticks/guns to either put you in a cage or otherwise make you leave). You will find out that many of those people were not even 130 years old. How did they have plenty of time to learn about sin or spread jeans we mean genes or any of that?
They didn’t. Either of the Christian narratives are completely stupid and exorbitantly wrong. There is no way in hell—haha that’s a Jesusian expression—anyway, there is no way that the explanation “this invisible sky rabbi has a mysterious plan for your life” makes even the tiniest bit of half a lick of the sense scraped off of a fly’s toenail-clippers.
The same way with the more modern version of Christianity. The idea that a contest of reproduction was won by a type of creature where one of that type’s individuals takes over a decade to be able to reproduce, and which after a few decades becomes either totally incapable (female) or very unlikely (male) to reproduce in order to spread genes is completely stupid.
It tends to be quite difficult for modern Christians--Bangists--to think that the things they have been taught are wrong, because they have always been told those things are right, they have always been told scientific empiricism was used, and so forth. However, people of the past thought that same thing. Many surviving myths are this. Traditional Christians thought they were so much smarter than the pagans, and that they had so much of a closer relationship to Christ who created the world, their wise ones had been to lots of countries and studied very old true things for years, etc. The illusion that "now things are good and right" has happened before. It is very human to think that one's worldview is correct because one now has available education that they didn't have in the past. Bangists tend to do this, and to point to the obvious stupidities in Jesusian "my sky friend did it!" while ignoring the gaps in their own preferred philosophy.
Living entities who are part of an environment, though, would naturally live or die as they do. Just like every cell has an invisible clock decreeing that it will die at a certain point, just as every organism ever born in the entire world is set to get old, stop reproducing genes, and then die, organisms are part of an environment. They are not “individuals” standing free in that sense. Everything that they are, everything that they were and will be etc. is a component of that environment. The reason that every type of organism to ever evolve on the planet Earth has been designed to use this gas that is on Earth in abundance (oxygen), and use this hydrogen product that is on Earth in abundance (water), is that. (Narcissistic Earth scientists--Jesusians and Bangists both; Whites--used to claim that life needed water. Haha bumpkins. Rural people don'tcha know.)
This will likely be most interesting to you, because you are a human: all Earthlings are components of Earth’s environment. They are where they are not because a special all powerfully invisible anthropomorphic Sky Daddy made them. Nor are they where they are—even stupider and less likely; stick around for the math—because it just so happened that their ancestors were part of a process where they made things that randomly changed really conveniently and inordinately quickly through chance and thus become able to breathe Earth air/water.
As a result of being part of Earth—Earth’s environment—there are a lot of things which seem very significant to your life. For example, to keep energy from Sol’s burning of hydrogen getting recycled, the organisms on Earth will themselves cycle. This means that they will develop more and better ways to transfer this energy.
(Yes, saying people are part of Earth's environment means we are, too. Just like Jesusians and people crying at the camera about Trump, we express thoughts generated by the environment. We're not crushed by that.)
Think of, simply, a smartphone versus a leaf versus some dirt. Now, think of 100 million years passing and the smartphone and the leaf ending up as just more dirt. Next, think of 7.65 million years after that passing and that dirt growing some plants, some herbivores eating the plants, some carnivores eating the herbivores, and some future omnivore eating reheated formerly frozen slices of a sandwich focused on that carnivore’s thigh muscles on his break before programming machines that build a new smartphone. See the progression? See the cycle?
One of the parts of being part of a cycle is called death. Have you heard of death? Do you think it will be nice to die? You probably don’t think so. And yet, death must happen in order for things to live. Death is a good thing, though it seems like a bad thing. That is why apoptosis exists: because it is a suitable, necessary thing--a good thing!--when parts of the environment change how they are being part of the environment. When those parts stop what they’re doing and start to do something else instead because the environment needs that thing, when someone acts like an idiot destroying her/his society as part of making that happen, that is a bad thing from one perspective and a good thing from another perspective. So we can appreciate how it sucks and is stupid, but also how it is good.
A popular attack on the life process is declared by calling oneself a person who has been saved from the life process—“salvation.” Another popular attack is declared by calling oneself a person who is free of the life process—“liberation.” This is why Jesusian Christianity provides for the worship of someone named Jesus Savior. It is also why there are people who found the implied goodness of their political philosophy on saying they are free—one of them can call her- or himself a “liberal.”
However, saying you are saved/free from the life process is saying a bad/unrealistic thing has happened to you. You are not really saved from/free of the life process because you say you are, and if that ever actually happened it would be a very bad thing for you. The life process, of course, includes the literal generation of life, and that is why Jesus never had any women in his life and was born from a virgin mother when his story says he saved people from the life process.
Don’t be afraid of the life process! Don’t be tricked into trying to be saved from or free of the life process. The life process is why you can exist—why you can appreciate good food, good music, good places, good people, etc. It is a very good thing. Life is the definition of good. When universalism tries to save/free people from the life process, it is evil.
Notice how "evil" is "live" backwards. It is advocating for foulness to claim that the character who removes people from the life process (S.R.; the "savior") should be worshiped. The remover from the life cycle is fittingly the character who started the flood of immigrants into Europe; who would forgive them for raping girls/women and make space for his fellow fictional antilife person. Remember: Jesus was the first few drips of the flood. Definitely better than the later flood, but He did what Gengis Khan & Tamerlane couldn't: He opened the gates.
If you recognize how drowning in that flood is worse than the first few drops, then you can recognize what is wrong with traditional Christianity: it let the first few immigrants into Europe. Although the replacement of Europeoid populations is definitely worse, the one is completely connected to the other. S.R. will not save you; speaking about or worshiping that character is not at all European tradition. Rather, it is the tradition of the Middle East. It makes perfect sense that the stories of Jesusianism--of Jesus--would begin with a little bit about how caring was universality, how personified university was curing, how it was loving children, and other nice stuff, have a little bit too much emphasis on just men, and then lead to replacement-level immigration, hamasexual child abuse, and trains without an eye movements. If you don't like drowning in the flood, you should realize that just a few little droplets were the beginning of that, and you should be the most against droplets of any person.
Comments
Post a Comment